Discussion: Song of Songs
Post your reply to the two (2) replies of 250 words each, you must support your assertions with three (3) scholarly citations in current Turabian format. Each reply should also incorporate scholarly citations if appropriate to the context.
Prompt 1 (GRoe)
James 1:17(a,b) reminds us that, “Every good gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.” As Christians we can surely attest and testify to this truth. Song of Songs reminds us that this truth is found in the gift of love and within the bonds of marriage as it portrays the romantic love story of Solomon and his Shulamite wife. This incredible book is mystical, difficult to understand at times, and has evoked its share of controversies over the years in regard to its canonical legitimacy, literary type, characterization, etc. Based on my understanding and drawing from other sources as well, I look at/interpret this book from a few different perspectives.
First, it is important to examine the unity of the book by considering the literary approach that I support. There are many approaches that try to explain this complex book and great arguments are made to support those approaches (allegorical, drama, hymnological, etc.) To be honest, I look at Song of Songs in not just a singular approach but with a combination of approaches/interpretations. As Estes (2005:396) concludes, Song of Songs should be read as lyric poetry. He goes on to explain that “It is not historical narrative employing realistic description; rather it uses poetic imagery to communicate its message through allusion. As poetry, it aims to re-create an experience in the reader rather than simply report the experience.” To add to this approach, Garrett (1993:379) deduces that the “best interpretation of Song of Songs is that it is what it appears to be: a love song.” Though I agree with both Estes and Garrett in that the book is poetic and a love song that takes us on an intimate and illustrative journey through the courtship, marriage night, and post-marriage difficulties the couple faces; I feel Song of Songs must be read with a literal/historical and typological interpretive approach as well. For, this beautiful/symbolic story is about more than just the adoration between a couple who cannot wait to consummate their relationship intimately on their wedding night. But this story, too, parallels the full Biblical narrative of the adoring, covenantal, and sacrificial relationship between God and His people. Thus, the relationship between the Christ (the groom) and His bride (the church) that we read about in the New Testament (i.e., 2 Cor. 11:2, Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7-9, Revelation 21:1-2). As Parsons (1999:402) explains, “typological interpretation follows the approach of allegory in developing spiritual parallels, but it endeavors to retain more objective controls by retaining the literal sense as well.” MacArthur (1997:744) further explains using this literal interpretation/approach to reading and understanding Song of Solomon in this way:
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 Genesis 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).
In supporting the typological, literal/historical approach to Song of Songs, I want to draw some parallels and comparisons that we find in the book with that of the relationship between God and His people. Thus, we can tie the “union” message of the book with that of “union” message of all of Scripture: Christ uniting with His bride. We also find other teachings of Scripture in Song of Songs that pertain to God’s overall demands/commands for us in terms of how He expects people to remain pure despite our desires until we enter the sacred bonds of marriage. As Estes (2005: 402) alludes, “When interpreted literally, Song of Songs teaches emphatically that pure, erotic love in marriage is God’s good and sacred gift to be enjoyed, nurtured, ad protected.” In addition, MacArthur (1997:744) reminds us that the outline and “flow of the book follows that of God’s intentions for marriage found in Genesis 2:24. Following are merely a few of the parallels we can find in Song of Songs as we take a literal/historical approach. First, in chapter 1, we meet the main characters as we find the Shulamite woman in the court of the king. We are not exactly sure how she got there; but, nonetheless she’s there as verse 4 tells us that “The King has brought me into his chambers.” Isn’t that our story too? Our paths are all different but how incredible it is to find ourselves in the court of the King because of His summonsing, conviction, etc. The psalmist said, “For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere.” (Psalm 84:10a). Another parallel is that Shulamite compares herself with the other maidens and does not see herself at their standard. Yet, her lover praises her and adores her for who she is. Having worked the vineyards because of the harsh treatment of her brothers, her skin is dark and more rugged than that of the pale-skinned maidens. The parallel is that our Lord meets us where we are at loves us for who we are, where we are if we’ll just commit to Him. He will clean and perfect any imperfections. Throughout chapters 1 and 2, we find the lovers stating and reciprocating why they so adore one another using symbolism and imagery. They are fighting back sexual urges that they are feeling but understanding the need to remain pure before their marriage is consummated in chapters 3-5. Though some may think it odd relate this to God’s relationship with us, it is important to understand that once we enter the “betrothal period” with God awaiting the time of His return and ultimately “consummating our marriage” we are expected to remain pure in our spiritual walk as well. As Shulamite was attracted to the aroma of Solomon, so are we to be the “aroma of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:15). Another parallel we find with Shulamite has to do with the fact that she refers to her lover as her shepherd in chapter 1:7. As Garrett (1993:368) describes, using this language to describe Solomon as a shepherd is “poetic language.” Sasson (1989:410) explains interestingly that by Shulamite addressing Solomon as her shepherd and to herself as his shepherdess, “this accounts for the mysterious change of scene from palace to countryside and from countryside to palace.” The poet describes Solomon as both king and shepherd. The parallel to this is, of course, Psalms refers to the Lord as our “good shepherd” in Psalm 23. Ezekiel 34 describes and prophecies of a good shepherd who will rescue, oversee, and tend to his sheep. The Gospel of John chapter 10:4-6 describe Jesus as the “good shepherd” to His flock as well. Jesus is our Good Shepherd. But the progression of description of the shepherd eventually sees him as the king in Song of Songs. This is a great and important parallel for us as well. For, our good shepherd will one day return as King of Kings and will take us with Him to consummate the marriage between He and His bride (us-the church) and establish His forever kingdom where we will rule and be with Him forever. Lastly (though certainly not the only parallel) I will address the difficulties the couple faces after they are married, and God has approved of their union. In chapters 5-8, we find them having a disagreement seemingly because the Shulamite does not want to be bothered by her groom. He leaves and she has great conviction about how she has treated him and goes rushing after him to make things right. Once she finds him, she realizes that he has not wandered far. To parallel, God is always at our door. In fact, He is always with us. There are times where we may not yield to what He is asking and go about things selfishly or our own ways. Because He does not “force” us to do what He asks or expects, He will grant us the freedoms to choose what to do (sometimes even if it is not His perfect will and choices for us.) Once we realize that we have gone against Him, we do not have to search very long as He never ‘leaves nor forsakes us.” Yet, another parallel to this is that just as Shulamite and Solomon worked through their differences and continued to work on their marriage to strengthen it, we must always do the same.
One may be skeptical of Solomon’s committal and dedication to Shulamite because of his history of polygamy (and understandably so.) For, Scripture tells us that he would have 699 more wives and 300 concubines (1Kings 11:3.) But I argue that Shulamite was truly the love of his life and that he was devoted to her before he started living in the sinful lifestyle of polygamy. Thus, I take the lessons that are taught throughout Song of Songs and apply them through the lens of a literal interpretation and am thankful for what Solomon teaches us during this particular time in his life. Certainly, it is frustrating that he went on to live a sinful polygamous life. But I am thankful for what this moment in his life teaches us about our own marriages and parallels to our relationship with God. To make that argument, I will explain how I approach the dramatic sequence and characterization of the book. As mentioned above, I see Song of Songs as a sequence of events happening over time. As MacArthur outlines the book, I agree with his outline of events as they occur.
Introduction (1:1)
The Courtship: “Leaving” (1:2– 3:5) A. The Lovers’ Remembrances (1:2– 2:7) B. The Lovers’ Expression of Reciprocal Love (2:8– 3:5)
The Wedding: “Cleaving” (3:6– 5:1) A. The Kingly Bridegroom (3:6– 11) B. The Wedding and First Night Together (4:1– 5:1a) C. God’s Approval (5:1b)
The Marriage: “Weaving” (5:2– 8:14) A. The First Major Disagreement (5:2– 6:3) B. The Restoration (6:4– 8:4) C. Growing in Grace (8:5– 14)
Estes (2005) also seems to argue for the book to be a progression of events over time. In following ancient wedding customs, one would argue that the customs would especially be followed by King Solomon. In fact, as we find the wedding processional, we know that special chairs were made for the caravan/parade that brought them to the event. But not only the wedding day’s pomp and preparations and customs would be an argument for this being a book that took place over time; the details given to pre-marriage courtship and post-marriage issues explain to us that this would have been written detailing their relationship over time. Finally, I want to address the characterization of Song of Songs and explain why I feel this is a book of two main characters (Solomon and the Shulamite.) I mentioned above that in chapter 1:7, she alludes to a shepherd. Some feel that this is referring to her true love and Solomon in his lust for her begins to woo her away from him. Again, both Garrett (1993:368) and Sassons (1989:410) deal with this issue and explain it as “poetic language.” This is the story of Solomon, the king and shepherd, and his beloved Shulamite princess, shepherdess, and queen and the intimate description of their want for one another through courtship and how they obey God’s commands and remain pure until marriage. Sassons (1989: 408-409) makes a very compelling argument explaining that the beloved of Solomon is no other than the daughter of Pharaoh. This is important to the argument of only two characters involved because this would address that Pharoah’s daughter. (MacArthur (1997:743) argues that the Shulamite maiden was more than likely the daughter of a family from Shunem who were employed by Solomon.) Both arguments, however, are treated as though this wife would have been Solomon’s first wife and that he genuinely loved her and was devoted to her before his fall into polygamy. Just to mention Sassons argument from above, he alludes to 1Kings 11:1-2 first. He comments that the other foreign wives are grouped together. But Pharaoh’s daughter is singled out. Again, he comments that his marriage to her is mentioned four times (3:1, 7:8, 9:24, 11:1-2.) He goes on to give some more arguments but concludes that Solomon’s love for her was not political but a sincere love. Regardless of who she was, Song of Songs is rich with complexity, mystery, romance, parallelism, and great advice through example. Even though Solomon would go on to live in sin with his polygamous lifestyle, it doesn’t take away from the fact that he adored his Shulamite princess and queen and showered her with more than physical affection. He went to great lengths to make her queen and establish a lasting marriage. This is exactly what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Prompt 2 (RV)
Discussion Thread: Song of Songs
Explain your understanding of the Song of Songs in regard to whether the text should be read literally/historically/ or allegorically. How is your approach impacted by your hermeneutic?
Starting with what we do know, historically, the Scroll of the Songs (Megillat Shir Hashirim), was written by Solomon (v. 1:1) sometime between 970-950 BC. Historically, this agrees with what we already know of Solomon, who “composed some 3,000 proverbs and wrote 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32, New Living Translation).” The issue relative to authorship is, without a doubt, credited to Solomon. The question that remains to be answered, according to Ed Hindson and Elmer Towns in their book, Illustrated Bible Survey is whether “this was a song, by Solomon, about Solomon, or for Solomon.”[1] While it is certainly possible that the Song can be read literally; according to Jewish tradition, the Song of Songs is allegorical and expresses a dialogue between God and His people that spans history and contains a much deeper meaning than just a love song.[2] Thus, my understanding of how the Song of Songs should be read is as a book of poetry that has been historically written by Solomon and may, possibly be literal, but should be interpreted as allegorical. Approaching the Song of Songs hermeneutically must be examined contextually from a position relative to how the biblical culture and audience would have understood it in their time. From a New Testament perspective, the application of typology (ecclesiastical) can certainly be addressed, but this would not be in keeping with how the original audience would have understood the text.
In what manner is the message of the Song influenced by the interpretive approach that you take to the text? To what degree does the history of Solomon’s polygamy influence (or frustrate) your interpretation of the song?
For an interpretive approach to the text, three approaches can be examined. The first approach is one that addresses the topic of sex within the context of marriage (a literal interpretation) and is explained by Daniel Estes, in his book Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms as a love that “extols the richness of human erotic love as a gift from God.”[3] In two instances we read that Solomon exhorts the woman of Jerusalem (likely the woman of court) to encourage Shulammith to wait until she and Solomon can be married before engaging in a sexual union, stating “Promise me, O women of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and wild deer, not to awaken love until the time is right (Song of Songs 3:5, NLT, emphasis mine),“ and again in 3:5, thereby, demonstrating the importance (and warning), “that sexual love should be treasured, not perverted.”[4]
Approaching the Song of Songs from a purely historical context is somewhat problematic when one observes Solomon’s polygamous behavior (1 Kin. 11: 1-8). In the Holman Illustrated Bible Handbook, Raymond C. Van Leeuwen et al., offer a sound interpretation for a literal interpretation by observing that there is no reason that a young Solomon could not have written such a beautiful celebration of monogamous love in its entirety, demonstrating his pure and passionate love in his early life, prior to being married to so many women.[5] From an allegorical interpretation, the Jews recognized the Song as one that “alludes to the Exodus, the time the Israelites spent traveling the desert, the first and second Temple periods, and the wondering of the Jews throughout the exile.”[6] Both examples show God’s love and the impact that sin has on our lives.
If you approach the Song in any fashion outside of a primarily “allegorical” approach, what specific approach do you take to the dramatic sequencing and characterization of the Song? Do you see it as a dramatic sequence between two lovers extended over time, or is it a celebration Song depicting only events occurring around the wedding night? If you see the Song as a dramatic sequence extending over time, does the Song depict two main characters or is there another approach?
The interpretation of the Song is not an either-or prognosis (literal versus allegorical), and one should not approach it as such. From a literal interpretation, Songs should be read as a dramatic sequence between two lovers, that over a period of time, leads up to their wedding night. The sequence of events is taught by example and not by mandate, thereby, presenting a couple that shares an exclusive love for each other (7:10).[7] The text does not establish a third party, and to interpret it as such implies conjecture which does not constitute evidence. Instead, it promotes speculation. Thus, an improper hermeneutical interpretation. While the literary structure may be nothing more than a song written by Solomon, who is known for his writing of songs, there is no evidence to suggest that the Song was not literal. Conversely, interpreting the Song from an allegorical, moral, or anagogical approach, by comparing the literal and spiritual would not be viewed as an inappropriate hermeneutical interpretation of the Song given the obscurity of the text. Although Songs, written as poetry, aims to re-create an experience in the reader rather than simply report the experience.[8] This does not preclude a literal interpretation, nor does it deny an allegorical approach, instead it unifies and supports Scripture by interrupting Songs with Scripture. Ultimately, there is not enough evidence to support one rationale over the other, so we must rely upon the Holy Spirit to direct how we interpret the Song of Songs because “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17, NLT),” which includes the Old Testament because this is all believers had at the time.
