A Framework for Song of Songs

Various hermeneutical frameworks for Song of Songs have been proposed: allegorical, typological, literal (drama - with either two or three main characters, depending if Solomon and the shepherd are seen as two persons or not, or love poetry) and even political. This post chooses for a literary-typological method that is implicitly theological in its basic approach. In some circles this is called a biblical theological approach within the reformed tradition. It is an intertextual approach that takes the canon of the scriptures seriously in their literary as well as historical meaning. The basic outline of this hermeneutic is worth some consideration.



Strictly speaking, allegorical reading is inescapable. Grondin describes allegory as the attempt of all later readers to overcome the “experience of unintelligibility.”[1] The question then becomes not if, but what hermeneutical framework is used to make sense of the text and overcome the unintelligibility.    Clarke points out that interpretation of the figurative language can seem just as arbitrary in any school of interpretation as that allegorical reading. “Without the controls of biblical context to give meaning, the interpreter can give free rein to his imagination, discovering sexual allusion in every detail.”[2].

Rosenzweig further points out that up to the threshold of nineteenth century Song of Songs was unanimously interpreted in allegorical and more specifically, mystical fashion.[3] A total rejection of the dominant understanding of the Song throughout church history by modern interpreters may tell us something about modern interpreters’ methods and alternative allegorical readings to make sense of the text. Many times an assumed reconstructed view of the background of the text, supported by the consensus among the elite of interpreters in a specific school of thought sets the agenda to provide intelligibility. These assumptions are as open to critique as any other allegorical reading, because it is nothing else than allegorical reading with another framework. It is therefore a welcome sign within some postmodern literary strategies to see at least more openness to older hermeneutical strategies. It may perhaps in some cases only be because of the emphasis of “reader’s response” theories in hermeneutics. They recognise that consistency in this method should lead to acknowledging the interpretive community’s role in the approach to the text, even in the past.

However, good hermeneutics does not only focus on the reception of the text. It also looks for clues in the text as well as in the intertextuality of the neighbouring texts. Alter  points out that “what is constantly exploited in literary expression is not merely the definable referendum of the word but also the frame of reference to which the word attaches, the related semantic field towards which it points, the level of diction that it invokes, the specialized uses to which it may be put.”[4] Which frame of reference? The assumption that it can only be that of the Ancient Near East has to be challenged. It assumes that intertextuality in the canon itself is of a second order – an assumption that cannot be proved, but can only be validated by the community that the interpreter is part of. The assumption of the faith community called the Church is that the intertextuality of the canon should be the first line of interpretation. If it was not so, Song of Songs would hardly have been considered as part of the canon. Clark thinks it is unlikely to suspect that Israelite hearers were more familiar with Egyptian or Mesopotamian love poetry than with their own Scriptures. She points out that the land in the Song is presented in idealised terms, setting it within the biblical theology of sanctuary-land. She lists five main stages in the development of this theology: “the garden of Eden; the garden-sanctuaries of the tabernacle and temple; the promised land of Canaan; the redeemed Israel after the return from exile; and the Eden-like renewed creation at the end of the age.”[5] This intertextual approach that focuses not on words only, but also on images and motifs in the canon is full of potential and can be explored on many fronts.

One very important motif is the covenantal history of Israel. Hamilton has recently pointed out that the expectation of the Messiah plays a much greater role in the whole of the Old Testament than is normally realized.[6] It is not about Solomon as Solomon, but about Solomon as the Seed on the throne of David. This fact is underscored when one realizes that the term for beloved that is used in Song of Songs, dodi, has the same consonants that are used for the name of David. What is more, this word in all its declensions is used thirty-three times in the book – the time that David ruled the whole Israel. And to top it all, the times that the specific term dodi is used, is twenty six times – the numerical value of the name of YHWH.[7] The theme of YHWH and his Messiah would not be a new appearance in poetic literature. Grant points out that Ps. 1 and 2 as introduction to the Psalter together establish the paradigmatic King that may even be implied when no superscription in a psalm is detected.[8] This centrality of the King has to be read as part of the covenant of YHWH with David in 2 Sam. 7. David took this covenant with the utmost seriousness. What is more, this covenant had all kinds of connections with the temple and with the songs that were sung there. Although he was not allowed to build the temple himself, all David’s preparations and arrangements were made because of the promise that he received that his house would be the patrons of God’s worship. Lefebvre points out that 1 Chr. 28:19 assures us that David’s actions were made with divine direction:

All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.

Lefebvre also points to 1 Chr. 25 where we learn about the hymn writing schools that David arranged for the temple that was to be build by his son Solomon. In this elaborated production centre David oversaw the hymn writers’ work under the three chief musicians, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun. Lefebvre considers it important to note in verse 1 as well as verse 6 that the hymn writing workshops were king-led, “under the hand of the king”.[9] All this underlines the profundity of the decree at the beginning of the Psalter in Ps. 2:7: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” The term son here takes on the meaning of a specific individual in the line of David who represents the whole of Israel. He is the paradigmatic Israelite and bearer of the image of God. The fact that the songs of the temple originated with and were edited and led by David as receiver of the promise, leads automatically to consider the position and work of his seed, Solomon. If this lies in the background of the composition of the Psalms, it is not so ridiculous to presume that these writing-schools were at least initially continued under the eye of Solomon. Hamilton therefore should be taken seriously when he argues that in its basic outline Songs of Songs is about “Israel’s shepherd king, a descendent of David, who is treated as an ideal Israelite enjoying an ideal bride in a lush garden where the effects of the fall are reversed.”[10]

If this is granted, it is also reasonable to expect that the covenantal history of Israel should be taken into consideration. The hunch of the Targum, which traces Israel’s history from slavery in Egypt to the future restoration under the Messiah on the rhythm of communion, estrangement and reconciliation, points to some valid considerations.[11] Leithart and Jordan’s recent tentative suggestions in this tradition, mapping a typological overview of the history of Israel to Song of Songs, helps to sustain an important consideration in a redemptive-historical as well as covenantal hermeneutic.[12] Campbell argues that a typological interpretation of the Song of Solomon is grounded not in the use of the marriage metaphor by the biblical writers, but in the place which Solomon occupies within the unfolding biblical revelation.[13] This contrast with the marriage metaphor is not necessary, but it does help to see why Jordan, building upon Leithart, has a point in not taking the salvation-history beyond the time of Solomon if Solomonic authorship is supposed. Leithart’s interpretation of Jordan is apt:

The climax of the history of Israel so far, then, is the Davidic dynasty and Yahweh’s dwelling in the temple.  At the same time, this history from Exodus to Solomon is a type of Israel’s history as a whole, and so Yahweh’s withdrawal from His bride in chapter 5 is also a preview of the exile.[14]

Pett provides a good summary for the hermeneutic framework discussed thus far [15]:

1. Texts like Jer. 2;2,14; 31:3-4, 32; Hos 2;2,14-15 provides ample proof that the imagery used in Song of Songs was well known as images to describe YHWH’s relationship with his people.

2. The fact that a very religious king would hardly mention YHWH, except perhaps one verse, is rather testimony to the fact than against it - that YHWH’s relationship with his people is implied.

3. The woman who speaks more than the man and who is also revealed in her failings is more understandable when Israel is the reference rather than some wife of Solomon. This would imply some pride on the part of Solomon as writer or overseer of the writing of the song. (The fact that the bride is referring to the people of Israel or the church would also be an answer to feminist interpretations that view the women’s voice in Song of Songs as the epitome of equality - CAS).

4. Like Israel of old the woman is twice represented as coming from the wilderness ( 3:6; 7:5).

5. The presence and name of the “Song of Songs” as part of the Holy Writings” can only really be explained when it conveyed an important religious message.

6. Solomon needed something for the people for their feasts, songs in terms of the Lord and his people that could act as a powerful countermeasure to the pagan myths and fertility cults that the Israelites had to contend with around them. Of course it would also have the added advantage of ensuring the people’s loyalty to him. [16]

7.  The love of the people of the countryside has to be directed towards the new temple that was built in Jerusalem. This explains why the bride who initially experiences love in the countryside and whose first experience of Jerusalem was not happy, eventually finds contentment. In the words of Pett: “In other words Israel’s love affair with God, which originally disdains Jerusalem, is to end up on the mountains where incense is offered, the mountains of spices, i.e. of Zion.”

This theory would provide a potent framework even when it is granted that Song of Songs has to be understood in the genre of lyrical poetry. Alter observes that “lyric poems do not tell a story but reflect upon and allude to a story.”[17] The billion dollar question then for Song of Songs is: Which story? One of the most obvious answers to those who take the message of the whole of scripture into account would be the story of the Messiah who would come to reverse what was forfeited in the garden of Eden. Kingsmill regards the removal of interpretation from the sacred to secular sphere as fatal. To her it is a sign that its truth has been betrayed, wholly inimical to original inspiration. She can even go so far as to say, probably mixed with a dose of humour, that the book of Christos Yanarras should be obligatory reading in purgatory for modern commentators. Kingsmill thinks that otherwise an unrealistic exaltation of married love is held forth.[18] It is not necessary to go as far as Kingsmill, but her warning about unrealistic exaltation of marriage should be kept in mind, especially if it leads to a moralistic practice of approaching Song of Songs only as some kind of how-to-manual. Kingsmill’s reminder in this context is also worthy to be mentioned - that Song of Songs is essentially about love, not sex. If it was only for “lust lovers”, then surely the value of the Song would for many people be lost in a short period.[19]

 This post proposes that the valid critique of Kingsmill should be taken seriously without falling into a solely mystical reading. This could stimulate an unhealthy pietism. Davis is right when she points out that the interpretation of this Song in the history of the church tended first exclusively in the one direction and then into the other – “…interpreters of the Song are always in danger of becoming doctrinaire in one of two directions.”[20] Jenson is therefore nearer to the mark when he points out that although the church’s interpretation through the centuries needs to be respected, the resistance to applications on the level of bridegroom and bride on earth needs to broken. It is, however, remarkable and laudable that Jenson in his applications first seek to interpret the message for the church before he goes on to apply it to love between the sexes.[21] This strategy has the benefit that it takes the pressure off couples who feel that they can never attain to the heights that is portrayed in the Song of Songs. Better yet, it provides couples with the necessary underlying gospel enchantment that focus them on the right source from which transformation for their marriage love also becomes possible.

It is, of course, also a question whether we should understand the covenant relationship with God in terms of our earthly marriages or rather the other way around. Theology and anthropology are closely related, but where does the centre of gravity lie? We are living in a time where we are very conscious that we can scarcely begin von boven if we are living von unten. Theologies nowadays therefore tend to privilege from-below-strategies. But this need not undermine the view from above that comes via revelation to us and is underlined by the believer’s position in Christ in the heavenly places, even if we still perceive that revelation from below (cp. Kol. 3: 1-3). The Church also further believes that the Spirit from on high is with us to ensure via revelation that we don’t smother in mere perspectivism or moralism. He ensures that although we are from below, we may be theocentric with a Christocentric focus. People are empowered to be transformed, also in their marriages, as they behold the glory of the Bridegroom and his bride. Clarke’s description of this vision portrayed in Songs of Songs is worthy to be mentioned:

The Song offers a vision of redemption out of the hostile city and through the wilderness into a garden-sanctuary where man and woman will be in harmony with each other, with the natural world and even, implicitly, with God. This is clearly more than (though certainly not less than) sexuality redeemed … The land in the Song not only provides the appropriate place for love, it also signals the appropriate time for love. In Song 2:11, the beloved calls to his girl to come away with him because winter is gone and the rains are past.[22]

In tune with this vision brides and bridegrooms on earth can show forth the variety of harmonies possible on the theme of love as it comes to us through revelation. One other comment of Kingsmill deserves to be mentioned in this regard. She points out that the Marcion principle and its extension, the law-gospel dichotomy that so easily stalks us, is invited if a love poem in the heart of the Old Testament is interpreted wrongly.[23] This is an extraordinary claim. The whole landscape of the Old Testament shows a new dimension otherwise not so easily detected. One of the new dimensions that becomes visible and is debated today in theological and philosophical circles is the differentiation between agape and eros. To put the matter differently, how can we be theocentric about something like sex? Leithart, reacting to Tremper Longman’s comment that there is absolutely nothing in the Song of Songs itself that hints of a meaning different from the sexual meaning, is worthy to be pondered because it brings the whole discussion about eros and agapy in relief:

What assumptions about sex are behind the common opinion that the Song is only an erotic poem, only a celebration of human sexuality and marriage, full stop? … When commentators express such opinions, are they already implicitly assuming a materialist view of sexuality?  Are they coming to the text with a presupposition that sex has no inherent transcendent meaning?  To put it the other way round: Doesn’t sex itself hint at a meaning different from the sexual meaning?[24]

This post cannot possibly dig deep in this area, but enough is said to realize that we have with the revelation of Song of Songs the possibility to be really intimate with God, to enter into the Holy of Holies. In this sense it becomes clear why Davis speculates that Song of Songs may even be considered “the most biblical of books.”[25] The much quoted and famous first century defence of Rabbi Akiva comes to mind as a fitting closure to this post:

No man in Israel ever disputed, concerning the Songs of Songs, that it did not make the hands unclean, for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.[26]

---

[1] Jean Grondin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University, 1994), 23, 24.

[2]  Ros Clarke, Song of Songs: A Biblical Theology at website, Beginning with Moses,  http://beginningwithmoses.org/bt-articles/218/song-of-songs-a-biblical-theology [accessed March 10, 2012].

[3] Franz Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption (Boston: Beacon, 1972),199.

[4] Alter, 13.

[5] Clarke, 19,24.

[6] Jim Hamilton, The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs: A Non-allegorical Interpretation” at website “Beginning with Moses”, http://beginningwithmoses.org/bt-articles/233/the-messianic-music-of-the-song-of-songs-a-non-allegorical-interpretation. [accessed March 10, 2012].

[7] Cp. Edmée  Kingsmill, The Song of Songs and the Eros of God: A Study in  Biblical Intertextuality. Oxforford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 40.

[8] Grant, Jamie A. “The Psalms and the King,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. Philip S Johnston & David G Firth (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005), 101-118.

[9] Michael Lefebvre, Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Palms (Glasgow: Christian Focus, 2010), 33-43.

[10] Hamilton, 1.

[11] The Targum of Canticles, Translator Philip S. Alexander (London: T&T Clarke, 2003), 13,15,27.   http://books.google.com/books?id=hDwnbqLbwqgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed March 10, 2012]. 

[12] Cp. Peter, J Leithart, “God and Eros”, Leithart.com Blog, commented posted July 27, 2010, http://www.leithart.com/2010/07/23/love-and-death/ [accessed March 10, 2012]; James, B. Jordan, “Overview of the Song”  http://www.leithart.com/2010/07/26/overview-of-the-song [accessed March 10, 2012].

[13] Iain D. Campbell, “The Song of David’s Son: Interpreting the Song of Solomon in the Light of the Davidic Covenant,” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000): 17–32.

[14] Cp. Peter, J Leithart, “Overview of the Song”, Leithart.com Blog, http://www.leithart.com/2010/07/26/overview-of-the-song [accessed March 10, 2012].

[15] Peter Pett, “Commentary On The Song Of Solomon”, http://www.angelfire.com/ok/bibleteaching/solomonsong.html [accessed March 10, 2012].

[16] Cp. in this regard also the interesting suggestion of Luis Stadelmann, Love and Politics: A New Commentary on the Song of Songs (New York: Paulist Press, 1992). Stadelmann contends that it is about codewords for preparing Israel after the exile to become a nation again. To cover the Jewish nationalism from the eyes of the Persian authorities, the language was disguised as love songs and wedding songs. This interpretation actually is a continuation of the political interpretation of Luther. Cp. Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 33, 47.

[17] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 73.

[18] Kingsmill, 19,35.

[19] Kinsmill, 45.

[20] Ellen F. Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: WJKP, 2000), 233.

[21] Cp. Robert W. Jenson, Song of Songs. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: WJKP, 2005).

  

[22] Clarke, 31.

[23] Cp. Kingsmill, 41-44.

[24]   Peter, J Leithart, “God and Eros”, Leithart.com Blog, commented posted July 27, 2010, http://www.leithart.com/2010/07/27/god-and-eros-2/ [accessed March 10, 2012].

[25] Cp. Davis, 231.

[26] Mishnah Yadaim as quoted in Webb, 28.