This psalm is entitled “To the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, for the sons of Korah, Maschil. A song of love.” On the phrase” To the chief Musician,” see the notes at the title to Psalms 4:1-8. The words “Upon Shoshannim” occur also, as a title, or part of a title, in Psalms 69; Psalms 80; and, in a different form, in the title to Psalms 60:1-12, “Shushan-eduth.” The word Shoshan - שׁושׁן shôshân - occurs in 1 Kings 7:22, 1 Kings 7:26; Song of Solomon 2:16; Song of Solomon 4:5; Song of Solomon 5:13; Song of Solomon 6:2-3; Song of Solomon 7:2; and, in a modified form - שׁושׁנה shôshânnâh - in 2 Chronicles 4:5; Song of Solomon 2:1-2; Hosea 14:5; in all which it is rendered lily, or lilies. The word, therefore, probably means a lily; and then it came to denote, probably, a musical instrument that had a resemblance to a lily, or that was shaped like a lily. It is not known to what kind of musical instrument there is a reference, but it would seem probable that something like the trumpet or the cymbal was intended.
The special reference here would seem to be to the chief musician who presided over this part of the musical instruments employed in public worship - as it would seem not improbable that each of the different parts, as trumpets, horns, viols, harps, etc., would have a special leader. On the portion of the title, “for the sons of Korah,” and on the word “Maschil,” see the notes at the title to Psalms 42:1-11. The portion of the title, “A Song of Loves,” would properly denote a song devoted to love, or in celebration of love; that is, in which love would be the main idea. The phrase “a lovely song,” or “a charming song,” as Gesenius renders it here, would not, it seems to me, express the meaning of the original. An author would hardly prefix such a title to a psalm himself, as indicating that the psalm had special beauty, or was especially adapted to please; and if we suppose that the titles were prefixed by some other person than the author, or by common usage, it would be difficult to see why such a title should be prefixed to this psalm rather than to many others. It has, indeed, great beauty; but so have very many of the rest. If we suppose, however, that the title was prefixed as indicating the general subject of the psalm, or as indicating the feelings of the author toward the main persons referred to in it, the title is eminently appropriate. In this sense the title would be proper whether we regard the psalm as having reference to the Messiah, or as an epithalamium - a bridal or marriage hymn.
The author of the psalm is wholly unknown, and nothing can be determined on the subject, unless it be supposed that the portion of the title “for the sons of Korah,” or “of the sons of Korah,” conveys the idea that it was the composition of one of that family. On that point, see the notes at the title to Psalms 42:1-11. That it may have been written by David no one can disprove, but there is no certain evidence that he was the author, and as his name is not mentioned, the presumption is that it is not his.
Very various opinions have been entertained in regard to the reference of the psalm, and the occasion on which it was composed. A very material question is, To whom does the psalm refer? And especially, Has it reference to the Messiah, and is it to be classed with the Messianic Psalms?
Nearly all the older Christian interpreters, without hesitation, suppose that it refers to the Messiah. This opinion has been held, also, by a large part of the modern interpreters of the Bible, among others by Michaelis, Lowth, Dathe, Rosenmuller (in his second edition), Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Professor Alexander. Many, however, have defended the opposite opinion, though they have not been agreed on the question to whom the psalm refers. Grotius, Dereser, and Kaiser suppose it to have been sung at the marriage of Solomon with a foreign princess, probably the daughter of the king of Egypt. Doederlein supposes the king whose praises are sung to be an Israelite. Augusti thinks that it was sung at the nuptials of a Persian king. This last opinion DeWette adopts.
On this question it may be remarked,
(1) There is no evidence that the psalm refers to David; and, indeed, from the psalm itself it is evident that it could not have such a reference. The term “O God” Psalms 45:6 could not be applied to him, nor the expression “Thy throne is forever and ever,” ibid. In the life of David, moreover, there was no marriage with a foreign princess that would correspond with the statement here; and no occasion on which the “daughter of “Tyre” was present with a gift, Psalms 45:12.
(2) It seems equally clear that the psalm does not refer to Solmon. In addition to the considerations already suggested as reasons why it does not refer to David, and which are as applicable in the main to Solomon as to him, it may be added that Solomon was never a warlike prince, and was never distinguished for conquests. But the “hero” of the psalm is a warrior - a prince who goes forth to conquest, and who would be distinguished for his victories over the enemies of the king, Psalms 45:3-5.
(3) For stronger reasons still the Psalm cannot be supposed to refer to a Persian prince. Such a supposition is a mere conjecture, with not even the pretence that there are any historical facts that would justify such an application, and without even the suggestion as to a particular case to which it could be applicable. It is, moreover, wholly improbable that a nuptial ode designed to celebrate the marriage of a Persian king - a foreigner - would have been introduced into a book of sacred poetry among the Hebrews.
(4) The remaining opinion, therefore, is, that the psalm had original and exclusive reference to the Messiah. For this opinion the following reasons may be assigned:
(a) The authority of the New Testament. If the Bible is an inspired book, then one part of it may properly be regarded as an authoritative interpretation of another; or a statement in one part must be admitted to be proof of what is meant in another, since the entire book has one Author only - the Holy Spirit. But there can be no doubt that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews meant to quote this psalm as having reference to the Messiah, or as containing an intended statement in regard to him which might be appealed to as proof that he was divine. Thus, in Hebrews 1:8-9, he quotes Psalms 45:6-7, of the psalm, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,” etc., in proof that the Son of God is superior to the angels. See the notes at the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the passage referred to, where this point is considered at length. There can be no doubt that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews meant to quote the passage as having original reference to the Messiah; and his argument would have no force whatever on the supposition that the psalm had original reference to David, or to Solomon, or to a Persian prince.
(b) The testimony of tradition, or of early interpretation, is in favor of this supposition. Thus, the Chaldee Paraphrase Psalms 45:3 applies the psalm expressly, to the Messiah: “Thy beauty, king Messiah - משׁיחא מלכא malekâ' meshı̂yachâ' - is more excellent than the sons of men.” This may not improperly be understood as representing the current opinion of the Hebrews at the time when the Chaldee interpretation was made, in regard to the design and reference of the psalm. The two eminent Jewish interpreters, Aben-Ezra and Kimchi, explain the psalm in the same manner, and may be supposed also to represent the prevailing mode of explaining it away among the Hebrews. On this point, also, the Epistle to the Hebrews may be referred to, as showing that such was the current explanation up to the time when that was written. I have referred to the fact that the author of that epistle quotes the psalm as an inspired man, and as thus furnishing the authority of inspiration in favor of this interpretation. I now refer to it as showing that this must have been the prevailing and well-understood opinion in regard to the design of the psalm. The author of the epistle was establishing by argument, not by authority, the claims of the Messiah to a rank above that of the angels. He made use of an argument which he evidently believed would have force among those who regarded the Old Testament as of divine origin. But the argument which he used, and on which he relied, would have no weight with those for whom he wrote unless they admitted that the psalm had reference to the Messiah, and that this point might be assumed without further proof. The fact, therefore, that he thus quotes and applies the psalm demonstrates that such was its current and admitted interpretation in his time.
(c) The internal evidence may be referred to. This will be further illustrated in the notes. At present it is necessary only to remark:
(1) That there are passages in this psalm which cannot be applied to any man - to any created being - and which can be applied only to one who may properly be called God, Psalms 45:6.
(2) The characteristics of the principal personage in the psalm are such as accurately describe the Messiah. These points will be illustrated in the notes.
(d) The psalm, on the supposition that it refers to the Messiah, is in accordance with a prevailing mode of writing in the Old Testament. See the notes at Hebrews 1:8; compare Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7; and Introduction to Psalms 40. It is to be remembered that the expectation of a Messiah was the special hope of the Jewish people. He is really the” hero” of the Old Testament - more so than Achilles is of the Iliad, or Aeneas of the Aeneid. The sacred poets were accustomed to employ their most magnificent imagery in describing him, that they might present him in every form that was beautiful in conception, and that would be gratifying to the pride and the hopes of the nation. Everything that is gorgeous and splendid in description is lavished upon him. And they were never under any apprehension of attributing to him too high a rank, too great perfection of moral character, or too wide an extent of dominion.
They freely applied to him language which would be a magnificent description of an earthly monarch; and the terms which usually denote splendid conquests, or a wide and permanent reign, are freely given to hint. Under this view, and in this style, this psalm was evidently composed; and although the language may have been taken from the magnificence of the court of David or Solomon, or even from the splendor of a Persian king, yet there can be no reason to doubt that the description is that of the Messiah, and not of David or Solomon, or any Persian prince. The writer in the psalm imagines to himself a magnificent and beautiful prince - a prince riding prosperously to his conquests; swaying a permanent scepter over a wide empire; clothed in rich and splendid vestments; eminently upright and pure; and scattering blessings on every hand. That prince was the Messiah. He describes the queen - the bride of such a prince - as attended by the daughters of kings; as clad in the gold of Ophir; as greatly beloved by the prince; as glorious in her appearance and character; as having on robes of wrought gold and raiment of needlework; as followed by a numerous retinue; and as brought to the king in his palace. That queen is the “bride of the Lamb” - the church. All this is in the magnificent style of the Orientals, but all accords with the custom of the sacred writers in speaking of the Messiah.
(e) It may be added that this is in harmony with the constant language of the sacred writers in the New Testament, who speak of the Messiah as the “husband” of the church, and of the church as his “bride.” Compare the notes at Ephesians 5:23-32; notes at 2 Corinthians 11:2; notes at Revelation 21:2, notes at Revelation 21:9; notes at Revelation 22:17.
The proof, therefore, seems to me to be conclusive that the psalm had original and sole reference to the Messiah.
The contents of the psalm are as follows:
I. A statement of the purpose or design of the psalm. It is to speak of the things which the psalmist had meditated on respecting the “king;” some one in his view to whom that title was applicable, and whose praises he intended particularly to set forth Psalms 45:1.
II. A description of the king, Psalms 45:2-9.
(a) He is the fairest among people; distinguished for grace and beauty,Psalms 45:2 Psalms 45:2.
(b) He is a warrior - a conqueror. He will go forth to conquest, and will be successful in overcoming his enemies, Psalms 45:3-5.
(c) His throne is the throne of God, and will endure forever,Psalms 45:6 Psalms 45:6.
(d) His character is eminently righteous, Psalms 45:6-7.
(e) He is clad in robes of beauty; his garments are rich with perfumes; his attendants are the daughters of kings, Psalms 45:8-9.
III. A description of the queen, the bride, Psalms 45:9-17.
(a) She is clad in robes of gold - the gold of Ophir, Psalms 45:9.
(b) She is entreated to forget her own people, and her father’s house - to become wholly devoted to him who had espoused her, assured that thus she would secure his heart, and be certain of his love, Psalms 45:10-11.
(c) She would be honored with the favor of the rich, and the attendance of foreign princesses, represented by the “daughter of Tyre;” Tyre, distinguished for wealth and splendor; Tyre, the representative of the commercial world, Psalms 45:12.
(d) The daughter of the king - the bride - is glorious and beautiful, as seen “within” her own palace or dwelling, Psalms 45:13.
(e) Her raiment is of wrought gold; of needlework of delicate finish and taste, Psalms 45:13-14.
(f) She is attended by virgins, her companions, who with her shall enter into the palace of the king, Psalms 45:14-15.
IV. An address to the king. He is to be honored by his children, who will be more to him than even his ancestors. His praise will spring from those children rather than from the luster and fame of his great progenitors. He will be remembered in all coming generations, and praised forever and ever, Psalms 45:16-17. See the notes at Psalms 45:16.
Such is the outline or substance of this exquisite specimen of sacred song - this very beautiful Hebrew ode. It must be apparent, I think, at once, that it cannot be applied with propriety to either David, or Solomon, or to a Persian prince. How far it is applicable to the Messiah and the church; to him as the bridegroom, and to the church as a bride - will be made apparent in the exposition of its particular words and phrases.