Something About the Song of Solomon
Drew Leonard
July 22, 2025
Justin wants to know a little bit more about “the Song of Solomon” . . .
Wow . . . Here's a text that is littered with weeds. There is not an agreed consensus on this text. Here's what I mean . . . Most everybody agrees on the “type” of literature that we face in various books of the Bible; everybody knows the difference between poetry and narrative; and, everybody knows that we're entering into some amount of difficulty when we come to the Old Testament prophets or Jesus' “Olivet Discourse” or something like that.
The Song of Solomon is probably the most “disagreed upon” text of the Bible, and what's not too helpful is that most of us still admit that it's tricky . . .
But, whoever decided that “tricky” meant that it couldn't be “tapped into”? In fact, I'd argue that – even in spite of the difficulties of approach – that there are some certainties that we can walk away with . . .
Let's give this a brief go . . .
There are differences in approaches. Some think that we should read the text literally; others see it as an elaborate allegory (or drama?) or “type”; another thinks it to be about Christ and His church.
For the life of me, I can't see how the text is contextually about Christ and the church. I know about Ephesians 5:22-33 and the illustration there, but Paul is actually reading the relationship of Christ and the church (detailed in Ephesians 1-3) onto “marriage” to say that the two are mutually explanatory – he's also saying that Christ's relationship to the church should detail the relationship between parents and children (6:1-4) and masters/employers and slaves/employees (6:5-9). The relationship of Christ and the church should inform our relationships with our spouses. I say all of that to say that the relationship of Christ and the church might inform or detail the relationship of the two lovers in the Song of Solomon, but there's nothing here to think that the writer is working with that arrangement. And, think about how nearly useless that'd be . . . It'd be literature written years before the Christ and the church with nearly no use or application until then – some text that'd be . . . No, the Hebrews knew this kind of literature (“wisdom literature”) and were making some kind of sense of it before then.
I'm thinking, too, then, that the allegorical or “typical” approach is ruled out. I'm not sure that there's a reason that we'd need to go this way.
I think that 1:1 lets us know a good bit. (I can't appreciate the liberal-critical view that doubts the authenticity of the marks of authorship.)
Some have tried to say that Solomon is actually the villain and seeks to disrupt the wholesome relationship between Shulammith and her actual lover; this means that there'd be a “love triangle,” with Solomon as an intruder that seeks to draw the girl away from “her beloved.” I don't think that's right; I'm just not seeing such a sinister angle – in fact, it looks like this whole arrangement gets read into the text.
The most probable reading, then, is that we have a literal “love” between Solomon and his girl, Shulammith. And, the text appears to suggest a typical development of a relationship. It moves from a courting/dating kind of phase (1:1-2:6), to an engagement/betrothal kind of phase (2:8-3:4), to the wedding day (3:6-5:1), to doubts and concerns within the marriage arrangement (5:2-9), to stability and love in the marriage arrangement (5:10-8:3) and then to a few final remarks that end with something like the pair heading off into the sunset together (8:5-14).
You'll have noticed (above) that I hadn't commented on whether or not the text is a drama; hmm . . . That's because I think it might be – or, at least, it appears to be something of the sort . . . But, just because something might have been written as a song to be performed or a drama to be acted doesn't rule out the “literalness” of the thing.
So, let's move off of the speculation for a moment and make a few clear observations . . .
First, the texts of 2:7, 3:5 and 8:4 are clearly a common refrain. Repeatedly, the text says, “Don't disturb or awaken love until she pleases.” If this is meant to be a literary device for “blocking off” the text, then we have something that functions like a “cut scene.” In other words, this would create a 4-act drama. Yes, that might be right. And, this would mean that a major emphasis of the book of Song of Solomon is to stress that one shouldn't “force” or “coerce” or “exploit” love – real, true love between a pair (husband; wife) must blossom with authenticity, purity, etc. This emphasis cuts against the grain of a wicked worldview that might see people (or love, itself) as a “means” to an “end” rather than the “end,” itself. This emphasis cuts against an abuse of both (people and love).
Second, all over the text we find “echoes” to the Garden of Eden. (See the commentaries on this [e.g. 1:17; etc.].) This suggests to me that we're supposed to read the Song of Solomon with at least some kind of connection – no matter how loud or faint – to the early bits of Genesis. Solomon and Shulammith appear to be a “recycling” of Adam and Eve – what kinds of similarities and differences might emerge if we keep this (and the “Genesis” worldview for humanity [esp. 1:26,27; 2:18-25]) in play?
Third, the text certainly frames itself with different “speakers” in the book. The NASB is particularly good at pointing this out. We have 3 speakers: 1) the groom (Solomon), 2) the bride (Shulammith) and 3) the chorus girls. Again, I think this suggests that we're dealing with a form of “drama” or “play” – as if the song is a script, meant to be performed – but, again, this wouldn't rule out the idea that “the song” is intended to reflect a real scenario between Solomon and his lover.
Let me close with a few remaining thoughts . . .
First, I think there are a few good considerations that might give me some pause and make me think twice about whether or not I'm going at this text the right way. After all, Solomon wasn't some great lover of one girl only, now, was he? Ahh . . . So enter the difficulties . . . But, what if this text were about Solomon with his girl when he's pulled away from all of the royal trappings and is pulled back to his real love interest? And, what if certain passages (like 1:12-2:6) are written with exactly that kind of wishful thinking in view, as if Solomon needs to leave the palace and get back to focusing on his girl?
Second, I think that we are dealing with drama, poetry, figure, metaphor. But, whoever decided that such an approach would rule-out the historicity of the thing?! I think that we probably are working with a drama (about Solomon and his real girl) that aims to say something about what real love 1) is confronted by and 2) should be like. Hmm . . . Maybe, that says something about the aim of the book, too?
Third, I think that we should be able to get “the big picture,” the real aim or purpose of the book in spite of the difficulties. Whatever else we might think, it looks to me that we should be able to read this “drama” (?) and “get” the idea that there is an authentic love between the two lovers that faces both real pleasures but also real difficulties. Now, tell me about a marriage that hasn't experienced both of those and you can then call me a monkey's uncle!
The Song of Songs is affiliated with Solomon! And, you mean to tell me that we're NOT supposed to read it against his background?! I think the fact that he was littered with women (1 Kin. 11:3,4) SHOULD inform how we read this! Here's a text NOT about 1) just another girl among thousands, 2) an abusive view of a woman, 3) a misguided view of love – this is a text about a love that is valuable, noble, godly, fulfilling, etc. And, did Solomon then write this as a young man, caught up in worldly pleasures, driven by a worldly “worldview” – ah, for the life of us, we can't get on board with that! If Solomon wrote this text – and do we really have any reason to think that he didn't?! – much like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, we get the rub that he's an older man – certainly these texts don't reflect his younger, immature years of worldly pleasure?! – who's offering “end of life” advice to the younger generations who would do better by learning by observation rather than by personal experience.
So, what about you? Is your relationship buzzing the song that Solomon actually wrote? Or, are you humming along to a tune of worldliness and empty pleasure that ends on the depressing note of non-fulfillment? If we could hear Solomon's voice from another track, he'd sing to us, “Don't invest your life in that which is 'vanity'.” Maybe, if we take an older, wiser man's advice and observe his failures and his successes, we'll find the real fulfillment in our relationships that we're looking for by investing in “wisdom” rather than empty, vain pleasures?
Subscribe to get scholarly articles and brotherhood news
I will never send you spam and it's easy peezy to unsubscribe at anytime.
© Copyright Drew Leonard 2025