REFLECTIONS ON SONG OF SOLOMON

 

Have you ever wondered why Song of Solomon has been included in the scriptures?  Essentially a love poem celebrating the romance between man and woman, this unique book does not resemble any of the other scriptural books that had been unequivocally canonised.  There are no spiritual or moral teachings in this song of songs; its lyrics do not extol God’s goodness or chronicle His merciful dealings with mankind; in fact, there is no explicit mention of God Himself in all eight chapters of this seemingly-secular book.

 

I had struggled to understand the scriptural significance of this poetic book for many years.  The opportunity for uninterrupted contemplation came during a silent retreat I attended in December 2020 where Song of Solomon happened to have been chosen as the theme.  A series of thoughts came to me progressively during the retreat’s reflections on this exceptional book that had piqued my interest for so long.  By the end of the retreat, I became fully convinced that God had all along intended for this extended love poem to be incorporated into the scriptures.  Hence, there is no need to view the canonisation of the book as a mistake.  Equally, there is no need to embarrassingly gloss over the explicit passages found in the book.  Most importantly, there is no need to re-interpret the book as portraying the love of Christ for His bride or the love of God for His people as some are wont to do.

 

The first reason for not allegorising Song of Solomon stems from my realisation that the Triune God had planned for the scriptures to collectively form a complete manual for mankind — not only spelling out how created beings are to relate to the Godhead but also outlining how human beings are to interact with each other.  Since God wanted to provide a positive role model for how a man and a woman should conduct their love relationship, the Holy Spirit prompted the religious councils acting for the Christian communities as well as the Judaistic counterparts acting for the Jewish people to adopt Song of Solomon among the books to be canonised.

 

Continuing with this line of thought, I was led to consider the hypothetical counter-scenario of these scriptural authorities disregarding the prompting of the Holy Spirit and opting to exclude Song of Solomon from their respective canons.  If this indeed had occurred, what are the holy books that men and women may thereafter turn to for divine guidance on man-woman relationships?  The wisdom book of Proverbs offers a host of pointers on how men are to conduct themselves with respect to women, but the vast majority of the pithy instructions on man-woman interactions carry negative warnings (instead of constructive exhortations) — cautioning men not to initiate unwholesome liaisons with what King James Bible euphemistically termed as strange women (instead of spurring husbands to cultivate loving relationships with their wives).

 

Another possible recourse, then, is to seek guidance from the examples of man-woman interactions furnished in the other scriptural books.  In this regard, it ought to be remembered that the Old Testament authors were brutally honest when describing such relationships and all of them deliberately chose not to white-wash any unsavoury details in their narrations.  The following examples floated into my mind during the course of reflections at the retreat:

●     The worst example by far is David’s illicit liaison with Bathsheba.  While there is no indication in the scriptures whether Bathsheba initially resisted David’s amorous advances (after having accepted the unexpected invitation to join him in the palace at night), what is patently evident from II Samuel 11:4 is that both of them had committed adultery which, according to Leviticus 20:10, was punishable by death.  However, they were not so punished and David subsequently decided to marry Bathsheba.  By no means can the relationship thus formed by David with Bathsheba be held up as a role model for any man or woman pursuing a relationship.

●     After each of the two brothers whom Tamar married in succession had died, Judah (her father-in-law) was not keen to let her marry the third brother as she was expecting to do.  Consigned to a life without offsprings of her own, Tamar would then have to bear the scorn of Jewish society for presumably being barren.  For this reason, she devised a devious ploy for Judah to impregnate her (without him realising at the time that the woman he had engaged solely for sexual gratification was his own daughter-in-law).  Although the relationship between Judah and Tamar was later woven by Matthew into Jesus’ genealogy (in Matthew 1:3), this is undoubtedly not a godly example of a supportive family relationship.

●     Leah was envious of Rachel because Jacob (who married both of the sisters after falling prey to his father-in-law’s deceitful scheme) favoured the latter all of the time.  Desirous of sex with her husband, Leah gave mandrakes to Rachel in exchange for a night with Jacob.  How did God view this transaction?  According to Genesis 30:17, “God listened to Leah and she [thereafter] bore Jacob a fifth son.”  Once again, this is certainly not a fitting role model for demonstrating what a loving family relationship should look like in practice.

These and other such examples had been intentionally selected for inclusion in the scriptures to illustrate the fallen state of mankind (especially with regard to man-woman interactions) and not to offer any useful guidance for a couple in love embarking on their future relationship.  Rather, what is needed is the positive role model that God has in His infinite wisdom incorporated into Song of Solomon.  Hence, there is no need to feel uneasy about the sensual love between a man and a woman described at length in this song of songs which ought thus to be read on its merit and not to be re-interpreted in a manner that is not in accordance with the author’s original intention.

 

The second reason for not allegorising Song of Solomon came to my attention after I considered the author’s choice of words when portraying the loving relationship between the Shulamite and her beloved; time and again throughout his eight-chapter poem, the author playfully drew attention to those features of the female human anatomy that are intimately associated with love-making — breasts (mentioned 6 times), lips (mentioned 5 times) and hair (mentioned 5 times).  Since referring to these anatomical features is somewhat indecorous when dwelling on the non-sensual love that Christ has for His future bride or what God has expressed for His chosen people, Song of Solomon should not be allegorised in an effort to proffer alternative perspectives for the love language contained in the book.

 

The third reason for not allegorising Song of Solomon arises from the advice (or command, as translated by certain versions of the Bible for this particular word) that the author unexpectedly added among the lyrics — not just once, or even twice, but a total of three times.  On three separate occasions (while recounting her experiences to the daughters of Jerusalem), the Shulamite abruptly changed the topic of conversation so as to proffer the following advice (or command) for the audience’s benefit:

“I charge you, …, do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases.”  (Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5 and 8:4)

This recurring advice (or command) to keep love in abeyance until the time is appropriate will certainly seem strangely out of place if it is ever accepted that Song of Solomon ought to be re-interpreted as referring to Christ’s love for His bride or God’s love for the Jews.

 

The fourth reason for not allegorising Song of Solomon came to me after my reading of the various personal details ascribed to the Shulamite who, for example, mentioned she had to contend with her angry brothers in the past or expressed concern she might be viewed with disfavour because of her sun-tanned skin.  I suppose these personal details had been carefully woven into the poem in order to dispel any images (that might be conjured by readers whilst immersed in the book’s poetic imagery) of an idealised woman blessed with ravishing beauty and untainted by blemishes or insecurities.  Obviously, the author’s unmistakeable focus is to exclusively address man’s relationship with his beloved rather than to consider Christ’s relationship with His bride or God’s relationship with the Jews as allegorised by those uncomfortable with the love language of the book.

 

The fifth reason for not allegorising Song of Solomon stems from the observation that God is not featured at all throughout the eight chapters of this ostensibly-secular book.  This fact clearly points to the author’s lack of intention to extrapolate beyond the scope of his human-love poem to take on the added remit of contemplating the outpouring of divine love emanating from the Godhead.  Consequently, scholars and commentators alike ought to refrain from force-fitting the deific theme of Christ’s love for His bride or God’s love for the Jews onto Song of Solomon in their attempts to explain away the explicit expressions of love strewn liberally among the text by the poetically-inclined author.

 

In conclusion, I am now fully convinced that God has a reason for placing Song of Solomon within the easy reach of His created beings.  Allegorising this love-inspired book will only cause His original objective to be derailed in the process.  After all, there is no shortage of scriptural books that dwell at length on Christ’s relationship with His bride or God’s relationship with the Jews and so there is no compulsion for Song of Solomon to be forcibly added to this category as well.  Hence, this unique book in the Bible should be left to do what it was designed to do — serve as a positive role model for a man and a woman in pursuit of their God-ordained relationship.