Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Song of Solomon 8:5 - 8:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The return home and the triumph of the chaste love of the wife over the unchaste feelings of her royal husband
Son_8:5-14
FIRST SCENE:
The Arrival Home
(Son_8:5-7)
Country people (in the fields at Shunem)
leaning upon her beloved?
there thy mother travailed with thee,
there travailed she that bare thee.
as a signet-ring upon thine arm.
For strong as death is love,
hard as Sheol is jealousy
Its flames are flames of fire,
a blaze of Jehovah.
7 Many waters cannot
quench love,
and rivers shall not wash it away.
If a man were to give
all the wealth of his house for love,
he would be utterly contemned.
Shulamith with her lover (in the circle of her friends.)
(Son_8:8-14)
Shulamith
and she has no breasts;
what shall we do for our sister
in the day that she shall be spoken for?
we will build upon her a silver castle;
but if she be a door,
we will stop her up with a cedar board.
and my breasts like towers.
Then was I in his eyes
as one that finds peace.—
11 Solomon has a vineyard in Baal-hamon.
He committed the vineyard to the keepers,
each was to bring for its fruit
a thousand of silver.
12 My vineyard, my own, is before me;
the thousand is thine, Solomon,
and two hundred for the keepers of its fruit.
companions are listening for thy voice;
let me hear it.
and be like a gazelle,
or a young hart
upon mountains of spices.
2. With respect to the time and place of the action, no well grounded doubt can exist, on the supposition that the contents and meaning of the preceding act have been correctly understood. Solomon must have yielded to the urgent entreaties of his beloved, and immediately arranged a journey to her home and started with her, so that at the utmost there can only be an interval of three or four days between this and the foregoing act. Various indications suggest Shunem, the home of Shulamith, as the goal toward which the loving pair are journeying, and consequently as the locality of this act; especially the introductory passage, Son_8:5, rightly understood and interpreted, and also the mention of Shulamith’s little sister, Son_8:8 f., her “abiding in the gardens,” Son_8:13, as well as the “mountains of spices” or “mountains of balm,” Son_8:14, which remind us of Son_2:17.—Partly on account of the introductory words, which are identical with Son_3:6, “Who is this coming up out of the wilderness?” partly on account of the masc. suffixes in çáìúê àîê , òåøøúéê etc. (according to the Masoretic punctuation), which appear to show that the passage refers not to Shulamith’s but to Solomon’s birth-place, Weissbach (as also Döpke, etc., before him) explains and assumes the royal palace on Zion to be the place of this action; Son_8:5 ff. describe the arrival of the lovers there from the royal gardens (or more exactly from the “path or pasture ground of the royal flocks, which is to be sought between Zion and the king’s gardens”); the rest of the action is then performed on Zion itself. But the correctness of the Masoretic reading in that passage is more than doubtful (see just below, No. 3); and it is only by the greatest forcing that all that follows, especially Son_8:8 f., 11 ff. and Son_8:13, can be brought into harmony with this transfer of the scene to Jerusalem, as is sufficiently shown by the strange combinations of Weissbach with respect to the circumstances, under which Bathsheba had borne Solomon “under an apple tree” and the way that Shulamith had “waked” the king on this his native spot, comp. on Son_8:5 b.—The majority of recent interpreters are agreed with us in assuming Shunem to be the place of the action, only the advocates of the shepherd hypothesis, as might be expected, make not Solomon, but the shepherd and Shulamith arrive there and transact what follows;—a view, which is already sufficiently refuted by Son_8:12 where Solomon is evidently addressed as present (see in loc. as well as on Son_8:13), and which has as little foundation as Vaihinger’s assertion that Son_8:5-7 is performed at the house of Shulamith’s mother, and Son_8:8 ff. “on the eastern slope of little Mt. Hermon,” where her brothers may have had their pasture ground.—When Delitzsch, whose view of the position and import of this act is in every other respect correct and appropriate, finds represented merely “a visit of Shulamith with her husband to her home,” we must remark on the contrary that the entreaties and desires of Shulamith at the close of the preceding act certainly looked to more than a mere transient stay at her home, and that this was demanded by the whole state of the case. It was only in an actual settlement both of herself and of her husband in her home that she could find the needed guarantee of an undisturbed continuance of her relation to him of cordial and conjugal love.
3. First Scene. The arrival, vers.5–7.
Son_8:5. Who is this coming up out of the wilderness? So asked Son_3:6 the “daughters of Jerusalem,” the chorus of ladies of the court, who took part in the action until towards the end of the preceding act. This chorus could only have come to Shulamith’s home in company with the royal pair; and then the question before us would, be insupposable in their mouth (vs. Renan, etc.). Ewald, Böttcher, Hitzig, Delitzsch, etc. therefore correctly assume the speakers to be “shepherds,” or country people, or “inhabitants of the district,” whilst Umbreit and Meier arbitrarily suppose the question to be put by the poet himself; Weissb. by courtiers on Zion, Rosenm. by citizens of Jerusalem.— îִãְáָּø lit. “place to which cattle are driven, pasture ground” (in opposition to cultivated land, comp. Isa_32:15; Joe_1:19; Psa_65:13) is here used in a different sense from Son_3:6 where it referred to the barren tracts north and east of Jerusalem. It is here a designation of the plain of Esdraëlon or Merj ibn ’Amir, lying southward from Shunem to Jezreel, which is still for the most part untilled and traversed by Bedouins (Robinson, Pal. II. 324, 362). For through this plain the travellers coming from the capital must ultimately pass.—Leaning upon her beloved. The long journey, though she may have got over part of it in her sedan, has wearied the delicate lady who therefore supports herself upon the arm of her husband. Failing to recognize this situation so clear in itself and so easily conceivable, the old translators have variously altered the sense of the passage. In this way we may explain the glosses to be found in the text of the Sept. and Vulg., ëåëåõêáíèéóìÝíç (= îִúְáָּøֶøֶú ) and deliciis affluens (= îִúְôִַּðֱ÷ú ), which are in both cases followed again by the correct translation of îִúְִøַôֶּ÷ֶú òַìÎãּåֹãָäּ .—Under this apple tree I waked thee. The pointing òåֹøַøְúִּéêָ , like that of the following verb implies that Solomon is the person addressed and that Shulamith is the speaker, but the consonants admit also of the reverse, and the old Syriac version seems actually to have read fem suffixes. Most of the older as well as of the more recent interpreters, following the Masoretic text conceive Shulamith to be the speaker, whilst Hitzig, Böttcher (who to be sure assigns a part of the verse to Shulamith’s mother), Delitzsch, Rebenst., Sanders, etc. make her lover speak. In favor of the latter assumption it may be urged 1) that if Solomon were the person addressed, the absurd sense would result of his birth under an apple tree—a sense which is certainly not made any more tolerable by Weissbach’s supposition of a “temporary sojourn of Bathsheba in the royal gardens with a view to her confinement;” 2) that in case the young shepherd were addressed the entire absence of any mention of his mother in what precedes, would be somewhat surprising and is not relieved by the parallels adduced by Ewald Gen. 35:48, Donati, vit. virg. c. 1, etc.; 3) that Son_8:6-7 confessedly spoken by Shulamith would require to be more closely connected with Son_8:5 b than they actually are, in case Son_8:5 b was also spoken by her: 4) that the expression “travail” or “conceive” ( çַáֵּì ) seems fitter in the mouth of a man than of a woman, in like manner as òåøøúéê when correctly explained only appears appropriate in the mouth of the lover. For this expression, which we therefore read òåֹøַøְúִּéêְ , as is shown by its likeness to úְּòֹøְøéּ Son_8:4, is not to be understood of a literal awakening out of sleep (Ewald, Heiligst., Hitzig, Vaih. etc.) but of waking a previously slumbering affection, the stirring up of love. “I waked thee” is here equivalent to “I excited thy love, I won thy heart” (Döpke, Del., Hengstenb. etc.). The circumstance, to which Solomon here alludes, is manifestly identical with that described by Shulamith Son_2:8 ff. We must, therefore, imagine the apple tree to be immediately adjoining the house of Shulamith’s mother, and probably shading one of its windows; the following statement is thus too more easily explained.—There thy mother travailed with thee, there travailed she that bare thee. “There,” i.e. not precisely under the apple tree as though the birth had taken place in the open air (Döpke), but more indefinitely, there, where that apple tree stands, in the dwelling shaded by it.
Son_8:6. Place me as a signet-ring upon thy heart. This is manifestly said by Shulamith in ardently loving response to what her lover had said to her, by which she had been reminded of the commencement of her relation to him. She thereupon presses familiarly and closely to him, illustrating the meaning of her words by a corresponding action. çåֹúָí the seal or signet-ring (Gen_38:18) is here as in Jer_22:24, and Hag_2:23 (which latter passage is probably an imitation of that before us) a symbol of close inseparable connection and most faithful preservation. Reference is had to the custom attested by Gen. loc. cit. of wearing signet-rings on a string upon the breast as well as to the like custom of binding them to the arm or right hand (see Jer. loc. cit., Sir_49:11); not to the use of the signet-ring for sealing, as though the sense were “press me closely to thy breast and in thy arms” (Hitzig), and quite as little to the impression taken from the seal (Herder, Döpke), or to an elegantly engraved bracelet (Weissb.), or even to the high priest’s breastplate (Golz, Hahn, etc.) For strong as death is love, hard as Sheol is jealousy. The request that he would keep her firmly and faithfully as his inalienable possession is here based by Shulamith on a reference to the death-vanquishing power and might of her love, or rather of love ( àַäֲáָä absolutely), of true love in general. “The adjectives òַæָּä and ÷ָùָׁä stand together also in Gen_49:7 to designate the passionate anger and fiery zeal of Simeon and Levi as one which was too strong and invincible to be repressed. As our poet probably (?) had this passage in mind, he doubtless designed òַæָּä to be understood here too of the all-conquering power and ÷ָùָׁä (literally hard, resisting all impressions) of the constancy of love which baffles every attempt to suppress or to extirpate it. The comparisons also tend to the same conclusion; for death overcomes all things and the nether world (hell, sheol) cannot be subdued, comp. Job_7:9; Wis_2:1; Mat_16:18; 1Co_15:55.” Thus Weissbach, who is substantially correct, only he goes too far perhaps, in regarding Gen_49:7 as the model, which the poet designedly follows in this passage. On ÷ִðְàָä zeal, zealous love, comp. Pro_6:34; Pro_27:4, where however the expression is used in a bad sense of love that has cooled, jealousy. In this passage it intensifies the idea of love, just as “death” and “hell” stand to each other in the relation of climax, and as “strong” (i.e. invincible) indicates a lower degree of the passion of love than “hard, unyielding” (i.e. inexorable, not to be appeased, like the realm of death, which never gives up anything that it possesses). Comp. Hitzigin loc.—Its flames are flames of fire, a blaze of Jehovah. On øְùָׁôִéí “sparks, rays, flames,” comp. Job_5:7 ( áְּðֵֹé øֶùֶׁó “sons of the flame,” i.e. sparks of fire); Psa_76:4 (“flashes” or “sparks of the bow,” i.e. arrows); Deu_32:24; Hab_3:5, etc. Love or rather its intenser synonym ÷ִðְàָä (comp. Zep_1:18), appears here as a brightly blazing fire, which sends forth a multitude of sparks or flames into the hearts of men and thus verifies its invincible power and its inextinguishable intensity. And this quality belongs to it because it is not natural fire, but a “blaze of Jehovah,” flame kindled and sustained by God Himself. Observe that the name of God is mentioned only in this one passage of the Song, which must, however, prove to be just the radiant apex in the development of its doctrinal and ethical contents (comp. Doct. and Eth. No. 2). As parallels to this verse may be adduced: Motanebbi (edit. v. Hammer) p. Song of Solomon 3 :
In the heart of the lover flames the blaze of desire
Fiercer than the flames of hell, which are but ice in comparison.
Also Anacreon: “ íéêᾳ äὲ êáὶ óéäçñὸí êáὶ ðῦñ .” Likewise Theocritus, Id. 2, 133.
—— ἔñùò ä ’ ἄñá êáὶ Ëéðáñßïõ
ÐïëëÜêéò ‘ Áöáßóôïéï óÝëáò öëïãåñþôåñïí áἴèåé .
And many other expressions of Arabic, Greek and Roman poets. See Magnusin loc.
Son_8:7. Many waters cannot quench love, and rivers shall not wash it away. It is here shown more particularly in what respect love is a divine flame, a fire greater than any kindled by a human hand, comp. 1Ki_18:38. To the figure of a blazing fire was readily added that of the inability of floods of water to extinguish this fire, and therefore in explanation of this new figure we need neither refer (as Hitzig does) to Isa_43:16, a passage which is different in every respect, nor (with Vaihinger and others) explain the floods of water of the enticements of Solomon in particular, by which he would have turned Shulamith away from her lover. The “rivers” ( ðְäָøåֹú ) do not form a climax to the “many waters,” as Hölemann supposes (see e.g. on the contrary Jon_2:3); but in the latter case the thing chiefly regarded is the great mass of the element hostile to fire and in the former its rapidity and violence.—If a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love,i.e. with the view of exciting love and producing it artificially where it does not exist. Here we might really see something to favor the shepherd hypothesis, if a statement of the impossibility of purchasing true love was not appropriate in the mouth of Shulamith on our assumption likewise. But that this is the case, may be learned from the contrast between Shulamith’s genuine, invincibly strong love for Solomon and the mere semblance of love which had previously subsisted between this king and his other wives; comp. the sentence referring to this very contrast, Son_2:7; Son_3:5; Son_8:4, by which Shulamith represents to the ladies of the court how impossible it was for them by means of their amorous arts really to gain the king’s heart (see on Son_2:7, p. 63). On the expression comp. Num_22:18; Pro_6:31, which latter passage was probably drawn from this. On àִéùׁ “a man, any one,” comp. Exo_16:29. That it is here an indefinite subject seems the more certain from the fact that in the apodosis also a universal statement follows with an impersonal form of the verb ( éָáåּæåּ ìåֹ ). Vaihinger, Hölem., etc., therefore translate without good reason “If some man,” etc.—He would be utterly contemned; lit., “contemning they would contemn him.” The impersonal plural expresses, as in the similar passage Pro_6:30, the universal sentiment not merely that of those in particular who were solicited by false love and with money. The repetition of the verb by means of the Infin. absol. expresses the very high degree of contempt, which such an one as is here spoken of would encounter.
4. Second Scene.—a.Shulamith’s little sister, Son_8:8-10. Weissbach is alone in attempting to point out an intimate connection between these verses and the preceding. He says: “What was uttered Son_8:7 c, d as a universal proposition (viz. that money and property have no value as compared with love) is now Son_8:8-9 conditionally illustrated in the sister who is still young and destitute of charms, whilst Shulamith represents herself, Son_8:10, as the antithesis.” As this view can only be based on a very artificial interpretation of Son_8:8-9, we shall have to abide by the looser connection maintained, e.g., by Delitzsch and Hahn. They suppose that the sense expressed by Shulamith, Son_8:6-7, of the high happiness which she possesses and enjoys in her love for the king, reminded her of her young sister who was still debarred from such loving enjoyment, and she accordingly expresses her solicitude for her future conduct and fortunes. Upon this assumption the unmistakable dramatic progress receives due acknowledgment without the sundering of all connection between the new scene which begins here and that which preceded it, as is the case, e.g., in Umbreit’s view, according to which Son_8:6-7 constitute the closing sentiment of the drama (spoken by the poet himself) and Son_8:8-14 a twofold supplement to it. So in the similar views of Renan, Döpke, Magnus (comp. above No. 1) and no less so finally on the assumption of Döderlein, Ewald, Heiligstedt, Meier and Rocke, that Shulamith narrates in Son_8:8-9 what had formerly been said by the brothers in relation to her little sister. In opposition to this latter opinion, according to which Son_8:8-9 are to be regarded as recitative, and Shulamith’s own words do not begin again until Son_8:10, Delitzsch correctly urges: “It would be vain to appeal to Son_3:2; Son_5:3 to prove the possibility of this view; in both those passages the introduction of the language of another without any formal indication of the fact, occurs in the course of a narrative, whilst Son_8:8 f. is only converted into a narrative by the “fratres aliquando dixerunt” (Heiligstedt) understood. There is nothing to justify such an insertion. The only seeming necessity for it might be found in Son_6:9, according to which Shulamith herself appears to be the “little sister.” It is not, however, said in Son_6:9 that “Shulamith was the only daughter of her mother, but only that her mother did not possess or know her equal,” (comp. in loc.). Hitzig, too, emphatically opposes understanding the passage as a narration, but assumes that both verses, Son_8:9, as well as Son_8:8, were spoken by Shulamith’s brothers, which is contrary to the relation of the two verses as question and answer. Nevertheless this assumption, shared also by Vaihinger, especially if one brother is supposed to speak in Son_8:8, and the other in Son_8:9, would be far more tolerable than Böttcher’s view, which makes Shulamith’s mother put the question in Son_8:8, and one of her sons answer it in Son_8:9; or than the opinion of Hengstenberg that both Son_8:8-9 were spoken by Solomon; or than the view of Starke, and of many of the older interpreters, that Son_8:8 belongs to Shulamith, and Son_8:9 to Solomon.
Son_8:8. We have a sister, little, and she has (as yet) no breasts. On ÷ָèָï “little” in the sense of young, belonging to the period of childhood, comp. Gen_9:24; Gen_27:15; 1Ki_3:7; and in relation to the breasts as the criterion of virgin maturity, Eze_16:7.—What shall we do. … in the day that she shall be spoken for? The day that a maiden is sued for, is when she becomes of a marriageable age. The suit was addressed in the first instance to the father of the damsel, or to her brothers, not directly to herself (Gen_34:11; Gen_34:13; Gen_24:50, etc.).
Son_8:9. If she be a wall, we will build upon her a silver castle; but if she be a door, we will stop her up with a cedar board.Delitzsch correctly paraphrases these words: “If she opposes a firm and successful resistance to all immoral suggestions, we will build on her, as on a solid wall, a castle of silver, i.e., we will bestow upon her the freedom and honor due to her virgin purity and steadfastness, so that she may shine forth in the land like a stately castle on a lofty wall which is seen far and wide. But if she is a door, i.e., open and accessible to the arts of seduction, we will block her up with cedar boards, i.e., watch her so that she cannot be approached by any seducer, nor any seducer approached by her.”—As soon as we suppose the brothers to give this answer respecting their younger sister, it loses the strange or even offensive appearance which its figures would certainly have in the mouth of Shulamith. Then, too, we shall not be compelled to seek for a closer connection between this sentiment and the main action of the poem (as the advocates of the shepherd hypothesis do), but can abide by the simple assumption that what is here said, as in general, all from Son_8:8 onward, is simply designed to form a cheerful and sportive termination of the whole matter. Least of all need we take refuge in the over-refined view of Weissbach that Son_8:9 is a continuation of the language of Shulamith, who supposes two questions to be put to her by certain men respecting her sister when marriageable, and immediately replies to them both—so that the sentences run thus:
…. What shall we do then in respect to our sister when they ask about her:
(a) “Is she a wall?”
Ans. We will build a little silver wall around her (?);
(b) “Is she a door?”
Ans. We will construct around her (?) a cedar frame (?)—
As to the particulars observe further: The wall çåֹîָä is not designed to set forth the idea of lofty stature ( ÷åֹîָä 7:8), or the impossibility of being scaled, but simply that of the firm resistance which checks the further advance of foes (Hitzig correctly, vs. Weissbach).—The “castle of silver” èִéøַú ëֶּñֶó to be built on the wall is, of course, only to be conceived of as a small but strong castle, tower or bulwark (comp. èִéøָä in Num_31:10; Eze_25:4, etc.), or if any prefer as a “pinnacle” or “battlement crowning the wall” (Hitzig, Heiligstedt, Magn., Meier, Hölem.—comp. the Sept.: ἔðáëîéò ),—not as a “palace” (Goltz) [so Eng. Ver.] or “habitation” (Hengstenberg), or “court-yard” (Böttcher), or “low fence” (Weissbach). The meaning of the figure is admirably illustrated by Hitzig by a reference to our proverbial form of speech, “He (or she) deserves to be set in gold.” He also not inappropriately suggests an allusion to the way that oriental ladies to this day decorate their head-dress with strings of silver coins or with horn-like ornaments of embossed silver and the like (comp. on Son_4:4 above). On the contrary the sense which Vaihinger would attribute to the expression is undemonstrable and in bad taste: “we will seek to obtain a large dowry by her.” And Weissbach’s explanation is perfectly absurd and trifling: “we will carry up a silver wall around her, who needs no such protection.”—The door presents a fitting contrast to the wall, because it is easily opened and admits everything through it; an expressive emblem of unchastity which is open to every amorous seduction. “Stopping up” or “blocking” (Hitzig: “barricading”) this door with a “cedar board” naturally means a determined warding off of those seductive influences, and rendering all dissoluteness impossible by the most sedulous care. By this is not to be understood a “fore-door or vestibule door in front of the proper door” (Hug), nor a “cedar post” (Weissb.), nor a tablet to be put on the door as an ornament (Hölem.), but quite certainly a plank or board to be put against the door on the inside to prevent it from turning and opening. This board was to be of cedar, because this wood is a particularly strong building material and not liable to rot.
Son_8:10. I was a wall and my breasts like towers. This is evidently said by Shulamith, whose thoughts were turned back to her own maiden state by her brothers’ faithful care shown for the honor and purity of her little sister. Looking back upon this time, which now lies in the past, she can joyfully affirm that all seduction recoiled from her as from a solid wall, and that no one had dared to venture an assault upon her pure and awe-inspiring charms (her breasts as inaccessible and hard to be scaled as towers upon walls, comp. Son_7:9 b).—Then was I in his eyes as one that finds peace,i.e., this careful preservation of my chastity, this keeping my charms pure and sacred procured me his, the king’s, favor and inmost love. ùָׁìåֹí “welfare, peace,” is here as in àִéùׁ ùְׁìåֹîִé Psa_41:10, a synonym of çֵï “favor” or çֶñֶã “kindness” (comp. îָöָà çֵï Gen_6:8; Gen_19:19; Jer_31:2, as well as çֶñֶã åָçֵï Est_2:17) and is not without a delicate allusion to the name of Solomon. There is also a certain refinement in the expression that Shulamith does not exactly say àָæ îָöָàúִé áְòֵéðָéå ùָׁìåֹí “then I found peace in his eyes,” but with a modest circumlocution: “then was I as one ( ëְּ as in ëְּàָç 8:1) that finds peace in his eyes,” then I appeared to him worthy of his cordial affection (comp. Delitzsch and Hölemannin loc.). The expression contains no allusion, therefore, to the preceding comparison of herself to a wall surmounted by towers, or to a fortification. If the poet intended by àæ äééúé áòéðéå ëîåöàú ùìåí to express the meaning: “then he finally left me in peace, instead of assailing me further,” he did so in a most strange and unintelligible manner (vs. Hitzig), and to regard çåֹîָä “wall” as the subject of îåֹöֵàú “found” (Ewald, Weissbach) will not answer on account of this word being too remote; and such a form of speech as “a wall or fortress finds peace—it surrenders or it is spared,” receives no confirmation from the Old Testament elsewhere, or from oriental literature generally.
5. Continuation.—b.Shulamith’s intercession for her brothers, Son_8:11-12.—These difficult verses can only be explained in accordance with the context, and with the whole course and tenor of the piece, by assuming with Delitzsch that the “vineyard of Solomon in Baal-hamon,” mentioned in Son_8:11, is simply adduced by way of example; that the speaker’s “own vineyard,” as in Son_1:6 (comp. Son_4:12 ff.), is a figurative designation of herself and her charms, which she devotes to the king; and finally that the “keepers of its fruit” (Son_8:12 b) is a designation of her brothers, the faithful and zealous guardians of her innocence; and consequently the whole must be taken to be an intercession of Shulamith on behalf of her brothers. This intercession fitly connects itself with their tender care for her little sister, just now manifested; and it likewise refers back in a suitable manner to the mention before made of her brothers, Son_1:6, and thus helps to bring about a termination of the whole, in which everything shall be satisfactorily adjusted and harmonized. We therefore reject the following divergent explanations of this brief section: 1) Shulamith declares that she has herself guarded her virgin innocence better than Solomon his vineyard in Baal-hamon, whose keepers had secretly retained, besides the fruit, two hundred shekels for themselves; she therefore needs no other keepers, not even the guardianship of her brothers (Herder, Umbreit,Döpke, Hitzig, Rocke). 2) Shulamith protests that she disdains all the wealth and the treasures of Solomon, which, like his vineyard in Baal-hamon, he is obliged to entrust to the guardianship of others; her vineyard, i.e., her innocence and virtue is under her own control, and in this possession of hers she has enough (Dathe, Rosenmueller, Ewald, Heiligstedt, etc.). 3) Shulamith triumphantly relates that Solomon offered her the rich vineyard at Baal-hamon, whither she had been carried to his pleasure-palace, with all its produce, and the entire park as her own property, if she would be his; he was even willing to release her from the payment of the two hundred shekels due to each of its keepers; but she had renounced the whole for the sake of her lover, who now, as her own chosen vineyard(!) stood before her (Vaihinger). 4) Shulamith means to say, Solomon must have his distant vineyard in Baal-hamon kept for him, and must therefore pay away considerable of its proceeds; but she, on the contrary, kept her own vineyard, that is to say Solomon (!), herself, and hence possessed his love alone without being obliged to share it with others (Hölemann). 5) Shulamith intends by Solomon’s vineyard in Baal-hamon herself, and by her own vineyard the shepherd, her lover; she means to say, Solomon did indeed get Shulamith into his power at Shulem (=Baal-hamon), and offered her one thousand shekels by each of the ladies of the court as her keepers; but he may keep this money, for her proper keeper, the shepherd, now stands before her again (Meier). 6) Shulamith means to say that Solomon, who has let out his vineyard to keepers, receives as the owner one thousand silverlings in cash from each keeper, whilst the keepers retain for their pay five times as much in fruit = five thousand shekels. But Shulamith, who keeps her own vineyard, i.e., herself with all her personal charms, and consequently might, as both owner and keeper, retain the entire produce for herself, gives the use of the fruit, consequently the five parts, in this case = 1000 (!) to Solomon, and only retains for herself as keeper the 200, i.e., the possession; the usufruct shall be his, she will only be the keeper of her vineyard (Weissbach). 7) Solomon’s vineyard in Baal-hamon denotes the kingdom of God founded in the midst of the world, in the midst of the savage masses of heathen population. The keepers of this vineyard are the several Christian nations, each of which has to pay one thousand shekels to the heavenly Solomon as the product of his labor. Each must therefore produce as much fruit as the people of Israel, the tenants of the vineyard mentioned, Son_8:12, which forms one part of the great vineyard of the Church. Each people then receives in return a reward of grace of two hundred shekels, that is to say, a fifth part of the produce of his portion; and the people of Israel receives no more, comp. Mat_20:1-16 (Hengstenberg). 8) Solomon’s vineyard at Baal-hamon denotes the Church of the Lord in the midst of the world. Its keepers are the prophets, apostles, pastors and teachers of Christendom, to whom two-tenths (twice as much, therefore, as under the Old Testament) shall be given as a reward of grace for their faithful raising of fruit, or for their leading many thousand souls to the heavenly Solomon (Calov, Michael., Marck., Berleb. Bib., and in general most of the old allegorists). 9) The vineyard at Baal-hamon denotes the Gentile world, generally, Shulamith’s vineyard, Son_8:12, Japhetic gentilism as one half of this Gentile world, the two hundred silverlings the spiritual peace granted by the king to Japhetic humanity in regard for their loving submission to him, etc. (Hahn).
Son_8:11. Solomon has a vineyard in Baal-hamon. Baal-hamon is, without doubt, the place not far from Dothaim in the south of the tribe of Issachar, which is called Âåëáìὼí or Âáëáìὼí , Jdt_8:3, a locality therefore not very remote from Shunem. It derived its name from the Syro-Egyptian god, Ammon äָîåֹï (= àָîåֹï Jer_46:25), which may have been worshipped there, just as Baal-gad (Jos_11:17; Jos_12:7, etc.) was named from Gad, the well-known Babylonish god of fortune. Baal-hamon scarcely signifies “the populous” (Vulg., Weissb., etc.), and it is still more improbable that it is to be identified, as many of the older writers assumed, with Baalbec in Cœle-Syria (where vineyards could hardly ever have flourished), or with Hammon, çַîּåֹï , Jos_19:28, or with Baalgad, Jos_11:17, etc. But if that locality near Shunem is intended, it by no means follows that Shulamith had been carried off to just that spot by Solomon, and detained there for some time as a prisoner in a pleasure-palace of the king, as Vaih. strangely supposes. But Shulamith only names this vineyard as an instance very near her home of a royal property let out on high rent, in order afterwards to illustrate by it her relation to the king as well as to her brothers.—He committed the vineyard to the keepers—i.e., to several at once, amongst whom the piece of ground was parcelled out in greater or smaller portions. That these keepers rented the property is shown by what follows.—Each was to bring for its fruit a thousand of silver—i.e., a thousand shekels of silver. From the high rent may be inferred the productiveness of the property; for that its annual yield corresponded to the agreement is certainly presupposed, as well as that a part of the produce of his piece annually remained for each tenant—that is, on an average, about two hundred shekels (see Son_8:12).
Son_8:12. My vineyard, my own, is before me—i.e., I take charge myself of my own vineyard, viz., of myself and my womanly charms, of myself as an object of men’s admiration and courtship. Since I came to maturity, I have been my own keeper, and have with entire freedom transferred to my royal husband this right of mine to dispose of myself. I have no longer any other keepers but him, who is one with me (comp. on Son_1:6, p. 56).—The thousand is thine, O Solomon, and two hundred for the keepers of its fruit—i.e., the entire proceeds are due to thee; I remain wholly thine own with all that I am and have. But they who kept my fruit, i.e., my innocence and virtue, before I was thine, should not go empty away. These trusty brotherly guardians of my maidenhood, who once watched over me as they now faithfully and sedulously watch over our little sister (Son_8:9), must be commended to thy love and favor, as in my heart they hold the next place after thee.—This explanation, it is true, does not completely remove all difficulties; but it involves fewer doubtful and forced assumptions than the other attempted explanations adduced above.
6. Conclusion.—c.The cheerful pleasantry and singing of the royal couple, Son_8:13-14.—These two concluding verses contain, according to Herder, the fragment of a conversation; according to Umbreit the serenade of a young man from the city with the answer of his lady-love in the country; according to Döpke a “small duet” belonging to the initial period of Shulamith’s love, and here appended by the poet; according to Magnus, a glossed and mutilated fragment of a love-song; while most of the advocates of the shepherd hypothesis see in it a colloquy between the lover and Shulamith, consisting of an invitation to sing on the part of the former, and a song of a roguish and playful character, which Shulamith thereupon sings (Ewald, Hitzig, Vaihinger, etc.). This last view evidently has the most in its favor on account of the recurrence of äַùְׁîִéòֵðִé “let me hear,” from Son_2:14, and the unmistakable resemblance of the song in Son_8:14 to Son_2:17 (and partly also to Son_2:15). Only there is no reason to suppose the person, who invites her to sing and whom Shulamith addresses in her song as ãּåֹãִé “my beloved,” to be a young shepherd. The epithet which he bestows upon her, “thou that dwellest in the gardens,” makes it seem far more likely that he was a citizen of rank, and even resident in a palace, a man of royal race exalted greatly above her station in life. But little reason as there is to regard another than Solomon as the “beloved” who speaks in Son_8:13 and is then addressed in the sprightly little song, there is quite as little for assigning this occurrence with Hitzig to a period considerably later than the one recorded just before, or for assuming with Böttcher that the bridegroom, in quitting the merry engagement feast in the house of Shulamith’s mother, wanted to hear one more song from his bride before he left her for the last brief interval prior to the celebration of their marriage. Delitzsch and Weissbach understand the passage correctly, only the latter preposterously imagines the locality of the action here as in the final section generally to be the royal palace in Jerusalem (comp. p. 127).—Thou that dwellest in the gardens.—Literally, “thou sitting in the gardens,” i.e., thou resident in gardens, who art opposed to living in populous cities and splendid palaces (comp. Son_1:16 f.; Son_4:6; Son_5:7; Son_7:12 ff.). Solomon here evidently means to allude with pleasant raillery to the fact that his beloved, who had so often before exhibited her longing for the gardens and meadows of her home, was now exactly in her element, and ought therefore to be in the best of moods.—Companions are listening for thy voice; let me hear it.—The çֲáֵøִéí “companions” are, according to Magnus, “neighbors,” or “the family;” according to Hufnagel, “female friends;” according to Moldenh., Ewald, Ren., etc., “bridemen” (des paranymphes, Renan); according to Vaihinger, “shepherds, fellow-pasturers;” according to Weissbach, Solomon himself, who here jestingly represents himself as a shepherd, or rather in the plural as “shepherds!” and finally, according to Herder, Hug, Delitzsch, “playmates” or “youthful associates” of Shulamith. This last view has most in its favor; only it is a matter of course that the companions of Shulamith’s youth were likewise those of her brothers; they are consequently in all likelihood shepherds and country people from Shunem and its vicinity. They were probably, therefore, the same as the speakers in Son_8:5 a of this chapter; on the contrary they are not the companions of Solomon (comp. Son_5:1), of whom Shulamith spoke Son_1:7 (vs. Ewald).
Son_8:14. Flee, my beloved. The words sound like sending off, or if any prefer “scaring away” or at least “urging out into the open ground” (Delitzsch). They do not, however, by any means express seriously intended coyness, as is shown by the very form of the address ãּåֹãִé “my beloved.” They rather invite to hasten and range with the singer over the mountains and plains as is shown by what follows. áøç is not, however, exactly equivalent to “hasten, up!” as is maintained by Vaihinger and Weissbach, who refer to Num_24:11, Isa_30:16, etc. For even in these passages, as well as in Gen_27:43; Amo_7:12, the primary signification of this verb “to flee” is clearly apparent. Ewald arbitrarily: the meaning is that “he should cut across, leave his companions and not stay opposite to her but hasten to her side,” etc.—And be like a gazelle,etc. comp. on Son_2:17. In place of the “mountains of separation” or “cleft mountains” there mentioned we here have balsam mountains or “heights of scented herbs” (Weissbach), which to be sure are meant in a different sense from Son_4:6. Shulamith here calls by this name the mountains and hills of her home (comp. Son_2:8) because they were just then in the season of spring or early summer covered with fragrant flowers of all sorts and accordingly filled with balmy odors (comp. Son_2:12 f., Son_6:11).—On the import of this verse as the conclusion of the entire poem, comp. Delitzsch, p. Song 153: “Amid the cheerful notes of this song we lose sight of the pair rambling over the flowery heights, and the graceful spell of the Song of Songs, which bounds gazelle-like from one scene of beauty to another, vanishes with them.”
2. It is apparent from the exegetical explanations given above, that this divergence in the allegorical exegesis is matched by an equal variety of opinions and uncertain guess-work on the part of the merely historical interpreters of this chapter; and in fact it is scarcely possible by even the most cautious procedure to arrive at perfectly certain results in respect to the meaning and the connection of the sentences of this section with their fragment-like brevity and obscurity. This, however, only makes it the more necessary with a view to its practical application to adhere to its leading and most perspicuous passage which formulates the fundamental thought not only of the closing act, but of the entire poem with solemn emphasis and with an elevation and pathos of language purposely rising to a climax. We mean the spirited encomium contained in Son_8:6-7 of love between man and woman as a mysterious divine creation, and a power superior to death, Shulamith’s exalted panegyric of conjugal and wedded love, the culminating point of the entire poem, and the only true key to its meaning according to the unanimous assumptions, of interpreters of all schools. Delitzsch (p. 182 f.) has given the best exposition of the thought contained in this leading passage, which has in it the gist of the whole matter: “Shulamith herself here declares how she loves Solomon and how she wishes to be loved by him. This spontaneous testimony discloses to us the intermingling of human freedom and of divine necessity in true love between man and woman. Love is a ùׁìäáú éä , a flame kindled by God Himself. Man cannot produce it in himself, and though he employ all his wealth for the purpose, he cannot kindle it in others. She is speaking, of course, of true love, which is directed to the person and not to any mere things. Man cannot create this love by his own agency. It is an operation of God—a divine flame, which seizes upon a man like death with irresistible power, and can neither be quenched nor extinguished by any calamity or by any hostile force. There is thus evinced in true love an inevitable and invincible power of divine necessity. But this divine necessity has for its other side human freedom. It is the inmost and truest ego of a man, from which this divine flame of love blazes forth. Whilst a man becomes a lover by a resistless divine energy, the lover’s passionate desire for the possession of the beloved object is as vehement and inflexible as the resistless and all-devouring grave. The lover loves because he must, but love is at the same time his most pleasurable volition, a return of love his most ardent desire. Smitten with love to Shulamith Solomon exclaims: How beautiful and how comely art thou, O love, among delights (Son_7:7); and smitten with love to Solomon Shulamith prays: Place me as a signet upon thy heart, as a signet ring upon thine arm (Son_8:6).” In this declaration of Shulamith, which gathers up all the main elements in the idea of wedded love and experience, and accordingly formulates the fundamental thought of the entire poem there is no allusion indeed to the blessing of children as the resplendent consummation of the wedded communion of man and wife, as also no express mention is made of this matter elsewhere throughout the piece. For to see an allusion to it in what Shulamith says, Son_8:12, of the “thousand” due to her husband from the produce of his vineyard, would evidently be forced and arbitrary. But Delitzsch properly remarks in relation to this omission of an apparently essential particular: “The author of Canticles has avoided everything, which would look to an externalizing of the relation, which he describes. He makes no mention of children; for a marriage in which the parties who conclude it are not an end to each other, but merely a means for obtaining posterity, does not correspond to its idea. Children are by divine blessing the sparks which result, when the flames of two souls flash into one. The latter is the main thing in marriage.” It is also a delicate feature of great psychological as well as æsthetic value, that Shulamith, the chaste and pure-minded maiden, though silent respecting the blessing of children, mentions instead with tender love and solicitude her little sister and her brothers, the same who had previously been angry with her and treated her harshly (Son_1:6), and consults with her brothers respecting the future of the former and in her intercession with her royal husband lays to heart the future of her brothers. This overplus of love, which with all the ardent fervor of her devotion to her husband, she still preserves for her own family (see Son_8:12); this touching sisterly love, which is essentially identical with her faithful and pious filial devotion to her mother repeatedly shown in the previous portion of the Song; this combined with her gladsome, cheery, playful disposition, which expresses itself in her concluding words, adds the finishing touch, sweetly transfiguring this noble picture which the poet would sketch of her character as the ideal of a bride and of a young wife, and by which—an unconscious organ of the Holy Spirit—he has set forth the idea and mystery of marriage itself as a sacred and divine institution.
3. From this luminous and revered female figure there proceeds a transfiguring radiance, in which the form of her royal husband, the enthusiastic admirer and spirited singer of her love and her loveliness also shines with a clear and pleasing light. But yet for the sake of, a complete and thoroughly correct typical estimate of the transaction, the sad truth must not be left out of the account, that the bond of love so purely and holily regarded by her was nevertheless at last desecrated and broken by him. For that this was the case, can scarcely be doubted from the manner in which both the historians of the Old Testament record the final fortunes of Solomon and the end of his life (1Ki_11:1-43, 2Ch_9:22-31). Of a sincere and permanent conversion of this monarch to a God-fearing and virtuous walk in the evening of his days neither the book of Kings nor Chronicles has anything to relate, the latter of which would scarcely have omitted to note a similarity in the life of Solomon to that of Manasseh in this respect. That no proof can be drawn from the book of Ecclesiastes for this view, a favorite one with many of the older theologians, the introduction to this book may teach us (§ 4). We must stand by the assumption confirmed by 1 Kings 11 and contradicted by no other testimony, that the unhappy king afterwards proceeded from that stage of polygamous degeneracy indicated in this Song, especially in Son_6:8, to still grosser extravagances in this direction, and thus at last filled up the measure of his sins, and brought upon himself and upon his house the corresponding judgment beginning with the revolt of Jeroboam. He must accordingly have deeply wounded Shulamith’s heart by a speedy return to the criminally voluptuous and idolatrous manners of his court and have repaid her love so pure and ardent with base infidelity. This deplorable condition of things casts a light not very creditable to him upon his relation to his antitype in the history of redemption, the Messiah. Love for the purest and best of the daughters of his people, whom he adorned with the crown royal and raised from an humble station to the throne of David, could not permanently purify and hallow the earthly Solomon and rescue him from the abyss of crime into which he was in danger of sinking. The