Song of Songs: Love and Covenant Imagery

Introduction

The Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon or Canticles) is the Bible’s most sustained celebration of human love and desire. The Song contains no explicit mention of God (except a debated reading in 8:6), no cult, no history, no law; it is an anthology of love lyrics centering on a woman and a man who seek, find, lose, and find each other again (Longman, 2001). Because it praises eros in Scripture’s canon, the Song has provoked a long reception history—from Jewish and Christian allegories of divine-human love to modern readings that foreground mutuality, agency, and embodiment (Exum, 2005; Hess, 2005). Many do not consider it to be inspired but instead suggest that it was included in the cannon as an example of Hebrew poetry and because it is attributed to King Solomon.

This article treats the Song as wisdom-inflected love poetry whose imagery and structure resonate with Scripture’s covenant grammar. Without collapsing the Song into an allegory, we will show how its garden, vineyard, and marital motifs can be seen as echoing Israel’s covenant story (creation, exodus, land, temple) and anticipate the Bible’s eschatological marriage themes. We will also explore genre and authorship, ancient Near Eastern parallels, poetics, central motifs (mutuality, desire, time, exclusivity, jealousy), theology and canon, and reception in Jewish and Christian traditions, before closing with teaching practices and competency goals.

Authorship, Date, and Genre

Who wrote the Song?

The superscription—“The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s” (1:1)—can mean “for,” “about,” or “in the style of” Solomon. Many scholars see the heading as a royal attribution that frames the collection within Solomonic wisdom traditions rather than as a literal authorial claim (Longman, 2001). Internal evidence (female lead voice, northern toponyms, rural imagery) and linguistic features point to post-exilic editing of earlier materials, yielding a finely crafted anthology (Hess, 2005; Garrett & House, 2004).

What kind of literature is this?

The Song is lyric love poetry, closely akin to Egyptian and Mesopotamian love songs in imagery and mood—doves, lilies, gardens, intoxicating fragrance, and praises of the beloved’s body (Fox, 1985; Keel, 1994). Yet the Song is distinctly Israelite in diction and wisdom orientation (e.g., the refrain “do not arouse or awaken love until it pleases,” 2:7; 3:5; 8:4)—a pedagogical note on timing, restraint, and ripeness (Longman, 2001; Hess, 2005).

Is It Inspired Scripture?

Some argue that Song of Songs is indeed inspired and is meant as an allegory illustrating God’s relationship with his people. Showing that the same love that exists between a man and a woman is a kin to that love which God feels for his people. Others suggest that Song of Songs is not inspired. They argue that it is an example of ancient Hebrew poetry that ended up in the cannon simply due to the fact that it is attributed to Solomon. That it follows the style and literary patterns of the Old Testament without carrying any of its weight or instructional value.

Poetics and Structure: How the Song Sings

Poetic features

The Song delights in parallelism, refrains, and catalogues. It uses metaphors of terroir—vineyards, pomegranates, figs, saffron, nard—and animal imagery—gazelles and does—to eroticize creation (Keel, 1994). Vision is tactile and olfactory; smell is a theologically charged sense (oils, myrrh) because desire is diffusive and contagious (Exum, 2005). The Song’s signature rhetorical move is “comparative praising”: “Your eyes are doves… your hair is like a flock of goats” (4:1), which is not zoological literalism but poetic intensification—a world rendered radiant by love (Alter, 2015).

The female voice and the “I/You/We” grammar

Roughly 60% (or more) of lines belong to the woman, who drives the narrative through search songs (3:1–4; 5:6–8), waking dreams, and bodily self-description. She addresses the man directly, the “daughters of Jerusalem”, and at times her own inner self (Exum, 2005). This female-forward poetics breaks stereotypes: she initiates, invites, refuses, waits, and consents. The grammar of “I/you/we” performs mutual recognition—love as reciprocal subjectivity rather than possession (Hess, 2005; Longman, 2001).

Macro-shape (one helpful map)

Scholars propose various outlines; one pedagogically helpful map sees five movements threaded by recurring refrains:

1. Longing and Invitation (1:2–2:7) — Desire is awakened; refrain cautions timing.

2. Springtime and Seeking (2:8–3:5) — The lover’s voice, “Arise, my love”; first night search; refrain repeats.

3. Royal Procession and Bridal Praise (3:6–5:1) — Solomon’s litter; two wasf (body-praise poems); consummation (5:1).

4. Loss and Recovery (5:2–7:10) — Second search interrupted by violence; renewed praise; mutual belonging refrains (“I am my beloved’s…”).

5. Homecoming and Sealed Love (7:11–8:14) — Vineyard/home motifs culminate; love’s seal “as strong as death.”

This outline highlights the Song’s spiral movement—from desire to union, loss to renewed union, toward a climactic seal (8:6–7) (Garrett & House, 2004; Longman, 2001).

Central Motifs

1) Garden and Eden echoes

The Song’s garden (gan), fountain, and river imagery (4:12–15) evoke Eden (Gen 2), reframing erotic love as a creational good. The beloved is a “garden locked”—privacy and exclusivity with joyful invitation (4:12, 16). The man enters and eats its fruits (5:1), a counter-image to Genesis 3: love’s feast without transgression (Keel, 1994; Longman, 2001). This Edenic register makes eros not a concession to weakness but a blessing to steward.

2) Vineyard and covenant stewardship

“Vineyard” functions both literally and metaphorically. The woman laments brothers who forced her to keep their vineyards while her own was neglected (1:6)—a social critique about labor and agency. Later she declares, “My very own vineyard is mine to give” (8:12), asserting bodily sovereignty and covenantal consent (Exum, 2005; Hess, 2005). In 2:15 “little foxes” threaten vineyards—external forces (jealousy? intrusion? haste?) that can spoil love before it ripens.

3) Mutuality, equality, and agency

Three “mutual belonging” refrains punctuate the Song:

• “My beloved is mine, and I am his” (2:16),

• “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” (6:3),

• “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me” (7:10).
  The movement is subtle—from possessional symmetry to self-gift and received desire. The final form centers the woman’s security and delight (Exum, 2005). The male gaze is present but answered by the female gaze; each names and praises the other, converting desire into mutual recognition (Hess, 2005).

4) Time, restraint, and ripeness

Three times the woman adjures the “daughters of Jerusalem”: “Do not arouse or awaken love until it pleases” (2:7; 3:5; 8:4). This refrain is wisdom’s brake on impatience. Love is seasonal (2:10–13)—a spring that should not be forced. The Song therefore blesses eros while demanding discernment about timing, context, and consent (Longman, 2001; Garrett & House, 2004).

5) Jealousy and inextinguishable love (8:6–7)

The climax declares: “Set me as a seal upon your heart… for love is strong as death, jealousy fierce as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, a very flame of YH…” (textually debated; many read “a flame of the LORD”). Waters cannot quench this love; wealth cannot buy it. Here eros becomes covenantal—exclusive, enduring, unpurchasable. The seal imagery (heart/arm) signifies identity and public belonging (Pope, 1977; Longman, 2001).

6) Body-positive imagery and praise (the wasf)

Two extended wasf poems (4:1–7; 7:1–9) praise the beloved’s body from head-to-breast (hers) and feet-to-crown (hers again). The language is metaphor-rich and non-pornographic; it dignifies bodies as glories, not commodities. Desire speaks poetically, not exploitatively, modeling honor-saturated erotic speech (Exum, 2005; Alter, 2015).

Ancient Near Eastern Parallels

The Song shares motifs with Egyptian love songs (New Kingdom): siblings as lovers (a conventional endearment), garden feasting, perfumes, and dawn partings. It also resembles Mesopotamian sacred marriage hymns in tone, though the Song lacks cultic markers (Fox, 1985; Keel, 1994). These parallels show that erotic lyric was a known high art; Israel’s distinctive contribution is to canonize such poetry without sacralizing promiscuity or fertility rites—eros within covenantal virtue (Longman, 2001; Hess, 2005).

The Song within Wisdom and Canon

Wisdom orientation

Among those who argue that Song of Songs is inspired, it is suggested that as a wisdom book, the Song instructs not by maxims but by forming desire. Its refrains about timing, its mutuality, and its ordering of eros align with the wisdom aim to cultivate fittedness—life lived in tune with God’s creational grain (Longman, 2001).

Canonical echoes and covenant imagery

• Creation/Eden: Garden, water, animals, and restful delight re-imagine Genesis 2 unfallen companionship (Keel, 1994).

• Exodus/Land: Vineyard/land motifs resonate with Israel’s inheritance; love’s vineyard becomes a personal promised land entrusted for faithful stewardship (Hess, 2005).

• Temple/Presence: The language of fragrance and myrrh overlaps priestly diction, hinting that the beloved’s presence is “sanctuary-like”—not by allegory, but by associative poetry that sees all creation as sacramental under love (Pope, 1977).

• Prophets/Covenant: Prophets sometimes use marriage to depict covenant (Hos 1–3; Jer 2–3). The Song, by contrast, normalizes faithful eros—depicting what Hosea longs for: uncoerced mutuality and delight.

• Eschatology: Later Scripture speaks of Zion as bride (Isa 62), and the marriage supper (Rev 19). The Song’s seal (8:6–7) anticipates indissoluble union, ultimately transfigured in eschatological imagery—not because the Song is “secretly” apocalyptic, but because marriage and love are canonical figures of communion (Longman, 2001).

Allegory, Typology, and Literal Sense: A Balanced Reading

Jewish allegory

Jewish tradition often reads the Song as YHWH and Israel—the exodus, Sinai, wilderness, and temple woven into love-lyrics. Rabbinic midrash and the Targum spiritualize details while preserving the Song’s festival role at Passover (Pope, 1977). Allegory protected the text’s sanctity in communities wary of erotic literalism.

Christian allegory and mystical readings

Early Christians (notably Origen) allegorized the Song as Christ and the Church or Christ and the soul, generating a vast mystical tradition (Bernard of Clairvaux preached 86 sermons on 1:1–3:1). Allegory drew on Eph 5:25–33 and Rev 19–22, reading the Song as the grammar of communion (Origen, 1957/—ACW; Bernard, 1971–80).

Modern consensus and integrative hermeneutic

Most modern scholars insist the Song is first love poetry about human lovers (Longman, 2001; Exum, 2005; Hess, 2005). Yet a canonical-theological reading can honor the literal sense while recognizing that Scripture elsewhere uses marital love as a covenant figure. The Song thus functions paradigmatically: rightly ordered eros mirrors and trains the affections for rightly ordered covenant love—without collapsing one into the other (Garrett & House, 2004; Longman, 2001).

Ethical and Theological Implications

1. Eros as creational good. The Song dignifies desire; it is neither prudish nor pornographic. It orders desire toward mutual self-gift, exclusivity, and delight (Exum, 2005; Longman, 2001).

2. Mutuality and consent. The woman’s agency (“my vineyard is mine to give,” 8:12) models consent and bodily stewardship; love is freely given and received.

3. Time and patience. The refrain warns against premature arousal—wisdom’s call to ripeness (Hess, 2005).

4. Jealousy and covenant. Love’s jealousy is fierce because covenantal devotion excludes rivals (8:6–7), echoing exclusive loyalty in covenant ethics.

5. Speech that blesses. The wasf teaches honorable, artful praise—language that builds rather than objectifies (Alter, 2015).

6. Public joy and privacy. The Song oscillates between public chorus (daughters of Jerusalem) and private garden, training communities to celebrate marital joy and protect intimacy.

Difficult Texts and Debates

• Violence in 5:7. The watchmen strike the woman during her nocturnal search. Readers debate whether this reflects social danger, a dream logic, or structural warning about vulnerability (Exum, 2005). The scene underscores the world’s risk and the need for communal protection of love.

• 8:6 divine name? Is “flame of YH” original? Many manuscripts support a divine superlative (“a God-flame”), intensifying love’s transcendent force (Pope, 1977; Longman, 2001).

• Solomon’s role. Is he the male beloved? The text often distances itself from Solomon’s polygamy (e.g., critiquing ‘sixty queens’ in 6:8–9 while exalting the one beloved). The Song elevates exclusive mutuality over royal accumulation (Hess, 2005; Garrett & House, 2004).

Reception and Use

Jewish liturgy

The Song is read at Passover, linking spring, exodus freedom, and love’s renewal. Medieval Jewish commentators (e.g., Rashi) pursued national-covenant readings while still cherishing the text’s poetry (Pope, 1977).

Christian devotion

Patristic to medieval Christianity mined the Song for mystical theology (Origen; Bernard), monastic spirituality (affections ordered to Christ), and marital catechesis (love as covenant). Modern churches who view the book as inspired increasingly preach the literal sense—celebrating marriage and sexuality as creational gifts—while drawing typological lines to Christ’s self-giving love (Longman, 2001). Many other modern churches do not consider the book to be inspired.

Teaching and Formation

1. Voice distribution exercise. Have students color-code speakers, noticing the female lead. Discuss implications for mutuality and agency.

2. Imagery lab. Build a lexicon of garden/vineyard/spice/animal metaphors; explore Eden echoes and covenant stewardship.

3. Refrain workshop. Track the three “do not awaken love” adjurations. Ask: What in our culture are the “little foxes” (2:15) that spoil love’s ripening?

4. Wasf composition. Students craft a non-objectifying encomium of a spouse/fiancé using Song-like poetics (no private details), practicing honorable speech.

5. Reception seminar. Read brief excerpts from Origen and Bernard alongside Exum or Longman. Compare allegorical and literal strengths and risks.

6. Pastoral ethics module. Pair 8:6–7 with marriage liturgy; discuss jealousy as covenant zeal vs. possessiveness, and consent/boundaries (8:12).

Case Study: Reading 8:6–7 as Covenant Poetry

• Seal (ḥōtām): identity/ownership mark worn on heart (inner self) and arm (public action).

• Jealousy (qinʾāh): covenant exclusivity; positive zeal when ordered, destructive when distorted.

• Unpurchasable: “If a man offered all the wealth of his house for love, he would be utterly despised.” Love is gift, not commodity.

• Waters: all-quenching chaos cannot extinguish covenant love—resurrection resilience within the human sphere.
  Read canonically, these lines resonate with divine steadfast love while remaining human eros on the page (Pope, 1977; Longman, 2001).

Competency Goals

By the end of this unit, students should be able to:

• Identify the Song’s genre as lyric love poetry and explain its ANE parallels without erasing its Israelite distinctives (Fox, 1985; Keel, 1994).

• Analyze core motifs—garden, vineyard, mutuality, refrain of timing, jealousy/seal—and articulate how they order eros toward covenantal exclusivity and mutual self-gift (Exum, 2005; Hess, 2005).

• Explain balanced hermeneutics: literal sense first, with canonical-theological resonances (creation/Eden, land/vineyard, temple/fragrance, prophetic marriage, eschatological bridal imagery) (Longman, 2001; Garrett & House, 2004).

• Evaluate reception traditions (Jewish and Christian allegories) appreciatively yet critically (Origen; Bernard; Pope, 1977).

• Apply the Song to pastoral ethics: consent, speech, timing, exclusivity, and community celebration/protection of marital love.

• Practice close reading of wasf poems, demonstrating how poetic praise dignifies bodies without objectification (Alter, 2015; Exum, 2005).

References

Alter, R. (2015). Strong as Death is Love: The Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel. W. W. Norton.

Exum, J. C. (2005). Song of Songs: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox.

Fox, M. V. (1985). The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. University of Wisconsin Press.

Garrett, D. A., & House, P. R. (2004). Song of Songs / Lamentations. Word Biblical Commentary (Vol. 23B). Thomas Nelson.

Hess, R. S. (2005). Song of Songs. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Baker Academic.

Keel, O. (1994). The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary. Fortress Press.

Longman III, T. (2001). Song of Songs. NICOT. Eerdmans.

Origen. (1957). The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies (R. P. Lawson, Trans.). Ancient Christian Writers 26. Newman Press. (Original work ca. 3rd c.)

Pope, M. H. (1977). Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. Doubleday.

Bernard of Clairvaux. (1971–1980). On the Song of Songs (D. Green, Trans.). Cistercian Publications. (Original sermons 12th c.)

(Origen and Bernard are cited for reception history; modern critical commentaries carry the exegetical weight.)