Song of Songs (Written)

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson

Song of Songs 1:12-17
Behold You! Beautiful!

(Typed 25 November 2024) During one of my classes in college, a guest speaker came who was in the process of getting a PhD. The main subject of his dissertation was the concept of beauty. Yes, really. He was absolutely captured by the thought of what beauty actually is.

At first, seems simple enough to define. The Google definition begins with –

“Beauty is the quality of something or someone that gives pleasure to the senses or intellect, or provides meaning or satisfaction. It can be a characteristic of objects like landscapes, sunsets, and works of art, or of people who possess traits that are valued by society.”

We can shake our heads in affirmation, thinking that it has captured the essence of what beauty is. And yet, the more we consider beauty, the less we can grasp and hold onto it.

Beauty can be temporary, meaning that at a specific point, the beauty will end. Beauty can be transitory. A moment in a sunset may be stunningly beautiful, but a moment later, it no longer exists. It can also come in gradations, such as one sunset being more beautiful than another.

Beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder. But the same beholder can find someone beautiful one moment and repulsive the next. The physical beauty of a woman, for example, stops seeming so beautiful because of some morally objectionable quality that suddenly surfaces.

Beauty can be a part of something that isn’t all beautiful, like an ugly person’s beautiful hands that make her a lot of money in advertising. Many people find spiders horrifying, but we might find what they do, spinning webs, for example, beautiful.

Text Verse: “One thing I have desired of the Lord,
That will I seek:
That I may dwell in the house of the Lord
All the days of my life,
To behold the beauty of the Lord,
And to inquire in His temple.” Psalm 27:4

The concept of what is beautiful has driven some artists to the brink of insanity as they strove to capture something beyond their ability to attain. One might capture the colors and the shapes, but there are a million nuances in the scene that cannot be captured. Van Gogh is one who searched for beauty, and some say Van Gogh’s works are beautiful.

Don McLean said that Van Gogh had a surpassing beauty of his own –

For they could not love you
But still, your love was true
And when no hope was left in sight on that starry, starry night
You took your life, as lovers often do
But I could have told you, Vincent
This world was never meant for one as beautiful as you

Some say the words of Don McLean’s song about Van Gogh are astonishingly beautiful. So, the concept of beauty can also build upon other beauty, forming something else that is beautiful.

However, we can tire of seeing the same painting or hearing the same song. As the beholder of beauty, we then have to look for something else beautiful if we want to be satisfied with beauty. But we can return to a painting or song that we tired of years ago and the beauty of it returns to us.

Time, familiarity, circumstances, and so many other things can affect our perception of beauty.

David, however, spoke of an unceasing beauty when he said, “all the days of my life.” He understood that dwelling in the house of the Lord and seeing His beauty would never be tiresome. Is that true? If so, how? What is it about the beauty of the Lord that extends beyond any other beauty?

Careful contemplation of who He is and what the Bible says about Him will give us an answer if we stop and think it through. Such great truths as this are to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again, and… May God speak to us through His word today, and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. My Beloved to Me (verses 12-14)

¹² While the king is at his table,

The words are highly debated and widely translated: ad shehamelkeh bimsibo – “Until which the king in his surrounding.” The word ad gives the sense of until, as far as, up to, etc. Saying “while” would mean “as long as he does XX.”

So either the woman is waiting until the king comes, or she is speaking of the time that he is present. Based on the next clause, I would go with the former.

The next complicated word is bimsibo, literally “in his surrounding.” The noun mesav indicates that which is around. In 1 Kings 6, it refers to the surrounding walls in the temple. In 2 Kings 23:5, it refers to the area surrounding Jerusalem.

Some say it is a divan, a round seat for the king. One would think, however, that it would say “upon the divan,” not “in the divan.” Some say it speaks of a round table where the advisers of the king sat. Rather than a round table, that could still be a divan though. The historical meaning of the word divan is a legislative body that surrounds the king. Today, we might say, “He is among his inner circle.”

I would simplify the matter and say that she is waiting for the king to come into where she is, meaning his surrounding (as in 1 Kings 6). She will wait for him there, and as she waits, she says…

^{12 (con’t)} My spikenard sends forth its fragrance.

nirdi nathan rekho – “My nard gave its odor.” In other words, she is where the king will be, whether in his personal room, harem, etc. While she is there, she is poetically saying that her nard is wafting on the air, calling to him as it gives off its wonderful smell.

As for the perfume, nard (spikenard) is the Hebrew nerd referred to three times in the Old Testament, all in “Song the songs.” Of it, The Natural History of the Bible, page 485, says –

“Spikenard or nard is exclusively an Indian product, procured from the Nardostachys jatamansi, a plant of the order Valerianaceae, growing in the Himalaya mountains, in Nepal and Bhotan. It has many hairy spikes shooting from one root. It is from this part of the plant that the perfume is procured, and prepared simply by drying it.”

This perfume was highly esteemed in ancient times. It retained its Indian name in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. It is referred to in the New Testament –

“Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. ² There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. ³ Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.” John 12:1-3

While she sits and awaits her beloved, she thinks about him and what he is likened to in her thoughts…

¹³ A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me,

ts’ror ha’mor dodi li – “Sachet the myrrh, my beloved to me.” The noun ts’ror comes from the verb tsarar, to bind, besiege, afflict (because of being hemmed in), etc. Thus, this is something bound up, such as a bag, a parcel, and so forth.

Because what is bound is myrrh, an aromatic resin used in perfuming, the word sachet exactly describes what it is bound in. This spice, mor, myrrh, comes from marar, bitter. The name gives the sense of “distilling in drops.” It was seen in Exodus 30 in making the special incense for burning in the tabernacle.

Myrrh comes from a shrub and can be obtained in one of two ways. The first is the purest form where it naturally exudes from the plant. This is the “myrrh of freedom,” or “free-flowing myrrh.” Inferior myrrh comes from incisions made in the bark.

Myrrh is fragrant to smell but bitter to taste. Looking at the uses of myrrh in the Old Testament, the prominent idea that it symbolizes is love, more especially, however, love in intimate union, but not necessarily sexual in nature.

Myrrh was presented to Christ at both His birth by the Magi, and at His death when mixed in wine to deaden His pain, something He refused.

As for this sachet of myrrh, she is saying that his presence scents her as they embrace. One can see the parallelism between her and him –

“My nard gave its odor.”
“Sachet the myrrh, my beloved to me.”

She is perfumed with nard while he, whether actually perfumed or not, is like a sachet of myrrh. Specifically, he is a sachet…

^{13 (con’t)} That lies all night between my breasts.

beyn shaday yalin – “Between my breasts lodges.” The word lun signifies to remain, dwell, lodge, etc. At times, it signifies an overnight stay. Her beloved is likened to a sachet of myrrh that dwells between her breasts.

Thus, if he is actually present, he is making her his pillow while his fragrance mingles with hers. The words would then speak of intimacy and union. However, she may just be comparing him to such a sachet without him being present. Next, she says, using words of parallelism…

¹⁴ My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blooms

eshkol ha’kopher dodi li – “Cluster the henna, my beloved to me.” The kopher, translated here as henna, means a cover. When Noah used pitch on the ark, it was a kopher to it. When a person is ransomed, the payment is a covering over of a misdeed, a kopher.

In this case, it refers to henna which is used to form a covering over the skin. This is the known meaning because the henna plant produces blossoms in the form of a cluster. Of this blossom, John Lange’s Commentary says –

“…in respect to the fondness of oriental women for this aromatic plant the testimony of a recent traveller in the ‘Ausland,’ 1851, No. 17.0 ‘The white Henna-blossoms, which grow in clusters and are called Tamar-henna, have a very penetrating odor, which seems disagreeable to the European who is unaccustomed to it; but the Orientals have an uncommon liking for this odor, and prefer it to any other. The native women commonly wear a bouquet of Tamar-henna on their bosom.’”

With that stated, she next says…

^{14 (con’t)} In the vineyards of En Gedi.

b’kharme ein gedi – “In vineyards En Gedi.” As seen elsewhere, the vineyard represents the cultural side of humanity. There are various vineyards that represent various cultures. In her words now, she speaks of the vineyards of En Gedi, meaning Fountain of a Kid.

The name suggests that this was a location, a spring in the wilderness, where young goats gathered. In that location, vineyards were planted, and among the vineyards, clusters of henna came up. The parallelism between the previous two verses is evident –

* Sachet the myrrh, my beloved to me,
Between my breasts lodges.
* Cluster the henna, my beloved to me,
In vineyards En Gedi.

She equates him to a sachet of myrrh resting between her breasts and as a cluster of henna in En Gedi’s vineyards. Depending on how one views her words, she is either completely poetical in her comparison, as if the sachet and cluster are only like him, or she is actually speaking of him when he lies between her breasts and when he is in the vineyards of En Gedi.

It would be unwise to stretch the intent of these verses too far, but they appear to be providing us with a picture of events in the redemptive process.

In verse 12, the woman is awaiting her beloved. As she does, the nard on her beckons him, giving off its odor. Christ was covered in nard for a particular reason –

“But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, ⁵ ‘Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?’ ⁶ This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
⁷ But Jesus said, ‘Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. ⁸ For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.’” John 12:4-8

Those who are redeemed are symbolically covered in the nard of Christ’s death. Christ’s death was a type of baptism. We are then likewise baptized into His death. Thus, we bear the fragrance of the death of Christ –

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? ² Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? ³ Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? ⁴ Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:1-4

This leads to the next idea –

“Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. ¹⁵ For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. ¹⁶ To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?” 2 Corinthians 2:14-16

Thus, the picture of verse 12 is of those in Christ beckoning Him through their own lives, which carry the aroma of His sacrificial death. It is a reminder to Him that we are His, and we await His arrival.

In verse 13, the woman made the first of two parallel thoughts, stating that her beloved is a sachet of myrrh between her breasts. The ts’ror, sachet, is derived from tsarar, to bind. Myrrh, mor, is from marar, to be bitter. Without contestation, Christ is the binding of bitterness for the human soul.

As for the words “Between my breasts lodges,” they are poetic. Just as a sachet rests between a woman’s breasts, so the heart rests. Thus, it would not be a stretch to paraphrase the thought, “In my heart lodges” –

“For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ¹⁵ from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, ¹⁶ that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, ¹⁷ that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, ¹⁸ may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— ¹⁹ to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” Ephesians 3:14-19

After that, she compared her beloved to a cluster of henna. The word eshcol, cluster, comes from the word eshek, meaning testicle. Sin transfers from father to child. The semen, which is generated in man, is what transfers that sin.

However, this is a cluster of henna, kopher, meaning a covering, such as a ransom –

“Those who trust in their wealth
And boast in the multitude of their riches,
⁷ None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
Nor give to God a ransom [kophar] for him—
⁸ For the redemption of their souls is costly,
And it shall cease forever—
⁹ That he should continue to live eternally,
And not see the Pit.” Psalm 49:6-9

To understand the word more fully, look at the word kapporeth, the covering or mercy seat. Exodus 25 says –

“You shall make a mercy seat [kapporeth] of pure gold; two and a half cubits shall be its length and a cubit and a half its width. ¹⁸ And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat [kapporeth]. ¹⁹ Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat [kapporeth]. ²⁰ And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat [kapporeth]. ²¹ You shall put the mercy seat [kapporeth]on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the Testimony that I will give you. ²² And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat [kapporeth], from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony, about everything which I will give you in commandment to the children of Israel.” Exodus 25:17-22

This mercy seat, kapporeth, and the kopher of verse 13 are both derived from the same root. The word kapporeth corresponds directly to the Greek hilastérion, as seen in the Greek Old Testament and in Hebrews 9:5, which says, “and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat [hilastérion].” That same word is used by Paul when referring to Christ Jesus –

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God set forth as a propitiation [hilastérion] by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, ²⁶ to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Romans 3:21-26

Thus, the cluster of henna looks to the “seed” of the covering of Christ –

“He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. ⁹ Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” 1 John 3:8, 9

From biblical symbolism, the vineyards of En Gedi can be paraphrased as “the cultural expressions of the fountain of the cut off.” The kid, gedi, comes from a root signifying to cut off. As we saw in Judges, it is what finishes a matter.

Sin is cut off in Christ. The fountain of the cut off thus refers to the Holy Spirit dwelling in those who are the seed of God because of the work of Christ. The words of the woman, who represents the redeemed of humanity, speak of the completed work of Christ.

In a world filled with sensation and delight
Nothing compares to the Lord
Every smell, taste, feel, and sight
Came through His spoken word

He is the Source of all things
And so nothing can Him excel
To see His face and hear His voice, my heart sings
On the day of the heavenly wedding bell

Oh! To be joined to the Lord for all eternity
To see Him, and in Him to delight
Until that Day, I wait a tad impatiently
Until my faith has turned into sight

II.My Querida (verses 15-17)

¹⁵ Behold, you are fair, my love!
Behold, you are fair!

The pronouns of verse 15 are feminine, meaning that a male is speaking to a female: hinakh yaphah rayathi hinakh yaphah –

“Behold you! Beautiful, my querida,
Behold you! Beautiful!”

The beloved is overtaken by her exquisite beauty. The use of the interjection, behold, emphatically draws attention to what he is about to say. Making the proclamation twice is the Bible’s way of emphatically declaring a thing.

It is as if he has lost his breath over what his eyes are feasting on. In this stunned state, he next says…

^{15 (con’t)} You have dove’s eyes.

Rather, more emphatically: einayikh yonim – “Your eyes – doves.” The comparison is not to dove’s eyes but that she has eyes like doves – glistening, beautiful, shapely, and so forth.

The word yonah, dove, is from the same root as yayin, wine. This root signifies to effervesce. Thus, the dove is lively and animated and carries with it a sense of warmth and love.

As she blinks, he thinks of its wing flitting. As she looks left or right, he thinks of the dove darting through the air. When he looks at the whites, he sees purity, and in the pupil, he sees gentleness and innocence. He is enraptured with her, especially captivated by her dovelike eyes. With that said, the words return to the woman…

¹⁶ Behold, you are handsome, my beloved!

hin’kha yapheh dodi – “Behold you! Beautiful my beloved.” He had proclaimed her beauty and explained it to her with metaphor. Without rejecting that, she calls out that her beloved is more so than she. She does this by changing the next words from his exclamation to her…

^{16 (con’t)} Yes, pleasant!

aph naiym – “Also, delightful!” The word aph gives the sense of ascension or addition. Not only is he beautiful as he stated she is, but she adds that he is nayim, a word signifying pleasant, delightful, lovely, etc.

It is a word that, at times, conveys both an experiential and an aesthetic sense. The experiential form of the word in a plural adjective is found in Psalm 16 –

“You will show me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
At Your right hand are pleasures [nayim] forevermore.” Psalm 16:11

With that, she next adds words indicating the beauty of their surroundings…

^{16 (con’t)} Also our bed is green.

aph arsenu raananah – “Also, our bed verdant.” The word raanan comes from a root signifying to be green. Other than Psalm 92:10, it is used when speaking of vegetation, especially that which is healthy and full of life. But even in that psalm, it gives the sense of that which is luxurious or fresh –

“But my horn You have exalted like a wild ox;
I have been anointed with fresh [raanan] oil.” Psalm 92:10

Because of this, in this case, she is not speaking of an actual bed that is green in color, but of the place where they would meet, meaning a beautiful garden setting.

There, they lay on the soft grass, passing the time in one another’s presence and reveling in the beauty that surrounded them. It is what adds to the beauty of one another as they merge the exquisite beauty of the natural world with the delightful beauty of looking at one another.

That symbolism continues with the next words…

¹⁷ The beams of our houses are cedar,

qoroth bateinu arazim – “Rafters our houses – cedars.” The rafter signifies a thing meeting or fitting into another thing, as rafters do. Houses normally have lots of rafters, but an actual house is not the intent here, as is evident from the plural words “houses” and “cedars.”

While lying in the green grass, they would look up at the beams and rafters of all of the cedars above them, noticing how the branches interlocked into a canopy, one tree adjoining another forming a series of houses above them.

Think of a sense of royal abundance, having house after house as their own. With that thought stated, she next says…

*^{17 (fin)} And our rafters of fir.

rakhitenu b’rothiym – “Our wainscoting – cypresses.” The word rahit, wainscoting, comes from rahat, which is something like a channel or watering box, such as a trough. Thus, it is a panel that would resemble a trough. From that, one gets the sense of wainscoting.

She looks around at their many houses and sees them adorned with beroth, cypress trees, as well. This is the only time this word is used in Scripture, but it is believed to be an Aramaic word akin to the word berosh, a type of wood generally translated as cypress or fir. The word is derived from beer, a well, or pit.

Seeing their large and well-formed trunks led her to think of them as the fancy wainscoting inside a palatial mansion.

There they lay, enjoying the time in their idyllic garden setting. There is enough sun to allow soft green grass to grow, and yet there is a canopy of trees above them to shade them from the heat of the sun which would otherwise be blazing down upon them.

In Isaiah 60, when referring to a temple of the future that will be built in Jerusalem, it says –

“The glory of Lebanon shall come to you,
The cypress, the pine, and the box tree together,
To beautify the place of My sanctuary;
And I will make the place of My feet glorious.
¹⁴ Also the sons of those who afflicted you
Shall come bowing to you,
And all those who despised you shall fall prostrate at the soles of your feet;
And they shall call you The City of the Lord,
Zion of the Holy One of Israel.” Isaiah 60:13, 14

The woods said to be used in this temple include those just noted by the woman in their garden palace. As such, the words may be an anticipation of the beauty of what lies ahead for the redeemed of the Lord.

His temple on earth is a type of the greater heavenly dwelling that awaits those who are His. As Paul says –

“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, ²¹ in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, ²² in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:19-22

We are being given insights and glimpses into what is on the mind of God as He brings us closer and closer in type and picture to the heart of “Song the songs,” which is, specifically, the greatest love that exists. That love is the love of God for His Son.

However, the love of the Son includes those who are in the Son, meaning God’s redeemed. When the Lord looks at His bride, He sees only beauty. When we look at the Lord, we see the One who is surpassing in beauty, both aesthetically and experientially.

Because He is the Creator, He is the Source of all beauty. As such, any beauty that exists stems from Him and cannot compare to the surpassing beauty from which it is derived.

Likewise, in the sense of experience, the same truth applies. There is no physical, moral, or spiritual experience of beauty that can surpass the Source of those things. What we experience is only a part or portion of the whole.

Therefore, the words of the woman to her beloved rightly express the ascension of intent that must come from us when we return a compliment to the Lord. He may find us captivating, but it is only because of what He has already accomplished through Jesus in getting us to that point.

When we are returned to paradise, something we cannot even comprehend at this time, even that will be overshadowed by the glory that radiates from our Beloved.

No matter how expansive heaven is, and no matter how long we continue there, the beauty and glory we perceive in it will always continue to be outshined by the surpassing glory of the One who created it for us to fellowship with Him in it.

David understood this and proclaimed it in the 27^th Psalm when he spoke of beholding the beauty of the Lord all his days. Throughout eternity, we will never tire of beholding His beauty as Jesus ceaselessly and eternally radiates out the beauty of His unseen Father to us.

Beauty is a possible state in something that exists. However, apart from God’s perfection, it is unfortunately only a possible state. But more, because of our imperfect ability to perceive how things are or what they signify, we often miss true beauty.

If you were in Israel at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, you might have passed by numerous people dying on crosses. You wouldn’t think they were beautiful, and so when you walked by Jesus on His cross, you might turn away in horror at the mass of bleeding flesh as He was agonizingly dying.

And yet, for two thousand years, people have spoken, written, and sung about the beauty of the cross of Christ. If only you knew what you were turning away from, you might instead marvel at the infinite beauty of God’s plan of reconciliation for fallen man as it was being completed right before your eyes.

You might look at the blood seeping down the tree as an instrument of beauty, purifying humanity as His life ebbed away. You would think of the beauty of the grave that was going to receive His earthly remains, knowing that your sin was being carried in there with His lifeless body.

And you would rejoice at the beauty of the tomb’s emptiness that was just a moment in time away. You would revel in the beauty of God’s handiwork and rejoice at the glory of what He accomplished. You would say, “This cross is… beautiful.”

The perception, understanding, and acceptance of the event would define it as beautiful. True beauty is an understood perfection that transcends any accompanying real or perceived imperfections. But until the perfection is seen as such, the beauty is missed.

Therefore, may our imperfect eyes, hearts, and understandings see and appreciate the perfections of God who alone defines and reveals true, eternal beauty.

Closing Verse: “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11

Next Week: Song of Songs 2:1-7 He is so wonderful, my precious dove… (His Banner Upon Me – Love) (5^th Song of Songs sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. He alone is the perfect example of love – untarnished, unblemished, and completely pure and holy. He offers this love to you. So, follow Him, live for Him, and trust Him, and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

Song of Songs 1:12-17 (CGT)

¹² Until which the king in his surrounding,
My nard gave its odor
¹³ Sachet the myrrh, my beloved to me,
Between my breasts lodges.
¹⁴ Cluster the henna, my beloved to me,
In vineyards En Gedi.

¹⁵ Behold you! Beautiful, my querida,
Behold you! Beautiful!
Your eyes – doves.

¹⁶ Behold you! Beautiful my beloved.
Also, delightful!
Also, our bed verdant.

¹⁷ Rafters our houses – cedars,
Our wainscoting – cypresses.

Song of Songs 1:12-17 (NKJV)

¹² While the king is at his table,
My spikenard sends forth its fragrance.
¹³ A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me,
That lies all night between my breasts.
¹⁴ My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blooms
In the vineyards of En Gedi.

¹⁵ Behold, you are fair, my love!
Behold, you are fair!
You have dove’s eyes.

¹⁶ Behold, you are handsome, my beloved!
Yes, pleasant!
Also our bed is green.
¹⁷ The beams of our houses are cedar,
And our rafters of fir.

Artwork by Douglass Kallerson

Song of Songs 1:7-11
A Mystery Resolved

(Typed 18 November 2024) For this sermon, I deviated from how I typically use words found within the sermon to give it a title. This title is given because of a resolution to the meaning of complex words found within the verses we will go over.

In fact, some of the words in verse 7 have caused enough speculation concerning their meaning to fill an ocean. I can’t read every commentary on the planet to see if anyone has figured them out, but of those that I read – which cited innumerable other rabbis and scholars – none of them satisfactorily explain the meaning.

In turn, translations follow these scholarly commentaries, repeating what someone guessed was the intent. This is particularly true with one obscure clause that is extremely difficult to explain.

For me, I started sermon typing around 4 am. With only a 20-minute pause to take out the garbage at the mall, I finally finished considering verse 7 at 7:20 am.

After finishing the evaluation, the reason for the endless speculation seems almost impossible to explain. The meaning of the words is as simple to understand as “dinner time.” When you hear that, you rush in and start to eat.

If some other scholar has come to the same conclusion, my hat is off to him. He followed the main rule of biblical interpretation in order to come to his conclusion. The rule is… anyone? Yes! Context. What is the context of what is being said?

Text Verse: “Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.” John 8:43

Jesus was speaking to the people about Himself. He “proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42). This is true also of the words of Scripture. They likewise proceeded forth and came from God.

To understand Jesus’ speech, one must listen to His words. And to understand what the Bible is relaying concerning Jesus’ words, you have to spend time in God’s word. In other words, one must consider the context of what is being said.

To rip words out of context will not lead to understanding but confusion. To insert one’s thoughts into Scripture will change the intent of what has come from God, confusing and obscuring the intent.

When there is an enigma in the word, we have to stop and consider the context. We may or may not figure it out, but at least we won’t be shoving our thoughts into the word when we do.

It is better to say, “I don’t know,” or at least, “I could be wrong, but this is what I think,” than to tell someone something that may not be correct.

In the case of verse 7, probably I would have said, “I don’t know,” if I just read the scholar’s comments. They are all over the place and no comment was any better than any other in explaining them. However, I believe my resolution to the mystery of the words is correct.

When I give it, and assuming it is right, you will think, “Well, yeah, that’s obvious. What was so complicated about that?” It probably won’t even seem like a big deal to you, but it is.

It is a part of God’s word. He is giving us information. When we don’t understand His speech, it is because we are not able to listen to His word. This is “Song the songs.” Thus, the Bible tells us that it is the greatest song ever written.

Have you heard a song a million times, but you still don’t know some of its words? When you finally find out what the words say, you think to yourself, “Oh yeah, I’m so glad to know what they were singing.”

If that is how you feel about an old song on the radio from your high school days, how much happier should you be to understand what the “Song the songs” is telling us? Concerning verse 7, I feel that way.

Let’s get into the sermon. It’s dinner time. A feast of beautiful images is to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again, and… May God speak to us through His word today, and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. According to Covering (verses 7 & 8)

⁷ Tell me, O you whom I love,

As noted, some of the words in verse 7 are extremely complicated, and their actual meaning seems unattainable. Most scholars allegorize them to fit some presupposed notion about one thing or another.

Some take letters and transpose them to form different words that seem to fit their presuppositions. Because of this, such transpositions are then found in various translations. For instance, in his commentary on this verse, Ellicott says –

“The Rabbinical interpretation of this verse is a good instance of the fanciful treatment the book has received: ‘When the time came for Moses to depart, he said to the Lord, “It is revealed to me that this people will sin and go into captivity; show me how they shall be governed and dwell among the nations whose decrees are oppressive as the heat; and wherefore is it they shall wander among the flocks of Esau and Ishmael, who make them idols equal to thee as thy companions?”’”

This utterly inane rabbinical interpretation tells us a couple of things: 1) The rabbis had no idea what the words are telling us, and 2) they also spent their time covering up the sins of their own people.

Idolatry is one of the main reasons why Israel was exiled and dwelt among the nations. The rabbis admit that the people sinned and went into captivity, but then their words completely obscure one of the main sins that caused it.

As for the verse, it begins with: hagidah li sheahava naphshi – “Declare it to me whom loved, my soul.” There is nothing complicated in her words. She is asking her beloved, the one whom her soul loved (the verb is in the perfect aspect), to declare something to her. That something is…

^{7 (con’t)} Where you feed your flock,

eikhah tireh – “Where pasture?” The verb is ra’ah. It signifies tending to a flock. In other words, pasturing. It is quite often translated as the act of shepherding. However, it describes both the act of shepherding by an individual as well as the flock feeding. For example –

“And Shitrai the Sharonite was over the herds that fed [ra’ah] in Sharon, and Shaphat the son of Adlai was over the herds that were in the valleys.” 1 Chronicles 27:29

Therefore, the word pasture is sufficient for both the act of the animal and the conduct of the shepherd.

In this clause, the verb is imperfect. She is asking where he is pasturing his flock. It is out in the land somewhere at the time, and she is curious about where.

The idea of pasturing is frequently turned into metaphor where it describes leaders caring for their people, guiding them, and so forth. For example –

“Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and spoke, saying, ‘Indeed we are your bone and your flesh. ² Also, in time past, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them in; and the Lord said to you, “You shall shepherd [ra’ah] My people Israel, and be ruler over Israel.”’” 2 Samuel 5:1, 2

This state of pasturing is equated to the Lord at times –

“Give ear, O Shepherd [ra’ah – literally “shepherding”] of Israel,
You who lead Joseph like a flock;
You who dwell between the cherubim, shine forth!
² Before Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh,
Stir up Your strength,
And come and save us!
³ Restore us, O God;
Cause Your face to shine,
And we shall be saved!” Psalm 80:1-3

This pasturing or shepherding doesn’t just describe physically tending to the people but also spiritually. The idea continues in the New Testament, where it is used when referring to leaders in a church, such as in Acts 20 –

“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. ²⁹ For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.” Acts 20:28, 29

It is also used when referring to Jesus, such as in 1 Peter 2:25 –

“For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”

These are just a few of the New Testament examples that convey this thought. As for the words here in “Song the songs,” this woman is asking where her beloved is pasturing…

^{7 (con’t)} Where you make it rest at noon.

eikhah tarbits batsahorayim – “Where crouch in the double-light?” Saying resting or lying down is the result of the crouching. The word is rabats. It signifies crouching, as when an animal folds its four legs under it in a recumbent fashion.

As such, when the word is used of people, the mental idea should extend to that of an animal that is being shepherded –

“The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not want.
² He makes me to lie down [rabats] in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters.
³ He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.” Psalm 23:1-3

David equates the Lord to a Shepherd of animals and himself to one of His flock. The Lord causes David to fold his legs under him, meaning to rest in the field.

Understanding this, the woman asks where his flocks crouch in the double-light. The word is the plural of tsohar, a window or a light. Thus, it is the double-light, meaning when the sun is at the highest point in the sky. The expanded plural form gives the sense of intense light and, thus, intense heat.

As it is the heat of the day, the heat of the sun is too much for the animals during this time. Thus, one can more fully appreciate David’s words in the 23^rd Psalm. He was a shepherd who tended to his father’s flocks –

“And Samuel said to Jesse, ‘Are all the young men here?’ Then he said, ‘There remains yet the youngest, and there he is, keeping the sheep.’
And Samuel said to Jesse, ‘Send and bring him. For we will not sit down till he comes here.’” 1 Samuel 16:11

David understood this type of life and used the concept in metaphor to describe the Lord’s care of him. It is a most tender analogy when understood. He is equating himself to a little lamb being carefully tended to by the Lord.

This woman is asking about her beloved’s flock – where he is pasturing it and where it crouches in the heat of the day. When set side by side, one can see the two lines are not two thoughts but one set in parallel lines –

Where pasture?
Where crouch in the double-light?

With this understood, the words which cause so much anguish to scholars and translators now arrive…

^{7 (con’t)} For why should I be as one who veils herself

The words begin with an abbreviated relative pronoun: shalamah ehyeh k’otyah – “That why become according to covering?” At first, the words seem almost incomprehensible.

The use of this abbreviated relative pronoun in Scripture (she-) is quite rare. It is seen twice in Judges, in the Israelite sections of the books of Kings and also in the Psalms, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.

The first in the Song of Songs was in verse 1:6 (twice) when the woman described herself – “that I swarthy” and “that tanned me.” Here, she says, “That why become (1^st person) according to covering.”

The verb atah comes from a primitive root meaning to wrap. Thus, it signifies to cover. To get the words to make sense, various translations say, “one who is veiled,” “one who veils herself,” “like a veiled woman,” etc.

The veiling is then equated to different things such as mourning, the sign of a prostitute (as in Genesis 38), doing something wrong, etc. The speculations about what is being said go on and on. However, the word is a verbal participle and needs to be translated as such, “covering.”

Others, because of the seemingly impossible nature of what is said, argue that letters have been transposed. That is convenient. When a problem arises, we can just emend (to correct by textual alterations) the text to clear things up! This is a short part of a long and difficult commentary from the scholars at Cambridge –

“The Syriac, the Vulgate, and Symm. apparently read, ‘wanderer,’ transposing the letters and making ‛ôtîyyâh into tô‛ iyyâh, the participle of the verb ‘to wander.’ Archdeacon Aglen’s suggestion in Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, that as the word ‛âtâh in Isaiah 22:17 is given the meaning of ‘erring,’ or ‘wandering about,’ by the Rabbinic commentators, probably the idea they had in their mind was that a person with the head wrapped up has difficulty in finding his way, and thus, even without any transposition of the letters, the word might come to be translated ‘wandering,’ is interesting and plausible. He would translate as one blindfold. This seems the best rendering.”

Through one of two ways of manipulating the intent, they arrive at a word that signifies to wander. Flocks wander, so that must be it! Hence, “to wander after the flocks” (Douay-Rheims), “wander like a prostitute” (NLT), “like a sheep which has gone astray” (Lamsa Bible), “as a stray in the flock of your sheep” (Peshitta Bible), etc.

None of these translations, nor any of the comments I read, align with the context. Without that, the words naturally seem unattainable. However, what was she talking about in the previous verses while using this rare relative pronoun? Her darkened state –

“Black, I, and beautiful, daughters Jerusalem –
According to tents Kedar,
According to curtains Solomon.
⁶ Not seeing me, that I [she-ani] swarthy,
That tanned [she-shezaphathni] me the sun.
Sons my mother burned in me.
Set me keeping the vineyards.
My vineyard, that to me, not kept.”

She is continuing the thought: “That why [sha-lamah] (I) become according to covering?” She is speaking about her state of darkness still. After that, she says…

^{7 (con’t)} By the flocks of your companions?

Every translation I checked, almost forty of them, follows every other, repeating the same thing again and again. Rather: al edre khaverekha – “Upon flocks your associates?” The word al, meaning upon, over, or above, is used. When it is translated as “by” such as in the words of Psalm 137, it still carries the sense of a downward aspect –

“By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down, yea, we wept
When we remembered Zion.” Psalm 137:1

When you sit by the waters, you are actually sitting above the waters. Saying “by” is merely implied because you aren’t sitting in the waters. The misguided idea of saying “by,” as in “next to,” makes it impossible to know what thought the woman is conveying.

She is saying that the animals of their flocks are covered (verbal participle – covering) in dark colorings. This is seen, for example, in Genesis 30 –

“Let me pass through all your flock today, removing from there all the speckled and spotted sheep, and all the brown ones among the lambs, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and these shall be my wages. ³³ So my righteousness will answer for me in time to come, when the subject of my wages comes before you: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the lambs, will be considered stolen, if it is with me.” Genesis 30:32, 33

This is what has eluded rabbis, Christian scholars, and translators for thousands of years. And yet, when it is seen, it is perfectly obvious. To paraphrase the entire thought –

“I am black and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem –
According to the tents Kedar [I am black],
According to curtains of Solomon [I am beautiful].
⁶ Don’t look at me like that! That I am swarthy,
Just because the sun tanned me.
You see, the sons of my mother made my skin dark.
They set me as the keeper of the vineyards.
And so my vineyard (meaning my appearance) went unkept (I got dark).

Declare it to me, you whom my soul loves,
Where are you pasturing?
Where are you crouching in the heat of the day?
Lest I become according to covering, (If she doesn’t find him, she will only get darker with the blazing heat of the sun on her, a darkness which is) upon the flocks of your associates.”

She is saying that while he is resting during the heat of the day at the time his flocks also rest, she is out searching for him. Hence, he can retain his light skin. She, on the other hand, will continue to darken as she searches for him.

This sufficiently resolves the mystery of these otherwise unattainable words. It maintains the overall context, and it also requires no fudging of the text. The verbal participle is properly used, which is something that none of the other translations do.

When verse 7 is considered in the context of the rest of Scripture, it is hard not to see a parallel to missions, which then become established areas of churches. Where is the Lord pasturing His flock? In other words, where is the flock at this time, ready to feed? The church wants to know and go there.

It has been in the vineyards (verse 6) which represent various cultural expressions tending to them (missions). But there are flocks out there that belong to the Lord. The church wants to know where in order to participate in what the Lord is doing (pasturing).

The book, “Song the songs,” is the expression of God’s love as detailed in various ways throughout the rest of Scripture. A woman is being prepared as a bride to Solomon, and a church is being prepared as a bride to the Lord.

With that hint of scriptural typology explained, the song continues…

⁸ If you do not know, O fairest among women,

im lo ted’i lakh hayapha banashim – “If not know to you, the beautiful in the women.” It is debated who is speaking here. Some think it is the daughters of Jerusalem. Others maintain that it is her beloved. There are no gender indicators to tell which is the case.

Either way, the words are given in response to her question, “Where pasture?” Whoever the speaker is, the words begin the answer and then provide a high compliment, confirming her beauty despite (or because of) her swarthy complexion.

Saying “the beautiful in the women,” is rightly paraphrased as “fairest among women.” Her darkened skin sets her off as more, not less, beautiful. With that noted, the answer to her question is…

^{8 (con’t)} Follow in the footsteps of the flock,

ts’i lakh b’iqvei ha’tson – “Go out, to you, in heel the flock.” The speaker is telling her to follow in the footsteps of the flock. Wherever they take her, just keep following along, and she will find the one she is looking for. Once she finds the location…

^{8 (con’t)} And feed your little goats
Beside the shepherds’ tents.

ur’i eth g’diyothaikh al mishk’noth ha’roim –

“And pasture your kids,
Upon tabernacles the pasturing.”

The word translated as kids, g’diyah, is found only here in Scripture. It is the feminine form of g’diy, a kid. She is being instructed to take her flock of female kids, follow along in the footprints of the other shepherds, and then pasture her flocks upon the spot where the others are pasturing.

As a point of speculation, the feminine form may point to the New Testament term translated as children. It is a neuter word in Greek, but Hebrew has no neuter. Thus, to offset the young immature believers, the feminine might be used here. The term children is frequently used in this way in the New Testament –

“My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you, ²⁰ I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you.” Galatians 4:19, 20

It is speculation, but it does fit the intent.

How fair is My beloved in My eyes!
With all My affection, I will focus my doting love
Of her extravagant beauty, to her, I will apprise
For among all other women, she is heads above

My heart is set on her, and she shall be Mine
With cords of love, I will draw her unto Me
A bride, radiant and divine
Together forever upon the glassy sea

The song of songs we will sing forever
In bonds of love, unending and pure
This bride is composed of any, whosoever
Such as will be Mine, eternally secure

II. My Querida (verses 9-11)

With the previous thought complete, the words begin a new section. The woman has come into the presence of her beloved, and so he now addresses her…

⁹ I have compared you, my love,
To my filly among Pharaoh’s chariots.

Following the KJV, the NKJV has flipped the clauses and otherwise failed to give a reasonable sense of the words: l’susathi b’rikhvei phar’oh dimithikh rayathi –

“To my mare, in chariots Pharaoh,
Compared you, my querida.”

Solomon uses metaphor to explain how his eyes find her beauty. His mare is his personal horse. This is the only use of the word susah, mare, in Scripture. It is a feminine form of sus, a horse. Therefore, it is a mare. Of the mare, Clarke says –

“Mares, in preference to horses, were used both for riding and for chariots in the East. They are much swifter, endure more hardship. and will go longer without food, than either the stallion or the gelding.” Adam Clarke

Being the king, it would be the finest mare of all, standing out above the rest. Despite this, some are offended at the comparison of a woman to a horse.

It is a ridiculous sentiment. The number of animal comparisons to humans in Scripture is not small. Though they are often somewhat demeaning, such as being compared to a grasshopper or a brute beast, at times, they are high compliments.

As for the horse, the Lord gives it a lofty and honorable description of it in the Book of Job –

“Have you given the horse strength?
Have you clothed his neck with thunder?
²⁰ Can you frighten him like a locust?
His majestic snorting strikes terror.
²¹ He paws in the valley, and rejoices in his strength;
He gallops into the clash of arms.
²² He mocks at fear, and is not frightened;
Nor does he turn back from the sword.
²³ The quiver rattles against him,
The glittering spear and javelin.
²⁴ He devours the distance with fierceness and rage;
Nor does he come to a halt because the trumpet has sounded.
²⁵ At the blast of the trumpet he says, ‘Aha!’
He smells the battle from afar,
The thunder of captains and shouting.” Job 39:19-25

Saying, “in chariots Pharaoh,” reflects what is said in 1 Kings 10 –

“Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh; the king’s merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price. ²⁹ Now a chariot that was imported from Egypt cost six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse one hundred and fifty; and thus, through their agents, they exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria.” 1 Kings 10:28, 29

Calling them Pharaoh’s chariots (plural) does not mean the mare was used on various chariots. Rather, it is a way of saying the chariots of Israel were of Egyptian origin, bought from Pharaoh’s realm.

Solomon’s chariot, among all the Egyptian-imported chariots, adorned with his personal mare – the finest of the land – is then said by him to be, “Compared you, my querida.”

Here is a word introduced into Scripture, rayah. It will be used nine times, all in “Song the songs.” It is used once in the verbal reading of Judges 11:37, but not in the written reading. It signifies a female associate. Saying, “my love” is a poor paraphrase.

There are many words that could be used, such as darling, dearest, sweetheart, sweetie pie, pet, honey pie, etc., but these can refer to either a man or a woman depending on the speaker.

However, the Spanish word querida is used only when speaking to a female sweetheart. It is a term of endearment for a man’s beloved or lovable person. Thus, it exactly fits the intent.

In the Philippines, the word is transliterated as kerida, which signifies a married man’s mistress, but that is not the intent here. Of his swarthy querida, he says while probably still thinking of his mare…

¹⁰ Your cheeks are lovely with ornaments,

The words are striking but also rare: navu l’khayayikh batorim – “Beautified, your cheeks, in the face-chains.” The word naah, comes from a primitive root meaning “to be at home.” Therefore, by implication, it signifies to be pleasant or beautiful.

When a woman goes out, she puts on stuff to make herself attractive. At home, such may not be the case. Therefore, this is speaking of a woman who is naturally beautiful, even at home, without all the extras. The word is used once in relation to the house of the Lord in Psalm 93:5 and once more in Isaiah 52 –

“How beautiful [naah] upon the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who proclaims peace,
Who brings glad tidings of good things,
Who proclaims salvation,
Who says to Zion,
‘Your God reigns!’” Isaiah 52:7

In this case, the word naah is in the perfect aspect. Thus, her cheeks are “beautified.” Solomon next says that they are batorim, in the face-chains. The word tor is seen only four times, twice in Esther and twice here.

It signifies a succession. It is something that occurs in an interval. In Esther, it speaks of Esther’s “turn” to go into the king as a virgin of the harem. There was a succession of virgins, and she was next. A great deal of speculation is given as to what these face chains are, but the context gives the meaning.

These are on her cheeks. That is all we need to know. Though nobody translates it this way, it is the Mideastern and Indian fashion called a face chain. There are innumerable styles of them, but they can go from a single chain crossing the face to an entire facial covering hanging from the forehead down.

Solomon’s horse would have hangings that looked like these dangling on it as well to accentuate its curves and to highlight the king’s prominence among all other horse and chariot riders. Next, he says…

^{10 (con’t)} Your neck with chains of gold.

Rather: tsavarekh bakharuzim – “Your nape in the beads.” The word tsavar is generally associated with the back of the neck, the nape. It is derived from tsur, to bind or besiege. For example, when a yoke is placed on someone, it is on the back of the neck.

The word kharuz is also used, and it is only found here in Scripture. It comes from an unused root, signifying to perforate. As such, it refers to beads of pearls or stones that have been pierced.

Again, it is likely that Solomon’s horse would have such elaborate ornamentation on it. The lines then are set in parallel –

1) “To my mare, in chariots Pharaoh,
Compared you, my querida.”
2) Beautified, your cheeks in the face-chains,
Your nape in the beads.

Next, the words return to the plural…

¹¹ We will make you ornaments of gold
With studs of silver.

torei zahav naaseh lakh im n’qudoth ha’kaseph –

“Face-chains gold make (1^st pers. pl.) to you,
With speckles the silver.”

It is the last use of tor, face-chains, in the Bible. The plural is because of the chorus of women as seen in verse 4. The king was captured by the beauty of the woman. That beauty was accentuated by the face-chains. But now, these women call out that they will make her even more alluring to the king by replacing her common face chains with those of gold that are speckled with silver.

As for the speckles, the noun n’quddah, is found only here. It is a feminine word derived from the same source as the adjective naqod, spotted. Thus, it refers to speckles. The face chains of gold with speckles of silver are intended to drive Solomon absolutely bonkers.

If John Gill’s assessment from last week is correct, meaning that the plural and the singular feminine voices are one, as seems possible, then this is speaking of an entity that is singular but composed of many. As he said –

“We; both I thy spouse, and the virgins my companions. And this change of numbers teaches us that the spouse in this book is one great body, consisting of many members, of whom therefore he speaks sometimes in the singular, and sometimes in the plural number.” John Gill

If this is correct, isn’t this final verse what the people in the church should be doing for the church? As the harem of women promises to adorn this woman, so we should be adorning the church with beauty in preparation for joining with the Lord.

Each person should be willing to do his or her utmost for the cause of the whole. Unfortunately, this is not always the situation. Many individual churches place little emphasis on the thought of beautifying the church. Some seem to want to do the opposite.

But that is their choice. As for this church, we can and should be willing to adorn the overall church with right doctrine, sound believers, increasing faith, joy in our salvation, and so forth. The day is coming when the time for our union with the Lord will arrive.

It would be a shame if we are presented without having offered anything of ourselves. The “Song the songs” is the greatest song of all because it provides shadows and details for us concerning the love of God in Christ.

When it is read on Passover by the Jews each year, they still remain blind to the overall redemptive plan God has set forth. But once in Christ, the veil is lifted, and our eyes can see Scripture for what it really is, meaning the most intimate love letter ever penned.

As love sums up the “Song the songs,” it sums up the whole tenor of Scripture. God in Christ! What a marvelous thing He has done to bring us back to Himself. Praise God for His wonderful, loving hand upon us because of Jesus.

Closing Verse: “Let all those who seek You rejoice and be glad in You;
Let such as love Your salvation say continually,
‘The Lord be magnified!’” Psalm 40:16

Next Week: Song of Songs 1:12-17 She deserves a hip-hip-hoorayda… (My Querida) (4^th Song of Songs sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. He alone is the perfect example of love – untarnished, unblemished, and completely pure and holy. He offers this love to you. So, follow Him, live for Him, and trust Him, and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

Song of Songs 1:7-11 (CG)

⁷ Declare it to me whom loved, my soul –
Where pasture?
Where crouch in the double-light?
That why become according to covering,
Upon flocks your associates?
⁸ If not know to you, the beautiful in the women,
Go out, to you, in heel the flock,
And pasture your kids,
Upon tabernacles the pasturing.
⁹ “To my mare, in chariots Pharaoh,
Compared you, my querida.”
¹⁰ Beautified, your cheeks in the face-chains,
Your nape in the beads.
¹¹ Face-chains gold make to you,
With speckles the silver.

Song of Songs 1:7-11 (NKJV)

⁷ Tell me, O you whom I love,
Where you feed your flock,
Where you make it rest at noon.
For why should I be as one who veils herself
By the flocks of your companions?
⁸ If you do not know, O fairest among women,
Follow in the footsteps of the flock,
And feed your little goats
Beside the shepherds’ tents.
⁹ I have compared you, my love,
To my filly among Pharaoh’s chariots.
¹⁰ Your cheeks are lovely with ornaments,
Your neck with chains of gold.
¹¹ We will make you ornaments of gold
With studs of silver.

 

 

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson

Song of Songs 1:4-6
Draw Me!

(Typed 11 November 2024 – Veteran’s Day). From time to time, I bring up some odd doctrine that is floating around out there in Christian circles. One such doctrine is that of the supposed Black Hebrew Israelites.

Like the Mormons, they claim that they are descendants of the biblical Israelites. But they go further and claim that the Hebrews of the Bible were actually black. They say that those in Israel today are Edomites who have no right to the land.

By pulling verses out of context, they have formed an entire theology that has nothing to do with biblical or historical reality. And yet, if you take them to the Bible to show them where they are wrong, it is like dealing with people in any other cult. They will not only fail to see reason, but they will also get belligerent with you.

Quite often, these people are violent, not only in their theology but in their conduct. But what they propose goes beyond the single idea of religion. It is more a set identifier like being Jewish is. Being Jewish is what identifies Jews before anything else.

Likewise, their idea is that you can be a Black Hebrew Israelite and be a member of any religion. The main thing for them is their blackness and that they supposedly descend from the biblical Jews of the Bible.

The utterly ridiculous nature of the claim is found in several books of the Bible where the Jews are identified, quite clearly, as being light-skinned. At times, it is even contrasted to being dark-skinned to make the point more relevant.

Text Verse: “I drew them with gentle cords,
With bands of love,
And I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck.
I stooped and fed them.” Hosea 11:4

In Hosea, the Lord says He drew Israel. In the verses today, the woman speaking to her beloved calls out for him to draw her. Then she will speak about a perceived defect that she possessed, about which she is unashamed.

What is it that will cause the Lord to draw people to Himself? Is it skin color? Is it national or cultural status? Or is it simply that we are human, and the Lord calls us because of that? The Bible never speaks of the Lord drawing alligators or birds. Rather, animals are excluded.

Why would some people, like the Mormons or the Black Hebrew Israelites, claim something that they obviously are not? The main reason must be that people think that by co-opting some trait or another God will like them more.

But that is entirely unnecessary. How you look, how many fingers you have, the school you went to, the culture you belong to, or any other category that could separate you within humanity cannot affect how God will perceive you, acknowledge you, or favor you.

This is true with being a Jew or a Gentile. It is true with being black, white, red, yellow, brown, purple, or blue (although if you are one of the latter two, you should probably go to the doctor). These things don’t matter to God.

There is just one thing that causes God to, which is how you respond to the call of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Everything else is unimportant. You are a human. There is no need to try to coopt something in humanity that you don’t have. Just be yourself and come to Christ. In doing so, God will favor you.

This is a certain truth that is to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again, and… May God speak to us through His word today, and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. They Love You (verse 4)

⁴ Draw me away!

mashkheni – “Draw me!” The verb mashakh here is in the form of an imperative. In essence it is like a positive command or instruction. Hence, the use of the exclamation point for effect.

It is an appeal by the woman to be drawn into the love expressed in the previous verses. She desires loving intimacy with the man and expresses that she wants him to make it happen.

How different that is from the Calvinistic view of being called by God. They stand firmly (and incorrectly) on John 6:44 claiming that man has no choice or free will, in the process of the relationship that is established between God and man –

“Jesus therefore answered and said to them, ‘Do not murmur among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.’” John 6:43, 44

Removing Jesus’ words from the surrounding context, Calvinism says that the process is initiated by God, must be continued (actually forced) by God, and is then completed by God, at which point the individual can exercise free will.

This is known as monergism, coming from mono, one, and erg, work. God alone works in the process of salvation, apart from any action (meaning inherent faith) by man and apart from any will in man.

In essence, as if God were speaking, “There is a person who I want to save. I will actively draw him to Myself, change him apart from his will, and this will cause him to call on Me to be saved.”

To understand this, it says in John 3:3 –

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’”

Calvinism teaches that being born again is not the same as being saved. Rather, it is a step in the process. God decides who He will save. He then regenerates that person to believe (he is born again). The person then believes and is saved.

Thus, they add an unwarranted step into their doctrine of salvation, meaning the free will of believing is granted by God, but only after God gives new birth.

The Bible never speaks of such a thing. It is contrary to the entire nature of what Scripture says. Rather, being born again is equated with being saved, not a step in the process of salvation. Using John 6:44 in the manner Calvinists do ignores the context of what Jesus was saying.

In John 5, Jesus spoke of the witnesses that testify of Him, four in particular. The witness was to Israel, the stewards of the oracles of God. In that passage, Jesus says –

“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. ³² There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. ³³ You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. ³⁴ Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. ³⁵ He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. ³⁶ But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. ³⁷ And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. ³⁸ But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. ³⁹ You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. ⁴⁰ But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” John 5:31-40

John the Baptist came to fulfill the role and ministry of Elijah by testifying to the coming of Christ. When he came, he witnessed to Israel, but so did the words of Scripture which told of his coming –

“Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,
With the statutes and judgments.
⁵ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
⁶ And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.” Malachi 4:4-6

The amount of drawing of Israel to Jesus is incomprehensible, and yet, they were not drawn to Him. They rejected (implying free will) the testimony of John –

“And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. ³⁰ But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Luke 7:29, 30

They rejected the works of Jesus which testified to who He is. They rejected the testimony of the Father who sent Him and who spoke of Him in their own oracles. They rejected the words of those oracles which were given by God through Moses, and which were then built upon by the prophets who were under the Law of Moses throughout the years –

“I do not receive honor from men. ⁴² But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. ⁴³ I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. ⁴⁴ How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? ⁴⁵ Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. ⁴⁶ For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. ⁴⁷ But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:41-47

God the Father did draw these people through the Scriptures, but they – by an act of free will – rejected what those writings revealed.

The woman speaking to her love says, “Draw me!” She wants to be drawn, stating it as an imperative. And what does Jesus say in John 12? It is the call for His people to express their free will in a similar manner –

“‘Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? “Father, save Me from this hour”? But for this purpose I came to this hour. ²⁸ Father, glorify Your name.’
Then a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.’
²⁹ Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, ‘An angel has spoken to Him.’
³⁰ Jesus answered and said, ‘This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. ³¹ Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. ³² And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.’ ³³ This He said, signifying by what death He would die.” John 12:27-33

In John 12, God the Father again witnessed, as did the Scriptures where these things are a recorded witness. The work of the Son, His being lifted up, likewise witnesses. These are what “draw” us to God. But we have to 1) hear the word, and 2) be willing to be drawn.

A person who never hears the message of Jesus will never be drawn. A person who comes to Scripture with the intent of tearing it apart or attempting to prove it is false will not be drawn unless he is willing to accept that he could be wrong. Like the leaders of Israel, the free will of such a person has set itself against the witnesses God has provided.

However, if a person hears the word, he can be drawn. If he comes to Scripture and says, “If this is truly Your word, draw me to Yourself through it,” then the witnesses can be effective. As Scripture hinges on the cross of Jesus Christ, it is through the cross that He draws all men to Himself.

The call by the woman, “Draw me!” is an indication that she longs, even demands, to be drawn. Her free will is what allows her to call out to be drawn. The “Song the songs” is titled as it is because it is a song explaining the greatest expression of love, the cross of Jesus Christ.

We are learning how to appropriate what that act signifies through the words of the woman, “Draw me!” In the introduction to the book last week, I said, “Seeing these parallels, and understanding that the Song of Songs is read during the Passover each year, we can and should look for a suitable explanation as to why this is so.”

The words of the woman tell us why the book is read during the Passover. It is because the Passover anticipates the cross of Jesus Christ –

“Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? ⁷ Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. ⁸ Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” 1 Corinthians 5:6-8

Jesus said that when He was raised up He would draw all men to Himself. That means that the cross, His crucifixion, is how that would happen. This drawing would be based on an act of free will by those who hear of it.

Above all, the “Song the songs” is a book about the process of finding the intimate love with God that is possible through His cross. When that is found…

^{4 (con’t)} We will run after you.

The words contain a cohortative: akharekha narutsah – “After you, we shall run.” The words have gone from the singular, “Draw me!” to the plural, “…we shall run.” Various suggestions are given to explain this.

It may be the woman alone speaking in the plural out of modesty. It may be a chorus of the daughters of Jerusalem witnessing the love spectacle. John Gill interestingly mixes the two thoughts and says –

“We; both I thy spouse, and the virgins my companions. And this change of numbers teaches us that the spouse in this book is one great body, consisting of many members, of whom therefore he speaks sometimes in the singular, and sometimes in the plural number.” John Gill

Either way, the intent is clear. In calling out to be drawn, there is the free will acknowledgment and the pursuit of the man will result.

Imagine a person standing on a mountain, looking out at the majesty of the panorama before him, knowing that a great and loving God had to have put it all together. He calls out, “I don’t know who You are or how to find You, but draw me to You! If You do, I will run after You.”

It could be that he is there alone and calls it out in the plural: “I know that if you draw me, we will run after you,” meaning, “I and everyone I tell will run after you.”

It could be that there are people with him, his family for example. They hear his words and they all call out, “We will run after you.”

Or it could be that there are people with the man and he speaks for them, knowing what they would also do, “Draw me, and we (all) will run after you.”

The point, regardless of which scenario is correct, is that there is a desire to be called and a willingness to then respond to the call.

As a side note, many scholars and translations since the time of Luther have diverted from the structure of the Hebrew to something like, “Draw me after you and let us run together!” (NASB 1995).

This would be redundant. The words “Draw me!” imply “after you” or “to you.” The reason for this incorrect change is explained by Cambridge –

“…it is difficult to see who are meant by we. By taking the words as suggested we get the maiden and her deliverer as subjects, and the next clause then does not require to be taken as a hypothetical clause, as it must be if after thee is connected with run.”

So, let us change the word of God because it is difficult. That is convenient. But the words are sufficiently understood when the Subject of the intent behind them, meaning God in Christ, is understood.

At this point, we are not seeing typology, but rather the expression of perfect love as God intends us to see it when we consider the words in light of Jesus. We may not experience perfect love among ourselves, but we can hope for it when drawn by the perfect expression of God’s love. In being drawn, we will run after Him. In so doing…

^{4 (con’t)} The king has brought me into his chambers.

heviani hamelekh khadarav – “Brought me, the king, his chambers.” The man, heretofore unidentified, is now noted as “the king.” Thus, it speaks of Solomon as noted in verse 1.

The substance of the words is debated. Ellicott, in agreement with others, says the words are –

“…in accordance with a common Hebrew idiom, where an hypothesis is expressed by a simple perfect or future without a particle … to be understood, “Even should the king have brought me into his chambers.”

The reason for this supposition is so that the coming clauses, again going from singular to plural, make sense. But there is nothing to suggest this. The words are simple and direct. The king has brought the woman into his chambers and she is elated by the honor.

Without overextending the intent of the words, what is said is not unlike that of Ephesians 2 –

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, ⁵ even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), ⁶ and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, ⁷ that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Ephesians 2:4-8

A call to be drawn has been expressed, followed by a note that those who are called will run after their loved one. In response to that, the woman is brought into the chambers of the king. This is what happens to believers. As soon as the person receives Jesus, he is spiritually raised up and seated in the heavenly places, represented by the chambers of the king.

With the action taken by the king, the words again go from the singular to the plural. And they are again highlighted by cohortative verbs…

^{4 (con’t)} We will be glad and rejoice in you.

Both verbs are cohortative: nagilah v’nishm’kha bakh – “We shall twirl and we shall rejoice in you.” The word gil comes from a primitive root meaning to spin around. This is an act caused by any strong emotion, but it is generally expressed in joy. In Psalm 2, that is probably not the case –

“Serve Yehovah in fear and twirl in trembling” (CG).

In the case of those now speaking, however, it is a twirling of joy. The words “in you” are masculine. And so, we have the same idea as that expressed in the first two clauses. There is the woman speaking in the singular followed by a plural chorus addressing the king. It leaves us with the same possibilities expressed before.

Regardless of the actual “who” of the song, it is hard to not see at least the possibility of the singular representing an entity expressed in a plural, as noted by John Gill. If so, it mirrors the state of the church where a singular is also expressed as a plural.

^{4 (con’t)} We will remember your love more than wine.

The verb is again cohortative: nazkirah dodekha miyayin – “We shall remember your loves from wine.” The word “from” is rightly expressed as “more than.” Hebrew often uses the “m” prefix as a comparative, which is similar to how we might say, “From all the women in the world, you are the most beautiful.”

In this case, as in verse 2, the word loves is plural and signifies loving affections, like his kisses. His affections, bestowed upon the woman, are remembered more than wine (which is set forth as an example of that which is memorable).

Thus, to understand the meaning of what is being conveyed, refer back to the comments about verse 2. Because of the king’s loving affections and their superlatively desirable nature…

^{4 (con’t)} Rightly do they love you.

Rather: mesharim ahevukha – “Evennesses – they loved you.” The noun meshar comes from the verb yashar which means to be straight or even. Thus, it means evenness. However, here, and at all other times, it is given in the plural – evennesses. Thus, if taking it adverbially, it would signify “rightly.”

The words complete the pentastich and the clause is set in parallel to the ending clause of the previous pentastich which formed verses 2 and 3 –

“Upon thus, maidens love you.”
Evennesses – they loved you.”

As before, the plural may simply be the woman referring to people in general and thus actually about herself –

Verse 3 – Because of the things I just expressed, maidens love you. I am a maiden, and this is why I love you.
Verse 4 – This is why they rightly loved you. I am a maiden and this is why I have loved you.

I know You are there, so draw me unto You
Show me the way that knowing You can be done
When I find that out, this is what I will do:
I will come speedily. After You, I will run

My will is that I know You perfectly
In my imperfect state, can it be done?
You can make it possible. I know you can, surely
And when You do, after You I will run

I have heard the word set forth by You
The word about the giving of Your Son
In Him is perfect love, unfailing and true
And so, because of Him, after You I will run

II. Keeping the Vineyards (verses 5 & 6)

⁵ I am dark, but lovely,
O daughters of Jerusalem,

sh’khorah ani v’navah b’noth y’rushalim – “Black, I, and beautiful, daughters Jerusalem.” The word shakhor signifies black. But the woman is speaking figuratively. Thus, though not literal, saying dark gets the idea across. The woman is of Israel and, therefore, she is naturally light to olive-skinned. This is evident from verse 6.

The thought is similar to that of Lamentations 4 –

“Her Nazirites were brighter than snow
And whiter than milk;
They were more ruddy in body than rubies,
Like sapphire in their appearance.
⁸ Now their appearance is blacker than soot;
They go unrecognized in the streets;
Their skin clings to their bones,
It has become as dry as wood.” Lamentations 4:7, 8

The Nazirite’s whiteness was a point of exaltation, but their appearance as soot reflected the state of God’s disapproval of the people, including the once lofty Nazirites.

However, this woman now states that she is black and beautiful, not being ashamed of her darkened state. And more, she proclaims this to the daughters of Jerusalem, as if it is actually a point of boasting. They are city girls who reveled in the light skin they possessed.

And yet, despite her blackness, the reason for which will be explained in verse 6, she proclaims her beauty with boldness.

In this, there is an unnatural state in which the woman is found. And yet, she has been the object of affection of the king. The parallel to the Lord’s redeemed is notable. Despite having the stain of sin, believers are accepted by God.

As with Christ who came in the likeness of men meaning fallen man (Philippians 2:7), even though He was not fallen, we walk in the world with the appearance of fallen man even though we are the Lord’s redeemed and are no longer being imputed sin (2 Corinthians 5:19).

The favor of the king, regardless of outer appearance, is what matters. Thus, the woman could say she was black and yet lovely. Likewise, we can say that we are stained with sin and yet redeemed by the Lord. As for her blackness, she next says it is…

^{5 (con’t)} Like the tents of Kedar,

k’ahole qedar – “According to tents Kedar.” Kedar was a son of Ishmael, as noted in Genesis 25:13. The name Qedar means dark, coming from qadar, to be dark or gloomy or to mourn. As such, he was probably an especially dark person.

At some point, this line of Ishmael took up the Bedouin style of living, dwelling in dark tents made from black goat hair. To this day, the Bedouins live in these same black tents which stand out against the surrounding sands.

The psalmist equates these same tents of Kedar to a state of gloom in his life –

“Woe is me, that I dwell in Meshech,
That I dwell among the tents of Kedar!
⁶ My soul has dwelt too long
With one who hates peace.
⁷ I am for peace;
But when I speak, they are for war.” Psalm 120:5-7

It is debated if the words of the previous clause are to be taken sequentially in parallel thoughts or whether they stand together. The woman had said, “Black, I, and beautiful.”

Does the black of the tents describe the first part of that clause only: Black, I? If so, then the “beautiful” is reserved for the next clause. If not, then the tents of Kedar are both dark and beautiful.

If she is only speaking of black here, then her previous words would mean something like, “I am ugly and beautiful at the same time. First, I am ugly like the tents of Kedar.” Either way, she equates her blackness to these tents, boasting in the color rather than finding shame. Next, that boast is raised to an even higher level with her next words…

^{5 (con’t)} Like the curtains of Solomon.

kirioth sh’lomoh – “According to curtains Solomon.” If this is only referring to the word beautiful, then she has made a contrast –

Black – According to the tents of Kedar.
And beautiful – According to the curtains of Solomon.

If not, then she has made a comparison –

Black, I, and beautiful – According to both the tents Kedar (a supposed negative) and the curtains Solomon (a contrasting positive).

Without knowing what Solomon’s curtains looked like, it would be hard to be dogmatic about this. However, because of the parallelism found in the song, I think she is making a contrast. Otherwise, using only one comparison would be necessary. By having two, it appears she is making contrasting parallel thoughts.

Either way, however, she acknowledges both and is unashamed of her darkness. Despite this, she next says…

⁶ Do not look upon me, because I am dark,

al tiruni sheani sh’kharkhoreth – “Not seeing me, that I swarthy.” The idea behind her words appears to be, “Don’t look down on me because I am swarthy.” She uses a word found only here in Scripture, sh’kharkhoreth. It is a diminutive form of the word used in the previous verse.

She has unashamedly acknowledged that she is black. Now, she admonishes those who behold her not to look down on her because of her swarthiness. She cannot help her appearance…

^{6 (con’t)} Because the sun has tanned me.

sheshzaphathni ha’shemesh – “That tanned me the sun.” This tells us that she is naturally light-skinned. She uses the word shazaph, to tan. Despite being swarthy, she is not naturally, and would have been recognized as such. Thus, this is not an indictment on being naturally dark-skinned. Rather, it would be considered a complaint against a light-skinned female who allowed her skin to darken.In such a case, it might be thought, “What? She isn’t happy with her natural skin?” It is a thought common in the world, such as Michael Jackson who wanted to be white while Rachel Dolezal pretended to be black. In the case of this woman, she doesn’t want anyone to think this is so. Rather…

^{6 (con’t)} My mother’s sons were angry with me;

Rather: b’ne imi nikharu vi – “Sons my mother burned in me.” Because it says mother rather than father, innumerable scholars say that these are stepbrothers or half-brothers from a different mother. There is nothing to substantiate this. The Bible elsewhere uses this terminology –

“Let peoples serve you,
And nations bow down to you.
Be master over your brethren,
And let your mother’s sons bow down to you.
Cursed be everyone who curses you,
And blessed be those who bless you!” Genesis 27:29

“And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, ‘Go, return each to her mother’s house. The Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me.’” Ruth 1:8

In the case of this verse, Lange rightly says, “like a true Hebrew daughter she is in the habit of denominating everything after her mother.”

As for the words about her brothers, every translation follows the thought of the NKJV, saying something like they were angry with her, incensed at her, or strove with her. However, the word kharar is used eleven times in the Bible and this would be the only time it had that meaning.

It simply means to burn. It is true that other similar words (e.g. kharah – to burn) can be figuratively applied to anger, but 1) why not use that more common word, and so, 2) she may simply be saying, “My brothers caused my skin to burn, darkening it.” If not, there is a huge void in her statement, leaving out the reason for their anger.

She has been using figurative language, including metaphor, concerning herself. There is no reason to assume she is not doing the same here. When something burns, it chars and blackens. In the case of her brothers, they put her out in the sun and caused her to burn. This happened because…

^{6 (con’t)} They made me the keeper of the vineyards,

samuni noterah eth hak’ramim – “Set me keeping the vineyards.” This explains the actions of the brothers. It is not that they were angry with her. Instead, it may be that they were just too lazy to do their job and had her do it instead.

No matter what, she was placed in the role of tending the vineyards by them. This explains the reason for her having been darkened by the sun. Her unapologetic nature concerning this state is because she assumed a lead role in her home that caused it to come about.

Concerning the vineyard, in Scripture, it represents the cultural side of humanity. There are various vineyards that represent various cultures. As such, one can make a valid comparison to the mission-directed nature of the church where the various vineyards of the world, that should have been tended to by Israel, are given to the church to tend.

They failed to respect the owner of the vineyard and thus had it taken from them (Luke 20:16). But this woman, having been sent to tend to the vineyards next says…

*^{6 (fin)} But my own vineyard I have not kept.

karmi sheli lo natar’ti – “My vineyard, that to me, not kept.” The plain sense of the words is that she is now speaking of herself. Because she has been tending to other vineyards, she has not had time to tend to herself.

The implication, however, is that she carefully tended to the other vineyards she was set over. This is what brought about her blackened skin and she asks to not be looked down on because of it. As we will see, her beloved does not hold it against her.

Although we often look at what is out of the ordinary as defective, bad, odd, unsophisticated, etc., we can turn around our thoughts about such things and look at them as positives.

A person may have been shot or burned during battle. If so, we might look away in revulsion. But if we change our attitude, we may say, “His wounds reflect his great character. He charged a hill by himself, saved dozens of men, and secured victory in the battle.”

A person may say, “My wife has had too many children and her body isn’t nice like it used to be.” Or he could turn it around and say, “My wife has borne and raised eight children. Isn’t she beautiful from all of that effort?”

It can be hard to change our views about things, finding positives where we would normally find negatives, but it can be done. In looking at imperfections as their own types of perfections because of what they represent, we can realign our thinking and find good in what we would otherwise find bad.

That is what God has done with us. We are so filled with imperfection that it is surprising He would even consider us. And yet, in our imperfection, He still sent Jesus, understanding that in our failings, He can still be exalted.

And someday, even our imperfections will be removed. We will stand before Him in a way we cannot even imagine at this time. That will only come about if we are His. So let me tell you how that is possible…

Closing Verse: “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.” 1 John 4:17

Next Week: Song of Songs 1:7-11 We will get the enigma resolved… (A Mystery Resolved) (3^rd Song of Songs sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. He alone is the perfect example of love – untarnished, unblemished, and completely pure and holy. He offers this love to you. So, follow Him, live for Him, and trust Him, and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

Song of Songs 1:4-6 (CG)

⁴ Draw me! –

After you, we shall run.

Brought me, the king, his chambers.
We shall twirl and we shall rejoice in you.
We shall remember your loves from wine.
Evennesses – they loved you.

⁵ “Black, I, and beautiful, daughters Jerusalem –
According to tents Kedar,
According to curtains Solomon.
⁶ Not seeing me, that I swarthy,
That tanned me the sun.
Sons my mother burned in me.
Set me keeping the vineyards.
My vineyard, that to me, not kept.

Song of Songs 1:4-6 (NKJV)

⁴ Draw me away!

We will run after you.

The king has brought me into his chambers.

We will be glad and rejoice in you.

We will remember your love more than wine.

Rightly do they love you.

⁵ I am dark, but lovely,
O daughters of Jerusalem,
Like the tents of Kedar,
Like the curtains of Solomon.
⁶ Do not look upon me, because I am dark,
Because the sun has tanned me.
My mother’s sons were angry with me;
They made me the keeper of the vineyards,
But my own vineyard I have not kept.

 

 

 

 

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson

Song of Songs 1:1-3
The Kisses of His Mouth

(Typed 4 November 2024) While typing this sermon, as always on Monday morning, I had to stop for a few minutes and go to the mall to take out the trash. No sooner had I gotten into the car than the guy on the radio started explaining various ways our lives may be expressed through our actions.

He started by talking about what our priorities are. The things we do and the things we seek after will, in turn, reflect our priorities. If we are seeking worldly things like fame, fortune, fast cars, etc., then the world is our priority.

If we aren’t going to church, our lack of priority toward the Lord who told us to meet and fellowship is revealed. The same is true with reading the Bible, sharing our faith, and so forth. After saying this, the radio host then used this train of thought to lead into some of the prayer requests that had been received at the station.

One was from a lady who had been married for 22 years. They had children through the marriage. However, the husband told his wife that he had lost his love for her. The marriage was no longer what he wanted, and he was leaving.

The Bible teaches that this man’s priorities towards his wife, his children, and the Lord are skewed. He is a misdirected soul and unless he wakes up and changes his ways, others will have to pay the price for his flawed choices. He is one of billions of examples in human existence of a person with imperfect love.

Text Verse: “Love never fails.” 1 Corinthians 13:8

One might ask, “If love never fails, then how can there be imperfect love?” Such a question fails to understand the difference between perfect love and imperfect love, something based on the Source of the love. This is why 1 Corinthians 13:8 more precisely says, “The love never fails.”

Perfect love is love that refers to the source of the love, even if it doesn’t fully define Him and His perfections. Unlike Him, humans are imperfect, so perfect love cannot define our love or be displayed by a human. However, the Bible says, God is love (literally: The God is love). It defines His nature as one of His unchanging attributes.

However, this equation cannot be turned around to say, “Love is the God,” as if love is the only thing that defines God. Nor can it say, “The Love is God,” as if a particular thing, love in this case, is God. The way John has written his statement leaves us with just one possible proper translation with one possible understanding.

We, as humans, love imperfectly. If we loved perfectly, then we would never fail in our state of love. So when Paul says, “love never fails,” he is speaking of love that is truly love. If we love someone and never fail to love them, then that is love that never fails.

However, we can fail to love, even when we love a person. But God, who is love, will never fail to love. His perfection means His love is perfect and unfailing. Obviously, this means to the objects of His affection. God is love. That doesn’t change, but we can change in relation to Him so that He cannot love us or what we do.

There is nothing contradictory in this. As noted, God is not defined by love only. He is also just, righteous, holy, etc. These attributes produce a tension in how He responds to us. It is a tension that can only be relieved through the cross of Jesus Christ.

In Christ, God’s righteousness is granted to His people. Tension resolved. In Christ, His love is demonstrated toward us and can be lavished upon us. Tension resolved. In Christ, we are made holy. Again, tension resolved. This applies to all of God’s attributes.

In Christ, none of His attributes are in tension with any other. The tension is resolved, allowing a full and perfect expression of each to be directed toward us. The Bible uses the term “in Christ” again and again. This is how that tension is resolved. We still sin. We still love imperfectly. We still don’t deserve God’s grace or mercy.

And yet, because we are in Jesus through our faith, we now participate in the perfect, eternal fellowship that exists between Him and the Father.

The first words of the Song of Songs form an adamant assertion. As this is so, our task should be to try to find out why the assertion is made and what is behind it. This is what we will attempt to do as we go through this wonderful book.

Imagine being the wife who has loved her husband and raised his children suddenly being told she isn’t what he wants anymore. She called in for prayer that he would change his mind. Imperfect her is still in love with imperfect him.

We are living in a world of imperfection, and yet, we can participate in what is perfect while we are here. The way we do so is found in the Person of Jesus Christ. Such a marvelous truth is to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again, and… May God speak to us through His word today, and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. The Song of Songs, an Introduction

Name: The Song of Songs, or the Song of Solomon, gets its name from the first line of the book, shir ha’shirim asher lish’lomoh – “Song the songs which to Solomon.”

The words “Song the songs” are idiomatic. In the tabernacle, there was the holy of holies, “the Most Holy Place.” The words King of kings are equivalent to, “the greatest of all kings.” Saying, “Lord of lords” or “heaven of the heavens” speaks of the most superlative or highest of each.

As such, saying, “Song the songs” is a way of stating that this is the greatest of all songs. It is the song that excels all other songs in what it portrays and conveys. It is a majestic claim concerning words that are, at times, very difficult to translate, understand, and comprehend.

Author and Dating: Despite saying “which to Solomon” often translated as “of Solomon,” “which is Solomon’s,” or something similar, whether Solomon is actually the author or not is unknown. This is simply a fact, but it does no good to argue against him being the author. In 1 Kings 4:32, it says that Solomon “spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five.”

Therefore, it is possible this is one of his songs. However, when Solomon is mentioned in this book, it is usually as someone who is distant from the narrative. This is not a disqualifying consideration though. At times, Solomon is even somewhat idolized in how he is portrayed. Despite this, 8:12 has the female voice speaking directly to Solomon.

As such, even if he is not the author, it is possible that he oversaw the compilation of the poem or that it was written to him, as the opening line may suggest with the words “which to Solomon.” Regardless, the dating of the book appears to be contemporary with his rule. Therefore, it was probably written between 970 to 931 B.C.

Style of writing: The book is formed from Hebrew poetry focusing on romantic love between a young man and a woman. Because of the sexually explicit nature of some of the contents, many scholars over the centuries have shied away from analyzing it or even agreeing with its inclusion in the canon of Scripture.

So difficult are the words, and so explicit are some of the contents, that Adam Clarke said, “To conclude: I advise all young ministers to avoid preaching on Solomon’s Song.” So much for 2 Timothy 3:16, 17!

When such instances are detailed, they will be considered without shying away from what is presented. Because the words are a part of Scripture, they are to be considered without timidity.

As for the main actors, verse 1:7 reveals the man in the poem is a shepherd. The next verse reveals the woman is a shepherdess. They express their love for one another and, as just noted, their desires go so far as being sexual in nature. The use of metaphor is quite common in the book.

Structure and Arrangement: The book goes back and forth in verbal exchanges between the man and the woman, but at times, there are calls from others that enter into their relationship, providing various promises, directional help with the relationship, probing questions, and so forth.

These extra voices are like chorus lines in a song or play that interject into what is being said, thus providing relief from tension that has built up, temporarily redirecting the focus, etc.

Various scholars and commentaries have assigned different divisions within the book. However, there are four noticeable breaks, each followed by sudden new beginnings. These are found in verses 2:7, 3:5, 5:1, and 8:4. As such, there are five parts, all ending “in full repose and refreshment” (Jamieson-Faucett-Brown Commentary).

Key Thought: There is repetition in the book, but the overall key thought is comprised of the thrice-repeated words –

“Do not stir up nor awaken love
Until it pleases.”

There is a time when love, if it is meant to be, will come about. To rush the process would be considered an error.

Placement and Prominence: In the Christian canon, The Song of Songs is placed as the last of the five wisdom books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. It is the twenty-second book in the Christian Canon.

As for the meaning of the number twenty-two, Bullinger says –

“TWENTY-TWO being the double of eleven, has the significance of that number in an intensified form,—disorganization and disintegration, especially in connection with the Word of God. For the number two is associated with the second person of the Godhead, the living Word. It is associated with the worst of Israel’s kings,—Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:20), and Ahab (1 Kings 16:29), each reigning 22 years. Eleven, we have seen, derives its significance by being an addition to Divine order (10), and a subtraction from Divine rule (12). These are two of the three ways in which the written Word of God can be corrupted—the third being alteration. “The words of the LORD are pure words”—words pertaining to this world and therefore requiring to be purified (see p. 169). But these words have been altered, taken from, and added to by man. Is there anything in this which connects it with the fact that the letters of the alphabet (Hebrew) are twenty-two in number? Does it point to the fact that the revelation of God in being committed to human language and to man’s keeping would thereby be subject to disintegration and corruption?”

One could ask a similar question about love. Because this is the twenty-second book of the Bible, does this point to the fact that something that can be perfect, such as love – because the Bible says “God is love” – may also be corruptible because of man’s fallen nature?

If so, when love is committed to humans, though being a gift of God, it is subject to disintegration and corruption. The book, then, would be a guide with underlying practical applications to assist the reader in how to successfully avoid the pitfalls of disintegration and corruption which are so obviously integrated into human love in fallen man.

As this is the twenty-second book, it is possible that links from the Old Testament to the Book of Matthew may provide a clue about the content. Each of the first twenty-eight books of the Old Testament makes one or more clear links to the 28 chapters of Matthew. The link between the Song of Songs and Matthew is –

*Song of Songs (22^nd book) concerns the wedding of the king, the son of David.

Matthew 22:1, 2 –

“And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: ² ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son.’”

Therefore, whether Solomon was the author (or co-author) or not, he is the immediate main subject of the book, as noted in verse 1:1, even if Jesus is the ultimate subject being prefigured. Likewise, Jesus the Son of the King of the Universe, is the ultimate Subject of the Bible.

Typology, Pictures, and Foreshadowing: Because this book is placed in Scripture, it is argued that there is a greater purpose to the contents of the book than simply being a love story with moral and practical life applications.

Jews predominantly believe it is a book about the relationship of the Lord to them (meaning the nation of Israel). Christians have drawn similar conclusions, concluding that it is a book that foreshadows the relationship of the Lord Jesus to His church.

If we take a clue from Paul concerning the significance of marriage as conveyed in Scripture, it may help us to understand why the Song of Songs is so important –

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. ²⁴ Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, ²⁶ that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷ that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. ²⁸ So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. ³⁰ For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ³¹ “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” ³² This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. ³³ Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” Ephesians 5:22-33

Paul identifies the ultimate purpose of marriage, which is that it reflects the relationship between Christ and the church for which He shed His blood. This idea extends to the last pages of the Bible where, in Revelation, the final consummation of the marriage of God to His people is prophetically referred to.

Because of the nature of the book, the 2^nd-century Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva claimed that it was the most sacred book in the Bible, being central to Jewish life. He compared it to the Holy of Holies in the temple.

The Song of Songs, along with four other books, do hold a particularly special place in the annual life of the Jewish people, being read at key points during their annual cycle of events. These five books are known as the Five Megilloth or Five Scrolls.

The word m’gillah (the singular of megilloth) comes from galal, to roll. Thus, the word refers to the way a scroll is rolled up. Although all books of the Old Testament were written in this manner, five have been drawn out to be read at specific times in the synagogue each year during certain festivals:

• Song of Songs: Read on the Sabbath of Passover week
• Book of Ruth: Read on Shavuot
• Book of Lamentations: Read on Tisha b’Av
• Ecclesiastes: Read on the Sabbath of the week of Sukkoth
• Book of Esther: Read on Purim

The Five Megilloth are part of the Ketuvim, the third section of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). Today, the books are grouped together in modern printed Hebrew Bibles, this was not always the case. In earlier times, the books were placed in chronological order among the other books of the Ketuvim.

The reason for the other four scrolls being read at particular times seems obvious. The Book of Ruth is read on Shavuoth, or Pentecost. This makes sense from the contents of the story. It is the story of redemption of a Gentile Bride, just as the predominantly Gentile-led church began at Pentecost, occurring just after Christ’s ascension.

Reading the Book of Lamentations on the Jewish people’s tragic day of Tisha b’Av reflects the pains and sufferings the people of God have experienced throughout their history, reminding them of their disobedience which has resulted in afflictions even while God devotedly maintains them as a people in accord with His covenant faithfulness.

Reading Ecclesiastes during the week of Sukkoth, Tabernacles, makes sense because it is a time of reflection in the presence of the Lord as people contemplate and discover the futility of life except when it is lived in accord with the precepts laid out by God for the conduct of His people.

And the Book of Esther being read on Purim follows logically because Purim was established based on the narrative recorded in Esther.

Seeing these parallels, and understanding that the Song of Songs is read during the Passover each year, we can and should look for a suitable explanation as to why. This will be one of the aims of the study as we progress through the book.

As noted, many try to directly equate the contents of the book with the Lord and Israel or the Lord and the church. Because of the style of writing and the rare nature of the words and phrases used, that has led to an “anything means anything” approach to the book. Rather, the Jamieson-Faucett-Brown Commentary states –

“The clue to the meaning of the Song is not to be looked for in the allegory itself, but in other parts of Scripture. ‘It lies in the casket of revelation an exquisite gem, engraved with emblematical characters, with nothing literal thereon to break the consistency of their beauty’ [Burrowes]. This accounts for the name of God not occurring in it. Whereas in the parable the writer narrates, in the allegory he never does so. The Song throughout consists of immediate addresses either of Christ to the soul, or of the soul to Christ. ‘The experimental knowledge of Christ’s loveliness and the believer’s love is the best commentary on the whole of this allegorical Song” [Leighton].’”

In other words, making direct connections to the Lord or Jesus, which is a common way of evaluating it, is not the main intent of the book and it will mar the overall interpretation. Rather, there are verbal connections to other parts of Scripture that will help the reader understand the nature of God and Christ without directly stating them or being directly equated to them. At times, however, direct connections are evident.

Unfortunately, the Jamieson-Faucet-Brown commentators then went about allegorizing the entire book to such an extent that it is hard to believe they actually read the quote in their own opening commentary.

Final Note: As for the contents of the Song of Songs, the book is comprised of 8 chapters totaling 117 verses. Its canonicity is not in question. It is found in all Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture and also in the Greek Septuagint. It is also found in other collections of the sacred writings.

With this brief summary of the book complete, we can now begin to analyze it word by word, searching out what is on the mind of the Lord with the inclusion of the book in His sacred word…

No kissing tonight, just leave me alone
I only want to watch the game, alright?
I have worked myself to death, right to the bone
And something with your hair just isn’t right

The perfume you are wearing is making me sneeze
It is just like everything about you of late
I could find someone better and do it with ease
And what is this tasteless food here on my plate?

*

Your imperfect love is failing me
But I will keep on loving you
Because of Jesus. I will wait patiently
If He can love me with all my faults, well, I can still love you

II. Ointment Poured Forth (verses 1-3)

The song of songs,

shir ha’shirim – “Song the songs.” The compound use of a Hebrew word forms its own emphasis. However, with the article affixed to the word in the genitive (Song the songs), it carries an especially strong emphasis. This is not a song out of many songs, but the song of all songs, meaning the greatest or most superlative of all songs, without any other qualifier.

The verb shir means to sing. That leads to the noun shiyr, a song. However, this does not necessarily mean a song with music, even if that is what commonly occurs when the word is used. The Song of Moses found in Deuteronomy 31 may have been read or sung to the people, either with or without instruments.

The words “Song the songs” tell us that the entirety of the song is to be considered a single song, not a collection of songs gathered over the years or from various sources as some claim. Of this song, it is next said to be…

^{1 (con’t)} which is Solomon’s.

asher lish’lomoh – “which to Solomon.” The prefix l, the Hebrew letter lamed, signifies motion toward an object. It can mean toward, as in “I am heading toward Jerusalem.” It can signify to, as in, “I give this to you.” It can mean by, as in “This was written by David.” It can mean of, as in “This is speaking of Mary.”

People debate and argue over the meaning of the letter when affixed to almost anything. They find a similar construct elsewhere and claim it proves their point. In this case, the most likely explanation is that this is the most exceptional song of all and it has been written by Solomon or at least under his hand.

As for the name Solomon, it is generally associated with the word shalem, peace. Thus, it is defined as Peace, Peaceful, Peaceable, etc. However, Abarim insists that it is derived from shillumah, reward or recompense, (the spelling is identical) and, thus, it signifies Recompense or Fair Penalty.

As this is a book in the Bible, Solomon would then be the inspired scribe or overseer of its composition, but the Holy Spirit would be the ultimate author. David wrote numerous psalms, and many of them contained prophecies that are indisputably pointing to the Messiah. Some could only be understood after they were fulfilled in the work of Christ.

This means that the Holy Spirit guided David, using his words to anticipate the coming of Jesus and provide descriptions of His work, including His death and resurrection. If this truly is the “Song the songs,” meaning the epitome of all songs, it can be nothing other than the inspired work of God.

Both songs of Moses (Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32) are this type of song. Many of the psalms are this type of song. These are ultimately credited to the Lord, and the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 31 is specifically said to be the words of the Lord written down by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:19).

As such, to claim that this is the “Song the songs,” if it was written by a man, would be a form of blasphemy, claiming it was greater than songs directly inspired by the Lord. As this is so, then when the Lord, who inspired this song, says that it is the “Song the songs,” we must treat it with the respect it deserves. Understanding this, the song begins with…

² Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—

yishaqeni min’shiqoth pihu – “Kiss me from kisses his mouth.” The word nashaq, to kiss, is used. It gives the idea of fastening up. As such, one can readily see the connection. When lips kiss, there is a fastening up that takes place.

The word is used in Ezekiel 3:13 where the wings of the living creatures in his vision “kissed” or met together. It is used in the Chronicles and Psalm 78 when referring to men being armed, kissing the implements of war. They are fastened up to them.

In this case, the song begins with a woman desiring a man to fasten up to her with the kisses of his mouth. The meaning is clearly that of an actual kiss, evidenced by the word mouth.

Some take this figuratively as if the kisses are referring to the precepts of Christ, each being like a kiss of His. However, a kiss is a kiss. Though there may be hints of such things in the book, the immediate poem is referring to a woman anticipating a kiss from a man.

The “where” of the kiss is not addressed. It could be her forehead, hand, or lips. She is simply desirous of the kiss of the kisses of his mouth. Without making a direct connection to Christ, we are seeing what God in Christ offers is to be desired. That which will fasten us to Him should be our yearning. With that, she continues…

^{2 (con’t)} For your love is better than wine.

The word love is plural: ki tovim dodekha miyayin – “For good your loves from wine.” The change from the third to the second person is a normal occurrence in poetry. The loves of this clause are parallel to the kisses of the previous clause.

A kiss is a type of loving affection. Thus, the intent is that his kisses, his loving affections, are more desirable and better than wine.

Because of the use of the plural, the Greek translation, which is followed by some translations, say, “breasts” instead of “loves.” The words are similar in Hebrew. The standard reading, however, is correct. She is speaking in parallelism, equating his kisses to his loves (doting affections) which are better than wine.

As for yayin, or wine, it comes from an unused root meaning to effervesce. Thus it is fermented wine, an intoxicant. In Psalm 104:15, it says that “wine [yayin] makes glad the heart of man.” The doting affections, the loves, of the man are more important to her than wine, even though it makes glad the heart of man.

In other words, in a perfect loving relationship, that which is considered choice and enrapturing cannot be equated to what God in Christ can and will provide for His people. The perfect love described in the greatest of all songs is subtly being hinted at.

This is the case because, in the Bible, wine symbolizes the merging together of cultural expressions into a result. The thing that ought to happen can happen, symbolized by wine. Good things can result from cultural expressions, but God in Christ transcends cultural expressions.

As such, there is nothing on this earth, in any culture, that can match the loving affections of God through the giving of His Son. Noting that, her compliments continue…

³ Because of the fragrance of your good ointments,

The words are emphatic: l’reakh sh’manekha tovim – “To aroma – your oils good.” To paraphrase the meaning, one might say, “As for smell, your cologne is amazing.” It is, therefore, not just a compliment about the smell of the cologne, but of the choice of it. Everyone understands this. When we compliment the perfume or cologne of another, we are complimenting the person’s choice as well.

Aromatic oil was used in the dedication of the tabernacle and the priest. That is seen in Exodus 30 –

“Moreover the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ²³ ‘Also take for yourself quality spices—five hundred shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much sweet-smelling cinnamon (two hundred and fifty shekels), two hundred and fifty shekels of sweet-smelling cane, ²⁴ five hundred shekels of cassia, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and a hin of olive oil. ²⁵ And you shall make from these a holy anointing oil, an ointment compounded according to the art of the perfumer. It shall be a holy anointing oil. ²⁶ With it you shall anoint the tabernacle of meeting and the ark of the Testimony; ²⁷ the table and all its utensils, the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense; ²⁸ the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the laver and its base. ²⁹ You shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them must be holy. ³⁰ And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister to Me as priests.’” Exodus 30:22-30

Every detail of the tabernacle, all of its furniture, as well as the high priest and his implements, pictures Christ Jesus. When anointed, there would have been a wonderful smell. But this oil and its contents, also pictured the Lord in every detail. That is hinted at next…

^3 (con’t) Your name is ointment poured forth;

There is an alliteration that forms a play on words: shemen turaq sh’mekha – “Oil pouring – your name.” The woman said that the aroma of the object of her yet unnamed affection is good. Now, she equates the pouring of oil (shemen) that she just referred to with his name (shem).

In the Bible, a name is equated to one’s character. The name Yeshua, Jesus, for example, means Salvation. His character, meaning being the Savior, is equated to His name. He is Salvation. For example, He made a pun of His name when speaking to Zacchaeus –

“And Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; ¹⁰ for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.’” Luke 19:9, 10

Jesus was essentially saying, “I, Salvation, have come to this house.” The pouring of oil being equated to his name is realized in what pouring out oil symbolizes, meaning anointing something.

If the fragrance of the oil anticipates the Lord and His word (as was seen in Exodus), and if the oil was poured out on everything anticipating the Lord (which is also noted in Exodus), then it is a way of equating the anointing with the Person and work of the Lord –

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
⁷ You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” Psalm 45:6, 7

This psalm is cited in Hebrews 1 and is directly equated to Jesus. And more –

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
² To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God.” Isaiah 61:1, 2

The words of Isaiah were read in the synagogue in Nazareth by Jesus in Luke 4. After reading them, it says –

“Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. ²¹ And He began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’” Luke 4:20, 21

Without directly identifying typology or pictures of Christ in these words, we see references to what God is doing in Scripture in subtleties found in this “Song the songs”…

*^{3 (fin)} Therefore the virgins love you.

Rather: al ken alamoth ahevukha – “Upon thus, maidens love you.” It doesn’t say, “the virgins.” There is no article. Further, the word almah signifies a young woman. There is no reason to assume she is referring to a harem or a particular group of young women.

Rather, she is simply stating a fact – “Because of the things I just expressed, maidens love you. I am a maiden, and this is why I love you.” She is speaking of herself as an example of how any other woman would react.

The five lines of verses 2 and 3 form what is known as a pentastich, a five-lined stanza within the book. The woman is in love with this man. She is expressing herself to him in a manner that explains why she does so and why it is natural for it to be as it is.

Each thing here, if taken in a natural sense, can be corrupted. Kissing can be forced, and doting affections can be withheld or turned into something unwanted and strained. Aromatic oil, as Ecclesiastes tells us, can be ruined –

“Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment,
And cause it to give off a foul odor;
So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.” Ecclesiastes 10:1

A good name is desirable, but a name can turn bad when a person exhibits folly of some type. A good example is seen in Jeremiah –

“And it happened on the next day that Pashhur brought Jeremiah out of the stocks. Then Jeremiah said to him, ‘The Lord has not called your name Pashhur, but Magor-Missabib. ⁴ For thus says the Lord: “Behold, I will make you a terror to yourself and to all your friends; and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and your eyes shall see it. I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive to Babylon and slay them with the sword. ⁵ Moreover I will deliver all the wealth of this city, all its produce, and all its precious things; all the treasures of the kings of Judah I will give into the hand of their enemies, who will plunder them, seize them, and carry them to Babylon. ⁶ And you, Pashhur, and all who dwell in your house, shall go into captivity. You shall go to Babylon, and there you shall die, and be buried there, you and all your friends, to whom you have prophesied lies.”’” Jeremiah 20:3-6

Such things are a problem in the world. No matter what we do and no matter who we do it with, there is always imperfection in our interactions. This is true not only with others but in our interactions with God as well. Without Jesus, there is nothing we can do about the tainted relationships that exist between us and others and between us and God.

We are finite and limited in our ability to focus or remain free from stress. We face temptations that misdirect us. We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world. The Song of Songs is titled as it is because it is a part of the Bible. As a part of the Bible, it expresses to us something that God wants us to focus on.

If love can be perfect, it can only be so because of God who is perfect. And so, He has given us a book of love and asked us to seek out the rest of His word to determine the difference between our perceptions of love and His perfect love.

He did this so that we can know that the state of perfect love that exists in Him can be realized in us and toward us if we accept it from His perspective. Why is this the “Song the songs?” Because the song of love is the epitome of the perfections of God in Christ. It is why He sent Him.

Closing Verse: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

Next Week: Song of Songs 1:4-6 I am smitten by you, can’t you see?… (Draw Me!) (2^nd Song of Songs sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. He alone is the perfect example of love – untarnished, unblemished, and completely pure and holy. He offers this love to you. So, follow Him, live for Him, and trust Him, and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

Song of Songs 1:1-3 (CG)

Song the songs which to Solomon.

² Kiss me from kisses his mouth –
For good your loves from wine.
³ To aroma – your oils good,
Oil pouring – your name.
Upon thus, maidens love you.

Song of Songs 1:1-3 (NKJV)

The song of songs, which is Solomon’s.

² Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
For your love is better than wine.
³ Because of the fragrance of your good ointments,
Your name is ointment poured forth;
Therefore the virgins love you.