Song of Solomon

Introduction to Song of Solomon

This book is also called the “Song of Songs,” because this is the title attributed to it in the Hebrew (Šɩ̂r haš-šɩ̄rɩ̂m). The Latin version titles it the “Canticles” (canticum). English translations render it as “Song of Songs” or “Song of Solomon.”

Authorship

The book attributes authorship to Solomon—the king of Israel (1:1, 5; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11-12), and we have several reasons for believing this claim:

First, Ecclesiastes uses very similar language to Song of Solomon. If Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, which seems most likely (see “Introduction to Ecclesiastes”), then this would somewhat support Solomonic authorship. Moreover, Chaim Rabin (of Hebrew University) notes that much of the language in the book fits within a tenth century context (e.g. “orchard” 4:13, “carriage” 3:9).

Second, Solomon had a deep love and understanding of botany—a persistent theme in the Song of Songs. Solomon was well-versed in botany (1 Kings 4:33), and the author of this book spends a lot of time explaining the plant life (1:14; 2:1). Mark Rooker writes, “No other book is as replete with images of flora, fauna, perfumes, and spices.” In fact, Song of Solomon mentions 21 types of plants and 15 species of animals throughout the book.

Third, Solomon’s massive wealth fits with the author of the book. The author of this book mentions many expensive luxuries of the crown (1:12-13; 3:6, 9).

Fourth, the kingdom of Israel was still united in Song of Solomon. Of course, Solomon led the nation of Israel under a united monarchy, and the nation didn’t experience division until after Solomon’s reign (930 BC). Archer writes, “The author mentions quite indiscriminately localities to be found in both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms: Engedi, Hermon, Carmel, Lebanon, Heshbon, and Jerusalem. These are spoken of as if they all belonged to the same political realm. Note that Tirzah is mentioned as a city of particular glory and beauty, and that too in the same breath with Jerusalem itself (6:4). If this had been written after the time when Tirzah was chosen as the earliest capital of the breakaway Northern Kingdom in rejection of the authority of the dynasty of David, it is scarcely conceivable that it would have been referred to in such favorable terms. On the other hand, it is highly significant that Samaria, the city founded by Omri sometime between 885 and 874, is never mentioned in the Song of Solomon.”

Canonicity

Historically, some rabbis questioned the canonicity of this book. This wasn’t due to the authorship of the book (which they affirmed), but rather they found it to be too sensual, erotic, and lacking of “religious” value. The book was viewed as so erotic that “in the first century apparently some Jewish readers understood the Song of Songs literally. Some were even singing portions of it in their drinking houses. This evoked the wrath of Rabbi Aqiba who pronounced an anathema on such. For Aqiba this was blasphemous.” Philo never cites it, and neither does the New Testament. Does this book belong in the Bible?

Despite some hesitations by interpreters, the canonicity of the Song of Songs is well-attested. Geisler and Nix note that this book “is included in the canon of Aquila, and ranked as Scripture by Melito and Tertullian. It is also quoted, with standard formulas for citing Scripture, in the Mishnah (Taanith 4.8; Abodah Zarah 2.5).” Archer notes, “The tradition of divine inspiration was successfully upheld by Rabbi Akiba, who used allegorical interpretation to justify its spiritual value.” Akiba stated, “God forbid!—No man in Israel ever disputed about the Song of Songs… for all the ages are not worthy the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holiest of Holies.”

Roger Beckwith writes that the book has “no direct [Christian] attestation to its canonicity until the second century AD.” Yet it was included in the canon of Aquila, Melito, and Tertullian. Beckwith adds, “It is also quoted, with standard formulas for citing Scripture, in the Mishnah (Taanith 4.8; Abodah Zarah 2.5) and the other tannaitic literature. In this instance (though in this instance alone), we are wholly dependent on indirect attestation for the period up to the first century AD.”

Furthermore, Josephus included Song of Songs in his 22 book canon and 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) also included it in its 24 book canon. Of course, the numbering of books was different, but the books themselves were the same. For instance, while we number 39 books in the OT, this is the same list as Josephus’ 22 book canon. Beckwith writes, “If, as we have argued, the standard numbers 24 and 22 for the canonical books go back to the second century BC, the canonicity of the book in question must go back equally far, for standard numbers would only have been adopted after the identity of the books was settled, thus allowing them to be counted in an agreed way.”

Does the Song of Solomon refer to Christ’s love for the Church?

Because of the explicit nature of this book, both Jewish and Christian interpreters have offered an allegorical interpretation. Some Jewish interpreters held that the allegory consists of God’s love for Israel (citing Isa. 54:408; Jer. 2:1-2; Ezekiel 16, 23; Hosea 1-3), and some Christian interpreters have held that the allegory refers to Christ’s love for the Church—his bride.

But we strongly resist such an allegorical interpretation. For one, this book describes a historical couple. Solomon mentions his 80 concubines. Allegorical interpreters refer to this as the 80 heresies in the church… We find that this view only stretches our credulity beyond the limit!

Archer takes the couple to be a type of Christ’s love for the church. Remember, in typology, not everything in the type should be attributed to the fulfillment. So, this would explain away the sexual excitement and also the concubines. However, we find nothing in the text itself to tell us that this is a picture of Christ. While Solomon is a type of Christ, not everything that he does should be taken as a type.

One of the major problems with the allegorical method is its lack of hermeneutical restraint (i.e. interpretive restraint). For instance, regarding Song of Songs 1:13, Rooker writes, “Both Rashi and Ibn Ezra said this phrase refers to the tabernacling of God over the ark of the cherubim, while Cyril of Alexandria proposed that the verse referred to the two Testaments. Bernard of Clairvaux believed the verse referred to the crucifixion of Christ, which strengthens the believer in sorrow and joy.” When we lack hermeneutical restraint, the details of the book become lost in wild speculations like these. Kinlaw rightly notes that “the result is that the meanings in the text, if it is taken as allegory, are left to the imagination of every interpreter.” We refute the allegorical method in fuller detail in our earlier article “Faulty Hermeneutical Systems.”

How could this be written by Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines? (1 Kings 11:3)

The Shulamite woman was the one true love of Solomon’s life (and perhaps the first). At the wedding ceremony (Song 3:11), Solomon’s mother puts a crown on his head. Obviously, Solomon did not receive his kingly crown from his mother, but from the high priest (1 Kings 1:32ff; 11:11-20). This could imply that Solomon was very young when he was married—perhaps before he was corrupted by many wives and concubines.

Moreover, Solomon was a sinner like the rest of us, but we still read his Proverbs and the book of Ecclesiastes. Rooker writes, “The fact that Solomon himself may not have paid particular heed to his own advice in no way undermines this message.” In fact, in Ecclesiastes, Solomon writes of his regret for not following his own advice. Even though Solomon was surrounded by women, wealth, and worldliness in his later years, he regrets not loving his family, his work, and the simple aspects of life (Eccl. 2:24-25; 8:15-17; 9:7-9).

Interpreting the Song of Solomon

There are three characters in the book: the man, the woman, and the friends. This becomes difficult to discern who is speaking throughout this book. The different translations will give different speakers, so the interpreter should carefully discern this as she reads through the book. We have offered our view of who is speaking to whom throughout the commentary below.

Themes of the Song of Solomon

(1) The pleasure of marriage itself. The book really emphasizes the enjoyment and ecstasy that God offers in the context of marriage. Even though the Israelites rightly placed a high view on having children, “the Song of Solomon makes no reference to procreation… The Song is a song in praise of love for love’s sake and for love’s sake alone. This relationship needs no justification beyond itself.”

(2) The ways to foster a good marriage. Throughout the book, notice the ways that the husband and wife initiate with each other, focus on one another’s positive qualities, and warm up their love for one another. Modern married readers can learn so much from this couple’s intimacy and forethought for one another.

(3) Sexual intimacy. The metaphors give a beautiful and poetic description of the couple’s sexual life. When properly interpreted, modern readers will often blush at the erotic sections of the book. At the very least, this shows that the Bible is not as prudish as modern Christian culture.

We are surprised at how much translators “bleep out” or censor the erotic language of this book! This erotic language didn’t embarrass Solomon to write or for God to inspire, but it embarrasses modern Christians. One theologian indicted both liberal and conservative commentators. We paraphrase his comments here: “You can tell a liberal theologian by how they take the Song of Songs literally, but they take Jonah allegorically. You can tell a conservative theologian by how they take Song of Songs allegorically, but they take Jonah literally.”