《Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary – Song of Solomon》(Various Authors)
Commentator
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary, by Joseph Exell, William Jones, George Barlow, W. Frank Scott, and others, was published in 37 volumes as a sermon preparation and study resource. It is a commentary "written by preachers for preachers" and offers thousands of pages of:
· Detailed illustrations suitable for devotional study and preaching
· Extensive helps in application of Scripture for the listener and reader
· Suggestive and explanatory comments on verses
· Theological outlines of passages
· Expository notes
· Sketches and relevant quotes
· Brief critical notes on chapters
Although originally purposed as a minister's preparation tool, the Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary is also a fine personal study supplement.
00 Introduction
The Preacher's Complete Homiletic
COMMENTARY
ON THE
Song of Solomon
By the REV. THOMAS ROBINSON, D.D.
Author of the Commentaries on Job and the Daniel
New York
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY
LONDON AND TORONTO
1892
THE PREACHER'S
COMPLETE HOMILETIC
COMMENTARY
ON THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
WITH CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES,
INDEXES, ETC., BY VARIOUS AUTHORS
PREFACE
THE following work, like its predecessor on Job, was originally intended for the Van Doren Series. According to the design of the undertaking of which it now forms a part, its object is neither critical nor exegetical, but homiletical; the projector's aim being rather to supplement existing Commentaries, and to afford a practical aid to preachers who are supposed, more or less, to possess them. The work has, therefore, been thrown into such a shape as was thought most likely to meet the requirements of those who, with comparatively little opportunity for study, are called to dispense the Word of Life.
While this, however, was the main object, the Author has at the same time endeavoured to make his book as readable and profitable as possible to the private Christian. He has, therefore, introduced comparatively little in the way of critical elucidation of the text; and, as in the case of his work on Job, has given to such matter a place by itself at the end of the commentary.
The author, as far as he was able, has availed himself of the labours of those who have preceded him in the same field. Their views, however, in regard to the meaning or application of the text, will in general only be found among the appended notes. His own views, which are given rather in the commentary than in the notes, he has endeavoured to form, after giving the text the most careful consideration he was able, independently of what he has found in the numerous commentators consulted. His aim and desire has been, first to ‘receive of the Lord,' and then to ‘deliver' to His Church.
Of a book like the Song of Solomon, there will naturally be found a great diversity of interpretation. The exact meaning and application of a passage intended by the royal penman, or by the Holy Spirit who inspired him, it must necessarily be difficult in many cases to determine. This will no doubt be generally obtained in proportion as we may be under the teaching of the same Spirit. ‘For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God which is in him' (1Co ). To obtain such teaching, however, we require to occupy a very humble place: ‘Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes' (Mat 11:25). It is, however, not only in reference to single passages that a great variety of opinions is often found to exist. The same variety is found in reference to the nature and object of the book itself; some, though few, strangely regarding it as merely treating of earthly matters, with only a moral object in regard to the conjugal relation (the profano-erotic or ethical view), while the great body of expositors, both ancient and modern, Jewish and Christian, have regarded it as a Divine allegory, exhibiting spiritual things under the veil of natural ones. Here, however, we again find diversity. First, as to the ground or basis of the allegory; whether it is based upon an actual occurrence—a historical basis; and if so, what? Or whether it is formed upon an ideal transaction conceived by the poet himself under the Spirit's inspiration. Secondly, as to the spiritual meaning of the allegory; whether experimental in relation to the individual believing soul (the mystico-spiritual sense); or doctrinal, in relation to the Church as a whole (the mystico-doctrinal); or prophetical, whether in relation to the Church (the mystico-prophetical); or to Christ Himself (the typico-Messianic); or historical, in relation to the Church or nation of Israel (the mystico political). To most of these applications of the allegory, few of which, perhaps, are entirely exclusive of the rest, reference will be found in the notes appended to the commentary.
The author's own view as to the basis of the allegory will be seen, both from the commentary and the introduction, to be rather that of DELITZSCH, ZOCKLER, and others; according to which Solomon is regarded as having, during an excursion into the country, in which he was attended by his nobles, met unexpectedly with Shulamite while engaged in rural pursuits, and struck with her charms, having asked and obtained her hand, brought her to the palace as his bride. The incident, however, he considers to have been probably rather a conception of the inspired poet than an actual fact, or at least possessing but a very slight substratum of reality; a conception bearing a strong resemblance to that of one of our own English poets, who, in one of his Oriental Eclogues, written doubtless without the slightest reference to the Song of Solomon, makes Abbas, a Georgian king, to have done exactly the same with Abra, a shepherdess, what Solomon is supposed, according to this view, to have done with Shulamite. This view the author conceives to be more probable than either the older and more common one, which makes the basis of the poem to be the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh's daughter; or the more modern one of EWARD and others, adopted also by Professor GODET, of Neufchatel, which makes Solomon to have carried off by force the object of his passion, and to have taken her to his palace, where he endeavoured in vain to detach her affection from the youthful shepherd to whom she was already betrothed.
That the form is a sacred allegory setting forth, under an external veil, the love, union, and communion existing between Jehovah or Messiah on the one hand, and the Church or people of God on the other, with allusion to points in the history both of the Church and its Head, is the view that, under various modifications, has been generally adopted both by Jews and Christians.
That such a view is the correct one, is rendered the more certain by the fact that similar allegorical or parabolic representations are not uncommon in the Scriptures; and that everywhere, both in the Old and New Testaments, the relation between God, or more properly the Messiah, and His Church or covenant people, is exhibited under the figure of a marriage: the former being frequently styled the Husband or Bridegroom, and the latter the Bride. In the sixteenth chapter of Ezekiel, for example, the Jewish church or nation is represented as having been found by Jehovah as an outcast infant in the open field, rescued and reared, adorned and beautified by Him, and ultimately taken into union with Himself as His Bride. ‘And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. Now, when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine' (Eze ).
LANE, in his valuable work on Modern Egypt, observes that, from the character of the Moslem songs sung at the Zikrs, or special religious services composed for the purpose, and intended only to have a spiritual sense, though not understood in that sense by the generality of the people, he cannot have any doubt as to the design of Solomon's Song. And although Sir William Jones speaks doubtfully in reference to the existence of sacred allegory in ordinary Oriental poetry, Dr. KITTO remarks that the practice of setting forth spiritual subjects under the emblem of love is not confined to Arabian countries, but is found in Persia, India, and among the Rabbinical Hebrews; and gives it as his opinion that the allegorical or spiritual interpretation of the Song of Solomon is not only the right one, but the only possible one; and that, if the poem have any historical basis, the circumstances are so modified as to suit the spiritual purpose of the allegory, but would have been most unsuitable in a real history.
The reader will observe, that like some other expositors, I have divided the Song into parts, and these again into separate scenes. There can be no reasonable doubt that, while the remotest idea of performance is of course entirely out of the question, the poem is scenic or dramatic in its structure; exhibiting, as it does, without formally announcing it, a variety of characters in dialogue, in various situations, and under various circumstances; while, in the general presence of the ‘daughters of Jerusalem,' a resemblance may even be seen to the chorus of the ancient Greeks. The separating of the parts of the poem, however, and the assigning to the speakers their proper place in the dialogues, while highly important to the right understanding of the passages, is often one of the most difficult tasks of the expositor. The speaker is indeed often, though not always, indicated either by the title given to the party addressed, or by the grammatical form of some of the words, apparent in the original, but not in an English translation.
None who is familiar with the Psalms of David and the writings of the prophets, will wonder at the language of ardent love and longing mutually expressed in the Song by the Bride and Bridegroom, viewed as representing the Lord Jesus Christ and His redeemed people. It may well be asked, why should earthly love be less ardent than that which is Divine and heavenly? and why should perfect excellence, and boundless, unmerited, self-sacrificing love be regarded with less ardour and affection, and be spoken of in colder terms, than that which is unspeakably inferior? Is it too much to say that the ardent language of many a Jacobite song, in reference to a prince who at best afforded but a specimen of fallen and imperfect humanity, might put to the blush many who profess attachment to the Prince of Life?
The Author is aware that, in some quarters, the Divine Book on which he has been engaged lies under a prejudice, as if unsuited for homiletical use. He trusts, however that the attempt, now very imperfectly made, to provide a help in that direction, may not be in vain. If either the preacher of the Gospel should derive benefit in his arduous but blessed and important employment from the commentary now prepared, as the writer is thankful to learn has been the case with that on Job or if the Christian reader should find himself assisted by it in his meditation on that portion of the inspired Word which the author has found so precious to himself, he will feel abundantly rewarded for the labour it has cost him. He prayerfully commends it, with all its imperfections, to the blessing of Him whose aid has been invoked in its preparation, and who has graciously promised in regard to His own Word: ‘IT SHALL NOT RETURN UNTO ME VOID.'
HOMILETIC COMMENTARY
ON
THE SONG OF SOLOMON
Introduction
I. Authorship. The poem generally regarded as the work of King Solomon. Perhaps, though not certainly, indicated by the title. See on chap. 1 ver.
1. Reasons in favour of this view:—
1. General consent both of Jewish and Christian writers, ancient and modern.
2. The prevailing circle of images and references to facts and things; indicating the author to have lived in the time of Solomon, and to have been well acquainted with natural history, as Solomon is known to have been (Kiel).
3. The author well acquainted with all parts of the land of Israel, and greatly susceptible of impressions from the beautiful (Delitzsch).
4. Solomon known to have been largely employed in poetical composition (1Ki ).
5. A relationship with the Book of Proverbs, known to be Solomon's, indicated by the language (Hengstenberg).
II. Canonicity and Inspiration. All but universally admitted. Formed part of the Jewish canon in the time of the Saviour, and always received as inspired Scripture by the Christian Church. Independent arguments for its inspiration;—The majesty of the style; the sublimity of the matter; its harmony with the rest of Scripture, especially in the leading idea of the bridal relation of the Church to Jehovah or the Messiah; its power, felt in all ages, in moving the affections towards the Divine Saviour.
III. Unity of the Book. The poem generally regarded as a united whole rather than a collection of independent odes. Arguments in favour of its unity:—