- Whom do you think was the Shulamite’s lover in the Song of Solomon?
Chapter 1, v.7, and 2:8 suggest that a shepherd who loves the freedom of the hills and mountains is the admirer of the fair lady who has been brought into Solomon’s chambers (1:4). Whether by way of royal favour, as she was a princess (7:1) or by design for himself, is not stated.
Chapter 2 poses him peering through the lattice to her in Solomon’s chambers, while both pine for the freedom of the fields and the company of each other.
Chapter 3 seems to suggest the identity of the shepherd with Solomon himself, but there are certain obstacles in the way to the acceptance of this. (1) Why does her lover call her away from the confinement of Solomon’s chambers when Solomon could have her at any time he chose if he showed such desire for her? (2) If the Shulamite is typical of the bride of Christ, why would Solomon’s queens be mentioned as well as the concubines of the palace in the narrative?
Perhaps a possible explanation of chapter 3 therefore, is that it begins in a dream of intimacy with her lover, then she awakes and finds that reality presents, instead of her heart’s desire, the securely guarded royal bed of Solomon as her only prospect so long as she stays a guest of royalty. The one she really loves is out feeding among the lilies. (Chapter 2:16).
Another problem is, why would she experience the pangs of disappointment at a vanished lover who was momentarily at the door before she opened it to him? (Chapter 5:4-6). Surely Solomon, Lord of his own palace, would not retire so soon from the presence of one of his virgins. Yet another who stealthily stole to visit his lost love could behave in this fashion if he were uncertain of his own chances of claiming her as his bride. It does not appear that up to this point of time she had been presented to the King. (See chapter 6:9).
- What do you think was the purpose of the Song of Solomon in the Jewish writings? (That is, as opposed to the purpose in our canon.)
If my proposed, yet tentative, explanation of the identity of the maiden’s lover is correct, (but I am still open to persuasion in this myself), it teaches the security of the open dangerous country where her lover abides so long as she is in his presence or within his grasp. It emphasises that security as distinct from the oppression of the foreboding walls of a palace from which she would flee when she could. It reveals the preference for the simple life to the oppressing suffocation of wealth and position that cannot offer true love.
Basically, it emphasises the security and contentment found in the simple things of life. It also honours the king inasmuch as he later saw fit to release the maiden to the favours of her lover in the open hills — surely an act of grace on behalf of the sovereign to his subject, which can be likened to the grace and mercy of God. It therefore prepares Israel for a glimpse at the grace to follow.
If the bride-to-be had skin literally black as suggested, it would demonstrate that not only Jews by nature befit the purpose of God. A naturalised Jewess, once a Gentile, being chosen as the centre of attraction, would have emphasised the lessons found in Rahab, Ruth and others. God’s favour is not only towards the Jew.
I think this is the kind of question that calls for other opinions. The questioner may have some of his own ideas in mind, or another reader may like to add to the thoughts already given.
The Solution