The Song of Solomon and Abishag?

Listening to: Seth Lakeman: Kitty Jay

When David was growing very old, and was quite unwell, his servants "sought for a beautiful young woman throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not" (1 Kings 1:3-4).

David's son, Adonijah, attempts to become king, but David makes Solomon king in time to stop the coup. Adonijah's allies desert him and he pays homage to Solomon, so managing to avoid death. After David's death Adonijah approaches Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, to ask Solomon on his behalf if he can marry Abishag (2:13-17). When Bathsheba asks Solomon for this he reacts furiously:

"King Solomon answered his mother, 'And why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also, for he is my older brother, and on his side are Abiathar the priest and Joab the son of Zeruiah.' Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, 'God do so to me and more also if this word does not cost Adonijah his life! Now therefore as the Lord lives, who has established me and placed me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today.' So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he struck him down, and he died." (2:23-25)

We don't hear of Abishag the Shunammite again... or do we?

In the Song of Songs 6:13 it seems we find a bride who is a Shulammite (Heb. sulammit) due to marry Solomon. The meaning of 'Shulammite' is uncertain, but it could indicate an inhabitant of the town of Shunem (p. 1217, Eerdman's Bible Dictionary). I.e. she could be a Shunammite (Heb. sunammit). It would seem very fitting for Abishag to be the Shulammite of Song of Songs.

If Abishag is the concubine of David, who he never had sex with, but who later married Solomon, how does that affect our interpretation of the Song of Songs?

... Dave Bish, you're the expert, I'm looking at you!

Thoughts on the Song of Songs

The Song of Songs has always puzzled me, as I imagine it has puzzled lots of other people.

I may not have great literary antenna but I have always thought that the repeated phrase found throughout the book, which is just about its only direct address or command by the bride to those outside the story, holds the key to understanding the book's message. Repeated three times in 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4 is the phrase: 'I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem [...] that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases.' This book it appears is about knowing the 'time to embrace, and [the] time to refrain from embracing' (Eccl 3:5).

Structurally key to the book is the only other time that the bride 'adjures' the 'daughters of Jerusalem' which is in 5:8, and is for them to find her beloved and tell him that she is 'sick with love'. I think this marks a turning point in the story. Up till this time it has been too early to awaken love, which has shown in the confusion and obstacles which mark the first two-thirds of the story. It follows the dream sequence where she has both longed for him, but also been unsure of her love - her 'soul failed' (5:6) and she lost him. However, after 5:8 both the bride and bridegroom seem much more sure of their relationship with each other. The bride is challenged 'What is your beloved more than another beloved, that you thus adjure us?' and she answers persuasively so that the 'others' agree to help her find him (6:1).

She seeks to find if the time is now right to awake love 'to see whether the vines had budded, whether the pomegranates were in bloom' (6:11, 7:12). It clearly is by the wonderful words that the couple shower on each other. They are encouraged to return and present herself to the community (6:13). As the right time has arrived she 'comes up from the wilderness leaning on her beloved' (8:5). Now finally it is the time for love to be awakened and the bride declares 'Under the apple tree I awakened you' (8:5).

The watchmen in the story have always confused me. They appear benignly in 3:3 and the bride finds her bridegroom immediately after seeing them. In 5:7 however they are violent, abuse her and seem to prevent her finding her love. Their role as 'watchmen of the walls' should explain their identity. At the end of the book we read of others who have responsibility for walls (8:8-9):

We have a little sister,
and she has no breasts.
What shall we do for our sister
on the day when she is spoken for?
If she is a wall,
we will build on her a battlement of silver,
but if she is a door,
we will enclose her with boards of cedar.

They are presumably her brothers who in the OT often seem to have responsibility for protecting their sisters. In Israelite society romance was both public, arranged and dealt with in community and especially family. Throughout the book it is never just the lovers who are involved in this romance.

The 'daughters of Jerusalem', the young women, and those who have a role in protecting her, have a responsibility to ensure that love is not forced early, and sex does not happen until the appropriate time. Coercion to force love, or prevent it is the folly this wisdom book opposes.

The Song of Songs is both a cautionary tale of how things can go wrong, but also of how wonderfully it can come together in the end. In the end there is 'peace' after all the commotion of the early story. It is something to look forward to.

BTW if as I have incoherently argued, not awakening love too early, and the responsibility of the lovers and the community in behaving in line with this, is central to the purpose of this book, then I cannot see how a description of the relationship of God to Israel or Christ to the Church is the original intention of the author. Which is not to deny that it is not pointed to, as it is in every loving relationship no matter how marred by sin. Although I have to admit fault is surprisingly difficult to find with the bridegroom given my interpretation....

A question for allegorical interpreters of the Song of Solomon

How do you deal with the refrain that first occurs in Song of Solomon 2:7? It reads:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the does of the field, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases. (Song of Solomon 2:7; cf. 3:5, 8:4)

I can understand this phrase as an interjection into 'a poem celebrating human love and sexuality' (p. xiii, Song of Songs (NICOT), by Tremper Longman III), but why would we not stir up love for Christ?

I've looked up Matthew Henry and John Gill who follow the allegorical interpretation and they seem to be using the reading do 'not stir up or awaken my love' - i.e. do not bother Christ or the church (depending on who you think is speaking). Is this a valid translation?

Longman seems to admit of two meanings of the warning:

One suggestion is that the phrase has the force of a “do not disturb sign.” Don’t disturb us until our love (the love of the man and the woman) has had its fill. Yet this seems an odd way to express the idea. More naturally, the verse is a warning of the woman to other women who may look on the relationship and want to experience something similar; she is, in essence, telling them not to force it. Wait for love to blossom; don’t hurry it. In a sense, then, the daughters of Jerusalem are surrogates for the reader. We too are to learn the same lesson: Wait for love to blossom; don’t try to stimulate it artificially…. She warns the others not to arouse love until they are ready to meet its rigors, both physical and emotional. Love is not a passing fling but rather a demanding and exhausting relationship. (pp. 115-116)

In addition to what Longman says I can see how a longing for the love you see in happy couples can actually lead to lust, and the idolatry of that kind of relationship.

So I cannot see how such an important verse can be made to fit the allegorical interpretation, for all its other strengths. At the moment I remain an unfashionable literalist, but please try and pursuade me.

PS I realise 6 posts in 2 days is not very good for a person only 3 weeks away from a very important exam... but I have a lot of stuff going round my head. I think it is all out though now!