, [], Leviticus 24:11-14,23: The Blasphemer stoned; Song of Solomon 1:3-4: God draws people; Matthew 11:28: Christ's rest
Vertaling Bijbel, Kanttekeningen SV, [], [13]Trek mij, wij zullen U nalopen! De [14]Koning heeft mij gebracht [15]in Zijn binnenkameren; [16]wij zullen ons verheugen en [17]in U verblijden; [18]wij zullen Uw uitnemende liefde vermelden, [19]meer dan den wijn; [20]de oprechten hebben U lief. 13. Dat is, neig mijn hart en gemoed, dat het U aanhange met geloof en liefde, want dit trekken geschiedt niet met uiterlijke kracht en geweld, maar door het woord der predikatie uiterlijk en inwendiglijk door de krachtige werking des Geestes van Christus, waardoor der kinderen Gods verstand alzo verlicht en onze wil alzo gebeterd wordt, dat wij gewilliglijk en met vreugde onzen Heere en Bruidegom Jezus Christus navolgen, ja nalopen. Zie Jes.40:31; Jer.31:3; Joh.6:44,45, en Joh.12:32; Fillip.2:13; Hebr.12:1,2. 14. Versta hier door den koning Christus, den Koning der gerechtigheid en des vredes, Hebr.7:2, van wien Melchizedek en Salomo voorbeelden geweest zijn. 15. Door deze binnenkameren worden verstaan de verborgenheden van het rijk van Christus, die in het Oude Testament bedekt waren onder de schaduwen van de ceremonien der wet; maar nu in het Nieuwe Testament zien wij de klaarheid des Heeren als in een spiegel, 2 Kor.3:18. Zie ook Rom.16:25; 1 Kor.2:9,10,16, en 2 Kor.1:20; Hebr.8:10,11. Of versta door de binnenkameren het koninkrijk der hemelen, in hetwelk vele woningen zijn, Joh.14:2, die wij alreeds door het geloof bezitten; Ef.2:6. 16. Te weten ik en mijne maagden, of speelgenoten, dat is, alle gelovigen. Zij wil zeggen: Hoe meer wij toenemen in uwe kennis en den smaak van uwe genade, hoemeer wij in de geestelijke vreugde zullen gesterkt worden. 17. O Koning en in U; dat is van uwentwege. 18. Dat is, wij zullen de genade van Christus roemen en verkondigen, die ons uit de duisternis tot zijn wonderlijk licht geroepen heeft; 1 Petr.2:9. Zie ook Ps.45:18, en Ps.71:16; Jes.12:3,4, en Jes.63:7. 19. Zij wil zeggen: Heere, wij zullen uwe genade met meerdere vreugde roemen en prijzen, dan de wereldse mensen zich verheugen in aardse dingen. Want de vrede Gods gaat alle verstand teboven. Zie Ps.4:8. 20. Hebreeuws, de rechtheden, of richtigheden; dat is, degenen die met oprechtheid begaafd zijn, die vs.3 maagden genoemd worden, die namelijk in wie geen bedrog woont; Ps.32:2; Joh.1:48.
4 Draw me, we will run after thee; the
king hath brought me into his chambers; we will be glad and rejoice in
thee, we will find thy love more fragrant than wine! sincerely do they
love thee.
Rashi, following the lead of the trup,
separates the first three words into מָשְׁכֵנִי and אַחֲרֶיךָ נָּרוּצָה. Many moderns (e.g. Gordis, Hakham), unfortunately, do not,
but rather have מָשְׁכֵנִי אַחֲרֶיךָ and נָּרוּצָה. Besides being
against the trup, it is against the strong dagesh in the nun of נָּרוּצָה, which is derivative of the trup - for the unstressed open syllable ךָ at the end of אַחֲרֶיךָ desires to be closed, and is indeed closed, by the geminate nun
created in the word נָּרוּצָה, but this will only happen when the next
word is not separated off by a disjunctive accent. Here, we have a
conjunctive accent, the munach, but were we to separate as do the moderns, we would place the disjunctive accent of tipcha on the word אַחֲרֶיךָ instead, such that we would not get gemination of the nun.
It
is obvious why the moderns redivide this, though it is a shame that
there is nary a mention that they are thus going against the
traditional cantillation, even where elsewhere they do note it. This is
because the syntactical division caused by trup is an unappreciated art, and people (perhaps even these modern scholars) did not recognize how the trup functioned here.
Why
did they redivide this? As I mentioned above, it is obvious. They
assume that there are two players here, the beloved (= the woman) and
her lover. אַחֲרֶיךָ נָּרוּצָה means "we will run after thee," and the
woman is speaking to her lover. The implication would be that multiple
people would run after her lover, which makes no sense -- especially
since this matches , Draw me.
Thus, divide it differently, and render: מָשְׁכֵנִי אַחֲרֶיךָ = Draw me
after thee, and נָּרוּצָה, We will run, making the two actors in
נָּרוּצָה the beloved and her lover.
Surely the Masoretes who established the trup were aware of this, so why did they divide as they did? A few answers are possible:
1)
Unlike most moderns (excluding Hakham here), who assume that Shir
HaShirim is love poetry, and that is its only meaning, the traditional
Jewish understanding of the book it that it is (also or exclusively)
allegorical, detailing the love relationship between Hashem and the
Jewish people, alluding to various events in Jewish history as part of
this relationship. If the beloved equals the nation of Israel, it is
entirely proper, on the allegorical level, to refer to the the actions
of the beloved in the plural, even as it causes some slight confusion
on the level of the plaintext story1.
2) Michael V. Fox
(a modern scholar) compares Shir haShirim to Egyptian love poetry, and
notes that in ancient Egyptian love poetry, many time the girl will
suddenly be referred to in the plural. Thus, here we may say the same.
My opinion of the matter is that one should not be put off in the least
by thinking this is a forced interpretation, only to be appealed to
when backed into a corner. If this is a feature of ancient love poetry,
then it is a legitimate feature, not an argument of last resort, and
one should not reinterpret the verse otherwise in order to avoid this
from happening. Especially since the division as given by the trup
produces better parallelism, as I will detail shortly. Further, are we
not sort of forced into this position by the later occurrence in the
verse of נַזְכִּירָה דֹדֶיךָ מִיַּיִן - "we will find thy love more fragrant than wine2?"
3)
In fact, I think that the plural is intended, and on the plaintext
level at that. The plural refers not to many running after the lover,
but rather to the beloved and her lover running after the lover's lead.
Further, it is the jussive - "Let us run after you."
In truth,
we are faced here with a Biblical parallelism. מָשְׁכֵנִי means "Draw
me," and "after you," or "to you" is implicitly there. It is entirely
unnecessary to write מָשְׁכֵנִי אַחֲרֶיךָ. Meanwhile, אַחֲרֶיךָ נָּרוּצָה is also a request, "let us run together, following your
lead." Together, these form a hendiadys
of sorts - it is a request that they frolic and gambol together,
holding hands, he in the lead and she trailing after him. Their frolic
together leads somewhere - as the verse continues, הֱבִיאַנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ חֲדָרָיו, נָגִילָה וְנִשְׂמְחָה בָּךְa3
This
wonderful parallelism is lost when the phrase is subdivided to make
נָּרוּצָה stand alone. The phrase מָשְׁכֵנִי אַחֲרֶיךָ is redundant,
and the sudden running together bears much less of a relation to her
being drawn to him. Therefore, I would call for the preservation of the
division as given by the trup. Footnotes: 1: Note that one should not confuse allegory and its interpretation with what is commonly called peshat and derash. If Shir HaShirim is allegorical, then the interpretation of the allegory is the peshat. 2:
Though note that it should perhaps be rendered "we will inhale thy
love, more fragrant than wine." Regardless, the plural and singular
issue remains. 3: Note also the shift to third person to describe her lover as hamelech,
in the midst of second person speech - this is poetic form, parallel to
the lead-in in verse 2: יִשָּׁקֵנִי מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת פִּיהוּ, "Let him
kiss me with the kisses of his mouth."3