|
This is a text reader for the article below:
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Wednesday 3/25/26
Thru the Bible: Song of Solomon Chapter 5
Message Video Player
Message Audio Player:
Podcast: Download (Duration: 1:29:51 — 153.1MB)
Dazzling & Unexpected
Song of Solomon 5:1-16,
“(1) The Lover to His Beloved: I have entered my garden, O my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my balsam spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk!”
It is very clear from the text that this is regarding their initial sexual union following Solomon’s retrieval of his bride and just before entering the wedding feast.
The motif of “eating” and “drinking” is common enough across all languages and cultures as a symbolism for partaking of your mate in sexual union. This imagery makes use of the hunger for and pleasure in intimacy to express intimate desire. Early expressions of this date back to 500 years before the Song of Solomon in ancient Sumarrian love poetry. Of course in modern times such imagery has been debased and dragged through the proverbial mud, but in many cultures even today, it is actually a pure and pleasant way to express the delights of marital intimacy.
For all of its metaphoric and flowery language however, this is nothing more than a poetic way of saying they have entered the bridal chamber and consummated their marriage.
As to the imagery…
Balsam spice bōśem:
This noun designates the spice, balsam; or a fragrance, perfume or incense which were made from it. It differs from the balsam familiar in the western world, though they share several qualities. This item was highly prized in the ancient Middle East, specifically in Gilead, where certain medicinal balms were made with it for healing and comfort.
It was used prophetically by God in Jeremiah 8:22 as a rhetorical question regarding the spiritual healing of Israel.
Jeremiah 8:21-22, “(21) For the wound of the daughter of my people is My heart wounded; I mourn, and dismay has taken hold on Me. (22) Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of the daughter of My people not been restored?”
Though these are Jeremiah’s words in the 1st person, they are prophetic and therefore more purely and accurately reveal God’s heart as expressed through the prophet, who no doubt shared those feelings.
It symbolized God’s capacity to heal souls “sick in their sin” and comfort the broken hearted. It is most often associated with Jesus Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of all it represents. Thus the name, “the Balm of Gilead” with which you are, no doubt, familiar.
“Honey and the Honeycomb”:
These are used in connection with everything from God’s word to the promised land itself. It symbolizes abundance, richness, blessing, pleasantness and provision.
The lovers have partaken of one another and have found sweetness, richness and blessing in each other.
“Wine and Milk”:
“I have drunk my wine and my milk” here Solomon is using these to symbolize harmonious abundance and joy.
“Wine and Milk” are used in a similar fashion in Isaiah 55:1, where it says,
“Hey, all who are thirsty, come to the water! You who have no money, come! Buy and eat! Come! Buy wine and milk without money and without cost! (2) Why pay money for something that will not nourish you? Why spend your hard-earned money on something that will not satisfy? Listen carefully to me and eat what is nourishing! Enjoy fine food!” – Isaiah 55:1-2
[See – The Deliverance I give is Permanent for more on Isaiah 55]
Notice the similarities with its use by Solomon. “Wine and milk” are used as sources of fine nourishment & genuine satisfaction.
The “wine” here is the Hebrew word ַיִין yayin and typically implies fermented, intoxicating wine rather than simple grape juice. That is why it is so often used in scripture to signify festive joy or pleasure in poetic contexts.
While yayin can generally refer to a wide range of fermented stages, it is distinct from tirosh which is fresh juice or new wine. Due to its use in association with sexual pleasure between these newly weds, it is unquestionably referring to fermented wine.
As we read in Psalm 104:15,
“(13) From your lofty abode you water the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work. (14) You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth (15) and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.”
It is used in similar fashion in Judges 9:13 and Ecclesiastes 10:19 due to its cheering or gladdening effects on the heart. It is interesting that in the analogy used in Judges, it says that wine gladdens God’s heart as well as man’s!
“And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?” – Judges 9:13 (KJV)
[See – Jephthah’s Vow for greater context on Judges 9]
One additional reference which I believe draws this all together is Proverbs 5:15-20 which makes use of this exact type of eating and drinking metaphor for marital union as well as its joys being compared to intoxication.
“(15) Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. (16) Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? (17) Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you.
(18) Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, (19) a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.
(20) Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?”
I deliberately read both above and below the quote I am highlighting to make it clear that the text is without question referring to sexual union in marriage.
Now the speaker changes, as does the setting and so there is a reset to the use of words as imagery. What we read now is literal, the only question is – who is speaking? The text is not at all clear and there is no lack of opinion on this, but it is generally reduced to 1 or 5 options.
Personally, I believe it is either Solomon himself OR the Newly Wed couple together, who, now walking into the general assembly of those gathered to celebrate their union at the Feast, invite them all to eat and drink!
“The Poet to the Couple: Eat, friends, and drink! Drink freely, O lovers!”
We need to remember that this entire book is a poetic love song and so none of it should be taken as a highly literal depiction of something which transpired between Solomon and any of his brides – much less the Shulamite in this book. I say this, because we are far enough into the story that it is easy for us to identify with this couple, or at least try to. As such, exchanges like the following might draw us in so much as to not recall that this is just a love song.
Interpretations of this segment spanning from verse 2-7, abound. Most recognize it as a dream which is similar to, but literally separate from the one we read in chapter 3. Others see it as a retelling of the same dream, with some modifications.
I am of that latter sort and I came to this conclusion on my own before I read what anyone else has written in commentary or exegesis on the passage. As such, my view is unique. Most who believe this is a retelling of the initial dream in chapter 3, believe the Shulamite is speaking only to her bridesmaids. While they no doubt are addressed at the end, it is my view that this retelling is between the Shulamite and Solomon. Perhaps while in the bridal chamber or perhaps in flirtatious whispers as they enter the celebration of the Feast.
Anyone who has been married – especially to someone they can joke with and enjoy, I think will have no difficulty seeing the text play out like this in their mind’s eye.
It is important to know that these are all just interpretations and that since the text does not go out of its way to make it clear HOW to interpret it, the point of its being written is obviously being conveyed regardless of how you see it happening.
So again, it is my guess that what follows is a loving exchange between the newlyweds – both loosely reminiscent of their long journey up to this moment with emotional embellishments for both expressiveness and flirtation.
The portion regarding the watchmen will likely be lost on you, but I will attempt to clarify as best as I am able.
The flirtatious exchange (probably taking place through whispers to each other as they enter the Feasting hall) begins with what appears to be a remembrance of the Shulamite’s dream we read in chapter 3 only in this retelling, it develops differently.
“(2) The Beloved about Her Lover: I was asleep, but my mind was dreaming. Listen! My lover is knocking at the door!”
The Lover to His Beloved: “Open for me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one! My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.”
If you remember, in the initial dream she was longing for him in her sleep on her bed, but he never came for her. She had to go out looking for him. This time, he is the one knocking on her door – something most women would prefer as opposite to having to chase after him.
In response to his pursuit, she flirtatiously feigns reluctance and annoyance at the prospect of having to open the door and just “happens” to mention her vulnerable and scantily clothed appearance.
“(3) The Beloved to Her Lover: “I have already taken off my robe – must I put it on again? I have already washed my feet – must I soil them again?”
In THIS dream, her lover has moved from desire to see her to an all out amorous eagerness to push through the door to get her. If I am correct in my interpretation of this, then it isn’t hard to imagine this embellishment being added when she experienced his ravenous appetite for her in the bridal chamber.
“(4) My lover thrust his hand through the hole, and my feelings were stirred for him. (5) I arose to open for my beloved; my hands dripped with myrrh – my fingers flowed with myrrh on the handles of the lock.”
Due to differences in doors and their locking hardware over the millennia, this phrase fails to make much sense to the modern reader. Other translations use the word substitution of “latch” for “hole” which is technically less accurate.
The lock on the inside of the door corresponds to the “hole” on the outside of the door.
Excavations at places like Megiddo and Tel Beersheba have discovered that in ancient times, the keyhole of a door was often large enough for a person’s hand to pass through so that they could attempt to manipulate the wooden bolt, which was situated on the inside. That is what is likely happening here.
So this statement was depicting the Shulamites envisioning the initial dream in which this time we see Solomon’s desire to meet with his lover, stirred to a passionate attempt to circumvent the lock upon hearing her description of her state.
This text tells us that her hands were dripping with myrrh. This is likely due to the necklace I described to you back in chapter 4, where women would wear myrrh mingled in solidified fat between their breasts at night so that as the fat melted, the myrrh would perfume her throughout the night for the next day. Also myrrh is associated with romantic love. Her hands on the latch were dripping with it. This doesn’t need any further descriptions – clearly the two were amorous for each other.
The next phrase of the retelling returns to the disappointment of the initial dream in that when she got to the door, Solomon was gone – so she pursues out into the streets to retrieve him!
“(6) I opened for my beloved, but my lover had already turned and gone away. I fell into despair when he departed. I looked for him but did not find him; I called him but he did not answer me.”
“(7) The watchmen found me as they made their rounds in the city. They beat me, they bruised me; they took away my cloak, those watchmen on the walls!”
This “beating” sounds less than playful, but given the fact that this is a post wedding, retelling of a “tragic dream” it was probably no more “serious” that a modern couple today recounting a similar event and saying, “if our parents had caught us they’d have killed us!”
I was surprised to find that when I asked AI to search for any interpretations of this which aligned with mine there were many. None employed the modern phrase “if our parents had caught us they’d have killed us!” but the implication of consequences and shaming are inherent to the text. I personally believe that since this was never acted upon and was only a dream birthed out of desire, it was a light-hearted recollection and playful way of saying, “Whew, can you imagine what would have happened if we had done that and got caught?”
The taking of the cloak, which some translations call a “veil”, is quite a different article of clothing than that mentioned in Chapters 1:7; 4:3; 4:11 and even earlier in verse 3 of this chapter.
This “veil” is most probably a scarf or mantle.
The watchmen taking it from her probably represents shame. But in this context it is probably a dual shame. The shame of onlookers at their unchaste passion and her shame of regret that she did not answer the door for her beloved quicker.
This entire scene makes very little sense if interpreted as a literal dream and almost has to be a relieved and flirtatious retelling of the original dream to depict their relief of the weight of waiting for this day!
Verse 8 “may be” an including of the wedding party on this retelling or a continuation of the lover’s candid, flirtatious whisperings to each other which culminates in a type of female version of the wasfs Solomon gave regarding her back in chapter 4.
“(8) The Beloved to the Maidens: I admonish you, O maidens of Jerusalem – If you find my beloved, what will you tell him? Tell him that I am lovesick!”
(9) The Maidens to The Beloved: Why is your beloved better than others, O most beautiful of women? Why is your beloved better than others, that you would admonish us in this manner?”
“(10) The Beloved to the Maidens: My beloved is dazzling and ruddy; he stands out in comparison to all other men.” [“…the chiefest among ten thousand.” – KJV]
Some versions translate this word as “white” and while that is among the word choices for translation, it does not seem to be in keeping with the rest of the description. Furthermore, Solomon, being Jewish, would have possessed a more olive tanned complexion – certainly not white. The Hebrew word is ṣaḥ [tsakh] ַצח. It is an adjective referring to something dazzling, clear, shimmering. Most modern translations therefore use “dazzling, or radiant or Ruddy.
“Ruddy”:
The adjective אָדֹם (ʾadom or adhom) could be derived from either the Hebrew word for “red” (from the root ʾdm, meaning red, ruddy, or blood-colored), or from ʾadam (“man”).
While it would make sense for the word to mean “red” denoting vitality and vigor since David, his father, was described the same way in 1 Samuel 16:12, I think it is equally or even more likely that it represents “man”.
The reason I think this is due to the use of the words “stands out in comparison to all other men”. To me, this sets the pace for this part of her description and implies that the word “ruddy” derives from ‘adam. This would shift the meaning to Solomon being very “manly” and represented as the “epitome of masculinity”.
The words “stands out” coming from the Hebrew verb dagalis very rare in scripture, appearing only 3 other times. In each of these times it is used to describe banners lifted during battle making them “stand out”. So here the term is used figuratively (hypocatastasis) to denote “outstanding”.
The Shulamite is much more limited in the symbols she draws from – most of which are marble, gold and precious gems.
“(11) His head is like the purest gold.”
This was a statement indicating rare beauty. In Solomon’s part of the near east, there were no known mines of gold and so all gold was imported – making it rare and precious.
Its rarity has always made gold precious, so in a day when global accessibility to virtually any resource was unknown as it is today – this only deepens the way it was often used as illustrative of rarity, value and even beauty [see Job 28:12-19; Ps. 19:11; 119:127; Prov. 8:19; Isa. 13:12; Lam. 4:2).
“His hair is curly – black like a raven.”– Well this is clear enough I think!
“(12) His eyes are like doves by streams of water, washed in milk, mounted like jewels.”
The Shulamite’s description of Solomon’s eyes as “dove eyes” carries a similar, yet expanded and reciprocal meaning to when he said the same of her (See Song of Solomon 1:15; 4:1).
While both instances focus on the dove as a symbol of gentle devotion, focus, and purity, the context changes from a general compliment of her appearance to her specific appreciation of his character.
Her added details of “streams of water” “washed in milk” and “mounted like jewels” goes beyond signifying purity and devotion.
- “streams of water”- adds the notion of calming and revitalizing refreshment
- “washed with milk” deepens the idea of complete and total purity with the addition of unclouded vision and a lack of deceit. Faithful might even be an indirect thought here.
- “mounted like jewels” speaks of steadfastness, value, and permanence, reflecting his position as her “chiefest among ten thousand“.
“(13) His cheeks are like garden beds full of balsam trees yielding perfume.”
The term בֹּשֶׂם (bosem, “balsam”) was referenced earlier in the chapter. Due to her “theme” of the rarity of his attributes, these balsam trees likely differ from those which grew everywhere in Palestine and whose useful resin came from its thorns. Rather and in preference to this, she is likely referring to those which grew in South Arabia. These had to be imported, which was a pricey endeavor (see 2 Chron. 9:1-9). As such the Shulamite is saying his cheeks are beautiful and give off his scent which like these trees is compared to the cologned scent of spice beds.
“His lips are like lilies dripping with drops of myrrh”
I’m honestly not sure why the reference to lilies here since it seems to break the established symmetry with rarity, as we discovered in Chapter 2. These lilies were pretty, but common – but the reference to myrrh is clear enough since it represented romance. So while she is probably saying more, she is clearly indicating that his lips are “dripping with romance”.
“(14) His arms are like rods of gold set with chrysolite.”
The use of the word “arms” is uncertain really. It can mean either handsor arms. More than likely it makes very little difference.
The idea includes a pivot point, like a joint indicating the wrist or elbow.
“Gold”, we have established, was a symbol of rare beauty.
Being set with “chrysolite” is something too speculative to even comment on.
The stone might be either a berylor chrysoliteand it honestly depends on the source you are consulting as to their symbolic or illustrative meaning.
Suffice it to say, it was a positive attribute and one a woman would associate with a man’s hands or arms.
“His abdomen is like polished ivory inlaid with sapphires.”
Ok, this one is often interpreted as “abdomen” and in a way I would like to agree with, being quite tame in comparison to the only other real option, but it is what it is!
Running with the “abdomen” interpretation, this held significant symbolic meaning in the Ancient Near East, generally considered the seat of emotions, innermost thoughts, and vitality. It was deeply linked to concepts of life, fertility, and the center of human activity.
In Mesopotamian thought, the abdominal area was regarded as the center of the self, internal monologue, and emotions, similar to how modern culture uses “heart” or “gut feelings”. It was associated with love, fear, anger, and happiness.
The difficulty here is why compare it to “ivory”?
The word “Ivory” also has a broad range meaning – tooth, ivory tusk, a fang, a projecting rock. “Ivory” was almost exclusively associated with extreme wealth, high status, and royal power and Solomon possessed all of these things.
“Sapphires” were considered protective talismans against envy, poison, and evil spirits, while also embodying purity, truth, and power.
So taken together “Sapphires” and “Ivory”, would be a potent symbol of purity and truth, together with power and regal authority.
The trouble is how this fits with the “abdomen” representing the inner self, the seat of emotions, thoughts and vitality.
The Hebrew word translated here as “abdomen” is מֶעה mē‛eh and can be translated as internal organs, intestines, belly, the emotion of sympathy, womb and even the sexual organs.
So we will just say that whatever the word “abdomen” was referring to, it represented high status, purity, truth, power and regal authority.
“(15) His legs are like pillars of marble set on bases of pure gold.”
Among other things, “marble” was used to symbolize elite status & strength and both may be intended here but since this is purely a physical description, its primary description is strength. Due to Solomon being royalty, the other was probably silently hinted at as well.
Overall he is most strikingly handsome being compared to the choicest “cedars of Lebanon”.
“His appearance is like Lebanon, choice as its cedars.”
(16) His mouth is very sweet; he is totally desirable.” – She does seem to be a bit preoccupied with his mouth since this is its second reference.
I speculated therefore that here it very likely is more a reference to his words, than his actual lips. Upon researching this, there are others who seem to agree.
Earlier in this chapter it addresses his physical attributes, this second reference in Chapter 5 is generally interpreted as a shift to the character and expressions of the beloved.
The Shulamite conclude with this description to her maidens –
“This is my beloved! This is my companion, O maidens of Jerusalem!”
Chapter overview and spiritual connection to Christ and His bride:
The chapter opens with Christ and the church being finally brought together as one – the church being fully prepared for Him and glorified spirit, soul and body.
Jesus’ description of this union is nothing less than amorous. He is enraptured with us, intoxicated with us, in short He can’t keep His hands off us. He adores us!
Very interesting to the spiritual comparison is the playfulness which both my and other’s interpretations introduce corresponding to the bride’s retelling of her dream.
There is a longing on her part and a coy, flirtatiousness to her response to His advances and an attempt to inspire His further pursuit of her. This is in keeping with the design of man and woman from the garden. Her desire was to be towards Him, and He was to pursue her!
They both are deeply in love. Being romantic love, this is hard to conceptualize as immediately pertinent to Christ and we His bride, but I think the use of romantic love carries with it some attributes which can be found in no other relationship.
- There is ardent desire.
- There is longing and devotion.
- There is an intimate connection.
- There is perfect transparency and vulnerability.
- There is seriousness.
- There is playfulness.
- There is delight.
- There is communion – sharing of all and holding all things in common.
And in this light, romantic love delivers all things consistent with our current and future relation to Christ!
There are things within our union to Christ which only the bride and He understand. Onlookers can revel in our love and rejoice with us in pure and honest enjoyment for us, but there are secrets only we share. Things consistent with our journey together, our history, the development of our relationship and the final realization of all our longings. Things, no doubt, angels desire to look into.
As we close out the chapter we see the love and admiration the bride has for her groom. She describes him as the “chiefest among 10,000”. She not only holds these views of Him internally, she shares them with the “daughters of Jerusalem” which speaks of the communication of our lives as testimonies to His beauty, purity, majesty and His matchless worth. We are no more ashamed of Him than He is of us!
Blessings!
Blessings!
