Bible Book of the Month – The Song of
Songs
Meredith G. Kline
This essay originally appeared in Christianity Today 3 (April 27, 1959): 22-23, 39.
____________________
lmost anything can be read into any book if you are determined
enough,” C. S. Lewis recently observed. Commenting on
interpretations suggested for his own fantastic fiction he added: “Some of the
allegories thus imposed on my books have been so ingenious and interesting
that I often wish I had thought of them myself” (Reflections on the Psalms, 1958,
p. 99).
If you cock your ear just right perhaps you will detect afar off a chuckle
and the “Amen” of the author of the Song of Songs. He has had his troubles
with the interpreters too. In fact, “there is no book of the Old Testament which
has found greater variety of interpretation than the Song of Songs” (H. H.
Rowley’s opening remark in his helpful chapter “The Interpretation of the
Song of Songs,” The Servant of the Lord, 1952, pp. 189-234). What seems at first
“A
bewildering but after a while amusing too is that most of these utterly
contradictory interpretation’s come with a manufacturer’s guarantee that each
claims to be the one and only understanding of the book which the totally
unbiased reader can reach! Naturally the interpretation offered in this article
does not lack such an endorsement – except that one enlightened prejudice is
admittedly presupposed, the prejudice of recognizing that the Song of Songs is
an inspired revelation of the God of truth. But then a prejudice one way or the
other on that subject is unavoidable.
The Literary Genre
The particular literary form an author selects as the vehicle of his
message can be the most important single clue to his true intent.
1. Love Song: It is being more and more recognized as archaeological
discovery enlarges our library of ancient literature that the biblical Song was
not a novel literary phenomenon in the world in which it appeared. In its
general framework and in numerous individual motifs and metaphors it is seen
to be stylistically similar to what is found in ancient love lyrics. An Egyptian
love poem, found on one of the Chester Beatty papyri dating about 1100 B.C.,
consists of seven cantos in dialog form with the lovers addressing each other as
“brother” and “sister” (For a partial translation see J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near
Eastern Texts, 1950, pp. 468, 469). There are enough parallels to Canticles in
structure, situation, and imagery in such love songs of the New Empire in Egypt
to convince W. F. Albright that they “demonstrate the Egyptian origin of the
framework of the Canticles” (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1942, p. 21).
Other scholars are more impressed with parallels to the Song found elsewhere
in the Near Eastern or in primitive love poetry.
One variety of love song is the epithalamium or wedding song. From the
time of Origen many have held that Canticles was composed for the occasion of
Solomon’s wedding to Pharaoh’s daughter (I Kings 3:1) and from the end of the
sixteenth century expositors have tried to explain the character of the Song in
terms of customs followed at ancient Jewish marriage festivals. In 1873 J.
Wetzstein published his study of the marriage-week customs of modern Syrian
peasants, and directed attention to the facts that bridegroom and bride played
the roles of “king” and “queen,” a mock throne being set up on the threshing
floor; that poems of praise (wasf) were sung extolling their physical beauty; and
that on occasion the bride performed a sword dance. The obvious comparisons
were then drawn with Canticles where the hero is several times called “king,”
the lovers repeatedly sing the praises of each other’s charms, and the
Shulammite maiden performs a dance (7:1ff.). Efforts were made to
demonstrate that the Song was composed of seven parts, one for each day of
the wedding week, but with little success.
Critics of the epithalamium view have questioned both the existence of
such a “king’s week” among the Arabs in Palestine and the reliability of modern
Syrian practices as a guide o Judean wedding customs of the first millennium
B.C.
They also argue that some of the poetry in Canticles is clearly prenuptial
and that even the wasf type of song was not confined to wedding festivals.
Furthermore there is an obvious reason for calling the hero “king” (1:4, 12, 7:5)
if he is “king Solomon” (3:9, 11) and his beloved, it must be noted, is never
designated “queen.” Certainly she is not a princess from Pharaoh’s court but a
maiden from the village of Shunem.
R. Gordis in his excellent study, The Song of Songs (1954), seeks to meet
some of these criticisms of the relevance of the “king’s week” (p. 17); but he too
joins the majority of those who regard Canticles as love poetry in concluding
that it was not composed for a wedding but is an anthology of various types of
love songs – “songs of love’s yearnings and its consummation, of coquetry and
passion, of separation and union, of courtship and marriage” (p. 18).
2. Drama: In the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth centuries the
view was developed and popularized that Canticles was dramatic in structure.
The beginnings of this view were much earlier. Origen, for example, considered
it “a nuptial poem composed in dramatic form” and Milton called it a “divine
pastoral drama.” Extremists treated the Song as a theatrical piece actually
intended for the stage. In this they succeeded more in displaying a flair for
creating musical comedies than in manifesting a gift for exegeting ancient texts.
But nineteenth century exegetes of the caliber of Franz Delitzsch, H. Ewald,
and S. R. Driver also championed the dramatic view of the Song and this
approach continues to enjoy some support in our century.
The dramatists are divided over the question of whether the
Shulammite’s true love is Solomon or a rustic lover to whom she remains
faithful in a triumph of pure love over the seductions of Solomon’s royal court.
The second plot obviously has greater dramatic tension and that perhaps is why
it is the more popular; but it has little else to commend it.
Critics of the dramatic view correctly observe that full-fledged drama was
unknown among the Hebrews or the Semites in general; some of them also
protest, but incorrectly, that the Song cannot be a drama because it is not a
literary unit. The real question vis-à-vis sober proponents of the dramatic view
is whether Canticles traces the love of Solomon and the Shulammite through a
temporal sequence of scenes from courtship to their wedding and marriage life.
Expounding the thesis that such a sequence does emerge in the Song,
Delitzsch locates the wedding in the third of six acts. The successive acts end at
2:7, 3:5, 5:1, 6:9, 8:4, and 8:14. Each act is divided into two scenes, the first
scenes ending at 1:8, 2:17, 3:11, 6:3, 7:6, and 8:7. Hand in hand with the
temporal sequence Delitzsch traces a thematic movement: “Solomon appears
here in loving fellowship with a woman such as he had not found among a
thousand (Eccles. 7:28); and although in social rank far beneath him, he raises
her to an equality with himself…We cannot understand the Song of Songs
unless we perceive that it presents before us not only Shulamith’s external
attractions, but also all the virtues which make her the ideal of all this is
gentlest and noblest in woman…Solomon raises this child to the rank of queen,
and becomes beside this queen as a child. The simple one teaches the wise man
simplicity…[he] wanders gladly over mountain and meadow if he only has her”
(Commentary on The Song of Songs, Keil and Delitzsch series, 1950 ed., p. 5).
Though not persuaded by A. Bentzen’s contention that the many
possibilities advanced to explain the book as a drama prove its impossibility
(Introduction to the Old Testament, II, 1949, p. 181), the present writer is not
convinced that the scenic-chronological structure has been satisfactorily
demonstrated. The criticism that the dramatic view is almost as guilty of
eisegesis as the allegorical view goes much too far; but it does seem to contain
an element of truth.
It is a virtue of the dramatic view that it recognizes the unity of the Song.
That unity, however, is unfolded in cyclical rather than chronological fashion.
The divisions suggested by Delitzsch for his six acts mark the bounds of these
cycles; observe, for example, the recurring opening and closing refrains of these
divisions. Within each of these cycles the dominant love motif is that of longing
and fulfillment. Each cycle closes with the satisfaction of consummation of
love. Even though the Song is not structurally a drama, this recapitulated
theme of seeking and finding does impart to it a certain dramatic quality.
3. Cultic Liturgy: In the present century the theory has appeared that
Canticles is a liturgy belonging to the widespread Near Eastern cult of the dying
and reviving god. This is part of the current fad of discovering cultic vestiges
everywhere in the Old Testament. The interpretation rests primarily on alleged
terminological similarities to the Song in extant texts of the fertility cult and on
corresponding ritual themes in the cult, such as the goddess’ search for and
finding of the slain god and the sacred marriage. Proponents disagree as the
extent, if at all, that the original pagan liturgy was camouflaged to make it
acceptable to the cult of Yahweh.
The Old Testament indicates that apostate Israelites, whoring after
pagan deities, engaged in the rites of the Tammuz cult. But those who share the
prejudice concerning the Song acknowledged earlier cannot entertain it as a
serious possibility that the covenant God adopted as a legitimate element in the
worship of his name a liturgy from such an idolatrous source with all its sexual
associations. Suffice it then that the great majority of all scholars is
unconvinced by the liturgy theory and that it has been effectively criticized by
Eissfeldt, Rowley, and others. Bentzeen suggests that the ancestry of love songs
as a literary form may in part be found in the ritual of the heiros gamos, just as
T. Gaster traces the drama through the medium of myth to cultic ritual. If so,
the liturgy theory contributes something to the history of the literary genre
represented by our Song, but it still contributes nothing as an interpretation of
the Song itself.
Allegorical or Natural
Beyond the question of the literary genre of Canticles, but certainly not
divorced from it, lies another issue which concerns our understanding of the
book as a whole: To allegorize or not to allegorize?
1. Allegorical: That the Song deals primarily with human love, the mutual
love of a man and a maid, is the least that must be deduced from the facts that
it is cast in the mold of ancient human love poetry and confronts us with the
human figures of Solomon and the Shulammite as the lover and the beloved.
But is there warrant for seeking a second message hidden in the Song, one
concerned with the mutual love of God and his people?
As is well known the allegorical approach is ancient. Mishnah, Talmud,
and Targum treated the Song as allegory of Yahweh’s dealings with Israel.
From Judaism the allegorization of the Song passed over into Christianity, the
Church as bride of Christ replacing Israel as the beloved. The later popularity
of the allegorical method is reflected in the chapter headings assigned to
Canticles in the Authorized version.
The allegorists are not, of course, agreed on particulars. Some, for
example, interpret Solomon’s beloved not as the Church but as Wisdom;
others, as his kingdom of loyal subjects. Indeed, there is no limit to the
plausible possibilities. And there is the rub! Anyone with a knack for
autosuggestion can readily convince himself that his latest flight of fancy is the
true decipherment of the Song’s esoteric sense.
It there, however, amid all the allegorical abuse a proper, verifiable,
allegorical use of the Song? The most cogent argument for allegorizing
Canticles is the alleged analogy of Psalm 45. This Psalm is an extended
metaphor picturing Messiah as his bride, the Church, under the imagery of an
ancient royal wedding such as the Psalmist might have witnessed in the court of
one of David’s sucessors.
There are, however, decisive differences between Canticles and Psalm
45. The Song speaks about king Solomon and a particular woman from
Shunem. The Psalm describes directly a divine king in language which would
be utterly extravagant if intended for any merely human king of Israel. Nothing
in the historical narratives of the Old Testament supports the idea that the
flamboyantly flattering oriental court style was adopted in Israel. Psalm 45,
therefore, does not provide an analogy for a royal epithalamium with a double
meaning. It is moreover most important to observe that in Psalm 45 and in
every other biblical passage where the figure of marriage is used to depict the
covenantal relationship on God and men the context leaves no doubt that such
is the meaning. But there s not even the slightest hint anywhere in Canticles
that it was intended as an allegory of things divine. Finally, the Song differs
from Psalm 45 and all other alleged biblical parallels in that the Song abounds
in detailed praises of the two lovers’ bodily charms and in allusions to the
intimacies of conjugal love. As a song of human love this might surprise the
modern Western reader of holy Scripture but it should not offend him. To
interpret such imagery as a song of God’s relationship to his people, however,
appears to involve irreverence. Certainly it ignores the care manifested
everywhere else in biblical anthropomorphism to avoid attributing to the holy
One of Israel the erotic passions and sexual functions characteristic of the gods
of pagan mythology. Observe the way of contrast to the Song the restraint
exercised in carrying out the nuptial metaphor in the Messianic Psalm 45.
2. Typical: There is another view, the typical, which would also find a
Messianic meaning in Canticles. But whereas an allegorist might ignore the
natural meaning of the language, esteeming the mystical meaning as the only
message of the Song, the typologist must always insist there is a double
meaning – a typical and an antitypical. The typologist shares the allegorist’s
appeal to the biblical use of marriage as a literary figure for Christ’s
relationship to his Church, but the typical view, as its name implies, appeals
particularly to the historical status of Solomon as a type of Christ. Typologists
differ further from the allegorists in not groping after a mystical
reinterpretation of every detail in the Song. They are satisfied to discover a
more general correspondence between type and antitype.
The fallacy of the typical view is that while Solomon in his royal office
typified the kingship of Christ, nothing in Scripture justifies our regarding all
and sundry aspects of Solomon’s life as divinely appointed historical types.
Certainly Solomon’s lover relationship with one or all of his wives was no more
a Messianic type than the marriage life of any other Israelite or Gentile. Since
then the supposed typical elements in the Song are illusory, the typical view is
not a genuine option. The only real alternatives are the allegorical and the
natural.
3. Natural: “Natural” is preferable to “literal” as a designation for the
correct interpretation of Canticles since “literal” is liable to suggest a lack of
appreciation for the Song’s erotic symbolism.
This view, though only in modern times enjoying ecclesiastical
respectability, can be traced as far back as the evidence for the history of
interpretation goes. And why should the Church stumble at the presence in her
inspired canon a song extolling the dignity and beauty of human love and
marriage? Considering how large the subject looms in the attention of men, had
it not been remarkable if there were not such an extended treatment of it in the
volume God has given us for “reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness?” And all the more so when we think how sordid is the world’s
attitude towards the matter and how dim had become even the Old Testament
saint’s apprehension of the paradisaic ideal of marriage. Thus understood,
Canticles unites with the other poetical books of the Old Testament in
displaying the inspired fruits of godly reflection upon the Law and especially in
eliciting the relevance of the Law for the great issues of human life.
The heading assigns the authorship to Solomon and there is no
compelling reason for not regarding this certainly very ancient tradition as an
original part of the inspired text. Advocates of the love song view often treat
Canticles as an anthology of poems by many authors but Rowley has well
observed: “The repetitions that occur leave the impression of a single hand, and
there is a greater unity of theme and of style than would be expected in a
collection of poems from several hands, and from widely separated ages. It is
probable, too, that there is artistry in the arrangement of the pieces” (op. cit.,
pp. 212, 213).
There is a puzzle of the selection of the Israelite most notorious for his
departure from the marriage ideal to compose the biblical tribute to true love
and this is not solved by facetious remarks about Solomon’s superior
experience in the arts of love. More helpful is the consideration that the arts of
poetry and songs were branches of Wisdom and the wisdom of Solomon needs
no introduction (cf., I Kings 3:5ff.; cf. 4:32).
That, however, does not solve the enigma of why Solomon of all people
should be this Song’s hero as well as it author – which raises the problem of
historicity. Now it should be observed that the personal perspective in the Song
is consistently that of the beloved, not of the king (cf., e.g., 2:10; 5:2). If,
therefore, Solomon (for that matter, anyone other than the Shulammite herself)
is the author, Canticles is, as Ecclesiastes seems to be, fictionally
autobiographical. Such as fictional literary garb permits that the historical
element consists in little more than that one of Solomon’s favorites was the
Shunem. The mutual love of the king and this Shulammite would then have
been freely adapted to the ideal, and idyllic design of the Song and this would
explain the purity of the affections of the Song’s king Solomon, as well as his
romantic shepherd’s role.
If this is so, the choice of Solomon as hero is not enigmatic but
indicative of Canticles’ Edenic milieu. With true insight the poet Herder
observed: “That Song is written as if in Paradise. Adam’s song: Thou art my
second self! Thou art mine own! echoes in it the speech and interchanging
song from end to end.” In the unfolding divine plan of redemptive history God
appoints Canaan to his people Israel as an earnest of Paradise regained. And
who better than Solomon – not in his personal but official character and glory
as theocratic king set over the paradisaic land of milk and honey – to recall
Adam, vicegerent over the garden of God?
The Song confronts us with love as it was in the beginning and it lets us
hear again the divine marriage benediction first addressed to the lover and his
beloved in man’s home primeval (Gen. 1:28a). What the incarnate Word did
for the sanctity of marriage by his presence at the Cana wedding, the written
Word does by dwelling with joy upon conjugal love in the Song of Songs.