The Song Of David’s Son: Interpreting The Song Of Solomon In The Light Of The Davidic Covenant

by Iain D. Campbell

Mr. Iain D. Campbell is pastor at Back Free Church, Vatisker, Scotland

Evangelical scholarship on the interpretation of the Song of Solomon has not advanced much beyond E. J. Young’s position that the Song is a “tacit parable,” which is “moral and didactic in its purpose.”[1] For such an evangelical master of Old Testament studies to declare that there is no warrant for a typological interpretation of the Song[2] was to set a boundary beyond which few have dared to venture.

Some of the most recent evangelical work on the Song has echoed the position adopted by Young. For example, Tremper Longman III has written that the book is “a book celebrating human sexuality”[3] and Tom Gledhill, in the IVP series The Bible Speaks Today, suggests that the Song is a love poem celebrating the love between Everyman and Everywoman, and warns against a typological approach which only blossoms “into the uncontrolled extravaganza of extreme allegories.”[4] David A. Hubbard, in the IVP New Bible Dictionary, has similarly argued that the exegetical basis for an allegorical or typical interpretation of the Song is “questionable.”[5] More recently, Paul R. House has argued, while raising important issues of canonical significance in his discussion of the Song, that its testimony is “to the one God who created men and women for loving, permanent relationships with one another.”[6] These approaches find common ground in advocating an interpretation of the Song which precludes typology. At one level, there is little to distinguish this approach from the more extreme liberal interpretations of the Song, which regard it as “pure sexual passion without the least trace of religious sentiment, all the more beautiful for that.”[7]

Yet even after Young had published his Introduction, with its disavowal of any typological interpretation of the Song, Professor Fred Leahy of Northern Ireland raised questions which have not satisfactorily been answered. In an article on “The Song of Solomon in Pastoral Teaching” he acknowledges that the preacher must settle the interpretative question before the Song can be preached, thus highlighting that the path from Song to sermon is fraught with difficulties. He also acknowledges that the Song does indeed reflect God’s provision for our human relationships, and that as far as the dignity of human love is concerned, “the great lessons taught by the Song … are not stressed as they should be.”[8] But Leahy was concerned that Young’s influential position did not go far enough, and that the Song ought to be exegeted not simply on its own terms, but also within the wider Scriptural context. This very point has been emphasized in House’s Old Testament Theology with his insistence that “more than any other Old Testament book, Song of Solomon needs to be interpreted in light of the whole of the Old Testament canon.”[9]

Leahy himself favored an allegorical approach introduced by Professor Duncan Weir and based upon the respective meanings of the names “Solomon” and “Shulammite,” both related to the Hebrew root for peace, the former reflecting an active voice, the latter a passive. “Solomon” is thus taken to mean “peace-giver,” and “Shulammith,” “peace-receiver.” In this way, Leahy suggests that the text itself provides an evangelical allegory on the nature of the reconciling love of God in Christ.

For all that, the evangelical preacher joins the ranks of generations of Christians who, in the words of one recent expositor, “have not known quite what to do with this enigmatic book.”[10] Charles Sedgwick, the expositor in question, makes an attempt to preach from Song 2:8–13 in a three-point sermon which focuses, first, on the Song’s celebration of love, second, on its celebration of youth, and third on its celebration of nature. Certainly the evangelical preacher cannot go any lower than this in preaching from the Song of Solomon. But can he go higher?

Part of the problem, in the absence of a theologically articulate evangelical interpretative method, is the wide variety of approaches taken by others towards the Song of Solomon. These have both informed and influenced the evangelical world in its interpretation of the Song. For example, many scholars have conformed to the view that Solomon is neither the subject of the Song, and nor is he its author. Further, it is taken as a truism that “had we not received a tradition that King Solomon wrote this Song, we would say that a woman composed it.”[11] Jill Munro, in her valuable work on the linguistic imagery of the Song, admits to having a gut feeling that the Song may be the work of an authoress,[12] while Donald Polaski is willing to concede that what is heard throughout the Song is the “authentic voice of woman.”[13] Sherwood E. Wirt, writing in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, stated categorically that “the song was neither by Solomon nor about him,”[14] showing how much critical influence has affected evangelical interpretations of the Song.

Coupled with this is the widely held view that the Song is not a song, but a collection of songs; Othmar Keel says that “As with other OT books, one must assume a rather complicated history behind the formation of the Song; it will be very difficult to ever achieve a high level of certainty about this matter.”[15] Keel’s insistence that Persian loanwords in the Song are a sign of non-Israelite origin was effectively answered by E. J. Young who reminded us in his Introduction of the wide-ranging and far-reaching interests of King Solomon, whose political interests extended far beyond the borders of Israel. Young advanced the view that it is unnecessary to conclude that “the presence of a Greek and Persian word is in itself determinative of a later date.”[16] The alleged multiple nature of the Song collection is also reflected, for example, in the title of Michael Goulder’s interesting and helpful volume, The Song of Fourteen Songs.[17]

Whether taken as a Song by woman for woman, or as a compilation of Songs, the net result (as far as Solomon himself is concerned) is the same. He is in the Song by default, but the role he plays is superficial and minimal. As far as that role is concerned, critical theories of the Song have tended to be reductionist in nature, and to suggest that Solomon has little of significance to do with its meaning and import. Some commentators, indeed, regarded Solomon as the villain of the story, who claimed the Shulammite for his own while her true lover was an unnamed shepherd boy. This view was propounded first by Johann Jacobi at the end of the eighteenth century, and was popularized by Heinrich Ewald in the nineteenth.[18] Gledhill has, however, rightly enumerated the principal difficulties with this “3-player drama” view of the Song, highlighting not only that there is no comparable literature in the Ancient Near East to favor this interpretation, but also that the hypothesis “requires the text to be interpreted against the natural flow of the dialogue.”[19] While eschewing this particular theory, however, Gledhill himself says that he takes “a minimalist position as far as the role of Solomon in the Song is concerned,[20] suggesting that the Song functions favorably and acceptably as a celebration of human love; for this to be the case, Solomon’s role hardly matters at all.

Not all non-evangelical scholars, however, are ready to dismiss or minimize Solomon’s role in the Song. Victor Sasson, for example, while not wishing to confine his view of the composition of the Song to Solomon’s time, nonetheless seeks to interpret at least one aspect of the Song in the light of a seemingly insignificant reference to Pharaoh’s daughter in four places in Kings.[21] The references are 1 Kings 3:1; 7:8; 9:24 and 11:1–2. Sasson’s thesis is that Pharaoh’s daughter, specifically singled out by name in these passages, may well be the dark maiden of the Song. While advancing critical questions and difficulties, Sasson’s article does have the merit of naturalizing the Song in the record of the historical Solomon, particularly in his emphasis on the frequent use of the king/shepherd persona in the psalms and the references to Solomon’s vineyards.[22]

Thus, while disagreeing over the literary nuances and linguistic features of the Song, interpreters both evangelical and non-evangelical find much to discuss, but appear to share common ground in their aversion to a typological interpretation. Keel, for example, expresses relief that the Song, for too long “under the capricious rule of a spiritualistic Babylon”[23] following the allegorizing tendencies of Origen, Gregory, Jerome and others has now been returned from exile, a renewed understanding of its “specific function within the biblical testimonies about humankind and humanity’s relationship to God and the world” having brought the Song to its natural home.[24]

I. A Home for the Song

But the question evangelicals must face is precisely this: where is the Song’s “home”? How can we determine its function and role within the canon of Scripture, and therefore its meaning and theological significance? Have we exhausted its meaning once we recognize the natural force of the Song’s celebration of the life of its lovers? Or, as Professor Hugh Blair puts it: “in the end one is left asking: What is there here to preach? One sermon, maybe, which might have been derived almost as readily from a marriage manual!”[25]

As those who approach the Bible with a high view both of its content and its authority, evangelicals cannot but agree that the Song is no less than a celebration of human love. The occasion of the song is a strong, passionate relationship, and the dialogue, with its strong sensual overtones and overt sexual language is a reflection of the fullness of God’s provision for mankind in intimate relationships. It is a falsehood to suggest that evangelicals are afraid of such a view. John Spong is being unkind when he suggests that allegorical or typological approaches to the Song were evidence of Puritan imposition,[26] as if somehow the Song as it is embarrasses Puritanism, or modern evangelicalism. Leland Ryken, for example, has amply demonstrated that classic Puritanism celebrated, and was not averse to the very sensuality present in the Song.[27]

Yet still the niggling feeling remains that the Song, if it is to be included in the canon at all, must mean more than this. If the Song’s meaning is exhausted as a celebration of human love, it is difficult to attach any theological significance to it, particularly given the absence of God’s name from the composition.[28] To have a book devoted to the joys of physical love in a collection of spiritually oriented and theologically significant writings would appear to make the Song superfluous. The salt seems to have lost its flavor, and is good for nothing. The evangelical does not approach the Song of Solomon as “a code to be cracked,” or with the belief that its imagery needs to be “subordinated to a general interest.”[29] He approaches the Song with the presumption that it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). To come away with the idea that the Song is a poem about human sexuality appears rather to short-change the interpreter of holy Scripture.

There is more. It is impossible for the evangelical to ignore the role of Solomon. It is not enough to take a minimalist approach to his presence in the Song. He is named as the author of the best song of all, for “the expression ‘Song of Songs’ is a superlative.”[30] This does not claim to be an ordinary song, but an extraordinary one, and one which is “Solomon’s” (v. 1). The prefix le (“by,” “for” or “in reference to”) in Hebrew can designate authorship, or can state a referent. Either way, whether as author or referent (and I am assuming he is both), Solomon’s role is far from minimal. He is involved in the drama which the superlative Song expresses. We cannot help thinking that if the song is simply a celebration of human love, any king would do. Indeed, there is no a priori reason why the subject of the song has to be a king at all. Yet he is a king, and his coronation becomes the central point of the Song (3:11ff). And not only is the lover a royal lover, but he is Solomon, whose name recurs throughout the Song, thus disallowing a minimalist role for him in our interpretation.

This is all the more striking in view of the fact that the Song is placed within the canon as part of a trilogy of Solomonic wisdom literature.[31] Too little has been made of this. Solomon received wisdom from God (1 Kgs 3:12), a point to which the author of Kings returns in 4:29–34:

God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon’s wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt…. Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.

The visit of the Queen of Sheba, recounted in 1 Kgs 10:1–13, further emphasizes <tj;1>the wisdom of Solomon, and it becomes crucial in our Lord’s preaching as he presses the claims of truth upon his own listeners (Matt 12:42, Luke 11:31).

The writings of Solomon—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song—are, therefore, of a piece. Proverbs employs the classic antithetical parallelism of Ancient Near Eastern wisdom lore to differentiate between the right way and the wrong way. The path of wisdom is constantly being contrasted with the path of falsehood. Death and life, blessing and cursing, hope and despair—the fundamental themes of biblical, covenantal revelation—are set side by side in the Book of Proverbs. Almost by way of illustration, we then have Ecclesiastes—a sermon further elucidating the way of emptiness, and the Song, celebrating the way of fulfillment, happiness and peace. Ecclesiastes has itself long troubled commentators, but interpreters of Scripture must realize that it is a sermon, the announcement of whose text is left until the end: “fear God, and keep his commandments” (12:13). The modus of Solomon, the wise preacher, has been throughout to illustrate life from the standpoint of those who do not fear God, who have chosen the foolish way, who therefore have placed themselves outwith the blessings of God’s covenant. The way of the foolish is the way of those who have left God out of their sight. For such, the only song to sing is “Vanity of Vanities.”

Contrast this with the path of wisdom in the “Song of Songs.” Here is the contrast: life instead of despair, love instead of friendlessness, fulfillment instead of meaninglessness. The Song shows life at its best, as Ecclesiastes shows life at its worst. Within this canonical trilogy, Ecclesiastes and the Song can be viewed as illustrating and elucidating the contrasts drawn so vividly in Proverbs and throughout covenantal Scripture.

And it is also striking to note that, as with Ecclesiastes, the message of the Song is left until last: love, Solomon declares, is strong as death (8:6)! Ecclesiastes teaches that a life of self-interest, divorced from God, leads to meaninglessness, frustration, death and judgement. The Song of Solomon, on the other hand, highlights the themes of hope, fulfillment, life and blessing, because, of all the virtues, the greatest is love (cf. 1 Cor 13:13). Wilfred Watson, in a recent discussion of the “love is strong as death” phrase in Song 8:6, regards it “as the most important in the whole book,”[32] and finds a parallel in the Epic of Gilgamesh where there is a celebration of a “fine young man, [and] the beautiful girl, when making love, together they confront death.” This is central and fundamental; and Watson suggests that the heart of the affirmation is that love defies death because life is its issue, its result, or perhaps also that while death separates, love challenges and defies it because love unites.[33] The primary emphasis of the Song is in the prevailing power and defiant force of love.

II. A Word on Typology

So why did God not just place the Epic of Gilgamesh in the canon? Why this Song? Why Solomon’s Song? And why here?

One of the weaknesses of recent scholarship on the Song has been a failure to discriminate between allegory and typology. Both certainly draw attention to the fact that any Scripture may mean more than the sum of the definitions of a text’s individual words. For the evangelical, semantics is the first stop on the interpretative route, but it is not the last. There must be an appreciation of the unity of the Bible, revealing as it does the nature of God’s salvation in redemptive history. The interpreter must appreciate that the unfolding of God’s redemptive covenant of grace lies at the heart of a truly biblical theology. And with each successive revelation of that covenant throughout the Old Testament, the arc of revelation becomes wider, the light more clear, and the focus of salvation’s interest in Jesus Christ becomes progressively narrower.

It is the unfolding revelation of God’s covenant which also lays the foundation for a legitimate typological understanding of much of the Old Testament. Some groundbreaking work in this area was done by Geerhardus Vos in his Biblical Theology when he insisted that “the gateway to the house of typology is at the farther end of the house of symbolism.”[34] If it is true that the Bible shows God at work for the redemption of his people, graciously entering into covenant with them, with each stage of covenantal revelation building on the preceding and anticipating what was to come, then events, people and places which were symbolic in the OT become typical and anticipatory of the fuller revelation of the NT. Thus, the writer to the Hebrews can describe the OT sacrificial system and the priesthood in terms of typology, because the sacrifices, as integral provisions of the covenant, were symbolic to the people of God amid the shadows of an incomplete revelation, of the atonement God was providing for sin.

Allegory is not the same as typology, then, even though modern commentators like Martin Pope, in discussing Christian Interpretations of the Song, consistently refer to allegorical interpretation when discussing any interpretation which goes beyond the bare literalism of the text.[35] Allegory is often an illegitimate approach to the text, by which the biblical text can be made to say virtually anything. Typology operates within strict analogical controls and parameters, recognizing that a person, place, or event in the OT can be typological only insofar as it was symbolic within God’s historico- redemptive work.[36]

Despite her aversion to wild allegorical interpretations of the Song, Jill Munro concedes that the concept of Yahweh as husband of his people is a powerful OT metaphor (rather than allegory).[37] In her interpretation, she also wishes to avoid a typological interpretation which is determined more by the New Testament than by the Song itself.[38] She concedes the prophetic use of the marriage imagery, but says the prophetic emphases on marriage as legal institution, betrothal, dowry, etc. are entirely missing from the Song. In this way she dismisses an extra-textual reference point because the Song itself does not explicitly claim such a reference.

Yet Munro is getting closer to the truth of the matter than most commentators are willing to go. She realizes the similarities between the marriage imagery of the Song and the marriage language of the prophets. She also realizes that the concept of metaphor brings us closer to a legitimate biblically oriented typical hermeneutic than the tendency to allegorize. Yet her exegesis of the Song is flawed because it is not the marriage that is the central symbol.

III. Is There a Prominent Symbolism in the Song?

Love and marriage, to be sure, are the occasion of the Song. There is, therefore, an overlap between the marriage imagery as employed by the prophets and as employed in the Song. Yet, in terms of the unfolding revelation of God’s covenantal redemption,[39] the prominent symbol of the Song is not the marriage per se, but the bridegroom. That marriage is a metaphor of God’s unique relationship to his church is clear enough from Scripture. But that is not enough for establishing a legitimate typology here. What is enough is the fact that Solomon, of all individuals, and of all kings, is the bridegroom figure of this superlative Song. Attention has been drawn often enough to the record of Solomon’s life—he was hardly a model husband. He was certainly wise, yet his wisdom did not prevent him from transgressing the demands of the Mosaic covenant, in marrying foreign women—a behavioral pattern which exposed him to God’s chastisement.

Yet none of this can detract from the potent symbolism of Solomon’s role and position within OT biblical theology. That role is defined in the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7, where David’s son was promised as the heir, beneficiary and mediator of blessing for God’s covenant people. God promised to raise up David’s offspring to succeed him, “who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:12).[40] Personal failings aside, Solomon appears on the scene of biblical revelation as a symbol to God’s people of God’s covenant promise and God’s covenant salvation. To Adam in sin God promised that the seed of the woman would save the world (Gen 3:15). To Noah, waking from a drunken stupor, God covenanted that from the line of Seth, Noah’s son, the Savior would come (Gen 9:26). To David, following his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, God promised that he would raise up David’s offspring as the means of his people’s salvation. In all cases, in spite of personal failing, there was a personal promise given by God, and the immediate fulfillment of his promise was symbolic of its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. Thus Solomon, the immediate consequent of God’s covenantal promise to David and of the covenantal bond between God and his church, was a type of the covenant’s ultimate focus: the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the son of David (Matt 1:1) as he is the root and offspring of David (Rev 22:16). The NT both begins and ends with Christ acknowledged as David’s son, corres ponding to his being the ultimate fulfillment of God’s covenantally promised Savior.

It is my belief that Solomon himself, rather than the marriage theme, is the key to the interpretation of the Song. He is the promised son of David and heir of the covenant. As such, he is a type of David’s greater Son, the Lord Jesus, whose marriage to the church is fundamental NT doctrine as it is fundamental NT metaphor. A typological interpretation of the Song of Solomon is grounded not in the use of the marriage metaphor by the biblical writers, but in the place which Solomon occupies within the unfolding biblical revelation. This, in turn, is what alone justifies raising the interpretation of the Song above a literalistic and exemplaristic demonstration of human, physical love.

IV. Similarities between the Davidic Covenant and the Song

This thesis can be further demonstrated by an examination of the overlap between the terms of the covenant with David and the terms of the Song itself.

First, there is the image of planting. God says in 2 Sam 7:10 that he will plant his people in their own land. The idea runs throughout the OT; Ps 80:7ff describes Israel as a vine taken from Egypt and (trans)planted in Canaan, and both Isaiah (58:11) and Jeremiah (31:12) employ the planting/gardening imagery of the people of God. God is indeed the husbandman (cf. John 15:1), and his people are his planting. This concept has been described as “the keynote of the covenant with David.”[41]

The Song abounds with references to gardens both in reference to Solomon (e.g., at 6:2) and to his bride (such as at 4:12 and 8:13). Descriptions of lush foliage and fragrant flowers recall the Edenic Paradise which God prepared for Adam at the dawn of human history. This parallelism has been explored in an interesting article by Francis Landy, in which he argues that the lost paradise of Genesis is regained through love, as illustrated in the Song.[42] Full of interest as this article is, it fails to reckon with the fact that what expelled man from Paradise was a flaming sword which turned every way (Gen 3:24). It required more than love to re-enter Paradise; Paradise could be regained only by an atonement which could take the flaming sword out of the way. Despite the shortcoming of Landy’s discussion, it is true that there is a clear relationship between Genesis and the Song, and it may well be that “the latter is a comment on the former, from within the historical process.”[43] It is certainly the case that the garden man destroyed by his sin, God has determined to rebuild and replant by his grace, and that this garden image is integral to the Davidic covenant.

In this light, therefore, the references to the king’s orchards and vineyards, where the bride enjoys the intimacy of his presence, takes on a deep significance. As in Psalm 45 “the palace is the place of the celebration of love, in the Song it is the garden that fills this role.”[44] The bridegroom is the unique tree among the trees of the wood (2:1) and it is within his garden that he will enjoy the fruits not only of his planting, but also of the bride’s love reciprocated and enjoyed. There is, therefore, in the Song an echo of the divine undertaking of the covenant. God is a planting God. The church is the work of his hand, and his own covenant community is a fruit-bearing community (cf. Hos 14:8; Gal 5:22–23). The blessings of intimacy and love are enjoyed as a direct consequence of covenant grace.

Second, there is the emphasis within the covenant on David’s offspring (2 Sam 7:12). The promises stretch out into an as yet unknown future, but focus particularly on the Davidic line. Interestingly, the anticipated beneficiary of the covenant is not named in 2 Samuel 7; nor is he specifically referred to as David’s son ( ben) but as his seed ( zeraʾ). The promises of estab lishment and confirmation focus immediately and primarily upon Solomon, the son of David, but extend beyond him to the ultimate beneficiary of the covenant, the Lord Himself. He is the root of David as well as his offspring (Rev 22:16): Christ is both the one from whom David came and the one who came from David. The NT Christology is thus anchored in the Davidic covenant. The Solomon of the Song is the promised heir of the covenant, and thus the symbol of a filio-christology and a unique kingship, which would only be fully realized in the advent and the glory of Christ.

But the fulfillment of the covenant in terms of David’s offspring is also found in the fact of the marriage itself. Marriage is in the first instance an arrangement which both cements and guards the love-bond between two people. But it is also a provision given by God for the procreation of children. Not only did God intend that marriage should bring an element of exclusiveness into the love-relationship, but he intended that as a result of marriage there should be the physical enjoyment of sexual relations and the consequent birth of children. The family unit is erected upon the foundation of the marriage covenant. Without the Song, we might conclude from the biblical history that Solomon had no perfect marriage. God chastized him precisely because he took strange wives, committing adultery at will and throwing caution and integrity to the wind. Yet, while sin abounds, grace abounds much more. Despite Solomon’s infidelity and his adultery, God honors his commitment to morality and marriage by reminding us in the Song of one marriage which was full of the blessing of God. Not only so, but it anticipates that God will indeed fulfil the terms of his covenant promise: there will be a seed. Solomon will not be impotent, nor will his bride be infertile. The planting imagery, the seed imagery, is carried over in the marriage context to an anticipated issue, where the blessing of the covenant will ultimately be realized in the advent of David’s greatest Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the promised seed, and in spite of Solomon’s failing to obey God’s law, grace abounds to the extent that a marriage commitment will be the means by which the promised seed, the promised savior, will come.

Third, the Davidic covenant emphasizes the continuance and establishment of the royal throne. Both the kingdom (2 Sam 7:12) and the throne of the kingdom (2 Sam 7:13) will be established. God undertakes to ensure the continuance of the Davidic line as the legitimate seat of authority and as the place which will be recognized as the place of blessing. So intimate is the connection between the throne on which David sits and the royal rule which Jehovah exercises over his people that the Chronicler says that “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father” (1 Chron 29:22). The throne occupied by Solomon is the Lord’s. O. Palmer Robertson expresses it thus: “The throne of David’s descendants is nothing less than the throne of God itself.”[45] This is again made explicit at 2 Chron 13:8, where the kingdom of the Lord is said to be in the hands of David’s descendants.

The Song exhibits regal features and royal imagery throughout. Jerusalem, the city of David is frequently mentioned (1:5; 2:7; 3:5, 10; 5:8, 16; 6:4; 8:4), as is the royal palace (1:4; 2:4). The most explicit reference to Solomon’s royal status is at 3:9–11, with its description of Solomon’s coronation procession, and its running together of the themes of crowning and marriage. There is a sense in which this is central to the whole work, as the twin themes of the king in his status and the king in his marriage are brought to our attention. In this way, the Song weaves together, in a rich tapestry of metaphors, the themes of Solomon’s person and Solomon’s office under God. Despite his personal sins and failings, which were many, he had an official function as the king over God’s people which precisely fulfilled the terms of the covenant God had made with this father. The crown on Solomon’s head was a potent symbol of the faithfulness of Solomon’s God. As such, it becomes a type of the crown to sit one day on the head of Jesus Christ. The Song celebrates a personal interest on the part of the royal bride in the royal bridegroom, never letting us forget that his status is that of no ordinary husband, but one upon whom God has set his seal. It is important to bear in mind the distinction and yet the inseparability of the personal and the official references to Solomon throughout the Song.

Fourth, the Davidic covenant emphasized the divine sonship of the promised heir and beneficiary of the covenant. Jehovah had stated unequivocally of David’s son that “I will be his father and he will be my son” (2 Sam 7:14, echoed in Ps 89:26–27). The covenant had an adoptive function as far as David’s son was concerned; by virtue of God’s choice of him, he was to enter into a unique relationship with God. This unique relationship is also reflected in the record of Solomon’s birth; when Bathsheba bore him, the Bible says that “the Lord loved him” (2 Sam 12:24), a love that was reflected in the oft-forgotten name which Jehovah himself gave to Solomon: Jedidiah, “beloved of the Lord” (see 2 Sam 12:25). In Ps 89:27, God makes David his firstborn, although “literally, David was neither the first king of Israel nor the first son born to his parents.”[46] The choice of David is echoed in the relational position with God that Solomon occupies. Out of all David’s family, Solomon is chosen by God as his son. It is surely significant that the greatest love poem of the Old Testament should be Solomon’s song, rather than any other. If the contribution of the Song to the canon were merely a celebration of human love at its most pure, then presumably any character might have featured.

But the primary actor is Solomon, specifically named not simply as the beloved of the Shulamite, but the beloved of Jehovah, not simply the son of mighty David, but the son of the almighty God. The place of Solomon is undermined in a purely literalistic or exemplarist reading of the Song. The moment Solomon is mentioned, the undercurrents of covenant privilege and position elevate the thought of him. He is the promised royal seed, whom God has made his own. The Song, while not specifically referring to the ascendants of the kingly bridegroom, nevertheless recalls the special position which he occupies in the unfolding of God’s revelation. This is no ordinary bridegroom, and no ordinary king.

Fifth, the Davidic covenant highlighted the inalienable mercy and loving kindness of God. 2 Sam 7:15 makes explicit the promise that God’s hesed, his covenant love, would never depart from the seed of David. The word of life came to the OT church in the revelation of the hesed, in “the showing of … faithful love toward the person who is bound to oneself by a covenant.”[47] It is both the promise and the display of that covenant faithfulness which enables David to anticipate great things. He knows that God has spoken “for a long time to come” (2 Sam 7:19). Rooted as the covenant is in God’s undertaking to be the lover of his people, David can consciously predict that the king par excellence will come of his line. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., has shown that irrespective of the individual acts of rebellion against God on the part of some of David’s descendants (Solomon included), their forfeiture of covenant blessing “cannot affect the certainty of God’s oath … God … staunchly affirms the fidelity and perpetuity of His covenant to David in spite of succeeding rascals who may appear in his lineage.”[48] The prophet Isaiah, in his presentation of the Gospel in Isa 55:1–3 invites all and sundry into an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David. This establishes a relation between covenant as gospel foundation and call as gospel invitation, integral to the revelation of God’s salvation in every age. Hugh Martin, the eminent Scottish theologian of the nineteenth century, described this relationship between the call and the covenant as “very intimate…. The gospel call comes forth from the covenant and summons sinners into it. It is a voice from within the covenant, addressed to those that are without … it is therefore a universal call.”[49]

Although the Hebrew word hesed is not found in the Song, the prominent idea in the Song is of the love (ʿhb) which is stronger than death (Song 8:6). Love is that which death cannot destroy. On a human level, that is true only in measure; even in its purest form between lovers, death does, in fact, conquer. Yet the Song celebrates love as something enduring, something eternal. Love is also that which many waters cannot drown. It is interesting that Isaiah, in the context just mentioned, speaks of the flood (Isa 54:8–9), a reference to the Noahic covenant and the certainty of God’s grace enduring for all time. Covenant mercy is the dominant theme in that passage—“with everlasting kindness will I have mercy…” (Isa 54:8). Jeremiah ties the idea of love with the idea of everlasting lovingkindness in 31:3, where God says to his people “I have loved you with an everlasting love (ʿahäba); I have drawn you with loving-kindness (hesed).” This bringing together of the concept of love and covenant faithfulness is integral to the prophetic presentation of Jehovah as the spouse of the church. Love is also that which the substance of a man’s house cannot procure (Song 8:7). In the context of the interplay within the Davidic covenant between David’s desire to build a house for God, and God’s determination to build a house (= dynasty) for David, this is an interesting connection. The lesson David learned was that it was a greater privilege to be the object of God’s building than the builder of a house for God. The wisdom of the gospel centers not upon what we can do for God, but what God can do for us. In these ways, the same idea of God’s covenant love, and his covenant faithfulness, integral to the revelation of the covenant of his grace to David, becomes the dominant theme of the Song also. The Song is truly the Song of David’s Son.

V. Conclusion

Most commentators argue that there is no warrant for a typological interpretation of the Song. Few commentators view the Song in the light of the Davidic covenant. Yet, as the OT sacrificial system can be understood only within the contours of God’s covenant, so the Song can be understood only in the light of the revelation of that same covenant, and, particularly, the place of Solomon within it. If Solomon is minimalized in the interpretation of the Song of Solomon, then a literalistic interpretation is the only legitimate approach to it. There is no justification for an unwarranted allegorizing of the Song, or for an unwarranted typology. But the argument of this paper has been that there is a legitimate typology, based upon the revelation of the covenant of grace. In this sense, while the Song truly celebrates human love, and is not less than this, it is much, much more.

Michael Goulder, in his The Song of Fourteen Songs, while arguing that an allegorical interpretation does not work as a hermeneutical principle, nevertheless sees in the Song a proto-Gospel which he argues is fully developed in Paul. He sees the Song as going against the tenor of the OT; in the rest of the OT, he says,

the Jews are the privileged people, who will welcome Gentiles to their God’s Temple or carry the word of repentance to them. In the Song there are no privileges. All the women compete on a par for Solomon’s love and our princess carries the day by her beauty, her affection and her persistence. The unspoken and unintended implication is that Jews and Gentiles are equal in the sight of God. Such theological insights do not receive explicit expression before the Epistle to the Ephesians.[50]

That is almost the truth, but it is not the whole truth; if it were, it would be discordant in the revelation of the OT (as Goulder seems to recognize). For the reality is not that the Shulammite, by nature a stranger to the covenant community, is on a par with Jewish girls for the affections of the king, but that, in spite of her natural alienation from the covenant and the covenant people, yet by virtue of her marriage to Solomon she becomes integrated into that very communion. Her marriage with the son of David results in her becoming an heiress of God, and a joint-heir with Solomon of the blessings of the covenant, a full member of the covenant community, as if she had never been anything else. It is of the essence of the Gospel that we too have become “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). This is the heart of the covenant. The epistle to the Ephesians brings these themes together. Those who were by nature “separated from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise” (Eph 2:12) have been brought near by Christ’s blood—so near, in fact, that the church has become his spouse (Eph 5:32).

While we must avoid an unwarranted allegorizing, and eschew an illegitimate typology, it is my firm conviction that the Davidic covenant opens an entry-point to the interpretation of the Song of Solomon. In the light of the covenant revelation in redemptive history, it is possible for us to say that the Song’s celebration of human love operates as a fitting occasion for its grand themes; but we must say more, for “a greater than Solomon is here.” It is while confined to a naturalistic, literalistic and exemplaristic interpretation that the Song is in a Babylonian captivity. It is when interpreted in the light of the Davidic covenant that the Song is brought from exile to its natural resting-place in biblical theology.

Notes

1. E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (1949; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 336.
2. Ibid., 333.
3. W. A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE), Vol 4, (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 1238.
4. T. Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 34.
5. D. A. Hubbard, “The Song of Solomon” in J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary, (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 1133.
6. Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 469.
7. W. S. Blunt, quoted in A. Pressinger and E. L. Greenstein, eds., The Hebrew Bible in Literary Criticism (New York: Ungar, 1988), 571.
8. F. S. Leahy, “The Song of Solomon in pastoral teaching,” The Evangelical Quarterly 27 (October 1955) 212. Leahy is talking of the lack of practical emphasis on the dignity of human love in our preaching.
9. House, Old Testament Theology, 464. House’s position is the assumption behind this paper also, but it will be argued that interpreting the Song in the light of the Canon means necessarily moving beyond a bare literalism.
10. C. Sedgwick, “Let there be love: A sermon on Song 2:8–13, ” The Expository Times 108 (October 1996-September 1997) 310.
11. Shelomo Goitein, quoted in Pressinger and Greenstein, Hebrew Bible, 574.
12. J. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: A Study in the Poetic Language of the Song of Songs (Sheffield: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 203, 1995), 147.
13. D. C. Polaski, “What will ye see in the Shulammite? Women, Power and Panopticism in the Song of Songs,” Biblical Interpretation, V (1997) 64.
14. W. E. Wirt, “Some New Thoughts about the Song of Solomon,” JETS 33 (December 1990) 435.
15. O. Keel, The Song of Songs, A Continental Commentary, trans. F. J. Gaiser, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 5.
16. Young, Introduction, 333.
17. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 36, Sheffield, 1986.
18. See discussion in R. E. Murphy, The Song of Songs, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 38.
19. Ibid., 26.
20. Ibid., 23.
21. V. Sasson, “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” Vetus Testamentum xxxix (1989) 410-14.
22. Ibid., 410-41.
23. Keel, Song of Songs, 11.
24. Ibid.
25. H. Blair, “Preaching from the Song of Solomon,” Reformed Theological Journal 3 (November 1987) 54. Blair himself concludes that “Only a lover can understand a love song, and only a Christian, beloved by Christ and loving Him, can appreciate the picture of Christ’s love that fulfilled human love provides in this Song of Songs …” (58). Unfortunately, Blair provides no justification for this “typological” approach, which is closer to allegory than typology.
26. J. S. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: HarperSanFransisco, 1991), 64.
27. L. Ryken, Worldy Saints: The Puritans as they really were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); especially chapter 3 “Marriage and Sex.”
28. Although, see Murphy, Song of Songs, 191–92 for a discussion on the possibility that 8:6 contains the name of Jehovah in a contracted form.
29. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron, 12.
30. Keel, Song of Songs, 38.
31. I am aware of the arguments which have been advanced in evangelical interpretation of Ecclesiastes against Solomonic authorship. However, I would refer the reader to Gleason Archer’s article “The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Ecclesiastes,” JETS 12 (Summer 1969) 167-81, in which he has argued cogently that linguistic analysis of Ecclesiastes furnishes good evidence for Solomonic authorship.
32. W. G. E. Watson, “Love and Death once more (Song of Songs viii. 6),” Vetus Testamentum xlvii (1997) 386.
33. Ibid. Watson is willing to concede that poetry can accommodate both nuances.
34. G. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 162.
35. See, for example, Martin Pope’s section on “Christian Interpretations” in his Song of Songs: A New Interpretation with Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 112–32.
36. Patrick Fairbairn’s two volumes on The Typology of Scripture (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1864), remain unsurpassed in my judgment as thorough discussions of this subject. The heart of a biblically constructed principle of typological interpretation is summarized by Fairbairn as follows: “… the main peculiarity … of God’s method of instruction and discipline in respect to the OT Church, consisted in the use of symbol and action. It was chiefly by means of historical transactions and symbolical rites that the ancient believers were taught what they knew of the truths and mysteries of grace. For the practical guidance and direction of their conduct they were furnished with means of information the most literal and express; but in regard to the spiritual concerns and objects of the Messiah’s kingdom, all was couched under veil and figure” (vol. 1, 206).
37. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron, 13.
38. Ibid., 14.
39. It is worth pointing out, perhaps, that in the Bible marriage IS a covenant, and God’s covenant IS his marriage with his people.
40. See O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), 233–34.
41. NIDOTTE, Vol. 3, 95.
42. F. Landy, “The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979) 513.
43. Ibid., 528.
44. G. Lloyd Carr, “The Old Testament Love Songs and Their Use in the New Testament,” JETS 24 (June 1981) 104.
45. Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, 250.
46. L. Ryken, J. C. Wilhoit and T. Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Bible Imagery (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 289.
47. W. Eichrodt, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2 (Kent: SCM Press, 1967), 322.
48. W. C. Kaiser Jr, “The Blessing of David: Humanity’s Charter,” in J. Skilton, ed., The Law and the Prophets (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977), 307.
49. H. Martin, The Atonement (Edinburgh: Lyon and Gemmell, 1877), 20.
50. Michael D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs, 78.