Guidelines for Understanding and Utilizing the Song of Songs

By Greg W. Parsons

[Greg W. Parsons is Professor of Biblical Studies, Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary, Jacksonville, Texas.]

According to LaCocque the Song of Songs presents the interpreter with the “greatest hermeneutical challenge” in the Old Testament, if not the Bible as a whole.[1] Because of its erotic and highly figurative language and its absence of any references to religious institutions, practices, or themes (including any indisputable reference to God),[2] the book seems to be “even more irreligious” than the Book of Esther.[3] Delitzsch called it “the most obscure book of the Old Testament.”[4]

Should modern readers accept the opinion of medieval Jewish commentator Saadia that the various facets of the Song of Songs are like locks to which the keys have been lost?[5] The long history of allegorical interpretation of the Song, which subjectively applies these verses to God’s love for Israel (as in Saadia’s interpretation) or Christ’s love for the church, has contributed to this feeling of uncertainty about the message of the book.

However, largely because of the modern discovery of love songs in Egypt and Mesopotamia and the preservation of wedding songs and customs among certain Arab peoples, the quest for the meaning of the Song has received fresh impetus. On one hand these discoveries have spawned new theories that tend to add to the confusion. On the other hand a careful look at these possible cultural backgrounds may provide the proper literary canvas on which to paint a more accurate picture of the biblical Song.

Stuart,[6] Hubbard,[7] and Brug[8] have offered helpful suggestions for understanding the book. Yet no single work has provided guidelines that adequately summarize all the components essential for a proper interpretation of the Song.

Also insufficient information is available concerning how to utilize this book for the church. The recent trend of evangelical writers is to use the Song as the basis for practical teaching on courtship and marriage. Yet some of these books or videos are not adequately grounded in the text of the Song of Songs or they misinterpret certain details of its original meaning. This article seeks to present specific overall guidelines to help expositors understand and utilize this challenging book.

Guidelines for Understanding the Song of Songs

Guideline one: Determine the proper hermeneutical approach in order to determine the primary message of the Song. [9]

This guideline suggests the following two important principles. Based on an inductive reading and study of the whole Song, seek to answer the following foundational questions. Is the Song of Songs primarily about the love of a man and a woman, or about the love of God and His people, or a combination of the two? Is the Song based on real people, or on characters and events that are literary creations of the author?[10] Depending on the answers to these two questions, essentially four or five basic positions result.[11] An inductive study of the text is needed to minimize the danger of either blindly following a commentary or allowing one’s presuppositions to dictate conclusions.

Become knowledgeable of the major approaches.[12] Five views have been prominent over the centuries. The allegorical view, the predominant interpretation from the second to the nineteenth century, is rare today.[13] Adopting this view, Jewish writers saw the book as a portrait of God’s love for Israel,[14] and Christian interpreters saw it as a picture of Christ’s love for the church.

Evidence for the allegorical view is slight. The only biblical support is implicit, namely, the use of marriage as a metaphor to describe the relationship of God’s love for Israel (Isa. 5:1–7; Hos. 1–3; 11–14; Ezek. 16) and of Christ’s love for the church (Eph. 5:22–33).[15]

The allegorical approach, however, has several other weaknesses. For one thing, this school of interpretation suffers from too much subjectivity. No two scholars agree-particularly in the details16 -unless they are copying from each other.[17]

By means of an invalid “totality transfer,”[18] it is assumed that the similarity between the Song of Songs and prophetic love language describing God’s love for Israel required an allegorical interpretation.[19] But the Song of Songs has no features that require it to be understood as an allegory, as do the imagery of talking trees in Judges 9:7–15[20] and the specific interpretation of imagery in Isaiah 5:7. The allegorical interpretation is often based on “an implicit acceptance of the Platonic or Gnostic belief that physical things, particularly those related to sexuality, are intrinsically evil.”[21]

The Bible never uses explicitly sexual imagery to describe God’s relationship to His covenant people. Explicit sexual imagery and language is consistent with pagan love lyrics[22] but is inappropriate as a description of the love of God or of Christ.[23] The absence of religious vocabulary or even the name of God in the Song differentiates it not only from the “divine” love poetry of the ancient Near East but also from theological allegory.[24]

Though the New Testament metaphor of the church as a bride has been used to support the allegorical view, the New Testament never quotes from or alludes to the Song of Songs.

Second, the typical interpretation understands the literal historical picture of Solomon’s love for the Shulammite maiden as foreshadowing Christ’s love for the church. Common among conservatives in the twentieth century,[25] this view avoids the subjectivity of the allegorical approach by preserving a literal sense for the Song of Songs. Yet when proclaiming its message, proponents tend to allow the typical (or spiritual) dimension of Christ’s love to drown out any original message to its hearers.

The conclusions of this view seem highly unlikely because of three major problems. (1) Since Solomon had many wives and concubines, he is not the best example to typify Christ.[26] (2) Nothing in the Song suggests that it is to be interpreted typologically. (3) The New Testament, by not quoting or alluding to the Song, gives no support to this view.[27]

Some writers say the Song of Songs may illustrate God’s love, even though nothing in the Bible supports it.[28]

Third, the dramatic theory has also been popular among interpreters since the nineteenth century.[29] It assumes that the presence of dialogue, soliloquy, and choruses implies a drama that involves either two or three main characters.

The more common two-character view is seen as a “cinderella story” of the love of Solomon for the Shulammite maiden (6:13). The Shulammite was a “cinderella” (1:5), beautiful but unnoticed, as she worked in Solomon’s vineyard (8:11). Her half-brothers made her work so hard that she became sun-burned (1:6). So Solomon (“prince charming”) rescued her and made her his bride (3:7–11).[30]

The three-main-character view is called “the shepherd hypothesis” because it postulates an additional character, a common shepherd (1:7–8), who was the Shulammite maiden’s true love. The maiden spurned King Solomon’s efforts to win her love with his riches (8:6–7).[31]

This view has several weaknesses. (1) No evidence exists to indicate that drama, whether historical or fictional, was a literary genre among the ancient Semites (in contrast to Greek culture).[32] (2) The book seemingly has no plot or story line, as would be expected in a drama.[33] (3) The dramatic theory calls for reading into the text a number of things, such as complicated stage directions.[34] (4) Advocates of the dramatic view have often rearranged the text.[35]

Fourth, the literal-historical view is also common today in several variations. It normally combines one of the dramatic views with a literal romantic incident in Solomon’s life.[36]

The two-character version of this view explains the Song as the love story of Solomon and the Shulammite maiden who is identified as Abishag the Shunammite (1 Kings 1:1–4; 2:21–22), an Egyptian princess (3:1; 7:8; cf. Song 1:9), or some unidentified country girl or princess.

The three-character version sees the Song as the story of Solomon’s failure to win the fair maiden from an ordinary shepherd, her true love.[37] However, the absence of any certain identification of the Shulammite (6:13) or even whether she is an actual historical figure makes this interpretation tenuous.[38]

Fifth, the love-song view understands the text as lyric love poetry,[39] but not necessarily correlated to events in Solomon’s life. The discovery of love songs from Egypt and Mesopotamia with historical-cultural parallels has made this view popular.

This position sees the message of the Song as the celebration of romantic and sexual bliss between man and woman.[40] It occurs in two versions. In one the references to Solomon and to “the king” are seen as literal references to King Solomon.[41] However, Solomon was not a good example of devoted romantic love.[42]

The other version of the lyric love-song interpretation sees these royal references to “Solomon” and “the king” (1:4, 12; 7:5) as figurative love language-part of a literary fiction in which the lovers use the royal motif to express endearment.[43] This conclusion (shared by the present writer) is supported by the use of literary fiction in ancient Egyptian love songs. In this approach the lovers are given “royal names.” For example in Egyptian writings the man is compared to a “king’s agent” or to the falcon, the royal bird of Egypt, while the woman is garbed in royal linen.[44] In Song 1:5 the maiden is compared to “the tent curtains of Solomon.” Also the name “Prince Meḥy” in several Egyptian love songs may denote a legendary lover (a Don Juan type).[45] Similarly Alster argues that a specific king’s name in Sumerian love songs may stand for any lover. Thus the mention of “King Solomon” in 3:9, 11 may not be literal but could represent every lover[46] or even portray the bridegroom as a legendary lover. Also the term Shulammite as the feminine form of “Solomon” may mean “Solomoness” as a royal term of endearment.[47] This is similar to modern Arab weddings from nineteenth-century Syria, in which the bridegroom and bride were treated as “king” and “queen.”[48] Every groom is Solomon and every bride is a princess.[49]

The main weakness of this version of the lyric love song view is that the term “king” (by itself) is not used to denote the male lover in Egyptian love songs nor is the term “queen” clearly employed to designate the bride in the Song of Songs.[50]

Guideline two: Utilize the various literary forms, devices, and motifs in both biblical and extrabiblical poetry as clues to the specific message and movement of the Song of Songs.

Poetic literary devices. The Song shares similar literary devices with other poetic works in the Hebrew Bible; yet altogether these devices give the Song a stylistic uniqueness.[51] Selected examples of these poetic devices will follow with emphasis on their function and rhetorical effect.

The complex issue of Hebrew parallelism (which Carr terms “thought rhyme” rather than “word rhyme”)[52] can be given only an abbreviated look.[53] Although the Song of Songs exhibits some typical kinds of parallelism (such as synonymous parallelism-the repetition of an idea in the second line-2:5ab, 8b), it tends to utilize less common types of parallelism and even rare poetic patterns. Thus there appears to be no indisputable example of antithetic (or contrasting) parallelism[54] in the strictest sense, though some verses demonstrate a reversal of an idea in the next line (1:6c; 5:6ab)[55] or verse (6:8–9). The typical semantic equivalence between two lines is frequently set aside for dramatic explanation (1:2) or “for the sake of narrative concatenation” (i.e., a linked chain of interdependent versets to describe an object, image, or dream, as in 3:1–4, 6–10; 5:2–8).[56] Also the Song exhibits a “terrace” pattern in which the last part of a line is repeated at the beginning of the next line (e.g., 2:15).[57]

The linkage between consecutive half-lines is also furthered by three other types of parallelism. The first is “climactic” (or “staircase”) parallelism, which contains a repeated element to advance the lines by steps (4:8a-d, 9; 5:9; cf. 6:1).[58] Another is a unique variation of so-called number parallelism. Whereas the normal pattern is x/x+1, the Song innovates with the approximate pattern x/x+1/“all” (6:8).[59] Juxtaposed with this number parallelism of 6:8 is another possible climactic parallelism in 6:9,[60] utilizing the number “one” (or “unique”) twice to stress the uniqueness of the Shulammite maiden (in contrast to the numerous royal figures and innumerable maidens). The third is emblematic parallelism in which one half-line employs a metaphor or simile and the other half-line provides the literal referent. Usually this serves to clarify the meaning of the metaphorical language (as in 2:2 and 2:3); yet in the Song a similar poetic device in 1:12–14 promotes “a delightful confusion between the literal nard with which she has perfumed herself and the figurative myrrh she cradles” (namely, her lover).[61]

Similarly the Song utilizes double entendre in various ways. For example in 2:12 the Song exhibits an exotic asymmetric Janus parallelism in which a word with dual meanings parallels what precedes it with one meaning and what follows with a different meaning. For example in 2:12 the Hebrew word זָמִיר means “pruning,” to parallel the reference to “flowers,” and the same Hebrew word also means “song” to correspond with “the voice of the turtledove.”[62] Double entendre in the Song also may involve a “polysemantic pun” in which a common noun יָד (“hand”) may subtly suggest to the reader the possible rare meaning “phallus” (see 5:4).[63] A similar phenomenon is the occurrence of the two Hebrew homonyms רָעָה meaning either “to shepherd, graze, feed, pasture” or “to associate with,” which is the root for the feminine noun רַעְיָה, “friend, darling.” The young man is a shepherd who pastures his flock (1:7; cf. v. 8) and who feeds (or grazes) among lilies (2:16; 6:2–3), a metaphor associated both with the lips of the man (5:13) and with his beautiful “darling’s” body parts (4:5; 7:2). He is both a shepherd who grazes his flock and a lover who “feeds” on the delights of his darling.[64] So through creative imagery—especially from nature—the Song frequently utilizes a subtle double entendre in many of the poems.

The Song employs numerous other literary and rhetorical devices such as inclusio,[65] rhetorical questions,[66] alliteration (4:2–5),[67] chiasm,[68] and others.[69]

Literary forms (or types of love songs). To understand the Song of Songs, Bible students must carefully utilize recognized literary forms that occur in ancient Near Eastern love songs. The study of these various literary forms can become a good servant if used judiciously but a bad master if conclusions are imposed where the data do not support them.[70]

Although the Song of Songs is unique among the books of the Bible, it shares numerous forms and elements with love songs from Egypt and to some extent with Psalm 45, a royal wedding song. (Song of Songs 3:6–11 may indicate that the Song was sometimes used at weddings.) Carr points out that the differences between the Song and Psalm 45 are more significant than the similarities.[71] For example the Song does not share any theological vocabulary employed in the psalm or in the rest of the Old Testament. Although Hebrews 1:8–9 quotes Psalm 45:6–7 in referring to Christ, the absence of religious terminology in the Song (in contrast to Ps. 45) does not support a typical (much less an allegorical) interpretation of the Song, as espoused by some Roman Catholic and evangelical scholars.[72]

One of the best clues to the message and movement of the book may be found in the recognition of the various literary forms (types of songs) that the Song shares with other ancient Near Eastern love poetry.[73] However, Bible students should proceed cautiously here because commentators disagree on details of the data. For example scholars typically distinguish between admiration songs and descriptive songs. The latter portray the charms of the love partner’s body through creative metaphors. Several times he described her (4:1–7; 6:4–7; and probably 7:1–7), but she also described him (5:10–16).[74] The former may focus more on the loved one’s dress, ornamentation, or general attractiveness (1:9–11, 12–17; 2:1–3; 4:9–11) than on physical description.[75] However, Garrett argues that this is an artificial distinction, since description is a regular part of admiration.[76]

Literary motifs and images in love songs. Expositors should consider both biblical and extrabiblical parallels and should first note possible parallel vocabulary, motifs, and images in the Old Testament, particularly poetic passages (cf. the remarks on Psalm 45 above).

The Song has certain similarities to the vocabulary and themes utilized in Proverbs 1–9. This is particularly true of Proverbs 5:15–20, which employs three of the same metaphors as the Song,[77] and Proverbs 7:6–23, which shares linguistic similarities (Prov. 7:18 and Song 5:1) and literary motifs including seeking and finding (Prov. 7:15 and Song 3:1–4).[78]

Less significant are similarities between the Song of Songs and the prophetic love songs in Hosea,[79] Isaiah 5:1–7, or Ezekiel 16. These songs are based on the theology of God’s covenant with Israel, but no such allusions are in the Song of Songs, which is closer to wisdom literature in this regard.[80] On the other hand some conservatives argue that the prophetic metaphors of marriage form a canonical link between the Song of Songs and the New Testament marriage metaphors of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22–33; Rev. 19:7–9; 21:2, 9).[81]

Second, alleged parallel data from Egyptian[82] and Mesopotamian love songs should be utilized cautiously.[83] Since the language of love is universal, similar expressions, images, and motifs are found in love literature from diverse cultures and time periods. Therefore due consideration should be given only to specific resemblances from love poetry contemporary with the Old Testament.[84] Furthermore, as Murphy warns, Bible expositors must not allow the detailed investigation of either ancient Near Eastern backgrounds or modern traditions to supplant “the literary character and thematic content” of the Song of Songs.[85]

Supposed parallels (whether ancient or modern) must be evaluated carefully. Some commentators have relied too much on similar modern Arab parallels. For instance Syrian wedding customs from the nineteenth century are used as support for seeing a sword dance in 6:13–7:5. But this is a weak basis for reading such a custom back many centuries into the text of the Song.[86] Also commentators frequently cite the Jewish rabbinic tradition (concerning Song 3:11) that the bridegroom was compared to a king and ordinary brides and grooms wore crowns.[87] Though possible, this remains uncertain because it is otherwise unattested from Old Testament times.[88]

The reader should be sure to consult scholars who have summarized both similarities and differences between the Song and other ancient Near Eastern poetry, including conservatives such as Carr and Garrett.[89]

Guideline three: Determine whether there is a “story line” or progression of thought in the book and note how that impacts one’s understanding of its literary structure and purpose.

First, one must recognize that because much of the material seems to represent “the world of wonder in the imagination of the maiden rather than actual happenings” (cf. 1:2–4), any time line is difficult if not impossible to ascertain.[90]

The text of the Song evidences no plot or character development.[91] One may argue for a general movement or direction from anticipation (1:1–3:5) to consummation (3:6–5:1) to aftermath (5:2–8:14).[92] However, the Song’s eight chapters do not appear to move in any linear direction to a climax or resolution.[93] Rather its series of poems exhibit a linear dynamic through the interaction of images, particularly of country life and royal court life.[94] There is continuity through the cyclic repetition of words and themes that pivot around the central verses (4:16–5:1), with the last half of the book mirroring the first.[95] Also there seems to be a literary climax in 8:6–7. Some say that the Song of Songs is a “dialogue,” but they deny that it is a drama, since no real “conflict” occurs.[96]

Second, a possible statement of purpose for the Song of Songs should be formulated in light of the overall context of the book and its general literary progression.

The following purpose statement can be used as a working hypothesis until one comes up with one’s own purpose statement: As a collection[97] of lyric love songs,[98] the purpose of the Song of Songs seems to be to celebrate the beauty of virtuous love between man and woman.[99] Perhaps the Song (whether or not it is wisdom literature)[100] could be viewed as the practical application of Proverbs 5:15–20 and Ecclesiastes 9:9, namely, celebrating sexual love within marriage,[101] and the poetic counterpart to Ruth.

However, if there are three main characters, there may be a new dimension to the purpose (negatively stated). Some see the Song as a satire on Solomon’s love life.[102] This view makes good sense of 8:6–7 as the literary climax of the book-that true love cannot be purchased at any price (8:11–12). Yet this view spoils the beauty of the love poetry by assuming the presence of a villain, namely, Solomon. There is no evidence in the ancient Near East of such “love triangles.”[103]

Third, a possible basic overall structure should be determined. This may be difficult because scholars do not agree on the number of poems in this anthology.[104]

One clue to the overall structure of the book is the presence of various refrains (2:7, 16; 3:5; 6:3; 7:10; 8:4). Also 5:1 may be “a concluding formula.”[105] Another helpful indicator of boundaries between subunits is the literary form of the various songs shared with ancient Near Eastern love poetry.[106]

Also numerous catchwords link various sections. The evidence seems strong for some type of chiastic structure around the centerpiece (4:16–5:1), with the last half of the book mirroring the first.[107] However, since there is little agreement as to details, one must not force a pattern on the book where it may not exist.[108]

Guideline four: seek to determine who is speaking and where individual units begin and end.

Consult the Hebrew text or a reliable commentary for clues to change of speaker (since Hebrew suffixes indicate gender and number). The most problematic passage in the Song in which to discern speakers is 1:2–4 because of a bewildering shift back and forth between persons.[109] Additional passages in which it is difficult to determine speakers are 3:6–11; 5:1b; 6:10–12; 8:8–9; and 8:11–12.[110]

Consider the ancient Near Eastern literary context of love songs coupled with other subjective criteria as hints to the end of a literary unit. These may include change of speakers or listeners, inclusio (or envelope structure, 2:8–9, 17; 6:4, 10),[111] change of concrete setting (i.e., landscape); refrains; change of the imagery of distinctive themes; and change of mood or sentiment.[112]

Guideline five: Approach cultural imagery and puzzling metaphors of endearment from the ancient Near Eastern perspective.

The Song of Songs is a veritable garden of metaphorical language.[113] Since imagery figures more prominently here than in any other Old Testament book,[114] it is especially important to have the right approach.

The imagery in the Song of Songs is mostly pastoral, including numerous references to plants and animals,[115] and it makes references to various spices, jewelry, and perfumes common to Middle Eastern cultures.[116] Though often foreign to modern ears, these could well be appreciated by a bride raised in the country (see Song 1:5–6).[117] Related to this is the amazing number of rare

Hebrew words the Song employs, proportionately more than any other book of the Bible.[118]

The metaphors[119] used for endearment sound strange and often uncomplimentary (or even grotesque) to modern ears.[120] The man calls his loved one a mare (1:9). He says her hair is like a flock of goats (4:1; 6:5); her neck is like a tower (4:4; cf. 7:4); her breasts are like two fawns (4:5; 7:3); her belly is like a heap of wheat (7:2); her nose (7:4) is also called a tower; and her hair is also pictured as “purple threads” (7:5, NASB). Her teeth are like a flock of sheep (4:2; 6:6).

Other metaphors seem more appropriate (from a Western perspective), such as “your lips are like scarlet thread” (4:3) and the comparison of her breasts to hills or mountains (vv. 5–6).

Do not view these metaphors according to modern, Western thought processes.[121] For example one might think 8:1–3 refers to an incestuous relationship with her brother. However, the context of 4:9–5:1 (with multiple references to “my sister, my bride”) indicates that the Hebrews (like the Sumerians and Egyptians) used “sister” and “brother” as intimate terms for lovers.[122] This would allow these lovers (whether married, unmarried, or espoused)[123] to express tenderness, which would be otherwise unsuitable in their society. Apparently only close family members could express affection publicly, whether in words or in kissing (8:2) or embracing (8:3), since it would be construed as nonsexual.[124]

Furthermore to comprehend 1:9 one should understand the function of mares in ancient warfare. No evidence exists that Pharaoh’s chariots were ever pulled by mares.[125] A passage from Egyptian literature demonstrates that mares were sometimes set loose in battle to allure and distract the pharaoh’s chariot-harnessed stallions. Thus the point of 1:9 is not merely that she is uniquely beautiful like a mare among the many chariot horses, but perhaps also that she is as alluring and distracting as a single mare would be among stallions.[126]

Bentzen notes that “Orientals fix the eye on one single striking point, which according to our conceptions is not characteristic.”[127] Therefore in 4:1 the poet viewed “the wavelike motion of a flock of goats moving down a distant slope” as “an image of the grace and beauty of the beloved’s tresses falling in gentle waves upon her shoulders.”[128] Similarly in 4:4 “the strength and erectness of her neck, ornamented with jewelry, remind him of David’s tower-fortress bedecked with warrior’s shields.”[129]

Some terms have changed their meaning. When the woman compared her beloved to an “apple tree” (2:3), she must have meant another kind of fruit tree, since apples were not indigenous to ancient Israel.[130] However, the apple tree with its shade and sweet fruit (the point of the comparison in 2:3) is still the best equivalent in modern Western culture.[131]

Consider possible clues from ancient poetry to help understand the metaphorical language.[132] Both biblical and extrabiblical parallels should be utilized. Four points may be mentioned here.

First, the immediate literary context of the Song of Songs should be considered. Keel argues that the imagery of the lover’s neck as a tower in 4:4 is clarified by the usage in 8:10 (which refers to its strength, not its appearance). Thus it may have meant something “strong, unapproachable, proud”-with her neck representing her attitude of proud inviolability (like a proud unconquered city; cf. Ps. 48:12).[133]

Second, the metaphors used elsewhere in biblical poetry (including many prophetic oracles) should be noted. Further comparison of the tower imagery in Song of Songs 4:4 with Ezekiel 27:10–11, which portrays the beauty and splendor of Tyre because of her towers hung with warrior’s shields and helmets,[134] may suggest both the woman’s strength and beauty.

The reference to the wife as a “fountain” and a well of water (Song of Songs 4:12, 15) can be understood better in the literary context of Proverbs 5:15–18, where the same metaphors are used. Describing the lover as an animal (1:9; 2:9) is also found in Proverbs 5:19.

Third, the use of metaphors in biblical and extrabiblical love poetry should be noted. The metaphor of a “garden” (Song of Songs 4:12–16) with its delightful “fruits” is well attested in ancient literature in lovemaking.[135] In the Song the specific mention of the word “garden” (4:12–16; 5:1; 6:2–3) is complemented by a host of other garden images such as vineyard, wine, and various spices, flowers, and trees.[136] The description of the plants and trees in 4:13–14 is a fantasy garden, because no horticulturist would ever attempt to grow all these in one place.[137] Many of the components of the garden mentioned in 4:12–16 are already firmly embedded in the rest of the imagery of the Song. The mention of saffron, calamus, cinnamon, and aloes adds to the awareness of scent, taste, and color.[138] Together they portray a veritable paradise of pleasures-the spice of sexual delights offered by the woman to the man and the climactic gratification they bring (5:1).

The man is called a leaping gazelle or stag (2:9; cf. 2:17; 8:14). This imagery also occurs in Egyptian literature.[139] The regal imagery of the Song may be compared with the extrabiblical, especially royal fiction utilized in Egypt[140] and perhaps in Sumerian love poetry.[141]

Fourth, the proper historical-cultural background can be noted by considering both literary and visual images from the ancient Near East.[142] For example Song of Songs 8:6, in which the woman asks her beloved to make her a seal on his heart or on his arm, has been compared to an Egyptian love song in which the lover’s wish is to be the seal-ring on her lover’s finger. The seal-ring is also attested on certain reliefs.[143] But the closest historical-cultural parallel is the well-attested custom from Mesopotamia of either wearing a cylinder seal around the neck (thus hanging over the heart) or a stamp seal dangling from the wrist.[144] One Assyrian letter states that “you placed him like a seal around your neck.”[145] All three cultural images reflect a graphic wish for closer intimacy between lovers.[146]

The literal reference to the beloved’s ornamental jewelry in Song 1:10 compares with the opulent jewelry worn especially by Egyptian women.[147] But this verse also seems to continue the mare imagery introduced in 1:9 by an implicit comparison of her cheeks and neck to bridled horses with their ornamental collars.[148]

Guidelines for Utilizing the Song of Songs

As Hubbard observes, preaching from the Song of Songs would be inappropriate in most congregational settings because of its frank language and specialized subject matter.[149] However, he suggests some beneficial guidelines for utilizing the Song.[150]

Guideline one: Consider using portions of the Song of Songs as a text for a wedding sermon, especially the wedding scene (3:6-11); the formula of mutual commitment (2:16; 6:3; 7:10), or the literary climax (8:6-7). [151]

Since its language is often couched in symbolism that masks its sexual innuendoes from the younger audience, a judicious selection of other passages could be utilized in a wedding or even at other times. For example a good selection of passages to read at weddings would be those containing double entendres that pull “a cloak over the detail of the lovers’ lovemaking,”[152] such as in 2:16–17 and 4:9–5:1. Through exquisite artistry of language and a subtle sensitivity, the poet “evokes intense sensuous awareness while avoiding crude titillation.”[153] What a stark contrast this is to crude sexual descriptions found in some ancient Near Eastern love poems.[154]

The expositor must exercise great care in dealing with metaphors in the Song of Songs that contain possible euphemisms or double entendres (such as in 7:2) to avoid offending listeners or causing them to stumble into adulterous thoughts by being too explicit in explaining its sexual innuendoes.[155] Furthermore one should utilize restraint in positing sexual innuendoes where evidence is minimal or lacking.[156]

Guideline two: Try using the Song of Songs in teaching audiences such as couples’ classes (especially in marriage retreats) and college or possibly even high school classes. [157]

Becoming aware of books and materials that rightly emphasize the proper balance between the original context and modern application can assist in this endeavor. For instance the books by Gledhill, Glickman, and Hocking and Hocking, are recommended.[158] These resources can be supplemented by the cautious use of materials by John Trent and Tommy Nelson, which emphasize practical application of the Song of Songs in marriage and courtship.[159]

Guideline three: use the Song of Songs in premarital and marriage counseling as an antidote to perversions of sexuality and to asceticism. [160]

The message of the Song gives a wholesome view of sex not merely for procreation (no children are mentioned in the book) but for pleasure (a divinely endorsed celebration).[161]

Though the Song may be utilized as a model to help married couples find sexual fulfillment,[162] it is “more than a canonical sex manual.”[163] Read in light of the whole canon-beginning with Genesis 2–3 (including such themes as the garden motif)-it contributes much to a theology of “redeemed sexuality.”[164] Thus Davidson affirms that “the Song of Songs has recovered the true ‘lyrics’ of the ‘symphony of love’ for post-Fall sexual partners.”[165]

It reaffirms God’s analysis in Genesis 1:26–31 that all of His creation (including sex) is “very good.” It portrays the seeking of “rapturous, reciprocal love between a man and a woman.”[166] The post-Fall model is still opposed to homosexuality, adultery, and bestiality.

The text of the Song of Songs also illustrates a balanced relationship between the sexes. In a culture in which wives were often treated more as property than partners, the woman speaks almost twice as often as the man.[167] The Song represents male and female as equals in the love relationship,[168] equals who treat each other with respect and tenderness rather than one exploiting the other as a sex object.[169] Feminists have argued (as part of the process of “depatriarchalizing” the Bible) that the Song of Songs endorses the liberation of women, since there is no hint of male dominance, female subordination, or stereotyping of either sex.[170] However, as Garrett cautions, the book does not advocate a change in traditional differentiation of sexual roles nor does it imply that differentiation is wrong.[171] The woman’s depiction of the man as the “apple tree” (2:3) hints at the provision of nourishment and shelter, traditional male roles.[172]

Guideline four: read the Song of Songs together with one’s spouse.

As the language of the Song becomes more familiar, practice using the exotic metaphors of the Song (or one’s own)[173] to communicate the uniqueness of one’s spouse. With the help of basic resources such as those mentioned under guideline two, husband and wife can study the Song of Songs together and develop a deeper love relationship.

Conclusion

These guidelines can help the budding biblical gardener weed out hermeneutical errors and cultivate a proper understanding of the garden of metaphors in the Song of Songs. In this age of sexual perversion and of twisted understandings of love, may each reader find the Song of Songs to be fertile soil for cultivating and celebrating growing marriages as God intended them to be.

Notes

1. Andre LaCocque, Romance, She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), xi. Admittedly the books of Ecclesiastes and Revelation are also serious challenges.
2. G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 43–44; and Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 5:1201–2. A possible exception is Song of Songs 8:6 (cf. NASB).
3. LaCocque, Romance, She Wrote, 62.
4. C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries (n.p., 1875; reprint in 6 vols., Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers & Authors, 1972), 4:1141.
5. Cited in Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 89; see also 101.
6. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 226–30.
7. David Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Dallas: Word, 1991).
8. John F. Brug, Commentary on Song of Songs (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1995).
9. This does not mean that one must select an approach before studying the Song of Songs. In fact the thorough study of the text enables one to determine which approach to favor. However, the approach taken will greatly affect the message of the book to the interpreter.
10. See Brug, Commentary on Song of Songs, 13, 20.
11. Ibid., 13. Brug sees four basic possibilities, as illustrated by his chart on page 13. Of course there are variations within each viewpoint. For a summary of other views held by nonconservatives, such as the cultic (or mythological) and wedding feast theories, see Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 361–64; and Pope, Song of Songs, 141–58, 210–29.
12. It is difficult to identify a particular writer with a specific approach since his viewpoint may overlap with one or more other positions. For instance Delitzsch pioneered the two-character dramatic view of the Song as a “script” of six acts with two scenes each (though not actually performed) based on the literal story of Solomon and a country girl. Yet he also calls it a love poem that has typical significance concerning the mystery of the love of Christ and His church (Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries, 4:1141, 1142–43; cf. 1147–49).
13. The chapter headings incorporated into the King James Version reflect Origen’s allegorical interpretation and aided the spread of this viewpoint. See R. K. Harrison, “Song of Solomon,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 5:490. It still exists among certain Jewish interpreters and a few Roman Catholic writers (especially in France). For a history of the allegorical view see Pope, Song of Songs, 88, 92–130; and Roland E. Murphy, The Song of Songs, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 12–38, 91–93. See also J. Paul Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (January-March 1997): 26-30.
14. Pope points out that the Septuagint shows no clear evidence of allegorization. Rather he concludes that Jewish interpretation of the Song as an allegory developed shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Song of Songs, 90–101). Weston W. Field argues that there is no indisputable evidence of Jewish allegorization in the earliest period, but only in the Christian era (“Early and Medieval Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” Grace Theological Journal 1 [fall 1980]: 222, 227–28, 231).
15. Tom Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs: The Lyrics of Love (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 32–33. For other arguments adduced by allegorists, see Brug, Commentary on Song of Songs, 16.
16. For instance numerous fanciful interpretations of the bride’s two “breasts” in Song of Songs 4:5 and 7:8 have been suggested. See Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 30; and Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” 5:1203.
17. Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 7–8.
18. Totality transfer involves thinking that “all the possible features and meanings of a word or concept come with it whenever it is used” (Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 227).
19. Ibid., 227-28.
20. See Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 355.
21. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 22–23; cf. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 355–56.
22. Ibid., 357. For example see those from Mesopotamia (Pope, Song of Songs, 81–85; and G. Lloyd Carr, “Song of Songs,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993], 286–87).
23. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 357.
24. See Carr, “Song of Songs,” 289; and idem, “The Old Testament Love Songs and Their Use in the New Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24 (1981): 102-3, n. 14.
25. This is the view presented in The Scofield Reference Bible.
26. C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 209; cf. William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 511.
27. See Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 258; Carr, The Song of Solomon, 31; and Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 32–33.
28. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 31–32; cf. E. J. Young’s view, which is noted by Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 44.
29. Some Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint (such as Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D.) made marginal notes that assigned sections to specific speakers (Carr, The Song of Solomon, 47). This may have helped spawn the dramatic theory (Athalya Brenner, The Song of Songs [Sheffield: JSOT, 1989], 70).
30. Of course this is a deliberate oversimplification. For more details on the two-character view, see H. A. Ironside, Addresses on the Song of Solomon (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1933), 17–21; and especially the summary of his view by Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 299–300; and Irving L. Jensen, Jensen’s Survey of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 308.
31. For a possible contribution of this perspective to an understanding of the purpose (stated negatively), see comments below under guideline 4.
32. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 359.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.; see also Murphy, The Song of Songs, 58.
35. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 58; cf. Keel, The Song of Songs, 16.
36. See Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 360–61.
37. Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, 224; and Christian D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs and Coheleth (reprint, New York: KTAV, 1970), 4–11.
38. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 360–61.
39. On the meaning of lyric poetry, see note 98.
40. Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 40.
41. This is the view of S. Craig Glickman, A Song for Lovers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), and Jack Deere, “Song of Songs,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 1009–25.
42. Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 40–41.
43. Among conservatives this is the view of Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (see 365); Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 21–23; and Sherwood E. Wirt, “Some New Thoughts about the Song of Solomon,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (1990): 435-36. See also Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 257–59, 302; and Carr, The Song of Solomon, 34, 37–41.
44. See Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 102; and Fox, The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 292–94.
45. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 28, n. 1; and Paul C. Smither, “Prince Meḥy of the Love Songs,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 34 (1948): 116. By contrast Fox suggests Meḥy may be a Cupid-like king or god embodying the power of love (The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 64–66).
46. See Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Song of Songs,” in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer, ed. Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred G. E. Watson (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 256–57.
47. See Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 302, 329–30.
48. See Brenner, The Song of Songs, 74; cf. Keel, The Song of Songs, 11–12.
49. See Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 365.
50. Cf. Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 43. However, there is a quasi-queenship implied in 7:1, 5. See Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 36–37, 39. Furthermore 6:8–9 emphasizes the uniqueness of the Shulammite in contrast to other maidens, including “queens.”
51. See Brenner, The Song of Songs, 31–32.
52. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 36.
53. For a summary of views concerning origins and the various types of parallelism and helpful examples from the Song, see Abraham Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems: Poetry and Symbolism (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988), 51–56.
54. A possible exception is 8:9, which can be taken as either antithetic (the present author’s view) or synonymous parallelism.
55. Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 56; cf. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 36–37.
56. See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic, 1985), 187–88.
57. This “terrace” pattern is also known as anadiplosis (Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 58–59).
58. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, 2d rev. ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 152–53; and Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 54.
59. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 144, 146–47; and Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 54.
60. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 152.
61. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 199. Also 1:3a-b moves from the literal fragrance of her lover’s ointment to the metaphorical fragrance of his character (Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 96).
62. Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 55; and Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 159, 370–71.
63. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 241–42; and Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 129–30, esp. n. 10.
64. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 96–98.
65. See below under guideline 4.
66. See 1:7; 3:3b, 6; 5:9; 6:1, 10, 13; 8:5, 8 (Donald K. Berry, Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995], 403).
67. See Francis Landy, “The Song of Songs,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 307–9.
68. For example, Dorsey argues for a sevenfold chiastic structure in 1:2–2:7 (David A. Dorsey, “Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 [1990]: 83-84).
69. For discussion of these and other devices in the Song, see Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 57–59, 61–69.
70. Although consideration of literary forms in Scripture is an essential step in interpretation, one must realize that the determination and specification of forms are actually those of modern rather than ancient writers (Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 26).
71. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 26–32; and Carr, “The Old Testament Love Songs and Their Use in the New Testament,” 104–5.
72. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 26–31.
73. See Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 258–60; and LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 512–13. Extremely helpful are Roland Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, The Forms of Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 100–101, 105–24; and Murphy, The Song of Songs, 60–62. See also Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 368–70.
74. As in Egyptian love poetry, the imaginative descriptions may be in ascending (7:1–5) or descending order (4:1–7) of the lover’s body parts (John B. White, A Study of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry [Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978], 148–49; and Murphy, Song of Songs, 60–61).
75. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 259; cf. Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 108–10.
76. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 369.
77. See below for details.
78. Concerning themes shared with Proverbs 7, see Murphy, The Song of Songs, 69–70; and Daniel Grossberg, “Two Kinds of Sexual Relationships in the Hebrew Bible,” Hebrew Studies 35 (1994): 7-25.
79. Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes presents a feminist reading of the connection between Hosea 2 and the Song (“The Imagination of Power and the Power of Imagination: An Intertextual Analysis of Two Biblical Love Songs: The Song of Songs and Hosea 2, ” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44 [1989]: 75-88).
80. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 13–14. By contrast LaCocque argues that the Song borrows heavily from the vocabulary of the prophetic corpus-even at times being “a satirical pastiche of prophetic metaphors and similes” (Romance, She Wrote, 12, 33–35, 79–80).
81. Tremper Longman III, “Song of Songs, Theology of,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 4:1237–38; and idem, “Song of Solomon, Theology of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 743.
82. For a summary of the Egyptian parallels, see White, A Study of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry, 95–96, 130. See also Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs; and Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 102.
83. Watson (“Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Song of Songs,” 253–71) and Murphy (The Song of Songs, 41–56, 97) have helpful summaries of ancient Near Eastern parallels with excellent bibliographic data.
84. See Brenner, The Song of Songs, 41–42; and Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations, rev. ed. (New York: KTAV, 1974), 30–31.
85. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 185.
86. See ibid., and Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 203.
87. Carr, Song of Solomon, 113; Gordis, The Song of Songs, 86; and Pope, The Song of Songs, 447–48.
88. Keel, The Song of Songs, 136–37.
89. For a succinct discussion of certain parallels and missing elements in Song of Songs compared to Egyptian love poetry, see Carr, The Song of Solomon, 37–41; and Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 369–70.
90. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” 5:1211. This factor seems to support the lyric love song view.
91. Carr, “Song of Songs,” 283–84, 291.
92. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 257–58.
93. Carr, “Song of Songs,” 284.
94. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 145–46.
95. Carr, “Song of Songs,” 284; and Landy, “The Song of Songs,” 315–17.
96. For example Roland Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, 100. But Garrett denies that any dialogue occurs. He sees only two main singing parts in the song without any genuine interchange (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 360, 384).
97. The wording of 1:1, “the song [singular] of songs,” seems to indicate that the collection was viewed as a unit rather than a collection (or anthology) from several sources over many years. Keel argues that Hebrew singular can be used collectively (The Song of Songs, 1, 38–39).
98. The term “lyric poetry” indicates what was probably sung to some kind of music (however it was performed) but does not necessitate the telling of a story or chronological sequence (as in dramatic poetry). Rather it utilizes “a series of images, some of them almost surreal, in order to create verbal pictures and convey emotional responses” (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 384, n. 2). Gledhill classifies it as “poetry meant for musical recital” (The Message of the Song of Songs, 19). Berry prefers the analogy of a collage (not unlike the organization of a music video) for the Song (Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament, 401–2).
99. Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, 214, 223. Gledhill calls it “unabashed celebration of love, beauty, and intimacy” within the framework of courtship and marriage (The Message of the Song of Songs, 13, 19, 29, 33), and Brug refers to “unashamed delight in the gift of human sexuality” in marriage (Commentary on Song of Songs, 6). The Song is a “linked chain of lyrics depicting love in all its spontaneity, beauty, power and exclusiveness-experienced in its varied moments of separation and intimacy, anguish and ecstasy, tension and contentment” (The NIV Study Bible, ed. Kenneth Barker [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985], 1003). Fox argues that both Egyptian and Israelite poets seem to accept premarital sex with no hesitation (The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, xxiii; cf. 231–32, 313–14). However, Hebrew culture (Song 8:8–9) and Old Testament law (Deut. 22:20–29) guarded against premarital experimentation, and references in the Song of Songs support an exclusive monogamous heterosexual relationship. See especially the vow of exclusiveness and commitment in the refrains in 2:16; 6:3; 7:10, and the three occurrences of the refrain concerning not “arousing love” prematurely (2:7; 3:5; 8:4). See Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 262; Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 229–30; David Hocking and Carole Hocking, Romantic Lovers: The Intimate Marriage (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 1986), 59–60; and Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 378–79. Based on the language used, one should probably assume the lovers were betrothed-a situation more similar to marriage than to the modern occidental engagement (Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 26–27).
100. If the Song of Songs is wisdom literature, it may explore “the riddle of love” just as Job explored the “riddle of suffering” and Ecclesiastes “the riddle of existence” (Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 35).
101. Roy B. Zuck, “A Theology of Wisdom Books and Song of Songs,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 253; and The NIV Study Bible (Introduction). In a sense the book may be a commentary on Genesis 1:27 and 2:24–25.
102. This would have been at a time when conditions had deteriorated badly (perhaps by a writer from the north). See Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, 218–19; and Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 303–4.
103. See Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 26; and Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 359.
104. Scholars have found as few as five or six divisions (Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 265–66; and Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 38) and as many as forty-two (Keel, The Song of Songs, 17–18) or even fifty-two sections (Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 45). Even the conservative Garrett suggests thirty-nine sections (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 383).
105. See Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, 219; and especially Dorsey, “Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs,” 82.
106. See guideline 4 below.
107. See Brug, Commentary on Song of Songs, 10–12, 90; Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 376 (citing Alden’s chiastic structuring); Dorsey, “Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs,” 82, 92–96; Carr, The Song of Solomon, 46–47, 68–69; and Carr, “Song of Songs,” 284. See also J. Cheryl Exum, “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 85 (1973): 47-79; William H. Shea, “The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 378-96; and Edwin C. Webster, “Pattern in the Song of Songs,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1982): 73-93.
108. See J. Paul Tanner, “The Message of the Song of Songs,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (April-June 1997): 153-54, 157, 159. Cf. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 62–67.
109. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 127.
110. Ibid., 64.
111. See Berry, Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament, 391, 395; and Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 282–85.
112. White, A Study of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry, 30–32 (citing Angenieux and Exum); and Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 46.
113. See Alter’s chapter on the Song, entitled “The Garden of Metaphor,” in The Art of Biblical Poetry, 185–203. Also the “garden” theme is frequently used in this collage of metaphors.
114. Carole Meyers, “Gender Imagery in the Song of Songs,” Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986): 209.
115. For specific examples see Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 80–102; Brenner, The Song of Songs, 51–53; and Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs,” 252.
116. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” 5:1211.
117. Cf. Deere, “Song of Songs,” 1018.
118. See Carr, The Song of Solomon, 41–44; Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” 1210–11; and Murphy, The Song of Songs, 75–76.
119. The term “metaphor” is used loosely to denote both traditional simile and metaphor, since there is a certain element of overlap between the two in the Song-with no apparent difference in meaning (Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 254–72, esp. 254-55, 271). For a listing and brief discussion of the similes and metaphors in the Song, see Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 71–78.
120. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 514–15.
121. Even some so-called scholars have misunderstood these metaphors, evaluating them as “comical” or even “grotesque.” See the documentation and critique of these views by Marcia Falk, The Song of Songs: A New Translation and Interpretation, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper/Collins, 1990), 128–29, 131ff.
122. See Watson, “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Song of Songs,” 258–59, 265. For summary of the Egyptian parallels, see White, A Study of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry, 95–96, 130.
123. It is debatable whether these lovers were married or unmarried. The lack of plot (or linear structure) suggests that in chapter 8 they were probably not married. Yet in other passages (2:16; 6:3; 7:10) they may have been betrothed (Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 28, 214; and see note 99 above).
124. Berry, Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament, 397–98; and Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 424, n. 180. However, because social mores and customs may have varied slightly from time to time (Gen. 26:8), one must not be dogmatic here. See Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 214–15; and Murphy, The Song of Songs, 188.
125. According to all available texts and pictures, Pharaoh’s chariots were pulled by two stallions (see Keel, The Song of Songs, 56–58; and Pope, Song of Songs, 338). Contrast the popular erroneous position that a pure white mare pulled Pharaoh’s chariot (John Trent, Love for All Seasons: Eight Ways to Nurture Intimacy [Chicago: Moody, 1996], 68–69; cf. Glickman, A Song for Lovers, 35). Unfortunately the NIV translation “a mare harnessed to one of the chariots of Pharaoh” has contributed to this misunderstanding. Even if this means that Solomon, who imported horses and chariots from Egypt attached his prize mare to one of these chariots of Pharaoh (Ginsburg, The Song of Songs and Coheleth, 137), there are still grammatical difficulties. The Hebrew preposition בְּ, “in,” “with,” or “among,” and the word “chariots” (Hebrew plural) seem incompatible with the hypothesis that the mare is harnessed to one chariot.
126. See Falk, The Song of Songs, 170. For the Egyptian text, see James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 241.
127. Bentzen, quoted in LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 514.
128. Ibid.
129. Ibid. Cf. comments on Ezekiel 27:10–11 below.
130. A more precise translation would be “apricot tree” (Fox, The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 107) or even “sweet fruit tree growing wild” (Falk, The Song of Songs, 151–52).
131. Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 122–23.
132. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 37–39, 55–59; and Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 368, 371–74.
133. See Keel, The Song of Songs, 27, 147. The mention of an ivory tower in Song 7:4 need not contradict the idea of strength because archaeology has shown that items were not made of solid ivory but were decorated with ivory tiles (ibid., 255).
134. Meyers, “Gender Imagery in the Song of Songs,” 213–14.
135. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 55–60, 123–26; and Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 373.
136. Berry, Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament, 405–7; and Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 98–110. The use of nature imagery, particularly of plants and animals, is common in ancient Near Eastern love poetry, but the items mentioned in those writings are often peculiar to the locale from which the poems come (Carr, The Song of Solomon, 42).
137. In fact it is improbable that this could be done unless the garden were in Eden (Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 165). As suggested later, perhaps the Song builds on Genesis 2–3 in a “paradise regained” motif concerning sex and marriage.
138. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 107.
139. Fox, The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 66, 112; Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 372; and Murphy, The Song of Songs, 140.
140. See White, A Study of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry, 110–11, 146.
141. For a summary of this regal motif in the Song, see Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 36–42. Also see page 405 above.
142. Keel, The Song of Songs, 27–28; see also page 26 concerning Song 2:15.
143. Ibid., 271-72 (and fig. 155). See the translation of this Egyptian love song in Fox, The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 38.
144. Keel, The Song of Songs, 271–72; and Watson, “Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” 263. See the depiction of a woman from Mesopotamia wearing a cylinder(?) seal on her wrist (Keel, The Song of Songs, 271, fig. 154).
145. See William Hallo, “As the Seal upon Thy Heart,” Bible Review 1 (1985): 25-26; and Watson, “Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Song of Songs,” 263.
146. Watson, “Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Song of Songs,” 263.
147. Keel, The Song of Songs, 60. Figure 15 shows a woman from Northern Syria wearing a jeweled headdress and necklace with several strings worn tightly around the neck, and figure 16 pictures neck jewelry worn by the goddess Hathor. Other examples of beaded collars worn by both men and woman in Egypt are cited by Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 56–57.
148. Keel, The Song of Songs, 57, 61–63 (plus figs. 12 and 17). Ornamental collars are only attested on Assyrian horses (ibid., 63, fig. 17).
149. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 260.
150. The first three guidelines are adapted from Hubbard (ibid., 260–61).
151. Ibid., 260, 268–69.
152. See Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” 5:1224, 1229.
153. The NIV Study Bible, 1004. The metaphors both conceal and reveal through modest double entendres not only the desires for sexual intimacy but even its consummation (Song 4:16–5:1) without vulgar titillation. See Richard M. Davidson, “Theology of Sexuality in the Song of Songs: Return to Eden,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 27 (spring 1989): 17; and Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations, 38. By contrast Michael D. Goulder finds titillating sexual references as a major focus of the book (The Song of Fourteen Songs [Sheffield: JSOT, 1986], 5–8, 79), even though he alleges that love and not sex is the main point of the biblical writer (ibid., 79–80).
154. See Watson, “Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels in the Song of Songs,” 262, 264; and White, A Study of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry, 71. Certain Sumerian love songs utilize poetic euphemism and double entendres (Murphy, The Song of Songs, 54–55).
155. See the helpful discussion by Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 29–30. The expositor must never violate the model of the Song, which expresses the sensual fascination of the lovers without becoming pornographic. See Murphy, The Song of Songs, 102.
156. Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 30. On the other hand Goulder refers to titillating sexual references by explicit translation (such as 5:14b) or by graphically speculating on double meanings in certain metaphors (such as 8:5). Joseph C. Dillow tends to speculate excessively concerning sexual references (Solomon on Sex [Nashville: Nelson, 1977], 31), and he disrupts the delicate double entendre of “the garden” (which in 4:12 refers to the woman as a whole by a focus on one body part [ibid., 81]). The garden is polysemantic and meaningful on more than one level (Francis Landy, “The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 [1979]: 519-29).
157. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 260.
158. Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs; Glickman, A Song for Lovers; and Hocking and Hocking, Romantic Lovers: The Intimate Marriage.
159. John Trent, Love for All Seasons. Tommy Nelson has a video series on the Song of Solomon, with a study guide, The Song of Solomon: A Study of Love, Sex, Marriage and Romance (Dallas: Hudson, 1995). This is a helpful, inspirational series, but sometimes it has questionable conclusions (e.g., 1:9) and often debatable applications. Also see Tommy Nelson, The Book of Romance: Insights from the Song of Solomon (Nashville: Nelson, 1998).
160. See Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the Old Testament, 264–65; and LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 517, 519. Gledhill’s excellent commentary, The Message of the Song of Songs, appends some helpful study questions on pages 246–54, which could be used in marriage preparation classes.
161. See Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 261–263, for details. “Mandrakes,” apparently an early fertility “drug” (Gen. 30:14–16), mentioned in Song 7:13, is “a faint allusion to pregnancy and childbearing” (Berry, Introduction to Old Testament Wisdom and Poetry, 397).
162. Dillow, Solomon on Sex.
163. Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the Old Testament, 265.
164. Tremper Longman III, “Song of Solomon, Theology of,” 742–43; and idem, “Song of Songs, Theology of,” 4:1237–38. See also Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 144–62; and Landy, “The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden,” 513–28.
165. Davidson, “Theology of Sexuality,” 9.
166. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 100, 103. The present writer suggests that the purpose of the Song “is to celebrate the beauty of virtuous love between man and woman” (see p. 412 above).
167. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 54.
168. For example mutual commitment is expressed in the refrains in 2:16; 6:3; and 7:10 (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 379–80; and Keel, The Song of Songs, 32).
169. Phyllis Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (March 1973): 44.
170. Ibid., 45, 47–48.
171. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 379.
172. This may support the male role as the protector, not only physically (in 8:5, she literally leans on him, while mentioning the apple tree motif again) and financially, but possibly also emotionally and psychologically by giving her a sense of security (Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs, 123; and Davidson, “Theology of Sexuality,” 9).
173. John Trent recommends word pictures of praise to point out a spouse’s appreciated character trait (Love for All Seasons, 67–72).