Is Solomon’s Song holy allegory, or may we take it at face value?

Oct. 23, 2011

Background Scripture: Song of Solomon 4:8-5:1a

Devotional Reading: Genesis 2:18-24

Sometime during the 1960s a young man stood on a bench in New York’s Central Park and read aloud the Declaration of Independence. As a modest crowd gathered, a policeman arrested him because, he said, the words of the youth were “treasonous.”

“Hey,” he protested, “I didn’t write those words – Thomas Jefferson did!”

“Okay,” replied the policeman, “where’s this guy Jefferson? We’ll get him, too!”

The same thing might happen today if someone were to read this book aloud in public. You might be arrested for “pornography” – along with “this guy Solomon.” This book (also known as The Song of Songs) has long been hotly controversial and an embarrassment for some, not to mention the hardest Old Testament book to interpret.

We do not know for certain who wrote it, when it was written or why. It is the only book in the Bible in which the content is totally put into the mouths of various speakers, who are not identified. Although it has dramatic characters, it is not a drama. It lacks structure, starting nowhere and moving nowhere.

The background locations flip-flop around the Middle East. Theophile J. Meek says in its present form there “is no apparent theological religious or moral attributes. God never once appears in it.” It also uses a lot of unusual Hebrew words not found in any other part of the Bible.

When I was a youth, the Bibles I read always identified this book as an allegory interpreting the union of Christ (the Bridegroom) with his Church (the Bride). Not sounding all that interesting and unsure what an allegory was, I skipped over this book.

Today, however, we know there have been and are at least four very different interpretations of the Song of Solomon (hereafter “SS”). The first of these is allegorical: The use of characters and situations that are symbolic of another level of meaning.

Another interpretation of SS sees it as a cultic liturgy, possibly a pagan ritual that was later absorbed into the religion of Israel. Third, it is interpreted as a drama telling the story of Solomon and a rustic maiden named in 6:13 as “the Shulummite.” Finally, it is interpreted as a collection of Judean love songs extolling human love in courtship and marriage, as used in Jewish weddings in ancient times.

 In the early A.D. centuries, Jewish rabbis split over whether or not the writer had intended it to be allegorical and early Christians were influenced by this conflict.

While there is nothing wrong in using Biblical passages in different ways, I believe the history of this book points to a serious historical flaw in the way we have handled sexuality and romantic love. We have responded with embarrassment to this valuable gift that God has given humankind.

God’s gifts should not cause us discomfort, shame and anger. As with any of these gifts, romance and sexuality serve a divine purpose, providing they are used in ways uplifting. instead of downgrading. There is no gift of God that cannot be made obsessive, addictive or degrading.

Is God embarrassed?

If you prefer to see this book as an allegory of Christ and his Church, fine! But if you choose allegory or some other interpretation, do so because it is more meaningful to you, not because of discomfort with God’s gift.

Martin Luther is reported to have said: “The reproduction of mankind is a great marvel and mystery. Had God consulted me in the matter, I should have advised him to continue the generation of the species by fashioning them of clay.” But God did not consult Luther, or us.

We need to consider where God is in all of this. Our God-given hormones may attract us romantically and physically to others, leading often to covenant relationships. In marriage, while usually retaining something of the romantic/sexual attraction, we grow in a deeper friendship and partnership that may lead us more completely and lastingly in our relationship with God. Intimacy with each other can grow into intimacy with God.

In a sense, then, the Song of Songs can speak to us not only of romance and sexuality, friendship and partnership, but also discipleship with Christ. We can read the Song on more than one level. There is nothing to force us to see it from just one perspective.

And, instead of the Church being the last place to consider God’s gift of sexuality and romance, would it not be better if we made it the first place?

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Rev. Althouse may write to him in care of this publication.