Shir HaShirim and the Chosen One PT. 1. Erotica or prophecy?

Assalamalaikum everyone!
We take a break from analyzing trinity and delve into something a bit more interesting. Let’s go!
Introduction:
Christian and muslim discourse often involves basic, yet important topics for discussion. One day, you might listen to a ticktock or youtube live and hear a Christian and a muslim discussing the illogical nature of the trinity, and the next minute you’re joining the interlocutors in a passionate dialogue about textual criticism and bible versus quranic preservation. But what about the prophet, peace be upon him, in the holy bible? For the average Christian, this topic would be no sweat! The position that he is, in fact, present within the holy bible is one which is met with laughter and ridicule more than with seriousness now adays. However, what if there was more to unpack than the average Christian was letting on? What if, he is, in fact, present in the holy bible? What if the most laughed at argument is actually the best one? And what if you could unlock these mysteries by continuing to read this very series! If you wish to do so, keep on reading!
What is Shir HaShirim?
Shir HaShirim is the Hebrew name for a book present within the holy bible, translated to song of songs, and it can also be referred to as song of Solomon. So, what is the argument? Well, it is quite simple. The series Shir HaShirim and the chosen one will prove that song of songs 5-6 is a prophecy foretelling the coming of none other than the seal of the prophets, the chosen one, Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Now that you know the argument, let’s jump right in!
Purpose of this article.
As you might have guessed by the name of the article, unpacking the song will not be done in a single article, but rather in several different articles. Unfortunately, we won’t be delving deep into the allegory of the song just yet. However, it is highly recommended you read this article first.
Instead of getting right into the song, we will answer two primary contentions. The first is that muslims are inconsistent for quoting the bible despite not believing in it, and the second has to do with the nature of the song of songs.
Let us deal with the first contention, which normally goes like this. muslims don’t believe in the bible to be the word of god, so why are you quoting it?
This is the easiest of the two contentions to answer. Simply put, the Islamic position on the jewish and Christian text does not affirm that everything present within them is categorically false. We do believe that they do contain falsehoods, but this is not an inconsistency on our part. Just as a book such as the book of morman, which is viewed as false by most Christians, can still contain true information, this rings true for the bible in like manner. It is also important to note that the main reason for muslims quoting the bible is not because we believe in it, but rather because you do. If the bible had not been your authority, muslims wouldn’t quote from it. But because it is, we present evidences to show that our prophet, may peace be upon him, who Christians say is a false prophet, auzubillah, is prophecied within your scriptures.
Moving to the next contention, and this is perhaps the most common pertaining to this subject.
Upon hereing the argument that the song of songs fortells the coming of the prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him, a Christian might laugh the argument off and say that the song of songs is nothing more than an erotica, and a love poem between salaman and one of his lovers. Perhaps they might appeal to the sexual imagery of this passage as an attempt to discredit muslims from running this argument. We will deal with this first.
Before we do, however, we must first point something out. If what the Christian says were true, that the song of songs is simply an erotica between two lovers, then it would have absolutely 0 place within religious scripture. Simply put, the book offers no moral guidance, no deeper spiritual lesson, neither information about God and his atributes. In a religious text which is supposed to serve as a guidance for humanity, this song would have no place in its pages. However, the fact that it does speaks volumes to the interpretations of scholars and authority figures, as will be demonstrated later.
Back to the argument, the Christian might point to the sexual imagery of the song of songs as a whole, in order to laugh and discredit muslims out of this argument. However, this should have no bearing on the prophetic nature of a text. There are many places within the old testament where similar language is used to describe God and Isreal. Does this therefore mean that these books should be discarded and not viewed as prophetic? Certainly not!
Examples are below.
Jeremiah 2:2, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: “This is what the Lord says: “‘I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the wilderness, through a land not sown.
Isaiah 54:5-7, For your Maker is your husband, the Lord Almighty is his name. The Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth. The Lord will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit, a wife who married young, only to be rejected,” says your God. “For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with deep compassion I will bring you back.
Hosea 2:20-22, I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord. “And in that day, says the Lord, I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel.
Ezekiel 16:
4 And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths.
5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.
6 “And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’
7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.
8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine.
15 “But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore because of your renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his.
16 You took some of your garments and made for yourself colorful shrines, and on them played the whore. The like has never been, nor ever shall be.
17 You also took your beautiful jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given you, and made for yourself images of men, and with them played the whore.
Ezekiel 23:
17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoring lust. And after she was defiled by them, she turned from them in disgust.
18 When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister.
19 Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt,
20 and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses.
21 Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”
If the Christian were consistent, they would have to render Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and especially Ezekiel as books not in any way prophetic. However, there is still some more ground to cover.
Perhaps the most significant issue with leveling this objection is that it completely contradicts the vast majority of scholars, rabbis, theologians, church fathers, and even the new testament!
For Christians, the apostle Paul is a great authority, possessing great knowledge of the previous scriptures. He always quotes the prophets of old in an attempt to prove that Jesus was prophecied by them. that being said, would it surprise the reader to know that he himself alludes to the song of songs?
effecians 5:25-27:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
He is clearly hinting at the song of songs, describing the bride, who Paul views as the church, as undefiled and without blemish.
Another example is in the book of revelation. The following verse alludes to song of songs 5:1-2.
Revelation 3:20, Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
This perfectly describes the imagery in the first two verses of song of songs 5, in which the beloved is knocking on the door and is described as eating and celebrating with his lover.
Additionally, several church fathers interpreted this to be aligorical and not just a mere erotica.
For instance, The third century priest and ecclesiastical writer Hippolytus of Rome wrote the earliest Christian commentary on the song of songs. Spoiler, he did not take the view of the modern Christian, interpreting it as mear erotica.
"When it says "your breasts are better than wine," it signifies that the commandments of Christ delight the heart like wine. For, as infants suck upon breasts in order to extract some milk, so also all who suck on the law and the gospel obtain the commandments as eternal food." Commentary on song of songs 1:2.
Similarly, Christian theologian Jerome wrote this pertaining to the song.
"Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the Proverbs of Solomon. From the Preacher let her gain the habit of despising the world and its vanities. Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and of patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels never to be laid aside once they have been taken in hand. Let her also drink in with a willing heart the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. As soon as she has enriched the storehouse of her mind with these treasures, let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the Books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs but not before: for, were she to read it at the beginning, she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this she would suffer from it." Jerome, Letters to Laeta, no. 107.
Clearly, both of these theologians perceived the song of songs as more than just a poem of love, but rather a deep aligorical message.
Here are countless commentaries that agree with this view.
The new Jerome biblical commentary has this to say.
"Remarkably, synagogue and church agree on a religious interpretation: Cant refers to the love of the Lord for his people or, for Christians, to the love of Christ for the church." Roland E. Murphy, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 463.
Bruce Metzger, a well-renoun bible scholar says the following
"It contains no outright mention of religion, and the word God does not occur even once. Its inclusion in the Jewish and Christian canon is due to its acceptance as an allegory of God’s love for Israel, or of Christ’s love for the church." (Reader’s Digest Bible – pg 357).
Jewish commentary artscroll Tanach affirms this by saying:
"Although the other songs also contain sacred and esoteric allusions, they are open to simple and literal translation; whereas God forbid that the Song of Songs should be interpreted in any way but at its most sacred metaphor… every word of the parable is necessary and laden with allegorical implication. Nothing is extraneous or rhetorical. Whatever may strike the reader as inconsistent or superfluous is due to the limitations of his own intellect." Artscroll Tanach Series, Shir HaShirim: Song of Songs / A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, P 68.
Jewish rabbi’s also held a similar view.
Rabbi Akiva, a prominent first century Rabbi had this to say.
"He who sings the Song of Songs in a banquet hall and makes it into a kind of ditty has no place in the world to come." Tosefta, Sanhedrin 12:10.
"All the ages are not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies." Mishnah Yadayim 3:4.
The talmud also agrees, stating:
“our rabbis taught: He who recites a verse of the Song of Songs and treats it as if it were a [secular] song… brings evil upon the world. [When someone does so] the Torah girds itself with sackcloth and stands before the Holy One, blessed is He, and laments before Him: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Your children have made me a harp upon which the frivolous play!’” Sanhedrin 101a Maharsha.
Lastly, various Christian scholars agree with this principle.
ELLEN F. DAVIS, an old testament scholar, says a lot pertaining to this topic.
"The approach taken in this commentary is that the Song of Songs, is, in a sense, "the most biblical of books" That is to say, the poet is throughout in conversation with other biblical writers." (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs – Commentary – pg 231)
"If these [modern] commentators are correct, then this must be the biggest religious joke of all time." (pg 66).
"Equally striking is the fact that the Songs is in large part (erotica included) "a mosaic of quotations from other parts of scripture." Phrases from the Prophets, the Torah, and the Psalms abound. I do not mean just scattered words, but in many cases connected phrases–vivid images and terms too specific for their other contexts to be forgotten by those familiar with biblical language." (pg 68).
"The Song is like an echo chamber, and modern commentators have not taken that phenomenon seriously enough. We need an interpretation of the Song that takes full account of its remarkable scriptural resonance, which can’t be separated from the erotic language." (pg 68-69)
"I am suggesting that contemporary Christians and Jews need to understand the Song as it has traditionally been understood and used in those traditions namely, as a mystical text." (pg 81).
Regarding the very name of the book, she says:
"The cumulative effect of the language and images of the Song is to orient us toward that place of ultimate intimacy with God. Indeed, even the book’s unusual title may begin pointing us in that direction. The phrase "the Song of Songs" is (grammatically) a superlative; it means "the best song." No other biblical book makes such a claim with its title; moreover, this particular grammatical formula, "the X of Xs," is rare in Hebrew. It occurs in only a few other phrases and significantly, almost always in phrases that evoke the ultimacy and uniqueness of God. Israel’s God is "God of gods and Lord of lords" (Deut. 10:17) and dwells in "the heaven of heavens" (Psalm 148:4). In fact, one of these superlatives occurs so frequently that we may assume it was a household phrase known to every Israelite: namely, "the Holy of Holies." Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, p. 240.
Marvin H Pope, bible scholar, comments on the ancientness of both interpretations, stating.
"Interpretations of the Song of Songs fall first of all into either allegorical or literal mode. The allegorical approach is the older and prevailed both in the Synagogue and the Church. The Jewish interpretation saw the Song as depicting the relation of Yahweh and the Chosen People, Israel, as his bride… In Christian circles, the Song was related to the mutual love of Christ and the Church as his bride." Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, p. 89.
Tremper Longman, old testament scholar, agrees with Pope on this one.
"The Song of Songs is an interesting study in terms of the history of interpretation because no other biblical book witnesses to such a definite and universally recognized shift in genre identification. Until the nineteenth century the Song was unquestioningly treated as some type of allegory [with rare exception], and after the nineteenth century we are hard-pressed to find supporters of the allegorical approach, at least among scholars." Songs of Songs: New International Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 35.
He also states that the bridegroom of the song is God, stating:
"Most Jewish allegorical interpretations begin with the idea that the man in the Song is God and the woman is Israel. The Song of Songs, then, is not about what it seems to be about on the surface, the sensual love between a man and a woman. It is actually about the love that God has for Israel." Ibid., p. 24.
Ellen F Davis also shares her perspective on this matter.
"all of the ancient Jewish evidence we possess points to the interpretation of the Song of Songs as an allegory of the Bridegroom God and his covenant with Israel. There is no competing view that has lived to see the light of day." Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, pp. 277 – 278.
the orthodox study bible comments on song of songs and says:
"The moving Song of Songs by Solomon is a collection of lyric poems, written in the language of human love and courtship, which also speaks prophetically of God’s love for His beloved Bride, His Church." (pg 28).
"The theme is symbolic of God’s love for His faithful people and their reciprocal love." (pg 2165).
● Dr. John Bergsma, who served as a Protestant pastor for 4 years before entering the Catholic Church in 2001 while pursuing a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Notre Dame was interviewed on the Christian channel inspiring philosophy. During the interview, he was asked tyo share his perspective on song of songs and stated the following.
"I disagree with the perspective. I tend to agree with the rabbis, one of the rabbis, Rabbi Akiva said "the whole Bible is holy but Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies" and I think that’s right, if properly understood."
"This book was read by the Jews as a messianic book in anticipation of the bridegroom coming, the David was to come. The Apostle John was a good jew, who probably read the Songs as a book of messianic expectation all his life."
"At the end of his life John writes a gospel in which John highlights ways in which Jesus fulfills aspects of the Song of Songs."
Dr. Barry Dov Walfish, a Ph.D. in Medieval Jewish Intellectual History from the University of Toronto writes.
"The Rabbis read the Song of Songs as an allegory of the relationship between God and the Jewish people. Only in the Middle Ages, in Spain and Northern France, did scholars begin to pay attention to the plain (Peshat) meaning of the text. The allegorical reading of the song as a description of the relationship between God and the Jewish people dominated the interpretive tradition of the first millennium, including the Targum Shir Hashirim, Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah, and scattered references throughout rabbinic literature. Even the Karaites, those so-called “literalists,” considered the Song as absolutely concealed, with no exoteric meaning, i.e., its literal meaning is the allegory. ● Its attribution to King Solomon no doubt contributed to its acceptance and inclusion in the canon, though there must have been some who expressed reservations about it. Very early on, probably sometime in the late Second Temple period, it began to acquire an allegorical meaning, as it invited comparison with other passages in the Prophets which described the relationship between God and the Jewish People in terms of marriage and infidelity. These passages in: Hosea (1:2-8, 2:20-22), Isaiah (50:1, 54:4-8), Jeremiah (2:2, 32-33), and Ezekiel (16:4-14) probably had some role in the eventual acceptance of the Song as a prophetic allegory concerning the fate of the Jewish people"
Song of Songs: The Emergence of Peshat Interpretation, can be found on thetorah.com.
We can see that several scholars, commentators, rabbis, exogeets, theologians, church fathers, and even writers of the new testament advocate for the view that the song of songs is, in fact, an aligory.
With this in mind, the question becomes, how do we unpack the aligory in the best possible way, the way which does the most justice to the Hebrew text, as well as the ritch symbolism present within this great peace of literature? And if we do, will it indeed lead to the conclusion which many Christians leap at the opportunity to reject, that this is in fact the greatest prophecy foretelling the prophet, peace be upon him? Keep reading, and find out!