Song of Solomon 3
CambridgeSong of Solomon 3:1-5
Chap. Son 3:1-5. A Dream Almost all commentators agree that we have here a dream narrated to some persons, in which the Shulammite seems to herself to have sought her lover in the city and failed to find him. Those who take the dramatic view think of it as narrated to the women of the court. Oettli’s view is that the Shulammite expected her lover to return at sunset. He did not come, and so her agitated heart sought him in this dream, which she tells to her companions, adding the refrain already used in Son 2:7, which deprecates the stirring up of love before it arises spontaneously. Ewald, who regards the end of ch. 2 as dealing only with a waking dream, and not a real incident, thinks of this as a narrative of what she remembered to have dreamed during her sad night in the king’s palace. Delitzsch again, who thinks of the lover as Solomon, considers the dream to be one that came to her night after night, when she had become doubtful of the king’s love for her.
Budde’s view is one that entirely contradicts his theory that lovers could not meet and have such intercourse as is depicted in the book before marriage. He makes this a strong point in his criticism of the dramatic theory, yet here he says of this section, “The bride speaks. She narrates a dream she had as a girl, for what she narrates can be understood only as a dream. She had so loved her husband for a length of time that she dreamt she was married to him.” Martineau, because of a misunderstanding of the passage and on other insufficient grounds, would strike out the verses altogether. In any case they describe a dream, and of all the suggestions as to the occasion Oettli’s seems the best.
Song of Solomon 3:2
- R.V. rightly inserts I said at the beginning of the verse. It is a vivid presentment of what happened, when her hope of her lover’s presence was disappointed. She said in her dream not I will rise now, but Come let me arise and let me go about in the city. The hortative forms of the verb beautifully express the energy, and perhaps the anxiety, with which she seemed in her dream to seek for him whom her soul loved. the city] Not necessarily a ‘city’ in our sense of the word, but any place of any size which had defences, as distinct from the mere village. Cp. 2 Kings 17:9, “They built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city,” where ‘cities’ must include the tower of the watchmen. Consequently, Jerusalem need not here be intended; more probably it is either Shulam or some place in the neighbourhood where her lover resided. Thither she had travelled in her dream. in the streets and in the broad ways] Better, in the streets and in the open spaces. In ancient cities in Palestine the streets were exceedingly narrow, but just within the gates there were wider spaces, as also where the streets began, and where they crossed each other. These all would be called rìchôbôth. As the mention of the watchmen indicates that even for the dreamer the search takes place at night, the streets and squares cannot be referred to as places of public resort. The refrain, but I found him not, expresses well that feeling of distress at the frustration of our efforts which is the chief pain of dreams.
Song of Solomon 3:3
- The watchmen] For the practice of having watchmen in cities, cp. Psalms 127:1, “Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” Grätz supposes that the mention of watchmen favours his very late date for the book. But probably this very obvious precaution was taken in Palestine from the earliest times, and in any case the passage quoted above shews that it was an established custom comparatively early. Cp. also Isaiah 21:11. Saw ye, &c.] The A.V. rightly inserts to whom I said, but in the Heb. her dream-question is introduced with the same vivid abruptness as her previous utterance, Come let me arise, and without any interrogative particle. She also, as we all do in dreams, takes it for granted that all men know what the object of her preoccupation is. It would however be possible to translate ye have seen in the sense ye must have seen.
Song of Solomon 3:4
- It was but a little that I passed from them] i.e. Hardly had I gone from them when I found him whom my soul loveth. I held him] Rather, I laid hold on him. and would not let him go] Better, either as Oettli, I did not let him go until, &c., or as Driver, Tenses, § 42 â and § 85 note, I would not let him go until, &c. In the former case the impf. form is held to be an impf. consec., though the consec. waw has been separated from its verb by the negation. Cp. Psalms 8:6 and Job 33:4. Bringing him to her mother’s house must signify that he was to be her acknowledged lover.
Song of Solomon 3:5
- As in ch. Son 2:7. Probably here as there the significance of the adjuration is, that after such a demonstration of her deep-seated love the daughters of Jerusalem should not seek to arouse in her love for another by mere extraneous solicitations.
Song of Solomon 3:6-11
Chap. Son 3:6-11. The King’s Return King Solomon must be supposed to be coming from Jerusalem, to the royal residence in the North where the Shulammite is, or to be returning thither after an absence. Apparently he comes in special splendour, seeking to overawe her thereby. She notices the approaching train, and asks what it may be, Son 3:6. In the remaining verses a watchman or attendant tells her that it is the litter of Solomon surrounded by his guards, Son 3:7-8. He then describes the litter, Son 3:9-10, while in Son 3:11 he exhorts the court ladies to go forth to see the king in all his splendour, crowned as he was by his mother in the day of his espousals. In Son 3:6 the speaker might be a spectator or the watchman, but the fact that in every one of the lyrics hitherto the Shulammite has spoken leads us to suppose that she is the speaker here.
Song of Solomon 3:7
- Behold his bed, which is Solomon’s] This is an answer to the question of the last verse, “Who or what is this which cometh up,” &c. It should be, Behold, it is Solomon’s palanquin, and it is spoken either by the same person who asks the question, or by another bystander. The word miṭ ?ṭ ?âh, translated ‘bed’ by the A.V., has that meaning, but it is used also of couches at table, Esther 1:6 (R.V.), of sofas, Amos 3:12, and of biers, 2 Samuel 3:31. Here it means a litter or palanquin. The A.V. rendering, his bed, which is Solomon’s, is simply a literal translation of a pleonastic way of expressing the genitive which is constant in Aramaic, and which may have been common in the popular speech of Northern Israel. threescore valiant men are about it, of the valiant of Israel] Gibbôr, the word translated valiant man, is the intensive of geber = ‘a man,’ and denotes a strong, bold man, hence a hero in war. Solomon’s litter is surrounded by his bodyguard.
Song of Solomon 3:8
- They all hold swords] This is a circumstantial and descriptive clause, and their holding swords is not meant to be explained by expert in war, as the insertion of ‘being’ in the A.V. might suggest. Rather it should be rendered, Threescore valiant men—all of them with swords in their hands, and trained to war, each with his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night, i.e. to ward off danger that might arise in the night. The mention of ‘night’ here probably suggested the translation of miṭ ?ṭ ?âh as ‘bed.’ The Heb. word translated ‘hold’ in the A.V. has the form of a passive participle, but must be translated as active. Cp. Ges.-K. Gramm. § 50 f.
Song of Solomon 3:9
- In this verse we have a continuation of the spectator’s or warder’s call to those who are looking out at the royal cavalcade from the house or palace where the Shulammite is. The speaker must be conceived as uttering an aside to those about him, giving a description of the miṭ ?ṭ ?âh from his previous knowledge. Here he calls it an appiryôn, which the LXX translate by phǒ ?reion, which means a litter in which one is borne. This is undoubtedly the correct meaning, but the derivation of the word is uncertain. It may be, as Cheyne says, Encycl. Bibl., art. ‘Canticles,’ a mere corruption. the wood of Lebanon] Lit. the woods, i.e. the cedar and the cypress.
Song of Solomon 3:10
- the pillars thereof] The supports of the canopy or roof. the bottom thereof] Rather, the back, that upon which one leans. Cp. LXX ἀνάκλιτον, Vulg. reclinatorium. the covering of it] the seat of it. purple] i.e. the seat of it is upholstered with purple, argβmβn. This is the red purple, which is sometimes so dark as to be almost black. It is to be distinguished from the violet or cerulean purple which is tμkhηleth. Both words are found in Assyrian inscriptions as argamannu and takiltu. Attempts to derive argβmβn from a Heb. root are practically abandoned, and Benary’s suggestion that it is the Sanscrit rβgaman = ‘red,’ an adj. derived from rβga, ‘red colour,’ with the formative syllable mat or vat (cp. Addit. Ges. Thes. p. 90), is probable; more especially as the Aramaic form of the word, argμwβn, can be explained by another adj. form of the same word, viz. rβgavan, which is identical in meaning with rβgaman. the midst thereof being paved with love, for the daughters of Jerusalem] This is a very difficult phrase to understand, and it has been very variously interpreted. The A.V. can hardly be right in rendering ‘love for the daughters of Jerusalem,’ for the preposition is min which cannot mean for. The R.V. has, more correctly, from the daughters of Jerusalem. paved with love] Lit. paved as to love, the word being an adv. accus. The translation is grammatically correct. (Cp. Davidson, Synt. § 78, R. 2.) But what does ‘paved with love from the daughters of Jerusalem’ mean? Gesenius in his Thes. translates, “paved in a lovely manner by the daughters of Jerusalem,” but besides that the prep. min cannot be used for the causa efficiens with the passive, the word ‘love’ is not found elsewhere in such a sense. Del. translates, made up as a bed, from love on the part of the daughters of Jerusalem, and explains it to mean that they, from love to the king, have procured a costly tapestry which they have spread over the purple cushion. Oettli, following the LXX, takes love to mean, ‘a mark of love,’ and translates, “the middle of it adorned as a mosaic, a love-gift on the part of the daughters of Jerusalem.” Budde would change the order of the words, and reading hτbhβnξm = ‘ebony’ for ahγbhβh = ‘love,’ would translate, “its seat is inlaid with ebony, its centre purple.” If the text is corrupt this may perhaps have been its original form. But of the text as it stands Delitzsch’s rendering seems to be the best, except that wrought as a mosaic would be better than made up as a bed.
Song of Solomon 3:11
- the day of his espousals] Either this day, or another, so that the meaning may be either that he was to be married on this day, or that he had been married formerly, and now was wearing the crown his mother then gave him. The latter is the more probable. Budde maintains that this verse proves that Solomon here means only the bridegroom, since an actual king was not crowned on his wedding-day, nor by his mother. But he gives no evidence for his opinion, and at king Solomon’s wedding the queen-mother may have played an important part. She may quite well have put a wedding crown on his head, for it is the custom at Jewish weddings now that the bridegroom should be crowned.