|
This is a text reader for the article below:
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Wednesday 3/11/26
Thru the Bible: Song of Solomon
Message Video Player
Message Audio Player:
Podcast: Download (Duration: 1:14:08 — 134.1MB)
The Admiration, Dreams & Fears of the Shulamite!
Song of Solomon 2
Tonight we are going to kick off with an exercise in literary analysis. It might sound like a bit out of your given expertise but you might be surprised how easy it can be.
Last week I told you that the Song of Solomon is all over the place in terms of chronology and that the entire book has only 5 speakers and that there are no prompts in the text to let you know when one person stops speaking and another starts or who they are talking to. So when you start reading, it is up to the one reading to determine who is speaking and who is being spoken to.
To make our study easier, I told you that as we worked through the book I would offer you what I called “lead-ins” to identify who was speaking to whom. Many translations have added them to aid the reader such as the NET, the NKJV, the ESV and the NIV just to name a few.
I don’t know if any of you were ever in theater in school or college or in a church production, but these are called “character cues”. These are written in bold letters on a script and give each character their cue to say their lines.
If this was a dramatic script for a theater play these would be called “character cues”. “Character cues” act as silent prompts to indicate who is speaking. They are often capitalized and precede the dialogue a character is to read in the script.
In my preparations for teaching this book, I determined to reference these “character cues” supplied by these translations, but only after I had determined for myself who was speaking – if possible. So far, I have enjoyed perfect agreement with them.
As we open chapter 2 tonight, we begin with a verse that for some reason people have been confused as to who is speaking. Translators seem to agree, but the church at large seems divided on the issue. It seems abundantly clear who is speaking to me – not by the words in this first verse, but by the words found in verse 2 which replies to verse 1.
So… for our little exercise, I will read these first two verses without the “character cues” and let you determine who is speaking to whom.
Now the reason for this exercise is so that you will be better able to understand why I have made the decisions I have regarding the first verse. In the end, it really is not that important, and yet as an exercise in studying scripture it is a great little chestnut. Because by misinterpreting this verse, entire books, poems, essays, sermons and songs have been written which quite honestly don’t make any sense in light of what the verse is actually saying.
To conduct our exercise, you need only to remember that the person who was last speaking in chapter 1 was the Shulamite in response to Solomon calling her “lovely” or “beautiful” and her possessing “dove eyes”.
This was a pretty clear indicator that Solomon was speaking to the Shulamite by the word “lovely” and the descriptive phrase “doves eyes” since these were words used to describe Jewish brides not grooms.
Additionally her reply in verses 16 & 17 have her calling him “handsome” which is a Hebrew word for “beauty” but which have both feminine and masculine forms. In this verse, the masculine singular form was used which is what one would have done in Hebrew to use the word for a man.
As you can see, we have rather good indicators of who is speaking in many cases.
Now as we turn the page to begin chapter 2, we need to understand that the last speaker was Shulamite and that the chapter divisions do not necessarily indicate a change in speaker.
So, let’s read Song of Solomon 2:1,2 and I will let you determine who is speaking to whom in each verse.
Song of Solomon 2:1-2,
“(1) I am the rose of Sharon, And the lily of the valleys.”
“(2) Like a lily among thorns, So is my love among the daughters.”
As you can see, the first verse isn’t necessarily sufficient to identify who is speaking, but the second verse, being a response to verse 1 makes it clear these verses are spoken by separate people. Being in the first person and being descriptive it must be Solomon and the Shulamite who are speaking.
But what clue is found in verse 2 that helps identify who is speaking to whom in these verses?
The phrase “So is my love among the daughters” – identifies Solomon as speaking to the Shulamite which makes verse 1 her words to him.
So…now we know who is speaking in verse 1.
Since it is true that the Song of Solomon is illustrative of the Lord Jesus and His bride the church – we know that the ‘Lily of the Valleys” and the “Rose of Sharon” cannot be speaking about Jesus, but are about the bride – the church.
Well this has a direct impact on how these words are to be understood both as a love poem between Solomon and his bride but an even greater impact on our understanding of Jesus and His bride.
What cued me off to this little problem was attempting to look up information about these flowers. It was difficult to study out since there is SO MUCH embellishment surrounding the flowers and these embellishments are due to attributing them to Christ instead of the Shulamite.
After more study that should have been required to weed out the academic from the fanciful, I determined that the flowers mentioned here are two different varieties mentioned side-by-side not for comparing contrasting features, but due to the qualities they both share.
First off, the word “rose” itself is an English affectation of the Hebrew word Solomon actually used which was crocus or meadow-saffron. It was NOT what an English reader would understand as a “rose”. It refers most likely to a plant or flower of the genus asphodel and of the lily family – thus the comparison with a lily of the valley(-s).
As such, both this meadow flower from Sharon and the lilies from the valleys were both common flowers of the field.
The land of Sharon was a crucial, highly fertile coastal plain used by King David for grazing his royal herds. Located between Mount Carmel and Joppa, it was managed by Shitrai the Sharonite, one of David’s high-ranking officials responsible for agricultural resources, marking it as an important location for sustaining the royal livestock. The combination of low sandy hills and swampy lowlands produced heavy vegetation and an abundance of wild flowers in the area. [See 1 Chronicles 27:29] So these flowers were pretty, but nothing extraordinary and they were so abundant as to be commonplace.
Might I suggest that there is NOTHING common about Jesus!
Historically these were used in ancient poetry to represent humble beauty.
So what is happening here is obscured a little by the chapter division, but this was a reply of honest modesty from the Shulamite to Solomon’s emphatic statement regarding her beauty.
She was essentially saying that while she may be pretty, her beauty is common enough. By comparing it to a crocus of Sharon or a common valley lily she was representing her beauty as nothing extraordinary.
Thus verse 2 makes all the more sense, in that Solomon, in the warmth of his affection, denies the commonality of her beauty, insisting that she as much surpasses all other maidens of Jerusalem in beauty as a lily of the valley does a bramble bush.
So you can readily see that all of this was, in the end, not very important of a statement. However, working through it helps me do my job well – part of which is to help you learn how to be a student of the Word and study for yourself. To help you identify errors and embellishments which lead to misunderstandings.
As misunderstandings go, this one is pretty tame, but it is wrong none-the-less.
It is also timely since, Easter is soon approaching and associated closely with Jesus and His resurrection is the Easter Lilly.
While the Easter Lilly is in no way connected to this crocus mentioned in Song of Solomon, it is often superficially connected in sermons, songs and conversation among Christians since the beginning of the 19th century when Easter Lilies first became a thing.
The “rose of Sharon” and the “Lily of the Valley” are spoken of in connection with Christ as though they are unique in their splendor and beauty while the complete opposite is true. If this were intentional (which I know it isn’t) it would represent a type of defamatory statement against Christ – calling Him “common” which is another word for “unholy”.
So my point here is NOT that the comparison is actually doing any damage. People are protected from the damage by means of their ignorance of what these flowers were and what they represented – but it also distorts their understanding of the Song of Solomon by attributing both verses 1&2 to Solomon, which clearly cannot be true.
Song of Solomon 2:1-17,
“(1) I am the rose of Sharon, And the lily of the valleys.”
(2) The Lover to His Beloved: Like a lily among the thorns, so is my darling among the maidens.
(3) The Beloved about Her Lover: Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. I delight to sit in his shade, and his fruit is sweet to my taste.”
This was the Shulamite’s way of returning Solomon’s compliment about the uniqueness of her beauty.
You see, “apple trees” (and apricot trees which are the other possibility) were not native to Palestine and so they had to be imported and properly cultivated. So to find such a cultivated fruit tree growing in the forest among other wild trees would truly be amazing and would catch the eye – which was part of the point of this poetic statement she was making about Solomon. He stands out as uncommon among other men and that is how her compliment echoes his statement about her. They both see each other as unique in character and external attractiveness.
Furthermore, ancient Near Eastern love literature often referenced the apple tree as a symbol for romantic love and sexual fertility. So this was a suggestive statement about his attractiveness to her and her sexual desire for him as well. She was saying he stands out in the crowd of all men and her desire was to him alone.
This point is driven home all the more by the use of the words “I delight” – which is a rather tame English fit for the Hebrew word חַמד ḥāmaḏ used here.
To illustrate this, the tenth commandment prohibits desiring to the point of coveting, such as a neighbor’s house, wife, or possessions in Exodus 20:17 and that is the word used here – only not in a forbidden context, but only as an expression of intense pleasure or strong affection. It goes beyond simple desire to deep satisfaction. It is used here to describe a positive, but deeply affectionate, and wholesome delight and desire.
The word “shade” was often used metaphorically for protection or refuge. Here it is likely used as a respite – almost like she described him as a Henna blossom cluster in the oasis of the En Gedi back in chapter 1.
The rest of the comment places these verses as a post marital comment. There really is no honest PG version of this, but I will present you with the most conservative interpretation possible.
In ancient love poetry, specifically the Song of Solomon, fruit is used to represent the beauty of the beloved, sensual desire, and sexual intimacy.
To “taste” of something means to partake of it.
To call it “sweet” means to take pleasure in it.
So the Shulamite is saying that she takes pleasure in their times of physical intimacy.
This could be something as PG as kisses and non-sexual caresses to about as far as one’s imagination could take them so I will leave that to you. However, the next verses approach the steamy in terms of romantic expressions of marital love.
“(4) The Beloved about Her Lover: He brought me [Bring me! – M & LXX] into the banquet hall, and he looked at me lovingly. (5) Sustain me with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, for I am faint with love.
“(6) His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me.” – this last statement is a double refrain including both the embracing and a request to be embraced.
A double refrain is a poetic or musical device featuring two distinct, repeating lines or phrases that recur throughout a poem or song.
The verse reads: “His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me” (NKJV, NIV) or “Let his left hand be under my head, and his right hand embrace me“ (NASB, RSV). Both translations are appropriate and perhaps intended.
In like manner there are variations of verses 4 & 5, but none really alter the meaning to any significant degree.
- The phrase “he brought me” could also be “Bring me”.
- “Banquet hall” could be translated as “vineyard” or “house of wine”.
- “He looked at me lovingly” could be translated as “his banner over me was love” or even “his intention towards me [was] lovemaking.”
“Sustain me” and “refresh me” are good word choices for meaning and they could be either an address to all those in the banquet hall OR due to its intensive sense could be taken as spoken to an individual. I believe it is an adaptation of both.
The phrase “house of wine” could be understood as either the wedding banquet hall OR the winepress building or wine cellar located within a vineyard. So each translation will often choose which of these they believe the text was referring to.
I believe this to not be a clandestine meeting in her family’s vineyard wine press building, but a grand entrance into the celebratory banquet hall at the beginning of the 7 day wedding feast.
So I envision this as the bride is making a statement to all the guests, to enter into the festivities in this banquet through food, wine and refreshment supplied by her lover, that she will enjoy in his person both during the banquet and throughout their lives together.
“Raisin cakes” have quite the sordid history with Israel, often connected with their wayward hearts in their unfaithfulness to God in desire of pagan deities – where they were a type of cultic offering. But even in times when the prophets would chastise them for their love of pagan “Raisin cakes”, it served as a dual-reference for marital infidelity since in ancient Israel they were viewed as enhancing sexual fertility.
Hosea 3:1 (NKJV): “Then the LORD said to me, ‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the LORD for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans'”.
So it was that “raisin cakes” were also eaten in Jewish wedding feasts in honor of the newly wed couple. Not only celebrating their love, which had just been consummate prior to the feast, but also as something which increases fertility.
So in this way it was almost a type of wish that their union would be fruitful!
The use of the imagery of “apples” draws upon two motifs associated with “apples“.
The context says she is “love sick” or said perhaps more appropriately she is “faint” or “overcome” with love. One gets the modern idea of being “weak in the knees”. So the fact that the “apples” were viewed as medicinal in ancient Syro-Palestinian customs where the mere scent of them was said to have reviving properties would fit as a remedy for her being “faint” with love.
Additionally, apples were considered an aphrodisiac in the ancient Near East.
Both motifs are combined here because the Beloved is “love-sick” and only the embrace of her beloved can cure her, as verse 6 indicates.
It does also indicate strong sexual desire. It is used figuratively as a hyperbolic hypocatastasis which I know you all immediately understand.
A “hyperbolic hypocatastasis” is a rhetorical device that combines an implied, direct-replacement comparison with an extreme exaggeration. It works by completely omitting the subject being described and replacing it with a heavily exaggerated noun to create a vivid, intense, or humorous, but not literal, image.
To illustrate…
While a metaphor might say “You are a beast,” and a simile might says “You are like a beast,” a hypocatastasis simply calls the person “Beast!”
So a hyperbolic hypocatastasis goes further like calling someone a “garbage disposal” to describe how fast they consume food.
That is the literary device being used here. Apples are representing her being so consumed with sexual desire that it sapped her physical and emotional strength. She was “overcome” and “faint”.
This is commonly referred to as “love-sickness.” It was used this way in 2 Samuel 13:2 to describe how Amnon was overcome with a passionate desire for Tamar.
As it is used here in Song of Solomon, I believe it to be a more tame expression since I believe it to be an announcement from the bride to their guests at the wedding feast, but no doubt it served a dual purpose communicating something more sensual between the newly weds.
Verse 6 is possibly only referring to her lover’s embrace. In the ancient Near East, the embrace of a lover was poetically mentioned as the only cure for “love-sickness”. And such would offer us a PG version of the above, but it is most likely that the words to the guests were conservative, but they were slyly suggestive of more to her lover.
I don’t know about you, but I found this embrace suggestive of a couple slow dancing, since the scene is the wedding feast – but such dancing is not mentioned in ancient texts associated with Jewish weddings. Those dances were typically separated into gender segregated groups and were typically communal circle dances.
That all of this may be more a daydream of their wedding could be hinted at by snapping back into the present and telling her bride’s maids the following…
“(7) The Beloved to the Maidens: I admonish you, O maidens of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the young does of the open fields: Do not awaken or arouse love until it pleases!”
Other alternatives include:
- A flashback on her wedding day to something she would instruct her bride’s maids concerning their future engagement period.
- Something she said to her bride’s maids at the wedding feast to encourage them in their future engagement periods.
- It may also be a charge to do nothing to aggravate and stir up her passions for her lover before he comes for her, since the longing it would excite would be unbearable.
This phrase “Do not awaken or arouse love until it pleases!” has been used out of context to teach some very good and necessary lessons to the young, to parents and society at large. It should come as no surprise that this is a reference to romantic, passionate and sexual love. The admonition is to not stir it up prematurely.
In today’s world this is done all the time, and everywhere one looks.
As a result young and unwed pregnancies are not only at a record high, they are the norm.
Young men and women’s hormones are triggered very early in life so that they reach sexual maturity considerably earlier than would be typical biologically.
This is attributed to several factors:
- Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in plastics and pesticides
- High-stress levels
- AND social exposure to sexual stimulation in dress, expectations and entertainment
are all potential contributors to this earlier onset.
This has of course, negative spiritual and moral impacts but it also has potential health and social impacts.
Earlier maturation is associated with higher risks of long-term health issues, including cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and psychological distress.
So even if this phrase has been taken out of context, it is good advice to NOT awaken love until it pleases!
Here the use of Gazelles and young does are as a zoomorphism for the personification of love. In other words, the witness of this oath between the Shulamite and her bride’s maids is “love” itself. Should they violate this vow, “love” itself would hold them accountable.
This is another example of the chiastic structure of this book, because while we began with loving praise between the two lovers, and then progressed to the newlywed’s wedding feast, now we are back to the moment the groom came to retrieve his bride.
The Shulamite in excitement stirs her bride’s maids to their stations at the approach of her groom!
“(8) The Beloved about Her Lover: Listen! My lover is approaching! Look! Here he comes, leaping over the mountains, bounding over the hills! (9) My lover is like a gazelle or a young stag. Look! There he stands behind our wall, gazing through the window, peering through the lattice.”
“Gazelles” and “young stags” often symbolize the longing and ardent pursuit between lovers and that is fitting for what she is saying of her coming groom.
Since it is generally accepted that this is the wedding procession, where Solomon came to take the Shulamite back to his father’s house for the wedding, all of this language has to be metaphorical. It would nearly have to be anyway, since there would be nothing dignified about a king peeping through a window and if he were to do so, he would hardly announce it.
So this is undoubtedly the wedding procession cloaked in illustrative imagery.
As you know, in Jewish weddings, the groom would return for his bride after having prepared her wedding chamber. It was an unannounced event which was typically about a year after the engagement.
The groom and groomsmen would come suddenly at night to “steal away the bride” along with her bridesmaids. She was placed in a Paliquina, which was a type of decorative carriage carried by the men.
From time to time the groom would “seek a peak” at his bride, lifting her veil to stare at her face. This was a tradition which dated back to the time following Jacob’s having been deceived into marrying Leah before Rachel who he thought he had married. It was done in good fun to the delight of all involved.
“(10) The Lover to His Beloved: My lover spoke to me, saying: “Arise, my darling; My beautiful one, come away with me! (11) Look! The winter has passed, the winter rains are over and gone. (12) Blossoms have appeared in the land, the time for pruning and singing has come; the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land. (13) The fig tree has ripened its figs, the vines have blossomed and give off their fragrance. Arise, come away my darling; my beautiful one, come away with me!”
This is the recounting of the event from the perspective of the Shulamite. His words regarding her are loving and endearing.
The “winter” here is the time of their betrothal where there was longing for each other due to the physical distance between them.
This has now passed and the time of their union was at hand – which is represented by images of spring!
The call is to the joys and fruitful prosperity of “spring” – which so often is used to depict marital love.
“Turtledoves” were wild doves, known for their cooing and their affectionate ways of behaving toward one another – thus its reference here.
The use of the “fig tree” and the “blossomed vines” were also a depiction of spring, new life and abundance. To possess both was considered ideal in Israel which may also be in view here.
“(14) The Lover to His Beloved: O my dove, in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places of the mountain crags, let me see your face, let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely.”
This is another Jacob reference as well as a year long desire being fulfilled. I can tell you that a young groom cannot get enough of his bride’s face. It is the most beautiful thing in the world to him!
“(15) The Beloved to Her Lover: Catch the foxes for us, the little foxes, that ruin the vineyards – for our vineyard is in bloom.”
Earlier in chapter 1, the Shulamite referred to her personal appearance as an unkept “vineyard”, but here the reference is to “our vineyard”. So this is likely a reference to the beauty of their love which is about to be brought together in marriage.
I’ve long used this illustration since it is a good one.
Foxes were a continual problem in the vineyards of Israel and they had to be warded off lest the crop be ruined one grape at a time. But of particular danger were the little foxes. Since the grapes hug high from the ground, the little foxes could not reach the fruit. So they would gnaw at the base of the plant until it fell over which allowed them access to the grapes. So while the large foxes were a nuisance, the little foxes posed true danger to the vineyard itself!
So what is its connection here in this seemingly celebratory procession from her family home to her new home with her beloved – where they will wed?
Well, as you know, sometimes when we desire something really strongly, the closer the event gets, the more unspoken and even unrealized fears will crop up, seeking to ruin the enjoyment of the moment and the excitement of anticipation. It is a type of self-sabotage to which humans are particularly prone. It is my belief that verse 15 may perhaps be an unguarded exclamation of latent fears of the bride that even now, when their love being ratified in marriage was imminent, something may still thwart their union. Perhaps even her brothers who earlier we saw were unhappy with her, but this is unlikely given something said by them later in the book. Such fears are often irrational, but they are real to the one experiencing them nonetheless!
“(16) The Beloved about Her Lover: My lover is mine and I am his; he grazes among the lilies.”
The word “grazes” is רָעה rā‛āh and among other similar meanings, carries the notion of pasturing or keeping company among. Since the Shulamite depicted herself earlier as a “lily” it seems likely that this is a statement of her now being his “home”.
“(17) The Beloved to Her Lover: Until the dawn arrives and the shadows flee, turn, my beloved – be like a gazelle or a young stag on the mountain gorges.”
The “day dawning” and the “shadows fleeing” are further indicators of her desires and fears. The “day dawning” would represent their union being complete and the “shadows fleeing” would be the quelling of her fears that something may still hinder their long awaited union!
As we said back in verse , “Gazelles” and “young stags” often symbolize the longing and ardent pursuit between them so that the bride is essentially saying “do not stop your pursuit of me – in bringing me to your father’s house for marriage, until we are finally one”!
Depictions of our union to Christ:
The entire chapter is filled with adoration, love, longing-desire, mutual appreciation of each other’s beauty and winsomeness.
There is both a highly private and intimate aspect of this couple’s love but also one which is enjoyed and even celebrated in community at the wedding feast.
There is preparation, anticipation, excitement and even love sickness. Desires to see each other, embrace and be embraced and a longing to know and be known.
Like all true stories, this one has a villain called “time”, depicted as “winter” and “shadows” during which, in particular, the bride’s love is tested, and she has to be careful with her heart.
All of this comes to a head when the groom comes to retrieve his bride. There is excitement, singing, dancing, flirtive glances and fun.
Don’t let a single aspect of this escape your thoughts as you consider that these are depictions of Jesus’ love for us and ours for Him!
Scripturally, the one primary example which also serves as a reminder of what Jesus actually said, as opposed to what people (and even translations) represent Him as saying, is found in verses 8-9.
In ancient Jewish weddings, the bridegroom would often come to the bride’s house unexpectedly at night to claim her. This was described as coming like a “thief in the night” to “steal” her away to his home.
The bride was expected to be waiting and ready for this sudden, unannounced arrival.
So often the words Jesus spoke regarding His return are translated as “behold I come quickly” from His statement in Revelation 22:7, 12 & 20 and this has been the unfortunate wording adopted by the majority of the church. This has caused both a general disillusionment among Christians since this was spoken 2,000 years ago and by the lost who speak derisively against the reliability of Christ’s promise to return.
But in reality that Greek word ταχύ tachú (takh-oo’) means “suddenly” NOT “quickly” – which is why Paul & Peter described it as “a thief in the night” in both 1 Thessalonians 5:2 & 2 Peter 3:10. This is the way they understood Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:27 & 43 where Jesus used the “thief” analogy Himself and later described the event as a lightning flash both in suddenness and speed.
Jesus also taught this through His various parables surrounding His return:
- Parables of Vigilance: He used stories like the ten virgins, the faithful/wicked servants, and the homeowner, emphasizing that the Master could return at any moment, catching people off guard if they are unprepared.
- Jesus compared His return to the “suddenness” of the destruction in the days of Noah with the flood and the days of Lot in the destruction of Sodom, where people were caught unaware while going about daily life (eating, drinking, buying, selling).
- He stated that just as lightning flashes from the east to the west, His return will be visible and instantaneous across the world. Again with the emphasis on its “suddenness”.
- Then Jesus clearly stated that no one knows the exact day or hour, not even the angels nor even Himself, but only the Father.
- He described His return as a moment of immediate separation, with one person being taken and another left, stressing the need for immediate readiness.
So it was with the retrieval of the bride by the groom and so it will be with Christ when He returns for us!
So a big takeaway from this chapter is similar to Sunday’s message to live with an active, excited anticipation of His return by both getting and staying ready!
Blessings!
Blessings!
