SECTION VI.—THE DIFFERENT VIEWS CLASSIFIED AND EXAMINED.
The various opinions, enumerated in the preceding section, respecting the design of this book, may be divided into three classes, the literal, the allegorical, and the typical. The first considers the description as real, that the words should be taken as representing an historical fact; the second considers that the description has no historical truth for its basis, but contains some latent meaning; whilst the third admits the literal meaning, but regards it as typical of spiritual truth. The literal view adopted by us having been given in sections iii. and iv., we have to examine here only the claims of the allegorical and typical. [[103]]
THE ALLEGORICAL VIEW.
The allegorical view principally maintained is, that this poem, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affections between the sexes, expresses the mutual love subsisting between the Lord and his Church.
REASONS FOR THE ALLEGORICAL VIEW EXAMINED.
1. The existence of this book in the sacred canon has been adduced as an argument for its allegorical interpretation.
“In what part of the Hebrew Bible can we find any composition of an analogous nature? All—every Psalm, every piece of history, every part of prophecy—has a religious aspect, and (the book of Esther perhaps excepted) is filled with theocratic views of things. How came there here to be such a solitary exception, so contrary to the genius and nature of the whole Bible? It is passing strange, if real amatory Idyls are mingled with so much, all of which is of a serious and religious nature. If the author viewed his composition as being of an amatory nature, would he have sought a place for it among the sacred books? And subsequent redactors or editors—would they have ranked it here, in case they had regarded it in the same light? I can scarcely deem it credible. So different was the reverence of the Jews for their Scriptures from any mere approbation of an amatory poem as such, that I must believe that the insertion of Canticles among the canonical books, was the result of a full persuasion of its spiritual import. Had the case stood otherwise, why did they not introduce other secular books, as well as this, into the canon?”[143]
Granting that the design of the book was simply to describe love, we deny that it would have been deemed unworthy of a place in the sacred canon. Why should the pleasures of chaste love be considered less worthy of record in the sacred books, [[104]]than the sorrow for bereaved friendship, in 2 Sam. i. 17, &c.? “To those,” says Dr. Mason Good, a defender of the allegorical interpretation, “who disbelieve the existence of such an allegory they (the amorets) still afford a happy example of the pleasures of holy and virtuous love; they inculcate, beyond the power of didactic poetry, the tenderness which the husband should manifest for his wife, and the deference, modesty, and fidelity with which his affection should be returned; and, considered even in this sense alone, they are fully entitled to the honour of constituting a part of the sacred Scriptures.”[144] “Why should a passion,” remarks another allegorical interpreter, “so strong, so universal, so essential to happiness—to the very existence of the human race, be denied a place in a Revelation from God to man? As a matter of fact, has it not a place in every part of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation? God is the author of the human constitution as well as of the Bible; and he has in all respects adapted his revelation to the nature of the beings for whom it was designed. It would be strange indeed, if one of the most important and never absent phenomena in the moral and physical creation of men should never be noticed in a revelation to him from his Creator. If the viciousness and licentiousness of men have loaded this subject with vile and filthy associations in vile and filthy minds, this is not the fault of God or of his revelation. The vine will not be destroyed, nor the grapes annihilated, because wicked men make themselves beasts with wine.”[145]
The design of the book, in our view, however, is not to celebrate love, but to record an example of virtue, which is still more worthy of a place in the sacred canon.
2. It has been urged, that the language put by the sacred writer into the mouth of the bride, shows that the poem is to be allegorically interpreted, because in its literal sense such [[105]]language would be contrary to nature and to the modesty of women.
“That this is not a song of human loves,” says Dr. Bennett,[146] “is clear from the beginning to the end. It opens with the language of a female: ‘Let him kiss me;’ it is full of her solicitous seeking after him; it abounds with praises of his person, and her dispraises of herself, of her person and her conduct; it invites other females to love him, and it speaks of him as her brother, and of her as his sister. Let any one examine the Song, and then muse over these facts, recollecting that Solomon is, in the opening of the poem itself, said to be the writer. Was ever such a human love-song composed by mortal, since man either loved or wrote verses? What writer, with the feelings, or the reason, of a man, would begin a poem on his fair one by describing her as courting him? Let it not be said, ‘We must not transfer our modern and northern ideas to the ancient Orientals, who had not our delicate notions of the female character;’ for this would only make my case stronger. It would be more abhorrent from the secluded, submissive character of Eastern brides to ask the gentlemen to come and kiss them, than it would be from the dignified confidence of British women. It is not a question of climate or age, but of nature. The bridegroom, who is supposed to love this fairest of women, himself puts into her lips this speech: ‘Let him kiss me!’ Never would human love speak thus. Though men like to court, they do not like to be courted; and while they think it cruel to be rejected when they court, they without mercy reject her that courts them; as the forward female has usually found, from the days of Sappho to this hour. Women were endowed with the form and the qualities intended to attract courtship, and they feel it; and when they do not feel it, men despise them. No man, therefore, in his senses, would think to compliment his fair one by writing of her, to her, as if she had lost her retiring modesty, her female dignity, and degraded [[106]]herself by doing that for which every man would despise her. The very first word of this Song, then, stands a witness against the notion of its being a human love-song; for it would better suit Solomon’s strange woman, that with an impudent face caught and kissed the young simpleton, than Solomon’s princess-bride, or Dr. Smith’s supposed chaste monogamist. Till fishes mount to sing with larks on the shady boughs, and nightingales dive to ocean’s depths to court the whales, no man, of any age, of any clime, of any rank, can be supposed to write ordinary love-songs in such a style. We are told, by the first word, that a greater than Solomon is here, one who must be courted, and that loves more than human are the theme. This is the Bridegroom of whom the Psalmist says, ‘He is thy Lord, and worship thou him:’ ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way.’ Such a spouse may exhibit his Bride as asking for his love; every other must present himself as asking for hers, and begging the acceptance of his.”
It is allowed by scholars of taste, that, regarded as a mere human production, this poem is inimitable. “Every part of this Song,” says the learned Bishop Bossuet,[147] “abounds in poetical beauties; the objects which present themselves on every side are the choicest plants, the most beautiful flowers, the most delicious fruits, the bloom and vigour of spring, the sweet verdure of the fields, flourishing and well-watered gardens, pleasant streams, and perennial fountains. The other senses are represented as regaled with the most precious odours, natural and artificial; with the sweet singing of birds, and the soft voice of the turtle; with milk and honey, and the choicest of wine. To these enchantments are added all that is beautiful and graceful in the human form, the endearments, the caresses, the delicacy of love. If any object be introduced which seems not to harmonize with this delightful scene, such as the awful prospect of tremendous precipices, the wildness of the mountains, [[107]]or the haunts of lions, its effect is only to heighten, by the contrast, the beauty of the other objects, and to add the charms of variety to those of grace and elegance.” Bishop Lowth, after having descanted upon some passages, remarks, “Nothing can be imagined more truly elegant and poetical than all these, nothing more apt or expressive than these comparisons.”[148] If the poet is so charming in his style, so exquisite and true in his picture of nature, surely it is but reasonable to give him credit for understanding his art, that he was acquainted with the manners and habits of the women of his age, and that he would be as true to nature in the description of the bride as he is in depicting nature herself. If it be true that language of such exquisite taste would outrage female decency and modesty when addressed to a human love, it will surely be more outrageous when put into the mouth of the humble, penitent, and submissive Church in addresses to the Lord of lords. Where in the Old or New Testament do we find any address from the saints to God or Christ resembling the opening of this poem? The addresses of Abraham, (Gen. xviii. 23–33,) Jacob, (Gen. xxxii. 10–13,) and of Solomon himself, (1 Kings viii. 23–53,) and the language in which Christ has taught us to appeal to God, are characterized by the greatest reverence and humility. How, then, can it be affirmed, that language which would violate female modesty and decency in the mouth of a woman to a lover whom she prizes above all things, is becoming in the mouth of the Church when addressing the Holy One of Israel?
Dr. Bennett, however, misunderstood the design of the book. The Song, in its literal meaning, does not begin with representing a woman courting a man, but describes how a humble and virtuous rustic maiden was taken away from her beloved into the court of Solomon, and tempted to transfer her affections, by the splendour and luxuries of royalty; but even there, amidst all the grandeur, and in spite of all alluring promises, the [[108]]maiden was faithful to her espousals, and desired that he whom she prized above all things would come and rescue her.
3. It is urged that the same language and imagery employed in the Song, and the bridegroom and the bride here introduced, are elsewhere spiritually applied to the Lord and his people.
“This sort of imagery,” says Professor Stuart, “is frequent in the Old Testament, and in the New. Frequently are the Jews charged with ‘going a whoring after other gods,’ Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6; Numb. xv. 39; Deut. xxxi. 16; 2 Chron. xxi. 13; Ps. lxxiii. 27; Ezek. vi. 9. Here the idea is, that they were affianced to the true God, and could not seek after idols without incurring the guilt of adultery. So God calls himself the husband of the Jews, Isa. liv. 5. The nation of Israel is his bride, Isa. lxii. 4, 5. In Isa. l. 1, Jehovah asks, ‘Where is the bill of divorcement’ on his part, that Israel has departed from Him? Jeremiah speaks of the espousals of Israel, when young, in the wilderness.
“In Jer. iii. 1–11, the prophet speaks of Israel as playing the harlot, and committing adultery, in forsaking Jehovah. In Ezekiel, two long chapters (xvi., xxiii.) are occupied with carrying through the imagery drawn from such a connexion. Hosea (i.–iii.) recognises the same principle, and carries out the imagery into much detail. These are merely specimens. Ps. xlv. presents the Mediator, the King of Zion, in the attitude of a husband to the Church, and celebrates the union between the former and the latter. So in the New Testament this imagery is very familiar: see Matt. ix. 25; John iii. 29; Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2. Especially consult 2 Cor. xi. 2, and Eph. v. 22–32, where the Apostle has gone into much particularity as to the duties of the marriage relation, and then avows that he ‘speaks concerning Christ and the Church.’
“Such is the custom of the Hebrew writers and of the Apostles. If, now, this imagery is so often employed in all parts of the Bible, what forbids the idea, that there may be one short book in which it occupies an exclusive place, and is designed to [[109]]symbolize the love that existed between God and his ancient people, or the Church; or rather, which ought to have existed on their part between God and his spiritually regenerated people, who have become one (in a spiritual sense) with him, and are for ever united to him? It cannot be shown, à priori, that it is even improbable.”
First. What does this argument prove? Surely not what the representation of this poem IS; it only shows what it might have been. It shows that if we had indubitable proof, as in the passages cited, that a whole book in the sacred canon is entirely devoted to symbolize, under the figure of husband and wife, the covenant-relationship subsisting between God and his people, we ought not to be surprised at it, since it would be in harmony with those alleged passages. But surely it does not follow, that, because we are distinctly told in some passages of Scripture that the terms, husband and wife, are employed to symbolize the relationship between God and his people, that they should have this signification as often as they are employed.
Second. We utterly deny that the covenant-relation which subsisted between the Lord and Israel was represented by the terms, husband and wife, before the days of Solomon. The phrase, זנה אחרי אלהים אחרים, to go whoring after other gods, to which reference has been made, does not mean that Israel, by worshipping idols, committed spiritual adultery against the true God to whom they were affianced,—thus presupposing God to be their husband, and Israel his wife,—but describes a literal fact, the libidinous orgies and prostitutions identified with heathen worship which the Jews indulged in when worshipping idols. Numb. xxv. 1; Hos. iv. 13, &c. This is evident from Exod. xxxiv. 15, 17, where this phrase first occurs, and is applied to heathen women worshipping their own gods. And though these women stood in no such covenant-relation to the God of Israel, and therefore could not incur the guilt of spiritual adultery, yet they are described as “whoring after THEIR gods.” [[110]]From these licentious rites, therefore, originated this phrase, afterwards used to describe the worship of idols. But even admitting that it does suggest a marriage relationship between God and his people, the distance between a suggestive phrase of this kind and an entire book of marital descriptions is so great, that the one cannot be reasonably supposed to have suggested the other.
Third. We deny that even the language used by the prophets after the days of Solomon, in the passages cited, is at all analogous to that of this poem. Let us examine some of the passages themselves. Isa. l. 1:—
“Where is the bill of your mother’s divorce
With which I dismissed her?”
Isa. liv. 4–6:—
“Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed,
And be not abashed, for thou shalt not blush;
For thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth,
And the reproach of thy widowhood thou shalt remember no more.
For he weddeth thee who made thee.
Jehovah of hosts is his name,
And the Holy One of Israel redeemeth thee.
He is called the God of the whole earth.
For Jehovah calleth thee, as a forsaken wife, when spirit-broken,
And as a wife of youth when melting in repentance, saith thy Lord.”
Isa. lxii. 4, 5:—
“No more shall it be said to thee, Thou forsaken!
And no more shall it be said to thy land, Thou desolate!
But thou shalt be called, The object of my delight,
And thy land, The married woman;
For Jehovah delighteth in thee,
And thy land shall be married;
For the young man shall marry the virgin;
Thy children shall marry thee;
And with the joy of a bridegroom over his bride
Shall thy God rejoice over thee.”
Jer. iii. 20:—
“As a wife faithlessly departeth from her husband,
So have ye acted faithlessly towards me,
O house of Israel! saith Jehovah.”
These, and several more of a similar kind, are the passages referred to, to prove that the bridegroom and bride in this Song mean the Lord and his people! How totally different [[111]]is the strain of thought and expression in those passages to that in the Song!
In the former, the wedded-relation forms the comparison; in the latter, ante-nuptial love is the theme. In the former, the general idea of the figure is briefly used, without any particulars of the accompaniments; in the latter, particulars of the persons, dresses, scenery, are largely described. In the former, God is represented as the High and Holy One inhabiting eternity, and, in his infinite condescension and compassion, loving, with the tenderness of a husband, Israel, who is represented as an unlovely, ungrateful, and unfaithful wife; in the latter, the bridegroom and the bride are placed upon an equality, nay, the bridegroom declares that his heart has been ravished by the charms and faithfulness of the bride. In the former we are distinctly told that the husband means the Lord, and the wife the people of Israel, so that the most superficial reader is compelled to perceive it; in the latter we have no intimation whatever that the lovers are intended to represent God and his people, and no reader would ever gather it from the poem. This will appear all the more forcible when we remember that, supposing this poem to be a description of the covenant-relation subsisting between God and his people, it contains the completest representation of this kind. We should, therefore, naturally expect that subsequent writers, employing the same figure, would borrow something of the imagery and colouring from it. But, so far from this being the case, there is not the slightest analogy between the strain of thought and expression of this poem and that of subsequent writers.
Fourth. The 45th Psalm, which is supposed to celebrate, allegorically, the union of the Messiah and the Church, has been adduced as analogous to the Song of Songs, and therefore an evidence in behalf of the allegorical interpretation.
“If we admit,” says Hengstenberg, “the allegorical interpretation of this Psalm, we shall also be obliged to drop the literal meaning of the Song of Songs.” [[112]]
Is it certain, however, that this Psalm is all allegory? The Psalm itself gives not the slightest intimation that it is to be understood in any other than its literal sense. Let us examine it:—
“My heart boils with good matter;
When I think my work is for the king,
My tongue becomes as a style of a quick writer.
Thou art beautiful, beautiful above the sons of men:
Charm is poured upon thy lips,
Therefore God has blessed thee for ever.
Gird thy sword on thy thigh, O hero!
Thy splendour and thy glory, yea, thy glory,
Ride on victoriously for truth and mildness and right.
Great things shall thy right hand teach thee!
Thy arrows are sharp—people fall under thee—
They dart into the heart of the king’s enemies!
Thy throne, O God, stands for ever and ever;
A sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom;
Thou lovest right, and hatest wrong;
Therefore God, thy God, anointed thee
With gladdening oil above thy companions!
Myrrh, aloes, and cassia are all thy garments,
Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments joyfully greet thee;
Kings’ daughters are among thy dear ones—
Upon thy right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear;
Forget thy people and thy father’s house,
That the king may desire thy beauty,
For he is thy Lord, and honour thou him.
O daughter of Tyre, now with presents
The rich of the people salute thy face.
The king’s daughter stands in the palace in all the splendour,
Her clothing is of fabricated gold,
She is led to the king in wrought raiment;
Behind her are the virgins, her companions, brought for thee;
They are conducted with joy and rejoicing,
They enter the palace of the king.
Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons;
Thou wilt set them as princes over the whole land.
I wilt celebrate thy name from generation to generation;
Therefore shall nations praise thee for ever and ever.”
This Psalm is evidently a congratulatory nuptial-song, composed for the occasion of a king’s marriage with a princess of Tyre. The sacred writer begins by stating that such is the greatness of the subject, that it awakens thoughts too big for [[113]]utterance; but recollecting that his work is for the king, at once his tongue is loosed, and glides as rapidly as the stylus of a quick writer (2). He then celebrates the king’s beauty and eloquence, recognising in it God’s blessing (3), his valour, symbolized by the conquering sword, the prosperous chariot, the terrible arm, the well-directed arrow (4–6), his divine throne, and love of justice (7), his great happiness, resulting from his love for justice (8), which consists in the splendour around him (9), in his magnificent harem, and especially in the new princess-bride at his right hand (10). Having gradually arrived at the subject which is the occasion of the poem, the sacred writer now addresses the bride, and, in accordance with Eastern custom, which represents brides as unwilling to leave their parents on the day of espousals (Comp. Deut. xxi. 13), telling her to forget her father’s house, as she will have such glory as is just described (11, 12). The bride is then presented with gifts, according to Oriental manners, from the first ladies of the kingdom (13); she appears in all the splendour in the first palace (14), and thence conducted in grand procession to the king’s palace (15, 16). The marital procession now being over, the inspired writer congratulates the king, wishing him a happy issue (17), and concludes by saying that his renown will rapidly spread (18).
What is there in this Psalm compelling us to understand it allegorically? The quotation of the sixth verse in Hebrews i. 8, 9, only proves that this verse refers in a higher sense to the Messiah, but not that the whole Psalm is descriptive of him. Who would think of allegorizing the eighth chapter of Isaiah, because verses 17 and 18 are quoted in Hebrews ii. 13? The throne of David is declared to be an everlasting throne, 2 Sam. vii. 13, 16; a throne of God, i.e. a divine throne, since the Messiah was to be the last and ever reigning king. Hence it is said, וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא יְהֹוָה לְמֶלֶכְ תַּחַת דָּוִיד אָבִיו, “and Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king instead of his father David.”—1 Chron. xxix. 23. Every king, therefore, [[114]]of that lineage, occupying the throne, was regarded as the representative of God; as the predecessor and type of Him who was to be born of the seed of David to occupy the throne in the highest sense. So that, whether we translate כִּסְּאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים thy throne, O God, taking אֱלֹהִים as a vocative, or thy God-throne, i.e. the throne committed to thee by God, or, thou art seated upon a throne of God, or regard the phrase as an ellipsis for כִּסְּאֲךָ כִּסֵּי אֱלֹהִים, thy throne is a throne of God, comes substantially to the same thing. It is, therefore, a groundless assertion, that the whole Psalm is an allegory, and the reference to it in proof of the allegorical interpretation of the poem before us is nugatory.
But, even admitting that the 45th Psalm is an allegory, this would by no means prove that the Song of Songs is also an allegory, for the two cases differ essentially. In the former the bridegroom is addressed in verse 8 as God, and this verse is quoted in the New Testament, whereas in the latter there is nothing of the kind.
4. The custom of oriental nations to express their religious and devotional sentiments under the disguise of amatory and drinking songs has been adduced as an argument in favour of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs.
“The durweesh,”[149] says Lane, “pointed out the following poem as one of those most common at Zikrs, and as one which was sung at the Zikr which I have begun to describe. I translated it verse for verse, and imitate the measure and system of the original, with this difference only, that the first, third, and fifth lines of each stanza rhyme with each other in the original, but not in my translation.
‘With love my heart is troubled,
And mine eyelid hindereth sleep:
My vitals are dissever’d,
While with streaming tears I weep.
[[115]]
My union seems far distant,
Will my love e’er meet mine eye?
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
‘By dreary nights I’m wasted,
Absence makes my hopes expire;
My tears, like pearls, are dropping,
And my heart is wrapt in fire.
Whose is like my condition?
Scarcely know I remedy.
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
‘O turtle dove! acquaint me
Wherefore thus dost thou lament?
Art thou so stung by absence?
Of thy wings deprived, and pent?
He saith, ‘Our griefs are equal;
Worn away with love, I lie.’
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
‘O First and Everlasting!
Show thy favour yet to me.
Thy slave, Ahh’mad El-Bek’ree,[150]
Hath no Lord excepting Thee.
By Tá-Há,[151] the great prophet,
Do thou not his wish deny.
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.’
“I must translate a few more lines, to show more strongly the similarity of these songs to that of Solomon; and lest it should be thought that I have varied the expressions, I shall not attempt to translate into verse. In the same collection of poems sung at Zikrs is one which begins with these lines:—
‘O gazelle from among the gazelles of El-Yem’en!
I am thy slave without cost;
O thou small of age, and fresh of skin!
O thou who art scarce past the time of drinking milk!’
“In the first of these verses we have a comparison exactly agreeing with that in the concluding verse of Solomon’s Song; for the word which, in our Bible, is translated a ‘roe,’ is used in Arabic as synonymous with ghaza’l (or a gazelle); [[116]]and the mountains of El-Yem’en are ‘the mountains of spices.’ This poem ends with the following lines:—
‘The phantom of thy form visited me in my slumber.
I said, “O phantom of slumber! who sent thee?”
He said, “He sent me whom thou knowest;
He whose love occupies thee!”
The beloved of my heart visited me in the darkness of night;
I stood, to show him honour, until he sat down.
I said, “O thou my petition, and all my desire,
Hast thou come at midnight, and not feared the watchmen?”
He said to me, “I feared, but, however, love
Had taken from me my soul and my breath.” ’
“Compare the above with the second and five following verses of the fifth chapter of Solomon’s Song. Finding that songs of this description are extremely numerous, and almost the only poems sung at Zikrs; that they are composed for this purpose, and intended only to have a spiritual sense (though certainly not understood in such a sense by the generality of the vulgar); I cannot entertain any doubt as to the design of Solomon’s Song.”
To this we cannot do better than quote the able reply of Dr. Noyes:—“Now, as to the first of these religious love-songs of the Mahometan dervishes, whatever slight resemblance it may have to any part of the Canticles, it differs essentially from any of them in the circumstance, that the Supreme Being is expressly introduced as the object of worship. Without this essential circumstance, no one could tell whether it were originally composed for a love-song, or a religious hymn expressing a longing for a union of the soul with God, according to the Sufi philosophy and religion.
“In the second poem, quoted by Mr. Lane, it is to be regretted that he did not quote the whole of it; for I can by no means admit the circumstance, that it was sung by the dervishes in their morning devotions, to be conclusive in regard to the original design of the hymn. Mr. Lane expressly tells us, in a note, that he found the last six lines inserted, with some slight alterations, as a common love-song, in a portion of the ‘Thousand and One Nights,’ printed at Calcutta, vol. i. [[117]]p. 225; Lane’s translation, ii. p. 349. Whether the whole was originally composed as a love-song or a devotional hymn, does not appear from the parts of it which Mr. Lane gives us. If in the parts omitted there is any clear reference to the Deity, it is unlike any of the Canticles. If there is no such reference, the meaning of the hymn is too doubtful to allow any inference to be drawn from it. For we might as well allow the singing of Dr. Watts’s version of the Canticles to be an argument for their original design, as to admit the singing of the mystic dervishes to be an evidence of the original design of the hymns.
“Before making some general remarks on this whole subject of attempting to show the character of the Canticles by reference to the pantheistic poetry of the Mahometan Sufis, it may be well to mention that reference has been made even to the poets of Hindostan for the same purpose; especially to the Gitagovinda, the production of a celebrated Hindoo poet, named Jayadeva. This appears to be a mystical poem, designed to celebrate the loves of Crishna and Radha, or the reciprocal attraction between the divine goodness and the human soul. Now, whatever may be the resemblance between the Gitagovinda and Canticles in some of their imagery, there is this essential difference, that, in the former, Crishna was the chief incarnate god of the Hindoos,[152] and that there are references to other gods, and to various superstitions of the Hindoo mythology; whilst in the Canticles there is no reference to any but human characters. Besides, the author of the Gitagovinda clearly intimates its religious character in the conclusion of the poem.
“We have seen, then, that there are material differences between the Canticles and the religious love-songs to which [[118]]reference has been made. But supposing the resemblance to be much greater than it is, those mystical songs do not in any essential respect resemble the Canticles more than they do the odes of Anacreon, or some of the eclogues of Virgil, and the idyls of Theocritus. And it is not easy to see why the resemblance does not prove the religious character of the odes of Anacreon as much as that of the Canticles.
“But, after all, the great objection remains to any conclusion drawn from the pantheistic mystic poets, whether of Persia or India, whether Mahometans or Hindoos, namely, that their productions are founded on a religion and philosophy entirely different from the Jewish. The Canticles are productions of a different country, and separated from any of the songs of the Sufi poets by an interval of nearly two thousand years. The Jewish religion has nothing in common with the pantheistic mysticism on which those songs are founded. There is nothing in the Old Testament of a similar character. If any production similar to those mystical love-songs had existed in the religious literature of the Hebrews, undoubtedly we should have found some in the Book of Psalms, which comprises compositions from the age preceding that of David to a period long after the return of the Jews from the captivity at Babylon. But in the most fervent Psalms, the forty-second, for instance, nothing of the kind is found. Neither is anything similar to those mystic songs ascribed to the Jewish sect, as described by Josephus and Philo. Nothing of the kind is laid to the charge of the Essenes. It is needless to say, that nothing approaching to the like character is found in the New Testament. Nothing similar is discovered even in the allegorical paraphrase of the Targumist on the Canticles. All those religious love-songs are founded on the Sufi religion, or rather religious philosophy, which, whether it was borrowed from India, as Von Hammer supposes, or arose independently among the Mahometans, according to the opinion of Tholuck, has no connexion with, or resemblance to, the Jewish. It is as different [[119]]from the latter as darkness from light. The argument, therefore, which is drawn from the mystical songs of the Mahometan devotees for ascribing a mystical character to the Canticles, is without foundation.”[153]
REASONS AGAINST THE ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.
1. In every allegory, or parable, employed in the Scripture, or in any good human composition, something is wrought into its texture to indicate most unmistakably its allegorical design; that, under the garb of an immediate representation, is conveyed one more remote. Thus, in the 80th Psalm, 9–17, where Israel is represented under the allegory of a vine which came out of Egypt, the design is distinctly wrought into the texture of the allegory. The expression, heathen (גוֹיִם), at the very beginning of the allegory, and especially the words, “the Son whom thou hast chosen for thyself,” (עַל בֵּן אִמַּצְתָּה לָךְ) in the second clause of verse 15, which, when compared with “the Son of man, whom thou hast chosen for thyself,” (עַל בֵּן אָדָם אִמַּצְתָ לָךְ) in verse 17, are evidently explanatory of the words, “and protect what thy right hand hath planted,” (וְכַנָּה אֲשֶׁר נָטְעָה יְמִינֶיךָ) in the first clause, clearly to show the more remote concealed under the immediate representation. Thus, also, in the allegory of the vineyard, and by the prophet Isaiah (chap. v.), we are distinctly told, in verse 7, that “the vineyard of Jehovah of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant plantation.” Compare also Judges ix. 7–20; 2 Kings xiv. 9, 10; Ezek. xvi., xxxvii. 1–14; the parables of our Saviour, Acts x. 10–17; Gal. iv. 22–31. Now, if the author of this poem had intended it to be understood allegorically, he would have given some indication to that effect; especially since the allegories occasionally used in some parts of this very book, chap. iv. 12, v. 1, vii. 7, 8, are rendered plain and obvious. As there is, however, not the slightest [[120]]intimation in the whole of this lengthy poem that it is designed to be allegorical, we are unwarranted to assume it. To take one portion of the Scriptures allegorically, without even an obscure hint of it in the writing itself, is to violate the established laws of language, and to expose all other portions of the sacred volume to a similar treatment. If one chooses to allegorize one part without any sanction, another may choose to allegorize another. But we have no right to depart from the literal and obvious meaning, without some authority for it from the inspired writer. This argument is applicable to every allegorical interpretation, whether historical or hieroglyphical, whether political or metaphysical.
2. The total silence of our Lord and his apostles respecting this book is against its allegorical interpretation. If this Song, according to the first and last allegorisers, “celebrates the glories of the Messiah, and all the mercies which through him flow to the people of God,” it is more spiritual and more evangelical than any other portion of the Old Testament; surpassing even the writings of Isaiah, who is called the fifth Evangelist, and is, in fact, what Origen called it, “The Holy of Holies.” Is it possible, then, that our Saviour, and his apostles, who, in their disputations with the Jews, so frequently quoted the prophecies of Isaiah and other passages of the Old Testament, far less evangelical and Messianic, would never have referred to this book? Is it possible that the apostle Paul, who so frequently describes the relation of Christ to the Church by the union subsisting between husband and wife (2 Cor. xi. 2, Rom. vii. 4, Eph. v. 23–32), would be silent about a book which, more than any other in the Old Testament, sets forth that union? The fact, therefore, that our Saviour and his apostles never once refer to this book is against the allegorical interpretation.
3. Is Solomon the man from whom a production of such preeminent spirituality and evangelical truth could have been reasonably expected? Is there anything in his private history, [[121]]his habits of thought, his moral inclinations, or in the general tone and tendency of his religious emotions, at any period of his life, as far as they can be gathered from his history and writings, that would lead us to anticipate such evangelical piety as this interpretation presupposes? The same agreement which exists between ordinary writers and their productions is perceptible in the inspired records. Inspiration, like Providence, selected the fittest instruments for its work. Thus, between the history of Moses and his writings, of David and his writings, of Paul and his writings, of John and his writings, a natural uniformity exists; and so of other sacred authors. Accordingly, we have not only to suppose Solomon to have been more spiritually-minded than any under the Jewish economy, but to have stood upon a level with the most enlightened and Christ-loving under the present dispensation, in order to write in such a strain. Where is any such qualification in Solomon, even remotely intimated in any part of Scripture? The wisdom which he asked, which he received, and for which he gained celebrity, was that displayed in his civil government, in social and moral teaching, of which the first-fruit was given in the decision upon the litigation of the two mothers. The poetry which he wrote, consisting of one thousand and five songs, upon natural history, not having been deemed worthy of a place in the sacred canon, shows that his muse did not indulge in a devotional strain. The Book of Ecclesiastes, which is attributed to him by tradition, is the experience of a thorough-going worldling and libertine, and a confession to men rather than God. The extensive harem which he had, displays his inordinate desire for revels and foreign women, which in old age inveigled him into the practice of idolatry. “His wives,” as the Scriptures teach us, “turned away his heart after other gods.” And the last we hear of him is, that “his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.” Is this, then, the man whose love-song is to be regarded as pre-eminently [[122]]spiritual, and to be exalted as more evangelically rapturous than any other portion of Holy Writ? To what period of his life is this pre-eminent piety to be assigned? If to the latter, that is the period of his greatest degeneracy; if to the former, how are we to reconcile his apostasy with so high a degree of spirituality? It is difficult to conceive of such a mind as that of Solomon brought at any time into sympathy with the prevailing allegorical exposition of this Song. Who can conceive that he who caused an irreparable breach in his kingdom should represent himself as the Prince of Peace, or that he who was the embodiment of the carnal propensities should describe, under the figure of chaste love, the union of Christ and his Church? It is inconceivable. As David was not qualified to build the temple, because he had been a man of war, and had shed blood, so Solomon was not qualified to write in such a spiritual strain concerning Christ and his Church as the prevailing allegorical exposition of this Song, because he had been a man of lust, and had turned aside to idolatry.
4. For the same reason we cannot conceive that any other writer would represent the Messiah as symbolized by Solomon. Is it conceivable that he of whom the whole congregation of Israel complained to Rehoboam, “Thy father made our yoke grievous—now, therefore, make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, light,” would be chosen to represent the Saviour of the world, “whose yoke is easy, and his burden light?” We can understand why the painter of the Judgment Scene, among the celebrated frescoes in the cloisters of the Campo Santo at Pisa, in Italy, in which the righteous and the wicked are gathered in their respective positions, placed Solomon midway between them, as an intimation of his inability to determine to which he belonged; but we cannot understand how an inspired writer could choose Solomon, whose lusts were displayed in the revels of an Eastern harem, and who was seduced to practise idolatry, to represent Him who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and [[123]]separate from sinners,” together with the pure and holy union subsisting between him and the Church.
5. In the allegorical interpretation language is attributed to Christ inconsistent with his dignity and purity. It is almost blasphemous to suppose Christ thus to address his Church:—
“The circuits of thy thighs are like ornaments,
The work of a master’s hand.
Thy navel is a round goblet,
Let not spiced wine be wanted in it!
Thy growth is like a palm tree,
And thy bosom like its clusters:
I long to climb this palm tree,
I long to clasp its branches.
May thy bosom be unto me
As the cluster of the vine,
And the odour of thy breath
As that of apples.”—Chap. vii. verses 2, 3, 7, 8.
This is the language of seduction, but it is blasphemous when put into the mouth of Him who spake as never man spake.
6. The fact that three individuals are the principal persons represented in this Song, and not two, is subversive of the allegorical theory. That the poem speaks of three individuals, a shepherd, a shepherdess, and a king, and that the shepherd, and not the king, is the object of the maiden’s affections, will be evident to every unbiassed reader of the book, and has been recognised by some of the Rabbins of the middle ages. For the sake of avoiding repetition, we refer the reader to the commentary, where the passages pointing out the distinctions of persons are dwelt upon at large.
THE TYPICAL INTERPRETATION.
The defenders of this view maintain that this book records an historical fact; that it celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, or some other heathen princess; and that this marriage typically represents the union of Christ with the Gentiles. [[124]]
REASONS AGAINST THIS NUPTIAL THEORY.
As we concur with those who seek “nothing more than a general resemblance” between the history recorded in this poem and the experience of the people of God, we have merely to state here our reasons for rejecting their view of the narrative.
No direct mention is made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance connected with it. The bride is described as a shepherdess and keeper of the vineyards (chap. i. 6; ii. 15; viii. 12, &c.); as walking in the streets in the night to seek her beloved, and as being beaten by the watchmen (iii. 1–4; v. 6, &c.); which are incompatible with the notion that she was Pharaoh’s daughter, or any other princess. Besides, the bridegroom is not a king, but a shepherd; Compare chap. i. 7, ii. 8, and v. 2–4. These, and other considerations which might have been mentioned, are entirely subversive of this nuptial theory.