The Song of Songs

This is not a commentary, although it has some similarity (most verses have notes here). I looked at a few commentaries, although the careful reader will see immediately that I found Michael V. Fox’s (The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs) most useful, and generally follow him. This is largely because I am mainly interested in unpacking the natural, historically informed, meaning, without pursuing spiritual implications in this particular approach. Not surprisingly, given this approach, there is a lot more sex here than in most podium-appropriate presentations.
Every once in a while I’ll have a spiritual thought; I am not opposed to them! In those cases I will switch to a light blue font to set those insights apart (and so they don’t get confused with historical reading).

Note: Yellow text items contain notes. Hover the mouse (or whatever the equivalent on your system) to see them. Regarding Bible quotations in these notes: if they come from the Song of Songs, they are JPS. Otherwise they are generally from the NIV, unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations:

JPS  Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, 1917 (English translation)
LXX  Septuagint (Greek translation of the Jewish Bible [2nd century, BC(E) to 1st century, CE (AD)]
MT   The Masoretic Text (The traditional Hebrew text of the Bible)
NIV  New International Version (English translation)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (English translation)

I think it is unlikely that it was written by Solomon, as you probably know if you read my intro articles. The setting is folky and includes behavior unlikely for a king. The girl’s reference to her lover as ‘king’ is a characteristic term of endearment, also seen in the Egyptian love poetry (as are the references to her as his ‘sister’—there is no reason to assume that she was his sibling, or even a relative of some variety).

In the past I have toyed with the idea that the poem was part of a performance at one of Solomon’s many weddings. But the reference to Tirzah in 5.4 (see the note on that verse) makes it virtually impossible that the version we currently have came from Solomon’s lifetime. It is still possible that, like many other books in the Bible, it has a literary history and multiple authors, and if that is the case, some of it could go back that far. That, at least, would explain the dedication in the first line/title.

On the surface, it is never ‘R’ rated. Although technically, neither is The Rolling Stones’ “Brown sugar,” either, although no adult English speaker is likely to miss the meaning. In the Song such language tends to be contained in double-entendres (which allow those who prefer not to hear them to stay in their comfort zone). I will point these moments out, but I am not expecting them to show up in sermons. At least, not directly; sometimes they contain extractable messages.

Who is speaking at any given moment is much clearer in Hebrew than it is in English. ‘You’ is gender specific, unlike English, for example (‘I’ is not), and, of course ‘him’ and ‘her’ are just as in English. Also, the two lovers use different words when calling each other “my beloved,” or “my darling.” This is not the language per se (although his term has gender), just the speaker’s choices. Some translations try to use differing terminology to reflect that (distinguishing “my beloved” (dôdy) for her and “my darling” (ra‘yaty) for him, for example), but unless they tell you, and you are looking for that, you would not likely notice.

But even with the language’s welcome assistance, we can’t always tell except by what is being said. This is usually how we find the interjections of the chorus (girlfriends), for example. There are occasions where different readers will find different speakers (1.4b, 4.15, for example), where the clues are insufficient.

Anticipating that I might have ‘spiritual’ insights, I will tell you what my general approach is to reading this religiously. First, I am a Christian. That will skew my reading to some extent. Second, I am not comfortable with readings that try to see in it some allegory of history—either of God's work in Israel or in the Church. I think the plain meaning of the Song is relational. That relation can be either personal or corporate (God with me, or God with his people [as you define that, I suppose]). I lean toward the personal, but if I see something that works better corporately, I will certainly mention that. Generally, they work well together. Something read personally works just as well corporately (just mentally substitute an ‘us’ for the ‘me’).

In general, however, my impression is that the most important 'spiritual' reading is accessed by allowing the romantic and even erotic nature of the story speak for itself, and the simply allowing ourselves to think of our relationship with God in the same way: longing and partial fulfillment, always leaning forward toward the fuller one to come. Most attempts to firm up the allegory into specifics tend to do more harm than good—like having to explain a poem (or, worse yet, a joke).

So if something jumps out at me, I will express it, but only with hesitation, and I will generally let the text be what it is, and let the reader with ‘ears to hear’ find in it what the Spirit wants them to find.

12
Her