The Song of Songs

The title is the Hebrew way of saying "the best of songs". There has been speculation that it might have been written by a woman[1 p.105]. It was probably written in the 5th or 4th century B.C.E. but attributed to Solomon[1 p.111]. It concerns physical and emotional love between a man and a woman. (See comment on Proverbs 14:30 concerning emotion.) Some see five collections comprising 31 poems in all; others see ten incidents which might occur in a single day, as the king and a concubine desire each other but are unwilling to let a forbidden relationship destroy their places in society[5]. There are five plausible ways to interpret it:

1. as a simple erotic love poem (but why is such a thing in the Bible?);
2. as an allegory (or is that just a way of excusing its presence in the Bible?);
3. as an interaction between mythical creatures or deities;
4. as an explanation of why Abishag (King David's nurse) declined to marry Solomon, implying she preferred another lover;
5. to illustrate the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, as implied by the frequent use of pasages from this book in the Revised Common Lectionary around Easter in Year A.

Steve Aisthorpe argues for the first option above, saying that it is placed with the Wisdom literature so that scripture celebrates "two of the Lord's most precious gifts"[4]. Reynolds prefers the second option, but adds that the book does not encourage such an interpretation, so it should be understood at face value first[5].

The book has always been controversial yet curiously influential. John of the Cross (a Christian mystic) based almost all of his theology on the Song of Solomon (also known as the Song of Songs). It shows how the Jewish faith is grounded in physical reality rather than Greek denial of the physical as relevant to the eternal and spiritual. Also it seems to contain no reference to God, so Esther is not alone!

The reader should certainly look for allegorical meaning to some extent. One who takes the view that the book is purely allegorical (No.2 above) would look for allegory only. Someone who sees the book as an erotic love poem (No.1 above) would, in seeking a reason why the Bible includes the book, have to consider how human sexuality expresses truth about God, (for example, developing ideas about human sexuality being modelled on some deep truth about God) so the allegorical question arises again. A reader seeking information about deities (No.3 above) would need to seek a connection between the sexual imagery and the observeable world, because otherwise the book's content is irrelevant to us. And lastly, a reader looking for concealed historical information must assume that the meaning is coded somehow, because it is not apparent.

David Runcorn offers a more wholistic view:

"First, without inhibition, the Song celebrates the human longing for intimate, harmonious, enduring relationships with another. Without ever being casual or indulgent, it celebrates the incomparable joy of faithful, sexual relationship and the delights of committed desire and expression.

"Second, the Song affirms that human intimacy finds its fullest meaning in a deeper union with divine love: with God. The relationship of the spiritual and the sexual is wholly positive. The Song holds together what is too often kept apart.

"Third, the Song is set in a garden. A garden is where it all began and then went horribly wrong. Yet here all is fruitful, pungent with blossom and full of life. All that was lost is here found restored. The coup|e embrace in unashamed delight. The poetic imagery also expresses divine union, worship and adoration. The sheer vibrancy of surrounding creation is a theme throughout the poem. When human desire and love find full expression — in each other and in God — creation itself returns to being the garden of God's gift, presence and delight.

"The original threefold rupture is healed: humanity with each other; humanity and God; humanity and nature." [6]

© David Billin 2002–2025