A couple months ago one of the blogs I follow (can’t remember which) touted a new commentary on the “Song of Songs.” It was claimed to be a wonderful cross between allegory and reading as intended. After all, Origen and Philo had gone too far with allegory and we need to get back on an even keel.
Titled, “Song of Songs: A Biblical-Theological, Allegorical, Christological Interpretation,” by James M. Hamilton, I finally finished reading it this week. And was very disappointed with it.
I understand previous allegories virtually limited the text to be about either God and Israel or Christ and the Church. As a new believer over 40 years ago I could never make sense of it other than as poetry about lovers—real people (I’ve always been a fan of poetry). I found it to be totally nonsensical if taken as an allegory as claimed.
Anyway, in this commentary all stops have been pulled out. Not only does it allegorize to God and Israel and Christ and the Church (as well as keeping the story about lovers), this author found some sort of allusion or allegory in almost every line of the Song! I think Hamilton has a very, very over-active imagination, struggling too much to make his allegories and allusions!
Just one example: Chapter 7:7-8 talks about her stature being like a palm tree that he’s going to climb for its fruit; try to follow if you can:
“The poetic allusion in view here stems from the fact that the word rendered ‘palm tree’ in Song 7:7-8 is made of the same consonants and vowels as the name Tamar, a name familiar from Genesis 38 and 2 Samuel 13. In Genesis 38 Judah used his daughter-in-law Tamar as a prostitute, a gross perversion of God’s intention for marital intimacy. In 2 Samuel 13 Amnon seized Tamar, his sister, and raped her (cf.2 Sam. 13:11,14), another twisted corruption of God’s good gift. Neither prostitution nor rape should feature in the history of the people of God. These horrors would be associated with the name Tamar, and these wrongs will be set righting the Song. Here in Song 7:7-8, the King approaches a ‘Tamar,’ a palm tree, and he says that he is going to ‘lay hold of its fruit (Song 7:8). In this context, a context celebrating renewed intimacy in marriage, the King taking the fruit of his tree accomplishes the overwriting of a bad file. The King has conducted himself in horn and righteousness where Judah and Amnon were shameful and unrighteous.
“In Song 7:7-8, the King also once again draws on terms and imagery used for the land of promise to describe the Bride [all the way through SoS he does this - every description for the Bride is imagery from the promised land or the Garden of Eden]. The ‘clusters of the vine’ are reminiscent of the famous ‘cluster of grapes’ that the spies of the land brought back in Numbers 13:23. The King will enjoy the fruit the Israelites were too timid to take. Not only is the King approaching his ‘Tamar’—the palm tree—in righteousness where Judah and Amnon used their Tamars in unrighteousness, the King’s palm-tree-Bride willingly gives herself in 7:10-13, saying that she wishes he were ‘like a brother’ in 8:1. The Bride wishing the King were a beloved brother again engages the distorted brother-sister relations between Amnon and Tamar, overlaying negative connotations with positive.”
This was the type of “allusion” or “imagery” used for almost every passage. It was enough to make me want to pull my hair out! This was the most convoluted commentary I have ever read!
What can I recommend for a good commentary on SoS? I have three I like, all of which stick to the idea of this being a poem about lovers only—no allegory!
Biblical Lovemaking: A Study of the Song of Solomon, by Arnold Fruchtenbaum
The Book of Romance: What Solomon Says About Love, Sex, and Intimacy, by Tommy Nelson. I did write a comment in the front of this book: “There are a lot of assumptions about what is going on and why, beyond what Scripture says. It doesn’t change anything, though. It would be better if the author said, ‘This is probably what he’s thinking’ or ‘probably what’s happening is, rather than dogmatically declare it.”
The Song of Songs: A New Translation, by Ariel Bloch and Chana Bloch. This one is done by non-believing scholars, who do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. They often talk of “myth,” “legend,” etc and “non-literal translation.” There are also some confusing areas where they mix the narrative, but that’s easily sorted. They also don’t consider it about a bride, but just a lover. Most of the liberal theological garbage you have to wade through is the first chapter, which is sort of an introduction to what the story is about and different ideas, yada yada. Then you have their translation, followed by their commentary. The primary problem is they think this is not a marital situation, but overall they have some very interesting reading to be had in their commentary.
So there you have it: of four specific commentaries I’ve read, I cannot recommend the latest. It will make you dizzy trying to follow all the allusions and allegories!
