Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Nisbet Commentary - Song of Solomon 2:15 - 2:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
‘Little foxes that spoil the vines.’
Son_2:15
II. How is it that we play the fox with the fruitful vines?—We eat the fruit and become fat like the foxes, but we do nothing to protect, but rather hinder, the growth of the vines. We play the fox by not coming up to the measure of Christian character that might be fairly expected of us. There are many good people who still have too much of a foxy nature. As Christians they bear the right name, but have little of the true nature. How few lives, comparatively, are touched by religion in all their parts! It is the little sins, the little faults that we think almost nothing about, that are the foxes that destroy the tender grapes. Little sins skulk and hide and burrow themselves out of sight. These little sins, like the foxes, are most deceitful; they play themselves asleep, and in an unguarded moment they awake and run away with us. Little faults will never make a great saint.
III. Little foxes do not remain little, but grow into great ones.—The drunken sot began by taking little sips. As the boy grows into the man, so the little sins grow into big ones. Little sins have a tendency to swarm. They have a fecundity all their own. These little sins are oftentimes bigger than the great ones. Little sins hinder our having peace with God and with His Son Jesus Christ. If we are Christians, little faults hinder us in becoming better ones. If we are not Christians, little sins prevent us from becoming Christians. Destroy the little foxes and your vineyard is safe. Our Lord’s command is, ‘These Mine enemies that would not that I should rule over them, bring them hither and slay them before Me.’
Illustrations
(1) ‘The foxes deserve this name, not because they attack the ripe grapes themselves, but because by their passages and holes they undermine the walls of the vineyards and injure the roots of the vines; and they also gnaw the stems and young shoots. It was important, therefore, in the spring when the vines were blossoming, to protect the vineyards from these uninvited guests; and the more so, since the spring is the very time of the coming forth of the young foxes from their kennels. The predicate little refers to young foxes (comp. Gen_9:24; Gen_27:15; 1Ki_3:7), not to the diminutive size of the animals, which nevertheless do so much damage.’
(2) ‘It is the fashion in some religious quarters to cry down the unfamiliar portions of God’s Word, and to declare that there is no revelation in them. Thus Esther and Solomon’s Song are treated—to take specific instances. Now we believe the great test of revelation is the spiritual experience of the reader. Do we profit by the book? Does it draw us nearer to God? Is it our experience that we find in such a book help for our daily life? If we can answer these inquiries affirmatively, then that is a sufficient proof of the revelation the books contain. Bringing such books of Scripture to the bar of experience, they stand examination well. Some of us are always finding spiritual nourishment in those little-read areas of God’s Word; and we contend that such a fact validates their inspired character. We all need a more robust conviction of the complete inspiration of the Bible; and our appeal must be more to the heart than to the head. Dr. Dale rendered no greater service to doctrine than by constantly bringing all truth to the test of experience. By that test the books of Scripture must stand or fall. Thank God! His people so prove their divineness that no argument can disturb their faith.’
(3) ‘It is now many years since scholars were fascinated by Ewald’s arrangement of the book into five acts. It was most plausible, and failed apparently only in two places; but there the failure was so complete that the construction had to be abandoned. Nor was Delitzsch any more successful when he made the number of acts six. If we remember rightly, Hitzig made them nine! These differences, in the view of most modern scholars, have entirely destroyed the idea that the book is a dramatic composition.’