by Stephen Rodgers
SONG OF SOLOMON IN 10 WORDS OR LESS
“Married love is a beautiful thing worth celebrating.”
TITLE
I’ve been generally pleased with the way this section works when I quote MacArthur/MSB and/or Constable/NET…so I’m going to do that again.
From the MSB:
The Greek Septuagint (LXX) and Latin Vulgate (Vg.) versions follow the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) with literal translations of the first two words in Song 1:1—”Song of Songs.” Several English versions read “The Song of Solomon,” thus giving the fuller sense of 1:1. The superlative, “Song of Songs” (cf. “Holy of Holies” in Ex. 26:33, 34 and “King of Kings” in Rev. 19:16), indicates that this song is the best among Solomon’s 1,005 musical works (1 Kin. 4:32). The word translated “song” frequently refers to music that honors the Lord (cf. 1 Chr. 6:31, 32; Pss. 33:3; 40:3; 144:9).
From Constable’s notes:
In the Hebrew Bible the title of this book is “The Song of Songs.” It comes from 1:1. The Septuagint and Vulgate translators adopted this title. The Latin word for song is canticum from which we get the word Canticles, another title for this book. Some English translations have kept the title “Song of Songs” (e.g., NIV, TNIV), but many have changed it to “Song of Solomon” based on 1:1 (e.g., NASB, AV, RSV, NKJV).
If anyone is interested, the ASB’s, NIVSB, and NET all render it “Song of Songs,” whereas the ESVSB, MSB, and RSB all render it “Song of Solomon.” This is in keeping with the translation standards that Constable mentions (with the NET in the former category and the ESV in the latter).
AUTHOR & AUDIENCE
There is division among scholars as to the issue of Solomonic authorship. Jewish and Christian tradition have long and uniformly held that Solomon is the author of Song of Solomon, and that this is likely the greatest of the 1,000+ songs he composed. However, even among conservative scholars, this is not a uniform view. The ESVSB for example, cites the following reasons for doubting the traditional position on authorship:
First, Song of Solomon 1:1 is grammatically ambiguous: it need not mean that Solomon wrote the Song of Solomon, only that it was written in his honor. Second, what is known of Solomon himself from 1 Kings raises problems with the suggestion that Solomon was the author. For example, 1 Kings 2 gives a concise summary of how Solomon’s kingdom was established (cf. 1 Kings 2:46), which is followed immediately by the statement in 1 Kings 3:1 that “Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt.” Pharaoh’s daughter, however, could not have been the country girl (a Shulammite) who is the heroine of the Song of Solomon (though some hold that Solomon might have married the Shulammite before he married Pharaoh’s daughter). Likewise, Solomon’s full harem (1 Kings 11:1–8) makes him a very bad example of married love for Israel (though some have replied that the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon’s wisdom that came from his chastened perspective as he reflected on his own life). Third, the book mentions Solomon (Song 1:5; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11–12), but generally as a distant, even idealized figure.
I’d like to take the opportunity to briefly rebut some of those objections if I may:
- The claim that Song 1:1 is somehow completely ambiguous is not an opinion shared by all translators and scholars. As convinced as C. John Collins is that the inscription is dedicatory, John MacArthur is equally convinced that it is plainly authorial. Richard S. Hess in turn is convinced that the author is completely anonymous, and possibly even feminine. There’s no clear winner here.
- Quoting 1 Kings 2-3 will only get you so far. It may be that the statement immediately follows in the text, but that does not mean that the event described immediately followed in history. Kings and Chronicles don’t present events as a strict chronology.
- Even the generally-held claim that the Shulammite and Pharaoh’s daughter cannot be the same person has been questioned. (Victor Sasson, “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” Vetus Testamentum 39:4 (October 1989):407-14.)
- The claim that an idealized view of love can only be reconciled with Solomomic authorship if the book was penned reflectively doesn’t necessarily follow; there are obvious counter-claims. Given the lack of a strict chronology, Solomon could have penned the book prior to wedding Pharoah’s daughter. Given the ANE honor culture, Solomon could have simply chosen to omit his indiscretions from his own poetry. Since we’re speculating here anyway, Solomon could have been profoundly dissatisfied even in the midst of his excess, and longed for a return to simpler times. See how easy (and fun!) this is?
- The references to Solomon are distant, but the information is personal and detailed, indicating knowledge of decorations, transportation, personal interests, prized possessions, emotional state, and property ownership. This can be argued either way.
Personally I see no compelling reason to break with the traditional view.
DATE
Regardless of the position one takes on authorship, dating the Song is a relatively easy affair. Those holding to the traditional view believe it was composed during Solomon’s reign (971-931 BC). Those holding to a non-traditional view of authorship date it to the exact same period. Per the ESVSB:
If it is not entirely certain that Solomon wrote the book, one can still argue that the book was written during Solomon’s reign (971–931 b.c.). The book mentions him and seems to assume his glorious reign as a known fact. At the same time, the heroine is a young Shulammite woman (Song 6:13); most take this to mean that she comes from the village of Shunem (Josh. 19:18; 2 Kings 4:8), which is in the tribal inheritance of Issachar. Furthermore, the town of Tirzah is mentioned along with Jerusalem in comparisons of beauty (Song 6:4). The towns of Shunem and Tirzah were located in what became the northern kingdom. These features make it likely that the book comes from the time before Israel was divided into the northern and southern kingdoms, which took place just after Solomon’s death (931 b.c.).
BACKGROUND & SETTING
Once the date has been established, the background and setting are quite clear: Solomon’s reign. The poem however, does not present a view of his entire reign. It’s a long poem, but not that long.
The poem itself presents its own unit of time, which is imprecise at best: assuming a chronology without gaps, the courtship, wedding, and ensuing marriage takes place over the course of at least one year (time can be marked by seasonal shifts, and spring occurs initially in Song 2:11-13, then recurs in Song 7:12.
HISTORICAL & THEOLOGICAL THEMES
There are three obvious themes that present themselves in reading Song of Solomon.
- Love is a beautiful gift from God. Above all, Song of Solomon is a love poem that articulates the relationship between a husband and wife. Their love is portrayed as precious (Song 8:7b), spontaneous (Song 2:7), and powerful (Song 8:6-7a).
- Marital contentment. Despite Solomon’s life (or perhaps, because of it), Song of Solomon demostrates that contentment and fulfillment are found in the exclusivity (Song 2:16) of the marriage relationship.
- Love is both pleasurable and painful. Joy is the dominant note of the Song, but the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that may bring disappointments (Song 5:2-6:3). Love has a dangerous side (Song 8:6), and should be treated with caution.
INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES
In dealing with the Song of Solomon, one challenge stands out above all others: in a literary sense, how should the book be understood? Let me quote the MSB, then offer some of my own thoughts:
The Song has suffered strained interpretations over the centuries by those who use the “allegorical” method of interpretation, claiming that this song has no actual historical basis, but rather that it depicts God’s love for Israel and/or Christ’s love for the church. The misleading idea from hymnology that Christ is the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys results from this method (Song 2:1). The “typological” variation admits the historical reality, but concludes that it ultimately pictures Christ’s bridegroom love for His bride the church.
Let me tip my hand a little, and quote with great amusement and approval one particularly renowned commentator: “All things are possible to those who allegorize—and what they come up with is usually heretical.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, “Song of Solomon,” in The Bible Exposition Commentary/Wisdom and Poetry, p. 542.)
You see, this may be a bit of an oversimplification, but let me try to lay it out as I see it:
- On one hand, you’ve got a historical weight of scholars and theologians who are seemingly desperate to allegorize the text: ancient Jewish readers saw it as a symbolic recounting of God’s relationship with Israel (Talmud, Targums, Midrashim, etc.); medieval Jewish interpreters thought it was an allegory for philosophy; Christians have taught that it is analogy of the love of Christ for the church (Hippolytus, Jerome), the love relationship between a human soul and God (Origen), or that it figuratively describes Solomon’s reign over Israel (Luther). Multiple Roman Catholic interpreters claim that Mary is the central figure of the allegory. As a professor of logic once told me in a different context, “They can’t all be right. They can all be wrong, but they can’t all be right. That’s the downside of competing explanations.”
- On the other hand, you have a number of ultra-modern interpreters and commentators who seem to want to claim that the Song of Solomon is sort of Christian crypto-Kama Sutra. Some go so far as to make the claim that every poetic or figurative illustration is actually a metaphorical reference to a particular sex act. You can imagine the implications and arguments that ensue from that particular view.
- Don’t even get me started on the Shepherd Hypothesis. Seriously. Don’t get me started.
So on one side we’ve potentially got the worst elements of allegedly-puritanical censorship (and I say “allegedly” because having read the Puritans, they really aren’t very “puritanical” at all in that sense), and on the other side we’ve potentially got the worst elements of pseudo-Christian sensationalism. How’s that old song go? “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…”
At the risk of punching well above my weight here, it seems plain to me that Song of Solomon is a love poem, depicting courtship, a wedding, and a honeymoon/marriage, between two human beings. No more, and no less. Let me finish that MSB quote I started earlier:
A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality. To do so understands that Solomon recounts 1) his own days of courtship, 2) the early days of his first marriage, followed by 3) the maturing of this royal couple through the good and bad days of life. The Song of Solomon expands on the ancient marriage instructions of Gen. 2:24, thus providing spiritual music for a lifetime of marital harmony. It is given by God to demonstrate His intention for the romance and loveliness of marriage, the most precious of human relations and “the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7).
LITERARY FEATURES
The literary features that one finds when reading a text are going to be largely influenced by the kind of text one supposes it to be. However, assuming that Song of Solomon is best understood literally, then the ESVSB has this to say:
The best label that can be assigned to the book is love poetry, in which the lovers are shepherd and shepherdess and the setting is a flowery and fruitful rural landscape (of which a vineyard is the prime example). If a love poem celebrates the occasion of a specific wedding, it is called an epithalamion, and that is what takes place here.
OBJECTIONS
Apart from the issues of AUTHOR and INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES (dealt with in the previous sections), there are no objections to the Song of Solomon that I am aware of, despite the controversy it has caused over the centuries.
NOTABLE QUOTABLES
- Song 1:2
- Song 2:4
- Song 8:7
DID YOU KNOW?
- Like the book of Esther, Song of Solomon never mentions the name “God.”
Other Works Referenced
- Apologetics Study Bible, “Song of Songs”
- Archaeological Study Bible, “Introduction to Song of Songs”
- ESV Study Bible, “Introduction to Song of Solomon”
- MacArthur Study Bible, “Song of Solomon”
- NET Bible, Song of Songs
- NIV Study Bible, Song of Songs
- Reformation Study Bible, “Song of Solomon”
- The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook, “Song of Songs” (And might I add, their article on this book of the Bible is particularly shallow and disappointing)
- Know Your Bible
- Dever, The Message of the Old Testament (In contrast to BIBH above, Dever’s treatment is simply excellent, nuanced, and timely)
- Driscoll, A Book You’ll Actually Read On the Old Testament
- Knight, The Layman’s Bible Handbook
