Stop Mangling the Song of Solomon. Just Stop.
In 2009, John MacArthur wrote a scathing, four-part blog series rebuking disgraced pastor Mark Driscoll for his egregious mishandling of the Song of Solomon. Much of the content in question stemmed from the sermon “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon” that Driscoll preached in Scotland in 2008. In his casually crass way, Driscoll engaged in what can only be described as erotic eisegesis—alleging that various passages in the book refer to specific sexual acts, precise anatomical features, and even particular locations for intimacy.[1]
In his response, titled, “The Rape of Solomon’s Song,” MacArthur stated,
It's frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable.[2]
In reality, Driscoll's mangling of the text was low-hanging fruit. After all, anyone with even a sophomoric level of discernment could recognize that his style of lowbrow language was indefensible, having no place in the Christian life—let alone the Christian pulpit.
Perhaps more disappointing is the fact that lesser distortions of the Song of Solomon—but distortions nonetheless—are seemingly endless in evangelicalism. They aren’t limited to the perverse ramblings of one man.
In fact, the misinterpretations of this book span across a spectrum. On the one hand, there are those who are so hyper-focused on the intimate relationship between the man and woman that they embellish details of the relationship, taking generic euphemisms for intimacy and heightening them to become explicit sexual details and acts. On the other hand, there are those so opposed to any notion of intimacy being found in this book that they allegorize the details of the relationship to the point where they become absurd symbols of religious concepts. Further still, there are many who would take the relationship described in the Song of Solomon and insert both themselves and Christ into the text, as if the passage were about an individual’s personal relationship with Jesus—conjuring up even more uncomfortable (as well as blasphemous) mental images.
But neither the sexualizing, nor the spiritualizing, nor the singularizing of the Song of Solomon are acceptable approaches to the text.
Sexualizing the Song of Solomon
Continuing his critique of those who would sexualize the Song of Solomon, MacArthur writes,
Song of Solomon is deliberately veiled in poetic euphemisms that are beautiful by any measure. Some of the imagery is fairly obvious, some highly debatable. In many places the meaning is indistinct enough to permit a great deal of hermeneutical imagination, and wisdom would seem to teach that here—especially here—it is best for the preacher not to be a lot more explicit than the Holy Spirit was.[3]
The sad reality is that Mark Driscoll was not a lone actor. Perhaps in a similar attempt to be “relevant” or “practical,” others also see no problem heightening the language and concepts to their liking. One writer, for example, actually equates Song of Solomon 2:6 (“Let his left hand be under my head and his right hand embrace me”) with a particular posture in the sexual act![4] Calling it a “position ideal for intensified love play” (among other things, which I won’t elaborate on), he writes that the Hebrew term translated as “embrace” usually refers to a more intimate form of touch. I’m not entirely sure how this assertion is justified in light of the fact that this same Hebrew term is also used to describe the way Jacob embraced his uncle (cf. Gen 29:13), brother (cf. Gen. 33:4), and son (cf. Gen. 48:10). But I digress.
In Song of Solomon 5:2, the woman dreams of a time when she rejected Solomon as he stood outside her door. Being that it’s in the middle of the night, he says, “‘Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my perfect one! For my head is drenched with dew, my locks with the damp of the night.’” Clearly, this is a reference to his actual hair accumulating moisture by virtue of nighttime precipitation. Nevertheless, that doesn’t stop one commentator from asserting that Solomon is actually speaking of his male anatomy, with its associated bodily fluid![5] Whether it’s cases like that, or other instances in which a preacher talks about “getting the juices flowing,” I’m at the upper extent to which I can, in good conscience, detail this kind of sexual speculation.
One commentator pinpoints the problem by saying, “If we start looking for references to intercourse and private parts everywhere, we lose track of the main theme of the Song and begin to sink into a quagmire of eroticism.”[6] Sadly, that doesn’t stop modern authors from seeing innuendo behind almost every line. Sensationalism sells.
Make no mistake about it: the Song of Solomon does describe the consummation of the marriage. Chapter 4 describes Solomon’s delight in his wife’s beauty and body. I’m not at all prudish with regards to the subject matter itself. But Scripture’s language is intentionally guarded so as to maintain an appropriate level of obscurity. For example, the wife says, “May my beloved come into his garden and eat its choice fruits!” Solomon then says, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride” (Song 4:16, 5:1). This makes it clear that the garden is indeed a metaphor for his wife (cf. Song 4:12). Just as a garden provides a variety of multi-sensory enjoyment for a gardener, so too does a wife for her husband. But that’s as far as the text goes. That’s it. Anyone seeing more than that in the passage needs to get his eyes—and heart—checked. One scholar rightly notes that when the imagery is exaggerated “…we learn far more about the interpreters than we do about the text.”[7]
Let me state it as plainly as possible: the Song of Solomon is not a sex manual.
Spiritualizing the Song of Solomon
Of course, the sexually hyperbolic approach to the text seems to be relatively new. Historically, a vast majority of older commentaries go the exact opposite direction: “spiritual” allegories and metaphors are forced upon the text in an attempt to make it about religion rather than romance. Being uncomfortable with the subject matter has led many to look for an escape hatch—either by not preaching through the book at all, or by doing everything in their power to teach it as something other than what it is plainly about.
For example, when Solomon and the woman speak of “little foxes” that are ruining their “vineyards” (Song 2:15), they’re referring to problems that could develop in their romantic relationship. They want to work through small issues prior to the wedding before they become big ones after. Yet, one commentator takes that concept and converts it into “little foxes of carelessness, of neglect of the Bible, of neglect of prayer, of neglect of fellowship with the people of God.” He goes on to call them things that “hinder spiritual growth,” and advises us to “put them to death before they ruin your Christian experience.”[8]
Perhaps most humorously is the way in which commentators have tried to sidestep the “breasts” spoken of in Song of Solomon 4:5 and 7:3.[9] Below are some of the more outlandish “spiritual” interpretations of what the woman’s breasts supposedly represent (followed by my tongue-in-cheek response to each):
“Moses and Aaron.” What?
“The Old and New Testaments.” Really?
“The act of loving God and loving neighbor.” No way.
“The inner man versus the outer man.” Are you serious right now?
“The ordinances of the Lord’s Supper and baptism.” You’ve got to be kidding me.
“Both hearing the word and keeping it.” Huh?
“The Urim and Thummim of the high priest.” Wow.
I suppose I could summarize all of these interpretations with one word: ridiculous.
While I genuinely appreciate the sensitivity of those who want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the fact of the matter is that misinterpretation is still misinterpretation. And because the entire book is about a romantic relationship, this approach to the text wrecks the whole thing, not just a few isolated passages here and there.
In fact, the most widespread way of spiritualizing the book—again, because of its admirable intent—is to claim that the entire poem is an allegory about Jesus’ love for His people. Ironically, by trying to exalt Jesus with this unfounded approach, there are times when just the opposite happens.
In Song of Solomon 2:1, for example, the Shulammite refers to herself as “the rose of Sharon, the lily of the valleys.” According to scholars, Sharon was a coastal plain in Israel extending from near Mount Carmel south along the Mediterranean Sea. As with other valleys in the area, this location produced an abundance of meadow flowers and beautiful vegetation. Thus, for the woman to call herself a rose or lily among it all was to engage in a form of self-deprecation, in that she viewed herself as but one woman among many—a commoner with no special or unique features that stand out from others.[10] It was for this reason that Solomon then corrected and comforted her by saying she was actually a “lily among the thorns” (Song 2:2), a standout among lesser women.
Once we understand this passage properly, it should affect our view of the hymn The Lily of the Valley, written in the 1800s by William Charles Fry, which states:
I’ve found a Friend in Jesus;
He's ev'rything to me.
He's the fairest of ten thousand to my soul.
The Lily of the Valley, in Him alone I see[11]
By spiritualizing this verse and calling Jesus the “lily of the valley,” the song actually depreciates Jesus—saying He’s nothing more than a commoner, with no standout features! If we insist on spiritualizing the text, it would be better to call Jesus the “lily among the thorns.” But of course, it would be best of all just to handle the passage appropriately by not forcing Jesus into the text in the first place.
Another indication that this is a wrong-headed approach is found in the fact that the idea of depicting the husband as Jesus can’t be sustained continuously. For example, some would use Song of Solomon 5:16 (“His mouth is full of sweetness…”) to remind us that Jesus’ mouth is “full of sweetness,” based on all of the wonderful things He says to His disciples. Yet, in order to get to that idea from that verse, these same people have to leapfrog over the six verses that precede it, which speak of Solomon’s impressive physical appearance. Based on Isaiah 53:2, we know Jesus did not have such an appearance, thus the entire metaphor immediately falls apart (at least for those who are being intellectually honest). Picking and choosing which characteristics apply to Christ is a sure sign that the text is being turned into Swiss cheese.
Does the Song of Solomon have implications about Christ’s love for the Church? In one sense it does—but only insofar as every godly marriage says something about Christ’s selfless love for the Church (cf. Eph. 5:25). Regardless, we must maintain that this book of the Bible—which is undeniably romantic—speaks of a literal man (Solomon) and his literal wife (the Shulammite), not any kind of hidden, spiritual concept.[12] In fact, when Solomon talks about the curves of his wife’s hips, the stature of her breasts, and the smoothness of her lips, or when she speaks of his sweet-smelling cheeks, glorious abdomen, and strong legs (cf. Song 5:13-15, 7:1-9), it would be appallingly awkward to look for a parallel between Christ and the Church. The fact of the matter is that Christ-centered eisegesis is still eisegesis.
Let me state it as plainly as possible: the Song of Solomon is not an allegory for redemptive themes.
Singularizing the Song of Solomon
Although the Song of Solomon isn’t an allegory about Christ’s love for the Church, I at least appreciate the fact that those who misunderstand it that way are thinking in terms of a corporate love. That’s because a final, all-too-common mishandling of this book is the idea that it represents Christ’s love for an individual.
At the outset, let me emphatically state that Jesus does have a specific love for individuals. He is the good shepherd who cares for every last one of His sheep. But the husband-and-wife relationship depicted in Song of Solomon, and referenced in Ephesians 5:25, is not a parallel for Christ’s love of individuals. Rather, it’s representative of Christ’s love for the Church as a whole.
“His Banner Over Me is Love” is a classic example that misapplies the Song of Solomon to individual Christians. In Song of Solomon 2:4, the woman states, “He has brought me to his banquet hall, and his banner over me is love.” Just as a banner would be used in war to identify and regroup troops, as well as to lead and direct them in combat, so too was Solomon’s relationship with the woman characterized by leadership—but leading in love—just as every husband’s relationship with his wife should be. In the same way, Christ’s headship of the Church is characterized by loving leadership, so much so that He “gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:25-26). But notice that the “her” in the Ephesians marital paradigm is with a corporate entity (the whole Church), not a singular entity (you or me). In other words, we as individuals do not have a marriage-like relationship with Jesus. Thus, even if we were to cram Jesus into the Song of Solomon, His “banner” would be over us, not me or you. You aren’t Jesus’ wife. And Jesus isn’t your husband, lover, or boyfriend.
In a more egregious example, the so-called “Christian” praise band Jesus Culture released a song titled “You Won’t Relent” on their 2008 album Your Love Never Fails. This song takes Song of Solomon 8:6-7, which is a conversation between husband and wife, and rips it out of context so as to refer to the believer’s relationship with Jesus. The song begins as follows:
You won't relent until You have it all
My heart is Yours
You won't relent until You have it all
My heart is YoursI set You as a seal upon my heart
As a seal upon my arm
For there is love
That is as strong as death
Jealousy demanding as the grave
And many waters cannot quench this love
The song goes on to say,
Come be the flame upon my heart,
Come be the fire inside of me,
Until You and I are one.
Take notice of the “You and I” (singular) relationship that is asserted in the lyrics. And lest there be any doubt that this song is intended to be sung to Jesus, it addresses Him directly four times toward the end of the song. Not only that, but in typical Charismatic fashion it repeats the phrase “There’s nothing we want more” an astonishing twenty-one times. Good grief.
Here are the final lyrics to the song:
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more than You, Jesus
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more than You, Jesus
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more than You, Jesus
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more
There's nothing we want more than You, Jesus, oh
Kudos to them for changing the pronoun to “we” at the end, though it doesn’t compensate for the “I” at the beginning. Regardless, we shouldn’t be surprised when music groups associated with heretical movements do this to a book of the Bible. But those of us who are in expositional churches should know better.
Sadly, the romanticizing of an individual’s relationship with Christ, a practice that has been called theoeroticism, or deistic amorism, has become more common than I would have ever guessed. My advice? Don’t even joke about “having a crush” on Jesus.
Let me state it as plainly as possible: the Song of Solomon is not about your personal relationship with Christ.
The Grace of God in the Gift of Marriage
So how should we understand this wonderful book of the Bible? John MacArthur answers that question well:
A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality. To do so understands that Solomon recounts (1) his own days of courtship, (2) the early days of his first marriage, followed by (3) the maturing of this royal couple through the good and bad days of life. The Song of Solomon expands on the ancient marriage instructions of Genesis 2:24, thus providing spiritual music for a lifetime of marital harmony. It is given by God to demonstrate His intention for the romance and loveliness of marriage, the most precious of human relations and “the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7).[13]
In a world in which Satan works overtime to undermine and destroy human sexuality and relationships, the Song of Solomon stands as a bulwark to show us a better way. But as Proverbs 31:10 asks, “An excellent wife, who can find?” Proverbs 18:22 gives us the answer: “…from the Lord.”
Indeed, in marriage God provides a lifelong helper (cf. Gen. 2:18), an authentic love (cf. Gen. 2:25), a family legacy (cf. Psa. 78:4), a co-laborer in ministry (cf. Acts 18:26), a source of discernment (cf. Prov. 27:17), romantic satisfaction (cf. Prov. 5:18-19), motivation for prayer (cf. 1 Pet. 3:7), financial stability (cf. 1 Tim. 5:11-12), and victory over temptation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:9)! What a God we serve! It’s no wonder that 1 Peter 3:7 refers to marriage as “the grace of life.” But to benefit from this picture of a godly relationship in the Song of Solomon, we must handle the text aright. Unfortunately, there are scores of people who mangle it; don’t be counted among them.
References:
[1] I don’t recommend reading through the entire transcript, but cite it here for accuracy:
[2] https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A397/the-rape-of-solomons-song-part-2
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ed Wheat, M.D. and Gaye Wheat, Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 2010), 84.
[5] Duane A. Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 207.
[6] Tom Gledhill, The Message of the Song of Songs (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 180.
[7] Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 14.
[8] H.A. Ironside, Addresses on the Song of Solomon (www.solidchristianbooks.com, 1933 reprint), 29.
[9] See the following for a variety of interpretations:
Iain Duguid, The Song of Songs: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015) 125.
Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 496.
Steven A. Kreloff, The Pleasures of Marriage: An Eposition of the Song of Solomon (Clearwater, FL: Lakeside Community Chapel, 2013), 11.
[10] Iain Duguid, The Song of Songs: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015) 91.
[11] Sing to the Lord (Kansas City, MO: Lillenas Publishing Co., 1993), 392.
[12] Unfortunately, even otherwise outstanding preachers have succumbed to spiritualizing this book. Perhaps the most famous is Charles Spurgeon, who claimed that it was much more than just an ancient love song, but instead belonged to "the higher spiritual life." In his own words, he plainly stated it as such: "I have said that this is Jesus speaking to his Church." He then proceeded to allegorize the entire book. For example, he claimed that the tanned skin of the Shulammite (Song 1:5) represented the Church's lack of sanctification, or that the wedding procession described in Song of Solomon 3:6-7 represented the progress of the Church throughout the ages, from Pentecost, to the Reformation, to Spurgeon's era, ultimately to the time of Christ's return. One of the most bizarre comments is regarding Song of Solomon 5:1, in which Solomon says, "I have come into my garden," which is a euphemism for sexual intimacy. Spurgeon comments, "No sooner does the spouse say, 'Let my Beloved come into His garden,' than her Lord answers, 'I am come into my garden.'...When we desire our Lord Jesus to come to us, He has already come..." Ultimately, preachers today have no justification for mishandling the text just because "Spurgeon did it."
See Charles Spurgeon, He Is Altogether Lovely (Salem Author Services, 2012). See also https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/spe/song-of-solomon.html
[13] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), 744.