Calvary Road Baptist Church
“A Survey Of Satanic & Demonic Warfare In The Song Of Solomon”
Song of Solomon
Our survey of Satanic and Demonic warfare brings us to the Song of Solomon.
Just like I reported to you regarding the book of Ecclesiastes, I have found nothing in the Song of Solomon and none of the reference books in my library that catalog such things suggesting any references to Satan or demonic activity in this book of the Bible. Therefore, my plan will be as before, to spend our time together surveying this book of the Bible, first by showing you the approach to interpreting the text in the past, the method that has come to be standard at present, and the heartbreaking tragedy the Song of Solomon implies within the context of the rest of the Bible.
First, COMMON APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING THE SONG OF SOLOMON IN THE PAST
Only two examples:
Dr. John Gill expressed the sentiments of many of his day when he wrote concerning this book,
“The whole is figurative and allegorical; expressing, in a variety of lively metaphors, the love, union, and communion, between Christ and his church; setting forth the several different frames, cases, and circumstances of believers, in this life.”[1]
Adam Clarke was somewhat better. After a lengthy discourse, he wrote,
“It is much better, therefore, if explained or illustrated at all, to take it in its literal meaning, and explain it in its general sense. I say general sense, because there are many passages in it which should not be explained, if taken literally, the references being too delicate; and Eastern phraseology on such subjects is too vivid for European imaginations. Let any sensible and pious medical man read over this book, and, if at all acquainted with Asiatic phraseology, say whether it would be proper, even in medical language, to explain all the descriptions and allusions in this poem.”[2]
Adam Clarke lightly touched on what John Gill and many others stayed entirely away from, the overtly sexual and profoundly graphic nature of the Song of Solomon. The divines in centuries past could not bring themselves to address the precise nature of the Song of Solomon, for the same reason observant Jews recommended the book not be studied by anyone under the age of thirty.[3] It can be a very provocative read for a husband and wife to deal with together.
The reality is that the Song of Solomon celebrates marital love at its best.[4] But that approach to interpretation was a bit too earthy for some back in the day.
Next, COMMON APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING THE SONG OF SOLOMON IN THE PRESENT
We are not nearly so modest as the believers of bygone days were, and that is reflected by the modern and less obscure approach to interpreting the Song of Solomon. That said, let me read introductory remarks found in three study Bibles.
I begin with The MacArthur Study Bible:
Title
The Greek Septuagint (LXX) and Latin Vulgate (Vg.) versions follow the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) with literal translations of the first two words in 1:1 - “Song of Songs.” Several English versions read “The Song of Solomon,” thus giving the fuller sense of 1:1. The superlative, “Song of Songs” (cf. “Holy of Holies” in Ex. 26:33,34 and “King of Kings” in Rev. 19:16), indicates that this song is the best among Solomon’s 1,005 musical works (1 Kin. 4:32). The word translated “song” frequently refers to music that honors the Lord (cf. 1 Chr. 6:31,32; Pss. 33:3; 40:3; 144:9).
Author and Date
Solomon, who reigned over the united kingdom 40 years (971-931 B.C.), appears 7 times by name in this book (1:1,5; 3:7,9,11; 8:11,12). In view of his writing skills, musical giftedness (1 Kin. 4:32), and the authorial, not dedicatory, sense of 1:1, this piece of Scripture could have been penned at any time during Solomon’s reign. Since cities to the N and to the S are spoken of in Solomon’s descriptions and travels both the period depicted and the time of actual writing point to the united kingdom before it divided after Solomon’s reign ended. Knowing that this portion of Scripture comprises one song by one author, it is best taken as a unified piece of poetic, Wisdom literature rather than a series of love poems without a common theme or author.
Background and Setting
Two people dominate this true-life, dramatic love song. Solomon, whose kingship is mentioned 5 times (1:4,12; 3:9,11; 7:5), appears as “the beloved.” The Shulamite maiden (6:13) remains obscure; most likely she was a resident of Shunem, 3 mi. N of Jezreel in lower Galilee. Some suggest she is Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kin. 3:1), although the Song provides no evidence for this conclusion. Others favor Abishag the Shunammite who cared for King David (1 Kin. 1:1-4, 15). An unknown maiden from Shunem, whose family had possibly been employed by Solomon (8:11), seems most reasonable. She would have been Solomon's first wife (Eccl. 9:9), before he sinned by adding 699 other wives and 300 concubines (1Kin. 11:3).
Minor roles feature several different groups in this book. First, note the not infrequent comment by “the daughters of Jerusalem” (1:5; 2:7; 3:5; 5:8,16; 8:4), who might be part of Solomon’s household staff (cf. 3:10). Second, Solomon’s friends join in at 3:6-11; and third, so do the Shulamite’s brothers (8:8,9). The affirmation of 5:1b would most likely be God’s blessing on the couple’s union. One can follow the narrative by noticing the suggested parts as indicated in headings throughout the song. Where possible variations are reasonable, they will be recognized in the study notes.
The setting combines both rural and urban scenes. Portions take place in the hill country N of Jerusalem, where the Shulamite lived (6:13) and where Solomon enjoyed prominence as a vinegrower and shepherd (Eccl. 2:4-7). The city section includes the wedding and time afterward at Solomon’s abode in Jerusalem (3:6-7:13).
The first spring appears in 2:11-13 and the second in 7:12. Assuming a chronology without gaps, the Song of Solomon took place over a period of time at least one year in length, but probably no longer than two years.
Historical and Theological Themes
All 117 verses in Solomon’s Song have been recognized by the Jews as a part of their sacred writings. Along with Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations, it is included among the OT books of the Megilloth, or “five scrolls.” The Jews read this song at Passover, calling it “the Holy of Holies.” Surprisingly, God is not mentioned explicitly except possibly in 8:6. No formal theological themes emerge. The NT never quotes Solomon’s Song directly (nor Esther, Obadiah, and Nahum).
In contrast to the two distorted extremes of ascetic abstinence and lustful perversion outside of marriage, Solomon’s ancient love song exalts the purity of marital affection and romance. It parallels and enhances other portions of Scripture which portray God’s plan for marriage, including the beauty and sanctity of sexual intimacy between husband and wife. The Song rightfully stands alongside other classic Scripture passages which expand on this theme, e.g., Gen. 2:24; Ps. 45; Prov. 5:15-23; 1 Cor. 7:1-5; 13:1-8; Eph. 5:18-33; Col. 3:18,19; and 1 Pet. 3:1-7. Hebrews 13:4 captures the heart of this song, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”
Interpretive Challenges
The Song has suffered strained interpretations over the centuries by those who use the “allegorical” method of interpretation, claiming that this song has no actual historical basis, but rather that it depicts God’s love for Israel and/or Christ’s love for the church. The misleading idea from hymnology that Christ is the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys results from this method (2:1). The “typological” variation admits the historical reality, but concludes that it ultimately pictures Christ’s bridegroom love for His bride the church.
A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality. To do so understands that Solomon recounts 1) his own days of courtship, 2) the early days of his first marriage, followed by 3) the maturing of this royal couple through the good and bad days of life. The Song of Solomon expands on the ancient marriage instructions of Gen. 2:24, thus providing spiritual music for a lifetime of marital harmony. It is given by God to demonstrate His intention for the romance and loveliness of marriage, the most precious of human relations and “the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7).[5]
Next, The Open Bible Edition of the NASB:
Name, Authorship, and Integrity. This book, belonging to the five, megilloth, or rolls, was annually read by the Jews on the eighth day of the Passover. The heading Song of Songs ( 1:1) is the literal translation of the Hebrew Shir hashshirim. Such a repetition of the noun is the Hebrew way of bringing out the special character of the Song: it is the best or most excellent of songs (cf. Gen. 9:25; Ex. 26:33; Eccl. 1:2).
Although the first verse of chapter 1 can also be read: “The Song of Songs which is about or concerning Solomon,” the traditional view has been to regard King Solomon as the author of the Song. Since the contents of the book is fully in harmony with the great gifts of wisdom which we know Solomon possessed (l Kin. 4:32,33), there is no sufficient ground to deviate from this historic position.
The unity of the book can hardly be seriously challenged. Similar refrains occur in 2:7; 3:5; 8:4; the imagery is the same throughout the book; and the same characters appear again and again.
Interpretation. As to its literary genre, the Song of Solomon is obviously a poem of love. The difficulty is how to interpret it. The following are some of the varied interpretations that have been advanced.
Allegorical. This was the interpretation common among the Jews from ancient times, and from them it has passed over into the Christian Church. The Jews regarded the Song as expressing the love relationship between God and his Chosen People. The Christian Church saw in it reflected love between Christ and the Church. Essentially this view has been advocated by Hengstenberg and Keil.
The dramatic view. The essence of this view as advocated by Franz Delitzsch, is that the Song is a drama representing Solomon as having fallen in love with a rustic girl, the Shulamite, whom he takes to his royal palace in Jerusalem. A particular form of this view, the shepherd hypothesis, intrudes into the Song a third character, a shepherd, to whom the Shulamite girl remains faithful despite the advances of Solomon.
The typical view. This view, too, holds that in the Song there is portrayed the great love between Christ and the Church; King Solomon being regarded as a type of Christ, and the bride as representing the Church. This view differs from the allegorical in that it tries to do justice to the actual language of the Song without seeking a special meaning in every phrase, as the allegorical view does.
The natural or literal view. The basic tenet of this view is that the Song is a poem extolling human love. From that point on, because of the inclusion of this book in the canon of Scripture, adherents of this view may differ widely as to the ultimate significance of this song of love. This commentary is construed on the assumption that the natural view is correct. Taking this approach, the canonical significance of the Song of Songs may be stated as follows.
(a) The book is called the “best of songs,” and understandably so. This is a song which Adam could have sung in Paradise when the Lord in His wise providence led Eve to him to be his wife. In frank but pure language the book praises the mutual love between husband and wife, and thereby teaches us not to despise physical beauty and married love as being of a low order. Since these are gifts from the Creator to His creatures (cf. James 1:17), they are good and perfect in their place and for their purpose. The book presents a strong warning against an unbiblical dualism which holds the physical and material in lower regard than the spiritual, and which exalts the unmarried state as more virtuous than the state of matrimony.
(b) As a counterpart of (a), the Song instructs us not to glamorize physical beauty and idolize the biological aspect of marriage. Notwithstanding the straightforward manner in which physical beauty and attractiveness are described, the love relationship portrayed in the Song is of a lofty character. Nowhere does the description even border on what might be considered lewd and licentious. Thus the Song holds before us the ideal love relationship in marriage. The Apostle Paul uses marriage to illustrate the nature of the love between Christ and His Church (Eph. 5), but certainly not every marriage reflects this bond of intimate love. Only a marital relationship as pure as that portrayed in the Song can serve this purpose.
(c) The reading of this book, far from raising sensuous thoughts in our minds, should lead us to praise the Creator who created man in His own image, who made the human body beautiful, who awoke in Adam the longing for a companion like himself yet different, and who led the first bride-the very ultimate of the works of creation-to her admiring bridegroom. The reading of this book should also make us aware of our sinful failures in our attitude toward members of the other sex in general, and in particular our sins of the flesh within marriage. Thus it is that by this book the Holy Spirit will lead sinners to the Christ who is also the Redeemer and Sanctifier of holy wedlock. Seeing and experiencing the purity and holiness of this earthly bond of love will also lead us to better understanding of that love relationship which is heavenly and eternal, namely, the spotlessly pure and indestructible bond of love that exists between Christ and His Church.
The Song of Solomon is a moving and beautiful tribute to the Creator, whose crowning creation (according to Genesis) was to make man in His own image and then to make the woman to be his companion. This was the ultimate expression of the Creator’s love in the goodness of His creation. Nowhere in all of literature is there a more beautiful expression of human love-the love of a man and a woman in the sacred purpose of God. Every attempt to debase or discredit the sacredness of the love relationship between husband and wife will be rebuked by the powerful and expressive language of this Song.[6]
Finally, Henry Morris’ The New Defender’s Study Bible:
Like the Book of Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon (also known as “Song of Songs” and “Canticles,” meaning “songs” in Latin) is fascinating and enigmatic, both providing striking testimonials (as in the Book of Proverbs) to the unique, wide-ranging wisdom of Solomon. Like the other two books, it claims to be from Solomon (1:1). Solomon was said to have written over a thousand songs (1 Ki 4:32), but this was his “Song of Songs.”
The book was evidently written early in Solomon’s reign, long before his many wives turned his life away from devotion to his first love. Although there have been a number of interpretations of this book, the most obvious interpretation is no interpretation at all. That is, it is simply what it purports to be-a romantic love poem describing the love of young Solomon and a Shulamite maiden who became his first bride.
There is nothing unseemly about a book of the Bible depicting the beauties of pure courtship, and marital love. The union of male and female in holy matrimony is intrinsic to the creation itself (Ge 2:24-25). In this sense, the narrative of the Song can be considered as an idyllic picture of courtship and marriage, that might apply, with varying details, to all true love and marriage as ordained by God.
In a secondary sense, the account may also be considered as a type of the love of Christ and His church, the “bride of Christ.” (compare Ep 5:22-33; Re 21:2;.22:17). This analogy should not be pressed too far, as the book should primarily be studied in accord with its own clear intent, that of describing and honoring the God-ordained union of man and woman in true love and marriage.
It seems almost certain that the young bride whom Solomon loved so passionately was Naamah, who is said to have been the mother of his son Rehoboam (2 Ch 12:13). Rehoboam had been born a year before Solomon became king, for Solomon reigned 40 years, whereas Rehoboam was 41 years old when he became king (2 Ch 9:30).
Solomon was almost certainly less than 20 years old when he himself became king, and Rehoboam was already a year old at that time. Therefore, Naamah was evidently “the wife of his youth” and the bride eulogized so beautifully in his Song of Songs.
The Song of Solomon is unique in being written like a play, with different persons speaking (or singing) as the theme develops. The different speakers are Solomon himself, Solomon’s bride (called the Shulamite in the Song), the daughters of Jerusalem, and the brothers of the bride.[7]
Finally, SOME VALUABLE APPLICATIONS DERIVED FROM THE SONG OF SOLOMON
I recommend that newlyweds plan and prepare a lovely evening with no interruptions. They take turns reading through the Song of Solomon and discussing with each other what could be meant by some of the words and phrases the Spirit of God included in the text. You don’t get very far into the book before things begin to heat up; with verse 2 reading,
“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.”
By the time you get to the end of chapter one, verses 12-17 are all about the sense of smell expressed in myriad ways that reflect the aroma of romance. Then there is SS 2.6:
“His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.”
I have difficulty agreeing with John Wesley that this describes Christ’s embrace of His Church.[8] Read through this book of the Bible, you husbands and wives, but not before you marry, because unmarried people have no business trafficking in such imaginations or experiences.
I will leave this sub-point with an observation. Sex in marriage is a beautiful gift God has given us, with His intention being that it is to be enjoyed, practiced, and perfected by two inexperienced people who learn from each other in the privacy of their bedroom. Experiences with other people interfere and can harm a spouse in marriage. Hebrews 13.4 reads,
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
First Corinthians 6.13:
“Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.”
What began gloriously with Solomon and his bride ended catastrophically with heartache and irreparable damage.[9] It is possible to take something good and mess everything up badly before the marriage is begun and after the marriage has occurred. Marriage is supposed to be one man and one woman.
Just as marriages can be ruined by unauthorized sexual activity before marriage and unauthorized sexual activity after a marriage has begun, equally destructive is a sexless marriage. Sex outside marriage introduces destructive factors few people successfully negotiate. Suppose a promiscuous man (someone who has given his strength to women, Proverbs 31.3) comes to Christ and then meets and marries a virgin. But he finds less satisfying sexual fulfillment with the good Christian woman he married than with the many slutty women he previously had sex with. See the risk a man runs by not being a virgin when he marries? And the same for a woman, by the way. Then there is the situation where not only do the Christians married to each other not commit adultery in marriage, they have no sex at all in marriage! Sadly, it happens. Sometimes a woman will use sex to entice a man to marry her and then refuse sex in marriage as a way of blackmailing her husband into proving he loves her in a sexless marriage. Sadly, it happens! Men are frequently caught off guard by marrying a very active woman before marrying and completely inactive after marrying. What is a man to do in such cases, cheat on his wife? No! And if the roles are reversed, the same applies. Adultery is wrong, but it is only worsened when one of the spouses tempts the other to cheat by defrauding.
What is to be thrown into the mix of marriage is a consideration as important as the prohibition against adultery. It is the Biblical mandate that married couples meet each other’s needs regularly. Consider First Corinthians 7.1-6:
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
The decision to marry someone is the promise not to defraud your marriage partner. There is one person on earth whom God authorizes you to bless in a certain way, and you cannot obey God while not doing what you and only you can and should address. The whole point of marriage, after all, is to avoid fornication, verse 2. Husbands and wives are directed to render to each other due benevolence, verse 3. We do not have the authority over our bodies to say no, verse 4. And you have permission to not engage in this marital activity for only a short time, so you can fast and pray with a plan to re-engage, verse 5. Why so? Satan will tempt you if you abstain. Understand, in verse 6, there is to be no coercion. No arm twisting. No bullying. No threats. No manipulation. But why would someone deprive a spouse of what only they can provide if the marriage can be as good as the Song of Solomon shows it to be in the beginning and confirms that it can be over time in Proverbs 31? And if marriage is the picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church, Ephesians 5.22-33, what possible justification can be for a sexless marriage? Does the Savior ever deny you what you need?
The importance of a healthy sex life was recognized by New England Puritans, according to Francis Bremer, professor emeritus of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania and author of several books on the Puritans, including Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. In modern parlance, people who think sex is inherently sinful and dirty are said to have “puritanical” beliefs. But were the Puritans as sexually repressed as we think? Not at all, says Bremer, at least between husband and wife. Unlike other Christian sects, Puritans didn’t limit sex to procreation but saw it as an essential way to deepen the marriage relationship. “Puritan clergy would preach on what they called the ‘duty to desire,’” says Bremer, and excommunicated at least one man who withheld sex from his wife. “Intercourse between a husband and wife should be conducted ‘willingly, often and cheerfully,’ but presumably not obsessively.”[10]
Young people possess finely tuned sex machines for bodies. That said, use of the human body in sexual activity outside marriage wreaks such havoc that most people cannot imagine. That is why God’s plan is for a virgin to marry a virgin, to have no experience with anyone other than your spouse, and you then spending the rest of your lives imagining your spouse to be the best lover God ever created, because neither of you know differently.
But people mess their lives up and make everything vastly more complicated than necessary. Frequently, it is by having sex before marrying, by sometimes having sex with someone other than your spouse after you marry, or by not having sex with your spouse for one reason or another when you ought to be so engaged.
“But I don’t want to have sex.” Then don’t get married. “But I am already married.” Then, have sex and have sex often. “But I want to be married, just without sex.” Sorry, that is not a viable option to please God while not defrauding the person you are married to. “And if I choose not to have sex with my spouse?”
Why are you asking me a question you already know the answer to? Your marriage is already a miserable torture for your spouse, and you are showing a callous disregard for not doing what the Bible clearly shows you should be doing.
In the end, beloved, I may seem heartless and cruel, chauvinistic and old-fashioned. But I am only advocating married people express their love to each other in marriage in a way that is denied to every other human being on the planet. Engage in what only you can engage in with the only one you can engage with without sinning.
__________
[1] John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition Of The Old And New Testaments, Vol 9 (Paris, Arkansas: the Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., reprinted 2006), page 633.
[2] Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, Vol III, (New York: Abingdon Press), page 343.
[3] C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Commentary On The Old Testament, Vol 6, (Peabody, MA: reprinted by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996), page 497.
[4] Ibid., page 499.
[5] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997), pages 940-941.
[6] New American Standard Bible, The Open Bible Edition, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978), page 619.
[7] Henry M. Morris, The New Defender’s Study Bible, (Nashville, TN: World Publishing, 2006), page 999.
[8] John Wesley, Notes On The Bible, (Bronson, MI: Online Publishing, Inc., 2002), bible@mail.com
[9] 1 Kings 11.1-10
[10] https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/puritans.htm#pt3 updated 11/24/2020
Question? Comment?
Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.