When the spouse hath gone thus far in the description of him, she concludes all in this general assertion: “He is wholly desirable,—altogether to be desired or beloved.” As if she should have said,—”I have thus reckoned up some of the perfections of the creatures (things of most value, price, usefulness, beauty, glory, here below), and compared some of the excellencies of my Beloved unto them. In this way of allegory I can carry things no higher; I find nothing better or more desirable to shadow out and to present his loveliness and desirableness: but, alas! all this comes short of his perfections, beauty, and comeliness; ‘he is all wholly to be desired, to be beloved;’”—

Lovely in his person,—in the glorious all-sufficiency of his Deity, gracious purity and holiness of his humanity, authority and majesty, love and power.

Lovely in his birth and incarnation; when he was rich, for our sakes becoming poor,—taking part of flesh and blood, because we partook of the same; being made of a woman, that for us he might be made under the law, even for our sakes.

Lovely in the whole course of his life, and the more than angelical holiness and obedience which, in the depth of poverty and persecution, he exercised therein;—doing good, receiving evil; blessing, and being cursed, reviled, reproached, all his days.

Lovely in his death ; yea, therein most lovely to sinners;—never more glorious and desirable than when he came broken, dead, from the cross. Then had he carried all our sins into a land of forgetfulness; then had he made peace and reconciliation for us; then had he procured life and immortality for us.

Lovely in his whole employment, in his great undertaking,—in his life, death, resurrection, ascension; being a mediator between God and us, to recover the glory of God’s justice, and to save our souls,— to bring us to an enjoyment of God, who were set at such an infinite distance from him by sin.

Lovely in the glory and majesty wherewith he is crowned. Now he is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; where, though he be terrible to his enemies, yet he is full of mercy, love, and compassion, towards his beloved ones.

Lovely in all those supplies of grace and consolations, in all the dispensations of his Holy Spirit, whereof his saints are made partakers.

Lovely in all the tender care, power, and wisdom, which he exercises in the protection, safe-guarding, and delivery of his church and people, in the midst of all the oppositions and persecutions whereunto they are exposed.

Lovely in all his ordinances, and the whole of that spiritually glorious worship which he hath appointed to his people, whereby they draw nigh and have communion with him and his Father.

Lovely and glorious in the vengeance he taketh, and will finally execute, upon the stubborn enemies of himself and his people.

Lovely in the pardon he hath purchased and doth dispense,—in the reconciliation he hath established,—in the grace he communicates,— in the consolations he doth administer,—in the peace and joy he gives his saints,—in his assured preservation of them unto glory.

What shall I say? there is no end of his excellencies and desirableness;—”He is altogether lovely. This is our beloved, and this is our friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Works, 2:77–78 )

Interpreting Canticles along the lines of a believer’s communion with Christ is not, of course, peculiar to the Early Church or to the Puritans.  In fact, the Reformation theologian, Theodore Beza wrote a fine exposition of the Song of Solomon, which contains not only many important Christological insights, but glimpses into the nature of our communion with the Lord.

In the seventeenth century Canticles was often translated and sung to various Psalter tunes. One anonymous work is titled: The Song of Solomon, called The song of songs. Translated into English meeter, and fitted to be sung with any of the common tunes of the psalms. Besides that, we have Henry Ainsworth’s Solomon’s Song of songs In English metre, which could also be sung in church. Wouldn’t that be interesting? When was the last time you were in a church that sang the Song of Songs?

Beza’s work on Canticles is titled: Master Bezaes Sermons upon the first three chapters of the Canticle of Canticles (wherein are discussed the chiefest points of religion). This really is a fine work on Christology.  Beza argues that the Song is to be taken in a Spiritual sense and not to be taken as a marriage song between Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter, as some have insisted (1 Kings 11 condemns this marriage). Rather, this is a most excellent psalm touching on the spiritual bond between Christ and his Church (Genesis 2 & Eph. 5).  For Beza, the Song speaks of betrothing (engagement) and marriage that refers to Christ in his infirmities (betrothal) and Christ in his glory (marriage).

Incidentally, one of the best sermon series I have ever heard was on the Song of Songs; the series was preached by a South African preacher who understood it in much the same way as Beza, James Durham, John Owen, Samuel Petto, Thomas Brightman, John Cotton, Edward Leigh, Richard Sibbes, Matthew Henry and Johannes Cocceius (to name a few).

For your information, the Westminster Assembly condemned those who understood the Song of Songs as “a hot carnal pamphlet formed by some loose Apollo or Cupid”.  Moreover, John Wesley found the literal reading repulsive.  And, after reading Longman’s commentary on the Song of Songs, I felt like it was a complete waste of time.  Indeed, some of his own interpretations seemed to me to be far more “allegorical” than the stuff I’ve read from Beza and the Puritans!

If Canticles does describe the communion that a believer ought to have with his Savior, then I suspect that not a few of us will be exposed for having such a dry and boring relationship with the one who is “chief among ten thousand!”