Song of Solomon 7:10

THE SHULAMITE'S FINAL REJECTION OF THE KING

"I am my beloved's;

And his desire is toward me.

Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field;

Let us lodge in the villages.

Let us get up early to the vineyards;

Let us see whether the vine hath budded,

And its blossom is open,

And the pomegranates are in flower:

There will I give thee my love.

The mandrakes give forth fragrance;

And at our doors are all manner of precious fruits, new and old,

Which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved."

There are very powerful reasons for seeing these verses as a rejection of the king by the Shulamite. Chief of those reasons is the dramatic word HIS that stands at the head of this paragraph. "I am my beloved's, and HIS desire is toward me" (Song of Solomon 7:10). This contrasts with the sixteen personal pronouns in the second person which dominate the king's flattering appeal. They are the equivalent of you, you, you, you - sixteen times! Yet the very first words of the Shulamite were addressed to the king standing right there in front of her; and yet she spoke of her beloved in the third person! and it is impossible to refer the word his to Solomon. The Shulamite's lover was not present. She spoke of him, not to him. He was the shepherd, not the king.

Furthermore, the balance of the paragraph fully harmonizes with that understanding.

"Let us go forth into the field" (Song of Solomon 7:11). This could not possibly refer either to a palace or to a harem.

"Let us lodge in the villages" (Song of Solomon 7:11). The Shulamite is definitely not speaking of Jerusalem.

"Let us get up early" (Song of Solomon 7:12). Even a fool knows that farmers get up early; kings don't!

"Let us see whether the vine hath budded, etc." (Song of Solomon 7:12). The employment mentioned here is that of rural dwellers, not that of urbanites.

"There will I give thee my love" (Song of Solomon 7:12). The use of the second person pronoun here cannot change what she has already said. In these words, she is speaking of her true love, the shepherd, who will accompany her in their inspection of the vineyard. Can anyone imagine Solomon going with one of his concubines on such a mission?

We have somewhat elaborated the exposition of these verses, because our interpretation differs sharply from that which is advocated by most of the commentators we have consulted.

Waddey: "The queen gently requests that her husband take her for a visit to her old home place."[3]

Bunn: "The maiden now invites her lover to receive her love."[4]

Delitzsch, while rejecting it, fairly stated the hypothesis which we have accepted: "Advocates of the shepherd-hypothesis believe that the faithful Shulamite, after hearing Solomon's panegyric, shakes her head (negatively), saying, `I am my beloved's.'"[5]

Cook: His whole comment on this last paragraph was; "All his affection has me for its object. The bride proceeds to exercise her power over his loving will."[6]

Woodstra: "This is the king extolling the beauty of his bride and her love for him."[7]

Meek: "This is repeated in part from Song of Solomon 2:16 and Song of Solomon 6:3.

Here, as frequently elsewhere in the book the lovers are represented as separated, with the girl longing for her beloved."[8]

Robinson: "The Shulamite speaks here in reply to the king. Her heart is set on her native fields and vineyards. These are more attractive to her than the splendor and ceremony of a court."[9]

Willard: "The first nine verses of this chapter are held to be evidence of decadence and lust on the part of the aging Solomon. It is probably the most difficult portion of the book for those who interpret Solomon and the maiden to mean Christ and the Church."[10]

Adam Clarke: "Here the bride wishes to accompany her spouse to the country and spend a night in his country house."[11]

This writer's acceptance of the shepherd-hypothesis in our interpretation is influenced substantially by what is written in Song of Solomon 2. See our comments there. Also a key factor in our interpretation is our utter inability to find anything in the Biblical record of Solomon's life that is fit to be compared to the sinless Son of God.

The allegorical interpretation has been favored throughout the centuries since the destruction of Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that there is no hint whatever in the Song itself that the production is, in any sense, an allegory; and no inspired writer ever indicated such a thing. This writer confesses that the principal reason for accepting an allegorical interpretation lies in the near-impossibility of the book's presence in the Bible by any other means.

Many questions about the Song of Solomon remain unanswered in this writer's mind; and it is our prayer that further study may shed more light on it.