UUID: ea1a4ef7-0944-44a3-a482-54bef2e6c30d
This ebook was created with StreetLib Writehttps://writeapp.io
Table of contents
PREFACE.
INTRODUCTION.
SECTION I.—TITLE OF THE BOOK, AND ITS SIGNIFICATION.
SECTION II.—CANONICITY OF THE BOOK.
SECTION III.—DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE BOOK.
SECTION IV.—IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK.
SECTION V.—HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE EXEGESIS OF THE BOOK.
SECTION VI.—THE DIFFERENT VIEWS CLASSIFIED AND EXAMINED.
SECTION VII.—AUTHOR, DATE, AND FORM OF THE BOOK.
SECTION VIII.—EXEGETICAL HELPS.
THE SONG OF SONGS,
SECTION I.
SECTION II.
SECTION III.
SECTION IV.
SECTION V.
PREFACE.
The
following is an exposition of the first of the five books called
Megiloth, all of which, having engaged the attention of the Author
for several years, will now, God willing, be brought before the
Public in regular succession. The Author’s aim has been to
investigate and elucidate the true meaning of the original, in
accordance with the established laws of historico-grammatical
exegesis, and to show that, in its literal sense, the Song of Songs
teaches a great moral lesson, worthy of Divine inspiration.The
resemblance, however, between the narrative here recorded and the
experience of the people of God is striking and apposite. The
Shulamite, espoused to her shepherd, is tempted by a mighty
potentate
with riches and pleasures to transfer her affections; but,
strengthened by the power of divine love, she resists all
temptation,
remains faithful to her beloved, and is ultimately rewarded. The
people of God, espoused to “the Shepherd and Bishop of their
souls,” are tempted by the prince of this world to forsake their
Lord, but, strengthened by grace divine, they resist all
allurements,
and eventually receive the crown of glory.The
references to Genesius’ and Ewald’s Grammars are to the last
editions, which differ in the numbering of the sections from the
earlier ones; Fürst’s valuable Lexicon, to which frequent
reference is made, is not yet completed.
[viii]The
author tenders his hearty thanks to his esteemed friend, the Rev.
Isaac Salkinson of Hamburg; to the Rev. J. M. Charlton, A.M.;
the Rev. R. Robinson, of York-road; the Rev. G. Rogers, of
Albany-road; and to Nathaniel Bridges, Esq., A.M., for perusing the
MS. and proofs, and for kind suggestions. Thanks are also due to
those gentlemen in London and Oxford, who have facilitated the
author’s access to MSS. and other rare works in the British Museum
and the Bodleian Library.May
the Divine Spirit, whose words the Author has attempted to
elucidate,
render the attempt profitable to the readers!
INTRODUCTION.
SECTION I.—TITLE OF THE BOOK, AND ITS SIGNIFICATION.
This
book is called
שִׁיר
הַשִּׁירִיﬦ,
which is literally translated by the Septuagint, ᾄσμα ᾀσμάτων,
by the Vulgate,
Canticum Canticorum,
and by the English Version,
Song of Songs; and,
according to a Hebrew mode for expressing the superlative degree by
repeating the same noun in the genitive, denotes
the finest,
the most beautiful,
or the most
excellent Song.
Compare
עֶבֶד
עֲבַדִים,
servant of servants,
i.e. most abject
servant (Gen. ix. 25);
קֹדֶשׁ
קָדָשִׁים,
holy of holies,
i.e. most holy
(Exod. xxix. 37; Numb. iii. 32; Deut. x. 14; Eccl. i. 2; Hos. x.
15;
Jer. vi. 28; Gesenius, Grammar, § 119, 2; Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 313,
c). Medrash Yalkut renders it
שִׁיר
הַמְּשׁוּבַּח וְהַמְּעוּלֶה בַּשִּׁירִים,
a song more celebrated and sublime than all songs;
as Rashi, Ibn Ezra Rashbam, Luther, and many others. The opinion of
Kleuker, &c., that this interpretation of the Rabbins is more
owing to their preconceived notion of the sublime contents of the
book than to the real meaning of these words, is refuted by Rashbam
himself, who, having explained this phrase by “most excellent
song,” refers not to the contents of the book for its
corroboration, but adduces similar constructions of the superlative
from other passages of the Bible, viz.,
אֶלֹהַי
הַאֱלֹהִים,
and
אֲדוֹנֵי
הַאֲדוֹנִים(Deut. x. 17). Other
explanations, such as a song of songs,
i.e. a song
from the songs of
Solomon (Kimchi), or a collection of songs (Kleuker), or a chain of
songs, or string of strings, comparing
שִׁירֹwith the Chaldee
שֵׁיר,
שׁוּרָה,
Greek σειρὰ,
chain (Velthusen,
Paulus, Good, &c.), are contrary to the Hebrew usage of the
word
שִׁיר,
and the construction of
שִׁיר
הַשִּׁירִים.
More recent commentators,
[2]and
even those who regard this book as a collection of separate songs
(as, for instance, Döpke, Magnus, Noyes, &c.) admit that the
Rabbinical interpretation of this title is the only admissible one.
The
לprefixed to
שְׁלֹמֹה,
is the so-called
Lamed auctoris,
used in the inscriptions of Psalms and other Hebrew poems to
designate the
author. Comp. Ps.
iii. 1; iv. 1, &c. The addition of
אֲשֶׁרhere, which is not
found in the other inscriptions, is owing to the article in
שִׁיר
הַשִּׁירִים,
which generally, though not always, is followed by this pronoun;
comp. Gen. xxix. 9; xl. 5; xlvii. 4; 1 Kings iv. 2; Gesen. § 115,
1;
Ewald, 292 a. The rendering therefore of
אֲשֶׁר
לִשְׁלֹמֹהby
respecting Solomon,
is contrary to usage, and is rightly rejected by modern grammarians
and lexicographers.This
Song is the first of the (הָמֵשׁ
מְגִילוֹת)
five Megiloth, or
books which are annually read in the Synagogues; viz. The Song of
Songs on the Feast of the Passover; Ruth on Pentecost; Lamentations
on the Ninth of Ab; Ecclesiastes on Tabernacles; and Esther on
Purim.
The present arrangement of these five books in the Hebrew canon is
according to the order of the festivals on which they are
read.
SECTION II.—CANONICITY OF THE BOOK.
This
book possesses all the external marks which entitle other writings
to
a place in the list of the sacred books. The evidence for its
canonicity is as conclusive as that which is commonly adduced to
prove the canonicity of any other portion of the Old Testament. In
the Mishna Yadim (sect. iii. 5), we find the following testimony
respecting it from R. Akiba, one of the most celebrated Rabbins,
who
lived at the end of the first century, and was president of the
academy of Bani-Brac:
No Israelite has ever disputed the canonicity of the Song of Songs.
No day in the whole history of the world is of so much worth as the
one in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the
Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy.
Another Rabbi (Simeon
b. Azzai), in the
same place, says, I
[3]received
it from the mouth of the seventy-two elders, at the time when R.
Eliezer b. Azzaria was appointed Elder, that the Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes are canonical.1We
have here positive evidence that this book existed in the canon in
the Apostolic age; and that it was comprised in the sacred books,
which our Lord calls τὰς γραφὰς,
the Scriptures,
Matt. xxii. 29. It has, therefore, been transmitted to us both by
the
Jewish and Christian churches as canonical. It was translated into
Greek, between the years 90 and 130, by Aquila, who was anxious to
furnish his Jewish brethren with a faithful version of the
sacred books; and
also by Symmachus and Theodotion, before the end of the second
century. It is contained in the catalogue given in the
Talmud;2and
in the catalogue of Melito, Bishop of Sardis (fl. 170, A.D.), which
he brought from Palestine, whither this learned and pious prelate
expressly travelled to
[4]obtain
information respecting the number of the sacred books.3Those
who in modern days have questioned the canonicity of this book have
done so, not from external evidence, but from misapprehension of
its
design.
SECTION III.—DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE BOOK.
We
have no sympathy with those who affirm that the Old Testament
Scriptures contain all the national writings which were esteemed
valuable in Hebrew literature, that this Song was placed among
those
writings simply because it possessed much poetic beauty, and was
supposed to be the composition of a person so celebrated throughout
the East as Solomon, and that it is destitute of any moral or
practical instructions. We believe that every book of the Old
Testament is inspired; and has, on that account, obtained a place
in
the Hebrew Canon. This is the unanimous testimony, not of the
Jewish
church only, but is corroborated by Christ and his apostles. Paul,
referring to the Old Testament, most distinctly affirms, that “all
Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness.” 2 Tim. iii. 16.4As
this Song undoubtedly formed a part of the Scriptures to which the
apostle alluded, it must, therefore, be inspired, and must serve
some
of those purposes of inspiration.The
particular design of this book has been much disputed. It is here
maintained, that, upon careful examination, it will be found to
record an example of
virtue in a young woman who encountered and conquered the greatest
temptations, and was, eventually, rewarded;
the simple narrative of which, divested of its poetic form, is as
follows. There was a family living at Shulem, consisting of a
widowed
mother, several sons, and one daughter, who maintained themselves
by
farming and
[5]pasturage.
The brothers were particularly partial to their sister, and took
her
under their special care, promising that her prudence and virtue
should be greatly rewarded by them. In the course of time, while
tending the flock, and, according to the custom of the shepherds,
resorting at noon beneath a tree for shelter against the meridian
sun, she met with a graceful shepherd youth, to whom she afterwards
became espoused. One morning, in the spring, this youth invited her
to accompany him into the field; but the brothers, overhearing the
invitation, and anxious for the reputation of their sister, in
order
to prevent their meeting, sent her to take care of the vineyards.
The
damsel, however, consoled her beloved and herself with the
assurance
that, though separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted between
them, over which her brothers had no control. She requested him to
meet her in the evening, and as he did not come, she feared that
some
accident had befallen him on the way, and went in search of him,
and
found him. The evening now was the only time in which they could
enjoy each other’s company, as, during the day, the damsel was
occupied in the vineyards. On one occasion, when entering a garden,
she accidentally came in the presence of King Solomon, who happened
to be on a summer visit to that neighbourhood. Struck with the
beauty
of the damsel, the King conducted her into his royal tent, and
there,
assisted by his court-ladies, endeavoured with alluring flatteries
and promises, to gain her affections; but without effect. Released
from the King’s presence, the damsel soon sought an interview with
her beloved shepherd.The
King, however, took her with him to his capital in great pomp, in
the
hope of dazzling her with his splendour; but neither did this
prevail: for while even there, she told her beloved shepherd, who
had
followed her into the capital, and obtained an interview with her,
that she was anxious to quit the gaudy scene for her own home. The
shepherd, on hearing this, praised her constancy, and such a
manifestation
[6]of
their mutual attachment took place, that several of the
court-ladies
were greatly affected by it.The
King, still determined, if possible, to win her affections, watched
for another favourable opportunity, and with flatteries and
allurements, surpassing all that he had used before, tried to
obtain
his purpose. He promised to elevate her to the highest rank, and to
raise her above all his concubines and queens, if she would comply
with his wishes; but, faithful to her espousals, she refused all
his
overtures, on the plea that her affections were pledged to another.
The King, convinced at last that he could not possibly prevail, was
obliged to dismiss her; and the shepherdess, in company with her
beloved shepherd, returned to her native place. On their way home,
they visited the tree under which they had first met, and there
renewed their vows of fidelity to each other. On her arrival in
safety at her home, her brothers, according to their promise,
rewarded her greatly for her virtuous conduct.The
plot, if such it
may be called, gradually develops itself, like most poetic
narratives
of a similar kind. Various speakers are introduced in the poem, as
the Shulamite shepherdess, the shepherd, the King, the
court-ladies,
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the brothers of the Shulamite, and
the
companions of the shepherd, all of whom are represented as speaking
more or less, but without any such distinctions as we find in Job,
as
“After this Job
opened his mouth and cursed his day—Then
Eliphaz the
Temanite answered and said—Then answered
Bildad the Shuhite
and said—&c.,” and without
separate names, or
initial letters of
names to indicate the speakers, which renders it difficult to
gather
the history it contains; and especially as some of the statements
appear at first sight to have little or no logical sequence. The
Song
of Songs differs materially in this respect from all the other
books
of Scripture; but not, as is well known, from the poems of profane
writers.Notwithstanding
the aforementioned difficulty, an attentive
[7]reader
of the original will find nearly as much help from the masterly
structure of this Song, as can be obtained from the divisions and
initial letters in modern dramas, by which the different speakers
are
distinguished, and the various statements are connected in a
regular
narrative.The
recurrence, for instance, of the same formula of adjuration three
times (ii. 7; iii. 5; viii. 4), and the use of another closing
sentence (v. 1), divide the Song into five sections. The heroine of
the book, when speaking with her beloved or with the king, is
easily
distinguished by the feminine gender of the verb, or of the
adjective
or the noun; as, i. 5, “I am swarthy but comely,” where both
adjectives, swarthy
(שְׁחוֹרָה)
and comely
(נָאוָה),
are feminine in the original, and plainly indicate the speaker. The
beloved shepherd, when he speaks, or is spoken to, or is spoken of,
is recognised by the pastoral language (i. 3, 4, 7; ii. 12; iii. 4,
&c.); the King is distinguished by express allusions to his
position (i. 9–11; vi. 4–vii. 10); the court-ladies, when
speaking to the Shulamite, are recognised by the phrase, “fairest
of women” (i. 8; v. 9; vi. 1), and when spoken to by “daughters
of Jerusalem” (i. 5; ii. 7; iii. 5, 10; v. 8; viii. 4); the
brothers of the Shulamite are introduced as speaking in ii. 15,
compared with i. 6 and viii. 8, 9; the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in
iii. 6–11, and the companions of the shepherd, in viii. 5, are
sufficiently indicated by the context.On
a careful examination of the statements of the various speakers in
these five sections, it will be found that the narrative, though
not
recorded in the order we have stated, may be easily deduced from
it.In
the FIRST section—ch. i. 2, 7—the heroine of the Song, who, as is
evident from verse 8 and vii. 1, is a Shulamite shepherdess,
ardently
wishes for the presence and love-tokens of her beloved, who, as she
herself most distinctly tells us (ver. 7, and ii. 16; vi. 3), is a
shepherd; she wishes him to take her away from the royal apartments
into which the King had brought her, for she loves him above all
things (verses 2, 3, 4);
[8]these
apartments (or royal tent), as we learn from iii. 6–11, were out of
Jerusalem, and in the neighbourhood of the Shulamite’s home, where
the King temporarily resided, and where he met with the damsel (vi.
11, 12). In reply to the disdainful looks of the daughters of
Jerusalem, in whose presence she had expressed her desire for the
shepherd, and who had contrasted their fair and delicate
countenances
with her own, she insists that her swarthy complexion need not
render
her contemptible, for it was not natural, but had arisen from the
duties which her brothers had unjustly required of her (v. 6); she
then resumes the address to her beloved, asking him, as if he were
present, to tell her where he tends his flock (7). The daughters of
Jerusalem, who, as we see from vi. 9, are the court-ladies,
comprising the maidens, concubines, and queens, ironically answer
this question (8). The watchful King, having heard that she wished
for her beloved, immediately comes forward, and, with flatteries
and
promises, tries to win her affections (9, 10, 11); but without
effect; for as soon as the King retires she shows her unabated
attachment to her shepherd (12; ii. 6), and concludes by adjuring
the
court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her affections to
another (7).The
SECOND section—ch. ii. 8; iii. 5—though apparently disconnected
from the first, is found, upon investigation, to be a proper and
natural sequence. The Shulamite, in rebutting the contempt of the
court-ladies, had reflected with some severity upon her brothers
for
sending her to keep the vineyards; but this had been done merely to
account for the darkness of her complexion; and having been
interrupted in her warm address to her beloved, which she hastened
to
resume, she was obliged to be satisfied with this passing allusion
to
that event. It was natural, therefore, to expect that, at the first
opportunity, she would state more circumstantially
how her brothers
came to be severe with her, and
why they had made
her a keeper of the vineyards, which she proceeds to do in this
section. She tells the court-ladies that her brothers were
displeased
with her
[9]because
they had overheard the shepherd inviting her to accompany him into
the fields to enjoy together the charms of nature (8–14), on
account of which, in their anxiety for her reputation, they changed
her employment, told her to be a “keeper of the vineyards,” in
order to separate her from her beloved (15). She, moreover, relates
that they consoled themselves with the assurance that, though
separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted between them, over
which her brothers had no control (16); that she invited him to
come
again in the evening, when unobserved (17); and that, seeing he did
not come, she went in search of him, &c. (ch. iii. 1–4). Having
thus evinced her deep attachment for the shepherd, she again
concludes by adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to
transfer her affections to another (5).This
section, therefore, follows the preceding one, to set forth the
cause
of the brother’s severity in having made her a “keeper of the
vineyards,” and thus gives a further insight into her previous
history.The
THIRD section (ch. iii. 6, v. i.) relates the second unsuccessful
effort of Solomon to gain the Shulamite’s affections. The King,
determined to gain his purpose, takes the damsel, with great pomp,
into the capital (ch. iii. 6–11), in the hope of dazzling her with
his great splendour; but he is again disappointed. In the midst of
the imposing magnificence, the damsel tells her beloved shepherd,
who
has followed her thither, and obtained an interview with her, and
expressed his delight at seeing her again (ch. iv. 1–5), that she
is anxious to quit the palace for her rural home (6). Her beloved,
on
hearing this, offers his assistance to effect an escape (7, 8), and
praises her constancy and charms (9–16); whereupon they both
manifest their mutual attachment in so affecting a manner that even
some of the court-ladies are moved (ch. iv. 16, v. 1), with whose
expression of sympathy the section concludes.The
bearing which this section has upon the whole plan is, in the first
place, to develop the progress of the history itself,
[10]inasmuch
as it records the conveyance of the Shulamite from her rural home
into the royal capital; and, in the second place, to relate her
faithfulness in resisting another temptation, in which the grandeur
of the procession which elicited so much admiration from the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the splendour of the court, which
dazzled the eyes and fed the vanity of so many of its inmates, had
far less charms for her than the presence of her shepherd in a
humble
home.The
FOURTH section (ch. v. 2–viii. 4) records the last and greatest
trial which the Shulamite had to encounter, and which she also
overcame. It commences with a dream which she had recently had, and
which she relates (ch. v. 2–8) to the court-ladies whose sympathy
with her has been shown at the close of the preceding section. The
narration of this dream gives the damsel an opportunity of
describing
the personal appearance of her beloved (10–16), and thus we are
gradually led on to her chief trial and success. The court-ladies,
having listened to this charming description, inquire whither her
beloved is gone, and offer their assistance to seek him (ch. vi.
1);
but she, suspecting the motive, gives them an evasive answer (2,
3).
The King, ever watchful for a favourable opportunity to show his
attachment to her, as soon as he hears of the inquiry after the
damsel’s beloved, comes forward with most alluring flatteries and
promises. He begins with praising her beauty (4–7), and then
promises to raise her to the highest rank of all his numerous
retinue
of women (8, 9), who themselves are constrained to extol her beauty
(10). But the damsel, having explained how she came to be seen by
those court-ladies, spurns all those praises and promises, and goes
away (11, 12); the King calls her back (ch. vii. 1), and, having
again described her beauty and attractions (2–8), wishes that he
might enjoy the favours of so charming a person (9, 10); but she
refuses the King’s overtures, on the plea that her affections are
engaged, and that it is her duty to be faithful to her beloved
(11);
then, addressing herself to her beloved, she asks him to go with
her
[11]from
the palace to their rural home (12, ch. viii. 3); and concludes
with
again adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her
affections to another (4).This
section, as we have seen, is intimately connected with the
preceding
one. The damsel, having obtained the sympathies of some of the
court-ladies, according to the close of the last section, relates
to
them, at the opening of this (ch. v. 2–8), a dream which she had
recently had; which gives the damsel an opportunity of describing
the
appearance of her beloved, and this description gradually
introduces
the last and the greatest trial which she has to encounter.The
FIFTH section—ch. viii. 5–14—states the result of the damsel’s
victory over all her temptations. The King, convinced that nothing
could induce her to transfer her affections, dismisses her; and
accompanied by her beloved shepherd, she quits the court for her
humble country residence. On their way, they visit the tree under
which they were first espoused (viii. 5), and there implore that
the
flame which had been kindled in their hearts might be lasting. A
most
graphic and powerful description of the nature of true love
follows,
in which all her trials are recounted (6, 7). The damsel then
reminds
her brothers of the promise they had made her, and obtains
the reward of virtue.Thus
this Song records the real history of a humble but virtuous woman,
who, after having been espoused to a man of like humble
circumstances, had been tempted in a most alluring manner to
abandon
him, and to transfer her affections to one of the wisest, and
richest
of men, but who successfully resisted all temptations, remained
faithful to her espousals, and was ultimately rewarded for her
virtue.
[12]
SECTION IV.—IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK.
Few,
it is presumed, will question the importance of a Book, in the
sacred
canon, which records an example of virtue in a humble individual,
who
had passed successfully through unparalleled temptations.The
avowed object of Holy Writ is to teach all that is good and
conducive
to human happiness. Lessons of wisdom and virtue are interspersed
throughout the Old and New Testaments. The Apostle Paul urges the
Philippians to think of whatsoever is true, noble, just, pure,
lovely, and of good report: of everything, in short, that is in any
way profitable or praiseworthy. These lessons are not communicated
to
us in abstract forms, or enforced by powerful argument merely, but
they are presented in the most attractive examples drawn from the
lives of illustrious men and women, who, amidst the greatest trials
and temptations, have pre-eminently maintained their integrity. The
Patriarch Job is set forth as an example of patience, and the
Prophets as patterns of suffering affliction (James v. 10, 11). An
example of virtue, very similar to the one in the Song before us,
is
recorded in Gen. xxxix. 7, &c., where a Hebrew slave is tempted
by a woman of rank, but resists the temptations; and though left to
suffer for a season, is ultimately rewarded for his virtue. Such
instances, therefore, are in harmony with the design of Scripture,
and its method of teaching.The
individual who passes through the extraordinary temptations
recorded
in this Song, and remains faithful, is
a woman. Who can
find a virtuous woman? This was the question of the Ancients, was
reiterated in the middle ages, and is still asked by many. Here is
a
reply to Solomon’s own enquiry. He has found one at least of
spotless integrity, and her virtue is recorded in Scripture, for
the
defence of women against a prevalent, but unjust suspicion.The
second chapter of Genesis clearly states, that the man and the
woman
were created with the same intellectual and
[13]moral
powers. The words used by God respecting the creation of the woman
are, “the being of man in his solitary state is not good. I will
make him a help-mate
corresponding to him;”
that is, one that shall be exactly like him in affections, in
sympathies, in mind, in fact his counterpart; she shall be the
reflection of his own person. That this is the meaning of
כְּנֶנְדּוֹis evident from the
Septuagint, which renders it in verse 18, κατ’ αὐτόν, and
verse 20, ὅμοιος αὐτῷ; and from the Syriac and the
Vulgate; as well as from the Rabbinical usage of
כְּנֶנֶד,
to express things
exactly like one another.5The
word of God affirms here, that the woman was created exactly with
the
same capacities as the man, and contains no intimation of
subserviency to him, or of being in the slightest degree weaker or
less virtuous than he. The fact that the Tempter assailed the
woman,
and not the man, so far from showing that the woman was weaker,
would
rather prove that she was stronger; that the cunning serpent knew
this, and was persuaded, if he could only prevail over the woman,
she, with her superior influence, would be sure to succeed with the
man, as the sad result showed.The
curse which God pronounced upon the guilty pair, proves that the
woman was created with the same intellectual and moral capacities
as
the man. Had the woman been weaker in these respects than the man,
she would not have been accountable in an equal degree for her sin,
and would not have been punished with the same severity.No
alteration has taken place in their relative position, in this
respect, since the fall. The curse upon the woman in relation to
the
man does not refer to any
intellectual or
moral, but to a
physical,
inferiority. Hitherto the Protoplasts resided in Paradise, and
subsisted upon its delightful fruit; and the employment of the man
was mere recreation. Henceforth they were to be driven from that
happy abode; the woman was to experience all the sorrow and pain
of
[14]pregnancy
and parturition, and must look to her husband for support from his
hard-earned labour. The man, consigned to rough labour in the
field,
exposed to the assault of brutes, was henceforth to have more
physical strength and daring; while the woman, destined to manage
the
affairs at home, and to rear up a family, was to exercise the power
of patient endurance. The man, with his superior strength and
boldness, was henceforth to be the protector; the woman, suffering
and mild, the protected. He was to be the tiller of the ground, and
she, in addition to the sorrow peculiar to her condition, must
depend
on what he might provide for her; and hence her desire was to be
unto
him; that is, she should be looking up to him for protection and
maintenance, and thus he would rule over her. That this is the
whole
meaning of the phrase
וְאֶל
אִישֵׁדְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵדְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל
בָּדְ,
Gen. iii. 16, is evident from the clause immediately preceding,
which
describes the woman’s constant suffering, and precludes the
possibility of securing maintenance for herself; and also from the
following verse, where the man is destined to labour hard for
bread.The
notion, therefore, that the woman is intellectually or morally
weaker
than man, is not the teaching of the word of God. While man,
through
his superior out-of-door qualities, or physical strength and
courage,
is the supporter, protector, and ruler of the woman; she, through
her
superior in-door qualities, her endurance and her charms,
ameliorates
his government, and sways his inmost heart. Their different
characteristics, arising from their different destinations, were
designed to blend together so as to produce a happy harmony,
and
to make both one.But
how vilely and treacherously has man employed his superior strength
and audacity! Instead of maintaining, protecting, and defending the
woman, he has used his strength to oppress, to crush, and to
degrade
her. As the human race became more and more alienated from their
Creator, intrinsic merit and moral character were despised, and
physical
[15]force
became rampant; the stronger, as among animals, oppressed and
preyed
upon the weaker, and thus woman became the slave of man, and was
absolutely sold in the capacity of daughter or wife, as cattle and
other property. Thus Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, purchased
Rebekah as a wife for Isaac, his master’s son, (Gen. xxiv. 53).
Jacob, having nothing to give as a compensation for his wives, was
obliged to serve fourteen years for them (Gen. xxix. 18–28).
Shechem, wishing to obtain Dinah for a wife, and ascribing the
unwillingness of Jacob to part with her to the insufficiency of the
compensation he had offered, says—“Ask me never so much dowry and
gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give
me
the damsel to wife (Gen. xxxiv. 12).” Compare, also, Exod. xxii.
15, &c.; 1 Sam. xviii. 25; Hos. iii. 2. This custom of
purchasing
wives was general among the Orientals. “In Babylon,6the
following course was pursued in every village once a-year. All the
maidens of a marriageable age were collected together, and brought
in
a body to one place; around them stood a crowd of men. Then a
crier,
having made these maidens stand up one by one, offered them for
sale,
beginning with the most beautiful; and when she had been sold for a
large sum, he put up another who was next in beauty. They were sold
on condition that they should be married. Such men among the
Babylonians as were rich and desirous of marrying used to bid
against
one another, and purchase the most beautiful. But such of the lower
classes as were desirous of marrying, did not regard beauty, and
were
willing to take the plainer damsels with a sum of money given with
them. For when the crier had finished selling the most beautiful of
the maidens, he made the plainest stand up, or one that was a
cripple, and put her up for auction, for the person who would marry
her for the least sum. This money was obtained from the sale of the
most beautiful; and thus the beautiful portioned out the plain and
the crippled.” Wives were purchased among the Assyrians and
Arabians also;7among
[16]the
ancient Greeks8and
Germans9and
are still bought among the Orientals of the present day.10Fearful
consequences, arising from such a mode of obtaining wives, were
inevitable, and soon became apparent. As the procuring of wives
depended upon the offer which any one was able to make, those that
could afford it purchased as many as they pleased. Hence the
practice
of polygamy, than which nothing produces more contempt for the
proper
character of women, or tends more to their degradation. As these
contracts were formed without the parties being previously known to
each other, and without any affection subsisting between them, the
woman, instead of being
the help-mate or companion
of man became his slave, and was kept for the gratification of his
carnal appetites, or at best was regarded as a plaything for a
leisure hour. Her rights were denied, her education was neglected,
her intellect was degraded, her moral character was questioned.
Man,
seeking to possess as many wives as he could afford, gave the woman
no credit for virtue. Acting upon this suspicion and false
accusation, he placed her in the most inaccessible part of the
house;
dogs or eunuchs guarded the doors of her chambers;11the
harem was made as impenetrable as a prison; none but the nearest
relatives were allowed to see her, and when permitted to pass
through
the streets her countenance was thickly veiled, and eunuchs watched
her every step. Plutarch relates that when women travelled they
were
placed in a conveyance closely covered on all sides, and that it
was
in such a covering that Themistocles fled from Persia, his
attendants
being instructed to tell every inquirer that they were conveying a
Grecian lady from Ionia to a nobleman at Court.12The
sacred books of heathen nations
[17]teem
with loud execrations against the natural unfaithfulness and
immorality of women. “The lust of a woman,” says the pundits, “is
never satisfied, no more than fire is satisfied with fuel, or the
main ocean with receiving the rivers, or the empire of death with
the
dying of men and animals.” And again: “Women have six qualities:
the first is an immoderate desire for jewels and fine furniture,
handsome clothes and nice victuals; the second, immoderate lust;
the
third, violent anger; the fourth, deep resentment, no person
knowing
the sentiments concealed in their hearts; the fifth, another
person’s
good appears evil in their eyes; the sixth, they commit bad
actions.”13The
wickedness of women is a subject upon which the stronger sex among
the Arabs, with an affectation of superior virtue, often dwell in
common conversation. That women are deficient in judgment or good
sense, is held as an undisputed fact, as it rests on an assertion
of
the Prophet; but that they possess a superior degree of cunning,
rests upon the same authority. Their general depravity is affirmed
to
be much greater than that of men. “I stood,” said the Prophet,
“at the gate of Paradise, and lo, most of its inmates were the
poor; and I stood at the gate of hell, and lo, most of its inmates
were women.” In allusion to women, the caliph Omar said, “Consult
them, and do the contrary of what they advise,” which Moore has
thus paraphrased:—
“
Whene’er
you’re in doubt, said a sage I once knew,
’
Twixt
two lines of conduct which course to pursue,Ask
a woman’s advice, and whate’er she advise,Do
the very reverse, and you’re sure to be wise.”When
woman was created, “the devil,” we are told, “was delighted,
and said, ‘Thou art half of my host, and thou art the depository of
my secret, and thou art my arrow, with which I shoot and miss
not.’ ”14They
were made so much to feel their
[18]inferiority,
that Iphigenia is made to say, “One man, forsooth, is better than
ten thousand women.”15Though
the Jewish women were treated more leniently, and enjoyed greater
privileges than their sex in other nations, yet it is evident, from
a
variety of circumstances in Old Testament history, that they were
not
wholly emancipated from a state of unnatural inferiority. Polygamy
was practised amongst the Jews, and its debasing effects were
obvious. The harems, the veils, and eunuchs were not uncommon to
their women. Weakness of moral character was imputed to them;
unfaithfulness and incontinency were dilated upon (Num. v. 12;
Prov.
xxxi. 10; Eccl. vii. 28). Josephus tells us16that
women, in consequence of their natural levity, were not admitted as
legal witnesses in courts of justice. Maimonides teaches the same;
“There are,” says this great luminary, “ten sorts of
disqualifications, and every individual in whom one of them is
found,
is disqualified from giving evidence; and these are women, slaves,
children, idiots, the deaf, the blind, the wicked, the despised,
relations, and those interested in their testimony; these are the
ten.”17The
Rabbins endeavour to justify this inhuman treatment of women from
the
law of Moses. “Women,” say they, “are disqualified by the law
from giving testimony: for it is said, ‘At the mouth of two
witnesses,’ where the word ‘witnesses’ is of the
masculine, and not
feminine gender.” It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the
Jew, among his thanksgivings, should say to the Almighty every
morning, “Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe,
that thou hast not created me
a woman.”Now,
if one sex of the human family has been so degraded by the other;
if
she whom God created to be a
help-mate and counterpart
has been reduced by man to the slave of his carnal lusts; if such
slavish and inhuman treatment has been justified on the false plea
of
the natural unfaithfulness and incontinency
[19]of
the sex; if exclusion from society and imprisonment have been
deemed
necessary for the preservation of her morals, how greatly has woman
been alienated from the original design of her creation! how
unjustly
has her character been aspersed! how inhumanly has she been
treated!
and how great is the importance of a book which celebrates the
virtuous example of a woman, and thus strikes at the root of all
her
reproaches and her wrongs!The
importance of this view of the book may be further seen from the
fact, that, in proportion to the degradation of women, men
themselves
have become degraded; for, deprived of the meliorating influences
which the delicacy and tenderness of women were designed to have
over
them, and never more needed than in their fallen state, they have
abandoned themselves to their worst passions and desires, and thus
their whole civil and social condition has been proportionally
undignified and unblest. Look, on the other hand, at the state of
society where woman is restored to her rightful position, there we
shall find refinement of manners, purity of conversation, mutual
confidence and affection, domestic happiness, intellectual
enjoyment,
freedom of thought and action, sympathetic repose, and whatever, in
fact, tends to mitigate the unavoidable evils of the present life;
all referable, in a greater or less degree, to the unrestricted
influence of woman upon the child and upon the man. In religion,
her
influence is still more potent. If first in the transgression, she
is
first in the restoration; and were man as ready to follow her in
doing good as he has been in doing evil, the world would long ago
have been in a holier and happier state than it is at present. Who
constitute the principal part of our worshipping assemblies? Women.
Who form the chief portion of the members of our churches? Women.
Who
are the chief agents in the religious education of our children?
Women. Who are the main support of our various benevolent and
evangelical institutions? Women. Let it not be said, then, that a
Book which celebrates the ascendency
[20]of a
virtuous woman in humble life over all the blandishments of wealth
and royalty, is unworthy of a place in Holy Writ.The
importance of this book is, moreover, enhanced by the circumstances
more immediately connected with the time in which it was
written.The
conduct of Bath-sheba with David was calculated to confirm man in
his
opinion that woman was naturally unfaithful and incontinent, and
that
it was requisite to exclude her from society, in order to preserve
her morals. But the narrative here recorded forms a contrast to the
conduct of Bath-sheba. It shows the power of virtue in a woman,
even
of humble life. As the wife of an officer of rank, accustomed to
luxury and wealth, the temptations of Bath-sheba were not so great,
and yet she surrendered to them. Whereas the Shulamite, a humble
shepherdess, to whom the promise of costly apparel and of elevation
from a low and toilsome occupation to the highest rank, must have
been an extraordinary allurement, triumphed over them all. If one
woman yielded to small incitements, this book shows that another
overcame unparalleled temptations, and thus checked the clamour
against woman which might have arisen from the conduct of
Bath-sheba
with David.