Song of Solomon

The “Song of Solomon” is also called the “Song of Songs,” and this is the title attributed to it in the Hebrew (Šɩ̂r haš-šɩ̄rɩ̂m). The Latin version titles it as the “Canticles” (Canticum canticorum), but English translations render it as either “Song of Songs” or “Song of Solomon.”

Authorship and Date

While we don’t think the man in the book is Solomon, there is good evidence that Solomon wrote, collected, or supervised the writing of this book.

First, Solomon is most plausibly named as the author at the beginning of book. The book opens with the words “Solomon’s Song of Songs” (Song 1:1). Grammatically, the preposition (lĕ) in the opening verse most naturally refers to authorship. That is, it is written by Solomon. This is attested in many of the psalms (Pss. 18:1; 30:1; 34:1; 51:1; 52:1; 54:1; 56:1; 57:1; 59:1; 60:1; 63:1; 72:20).

Those who reject Solomonic authorship argue that the opening verse should be understood as a dedication. That is, the book was given to Solomon or perhaps published by him. Those who hold this view note that the preposition (lĕ) doesn’t always refer to authorship. For example, in the superscription of Psalm 4, the preposition is used “for the director of music,” and it’s a psalm “of David.” The same preposition is used for both. Moreover, in ancient Near Eastern literature, the term (lĕ) is ascribed to the god Baal.^[1]

Second, Solomon’s name recurs throughout the book. However, this isn’t a very good argument. Though Solomon’s name appears throughout the book, the uses don’t require him to be the author (Song 1:5; 3:7, 9; 11; 8:11-12). After surveying each verse, Longman writes, “We find no support for Solomonic authorship in the texts that mention his name.”^[2]

Third, the author is called the king. The woman refers to the man as her “king” throughout the book (Song 1:4, 12; 3:9, 11; 7:5). However, those who reject Solomonic authorship counter with the fact that the man is also depicted as a “shepherd” (Song 1:7; 2:16; 6:2-3) and her “brother” (Song 8:1). But neither should be taken literally. Instead, the term “king” is a way for the woman to speak of the man with “respect and endearment,” not a literal title.^[3] The use of the word is a literary convention for “expressing the high regard the lovers have for each other.”^[4]

Fourth, the emphasis on botany fits with King Solomon. 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). Rooker writes, “No other book is as replete with images of flora, fauna, perfumes, and spices.”^[5] In fact, the book mentions 21 types of plants and 15 species of animals.^[6]

Fifth, the grammar and linguistics fit within the 10^th century BC. 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).^[7] Furthermore, there are many grammatical and linguistic forms that date to the 10^th century or earlier (e.g. single word parallelisms, the relative participle še rather than the common ’ǎšer, parallels with early Ugaritic, etc.).^[8] While there are Aramaisms in the book, the “Aramaic language itself was in use at least as early as the ninth century BC, and probably goes back to the nineteenth century.”^[9]

Sixth, the kingdom of Israel appears to still be united in the book. The nation of Israel 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.”^[10]

In conclusion, we disagree with Longman^[11] who is “agnostic” on the dating of the book. Rather, we agree with Garrett, who concludes, “Nothing in the book demands a late date.”^[12] Indeed, the book fits well to the time of Solomon, and it claims to be written by him.

Canonicity

One rabbi stated that the book “defiled the hands.” However, this means that this is canonical—that is, the book is holy and requires a person to wash their hands (Mishnah, Yadaim 4:6).

Later in history, some rabbis questioned the canonicity of this book. Though they affirmed Solomonic authorship, they found the book to be too implicitly and even explicitly sexual and lacking spiritual value. Rabbi Aqiba (AD 100) pronounced judgment on men who sang the song in drinking houses. He said, “Whoever sings the Song of Songs with a tremulous voice in a banquet hall and (so) treats it as a sort of ditty has no share in the world to come” (t. Sanh. 12:10.). Philo never cites it, and neither does the New Testament. Yet, despite these hesitations, the canonicity of the Song of Songs is well-attested.

Rabbi Aqiba condemned drunkards from singing the song, but he affirmed its inspiration. He held an allegorical reading, claiming that the man was “Yahweh” and the woman was “Israel.” Consequently, he held that the book was inspired. He 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.”^[13]

The Mishnah supports the inspiration of the Song of Songs. Beckwith writes, “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.”^[14]

Josephus included Song of Songs in his 22-book canon and 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) also included it in its 24 book canon.^[15] Of course, the numbering of books was different from today, 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.”^[16]

Many Christians affirmed the canonicity of the Song of Songs. Beckwith writes that the book has “no direct [Christian] attestation to its canonicity until the second century AD.” Yet he states that it was included in the canon of Aquila, Melito, and Tertullian.^[17]

Genre and Interpretation

Is the Song of Solomon an allegory? The word “allegory” comes from the words “other” (allos) and “to speak” (agoreyō). Put simply, the words “say one thing but mean something else.”^[18] Because of the implicit and explicit sexual descriptions, both Jewish and Christian interpreters offered allegorical interpretations, claiming that the man was God/Christ and the woman was Israel/the Church. Indeed, the “allegorical interpretation of the book… was dominant and almost exclusive from the beginning of our evidence until the middle of the nineteenth century.”^[19]

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 235) is the first Christian interpreter of the Song of Solomon, and he used the allegorical method. Origen (185-253) thought sex was evil, and he castrated himself. He “desexed” the book through an allegorical interpretation.^[20] Jerome (AD 331-420) threw himself into thornbushes when he felt lust. He brought the allegorical interpretation to the Western Church, along with his contemporary Augustine.

Martin Luther understood the book as a political allegory. John Calvin never wrote a commentary on the book, but in his Institutes, he cites it with an allegorical reading. Likewise, John Wesley understood the book as an allegory between Christ and the Church.

Despite its long history,^[21] we reject this view. We agree with Garrett when he writes, “Allegorization is now widely acknowledged to be a false reading of the text.”^[22] We reject the allegorical genre and hermeneutic for a number of reasons:

First, an allegorical genre is obvious. One authoritative source states, “We have allegory when the events of a narrative obviously and continuously refer to another simultaneous structure of events or ideas.”[23] One example of allegory in the OT would be a passage like Jotham’s story in Judges 9. This is certainly not the case in the Song of Songs.

Second, the genre of love poetry is attested in the ancient Near East. Archaeologists discovered “tens and even hundreds of thousands of ancient written documents” that contained “love poems from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Ugarit bearing similarities with the Song of Songs.”^[24] These love poems are clearly literal—not allegorical. This makes an allegorical view of the Hebrew book to be untenable.

Third, the allegorical method leads to wild speculation. One of the major problems with the allegorical method is its lack of interpretive restraint. Consider several examples:

We agree with Keel, when he writes, “If two allegorizers ever agree on the interpretation of a verse it is only because one has copied another.”[27] We critique the allegorical method in fuller detail in our earlier article “Faulty Hermeneutical Systems.”

Is the Song of Solomon a drama? Under this view, the book should be understood as a drama or play. Interpreters of this stripe believe that it was originally acted or sung. This view was held by John Milton[28] and Franz Delitzsch[29] held this view. However, there are multiple problems with this view:

First, the book contains no plot, no character development, no climax, and no resolution—only long speeches—all of which “militate against the Song being considered ‘drama.’”^[30]

Second, it’s hard to believe that this was about Solomon having one true love (1 Kin. 11:3).

Third, this genre didn’t exist in ancient Israel: “There is no evidence that the drama, whether historical or fictional, existed as a literary genre in the ancient Levant.”^[31]

Is the Song of Solomon love poetry? We hold this final view. We agree with Longman^[32] that the book is an “anthology of love poetry.” This means that the poems contain tremendous symbolism and double entendre. It also means that the poetry shouldn’t be taken as a linear or chronological plotline. Instead, these are highly symbolic scenes between two lovers. Longman writes, “It is true that Song of Songs at times seems to function without logical transitions between texts, but this is an aspect of its genre.”^[33]

How could this be written by Solomon when he had 700 wives and 300 concubines? (1 Kin. 11:3)

OPTION #1. Solomon wrote the book about himself. Rooker^[34] and Kinlaw^[35] hold that this is autobiographical of Solomon’s life. Under this view, if Solomon was writing about his own experience, then this would need to be placed early in his life—before he was corrupted by many wives and concubines (1 Kin. 11:1-4). Later, 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).

OPTION #2. Solomon wrote the book about a generic man—not himself. We hold to this first view. Under this view, Solomon wrote the book, but the man in his poetry isn’t him. Indeed, none of the people in the poetry are historical or literal persons. The poetic images describe ideal love. Solomon was a sinner like the rest of us, but we still read Proverbs and the book of Ecclesiastes—despite his many failings. Rooker writes, “The fact that Solomon himself may not have paid particular heed to his own advice in no way undermines this message.”^[36]

Are they married or not?

Some passages at the end of the book imply that the woman isn’t married (Song 8:8-10), but she is sexually active with the man throughout. Several responses are in order. First, the woman is called a “bride,” and this implies marriage (Song 4:8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 5:1). Second, the poems aren’t chronological or sequential. Third, the writer isn’t a modern person who rejects biblical mandates for marriage. The Hebrew author “simply assumes the Hebrew order” of sex within marriage.^[37] Finally, Garrett observes, “‘I belong to my lover and his desire is for me’ (7:10), if it means anything at all, means that the two belong to each other exclusively.”^[38]

How do we know who is speaking in the book?

There are three characters in the book: the man, the woman, and the friends. Sometimes, it’s difficult to discern who is speaking throughout the book. In fact, “we cannot be absolutely certain who is speaking in about 10 percent of the cases.”^[39] Different translations will give different speakers, so the interpreter should carefully discern this as he reads the book. We have offered our view of who is speaking to whom throughout the commentary below.

Major Themes in the Song of Solomon

The book gives a positive picture of sex. We all think about sex. If we didn’t have this book, we would lack a vision for a positive sex life. Garrett writes, “The Bible itself would be incomplete if it only spoke of sexuality in terms of prohibitions and did not give positive instruction to enable the reader to discover the joy of healthy love.”^[40]

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. At the very least, this shows that the Bible is not as prudish as modern Christian culture. Norman Geisler told a joke about how to identify liberal and conservative theologians. We paraphrase his comments here: “Liberal theologians take the Song of Songs literally, but they take Jonah allegorically. Conservative theologians take Song of Songs allegorically, but they take Jonah literally.”

The book 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.”^[41]

The book redeems sex in a fallen world. Longman writes, “It is striking that the word desire (t^əšūqâ), which we discussed above in reference to Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, occurs only one more time—in Song of Songs 7:11 (English 7:10): ‘I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.’ Here the use is clearly positive. It is also in a refrain of mutual love, affection, and possession.”^[42]

Indeed, the woman has no shame in talking about sex, and this is 500 years before Plato walked the Earth! Kinlaw^[43] observes that the woman’s speech about her husband’s physical attractiveness is quite remarkable for this period of history: “This is one of the few poems that has come down to us from the ancient world in which the female gives an inventory of the male’s features.” Normally, men objectified women, but women almost never reciprocated. Carr^[44] concurs. He cites a few exceptions to this rule, but they are bland by comparison. In the Song of Solomon, the woman speaks far more than the man—in 61 out of 117 verses.^[45]

The book models how to foster a good relationship. The book isn’t a “dating guide or a sex manual.” Instead, it is “poetry intent on evoking a mood more than making mandates to the reader concerning specific types of behavior.”^[46] The imagery of romance and sexuality is a poetic image to be longed for—not a legalistic mandate. However, throughout the book, the man and woman initiate with each other, focus on one another’s positive qualities, and warm up their love for one another. Modern readers can learn much from this couple’s intimacy and forethought for one another.

Consulted Commentaries

Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991).

G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 19 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984).

Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993).

Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001).

^[1] G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 76-77.

^[2] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 6.

^[3] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 6.

^[4] G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 42.

[5] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2011), 550.

[6] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2011), 547.

^[7] Chaim Rabin, “The Song of Songs and Tamil Poetry,” Studies in Religion 3 (1973): 205-219, cited in Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 1209.

^[8] G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 19.

^[9] G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 20.

^[10] Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 539-540.

^[11] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 19.

^[12] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 352.

^[13] Mishnah, Yadaim 3:5.

[14] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 322.

[15] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 322.

[16] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 322.

[17] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 321-322.

^[18] G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 22.

^[19] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 22-23.

^[20] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 29.

^[21] Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350-428) was one exception to the overwhelming rule. Longman writes, “One such view was the interpretation of the Song of Songs that he took simply as a passionate love poem between Solomon and the Egyptian princess whom he married.” However, he was condemned for his views on the Song by the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553). Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 38-39.

^[22] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 357.

[23] Emphasis mine. N. Frye, “Allegory,” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ed. A. Preminger (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), p. 12.

^[24] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 37.

[25] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2011), 548.

^[26] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 353.

[27] Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, trans. Frederick J. Gaiser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 8.

[28] John Milton, The Reason of Church Government Urged against Prelatory.

[29] F. Delitzsch, The Song of Songs, trans. M. G. Easton (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 8-11.

^[30] G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 36.

^[31] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 359.

^[32] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 48.

^[33] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 366.

^[34] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2011), 548.

^[35] Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 1227.

[36] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2011), 552.

^[37] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 59-60.

^[38] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 379.

^[39] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 43.

^[40] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 367.

^[41] Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 1207.

^[42] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 66.

^[43] Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 1233.

^[44] G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 152.

^[45] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 7.

^[46] Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 59-60.