Finding What You Look For

Oh, give me the kisses of your mouth for your love is more delightful than wine. Song of Songs 1:2 JPS

Kisses – It’s almost commonplace among critical scholars to point out the misuse of the text when the Song of Songs is treated as a theological description of Christ and the Bride-Church. Various passages in the Song become fodder for incredibly creative reinterpretation in order to force them to fit this overall paradigm. For example, we might find it hilarious to read that Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 CE) took the verse, “My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts” as an allegory that Christ rested between the Old Testament and the New. But before we dismiss the dozens of Christian commentators, both ancient and modern, who treat the Song as anything but sexual poetry, we should not overlook the long and illustrious Jewish history that treats the Song exactly the same way, now, of course, as an allegory about YHVH and Israel. In other words, on both sides of the theological divide, religious men have done their best to strip the Song of its sexuality and convert it into topics much more conducive to their religious sensitivities.

Thus, nearly every Jewish commentator who embraced the “God and Israel” interpretive scheme starts with a reinterpretation of this, the opening verse. Michael Fishbane comments:

Based on this allegorical approach, the “kisses” desired by the maiden could signify the words of God given to Israel at Mount Sinai; and the gazelle that “leaped” over the mountain could signify God Himself, who “skipped” over the centuries and shortened the time of servitude forecast in olden times. Similarly, the beloved whose name was like “decanted aromatic oil” was interpreted as father Abraham, who diffused knowledge of God to the nations; and the person who asked the beloved, “How will you rest your flock at noontime?” was taken to be Moses addressing God, . . .[1]

The Jewish allegorical approach to the Song has a very long history, including some of Judaism’s greatest rabbis. It is little wonder that Christian exegetes followed suit. But this raises a very interesting and important question. Why did these illustrious men find it so necessary to “discover” a hidden code?   Perhaps the answer is that the plain meaning of the text, even with its double entendre and innuendo, is just too sexual for biblical ears. It’s just too embarrassing to be “religious.” Of course, the fact that it parallels Babylonian erotic poetry doesn’t help. After all, these are supposed to be words of God!

We don’t need to belabor the point that allegorical interpretation avoids sexual connotation. What we need to realize is that both sides employ allegory and that allegory is an artificial scheme placed on to the text. In fact, unless the author tells us that his or her text is an allegory, any attempt to interpret the text as allegory will inevitably be the construction of the interpreter. The paradigm the interpreter brings to the text will lead him to find exactly the evidence needed to support his allegory.

There is a very old rule in Jewish exegesis: the meaning derived from the text must never contravene or undermine the plain meaning of the text. That is to say, derash, remez or sod cannot invalidate peshat. But this rule seems not to apply to Song of Songs. There are volumes written on the allegorical meaning of the Song. Not one of them demonstrates that the text is first and foremost erotic love poetry.

What do we learn from this historical review? Two things. First, our paradigms drastically affect how we read the text, and second, our paradigms are quite often the product of our culture whose mores and values predetermine the meaning we assign to the text. If this is true for the Song of Songs (where we can clearly see the influence), what makes us imagine that it is not true for all the other biblical texts? Exegesis cannot begin with the words of the Bible. It must begin with the thought forms we bring to the words of the Bible and in order to recognize those prior thought forms we will need someone or something to confront and challenge our usual way of thinking.  “Outside the box” must become a part of every exegesis.

Topical Index: Song of Songs 1:2, kisses, allegory, paradigms, Fishbane

[1] Michael Fishbane, The JPS Bible Commentary: Song of Songs, p. xli.