Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1989, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1-19.

            Copyright © 1989 by Andrews University Press. Cited with permission

 

 

THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY IN THE SONG OF SONGS:

                           RETURN TO EDEN

 

                               RICHARD M. DAVIDSON

                                     Andrews University

 

            “For in all the world there is nothing to equal the day on

which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the writings

are Holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.”1 Such was

the vision of the exalted importance of the Song of Songs as

purportedly expressed by Rabbi Aqiba at the Council of Jamnia

(ca. 90 A.D.). According to tradition, Aqiba's speech helped confirm

the Song's place in the canon of Scripture.

 

                        1. Allegorization of the Song of Songs

 

            Unfortunately, the speech did not equally serve to confirm a

lofty conception of sexuality. Even the Jewish rabbis, with their

basically healthy and robust view of sexuality, apparently had great

difficulty seeing how what seemed to be a purely secular love song

could be included in the sacred canon. Therefore they adopted and

developed an elaborate allegorical interpretation of the Song which

downplayed the literal sense in favor of a hidden, spiritual mean-

ing. When Aqiba said the Song of Songs was the Holy of Holies,

what he probably had in mind was that the Song was a detailed

allegory of the historical relationship between the Divine Presence

(the Shekinah in the Holy of Holies) and the people of Israel from

the Exodus to the coming of the Messiah.2 Thus, Aqiba warned

against taking the Song of Songs only as a human love song: "He

 

    1 Mishnah, Yadaim III, 5.

    2 See Marvin Pope, Song of Songs, AB (Garden City, NY, 1977), pp. 89-112, for a

detailed description of the development and content of the normative Jewish in-

terpretation of the Song of Songs as pioneered by Aqiba and found full-flowered in

the targum to the Song of Songs. In the latter the following historical periods

appear to be the allegorical referents of the major divisions:

            1. Exodus and Entry into Canaan-Cant 1:2-3:6.

            2. Solomon's Temple-Cant 3:7-5:1.

            3. Sin and Exile-Cant 5:2-6:1.

                                                                        1



2                                  RICHARD M. DAVIDSON

 

who trills his voice in the chanting of the Song of Songs and treats

it as a secular song has no share in the world to come."3

Christian allegorists went even further than the rabbis: They

not only downplayed, but rejected the Song's literal sense alto-

gether. Influenced by the pagan Greek philosophies (i.e., Platonic

dualism, stoicism, and the Hellenistic-Roman cults), they posited a

dichotomy between things of the flesh and things of the spirit.

Purity was associated with sexual renunciation, and all expressions

of bodily pleasure--including sexual expression--were considered

evil. In the Song of Songs all erotic imagery was allegorized as the

yearning of the soul for union with God, or an expression of

Christ's love for his church. As by allegory the Greek philosophers

had succeeded in transforming the sensuous gods of Homer and

Hesiod into ethereal, spiritual ideals, so the celibate church theo-

logians were "able by allegory to unsex the Sublime Song and

make it a hymn of spiritual love without carnal taint."4

Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), one of the foremost Chris-

tian proponents of the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation,

wrote a 10-volume commentary of nearly 20,000 lines on the Song

of Songs. In the prologue he warned that the Song of Songs is safe

reading only for mature persons no longer troubled by sexual

desires: "I advise and counsel everyone who is not yet rid of the

vexations of flesh and blood and has not ceased to feel the passion

of his bodily nature, to refrain completely from reading this little

book and the things that will be said about it."5 Origen further

pleads: "We earnestly beg the hearers of these things to mortify

their carnal senses. They must not take anything of what has been

 

            4. Rebuilding of Temple-Cant 6:2-7:11.

5. Roman Diaspora and Coming of Messiah-Cant 7:12-8:14.

(See Pope, pp. 95-101, for a detailed analysis.)

    3 Tosephta Sanhed XII, 10, quoted in Roland K. Harrison, Introduction to the

Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI, 1969), pp. 1054-1055. William E. Phipps,

Recovering Biblical Sensuousness (Philadelphia, 1975), p. 47, alternatively argues

that Aqiba is opposed to the use of Canticles as a "vulgar" or "bawdy" song outside

of the context of marital love.

     4 Pope, p. 114. For a discussion of medieval allegorizing of the Song of Songs

and samples of the specific exegesis, see pp. 112-124, and passim.

     5 R. P. Lawson, trans., Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies,

Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 26 (Westminster, MD, 1957), pp. 22-23, quoted in

Pope, p. 117.



THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY                                 3

 

said with reference to bodily functions but rather employ them for

grasping those divine senses of the inner man."6

For fifteen centuries the allegorical method held sway in the

Christian church, and the Song of Songs became "the favorite book

of ascetics and monastics who found in it, and in expansive com-

mentaries on it, the means to rise above earthly and fleshly desire to

the pure platonic love of the virgin soul for God."7

During these 1,500 years only one church leader of stature

dared to protest against the allegorical interpretations. Theodore of

Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428) asserted in his commentary that the Song

should be understood according to its plain and literal sense--as a

love song in which Solomon celebrates his marriage. This view

was considered so radical that even his student, Bishop Theodoret,

considered Theodore's literal interpretation "not even fitting in the

mouth of a crazy woman."8 The Second Council of Constantinople

(553) anathematized Theodore and condemned his views as unfit

for human ears.

The allegorical interpretation of Canticles continued its dom-

inance in Roman Catholicism until very recently and was also

generally accepted among Protestant scholars until the nineteenth

century. Luther, though breaking formally with the allegorical

method, still criticized those who attempted to interpret the song

literally.9 The Westminster Assembly in the seventeenth century

censured blasphemous Presbyterians who "received it as a hot

carnal pamphlet formed by some loose Apollo or Cupid."10 John

Wesley wrote to his Methodist followers that

 

    6 Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs, 1.4, quoted in Phipps, p. 51. So,

e.g.,

the kiss of Christ = the Incarnation

the cheeks of the bride = outward Christianity, good works

the golden chain = faith

spikenard = redeemed humanity

hair like flocks of goats = nations converted to Christianity

navel of the Shulamite = cup from which God gives salvation

the two breasts = the OT and NT

     7 Pope, p. 114.

      8 Johannes Quasten, Patriology (Utrecht, 1966), 3:540, quoted in Phipps, p. 59.

     9 Jaroslav Pelikan, ed. Luther's Works (St. Louis, MO, 1972), 15: 192-195; cf.

Phipps, pp. 57-58.

     10 Westminster Assembly, Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New

Testaments (London, 1951), 1: n.p., quoted in Phipps, p. 58.



4                                  RICHARD M. DAVIDSON

 

the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not

with decency be used or meant concerning Solomon and Pharaoh's

daughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to

them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore

follows that this book is to be understood allegorically concerning

that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his

church.11

 

2. The Literal Interpretation of the Song of Songs

 

The allegorical interpretation still has its representatives,12 but

fortunately it is no longer anathema (at least in most circles) to

interpret the Song according to its plain and literal sense. The

break with the traditional allegorical view was foreshadowed in

John Calvin. The Reformer maintained that Canticles is both

inspired by God and a song of human love. The English Puritan

Edmund Spencer seems to have been among the first to concur with

Calvin, and two centuries later the German Romanticist J. G. von

Herder also interpreted the Song as a natural expression of human

love.13 Since the time of Herder a number of novel interpretations

of the Song have arisen, attracting some adherents;14 but in recent

decades "there has been a notable trend toward the interpretation

of the Song of Songs as human love poetry."15 Although diverging

in a number of significant details, contemporary interpreters gen-

erally do not feel constrained to "unsex the Sublime Song." H. H.

Rowley, after a thorough review of the Song's hermeneutical his-

tory, gives a judgment consonant with the literal interpretations of

Theodore, Spencer, Herder, and in harmony with today's prevail-

ing scholarly assessment: "The view I adopt finds in it nothing but

what it appears to be, lovers' songs, expressing their delight in one

 

     11 John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (Bristol, Eng.,

1765), 3: 1926, quoted in Phipps, p. 58.

     12 See, e.g., A. B. Simpson, The Love-Life of the Lord (Harrisburg, PA, n.d.),

and the notes in the Jerusalem Bible.

     13 See Phipps, pp. 59-61; Pope, pp. 126-127; 131-132.

     14 For details on the various dramatic and dream theories, cultic/liturgical

interpretations, wedding-week theory, etc., see Pope, pp. 133-192, and Harrison,

Introduction to the OT, pp. 1052-1058.

     15 Pope, p. 192.



THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY                                 5

 

another and the warm emotions of their hearts. All of the other

views find in the Song what they bring to it."16

If one interprets the Song according to its plain and literal

sense, then it must be concluded that one whole book of the OT is

devoted to celebrating "'the dignity and purity of human love."17 A

whole book extolling the beauty of human sexual love! How could

Scripture more forcefully proclaim that human sexuality is not

cheap, ugly, and evil, but beautiful, wholesome, and praiseworthy!

 

3. The Song o f Songs, the Garden o f Eden,

                        and the Nature of Sexuality

 

In the Song of Songs we have come full circle, in the OT, back

to the Garden of Eden. Several recent studies have penetratingly

analyzed and conclusively demonstrated the intimate relationship

between the early chapters of Genesis and the Song of Songs.18 In the

"symphony of love," begun in Eden but gone awry after the Fall,

Canticles constitutes "love's lyrics redeemed."19 Phyllis Trible sum-

marizes how the Song of Songs "by variations and reversals creatively

actualizes major motifs and themes" of the Eden narrative:

Female and male are born to mutuality and love. They are naked

without shame; they are equal without duplication. They live in

gardens where nature joins in celebrating their oneness. Animals

remind these couples of their shared superiority in creation as

well as their affinity and responsibility for lesser creatures. Fruits

pleasing to the eye and tongue are theirs to enjoy. Living waters

replenish their gardens. Both couples are involved in naming;

both couples work.... Whatever else it may be, Canticles is a

commentary on Gen. 2-3. Paradise Lost is Paradise Regained.20

 

    16 H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testa-

ment (London, 1952), p. 233.

    17 E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI, 1949),

p. 336.

    18 See especially Phyllis Trible, "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,"

JAAR 41 (1973): 42-47; idem, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia,

1978), pp. 145-165; Francis Landy, "The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden,"

JBL 98 (1979): 513-528; and idem., Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity and Difference in

the Song of Songs (Sheffield, Eng., 1983), pp. 183-265.

     19 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 144.

     20 Idem, "Depatriarchalizing," p. 47.



6                      RICHARD M. DAVIDSON

 

The Song of Songs is a return to Eden, yet the lovers in the

Song are not to be equated with the pre-Fall couple in the Garden.

The poetry of Canticles reveals the existence of a world of sin and

its baleful results:: There are the angry brothers (1:6), the wet winter

(2:11), the "little foxes that spoil the vineyards" (2:15), the anxiety

of absence from one's beloved (3:1-4; 5:6-8; 6:1), the cruelty and

brutality of the watchman (5:7), and the powerful presence of death

(8:6). Yet the lovers in the Song are able to triumph over the threats

to their love.

In parallel with Gen 2:24, the Song depicts the ideal of "wo-

man and man in mutual harmony after the fall."21 The theology of

this inspired reflection and elucidation of the divine ideal for post-

Fall sexuality may be discussed under the major subheadings that

emerged in my treatment of sexuality in Gen 1-2 in a previous

article.22

 

Sexuality Is Good

First, underlying the entire Song is the same high doctrine of

creation that forms the backdrop for biblical wisdom literature in

general.23  Without explicitly mentioning that God "has made every-

thing beautiful in its time" (Eccl 3:11), the author describes the

beauty of God's handiwork made during the six days of creation

week in the lovers' natural surroundings: brilliant light, fountains

and springs, many waters, mountains and hills, pastures and vine-

yards, trees and flowers, sun and moon, birds and animals.24 Like-

 

    21 Ibid., p. 48.

    22 See Richard M. Davidson, "The Theology of Sexuality in the Beginning:

Genesis 1-2," AUSS 26 (1988): 5-24.

    23 The majority of scholars represented, e.g., by James Crenshaw, ed., Studies in

Ancient Israelite Wisdom (New York, 1976), p. 5, would exclude Canticles from

discussion of wisdom literature; but Roland E. Murphy, The Forms of the Old

Testament Literature, vol. VIII: Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles,

Ecclesiastes, Esther (Grand Rapids, MI, 1981), p. xiii, argues that although not

technically wisdom literature, the Song "emphasizes values which are primary in

wisdom thought (cf. Prov. 1-9)." Murphy, ibid., cites a number of scholars who are

becoming "open to ascribing the preservation and transmission of these poems

[Canticles] to the sages of Israel." For a discussion of the doctrine of Creation in

wisdom literature, see, e.g., Crenshaw, Studies, pp. 22-35.

    24 The six days of Creation are profusely represented:

1. Light: "flashes of fire" (8:6) of YAHWEH--cf. below, p. 18.



THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY                                 7

 

wise, sexuality is assumed to be a creation ordinance, given by God

for man to enjoy.25 In lofty love lyrics "the voices of the Song of

Songs extol and enhance the creation of sexuality in Gen. 2."26

 

Sexuality Is for Couples

Secondly, the man and woman are a duality, as in the be-

ginning--a lover and his beloved. Hypotheses which suggest a

lovers' "triangle" in the Song, with a rustic shepherd and King

Solomon vying for the same Shulamite, are not convincing.27

Furthermore, recent studies provide strong evidence for the unity of

the Song, rather than its being a collection of unrelated love poems.

Roland Murphy points to recurring refrains, themes, words, and

phrases;28 J. Cheryl Exum analyzes numerous structural indications

of "a unity of authorship with an intentional design";29 Michael

Fox elaborates on four factors that point to a literary unity: (1) a

network of repetends (repetitions), (2) associative sequences, (3) con-

sistency of character portrayal, and (4) narrative framework;30 and

William Shea seems to clinch the case for unity by his persuasive

 

   2. Water and air: springs of fresh water, fountains or wells, many waters,

        wind (North and South)

   3. Land and vegetation: mountains and hills (Lebanon, Amana, Senir,

       Gilead, Hermon, Carmel); pastures, vineyards (Ein-Gedi); trees (palm,

        cedar, pine, apple, fig, pomegranate, nuts); fragrances (nard, saffron, cala-

        mus, cinnamon, frankincense, myrrh, aloes); etc.

   4. Luminaries: sun, moon

   5. Birds (and fish): turtledoves, ravens

   6. Animals (and man): gazelles, young stags, hinds of the field, flocks of

       goats, sheep, lions, leopards, etc.

   25 See below, pp. 18-19, for a discussion of the divine origin of love in the Song.

   26 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 145.

   27 The "Shepherd" hypothesis argues for three characters: the Shulamite, her

shepherd-lover, and King Solomon, who carries the Shulamite by force to his harem

and, after unsuccessfully attempting to seduce her, allows her to return home to her

rustic lover. This view (popularized by H. Ewald and accepted by S. R. Driver, C. G.

Ginsburg, and many others) is discussed (with major proponents) and critiqued in,

e.g., Harrison, Introduction to the OT, p. 1054; cf. Pope, pp. 136-141.

     28 Roland E. Murphy, "The Unity of the Song of Songs," VT 29 (1979): 436-443.

     29 J. Cheryl Exum, "A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs,"

ZAW 85 (1973): 47-79.

     31 Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs

(Madison, WI, 1985), pp. 209-222.



8                      RICHARD M. DAVIDSON

 

demonstrations of an overarching chiastic structure for the entire

Song.31  It is in a unified song, therefore, that the love relationship

between a couple--man and woman--is extolled and celebrated.

 

Sexuality Is Egalitarian

Third, the lovers in the Song are presented as equals in every

way. Canticles "reflects an image of woman and female-male rela-

tions that is extremely positive and egalitarian."32 The keynote "of

the egalitarianism of mutual love"33 is struck in Cant 2:16: "My

beloved is mine and I am his." The Song of Songs begins and

closes with the woman speaking. The woman carries the majority

of the dialogue (81 verses to 49 for the man)." She initiates most of

the meetings and is just as active in the lovemaking as the man.

Likewise, she is just as eloquent about the beauty of her lover as he

is about her. The woman also is gainfully employed as a shep-

herdess and vineyard keeper. In short, throughout the Song she is

"fully the equal of the man."35 As in Gen 2, she is man's "part-

ner . . . , ‘the one opposite him.’"36

            Feminist readings of the Song of Songs have tended to argue

for a reversal of the divine judgment given in Gen 3:16, so that the

"Return to Eden" in Canticles means the recovery of the pre-Fall

male-female relationship.37 However, attempts to contrast the "re-

covery of mutuality" in the Song with the "male power" of Gen

3:1638 misconstrue both the nature of the divine judgment and the

meaning of mutuality. In my discussion of Gen 3:16 in a previous

article,39 I set forth evidence that God's judgment was prescriptive,

 

     31 William H. Shea, "The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs," ZAW 92

(1980):378-396.

     32 Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Women (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 92.

     33 Ibid.

     34 The count may vary, depending upon the interpretation of the sometimes

ambiguous first-person statements.

     35 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 161.

     36 Foster R. McCurley, Ancient Myths and Biblical Faith: Scriptural Transforma-

tions (Philadelphia, 1983), p. 101.

      37 See especially Trible, "Depatriarchalizing," p. 46; idem, God and the Rhetoric

of Sexuality, pp. 159-160.

     38 Ibid.

     39 Richard M. Davidson, "The Theology of Sexuality in the Beginning: Genesis

3," AUSS 26 (1988): 121-131.



THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY                                 9

 

not simply descriptive. It did not portray the perverted use of male

power that would result from sin, but rather it gave the divine

normative pattern for the achievement of true mutuality after the

Fall. This pattern did not nullify the full equality ("one-fleshness")

between husband and wife set forth in Gen 2:24, since the latter

verse, as we noted, is specifically addressed to post-Fall conditions.

Yet in the context of sin, God appointed the husband to "rule"

(masal)--in the sense of "protect, love, care for," rather than "subju-

gate, coerce, tyrannize"--as a blessing for the maintenance of union

and preservation of harmony within the marriage setting.

In the Song of Songs, as we have already noted, the voices

repeatedly speak of post-Fall conditions which impinge upon the

couple's relationship. The way of "woman and man in mutual

harmony after the fall"40 is likewise portrayed in imagery conso-

nant with the divine norm given in Gen 3:16. Note in particular

Cant 2:3:

As an apple tree among the trees of the wood,

            so is my beloved among young men.

With great delight I sat in his shadow,

            and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

 

Francis Landy has not failed to catch the intent of the imagery:

The apple-tree symbolizes the Lover, the male sexual function in

the poem; erect and delectable, it is a powerful erotic metaphor. It

provides the nourishment and shelter, traditional male roles--the

protective Lover, man the provider....41

 

Cant 8:5 seems to continue the apple tree/protector motif:

Who is that coming up from the wilderness

            leaning upon her beloved?

Under the apple tree I awakened you....

 

Thus the Song of Songs has recovered the true "lyrics" of the

"symphony of love" for post-Fall sexual partners. In the garden of

Canticles the divine plan for man's post-Fall role in the sexual

relationship--masal, "to protect, love, care for"--is restored from

its accumulated perversions and abuses outside the Garden of Eden.

 

40 Trible, "Depatriarchalizing," p. 48.

41 Landy, "The Song of Songs," p. 526.



10                    RICHARD M. DAVIDSON

 

That this masal is the "rule" of love and not tyrannical power is

made explicit in the Song by attributing to the man the "strong

desire" (tesugah) which is connected with the woman in Gen 3:16.

As in the divine judgment God promises to the woman that still

"Your desire (tesugah) shall be for your husband," now in the

Song the woman says, "I am my lover's and for me is his desire

(tesugah)" (7:10). She thus joyfully acknowledges the mutuality of

love that inheres in the ideal post-Fall relationship even as she is

leaning upon, and resting under the protecting shadow of, her

lover.

 

Sexuality Is Related to Wholeness

Closely related to the motifs of equality/mutuality, we note,

fourthly, the concept of wholeness in sexuality. That concept is

highlighted by "one of the key themes in the Song"--"the presence

and/or absence of the lovers to each other."42 Throughout the

Song the fact of physical closeness is obviously important as the

lovers speak and cling to each other: "His left hand is under my

head, and his right arm embraces me" (2:6; 8:3). Even more sig-

nificant is the feeling of loss and anxiety in the partner's absence.

Already in Cant 1:7 the desire of the beloved for, a rendezvous with

her lover is clear ("Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you

pasture your flock ... ?" ), but the motif reaches its zenith at the

matched sections of the chiasm43 in which the dreaming woman

searches anxiously for her lover:

Upon my bed at night

I sought him whom my soul loves;

I sought him but found him not....

"Have you seen him whom my soul loves?"44

I opened to my beloved,

but my beloved had turned and gone....

 

 

     42 Roland E. Murphy, "A Biblical Model of Human Intimacy: The Song of

Songs," in Concilium: Religion in the Seventies, vol. 121: The Family in Crisis or

in Transition, ed. Andrew Greeley (New York, 1979), p. 63.

     43 See Shea, pp. 388-389, 396, for structural analyses of the dream sections (3:1-5;

5:2-8).

     44 Cant 3:1-3 (cf. vss. 1-5).



THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY                                 11

 

I sought him, but found him not;

I called him, but he gave no answer.45

 

The absence motif serves to heighten the meaning of presence.

Lovers need each other to be whole. In the Song man and woman

each appears as an individual--capable, independent, self-reliant--

and at the same time they have become "bone of one's bone, flesh

of one's flesh."

 

Sexuality Is a Multidimensional Relationship

From the aspect of wholeness and solidarity we are led to a

fifth insight into the nature of sexuality: Paradisiacal sexual love

means a multidimensional relationship. The relational symphony

of the sexes in the Song of Songs is a "live performance" of the

"score" set for them in Gen 2:24. As in Gen 2 man "leaves" (i.e., he

is free from all outside interferences in the sexual relationship), so

in Canticles the lovers are unfettered by parental prearrangements46

or political promises." They are in love for love's sake alone. They

are free for the spontaneous development of an intimate friend-

ship.48 In the freedom from outside interferences the couple may

find mutual attraction in the physical beauty49 and inward character

qualities50 of each other.

 

     45 Cant 5:6 (cf. vss. 2-8).

     46 Numerous references in Canticles are made to the mothers of the lovers (1:6;

3:4, 11; 6:9; 8:1, 2, 5), indicating the closeness of ties that continue between parent

and son (3:11)/daughter (3:4; 8:2). But in all of this there is nothing of the parents'

interfering with the lovers' freedom of choice and action. Thus both the fifth

commandment and the "leaving" of Gen 2:24 are upheld.

     47 I concur with F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes

(Grand Rapids, MI, n.d.), p. 3, that according to the most natural reading of the

text, the Shulamite is not the daughter of Pharaoh (as maintained by many), but "a

country maiden of humble rank, who by her beauty and by the purity of her soul,

filled Solomon with a love for her which drew him away from the wantonness of

polygamy, and made for him the primitive idea of marriage, as it is described in

Gen. 3:23ff., a self-experienced reality."

      48 The Shulamite is considered as close as a sister by her lover (4:9; 5:1; etc.), and

she in turn can say of him, "This is my beloved and he is my friend" (5:16).

     49 For a discussion of the mutual, frank, and erotic expression of praise for each

other, see below, p. 17.

     50 See Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek (New York, 1960),

pp. 77-89, for a discussion of how the imagery used in praise of bride and groom in



12                                RICHARD M. DAVIDSON

 

As in the Genesis model, in which man and woman are to

"cleave" to each other in a marriage covenant, so the Song of

Songs climaxes in the wedding ceremony. The chiastic structure of

the unified Song reveals a symmetrical design focused upon a

central section which describes the wedding of Solomon and his

bride.51  Cant 3:6-11 clearly portrays the wedding procession of

Solomon "on the day of his wedding" (3:11). What follows in Cant

4:1-5:1 appears to encompass the wedding ceremony proper.52 Only

here in the Song does Solomon address the Shulamite as his "bride"

(kallah, 4:8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 5:1).53 The groom praises the bride,

paralleling the Arab wasf of modern village weddings in Syria.54

Following this come the central two verses of the entire chiastic

structure of the Song (4:16, 5:1), which seem to be the equivalent to