(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
Luke 24:44-Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
By the time of Jesus, the Jewish people used the phrase, “the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,” to refer to the 39 Books of the Old Testament. By using this phrase, Jesus shows His acceptance of the Old Testament canon of Scripture. However, some have raised questions regarding the Book known as the Song of Solomon. This Book is filled with lots of sexually explicit language which some believe disqualifies it from being inspired of God. One gentleman I studied with who was a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known popularly as the Mormon church) told me that Song of Solomon was not inspired but was actually soft pornography inserted into the Bible.
Does the Song of Solomon belong in the Bible?
Let’s study.
We will begin by noticing just what the Song of Solomon is about. The Book is a type of ancient play that was used by the Jewish people to describe the beauty of the God-approved marriage. One Old Testament scholar tells us:
“The Shulammite was a young country maiden from the village of Shulam, located in the territory of the tribe of Issachar, where she lived with her mother and brothers. They assigned to her the care of the grapevines and nut trees that seem to have been somewhere near her village. She had a boyfriend, who was a shepherd, one to whom she hoped to be married to or engaged to be married to one day in the future….In addition to the Shulammite maiden, there are the following characters: a shepherd-boyfriend who is totally enamored with her; King Solomon, who also finds this maiden very attractive; the brothers of the Shulammite; the ladies of the harem of Solomon back in his palace; the women and citizens of Jerusalem; and a choir who occasionally joins in with their song about her. The final remarks in this poem are made by either Solomon or a sage….This commentary attempts to revive a view of this Song that two centuries or so ago was the dominant view—one that sees two male protagonists: King Solomon and the shepherd-boyfriend back home. Solomon, for all his wisdom, fails miserably to understand how strong and abiding is the commitment of love between a man and a woman whom God has brought together. Solomon thinks he can easily woo this girl with the promise of riches, perfumes, and the opulence of the palace. But this woman places very little, if any, value on those things, especially in comparison to the gift of marital love that comes from God. Here, then, is the point and the reason for including this Song in Holy Scripture. The gift of love and affection for a mate of God’s choosing is his choice gift.” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Love by the Book: What the Song of Solomon Says About Sexuality, Romance, and the Beauty of Marriage, 91-162 (Kindle Edition): Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press)
As such, the Book describes the beauty and sanctity of marriage. The Jewish people have long accepted it as inspired of God. Kaiser goes on to tell us:
“A famous quotation in the Jewish Mishnah counters any questions about the canonical status of the Song of Solomon: All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean.2 The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean. R. Judah says: “The Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, but about Ecclesiastes there is dissension.” R. Jose says, “Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean, and about the Song of Songs there is dissension.” … R. Simeon ben Azzai said: “I have heard a tradition from the seventy-two elders [the Sanhedrin] on the day they made R. Eleazar ben Azariah head of the college, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes both render the hands unclean.” R. Akiba said: “God forbid that it should be otherwise! No man in Israel ever disputed about the Song of Songs to suggest that it does not render the hands unclean, for all the ages are not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Writings3 are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.”4 The canonicity of the Song of Songs was accepted by many of the church fathers. For example, Hippolytus in the third century expounded Song of Solomon 3:1–4 at Easter. However, Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 429) incorrectly declared that neither Jews nor Christians should ever read the Song in public. Moreover, the reading of the Song was assigned to the eighth day of the Passover celebration, which Jews and Christians together celebrated by reading the Song of Solomon up to the time of Constantine.” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Love by the Book: What the Song of Solomon Says About Sexuality, Romance, and the Beauty of Marriage, 100-102 (Kindle Edition): Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press)
The Jewish people even read the Song of Solomon during Passover.
“First and foremost, the Song aims to teach the sanctity and beauty of marriage as God intended it. Secondly, in Jewish usage the Song served a national role in that it was read at the feast of the Passover.” (Norman Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, 3490-3483 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
There are at least two reasons why the Song of Solomon was worthy of canonical status.
First, the Song of Solomon powerfully displays the beauty and importance of marriage. In the ancient world, marriage was often considered a burden and a formality. The concepts of living together apart from marriage, as well as homosexual “marriage,” were popular and accepted in the ancient world. For example, one researcher has noted:
“In short, the evidence certainly suggests that some Roman men participated in wedding ceremonies with other men and considered themselves to be married to those men. While we might be tempted to dismiss the stories regarding Nero and Elagabalus as unfounded gossip concerning unpopular emperors, the fact remains that the ancient sources speak of Nero’s weddings, at least, as being publicly celebrated: this was not a case of malicious speculation regarding what went on behind the closed doors of the palace. Writing several decades after Nero’s death, neither Martial nor, for all the acerbic bombast of his language, Juvenal seems to expect his readership to react to the existence of marriages between males with a start of unfamiliarity: disapproval perhaps, but not shock. The speaker in Juvenal’s satire, while expressing a fear that the participants in such ceremonies will eventually want their weddings entered into the official registry (acta diurna), nonetheless imagines that, to those whose friends participate in them at any rate, such weddings are not particularly unusual, 8 while the comment that these men will some day want their weddings entered into the public record shows that this step was not being taken in Juvenal’s day. As a rule Martial and Juvenal appropriate actual practices in their satiric commentary on Roman society, and it seems that weddings between males, though certainly not officially sanctioned, were a feature of the social landscape, like (although perhaps less widespread than) such other practices as legacy-hunting, adultery, and oral sex, practices that these poets similarly used as fodder for satire. There is, in short, no compelling reason to doubt that Nero or Elagabalus actually engaged in the wedding ceremonies described in such evocative detail by ancient historians. 9”. (Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition, 280 (Kindle Edition): New York, NY: Oxford University Press)
In such a context of pagan belief and practice, the Song of Solomon powerfully communicates God’s ideal design for marriage and the family. Indeed, the Book clearly demonstrates that sex is not “dirty” or “unclean” as many religious people believe. Instead, the elegance and beauty of this display is powerfully set forth in the God ordained marriage (cf. Hebrews 13:4).
Second, the Song of Solomon provides a powerful allegory of the relationship between God and His people (which was later clearly elaborated upon by Paul as the mystery between Christ and His church in Ephesians 5:22-32). Many in our day and age do not want to acknowledge that there could be an allegorical image displayed in the Book. However, such a message is clearly seen, as has been attested to by God’s people throughout the ages. Israel (i.e., the church) is pictured as the Shulammite and her betrothed represents the Lord. King Solomon is an image of the world, trying to tempt God’s people away from the Lord. Will we be faithful to our first Love, or will be cave in to the pressure and follow the sway and influence of the world? Song of Solomon is a powerful reminder to us of the need to be faithful to the Lord, that we may enjoy full bliss with Him one Day.
Third, the Song of Solomon was considered canonical because it subtly yet powerfully pointed to the Messiah. Indeed, the Book is filled allusions to the Messiah Who would one Day redeem His bride.
“The Church has long viewed the Song of Solomon as an allegorical work about the Messiah and His love for the Church, much as Judaism has viewed it as an allegory for the God of Israel’s love for the people of Israel. With the contemporary rejection of allegorical interpretation, it has become far more common to view the book as a romantic song between human lovers. Nevertheless, Roland Murphy has concluded that “the eventual canonization of the work … can best be explained if the poetry originated as religious rather than secular literature.” 40 Therefore, James Hamilton has recently posited that “the Song of Songs is in the canon because it was written from a messianic perspective in order to nourish a messianic hope.” 41 Is it possible that this love song was written with the authorial intent to advance and explain the messianic hope?”…. “After demonstrating the development of this theme of intimacy recovered throughout the Song, Hamilton concludes by pointing out that Sg 7: 10 functions as a climax to the poem. 46 There it states, “I belong to my love and his desire is for me,” using the very word for “desire” that appears in Gn 3: 16 in the curse on the woman (“ Your desire will be for your husband and he will dominate you”). The word for desire (teshukah) is used only three times in the Hebrew Bible (Gn 3: 16; 4: 7; Sg 7: 10), the first two times referring to the alienation of the fall. The author of the Song appears to be making a direct allusion to the alienation found in the curse of Gn 3: 16. In Sg 7: 10 he seems to be saying that the Messianic King will ultimately reverse the curse on the woman. 47 As Hamilton writes, “This messianic interpretation of the Song … explains the Song’s presence in the canon and sheds light on how it exposits the Pentateuch’s messianism.” (Michael Rydelnik & Edwin Blum, The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, 130-131 (Kindle Edition); Chicago; Moody Publishers)
The Song of Solomon is a powerful Book that deserves its’ place in the canon of Scripture.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.