The title Song of Songs is a Hebrew duplicate idiom suggesting a superlative, namely the greatest/best of all songs just as “king of kings” means supreme king or vanity of vanities refers to the vainest. The book claims Solomon as its author, or Solomon, the one to whom the book was dedicated (Song 1:1), who indeed composed about 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32). The book implies that Solomon had 60 queens and 80 concubines (Song 6:8), but only the Shulammite maid surpasses them all (Song 6:9, 13). Shulammite is most likely an equivalent of Shunammit, as suggested by the Greek Old Testament (1 Kings 1:3) and Shunem was a town in northern Palestine, about 7 miles east of Megiddo (2 Kings 4:8-37). Composed poetically, the Song is an idyll with one plot – Solomon’s love for a country girl from northern Palestine, whom he marries out of genuine love and not political advantages.
Ancient Near East love poems
Love poetry has always flourished in all cultures and ages. Most pertinent as a comparative to Song of Songs is the literature of Mesopotamia and Egypt. For the most part, Mesopotamian poetry deals with the love between the gods and goddesses. However, in the ancient Sumerian texts, there are some similarities to Song of Songs in that a male shepherd and king courts a woman called ‘bride’ and ‘sister.’ King Shulgi invites his sister, Inanna, with the following words: “I would go with you in the fields . . . I would go with you to my garden.” These lines show strong resemblance with Song of Songs (4:16; 5:1; 7:11) although not in the sense of a cultic fertility poem.
History of interpretation
From a Hellenistic, Middle Age, Reformation, and Victorian perspective, Song of Songs should not have been included in the sacred canon. To put it mildly, Song of Songs did not have a smooth ride into the Biblical canon. Even many Jewish people were not certain that it belonged in the Hebrew canon alongside other inspired books since God is never mentioned in the entire book except for one cryptic mention. The Targum interprets the Song as an allegory describing Israel’s exodus, their entry into Canaan, the monarchy, the exile, and restoration. Jewish as well as Christian scholars have interpreted the book as a spiritual allegory of God’s love toward Israel or the church. The allegorical interpretation has been followed by Hippolytus of Rome in the 3rd century A.D. and Origin, who is known as the father of the allegorical method of interpretation. In their understanding, the king represents Christ, and the Shulammite maid represents his church, an analogy that is often found in New Testament books (see Eph. 5:22-33; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9). The allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, however, cannot withstand analysis and comparison, because the breasts of the woman (Song 4:5) could mean Aaron and Moses, the two tablets of the Decalogue, or the two testaments of the Christian Bible. The most obvious criticism to this method is that the individual interpreter drives the process and that, mostly out of his/her religious traditions. Allegory is rooted in the Neoplatonic worldview in which human needs are unspiritual and eventually evil. Furthermore, communities with these views were very often motivated by asceticism so that the literal and historical sense of Song of Songs can be negated. Despite all of this, the Song became one of the most popular books during the Middle Ages when about thirty commentaries were written on it.
Others, however, have approached the book for what it purports to be, namely a poetic narrative commemorating Solomon’s genuine love for a country girl from Palestine, and view its legitimate place in the canon because of its exalted, idealized view of what marriage, as ordained by the Creator, should be.
Literary Form
The book, as it stands, is rather a poem to be read than as song to be sung. Ronald E. Murphy has established different subgenres such as (a) yearning (1:2-4), (b) admiration (1:12-14), (c) reminiscence (2:8-17), (d) a description of the physical charm of the beloved (4:1-7), (e) boasting (8:11-12), (f) teasing (2:14-15), and (g) self-description (1:5-6). The beloved expresses her yearning in statements like “let him kiss me,” or “draw me after you.” Admiration is expressed by the lover and the beloved: “my beloved is to me a bag of myrrh that lies between my breasts,” “you are beautiful, my love.” She reminisces her lover’s invitation to her by saying “arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.” The lover describes her physical charm in metaphors alien to modern ears, yet in poetic style: “your eyes are like doves,” “your hair is like a flock of goats,” “your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep all of which bear twins,” “your lips are like a crimson thread and your mouth is lovely,” “your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate,” your neck is like the tower of David,” “your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle,” and “ you are altogether beautiful, my love.” The boasting finds expression in words like “my vineyard, my very own, is for myself.” The vineyard is a metaphor for herself. Teasing is expressed in such words as “catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that ruin the vineyards.” Most likely, this refers to the obstacles in their relationship. Finally, in the self-description, the beloved paints a picture of her dark-skinned appearance: “I am black and beautiful” and “do not gaze at me because I am dark.”
Levels of Meaning
If the literary form proposed by Murphy is accepted, and Song of Songs is read for what it purports to be, the interpretation has already been alluded to above. The book portrays romantic love between a husband and his wife. There is an almost unanimous consensus of modern scholars that the historical meaning of the Song is erotic love. While Song of Songs starts with physical intimacy: (kissing [1:2], touching [1:8], embracing [2:6], fondling [2:17], etc.), it leads into a wedding/marriage relationship. “Song of Songs 3:6-11,” Davidson claims, “clearly portrays the wedding procession of Solomon ‘on the day of his wedding’ (3:11). What follows in 4:1-5:1 appears to encompass the wedding ceremony proper. Only in this section of the Song does Solomon address the Shulammite as his ‘bride’.” Hess reinforced that by stating, “[t]he repeated appearance of ‘bride’ in the Song’s heart (six times in 4:8-5:1) demonstrates a relationship that is one of marriage.”
The central verses of Song 4:16-5:1, Davidson asserts, “seem to be equivalent to our modern-day exchange of marriage vows, or alternatively, represent the consummation of the marriage in the marriage bed of the bridal chamber. The groom has compared his bride to a garden (4:23, 25); now the bride invites her groom to come and partake of the fruits of her (now his) garden (4:16), and the groom accepts her invitation (5:1a-d). This interpretation of Song of Solomon agrees with the basic affirmation of the creation order in which a man leaves his father and mother and adheres to his wife, and the two build a new social union with the intent of procreation (Gen. 2:24; 1:28), although Song of Songs contains no reference to procreation. Thus, sexual love does not seem to have just one singular purpose, namely procreation. Song of Songs also harmonizes with the sexual understanding of the book of Proverbs, in which a husband is supposed to drink water from his own well and share his love only with his wife (Prov. 5: 15-19; 30:18-19). The New Testament seems to support this view when Hebrews states “Let marriage be held in honor by all and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled” (NRSV 13:4) while Paul counsels both partners “[t]he husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” (NRSV 1 Cor. 7:3).
However, the question can be asked if this meaning is exhaustive and singular for the book, Song of Solomon. Modern hermeneutical theories have shown that there is seldom only one meaning of a religious text. From the history of interpretation, it is evident that the book is viewed as more than just human love. Throughout the Bible, a relationship between God and his people has often been depicted in terms of romantic attraction. God is portrayed as a “jealous God” (Exod. 20:5), his covenant with Israel is described as a covenant of love (Hos. 1-2; Isa. 1:21 Jer. 3:1; Ezekiel 16, 23). While most of the time in Scripture this relationship is viewed in terms of infidelity, it is also true that the theme of fidelity is expressed (Hos. 2:14-23; Isa. 62:4-5). Yet no one can deny the sexual imagery that might evoke another level of meaning considering the book of Song of Solomon. Perhaps the ultimate reason for a divine love in Song of Songs is in verse 8:6b: “strong as death is love, relentless as Sheol is passion; its darts are fiery darts, the flame of Yah.” The last phrase is a literal translation of the Hebrew compound noun sa ̆lhebethyáh with a shortened version of God’s name “Yahweh” (Yah) attached to it. It can also be translated “a Yahweh flame,” inferring that God is the originator of the flame. Even human love ultimately can be traced back to God (1 John 4: 7-8).
In summary, what do we do with the book Song of Solomon? We read it in its most natural, literal, and historic setting as a love poem within the wider Biblical context of marriage and intimacy.
Dr. Erhard Gallos, assistant professor of Religion at Andrews University, has served in pastoral ministry in Germany and academia in the United States. A specialist in the book of Hebrews and New Testament studies, he authored the 2022 Adult Sabbath School Teacher's Edition. He lives in Michigan with his wife Irmgard and twin daughters.
