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.