I came across the NIV Compact Bible Commentary and was delighted to find that John Sailhamer was its author. I’ve so enjoyed his The Meaning of the Pentateuch, that I picked up his commentary on the Pentateuch. I’m going to have to pick up this compact Bible commentary of his as well.
I was able to read the section on the Song of Solomon and was fascinated by Sailhamer’s insights, which I plan to share here. The following quotes are from his treatment of the book on pages 359-361 in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1994), emphasis added.
Sailhamer begins by briefly recounting the traditional figurative interpretations of the book and the quite literal modern interpretations.
Although it is, on the face of it, just that–an ode to human love–one must ask whether it was originally intended to be read as such by its first audience. There are some indications within the book itself that suggest it was not…. There is no question that the book is a poetic drama of a lover’s longing for his beloved and of her willing complicity. To suggest, however, that this drama of two lovers is, in fact, the intent of the book is to confuse the poetic imagery with the purpose of the poem.
He is careful to say that this does not “justify the wholesale allegorizations of the poem that have characterized much of its history.” He admits the picture of the relationship of God/Christ with Israel/the Church, is a wonderful picture, but avers “there are no clues within the book itself to support such a reading. In the last analysis, one’s interpretation should come from within the book itself, and preferably from the clues given by the author himself.”
Sailhamer goes on to uncover several clues which do confirm that there is more to the Song than may meet the natural eye, however. He first points out from the overall structure of the book, that “the ‘reflections of love’ of the lover and the beloved do not progress and build in intensity in the course of the poem itself.” This is no average love story. He also argues that “though the poetic imagery comes close at times to suggesting the lover and his beloved have in fact come together and joined themselves in that union that they so longingly describe, the structure of the book itself suggests that has not yet happened.” Rather, the “lovers’ quest is an ideal, a longed-for desire that lies beyond their own grasp.”
Setting aside these preliminary observations for the moment, we come to Sailhamer’s focus on the “larger structural movement given to the poem by the author.” The repeated refrain throughout the book reads, “Do not arouse or awaken love until she [NIV, it] so desires” (2:7b; 3:5b; 8:4b). The meaning of this refrain comes from its connection to 8:5b where the author links it with the last statements made by the beloved (the woman): “Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth.” In this connection, Sailhamer sees an allusion to two other key biblical texts: the prologue of Proverbs (chapters 1-9), and the account of the Fall in Genesis 3.
If an illusion [sic] is intended to these passages, it suggests that “the beloved” in the Song of Solomon is intended to be understood as a personification of “wisdom” and Solomon, or “the lover,” is intended as a picture of the “promised seed” of Ge 3:15, i.e., the Messiah.
He goes on:
What appears to have happened in the composition of the Song of Songs is that the author has seen in this love-song the possibility of a portrait of Israel’s long-awaited messianic king. Solomon, the son of David (cf. 2Sa 7:16), whose quest for wisdom characterizes the central core of the book of Proverbs, speaks in the prologue of that book of binding wisdom to himself and on his heart (Pr 3:3; 7:1-3) in the same way that in this book [Song of Solomon] the beloved says, “Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm” (8:6). Moreover, in Proverbs Solomon says, “Say to wisdom, ‘You are my sister'” (Pr 7:4), just as here the beloved says, “If only you were to me like a brother” (8:1). An extended comparison of these two books suggests that these are not mere coincidental similarities of words and phrases, but rather a deliberate “inter-textuality,” or allusion of one text to another. Such verbal links and allusions between the personified Dame Wisdom in the book of Proverbs and the young beloved in the Song of Songs invite our attempts to see a larger purpose behind this love song. I have suggested that such a purpose is to be found in the growing messianic hope found in these sections [i.e. the Wisdom Literature] of the OT.
Thus far then, Sailhamer has shown “the Song of Songs is intended as a portrait of the promised Messiah’s love for divine wisdom.” He goes on:
The Messiah is here pictured by Solomon, and “wisdom” is personified by the young and beautiful beloved. Throughout the poem the notion of love is idealized by the fact that its obtainment lies in the future. The quest for wisdom was aroused “under the apple tree” (8:4a), probably an allusion to the time of the Garden of Eden when the first woman “saw that the fruit of the tree was…desirable for gaining wisdom [and] she took some and ate it” (Ge 3:6). The obtainment of wisdom, however, will come only when one like Solomon comes to claim his beloved.
Sailhamer also sees the reference to “there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth” (8:5b) as suggesting that the author of the Song of Solomon “also understood both the promised ‘seed’ in Ge 3:15 and the reference to Eve as ‘the mother of all living’ (Ge 3:20) messianically.”
The result of these inter-textual links, “if… intended by the author of this book” then,
…would place this song on a quite different level than that of an ode to human love. It would, in fact, give credence to the traditional attempts to see more in this poem than meets the eye. It would also provide some guidelines along which the symbolism of the book is to be read.
One final argument supports Sailhamer’s conclusions:
Finally, such a reading of the book would also provide needed insight into the underlying justification for the book’s inclusion into the OT. There is general recognition today that the time of the formation of the OT canon coincided with a significant surge in the hope of the imminent return of the messianic king. This book was included in the canon, one might say, because it was intended as a picture of the Messiah.
I am not one to discount seeing the Divine Author’s hand behind the human book as intentionally foreshadowing future covenant realities. I would see no problem in taking Sailhamer’s lead and affirming that this authorial intent was expanded in the wisdom of God, to allow the book as we have it in our Bible to suggest analogies between Christ and the Church. Think of the many songs that have been written culling from the poetic imagery of this Song of Songs.
Still, I had never seen Sailhamer’s reasoning for seeing a human authorial intent behind the Song of Solomon including an explicit Messianic connection. I’d be interested to know, if any of my readers knows whether Sailhamer has written more explicitly of this connection. The section on the Song is only a few pages long in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary. Along these lines, I’d also love to know what you think of this. Does this ring true to you? Or do you think Sailhamer is off base?
You can pick up a copy of this little book at Amazon.com or direct from Zondervan.
I’m inclined to wonder if one wouldn’t find material on this connection in Meridith Kline? I have had professors make the Biblical Theology line in the Wisdom books follow this: Proverbs Lady Wisdom, is summarized in Prov 31, enjoyed and celebrated in Song of Solomon, and pictured in Ruth (which should be a wisdom book, not a history book). This makes sense to me, however I don’t think it necessarily requires an exclusion of teaching into human marriage and intimacy. But then, if one sees their marriage as a picture of loving wisdom, then I imagine that there is an implicit connection between the “marriage” Sailhamer holds out and our own marriages. In the end, I simply post to say, “I-don-know!” I’m interested in more informed feedback!
I’m interested in feedback, too Jacob. Thanks for the clue on Kline, I don’t know if I have him but I’ll look. I have heard that Ruth follows Prov. 31 in some iterations of the Hebrew canon, actually.
Sorry, I misspelled his name, it’s Meredith G. Kline. You can download a few of his books (legally) for free here. His major work that many in the Biblical Theology realm talk about is “Kingdom Prologue”.
I thought Sailhamer’s arguments were compelling, but I still do not see a Messiah in Solomon, and I’m sure even Sailhamer would admit his thoughts to be speculative.
I guess my question would be… Does it need to be Messianic? Since a plain reading of Scripture doesn’t indicate a Messianic reference, why not just say a Messianic reference is a nice thought, but not in the text?If someone sits down and reads the Song of Solomon, having never read the Puritans or Sailhamer, but understood the gospel, would they make the connection to Christ?
Why try to fit Christ into a book that He is not in? (understanding, of course, much of the NT references to the OT put Christ in texts He is not in in the plain sense… but does that give uninspired exegetes license to do the same?)
don’t wanna knock on yer boy Sailhamer 😉 just thought I would through that out there 🙂
Jake,
A few points come to mind.
1) “Plain” reading by who’s definition of plain? I think often a modern, naturalistic perspective that assumes a completely objective “scientific” interpretation or reading is possible, stands behind much of the emphasis on a bare literalism.
2) You admit “much of the NT references to the OT put Christ in texts He is not in in the plain sense”. This way of putting it irks me. The NT apostles, taught by Christ, just find inventive ways of inserting Christ in places where He really isn’t to be found? Really? Or they just are inspired to make novel interpretations that can’t be followed and imitated. Really? In my view, the Apostles teach us how to view the OT. For instance in Hebrews 9, the author says he could go on to speak much more about the various tabernacle/temple furniture pieces, but time constrains him. He says there is more to be said, but he can’t go there now (see vs. 5 in a variety of translations). In my view there is a programmatic explanation that given Christ, everything now can be seen in a new and fuller light in the OT.
3) We are taught explicitly that marriage itself is a pointer to Christ. Eph. 5:32 says, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” “It” refers to the Gen. 2 institution of marriage.
4) See this post, where I talk about how all of this earth is intended as a pointer to God’s true reality. Paul doesn’t just go, “Oh, Marriage, yea that’s a good parallel…. It really refers to Christ and the church.” Rather, God says, “What’s a good parallel for the relationship the Church will have with Christ? Oh, yea Marriage. Let’s design it that way.” This goes for Familial relations (Father – Son), the earth and sun (“Sun of Righteousness”), etc. Going back to marriage, this speaks something about the marriage depicted in Song of Solomon, it along with all human marriage, has a picturesque function in imaging the Church – Christ relationship, Eph. 5 describes.
5) Have you thought through what it means that there is One Single Divine Author behind all 66 books of the Bible? If a human author can foreshadow and hint at points that he later goes on to reveal that these seemingly small points end up culminating in the answer to the mystery or some such literary device, if human authors (in God’s image), can do that, what about God? Can’t he intend for his Church to read a messianic parallel in the close relationship described in Song of Solomon.
All of this being said, and I do think some of Sailhamer’s stuff here is somewhat speculative. But there are inter-textual links, and that does clue us in to the possibility of authorial intent. Certainly, the book was understood that way for a long time and I would say we are poorer for losing that way of reading this book.
Thanks for dropping by with your comments. I appreciate it. I guess this post is bringing out all the Jakes/Jacobs out there…. 🙂
yep.
Both philosophies of interpretation have potential problems, and there are godly, faithful men and women that love God’s Word on both sides.
There’s no way Paul thought that (the good parallel) about marriage. When God designed marriage, from the beginning, it was intended as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church. no doubt.
You are definitely right to point out that what the apostles did with the OT wasn’t merely illustrative, but a further revelation of what God had intended to say, and now says plainly through His apostles in the NT age.
When you say one single divine author, (and I would add with a divine, overarching purpose) I certainly understand that, and believe the NT reveals what that purpose is. The OT does point to Christ, but does that mean we should try to see Christ in every OT text? Or should He be in every sermon. I don’t want to discredit what a Jew would have thought about a divinely inspired text written to him by God before Christ. If I preach the OT, I’ll make sure I understand that first before I get to Christ.
Either way, since good men disagree, there’s no way I’m going to try to solve it or figure it out here. I do enjoy the discussion, and look forward to more conversations. but now, back to homework.
Thanks for your gracious spirit Jake. I don’t differ with your conclusions here, and I know we’ll not settle things in this small exchange on my blog of all places!
Given that the ‘Spirit of Christ’ is the author of the book and one of the roles of the Spirit is to exalt Christ, we may not be so surprised to think that Christ may have had something to say about His ministry when He authored the book in eternity past. That a significant religious significance is thought to lie under the love story seems probable to me as the work was preserved as a Holy writing and not as something secular or profane.
Regarding the plain reading: I understand the desire to be cautious to go beyond what the Scriptures teach in an explicit way. On the other hand, the nature of the work suggests looking a little deeper and given that all the Scriptures testify to Christ, we may as well look for Him here as well.
We wouldn’t want to use such a wooden standard with modern works like Animal Farm or Pilgrim’s Progress. Perhaps we should at least be open to investigate, but by no means bind men’s consciences, to Sailhamer’s hypothesis.