Interpretations of the Song of Solomon

Cliff Sabroe

One of the most beautiful books in the Bible, is the basis of much controversy.  Many scholars over the years have tried to get a grasp on the meaning of the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs).  There have been many interpreters over the years, and it is for this reason that there have been “An almost infinite variety of interpretations proposed for Song of Songs”[1]. It has been said by others that:

The Song is the most obscure book of the Old Testament. Whatever principle of interpretation one may adopt, there always remains a number of inexplicable passages, and just as such as, if we understood them, would help to solve the mystery. And yet the interpretation of a book presupposes from the beginning that the interpreter has mastered the idea of the whole. It has thus become an ungrateful task; for however successful the interpreter may be in the separate parts, yet he will be thanked for his work only when the conception as a whole which he has decided upon is approved of.[2]

For many years scholars have tried to get a grasp on the meaning of the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) and how to interpret it. These interpretations will be examined briefly in this paper, along with the content, purpose, author, setting and the contribution that this book makes for us in the 21^st century.

            Different interpretations of the book can be found in ancient and modern literature.  Theories have been given ranging from the idea that the Song of Songs is a depiction of a “scene in a harem”[3], to the idea that it is a parable or just a collection of love songs.  Many of the interpretive theories that have been presented regarding the Song of Songs are biased and are presented by scholars to stir up controversy, discredit the book, or even make the claim that it should not be part of the Canon of scripture. Almost all of these theories however can be grouped into one of three categories.  These three major categories of interpretation of the Song of Songs are Allegorical, Typical, and Literal[4].At the end of this writing the author will give arguments for what he feels to be the best interpretation, space constraints, however, do not permit an in-depth study of each theory.

“The opening verse gives the title ‘The Song of Songs.’ This is the Hebrew way of expressing the superlative. Of Solomon’s 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32), this one was his best or most important. The more common title assigned to the book is ‘Song of Solomon,’ also based on 1:1”[5]. Tradition and scholarship hold that Solomon is the author of this magnificent book.  This is supported internal characteristics and external evidence, which unless one holds to this work as being post-exilic (as some higher critics do) there is no need to doubt Solomon as its author.  In fact, “The author of this work identifies himself as the son of David, king in Jerusalem. While he does not specify that his name is Solomon, it is fair to assume that the direct successor of David is meant rather than some later descendant”[6].

The suggested date for the writing of this book is between 964b.c and 940b.c being that Solomon died in 931b.c, the song was compiled prior to this date. In this book the bride of Solomon is a Shulamite (6:13), though Shulamites are not found in the list of his chief wives (1 Kings 11:1). It may possibly be the wives mentioned in the Kings, that were acquired for political reasons or those who turned Solomon to idolatry. This marriage would have came after the marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter and in the midst of his large harem.  Giesler believes that “In view of his other wives and yet the vigor of Solomon’s romance, it seems probable that the story occurred near the middle of his reign, that is, around 950bc”[7].

The background and setting of this magnificent book is quite different than that of many other in the Old and New Testaments. Two people make up the starring roles of this true-life, dramatic love song. First you have Solomon, whose kingship is mentioned five times (1:4, 12; 3:9, 11; 7:5) is referred to as “the beloved”.  The next main character is that of the Shulamite maiden (6:13). Her background, as opposed to that of Solomon is more obscure. Most likely she was a resident of Shunem, three miles north of Jezreel in Lower Galilee[8]. There are some who suggest that she is Pharoah’s daughter of 1 Kings 3:1, the book, however provides no evidence for this conclusion. Other scholars think that the woman could possibly be Abishag, the Shunammite who cared for King David in 1 Kings 1. The most probable explanation is that she is an unknown maiden from Shunem, whose family had possibly been employed by Solomon (8:11).  This would have been Solomon’s first wife (Eccl. 9:9) before he added the other 699 wives and 300 concubines.[9] This deep love that he had for his first wife would seem to go along with his own teaching in Proverbs 5:18 where he says to “rejoice in the wife of your youth”.  This Shulamite girl was the wife of Solomon’s youth.

            Discussed earlier in this paper were the different interpretations of the Song of Songs. Those three interpretations stated were the Allegorical, Typical and Literal. These different interpretations of the book can be found in ancient and modern literature.  Theories have been given ranging from the idea that the Song of Songs is a depiction of a “scene in a harem”[10], to the idea that it is a parable or just a collection of love songs.  Many of the interpretive theories that have been presented regarding the Song of Songs are biased and are presented by scholars to stir up controversy, discredit the book, or even make the claim that it should not be part of the Canon of scripture.

            In this paper most of the legitimate theories will be examined in light of the book, to see which theory best fits the text.  Almost all of  these theories can be grouped into one of three categories.  These three major categories of interpretation of the Song of Songs are Allegorical, Typical, and Literal [11]. These three categories of interpretation deserve to be examined, so that one can determine the purpose of the Song of Songs.

The first interpretation that will be examined is Allegorical.  “Allegory is a kind of literature in which incidents and characters in one realm actually represent those in a different realm”[12]. Webster’s defines an allegory as “the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience”[13]. A good biblical example of an allegory is found in Judges 9.  In Judges 9, Jotham describes Abemelech’s attempt to become king through the story of trees in a forest. “Often an allegory is used to emphasize a moral and spiritual point”[14].

Many scholars have chosen the allegorical approach to interpret the Song of Songs .  Devout Jews from the first century regarded the Song as an allegory portraying the relations of Jehovah and Israel.  In the second century Rabbi Akiba affirmed that it was a gift of inestimable value to Israel and the holiest of all sacred writings.  Christian exegesis, since the days of Origen, has seen in the imagery of the book the representation of the love of Christ and His Church.[15]

            As mentioned in the above quote, there are two major schools of thought on what the Song of Songs is an allegory of.  The first group takes the position that it is an allegory to show the relationship between Jehovah and Israel.  This group holds to the view that Solomon is to be identified with Jehovah and the Shulamite as Israel[16].  Most all Jewish scholars hold to this position of interpretation of the book.  “In passages of the Mishnah, Talmud and Targums an allegorical interpretation appears which expounds the Song in terms of Israel’s history, as representing the love of God and his dealings with his chosen nation”[17].  It is a Jewish tradition for the Song to be “read by the Jews at Passover which celebrates Jehovah’s choice of Israel to be his spouse”[18].

            The second school of thought concerning the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Song, is the idea that it is an allegory to show the relationship of Christ and His Church.  In this interpretation, Solomon represents Christ and the Shulamite represents the Church.[19]  The supporters of this position take several passages from the text to show what the allegorical meaning is.  For an example:

Origen understood the girl’s statement in 1:5 “Dark am I but lovely” to mean dark with sin, but lovely through conversion. Philo Carpasius took these words of 7:3 “Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine” to refer to the sanctuary of the church, Hengstenburg understood the same words as referring to the cup from which the church revives the thirsty with its refreshing draught. [20]

There have also been attempts to make the statement in 1:12 that says “between my breasts” to refer to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, between which is Christ (Cyril of Alexandria).  

            The strongest argument for an allegorical interpretation of the book is that many feel that if it was not allegorical, the book would not have been accepted into the Canon.  Supporters of this view say that a book with no religious meaning has no place in the Canon.

            It is a true statement that a book with no religious value would not be accepted into the cannon. But, who are we to say that this grand book has no value.  In answer to these questions Young writes:

…we would say that God has placed this song in the canon in order to teach us the purity and sanctity of that estate of marriage which He Himself has established. When we read the song of Solomon, our hearts will be purer, and we shall realize all the more heinousness of that temptation which would lead to unfaithfulness among those who are married.[21]

            At one time the Allegorical method was the primary way to interpret this book. Over the years it seems that scholars have shifted in their interpretative methods.

The allegorical method of interpreting the book reigned supreme until the middle of the nineteenth century. Then the tide began to turn, primarily due to two reasons. First, a more sophisticated and biblical attitude toward sexuality began to emerge. Second, the discovery of similar love poems  in the countries surrounding Israel has caused scholars to realize that that this type of literature was common to the region and the time. This diminished the likelihood that some special system of interpretation was intended for this particular love book. Third, the increasing realization that this method was totally subjective. Interpreters were more apt to find their own idea in the text than to discern the authors intent.[22]

            The problem with the allegorical method of interpretation is that it goes against the rules for proper biblical exegesis.  The rules of exegesis state that you take the text at its immediate context.  “Most advocates of this approach begin with the presupposition that the relationship between a man and a woman could not be the focus of the book and thus conclude that it must be an allegory, but this does not seem to be a necessary presupposition”[23].   Bible students often fail to take into account that the book nowhere hints that it is an allegory.  If someone reads the book not assuming that it is an allegory and if they are honest they will never come to the allegorical interpretation.  “…the book seems to speak of a historical episode in Solomon’s life and accords well with Solomon’s situation, at least the earlier part of his reign (judging from the comparatively small number of his concubines)”[24].  Gleason Archer goes on to make the argument that “…the allegorical method if consistently carried out requires a spiritual counterpart for every physical detail.  Certainly it is objectionable to equate Solomon and his enormous harem with the figure of the Lord Jesus Christ, at least upon an allegorical basis”[25].  Steven Horine expresses his strong opinion against the allegorical approach to interpretation when he states “… such approaches tend to “over-symbolize” in a manner that departs significantly from the primary, literal level of understanding”[26].  To approach the Song of Songs with the idea that it holds a hidden allegorical meaning, is to open a door for people to approach all books of the Bible in the same manner, which would have catastrophic results

            The second interpretive theory on the Song of Songs is that it is Typical. “The typological interpretation of the Song of Songs is quite similar to the allegorical interpretation because a spiritual meaning beyond the apparent meaning of the text is sought”[27].  The typological approach looks at the book as having two levels of meaning.  To look at the book in the typological fashion is to take the literal meaning of the text, and than use it as an illustration of Jehovah and Israel or Christ and the Church.  There are many people that hold to this view especially early Catholic Scholars.  Some of those include “Peter Schegg and Vincent  Zapletal”[28].   “This interpretation is defended by Raven and Unger, who understand the poem as based upon an actual historical incident in Solomon’s life.  In contrast to some of the more glamorous wives of Solomon, such as Pharaoh’s daughter, the Shulamite was a country girl who possessed a beautiful soul as well as a fair body”[29].   The text then goes on to describe the wonderful monogamous love that Solomon has for her.  “This song transfigures natural love by elevating it to a holy level. And yet (in opposition to the literalists) the author intends this couple to stand in a typical relationship reflecting Jehovah’s love for his people and foreshadowing the mutual affection of Christ and His Church”[30].

            Those who hold to the typical interpretation are superior to the allegorical in their recognition of the Songs as the expression of the mutual love of two human beings. This idea came about because in modern times interpreters have arisen who regard the Song as primarily the expression of strong and passionate human love between Solomon and a beautiful maiden, but by virtue of they typical relation of the old dispensation, secondarily the fitting expression of the love of Christ and the church.[31]

            This interpretive theory is not without criticism, even though most scholars would agree that a story of love reminds us of the higher love that God has for his people. “Few evangelicals would deny this point, but many remain skeptical about the typological view, largely because the method is often applied in a way that obscures what seems to many to be the primary purpose for which the book was written[32].  The main reason why this method of interpretation is rejected is that for something to be labeled a type it must be referred to as one in the New Testament.  An example of a biblical type would be the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:9.  This Old Testament story is made a type by our Lord when in John 3:15 he makes reference to the story when he states “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (ASV).   Concerning the interpretation of types Duvall and Hays write:

In our opinion an Old Testament passage usually cannot be confirmed as typological unless the New Testament identifies it as such. Therefore while other Old Testament texts may bear some similarities to New Testament realities, they cannot be confidently classified as typology unless the New Testament indicates the fulfillment.[33]

It is for this reason that Edward Young made this statement concerning the typical interpretation “…since there is no warrant for finding this typical meaning this view must be rejected”[34].

            The third method of interpretation that needs to be examined is the Literal method of interpretation.  “The literal theory regards the poem as a secular love song not intended to convey a spiritual message or theological overtone, but simply a lyric expression of human love on a high romantic plane”[35].  “The literal interpretation recognizes that the book makes extensive use of symbolic and figurative language, but it recognizes this as an integral part of the poetic description of the relationship between a man and women in love”[36].  The literal approach is the most accepted method of interpretation of the Song of Songs.  However “Even though the most modern interpreters agree that the literal interpretation of the Song is the correct one, there remain many different opinions about such matters as the literary form of the book…”[37]. 

There are two main theories concerning the literary form of the book.  The first is that the Song of Songs is a drama.  There are many scholars that hold to this position, these scholars include Franz Delitzsch, Otto Zoeckler, Heinrich Ewald, and Strack, Konig, and Driver[38].  The problem with the drama interpretation is that “there is little evidence for the existence of drama among the Semites and no evidence for it among the Jews”[39].  Edward Curtis goes on to state that “To the Jews of old, dramatic performances were held in horror because they were regarded as heathenish and irreligious”[40].

The second theory on the literary form of the book is that it is a collection of love songs.  This theory is also referred to as the erotic hypothesis.  Those who understand the Song of Songs as an anthology of love songs say that they are of the wasf type.  “The wasf was a type of song sung by guests at a Syrian wedding feast in which the beauty of the bride and the excellencies of the wedding couple would be glowingly described”[41].  This theory is excepted by many, however Gleason Archer believes “there is no literary evidence of the existence of the wasf genre in Hebrew Palestine”[42].

The main refutation of the literal method of interpretation is that many feel that a book with no spiritual meaning has no place in the cannon of scripture.  The criticism of this theory might stem from “…the old rabbinical requirement that no Jew should read the Song of Songs until he had attained the age of thirty”[43]. Many feel that it is inappropriate for a book that is about a sexual relationship to be accepted into the cannon, and it is because of these feelings that many have chosen to look at the book as an allegory or a type.

This author believes that the literal interpretation is the one to be used unless other evidence is brought forth.  The Song of Songs is a beautiful book.  It shows the joy that is found in pure monogamous love.  “It comes to us in this world of sin, where lust and passion are on every hand, where fierce temptations assail us and turn us aside from the God-given standard of marriage.  And it reminds us, in particularly beautiful fashion, how pure and noble true love is”[44].  God has given physical relationships as a gift to mankind.  The book of the Song of Songs, beautifully demonstrates this gift.  God recognizes the beauty of a love filled monogamous relationship that is found in a marriage. 

In the world in which we live immorality runs rampant and because of this many conservative Christians shy away from even discussing the topic of sex in marriage and in some religious circles celibacy is practiced. It is because of this the Song of Songs should be studied today and it is for this reason that Almighty God deserves our gratitude for giving us such a beautiful book.