The Pulpit Commentary — Song of Songs — Section 11

Scripture. So with regard to the various erotic and naturalistic explana- tions, it cannot bo denied that there is an historical basis on which the whole rests, so that as poetry there is an ideal human element running through it which gives it both vitality and form. It is the attempt to carry it, out to an extreme which has vitiated the theory in each case. The main principle can be preserved without acceptance of the details. It is true, as Zockler has observed, that it was "the greatly preponderating inclination of the FatherB in the Middle Ages, which soon obtained exclusive sway, to plunge immediately and at once into the spiritual sense, which stifled at its birth every attempt to assert at the same time an historical sense, and branded it with the same anathema as the profane-erotic interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia." But the spirit of the Reformation broke the spell of the allegorists. The desire to know the mind of the Spirit, led to a truer searching of the Scriptures. Even in the Roman Catholic Church there were signs of that freedom, especially among the mystics, one of whom, the Spanish mystic Louis de Leon, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, wrote a translation and explanation of the Canticles, in classical Spanish, in which, recognizing the historical basis of the book, he lifted the veil from the spiritual beauties which he said were hidden behind the figures. Others followed in the same track, as Mercerus (Le Mercier), 1573, in his 'Commentary,' and Bossuet in his work on the 'Books of Solomon' (Paris, 1693), and Calmet in his 'Commentary;' but the two great English names in connection with a revival of the study of the book. on a more intelligent foundation are John Lightfoot (1684) and Bishop Lowth (17 53). The latter, especially in his 'Prelections in He brew Poetry,' somewhat after the style of Herder, led the way in this country ta a profounder attention to the literary form and critical examination of the Bible. Lowth's view is substantially that which has beeu adopted by the majority of evangelical writers since his time, that the book is not to be regarded as a "continua.I metaphor" nor as a " parable properly so called," but rather as a" mystical allegory in which a higher sense is superinduced upon an historical verity." He is certainly wrong, however, in his view that the bride referred to is Pharaoh's danghter. Harmer, the author of the 'Observations on Passages of Scripture,' followed Lowth, in 1778, with a commentary and new explanation of Solomon's Song; but it is merely of a literary kind, no attempt being mado to explain the spiritual application of the language, and it is of no great value. Dr. Mason Good, the learned physician, translated the Song with very interesting notes, regarding it as a collection of idylls in praiso of Solomon's queen. Charles Taylor has added valuable notes to Calmet's 'Dictionary,' and Pye Smith advocated the merely literary valuo of the book and its unspiritual character. Hoff- mann explained it of Pharaoh's daughter, and Zockler went back too far towards the allegorical theory. The two great German commentators, Keil and Delitzscb, substantially agree in their view, which, while admitting tho allegorical intent of the book, refuses to see hidden meanings in every  IN'l'HODUCTION TO - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - detail of the historioal basis. One would find, more di!itinctly than the other, reference to the Church of Christ, both in Israel and in the new dispensation, but both agree that the love of Solomon for his bride is idealized, and so used spiritually. Keil sums up his view thus : "It depicts in dramatized lyrical expression, by songs, under the allegory of the bridal love of Solomon and Shulamith, the loving communion between ihe Lord and his Church, according to its ideal nature as it results from the choice of Israel to be the Church of the Lord. According to this, every dis· turbance of that fellowship, springing out of Israel's infidelity, leads to au even firmer establishment of the covenant of love, by means of Israel's return to the true covenant God, and thus God's unchangeable love. Yet we are not to trace in the poem the historical course of the covenant relation, as if a veil of allegory had been thrown over the principal events in the theocratic history" (' In trod. to Old Testament,' vol. i. p. 504). The Rev. T. L. Kingsbury, M.A., in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' has accepted the suggestion which seems the most natural-that the history which is involved in the Song is genuine, and that it refers to "some shepherd- maiden of Northern Palestine, by whose beauty and nobility of soul the great king has been captivated; that as the work of one endued by inspira- tion with that wisdom which 'overseeth all things' (Wisd. viii. 23), and r:10 contemplates them from the highest point of view, it is in its essential character an ideal representation of human love in the relation of marriage ; that which is universal and common in its operation to all mankind being here set forth in one grand typical instance." "No allegorical method of exposition," he rightly observes, " which declines attempting to elucidate an independent literal sense, on the plea that such endeavour would involve the interpretation in a succession of improprieties and contradictions," should be accepted. It is both untrue and dishonouring to a sacred and canonical book. The fundamental idea he would take to be "the awful all-constraining, the at once levelling and elevating powers of the mightiest and most universal of human affections; and the two axes on which the main action of the poem revolves are the twofold invitation, the king's invitation to the bride on bringing her to Jerusalem, the bride's to the king in recalling him to Shunem." While we willingly coincide in the general truth of these remarks, we incline to the view which Keil has expressed so moderately, that the main purpose of the book is not to glorify a human sentiment or relationship, which seems out of place in a Hebrew book, but rather, using the ideal human feeling and relationship to lead the soul of man into the thought of its fellowship with God, the condescending privilege which is included in that fellowship, the exaltation of man which it brings with it, and the mutual character of religion, both in the indi- vidual and in the Church, as based upon the mystical union of God and his creature and their interchange of communications. We must not be deterred from a moderate and chastened employment of type in the inter- pretation of Scripture by the abuse whioh has been only too frequently  '.l:'llE SONG OF SOLOMON. xxl