| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Introduction
to Song of Solomon
This summary of the book of Song of Solomon provides information
about the title
author(s)
date of writing
chronology
theme
theology
outline
a brief overview
and the chapters of the Book of Song of Solomon.
The title in the Hebrew text is "Solomon's Song of
Songs
" meaning a song by
for
or about Solomon. The phrase "Song of
Songs" means the greatest of songs (cf. Dt 10:17
"God of gods and Lord of
lords"; 1Ti 6:15
"King of kings").
Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon (see note on 1:1; but see also Title above). Solomon is
referred to seven times (1:1
5; 3:7
9
11; 8:11-12)
and several verses speak of the
"king" (1:4
12; 7:5)
but whether he was the author remains an
open question.
To date the Song in the tenth century b.c. during Solomon's reign
is not impossible. In fact
mention of Tirzah and Jerusalem in one breath (6:4; see note there) has been used to prove a
date prior to King Omri (885-874 b.c.; see 1Ki 16:23-24)
though the reason for Tirzah's
mention is not clear. On the other hand
many have appealed to the language of
the Song as proof of a much later date
but on present evidence the linguistic
data are ambiguous.
Consistency of language
style
tone
perspective and recurring
refrains seems to argue for a single author. However
many who have doubted
that the Song came from one pen
or even from one time or place
explain this
consistency by ascribing all the Song's parts to a single literary tradition
since Near Eastern traditions were very careful to maintain stylistic
uniformity.
To find the key for unlocking the Song
interpreters have looked
to prophetic
wisdom and apocalyptic passages of Scripture
as well as to
ancient Egyptian and Babylonian love songs
traditional Semitic wedding songs
and songs related to ancient Mesopotamian fertility religions. The closest
parallels appear to be those found in Proverbs (see Pr 5:15-20; 6:24-29; 7:6-23). The description of love in 8:6-7 (cf. the descriptions of wisdom found in Pr
1-9 and Job 28) seems to confirm that the Song belongs
to Biblical wisdom literature and that it is wisdom's description of an amorous
relationship. The Bible speaks of both wisdom and love as gifts of God
to be
received with gratitude and celebration.
This understanding of the Song contrasts with the long-held view
that the Song is an allegory of the love relationship between God and Israel
or between Christ and the church
or between Christ and the soul (the NT
nowhere quotes from or even alludes to the Song). It is also distinct from more
modern interpretations of the Song
such as that which sees it as a poetic
drama celebrating the triumph of a maiden's pure
spontaneous love for her
rustic shepherd lover over the courtly blandishments of Solomon
who sought to
win her for his royal harem. Rather
it views the Song as a linked chain of
lyrics depicting love in all its spontaneity
beauty
power and exclusiveness
-- experienced in its varied moments of separation and intimacy
anguish and
ecstasy
tension and contentment. The Song shares with the love poetry of many
cultures its extensive use of highly sensuous and suggestive imagery drawn from
nature.
In ancient Israel everything human came to expression in words:
reverence
gratitude
anger
sorrow
suffering
trust
friendship
commitment
loyalty
hope
wisdom
moral outrage
repentance. In the Song
it is love that
finds words -- inspired words that disclose its exquisite charm and beauty as
one of God's choicest gifts. The voice of love in the Song
like that of wisdom
in Pr 8:1 -- 9:12
is a woman's voice
suggesting that love
and wisdom draw men powerfully with the subtlety and mystery of a woman's
allurements.
This feminine voice speaks profoundly of love. She portrays its beauty and
delights. She claims its exclusiveness ("My lover is mine and I am
his
" 2:16) and insists on the necessity of its pure
spontaneity ("Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires
" 2:7). She also proclaims its overwhelming power
-- it rivals that of the fearsome enemy
death; it burns with the intensity of
a blazing fire; it is unquenchable even by the ocean depths (8:6-7a). She affirms its preciousness: All that
one possesses cannot purchase it
nor (alternatively) should it be exchanged
for it (8:7b). She hints
without saying so explicitly
(see the last NIV text note on 8:6)
that it is the Lord's gift.
God intends that such love -- grossly distorted and abused by both
ancient and modern people -- be a normal part of marital life in his good creation
(see Ge 1:26-31; 2:24). Indeed
in the Song the faithful Israelite could
ascertain how to live lovingly within the theocratic arrangement. Such marital
love is designed by the Creator-King to come to natural expression within his
realm.
No one who reads the Song with care can question the artistry of
the poet. The subtle delicacy with which he evokes intense sensuous awareness
while avoiding crude titillation is one of the chief marks of his achievement.
This he accomplishes largely by indirection
by analogy and by bringing to the
foreground the sensuous in the world of nature (or in food
drink
cosmetics
and jewelry). To liken a lover's enjoyment of his beloved to a gazelle
"browsing among lilies" (2:16)
or her breasts to "twin fawns of a
gazelle that browse among the lilies" (4:5)
or the beloved herself to a garden filled
with choice fruits inviting the lover to feast (4:12-16) -- these combine exquisite artistry and
fine sensitivity.
Whether the Song has the unity of a single dramatic line linking
all the subunits into a continuing story is a matter of ongoing debate among
interpreters. There do appear to be connected scenes in the love relationship
(see Outline).
Virtually all agree that the literary climax of the Song is found
in 8:6-7
where the unsurpassed power and value of
love -- the love that draws man and woman together -- are finally expressly
asserted. Literary relaxation follows the intenseness of that declaration. A
final expression of mutual desire between the lovers brings the Song to an end
suggesting that love goes on. This last segment (8:8-14) is in some sense also a return to the
beginning
as references to the beloved's brothers
to her vineyard and to Solomon
(the king) link 8:8-12 with 1:2-6. In this song of love the voice of the
beloved is dominant. It is her experience of love
both as the one who loves
and as the one who is loved
that is most clearly expressed. The Song begins
with her wish for the lover's kiss and ends with her urgent invitation to him
for love's intimacy.
I.
Title (1:1)
──《New
International Version》
Introduction to Song of Solomon
This book is a Divine allegory
which
represents the love between Christ and his church of true believers
under
figures taken from the relation and affection that subsist between a bridegroom
and his espoused bride; an emblem often employed in Scripture
as describing
the nearest
firmest
and most sure relation: see Ps 45; Isa 54:5
6; 62:5; Jer
2:2; 3:1; also in Ezekiel
Hosea
and by our Lord himself
Mt 9:15; 25:1: see
also Re 21:2
9; Eph 5:27. There is no character in the church of Christ
and no
situation in which the believer is placed
but what may be traced in this book
as humble inquirers will find
on comparing it with other Scriptures
by the
assistance of God the Holy Spirit
in answer to their supplications. Much
however
of the language has been misunderstood by expositors and translators.
The difference between the customs and manners of Europe
and those of the
East
must especially be kept in view. The little acquaintance with eastern
customs possessed by most of our early expositors and translators
has in many
cases prevented a correct rendering. Also
the changes in our own language
during the last two or three centuries
affect the manner in which some
expressions are viewed
and they must not be judged by modern notions. But the
great outlines
rightly interpreted
fully accord with the affections and
experience of the sincere Christian.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Song of Solomon》
00 Introduction
SONG OF SOLOMON
INTRODUCTION
The Title of the Book
It is generally believed that the title “Song of Songs” is a
superlative expression (like “heaven of heavens”) to indicate the best of
songs; though some explain it in the sense of a song made up of different
songs
or canticles
all having one subject--love. (James Robertson
D. D.)
The opening words
“The Song of Songs which is Solomon’s
” are of
the nature of a title added in later times--an author would hardly call his
poem the Song of Songs--and therefore are not conclusive evidence as to the
writer. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
The Authorship of the Book
Solomon is expressly mentioned in the superscription as the
author. Positive arguments for the genuineness of the superscription are--
(a) Its enigmatical and pregnant character
and that mingling of
description of the subject and of the author which is very probable and
appropriate as emanating from the sacred poet himself
but not as emanating
from a later glossarist;
(b) The circumstance
that at the beginning of the poem there would be
no mention of its subject if the present superscription be pronounced
inaccurate. The evidence in relation to the author
furnished by the
superscription
is confirmed by the marked connection of the historical
relations and allusious of the book with the age of Solomon. This is most
decided and plain in such passages as Song of Solomon 4:8; Song of Solomon 7:5. The age of Solomon
is farther suggested by the whole style and character of the work. “The whole
feeling
the whole tone of the book
and its manner
which is in part splendid
and in part beautiful and natural
lead us at.once to think of the writer as
belonging to the most flourishing period of the Hebrew constitution and
history.” (Kleuker.) The account given of itself by the Song of Songs receives
further confirmation from the fact that the mental and other peculiar
characteristics of Solomon reappear in it
It breathes the high and lofty
spirit attributed to Solomon in 1 Kings 5:9 ff; and it could only
have been written by a man whose experiences in connection with earthly love
had been such as Solomon’s. History testifies to Solomon’s pleasure in gardens
(Ecclesiastes 2:4-6). Here we have the
natural groundwork of the allegorical description of nature contained in the
Song. According to 1 Kings 4:33
Solomon “discoursed
concerning trees . . . cattle and birds
” etc. Now there is not a book in the
whole of the Scriptures which contains in so brief a space so many allusions to
natural objects. Again
Solomon “built houses” (Ecclesiastes 2:4; cp. 1 Kings 6:7.); and his taste for art
shows itself in various ways in the Song (Song of Solomon 1:5; Song of Solomon 1:10-11; Song of Solomon 1:17; Song of Solomon 3:10-11; Song of Solomon 5:14-15; Song of Solomon 7:2; Song of Solomon 7:5; Song of Solomon 8:9). The testimony of
the superscription to Solomon as the author is also confirmed by the reference
to the Song found in the oldest prophets
especially in Hosea; see also Joel 3:3; Isaiah 5:1. A further confirmation is
that Psalms 45:1-17.
which belongs to an
early period
presupposes the existence of the Song
and is evidently a
compendium thereof. (E. W. Hengstenberg
D. D.)
If Solomon was indeed the author
he must have written in the
dialect used in the northern part of his country; and not in that with which he
was most familiar. That he should have written so strongly in favour of an
ideal of love the reverse of that which he adopted in practice is certainly
improbable
but not
as Driver says
“out of the question.” Did not Burns
in
“The Cotter’s Saturday Night
” eloquently denounce the cruelty of that
licentiousness which was his own besetting sin
and is not all literature full
of such inconsistencies? (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
The view most generally accepted at present is that the Song was
the work of a poet in the northern kingdom
composed not long after the
separation of the two kingdoms
probably about the middle of the tenth century
before Christ. In evidence of its northern birthplace
are the frequent and
almost exclusive mention of localities in the north; the author’s strongly
expressed dislike of the luxury and expense of Solomon’s court
which
necessitated the exactions that so contributed to the schisms between the two
kingdoms (1 Kings 12:4
seq.; 2 Chronicles 10:1
seq.); the
entire absence of all allusions to the temple and its worship; the exaltation
of Tirzah to an equal place with Jerusalem as a type of beauty (Song of Solomon 6:4); dialectical
peculiarities
which can only be accounted for on this hypothesis
or on the
untenable one of an extremely late composition; the comparison of Hosea
undoubtedly a northern writer
which shows that the two authors “lived in the
same circle of images
and that the same expressions were familiar to them.”
(Renan.) This fact of a northern origin established
it follows almost
inevitably that the date of the
poem must be placed somewhere in the middle of the tenth century
for it was only during the period from 975 to 924 b.c. that Tirzah occupied the
position of northern capital; and the whole tone and spirit of the book
together with its treatment of Solomon
is what we should expect at a time not
far removed from the rupture of the two kingdoms. As yet tradition had not
exaggerated the splendour of the Solomonic era: in the references to Solomon’s
guard
his harem
and his arsenal
the figures are not extravagant
as in the
comparatively late accounts in Kings and Chronicles. A crowd of smaller
indications point the same way
e.g. the mention of Heshbon
which had
ceased to be an Israelitish town by Isaiah’s time (Isaiah 15:8). The mention of the Tower of
David
as still possessing a garrison (Song of Solomon 7:4; Song of Solomon 4:4)
the allusion to
Pharaoh’s equipages have a similar tendency; while it is almost inconceivable
that Solomon himself or any author
while that monarch was alive
and his rule
all-powerful
could have represented him and his court in such an unfavourable
light as they appear in the Song. But it is exactly the representation we
should look for in a poet of the northern kingdom in the early years after it
revolted against the tyranny of the Davidic dynasty. (Archdeacon Aglen
D.
D.)
The Purpose and Plan of the Book
There is no doubt that different speakers are introduced
so as to
give a dramatic appearance to the book; but they appear so abruptly that it is exceedingly difficult
to say who or how many they are; and hence the determination of the purpose and plan of the
whole book remains one of the most perplexing problems of Old Testament study.
1. In the original
the distinction of male and female speakers is indicated
by the genders of the words. We can thus
so to speak
discriminate the voices
though we cannot clearly discern the features of the characters. In
the R.V. a space between the verses denotes a change of speaker.
2. Of the characters of the piece
one can be traced throughout
viz.
the “Shulam-mite
” so named in Song of Solomon 6:13 (R.V.)
and generally understood to he a maiden of Shunem (compare 2 Kings 4:12). The “daughters of
Jerusalem
” who somewhat resemble the chorus in a Greek play
though
subsidiary
are easily recognizable. The main question is whether the
Shulammite has two suitors or only one; for according as this question is
answered
the division of dialogue must be made and the interpretation of the
whole carried out.
(a) On the view that there is only one male speaker
it is the king
who falls in love with a rustic maiden
and at length raises her to the
position of his bride in the palace. The most of the dialogue on this view
consists of the exchange of endearments between the lovers.
(b) The other opinion
which many now hold
is that the Shulammite has
been betrothed to a shepherd lover; but she has been noticed by Solomon and his
retinue on some royal journey (Song of Solomon 6:10-13)
brought to
Jerusalem
and there
surrounded by the women of the palace
is plied with
entreaties by the king in the hope of winning her affections. On this view it
is explained that those speeches of a rustic suitor
which do not befit the
character of Solomon (see Song of Solomon 2:8-14)
are the words of
her absent lover
recalled by the maiden herself to confirm her in her
devotion. Towards the close the parted lovers are united (Song of Solomon 8:5-7)
and the
conclusion of the whole seems to be that true love is unquenchable
and cannot
be bought by wealth and position.
3. The conclusion to be drawn as to the purpose of the book depends
upon the opinion we form of the characters introduced. On the view that has
just been mentioned (b above)
the book would have an ethical aim--to exhibit the triumph of pure
spontaneous love
over all worldly and unworthy enticements; and
the scene
being laid in the time of Solomon (though the book could not thus have come
from his hand)
the protest would be all the more striking against the loose
view of marriage which is associated with his reign. The lesson would be one on
the sacredness of human love
which our Lord Himself emphasized (Matthew 19:4-8
etc.). On the other view
mentioned (a above)
while some would regard the book as nothing more than a collection of
love-songs
or a composite poem made up of songs such as arc found in other
Eastern literature
others think that the marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh’s
daughter
or to a Galilean maiden whom he raised’ to the throne
is made
typical of a higher and spiritual love. On this ground they suppose the book
was taken into the Canon
and has a counterpart in Psalms 45:1-17. This may be called a
modification of the earliest known mode of interpreting the book
which was
allegorical. This view
found among the Jews as early as the Fourth Book of
Esdras (end of the first century (a.d.) and among Christian writers first in
Origen (died a.d. 254)
regarded the book as teaching symbolically the love of
God to the nation of Israel
or to the Church
or to the individual soul; and
the literature connected with the Song on this line of interpretation has been
most extensive down to modern times. (James Robertson
D. D.)
The mystical sense is false philosophically
but it is true
religiously. It corresponds to the great sanctification of love inaugurated by
Christianity. (E. Renan.)
The Canonicity of the Book
This was a subject of dispute down to the assembly of Jewish
doctors held at Jamnia about 90 a.d.
when it was settled
on the authority of
Rabbi Akiba
that “no day in the history of the world is worth the day when the
Song of Solomon was given to Israel
” and that “the Song of Solomon is a holy
of the holies
”--though
indeed
its sanctity was still sometimes questioned in
the second century after Christ. (Chambers’s Encyclopaedia.)
Castellio was forced to leave Geneva in 1544 for having demanded
its exclusion from the Canon as a mere amatory poem. (Chambers’s
Encyclopaedia.)
The story could only seem out of place in Holy Scripture to one
who assigns to religion a very narrow sphere indeed
and leaves outside its
pale the largest and most important tracts of human life. Consider how large a
part love plays in the literature of every nation
how vividly it colours the
experience of almost every life
how powerfully for evil or for good it
influences character and conduct
and few will fail to appreciate and approve
the words of Niebuhr: “I should think there was something wanting in the Bible
if we could not find in it any expression for the deepest and strongest
sentiment of humanity. To the ancient Jew it must have been a witness for
monogamy against polygamy
for true and honest love as against the organized
lust which then prevailed in king’s courts. And by the modern Englishman its
lessons are not less needed. How much misery and sin is occasioned by marriages
made for money
for position
for mere convenience
without that strong
affection which can fuse two personalities into one; how often is a legal
marriage made a cover for prostitution of the soul! So far from the poem
taken
in its primary sense
being unworthy of the Bible
it is to be wished that the
Church would take to heart the lessons it teaches
and inculcate them upon its
children with growing insistence and earnestness. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.).
SONG OF SOLOMON
INTRODUCTION
The Title of the Book
It is generally believed that the title “Song of Songs” is a
superlative expression (like “heaven of heavens”) to indicate the best of
songs; though some explain it in the sense of a song made up of different
songs
or canticles
all having one subject--love. (James Robertson
D. D.)
The opening words
“The Song of Songs which is Solomon’s
” are of
the nature of a title added in later times--an author would hardly call his
poem the Song of Songs--and therefore are not conclusive evidence as to the
writer. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
The Authorship of the Book
Solomon is expressly mentioned in the superscription as the
author. Positive arguments for the genuineness of the superscription are--
(a) Its enigmatical and pregnant character
and that mingling of
description of the subject and of the author which is very probable and
appropriate as emanating from the sacred poet himself
but not as emanating
from a later glossarist;
(b) The circumstance
that at the beginning of the poem there would be
no mention of its subject if the present superscription be pronounced
inaccurate. The evidence in relation to the author
furnished by the
superscription
is confirmed by the marked connection of the historical
relations and allusious of the book with the age of Solomon. This is most
decided and plain in such passages as Song of Solomon 4:8; Song of Solomon 7:5. The age of Solomon
is farther suggested by the whole style and character of the work. “The whole
feeling
the whole tone of the book
and its manner
which is in part splendid
and in part beautiful and natural
lead us at.once to think of the writer as
belonging to the most flourishing period of the Hebrew constitution and
history.” (Kleuker.) The account given of itself by the Song of Songs receives
further confirmation from the fact that the mental and other peculiar characteristics
of Solomon reappear in it
It breathes the high and lofty spirit attributed to
Solomon in 1 Kings 5:9 ff; and it could only
have been written by a man whose experiences in connection with earthly love
had been such as Solomon’s. History testifies to Solomon’s pleasure in gardens
(Ecclesiastes 2:4-6). Here we have the
natural groundwork of the allegorical description of nature contained in the
Song. According to 1 Kings 4:33
Solomon “discoursed
concerning trees . . . cattle and birds
” etc. Now there is not a book in the
whole of the Scriptures which contains in so brief a space so many allusions to
natural objects. Again
Solomon “built houses” (Ecclesiastes 2:4; cp. 1 Kings 6:7.); and his taste for art
shows itself in various ways in the Song (Song of Solomon 1:5; Song of Solomon 1:10-11; Song of Solomon 1:17; Song of Solomon 3:10-11; Song of Solomon 5:14-15; Song of Solomon 7:2; Song of Solomon 7:5; Song of Solomon 8:9). The testimony of
the superscription to Solomon as the author is also confirmed by the reference
to the Song found in the oldest prophets
especially in Hosea; see also Joel 3:3; Isaiah 5:1. A further confirmation is
that Psalms 45:1-17.
which belongs to an
early period
presupposes the existence of the Song
and is evidently a
compendium thereof. (E. W. Hengstenberg
D. D.)
If Solomon was indeed the author
he must have written in the
dialect used in the northern part of his country; and not in that with which he
was most familiar. That he should have written so strongly in favour of an
ideal of love the reverse of that which he adopted in practice is certainly
improbable
but not
as Driver says
“out of the question.” Did not Burns
in
“The Cotter’s Saturday Night
” eloquently denounce the cruelty of that
licentiousness which was his own besetting sin
and is not all literature full
of such inconsistencies? (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
The view most generally accepted at present is that the Song was
the work of a poet in the northern kingdom
composed not long after the
separation of the two kingdoms
probably about the middle of the tenth century
before Christ. In evidence of its northern birthplace
are the frequent and
almost exclusive mention of localities in the north; the author’s strongly
expressed dislike of the luxury and expense of Solomon’s court
which
necessitated the exactions that so contributed to the schisms between the two
kingdoms (1 Kings 12:4
seq.; 2 Chronicles 10:1
seq.); the
entire absence of all allusions to the temple and its worship; the exaltation
of Tirzah to an equal place with Jerusalem as a type of beauty (Song of Solomon 6:4); dialectical
peculiarities
which can only be accounted for on this hypothesis
or on the
untenable one of an extremely late composition; the comparison of Hosea
undoubtedly a northern writer
which shows that the two authors “lived in the
same circle of images
and that the same expressions were familiar to them.”
(Renan.) This fact of a northern origin established
it follows almost
inevitably that the date of the
poem must be placed somewhere in the middle of the tenth century
for it was only during the period from 975 to 924 b.c. that Tirzah occupied the
position of northern capital; and the whole tone and spirit of the book
together with its treatment of Solomon
is what we should expect at a time not
far removed from the rupture of the two kingdoms. As yet tradition had not
exaggerated the splendour of the Solomonic era: in the references to Solomon’s
guard
his harem
and his arsenal
the figures are not extravagant
as in the
comparatively late accounts in Kings and Chronicles. A crowd of smaller
indications point the same way
e.g. the mention of Heshbon
which had
ceased to be an Israelitish town by Isaiah’s time (Isaiah 15:8). The mention of the Tower of
David
as still possessing a garrison (Song of Solomon 7:4; Song of Solomon 4:4)
the allusion to
Pharaoh’s equipages have a similar tendency; while it is almost inconceivable
that Solomon himself or any author
while that monarch was alive
and his rule
all-powerful
could have represented him and his court in such an unfavourable
light as they appear in the Song. But it is exactly the representation we
should look for in a poet of the northern kingdom in the early years after it
revolted against the tyranny of the Davidic dynasty. (Archdeacon Aglen
D.
D.)
The Purpose and Plan of the Book
There is no doubt that different speakers are introduced
so as to
give a dramatic appearance to the book; but they appear so abruptly that it is exceedingly difficult
to say who or how many they are; and hence the determination of the purpose and plan of the
whole book remains one of the most perplexing problems of Old Testament study.
1. In the original
the distinction of male and female speakers is
indicated by the genders of the words. We can thus
so to speak
discriminate
the voices
though we cannot clearly discern the features of the
characters. In the R.V. a space between the verses denotes a change of speaker.
2. Of the characters of the piece
one can be traced throughout
viz.
the “Shulam-mite
” so named in Song of Solomon 6:13 (R.V.)
and generally understood to he a maiden of Shunem (compare 2 Kings 4:12). The “daughters of
Jerusalem
” who somewhat resemble the chorus in a Greek play
though
subsidiary
are easily recognizable. The main question is whether the
Shulammite has two suitors or only one; for according as this question is
answered
the division of dialogue must be made and the interpretation of the
whole carried out.
(a) On the view that there is only one male speaker
it is the king
who falls in love with a rustic maiden
and at length raises her to the
position of his bride in the palace. The most of the dialogue on this view
consists of the exchange of endearments between the lovers.
(b) The other opinion
which many now hold
is that the Shulammite has
been betrothed to a shepherd lover; but she has been noticed by Solomon and his
retinue on some royal journey (Song of Solomon 6:10-13)
brought to
Jerusalem
and there
surrounded by the women of the palace
is plied with
entreaties by the king in the hope of winning her affections. On this view it
is explained that those speeches of a rustic suitor
which do not befit the
character of Solomon (see Song of Solomon 2:8-14)
are the words of
her absent lover
recalled by the maiden herself to confirm her in her
devotion. Towards the close the parted lovers are united (Song of Solomon 8:5-7)
and the
conclusion of the whole seems to be that true love is unquenchable
and cannot
be bought by wealth and position.
3. The conclusion to be drawn as to the purpose of the book depends
upon the opinion we form of the characters introduced. On the view that has
just been mentioned (b above)
the book would have an ethical aim--to exhibit the triumph of pure
spontaneous love
over all worldly and unworthy enticements; and
the scene
being laid in the time of Solomon (though the book could not thus have come
from his hand)
the protest would be all the more striking against the loose
view of marriage which is associated with his reign. The lesson would be one on
the sacredness of human love
which our Lord Himself emphasized (Matthew 19:4-8
etc.). On the other view
mentioned (a above)
while some would regard the book as nothing more than a collection of
love-songs
or a composite poem made up of songs such as arc found in other
Eastern literature
others think that the marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh’s
daughter
or to a Galilean maiden whom he raised’ to the throne
is made
typical of a higher and spiritual love. On this ground they suppose the book was
taken into the Canon
and has a counterpart in Psalms 45:1-17. This may be called a
modification of the earliest known mode of interpreting the book
which was
allegorical. This view
found among the Jews as early as the Fourth Book of
Esdras (end of the first century (a.d.) and among Christian writers first in
Origen (died a.d. 254)
regarded the book as teaching symbolically the love of
God to the nation of Israel
or to the Church
or to the individual soul; and
the literature connected with the Song on this line of interpretation has been
most extensive down to modern times. (James Robertson
D. D.)
The mystical sense is false philosophically
but it is true
religiously. It corresponds to the great sanctification of love inaugurated by
Christianity. (E. Renan.)
The Canonicity of the Book
This was a subject of dispute down to the assembly of Jewish
doctors held at Jamnia about 90 a.d.
when it was settled
on the authority of
Rabbi Akiba
that “no day in the history of the world is worth the day when the
Song of Solomon was given to Israel
” and that “the Song of Solomon is a holy
of the holies
”--though
indeed
its sanctity was still sometimes questioned in
the second century after Christ. (Chambers’s Encyclopaedia.)
Castellio was forced to leave Geneva in 1544 for having demanded
its exclusion from the Canon as a mere amatory poem. (Chambers’s
Encyclopaedia.)
The story could only seem out of place in Holy Scripture to one
who assigns to religion a very narrow sphere indeed
and leaves outside its
pale the largest and most important tracts of human life. Consider how large a
part love plays in the literature of every nation
how vividly it colours the
experience of almost every life
how powerfully for evil or for good it
influences character and conduct
and few will fail to appreciate and approve
the words of Niebuhr: “I should think there was something wanting in the Bible
if we could not find in it any expression for the deepest and strongest
sentiment of humanity. To the ancient Jew it must have been a witness for
monogamy against polygamy
for true and honest love as against the organized
lust which then prevailed in king’s courts. And by the modern Englishman its
lessons are not less needed. How much misery and sin is occasioned by marriages
made for money
for position
for mere convenience
without that strong
affection which can fuse two personalities into one; how often is a legal
marriage made a cover for prostitution of the soul! So far from the poem
taken
in its primary sense
being unworthy of the Bible
it is to be wished that the
Church would take to heart the lessons it teaches
and inculcate them upon its
children with growing insistence and earnestness. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.).
──《The Biblical Illustrator》