Chapter IX: Section V: Historical Sketch of the Exegesis of the Book (4)

1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with some glimpses of light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that it celebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur. [113]

1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter. [114]

1803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.” [115] He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.

1813. Hug, [116] rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” means the ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” is King Hezekiah, and the book describes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers (chap. viii. 8, 9) to this re-union.

1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem is to celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united. [117]

Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.

1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” is a new colony near the Jordan, and the bridegroom represents Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah; and that the Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah. [118]

1826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that “this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.” [119]

1829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation. [120]

1830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem, adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” represents wisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing. [121]

Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.” [122]

1839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett [123] about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine, [124] in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”

1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songs celebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty. [125]

1842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages. [126] Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.

1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.” [127]

1846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs, without any moral or religious design, [128] and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.

1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically, [129] is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.” [130]

1849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for some Christian mysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored. [131]

1851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view that the book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively represent the union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred. [132]

1852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents the Messiah, because at that early period the notion of a personal Messiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” represents the kingdom of Israel, and “the bride” Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.” [133] He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.

The first section, Chap. i. 2–ii. 7, describes the longing of the maiden, who represents Japhetic heathenism, for the pleasurable love of the king of Israel; her humble supplication to be received into his fellowship, and the ultimate realization of her desire in that union.

The second section, Chap. ii. 8–iii. 5, supplementing the first, describes the friendly invitation which the king of Israel gives to this maiden (the Japhetic heathen) to catch with him the foxes, which represent the kingdom of Satan upon earth, the Hametic heathen, and to unite herself with him in the land of Canaan, which is the kingdom of God, and her acceptance of this invitation.

The third section, Chap. iii. 6–v. 1, supplementing the first and second, represents this maiden, after being conquered by the power of the king’s love, and from sincere reciprocal attachment, devoting herself as an acceptable offering to the service of God, as introduced into the land of Canaan, which is the type of the kingdom of God, and describes the completion of her never-ending union with the king of Israel.

The fourth section, Chap. v. 2–vi. 9, a supplementary explanation of the first, describes the early love of the king of Israel when he visited the maiden in the dark night as she lay in a deep sleep, void of all love to him, entreating to be admitted; her refusal; her repentance after having become acquainted with his glory; her long search after him; his accepting her after her repentance had been tried, &c. &c.

The fifth section, Chap. vi. 10–viii. 4, which explains the second, and supplements the fourth, describes how the king of Israel revealed himself ultimately to the maiden; the king, after being long and painfully sought by the maiden, who, despairing of success, and in a dejected state, had returned home, was again incited, by some new charms of hers, followed her, attended by his martial hosts, once more offered her his love, met with a hearty response, and then she offered herself to him with all she had, as his property.

The sixth section, Chap. viii. 5–14, which is a supplementary exposition of the third, and a completion of the fifth, describes how the maiden, after long and painfully searching, and longing for the king of Israel, yielded herself up to him in her home, whither he had followed her, and how she entreated for the favourable reception of her younger sister, that is, the Hametic heathen, and how the king promised the maiden that her sister shall eventually be received.

1853. Though this allegorist has repudiated the idea that Solomon represents the Messiah, at the same time, another allegorist, and that a no less writer than Hengstenberg, assures us that Solomon can be regarded only as the Messiah, and that the bride is not Japhetic heathenism, but the people of God. According to him, the poem celebrates the Prince of Peace and all the mercies which through him flow to the people of God, and is divisible into two parts.

The first part, Chap. i.–v. 1, describes the advent of Messiah, the heavenly Solomon, to save his people; the tribulations and sorrows which will precede his coming, and especially the bondage of the people of God to worldly power, as the merited punishment of their unfaithfulness. These sufferings are represented under the figure of swarthiness, i. 6; winter and rain, ii. 11; dark nights and a wilderness, iii. 6. Connected with the coming of Messiah is the admission of the heathen into the kingdom of Christ, iii. 9–11, effected through the mediation of the Old Testament people, as indicated by the name “daughters of Jerusalem.”

The second part, Chap. v. 2–viii. 14, describes the sinning of the daughter of Zion against the heavenly Solomon, her punishment, repentance, and the re-union effected through the mediation of the daughters of Jerusalem (the heathen), whose salvation she had first assisted to accomplish; the complete restoration of the former mutual love, in consequence of which the daughter of Zion becomes again the centre of the kingdom of God; and the immutability of the new covenant of love in contrast with the mutability of the old. [134]

1853. Simultaneous with this commentary of Hengstenberg, an allegorical exposition appeared in America, by Professor Burrowes. He differs again from the preceding in regarding this Song as illustrating by imagery drawn from the court of Solomon, the mutual love of Christ and the Church, as exercised in the case of individual believers. He divides it into three parts.

The first part, Chap. i.–ii. 7, describes the way in which the soul, longing after the manifestation of the love of Christ, is conducted in the gratification of that desire, from one degree of pious enjoyment to another, till, by the vicissitudes of fortune, and by the diversities in its progress towards heaven, and the enjoyment of Christ’s love as manifested in private communion in “his chamber;” 7–11, in the way of duty and self-denial; 12–14, in social communion with him; 15–17, in delightful repose with him, amid enlarged prospects of spiritual beauty; chap. ii. 1–3, in the protection and delight here set forth; 4–7, it possesses the greatest possible pleasure on the earth.

The second part, Chap. ii. 8–vii. 9, describes the motives by which the Lord Jesus would allure such souls away from the present world to be with him in glory; chap. ii. 8–17, as by the beauty of heaven; chap. iii. 1–11, by the splendour of the reception awaiting them there, as well as by the grandeur of the conveyance thither; chap. v. 1–vii. 9, and by his love for them, which remains constant even amidst their greatest neglect.

The third section, Chap. vii. 10–viii. 14, describes the effects which these manifestations of love produce on the heart of saints; chap. vii. 10, assurance of hope; 11, desire to be much alone in communion with Christ; 12, their engagement in labours of love; 13, consecration to him of all their gifts; chap. viii. 1, 2, a desire that everything interposing between Christ and them may be removed; 3, 4, their avoidance of everything that would cause the withdrawal of Christ’s love; 5, the pleasing consciousness of leaning on Jesus, and of being upheld by his everlasting arm; 6, their desire to be constantly near him, and sustained by his power, and willingness to make every sacrifice for him; 7, their conviction of the insufficiency of everything the world could offer to tempt them from Christ; 8–10, their interest for the salvation of the impenitent; 12, the sense of their accountability as stewards of God; 13, the privilege of continual access to the throne of grace; 14, desire for the completion of their redemption, and for the perfecting of their love to Christ, and of his to them, by the prospect of his second coming. [135]

From the analysis of the three latest commentaries upon this book, it will be perceived that allegorical interpreters, even to this day, differ in their views of its application and design.

1854. After quitting the bewildering maze of allegorism, it is cheering to come to the commentary of Meier, in which the view that this poem celebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty is defended. [136]

1855. This is also the view propounded by Friedrich [137] and Hitzig, [138] though the latter embraces a similar theory to Harmer, that there are two women as chief speakers in the poem.

1856. In this opinion of the superiority of virtuous love to all the temptations of royalty, the Jew and the Christian, the Englishman and the German, are beginning to unite. The reviewer in the Jewish Monthly Journal of History and Science, declares himself in favour of regarding the Shulamite as resisting all the offers of Solomon and remaining faithful to her shepherd. [139] Meier, the author of a commentary mentioned above, in his History of the poetical National Literature of the Hebrews, recently published, maintains the same opinion. [140] This poem, says Dr. Davidson, “warns against impure love, encourages chastity, fidelity, and virtue, by depicting the successful issue of sincere affection amid powerful temptations. The innocent and virtuous maiden, true to her shepherd lover, resists the flatteries of a monarch, and is allowed to return to her home.” [141] Umbreit, in an article upon this book, just published, states that he still adheres to the view propounded in his commentary of 1828, [142] noticed above, that it is a celebration of virtuous love over the allurements of royalty.

How mournful is the thought which irresistibly forces itself upon the mind, in reviewing this imperfect sketch of what has befallen this poem! This book, we have seen, is made to describe the most contradictory things. It contains the wanderings of the Jews, how they will ultimately “fill their stomachs with the flesh of the Leviathan and the best of wines preserved in grapes,” and is the sanctum sanctorum of all Christian mysteries. It is denounced as a love song, and extolled as declaring the incarnation of Christ; it speaks of the meridian church in Africa, and of the betrayal of the Saviour; it contains a treatise upon the doctrine of free grace against Pelagianism, and an Aristotelian disquisition upon the functions of the active and passive mind; it is an apocalyptic vision, a duplicate of the Revelations of St. John, and records the scholastic mysticisms of the middle ages; it denounces Arianism, and describes the glories of the Virgin Mary; it “treats of man’s reconciliation unto God and peace by Jesus Christ, with joy in the Holy Ghost,” and teaches lewdness, and corrupts the morals; it records the conversation of Solomon and Wisdom, and describes the tomb of Christ in Egyptian hieroglyphics; it celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, and gives us a compendium of ecclesiastical history to the second advent of Christ; it records the restoration of a Jewish constitution by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and the mysteries of marriage; it advocates monogamy and encourages polygamy; it assists devotion and excites carnal passions. What a solemn lesson we have here never to depart from the simple meaning of the word of God!