Skip to main content

Song of Songs 1:2-4: Desire

2Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine, 3your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is perfume poured out; therefore the maidens love you. 4Draw me after you, let us make haste. The king has brought me into his chambers. We will exult and rejoice in you; we will extol your love more than wine; rightly do they love you. (NRSV)
This is the first of my posts on specific passages of the Song. What you will primarily find is a discussion of metaphor and other literary elements. My goal is to bring out the force of the poetry (much like my posts on Galatians were attempting to bring out the force of Paul's arguments), to help it evoke in us the feeling that I believe the author intended, and in the process form our imagination (in my case reform) and the way we think about sex. I hope that we can replace our culture's dominant dialogue with the Scriptural dialogue.

After that initial discussion, each post will conclude with a reflection on the nature of the relationship, especially the power dynamics at play (I will justify why I am looking at this, particularly, in a later post).

The first section of the song (or first poem) is about desire, a desire so intense that it cannot be contained. It's a desire bred out of knowledge. The woman has experienced the lovemaking of the man and nothing compares.[1] It's experience intoxicates her, it overpowers her, engaging all of her senses. All she wants is to bring him quickly and become lost in him.[2] The effect on her is strong and it lingers like beautiful perfume.

The woman completely adores her beloved. Her descriptions of him are extravagant and exulted. She honors him and worships him as if he were a king, even Solomon. No one compares with him. Is she right to feel this way? She believes she is. Everyone must love her man.[3] She is lucky that she alone possesses him.

It's easy to see after reading this why both Jews and Christians resorted to allegory. It utilizes the language of worship. But (contra Davis), I don't believe that this type of language is inappropriate applied to ones lover. It's part of the royal metaphor that she utilizes. If only every married person felt this way about their spouse. There would be no need for divorce.

This portion of the Song challenges and at times conforms to our preconceived understanding of ancient Jewish culture. The woman has strong desire and it is permissible for her to express it. While we want to avoid generalizing too quickly, this may not be an exceptional case either. We have ancient Egyptian love poems expressing similar sentiments.[4] It may not have been a culture of complete male domination, even after it urbanized. Passion can run both ways and how beautiful it is when it does. Not only can she express her desire, but she does it in a way that initiates. She is not passive. However, it is still up to the man to make the decisive move. He is still in the ultimate position of power. She hopes the he will use it in a way that pleases her.

[1] The translation 'love' in all of the major translations is too ambiguous (so all of the commentaries I used). It is more literally caresses, and thus probably better translated lovemaking (an option only recognized by the HCSB, and then only in the footnotes).

[2] According to Exum, the shift from third person to second person in verse two may be an attempt to conjure up her lover through speech.

[3] I (following Murphy) take the shift from first person singular to first person plural to represent her assumption of how everyone feels. She's speaking for everyone.

[4]  See Fox for helpful and detailed comparisons between the Song and the ancient Egyptian love songs.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…