Literary Context
The
pericope at hand is sectioned off fairly clearly by 5:1 and 6:4. The preceding poem (4:9-5:1) comes to a
definite conclusion by describing the man’s entrance into the woman’s “locked
garden” (4:12) and his subsequent enjoyment (5:1). 5:2 then begins a new scene. Just so, 6:4 begins a new poem and thereby marks the end of
our pericope at 6:3.
More
interesting, however, is that 5:2-6:3 closely resembles another poem, perhaps
even two. The obvious parallel is
found in 3:1-5 where, beginning on her bed at night, the woman ventures out to
the city to search for her lost lover until she finds him. The poem recounts
almost identical events (encountering the watchmen and adjuring the daughters)
and seems to express a similar focus on the yearning of desire.
A
weaker but nonetheless present parallel may be found in 2:8-17. The resemblance stems from the poem’s
description of the man coming to the woman and calling for her (cf. 5:2). Despite
these similarities, 5:2-6:3 is certainly a unique poem with nothing in the book
quite like it. It is beautiful and
dark at the same time. As I shall expound below, I believe that it attempts to
capture the ineffable paradox of intimacy (viz. sexual intercourse).
Detailed Exegesis
For
the sake of space I will not examine each verse in detail but will devote most
attention to the key elements of the poem, namely verses 1-8 and 6:1-3. Also
worth noting is that I am not concerned with any sort of logical explanation of
this poem – for it is a poem! I will make no attempt to justify the sequence of
events in the poem’s scenes.
Instead, my aim is to understand the feelings, ideas, and convictions
expressed in the poem.
5:2 – The woman’s voice opens the poem by recounting a
past occurrence (hence, I will tend to describe the poem in the past
tense because I think something is lost if translated to present tense). The woman tells that she slept yet
lightly enough to hear the knock on the door and the call of the man. Was she dreaming? Is the whole poem a
dream or just a part of it?
Commentators seem to differ on this[1]
but it is not central to my interpretation since I aim to consider the
psychological meaning of the images.
The
man’s request was for intimacy with the woman (i.e. sexual intercourse). This is inferred by the double meaning
of the man’s request (“Open to me”) and the implicit but unmentioned door, which,
according to Longman is symbolic of entry into the woman’s body.[2] That the man was dripping with dew from
the night may imply further sexual innuendo but need not necessarily. What is
clear is that the man had come with desire
for his “perfect one.”
5:3 – It is unclear who is speaking. Is it the man or the
woman? Garrett interprets this as
the man’s entreaty, but he is in the minority view.[3] If it is the woman, it is unclear
whether or not she speaks to the man, to herself (as soliloquy) or perhaps to
the daughters of Jerusalem found in v.8.[4] Nevertheless, the woman’s twofold
lament is clear: she was unready for the man. That she was stripped and bathed suggests that she was
prepared for sleep and not for sex.
I believe that this verse is best read as disclosing details of the
scene rather than dialogue between the lovers. Moreover, the lines express the woman’s feeling of surprise,
vulnerability, and perhaps even reluctance.
5:4 – The poem’s excitement increases as the woman
describes how the man touched his “hand to the latch,” (RSV). Longman translates this more intensely
as “hand through the hole” and argues that this language is undoubtedly sexual.[5] I find this convincing since the
following line describes the woman’s reaction: “my heart was thrilled within
me,” (RSV). Here the Hebrew me’ah
(translated “heart”) is more rightly conveying a deeper, more private, area of
the body.[6] When combined with the word hmh (translated “thrilled”), I believe it is clear that
the act of the man – whatever it details – caused sexual pleasure for the woman
(and probably the man as well).
These intense images portray pleasure.
5:5 – The pleasure described in 5:4 is enough to have
roused the woman to open to her beloved.
The woman explains that she moved to the door and her hands “dripped
with myrrh,” (cf. 1:13; 3:6; 4:6; 5:1).
The myrrh does not indicate anything specific but simply adds to the
intensity of the sensual pleasure.
5:6 – In a kind of anticlimax, the woman describes the
poem’s unpredictable twist: she opened to her beloved only to find him
absent. Indeed, it is even more
anticlimactic for the reader since we are given no explicit reason for the
man’s exit. The woman alludes to
her previous reluctance in v. 3 and comments, “My soul failed me when he
spoke,” (RSV). The NIV translates
this comment as “My heart had gone out to him when he spoke.” Both translations suggest that the
reason for the man’s departure was the woman’s reluctance to answer his initial
call, but, as I have noted, any attempt to make logical sense of this scene is
futile. Rather, I believe that
this central stanza of the poem expresses the instantaneous vulnerability
of intimacy (more below). Garrett offers an interesting and very plausible
interpretation that the man’s absence is nothing more than his orgasm.[7] The verse ends with the woman’s
description of her failed attempts to “find” her beloved.
5:7 – The woman now tells a traumatic scene in the city:
the “watchmen” find her and beat her. As in previous passages,[8]
the “city” (contrasted with the country) represents a difficult “place” to be
and express love. What is significant here is not what the watchmen, city, or
physical beating literally represent, but rather the feelings that they convey.[9] The images clearly express fear and
anxiety.
5:8 – The woman here speaks directly to another (her
audience?). She adjures the
“daughters of Jerusalem” to tell her beloved (should they find him) that she is
“sick with love.” Such an intense
description of the woman’s experience seems to convey the way that love and
desire consumes the human psyche.
5:9 – The daughters of Jerusalem fail to recognize the
uniqueness of the man: “What is your beloved more than another beloved?”
(RSV) The daughters’ response
expresses the distance of those outside the lovers’ intimacy
(i.e. those on the “outside” cannot understand). This scene also sets up the
woman’s wasf in 5:10-16.
5:10-16 – This is the woman’s first and only wasf
in the entire book. As such it is
especially fitting for this poem because the context emphasizes the uniqueness
of personal experience. Who can
describe the man? Only the woman who has been intimate with him. There is not room to add commentary on
the images of the wasf.[10]
6:1 – Again the daughters of Jerusalem inquire to the woman. This time, however, they do not ask a
“what” question but a “where.” It
seems that the woman’s wasf was sufficient to capture their
attention and they too now desire to know where this exceptional man may be
found.
6:2,3 – The woman answers with an unexpected response. Though previously she was “sick with
love” and could not find her beloved, she now claims to know exactly where he
is: “My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to pasture
his flock in the gardens, and to gather lilies. I am my beloved’s and my
beloved is mine; he pastures his flock among the lilies,” (RSV). That the man
is in “his garden” brings to mind the explicit image of the woman’s body in the
foregoing poem (4:19-5:1). Further
support is found in the woman’s clear explanation that the man is not missing
but is, in fact, intimately joined to her: “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is
mine.” The
man is not lost (and never was).
Instead, the woman explains that she and she alone knows where the man
described in the wasf is to be found: in
the intimacies of sexual intercourse.
Interpretation
As
Garrett rightly notes, “All of this makes for narrative chaos if read in any
literal way.”[11] The
illogical drama of the poem does not recount literal events but is rather a
poetic expression of the psychological experience between lovers. More specifically, I believe that the
poem expresses the paradoxical feelings of intimacy vis-à-vis sexual intercourse.
As such, the poem captures the depth of love as not only a physical act, but
also a psychological phenomenon.
The
poem conveys three waves of emotion: 5:2-6; 5:6-9; 5:10-6:3. The first wave expresses the lovers’
desire for one another. The
imagery is obvious and the couple takes pleasure in consummating their
love. The woman’s reluctance in v.
3 ought not be viewed as literal disinterest in her lover but rather an
expression of the vulnerability that a (possibly virgin) wife might feel during
the moments of sexual consummation.
Again, the poem captures the storm of emotions that are part of sexual
intimacy. Any feeling of
reluctance is quickly replaced by passion and desire in verses 4-6. The physical pleasure is not
disconnected from the psychological; it is all connected.
The
second wave of emotion in 5:6-9 conveys the woman’s fear and anxiety. Anyone who has ever been in an intimate
sexual encounter understands that with the passion and pleasure of sex come the
fears of exposure (cf. Gen. 3:7).
The disappearance of the man in v. 6 expresses the deepest of human
fears: opening to our beloved and being rejected. The subsequent verses
continue to portray the woman’s fear of losing the one with whom she has been
most intimate. Such is the power
in sexual intimacy and it plays upon our psyche. Indeed, it makes the woman
sick. Hence the repetitious warning: Do not awaken love!
The
woman’s fears are ultimately squelched in the third wave as she remembers the
nearness of her beloved. The man
is not aloof as her fears might imagine; he is actually so near that he belongs
to her and she to him. This reassurance is something that only she can know
because she alone has known him intimately. Thus, the woman offers her unique description of the man in
vv.10-16. Her wasf is the location of
her reassurance. It is as if the wasf grounds the woman in her unique view of the man and reminds her of
their intimacy. Then she is able
to “find” him: Aha! He is here with me in my garden.
I
have noted throughout that I believe this poem expresses the paradoxical
emotions of intimacy vis-à-vis sexual intercourse. Provan agrees in his
assessment: “Love, when stirred up, will involve wonderful moments of intimacy
and passion. It will also involve
moments, however, of vulnerability, insecurity, fear, and loss.”[12] The truth of this poem is not that
lovers experience such psychological paradox, though it is true. The deeper truth, I believe, is found
in the concluding line of the poem: “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is
mine.” Despite the [sometimes
illogical] drama of love, the two lovers belong to one another.
Theological Interpretation
Just
as human love is characterized by paradox, so too is divine-human love. I would like to posit that the picture
of human love painted in this poem is an image of the divine-human
relationship. As such, the love that characterizes the divine-human
relationship is not agape, but eros.[13] This love is characterized by
passionate desire for one another.
However,
just as the lovers of the poem experience psychological fear and vulnerability,
so too do human beings – and, I would argue, God as well. Human beings
undoubtedly experience fears and vulnerability when we become intimately in
love with God (e.g. Psalms 13 and 22; the Dark Night of the Soul, etc.). I also believe that, through Jesus,[14]
God knows this paradox as well; for is there a more intimate moment of love
between humans and God than the Cross? (c.f. “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved
is mine”) Paradoxically, is there
a moment when the lovers are not seemingly
more aloof? Indeed, the
psychological paradox of intimacy portrayed in the lovers of the Song is an
image of the intimacy between our Divine Lover and the human Jesus.
Application
Intimate
love is risky business. To apply a
quote from Richard Bauckham, intimate love demands what it offers and offers
what it demands.[15] Intimate love demands the risk of
exposure and vulnerability, but at the same time it offers the reward of
supreme love and belonging.
After
reflecting upon this poem, it seems to me that the wasf has a key role to play in the process of intimate
love. More specifically, perhaps
the wasf is a crucial means for
overcoming fear and finding reassurance.
As I noted above, the woman seems to find reassurance after describing
her beloved. Perhaps we too might
apply this strategy when fears overtake us. There is a profound wooing that occurs when we describe our human lover for who
they are. In my own experience,
the act of poetically describing my beloved helps me to see her as unique and
reminds me why I love her so.
The
same may be true for describing the eternal and invisible God. As Jensen notes, “Christ on the
cross…is a figure naked to the world; the church points up to him and says, My
lover is like that.”[16] In the midst of our deepest fears that
the One who knows us most intimately might reject us, perhaps the wasf is a tool for overcoming fear and returning to our
Lover’s Garden (cf. Gen.2:8).
A Jesus Wasf
My Beloved is the finest lover of all;
A million blazing suns could not outshine Him.
Like the whir of a warm spring rain,
His voice soothes my heart.
His hands are camel’s hair;
And His eyes like doves.
His skin is like sea glass,
Broken and bruised by waves.
His garments of purple are finer than diamonds;
The rarest of stones envy him.
His lips drip with sweet honey,
From His tongue comes heaven’s manna.
His blood is the essence of life,
His veins are the rivers of being.
He alone is my lover,
My beloved is my friend
and God.
[1]
Mitchell believes 5:2-5 to be dream, 878. Provan views 5:2-7 as dream,
341. Longman III remains ambiguous
and does not deem the matter significant, 165.
[2]
Longman III, 166.
[3]
Duane Garrett, World Biblical Commentary: Song of Songs, vol. 23B (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson,
2004), 208.
[4]
Jensen, 53.
[5]
Longman III, 162, 167.
[6]
Longman, III 167.
[7]
Garrett, 212.
[8]
e.g. 1:5-6; 3:2-3
[9]
Even Longman III treats this scene as dream rather than literal event, 169.
[10]
For details see Garrett 202-224; Mitchell 918-944.
[11]
Garrett, 224.
[12]
Provan, 341.
[13]
Jensen, 17.
[14]
I might argue that God also knows through the Spirit with Jesus and all human
beings; but in Jesus in a unique way.
[15]
Trevor Hart, “Imagination for the Kingdom of God?” in Richard Bauckham, God
Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of Jurgen Moltmann, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 71.
[16]
Jensen, 58.
No comments:
Post a Comment