The safe position is to accept that this is another, much like the other writings in the Wisdom Literature, anonymous composition. The more important question is how has the Song been understood throughout history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The traditional Jewish interpretive stance has seen the Song as an allegory about the relationship between God and Israel, with the Man (Loved) standing in for God and the Woman (Beloved) standing in for Israel. This stance was embraced by early Christians, starting most notably with Hippolytus (AD 170-235). So concerned were the Church Fathers about the Song being misinterpreted that over 100 commentaries were written on the Song by AD 1200. Origen (AD 184-253), the Alexandrian Church Father, is the most notable commentator, as he authored 10 alone! Additionally, this stance has been common in Christian preaching. For example, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) preached 86 sermons on the Song but never made it out of chapter 2!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem with the allegorical view is that the Man abandons the Woman more than once in the poem. Can we imagine God abandoning us? If we adopt an allegorical view, I recommend the view postulated by Robert Williamson in his book The Lost Books of the Bible<\/em>: Reverse the roles and see Israel as the Man who lacks fidelity and God as the Woman who both waits at home and searches for the Man when he does not return home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the allegorical stance is not the only major interpretive stance. The editors of Codex Sinaiticus (AD 400) laid out the Song as a dramatized love story, first noting the characters of the Song. Although this stance has always been secondary to the allegorical stance, it was revised by Friedrich Jacobi in the eighteenth century and still finds adherents today (more on this below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the advent of text-critical approaches to Biblical study, such as literary and rhetorical study, new stances have popped up in scholarship, many of which offer a more practical interpretation of the Song. For example, Walter Kaiser sees the Song as focusing exclusively on marriage while Roland Murphy argues for understanding the Song as a festival orchestration much like the Songs of Ascent in Psalms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When it comes to the Song, the question of interpretation comes down to whether one sees it as a drama or a love poem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How can one understand the Song as a drama? On one hand, we can see the Song as a two-character drama. This is the stance taken by the NIV, as it seeks to ascribe \u201cspeaking roles\u201d to the Man\/Loved and Woman\/Beloved, while making editorial decisions on some of the more problematic passages like 1:8, 5:9, and 6:13, and assigning them to a chorus. On the other hand, we can see the Song as a three-character drama. This is the stance taken by Iain Provan in his commentary, where he sees a third character\u2014a shepherd boy\u2014wooing the Woman away from the Man through the \u201cSolomon\u201d passages mentioned above. As intriguing as this dramatic view is, it is not without some significant problems. First, there are some issues in assigning passages to the roles. Second, drama was not common in the Ancient Near East. Third, the Song shares more commonalities with Mesopotamian and Egyptian love poetry. And finally, there is the concern over sexualizing the Woman in Provan\u2019s approach, seeing her as potentially and intentionally promiscuous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How can one understand the Song as a love poem? As mentioned above, there is a commonality, mainly in language and syntax, between the Song and other Ancient Near Eastern love poetry, such as Poem 19<\/em> in Papyrus Harris 500, an Egyptian collection discovered in the nineteenth century. Additionally, Marcia Falk conducted an extensive study of the linguistic features of the Song, noting how the Song serves as a collection of short romantic poems held together loosely by a shared vocabulary rather than a narrative plot. Finally, Dave Bland has noted the \u201cconsistency\u201d in character development, imagery, and use of refrains, all components more common to poetry than drama (p. 405). Given the linguistic and grammatical similarities between the Song and the other books in the Wisdom Literature, this is the preferred interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We know the weekly grind of sermon prep is hard, whether you are in the midst of series or planning a new series. Trying to find key verses you need to highlight in your sermon, finding the historical background to the book, discovering the flow\/structure of book, and even figuring out what is the theme of each section.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLiterary Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Chart: Preaching Through Song of Solomon<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.christianitytoday.com\/pastors\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2026\/01\/chart-song-of-songs.jpg?w=640\")
<\/a>