Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Song of Solomon 2:1 - 2:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
See Son_1:1 ff for the passage comments with footnotes.
Son_2:1. Shulamith: I am (only) a wild flower of Sharon, a lily of the valleys. The connection with the preceding is not to be denied altogether (with Delitzsch, who makes a new scene begin with this verse); still we must assume a pause of some length after Son_1:17, during which Shulamith who continues to tarry in the garden at the side of her lover, reflects upon her great good fortune in being selected to be the darling of the king, and by the comparison of the splendor which now surrounds her with the meadows and valleys of her home is disposed to humility and at the same time filled with longing for that simpler condition which she must forsake. She gives an artless as well as a delicate and striking expression to these feelings by calling herself “a wild-flower,” a “lily of the valleys,” which was not congruous to the many ornamental plants and artistic beauties of the royal court.—Which flower of the plain of Sharon is intended by çֲáַöֶּìֶú äַùָּׁøåֹï , it is difficult to determine. Its identity with the “lily of the valley” (Sept., Vulg., and Targ. on Isa_35:1, the only other passage of the O. Test. in which çֲáַöֶּìֶú occurs), [Cran., lily; so Lee], is contradicted by its being mentioned in a parallel with it, a circumstance which requires us to think of some similar plant, but one which is specifically different from it. If çáöìúֹ were really connected with çîõ , “to be red” (comp. äָîåּõ red, Isa_63:1), as Hitzig, Weissb., etc., assume, the simplest course would be with Aquila and R. Kimchi on Isa_35:1, to translate it “rose,” [so Bish., Genev., E. Ver.], and then to compare the combination of rose and lily in Sir_39:13-14 as probably drawn from this passage. But another etymology, which supposes the word to be in some manner compounded with áֶּöֶì onion (whether ç is prefixed, which serves to form quadrilaterals, or the adj. çָîֵõ “sour,” lurks in its initial letters), points rather to some bulbous plant; perhaps the meadow-saffron, which the Old Syriac seems to have intended (comp. Mich., Ewald, Gesenius, etc.), [so Royle, Wordsworth, Noyes and Thrupp, who however translates it “daisy”], or the tulip (Velthusen, Magn., Vaih.), or the narcissus, for which last the Targ. already testifies with its ðַøְ÷åֹí . As no one of these significations can be demonstrated with absolute certainty, it may be most advisable with the Sept. and Vulg. to abide by the indefinite “flower” [so Cov., Dow.], or “wild-flower” [so Withington, Ginsburg]. Also in regard to the name Sharon ùָׁøåֹï , it cannot be said decisively, whether it denotes the well-known plain along the coast between Cesarea and Joppa (Act_9:35), or the trans-jordanic plain named 1Ch_5:16, or finally a third meadow-land of Sharon between Tabor and the lake of Gennesaret mentioned by Eusebius in the Onomast. This last might perhaps be most readily thought of on account of its vicinity to Shunem.—Further çֲáַöֶּìֶú äַùָּׁøåֹï is, notwithstanding the article before ùָׁøåֹï , to be translated “a wild-flower of Sharon” (comp. Gen_9:20; Gen_35:16; Jer_13:4, etc.), and no conclusion can be drawn from this expression in favor of the allegorical explanation of Shulamith as the Church (against Hengstenberg).—In both these comparisons, that with the flower of Sharon, and that with the lily (by which must be meant not the strongly scented lilium candidum, but rather as appears from Son_1:5-6; Son_5:13 the Palestine red lily, lilium rubens of Pliny H. N. 21:5), the tertium comparat. is both the diminutive size of these plants compared with cedars, cypresses, etc., and also their beauty and elegance (Mat_6:28; Luk_12:27), so that, although Shulamith refers to her lowliness and rural simplicity, she yet says nothing derogatory to herself, and quite in analogy with Son_1:5 manifests a certain self-regard though genuinely modest, and pure as a child.
Son_2:2. As a lily among thorns, so is my dear among the daughters. That which had been to Shulamith an expression of her lowliness is seized upon by Solomon with courtly skill in order to bring out of it the more emphatic praise of her grace and beauty. More strongly almost than afterwards in Son_6:8-9 he puts all other women in the shade in comparison with his chosen one, likening them to thorns, the well-known figure of whatever is mean, troublesome and offensive (comp. Jdg_9:14; 2Ki_14:9; Isa_7:23 ff; Isa_32:13; Isa_55:13; Eze_2:6; Eze_28:24; Hos_9:6; Hos_10:8; Psa_58:10; Pro_22:5, etc). [Noyes: “It is not implied that the lily grows among thorns, but that his love surpassed other women as much as the lily the thorn.” Moody Stuart quotes the following as illustrative from Bonar: “Close by these lilies there grew several of the thorny shrubs of the desert; but above them rose the lily spreading out its fresh green leaf as a contrast to the dingy verdure of these prickly shrubs.”] With the translation “rose” [so Cov., Cran.] (which is moreover absolutely inadmissible, since the fem. ùׁåֹùַׁðָּä must unquestionably have a sense like that of the masc. ùׁåּùַׁï or ùׁåùָׁï “lily”) the strong contrast intended would almost entirely vanish, for the thorns serve only to adorn the rose. Renan regards this verse and Son_2:7 as spoken by the shepherd (!) entering here for the first time (“entrant brusquement en scène”)! [Ginsburg imagines that Son_1:15 is also spoken by this imaginary shepherd.—Tr.]
Son_2:3. As an apple-tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. Observe the exact parallelism of this sentence with Son_2:2. Shulamith gives back the flattering commendation of her lover with a still closer adherence to his expressions than above in Son_1:16, and thus their conversation assumes the appearance of a “contest of mutually eulogistic love” (Delitzsch). The reference of Shulamith’s language to an absent lover, whom she praises in opposition to Solomon, who is indifferent or repulsive to her (Ew., Hitz., Vaih., etc.), destroys the simple beauty of the dialogue. It is inadmissible to understand by the “apple tree ( úַּôּåּçַ , Sept. ìῆëïí ) some nobler fruit tree than the common Pyrus malus, as for instance, the quince (Pyrus cydonia), or the citron (malus medica) [so Good, Williams, Taylor, Thrupp, With.], or the orange (as is done by Celsius in his Hierobot.Velthus., Rosenm., Van Kooten, etc.), on account of the mention made immediately afterwards (Son_2:3 d, and Son_2:5) of the sweet fruit of the tree, because those acquainted with the East in former as well as in more recent times commend even the common apples of Syria and Palestine as an exceedingly generous fruit, of fine flavor and a pleasing fragrance (comp. Harmer, Observations, etc.,), and because the comparatively rare occurrence of úַּôּåּçַ in the Old Test., and its combination with the fig, pomegranate, palm, etc. (Joe_1:12; comp. Sol. Son_7:9; Son_8:5) point to its belonging to the nobler fruit-bearing plants of the flora of ancient Israel. [Wordsworth: It is a generic word (like malum in Latin), and may include the citron and lemon].—In his shadow delighted I sit, lit., “I delight and sit” ( çִîַּãְúִּé åְéָùַׁáְúִּé ) [Gins.: I delight to sit”], a construction like úַּøְáּåּ úְãַáְּøåּ 1Sa_2:3, where the first verb seems to have only an adverbial force and the second expresses the principal idea, comp. also below Son_4:8; Son_5:6, and Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 285, b. [Green’sHeb. Gram. § 269]. Further it is no more necessary to take these verbs in a preterite sense here (Ewald, Hitz., etc.) than in Son_1:12, [strictly: I have been sitting and still sit.—Tr.], so that this passage supplies no valid argument in favor of the shepherd hypothesis. In the figure of the shadow the point of comparison is not the protection afforded (as e.g.Psa_17:8; Psa_91:1; Isa_25:4, etc.), but the refreshing and reviving influence of the nearness of her lover, just as the sweet fruit of the apple-tree serves to represent his agreeable caresses, so Son_4:16; Son_7:13 (comp. Weissb. in loc.).
Son_2:4. He has brought me into his wine house. áְּéú äַéַּéִï must be the same essentially as áֵּéú îִùְׁúֵּä äַéַּéï , that is to say, a room or apartment for drinking wine, a banquet hall [Eng. Ver.], not a “wine shop” (! Böttch.), or a “wine cellar” (Vulg.: “cella vinaria,” Luth., Ren., etc.), [Cov., Cran., Genev., Doway, Williams], or a “vine-arbor” (Vaih., etc.), or a “vineyard” (Ewald, Heiligst., etc). But so surely as the expressions in the context, especially the “fruit” of the apple-tree in Son_2:3 d, and the “banner” in 4 b, are to be understood figuratively, with the same certainty must the literal interpretation of “leading into the wine room” be rejected, and the sense of this expression must be found rather in an increased participation in the sweet tokens of his love, an intoxication from caresses (already essentially correct Ruperti, Döderl., Gesenius, Döpke, Weissb., etc.). [So Good, Noyes. Gins.: “bower of delight.”] The words need therefore neither be taken as a wish (Sept., åἰóáãÜãåôÝ ìå åἰò ïἶêïí ôïῦ ïἴíïõ , Velth., Amm., Hug, Umbreit, etc.), [so Good, Fry], nor as a narrative of what her country lover had previously done with her (Ewald, Vaih., Böttcher), nor as the enthusiastic exclamation of a lady of the harem, who was now embraced by Solomon instead of the coy Shulamith (!! Hitz.), etc. There is no alternative but to regard it as a figurative description of the love which she had experienced from Solomon, having its most exact analogon in Son_1:4 b, “the king has brought me into his chambers.”—And his banner over me is love,i.e. not “he bears his love as an ensign before me who follow him” (Grotius, Hitzig, Weissb., etc.), [so Noyes, Thrupp, etc.], but “love waves as a protecting and comforting banner over my head (Psa_20:6) when I am near him.” So correctly Döpke, Del., [Wordsw., Burrowes]; also Ewald, Vaih., etc., only the latter here again find described the love formerly enjoyed with her shepherd in the country. The banner ( ãֶּâֶì ) is, wherever it occurs in the Old Test., a military figure (comp. besides Psa_20:6, also Num_1:52; Num_2:2, ff.). It must accordingly be explained here too in this sense, and not with Böttcher of the sign before a wine shop (a tavern signboard!).
Son_2:5. Stay me with grapes, refresh me with apples. The caresses of the king, who is clasping and embracing her (see Son_2:6) produce an effect upon one so ardent in her love, which even if not “thoroughly agitating” (Delitzsch), or “taking away her breath and almost stifling” (Hoelem), is yet powerfully exciting and as it were intoxicating, and directly wakens in her, probably for the first time since she came to the court, the consciousness that she is sick of love (comp. Son_5:8), and therefore needs to be strengthened by eating some refreshing fruit, or something of the sort. She directs her request for it, as is shown by the plurals ñַîְּëåּðִé (literally, fulcite me, support me; comp. Gen_27:37; Psa_104:15), øַôְּãåּðִé , not to her lover himself (Weissb.), but to the ladies of the court near her, to whom also the lively exclamation, Son_2:7, is uttered. àֲùִׁéùׁåֹú are neither aromatic unguents (Sept., ìýñá ), nor flowers (Vulg.:fulcite me floribus [so Doway]; so too Symm., etc.), but agreeably to its probable derivation from àָùַׁùׁ “to found, to make firm” (see Knobel on Isa_46:8), pressed grapes, and so perhaps wine syrup, or better raisin cakes, grape cakes, which is favored both by the verb ñָîַêְ and by the use of the word in Hos_3:1 (where the Sept. translate, ðÝììáôá ), and in 2Sa_6:19 (Sept.: ëÜãáíïí ἀðὸ ôçãÜíïõ , pancakes).
Son_2:6. His left hand is under my head and his right embraces me. úְּçַáְּ÷ֵðִé must not be taken in the optative here any more than in Son_8:3, where the entire passage recurs, as though the sentence expressed a wish, “let his left hand be under my head and his right embrace me” (Ewald, Vaih., Weissb., etc., [so Ginsb.].—This is contradicted by the whole situation as well in this passage as in Son_8:3. On the score of language too it is simpler and more natural to understand it as an indicative.
Son_2:7. “I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem,” etc. In favor of Shulamith as the speaker in these closing words, it may be said: 1. That she is unmistakably the speaker of these words in Son_3:5 and Son_8:4, where as here they introduce a “pause in the action” of considerable length (Ewald). 2. That Shulamith already addressed the ladies of the court in Son_2:5, who must accordingly be supposed to be near at hand as spectators of her joy. 3. That what she has said of her being “sick of love” prepared the way for this adjuration, and the latter is well-nigh unintelligible without reference to the former. We may from the outset, therefore, repel the attempts to treat the verse as the language of the queen mother, who enters here (! Böttch.), or of the celestial Solomon (Hengstenb., after many older expositors as Starke, Jo. Lange, etc.), or of the poet (Umbr., Hitzig), or, finally of the shepherd speaking to the chorus (! Renan). “I adjure you,” literally, I cause you (as much as in me is) to swear, I exact from you the sacred promise, I earnestly beg you. Compare Gen_1:5; Num_5:19. By the gazelles or by the hinds of the field. These animals are not named in the adjuration, because animals generally in contrast with men have “fixed annual rutting seasons” (Hitzig; likewise also Herder and others); nor because the ladies of Jerusalem were in the habit of keeping little pet gazelles (J. D. Mich.), nor on account of the resemblance of öְáָàåֹú and àַéָּìåֹú äַùָּׂãֶä to the divine names éְäֹåָä öְáָàåֹú and àֱìֹäֵé äַùָּׁîַéִí (Weissb.); but doubtless on account of their pretty and graceful appearance (comp. Pro_5:19), which makes these animals in particular fit symbols of tender and ideal love, and must make them especially dear to women in this point of view. Comp. particularly Döpkein loc., likewise Ewald: “In common life people swore by things, which belonged to the subject of conversation, or were especially dear to the speaker. As therefore the warrior swears by his sword, as Mohammed by the soul of which he is just about to speak (Kor. Song 91:7), so here Shulamith by the lovely gazelles since she is speaking of love.”—That ye wake not nor awaken love until it please. àִí úָּòִéøåּ , literally, “if ye wake,” etc. (Ewald, § 325, b), [Green’sHeb. Chrestomathy on Gen_42:15]. The verb is here masc., corresponding to àֶúְëֶí in a, not because the daughters of Jerusalem were not real female personalities, as Hengstenberg [so too Wordsworth] insists, but because the primary gender is here used as common, as in Son_2:5 above, and Jdg_4:20; Isa_32:11; and frequently in the imperative. [Thrupp explains it by “the general indefiniteness of the character which the daughters of Jerusalem as members of the chorus here sustain.” But see Green’sHeb. Gram. § 275, 5.—Tr.]— äָàַäֲáָä is certainly not “the loved one,” as though the warning here were not wantonly to wake Shulamith who had fallen asleep (Vulg. dilectam, Syr., Gesen., Ewald, Rosenm., Hengstenb., Renan and J. D. Michaelis who for the sake of this sense points äָàֲäֻáָä ), but as this meaning would be in the highest degree unsuitable in the parallel passages Son_3:5 and Son_8:4, and as love as an ethical idea comes significantly forward elsewhere in this poem (Son_7:7 and Son_8:6 f.), it is manifestly love itself as a passion slumbering in the heart, which it would not do over-curiously to rouse or kindle to a flame. äָòִéø äָàַäֲáָä cannot possibly mean “disturbing love” before it has attained full satisfaction of its desire for converse with the beloved object (Delitzsch, Weissb.), for it certainly expresses something analogous to äָòִéø ÷ִðְàָä “stir up jealousy” Isa_42:13, and the Pi. òåֹøֵø , which is added to strengthen it, always and only has the sense of exciting or awakening e.g. strife, Pro_10:12, strength or power, Psa_80:3, etc. Comp. also irritata voluptas, irritamenta amoris seu veneris in Latin poets (e.g.Ovid, de arte am. 2, 681; Metam. 9, 133; Juven. 11, 165); although here we are certainly not to think of any magic charms or philters to inflame love or lust, such as love apples, Gen_30:14, etc., or quinces (Böttcher). The meaning of the admonition is rather simply this: “Plunge not rash and unbidden into the passion of love, that is to say not before love awakes of itself (till heart is joined to heart, till God Himself awakens in you an affection for the right man), be not forward to excite it in your hearts by frivolous coquetry or loose amorous arts.” This caution may in some measure be regarded as the moral of the entire poem, inasmuch as it aims at the preservation of the chaste, truly moral, and consequently truly natural, character of love. It is, therefore, most suitably put into the mouth of Shulamith as the bearer or representative of such pure ethical love in contrast with the women of Solomon’s court. Comp. the like sentence Son_8:7 b.
2. In opposition to such aimless and unbridled trifling, which lays no sure historical and exegetical foundation at the outset, and hence supposes that it can bring every possible mystery into the simple language of this poem, an unprejudiced historical exposition can see nothing in the section explained above, but the first act of a more prolonged lyrico-dramatic action, which by a gradual progress brings to its denouement the relation of two lovers, king Solomon and a fair Israelitish maiden, whose previous condition was that of a shepherdess or a vine-dresser. The development in this first section is not carried beyond the exhibiting a decided ethical contrast between the character of this maiden and that of the daughters of Jerusalem, i. e., the ladies of Solomon’s court or harem, and the knitting in addition of a firm bond of loving heart-communion between her and the king, who for her sake already begins to contemn all the others, and even to find them unlovely (see Son_2:2). It is not exactly the very first of the “mutual attachment” of the two lovers (Delitzsch), but it is the first consciousness in both of the incomparable strength and ardor of their reciprocal affection (see particularly Son_2:5-6), which is exhibited in this act, together with the first evident cropping out of an inner contrariety between this closely united pair and the other persons of the court; and this is brought by the principal person in the piece to the briefest and most emphatic expression possible, by the remark at the close in Son_2:7, as a contrast of true and false love, or that which “awakes of itself,” and that which is “excited” by amorous arts.
3. Only thus much can be maintained as the well assured result of a sober, yet earnest-minded exposition of this first division, which keeps aloof from the profane assumptions and artificial combinations of modern shepherd-romances and amatory poems; and it is simply on this basis, therefore, that a practical application of the contents of this chapter and a half must proceed, if it is to be conducted upon sound and worthy principles. Its aim must consist essentially in pointing out and devoutly estimating the typical analogy which undeniably holds between what is here found and the dealings of the Redeemer with His Church. As Solomon raised his beloved from a low condition to his own glory, and that from mere love, and drawn by her beauty and charms, so the Lord has exalted man, sunk in misery and degradation, from no other motive than His love, His mere personal regard for our race, upon which His divine glory and blessedness were in no manner dependent; for
“Nothing brought Him from above,
Nothing but redeeming love.”
As further Solomon’s love to Shulamith appears in a gradual growth and a progression by successive steps, so too Christ lifts both His entire church and the individual souls that compose it, only step by step to the full and complete fellowship of His grace. To the call into His kingdom, which corresponds with the establishing of the relation of conjugal love in the royal gardens at Jerusalem represented in this act, succeed the higher stages of illumination, conversion, sanctification; but they do not follow immediately upon the heels of the former. As finally the lovely combination of child-like humility and of inward longing for her beloved, which Shulamith’s character already exhibits in this first Song, forms her chief attraction which first makes her appear truly worthy of the love of her royal bridegroom, so in the soul of every Christian whom the Lord calls into His kingdom and will make partaker of His grace, the necessity of surrendering himself voluntarily to these gracious drawings with a hearty desire for a complete union with him becomes His highest duty; for “non visi volentes trahuntur a Deo” (Mat_23:37.)—Besides these analogies a sound and sober practical exposition of this section must also hold up the numerous points of difference between the historical type and the soteriological and Messianic antitype; and among these it must particularly point out the dissimilitude, nay the contrast between the earthly Solomon, and the divine-human Redeemer, as well as between the surroundings of both. For it is only in this way that the total of what is contained in this action can be duly developed and converted to practical profit in both a positive and a negative respect. Comp. Introduction, § 4, pp. 16 ff.
Footnotes:
[Patrick, Poole and Doway follow Wicliffe and Matthews in making Son_2:1 the language of the bridegroom. The great body of commentators with better reason assign it to the bride. Burrowes: “Reclining thus on a bed of grass and flowers, the beloved and the bride naturally speak of each other in language drawn from the beautiful objects under their notice.” Still more appropriately Williams: “The spouse with the most beautiful productions of the royal garden in her view, ventures to compare herself, not with them, but with the more humble natives of the fields and valleys.” The “longing,” which Zöckler here finds for her home and former humble station, belongs purely to his theory of the plot in the Song, and has no place in the text itself.—Tr.]
[Hengstenberg argues that “the valleys,” which correspond in the parallelism with “Sharon,” must also have the force of a proper name, and on the ground of 1Ch_12:15, he decides that the valleys on either side of the Jordan are referred to. Cov., Geneva, Doway, Fry, Thrupp, With., Gins., follow the LXX in giving to Sharon an appellative sense: meadow, field or plain. The parallelism is, of course, not sufficient to justify either conclusion. Good finds an allusion here to her birth-place: “she was not of Egyptian origin, or royal descent, but a rose of the fields of Sharon—a native of Palestine.” Of course the famous Sharon must be the one intended in such a passage as this.—Tr.]
[The article is always definite in Hebrew; and the only correct translation is therefore, “the flower of Sharon,” where the article, however, is not to be taken in an eminent or exclusive sense, “the flower” par excellence (as Wordsworth: the flower of the whole earth; Doway: the flower of mankind) but has its generic sense, as is usual in comparisons. We may in conformity with our idiom substitute our indefinite for the Hebrew definite article in such cases, but this is by way of paraphrase, not exact translation. See Green’s Heb. Gram. § 245, 5, d.—Tr.]
If çáöìú really meant the “saffron,” Colchicum autumnale, the comparison would contain what was damaging and degrading to Shulamith; but this is not admissible on account of the parallel, “lily of the valleys.”
[Wordsw. preserves the distinct verbal force of both words: “I long for his shadow and sit beneath it.” Cov.: “My delight is to sit under his shadow.” Eng. Ver.: “I sat down under his shadow with great delight.” Geneva: “Under his shadow I had delight and sat down.”]
[The meaning of this clause is well expressed by Coverdale: He loveth me specially well. Doway has: He hath ordered in me chastity. Parkhurst, without reason, supposes a reference to “a light or lamp, such as was carried before the new-married couple on the evening of their wedding, comp. Mat_25:1-2.”]
[Thrupp insists on the future sense: The time shall come when that sickness of love, of which I now complain, shall be solaced and satisfied. Taylor makes Son_2:4-6 the protasis of the sentence completed in Son_2:7, “when he brings me, etc., when his left hand is, etc., I adjure you,” etc.]
[Gill, Patrick, Scott and Williams make this the language of the bridegroom; the great body of English commentators refer it to the bride.—Tr.]
[Withington, in accordance with his supposition that the bride is the daughter of an Arab chief, whose adjuration is consequently by the roes and hinds of her native fields, remarks: “The semi-paganism of the oath is extremely natural.” Moody Stuart: “This is no oath by the hinds of the fields, but a solemn charge with the strength of an oath.” Williams infers, from a comparison of Gen_21:30, that the “antelopes and hinds of the field” are referred to as witnesses of this solemn adjuration made in their presence.—Tr.]
[Henry: “She gives them this charge by everything that is amiable in their eyes and dear to them.” Fry: “The bride bids her attendants to be cautious not to disturb or call off the attention of her husband, whose society she has so coveted, as though they were approaching the gazelles or the deer of the plain.” Taylor and Burrowes likewise find the point of the allusion in the timorousness of these animals. Gill and Scott combine both: “They are gentle and pleasant creatures, but exceedingly timorous.” Words: “The roes and hinds love their mates with tender affection and steadfast reliance and will not disturb them in their slumbers.”]
[This surely cannot be accepted as a satisfactory explanation of this difficult verse. The spontaneity of love, which no effort must be made to awaken, but which must be excited of itself, so far from being accounted a worthy lesson of divine revelation, is not even a doctrine of ethics, and would require considerable qualification before it could be admitted to be sound rational advice. If inspired instruction were to be given on the subject of conjugal love, and a whole book devoted to the treatment of it, we might reasonably expect that its constancy, purity and strength would be prominently dwelt upon, that due attention would be paid to the qualities on which it should be based, the affectionate offices by which it should be maintained, and the holy principles by which it should be regulated. But instead of all this the one thing insisted upon is that love must be spontaneous and unsolicited. What is this but to convert it into heedless, inconsiderate passion, the spring of ill-judged attachments, which prove as inharmonious in their issue as they were irrational in their origin? This is, besides, a very different thing from the theme of this book, as Zöckler himself conceives and represents it, which is the commendation of a pure and chaste conjugal affection as opposed to the dissoluteness and sensuality fostered by polygamy. It would also be a most extraordinary admonition for Shulamith to the daughters of Jerusalem, among whom, according to Zöckler’s hypothesis were the wives of Solomon, married to him long before Shulamith had ever seen him.
Then besides the feebleness and inappropriateness of the sense obtained, it is doubtful whether the language of the verse can be made to yield it. The expressions thus explained are exceedingly vague. There is nothing to indicate in whom they are cautioned not to awaken love, whether in themselves or others; or in what way—may they not in any way seek to win another’s affection or to excite their own, not even by exhibiting or discerning what is worthy of regard? And “till it (i.e., love) please,” is to say the least an unexampled phrase. It is a very singular form of speech for any one to adopt: “do not excite a passion until that passion is willing to be excited.”
Of the English commentators, who take “love” in its subjective sense of the feeling or emotion, Ginsburg under the bias of the unfounded shepherd-hypothesis translates: “neither to excite nor to incite my affection till it wishes another love,” the words “another love” being introduced without any warrant from the text or context. Patrick paraphrases thus: “I conjure you not to discompose or give the least disturbance to that love; but let it enjoy its satisfaction to the height of its desires.” So substantially Taylor and Thrupp. Weiss.: “if ye disturb this love until it shall become complete, i.e., until the marriage be consummated.” But the verbs here employed mean to awaken or excite, not to disturb. It seems better, however, with the great body of interpreters to take “love” here as in Son_7:6 in its objective sense of one who is beloved. Wordsworth compares “the words of S. Ignatius ad Romans 7, ὁ Ýìὸò ἔñùò Ýóôáýñùôáé ” The bride is locked in the fond embrace of him whom she loves. She would not have him aroused by the intrusion of others to the interrupting or abridging of her joy. Poole, with an eye to its spiritual application: “Do not disturb nor offend him by your miscarriages.” Words.: “The church conjures her children that they be not impatient but wait in faith and hope for God’s own time, when it may please Him to arise and deliver her.”—Tr.]
[Geneva Bible, note on Son_1:2 : “This is spoken in the person of the Church or of the faithful soul inflamed with the desire of Christ, whom she loveth.” Ainsw.: “The bride is the Church espoused to Christ.” In Son_1:2 she “desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of His gospel applied unto her conscience.” “By virgins (Son_1:3) are meant all such (whether whole churches or particular persons) who with chaste and pure minds serve the Lord only.” The daughters of Jerusalem are “the friends of Christ and His Church, the elect of God, though not yet perfectly instructed in the way of the Lord.” The bride’s blackness (Son_1:5) is “the Church’s afflictions and infirmities.” Her mother’s sons, “either false brethren, false prophets and deceivers, or inordinate lusts and sins which dwelt in her, and were conceived with her.” “The vineyards opposed to her own vineyard seem to mean false churches, and in them the corruption of religion, whereunto her mother’s sons sought to draw her; setting her to observe the ordinances and traditions of men, or otherwise to undergo their cruelty and wrath.” In Son_1:7 “the Church maketh request unto Christ for instruction in the administration of His kingdom here on earth.” Burrowes regards this section as exhibiting, in successive steps, “the progress of the pious soul in the enjoyment of Christ’s love and favor.” 1. We enjoy the love of Jesus as manifested in private communion “in His chambers,” Son_1:4. 2. In the way of duty and self-denial, Son_1:7-11. 3. In sitting with the King in the circle of His friends, and enjoying, as one of them, the delights of social communion with Him, Son_1:12-14. 4. In delightful repose with Him, amid enlarged prospects of spiritual beauty, Son_1:15-17. 5. In the protection and delights set forth in Son_2:1 to Son_3:6. In enjoying at last the pleasures mentioned in Son_2:4-7, the greatest possible on earth.”
Wordsw. finds expressed in Son_1:2 “the fervent yearnings of the Church for the advent of Christ.” “The mother of the Bride (i.e., of the Church of Christ) is the Jewish nation, and her mother’s children are Jews or Judaizers. It was the delinquency, ingratitude and cruelty of the “mother’s children” which made the Christian Church become the “keeper of the vineyards.”
According to Thrupp, “the Church of Israel, in Son_1:2, desires the very presence of her Saviour. She had been instructed and wooed through the messages of the prophets; she desired now that her promised Messiah should pour into her mouth words from His own mouth.” The daughters of Jerusalem are “the members of the Church of Israel in their contemplative capacity; not necessarily different persons in their outer being from the virgins of Son_1:3 (the upright), but yet representing them in a different point of view, with reference solely to their intelligent and emotional survey of what is passing, and without regard to their own spiritual state.” The mother of the Bride is the nation of Israel. The mother’s sons are “the several members of the nation, viewed only in their civil dealings, in their relation to the State, not in their relation to the Church.” Their anger was the rebellion of the ten tribes. Her own vineyard was the religious culture of all Israel. Hindered in this by the political condition of the nation, she was driven to the establishment of colleges of holy disciples, the sons of the prophets at different centres, whose spheres of action are denoted by the vineyards, of which the anger of her brethren made her the keeper. Weiss refers this section to the time when Israel lay encamped at the foot of Sinai. The blackness of the bride (Son_1:5) was the sin of the golden calf, the sun that occasioned it was the bondage in Egypt. The petition (Son_1:7) concerns the leading through the wilderness, and the house (Son_1:17) is the tabernacle of Moses. Moody Stuart supposes the longing for Christ’s appearance, and His actual birth among men, to be the subject of this section; his interpretation of which is specialized even to the extent of making the “green bed” of Son_1:16 refer to the fresh grass upon which the newly-born Saviour was laid in the manger for the cattle.
[The contrast in character, which Zöckler finds already indicated in this section between Shulamith and the daughters of Jerusalem, though essential to his scheme of the book, is purely imaginary. It certainly is not established by Son_2:2, the only passage that can, with the slightest plausibility, be urged in its favor; whilst Son_1:3-4 speak decisively against it.
Whether the cyclic or the dramatic view of this book is to be preferred, may be left an open question at this stage of the exposition. If our author succeeds in showing a continuous progress in the action from first to last, the latter view is of course entitled to the preference. But if he fails in this, as in the translator’s judgment he does, and as all have done who have made the same attempt before him, we seem to be shut up to the former; unless indeed even the cyclic view, at least as refined by some of its later advocates, is too artificial for the artless simplicity of this beautiful poem, in which the same theme recurs under varied aspects, but the law of succession is rather that of poetical association than logical exactness.
And the general character of this section creates an antecedent presumption favorable to this view. The intimacy here described is of the strictest and most loving nature, and seems to leave no room for any further advance. Instead of preparing the way for a married union, it rather implies that the marriage has already taken place. The “bed” Son_1:16 is in all probability not the nuptial couch. But Shulamith’s presence in the king’s apartments, the kisses and embraces, her open expression of her passionate fondness for the king would be unbecoming and inadmissible, especially amid the restraints of oriental society, prior to marriage.—Tr.]