premarital sex is in view,
12
how erotic the figurative wording is
13
or how far things actually go
sexually in the text,
14
arise, significant differences again show themselves. Is there a way to
move past these scholarly “opinions,” which, when viewed objectively, often are based as much
on assumptions brought to the text than textual evidence?
Yes, it is possible to proceed further, if it is remembered that meaning is not just reflected
in words, phrases and sentences. Literary structure shapes the wider movement of meaning and
that is the case at least as much with a poetic book like the Song of Songs.
Over the last several decades, there have been repeated attempts, some of which have
been better-received and others not so well-received, to determine a book-encompassing inverted
parallel structure of the Song of Songs.
15
Before proceeding further, though, it is significant for
the ensuing discussion to note the observation of Duane Garrett in regard to a point of agreement
of virtually all of these varied chiastic structures: the dramatic climax of the entire book is 4:16-
5:1 (i.e., the physical consummation of the relationship between the man and woman).
16
To
back this conclusion, Garrett points out that, by his count, “… [T]here are four hundred lines of
poetry in the Song, and 4:16 begins at line 200.”
17
In other words, by Garrett’s calculation, 4:16-
5:1 is not only the dramatic, but also the actual, textual “center” of the Song.
Of the major proposals, the grand chiasm I find most convincing is that of David Dorsey,
reproduced here in overview, with slight adaptation:
18
12
At the least, I agree with Hess: “The Song is not a manifesto for free love….” (35). Several passages located
before the wedding/wedding night (4:1-5:1), with 2:17 and 3:4 being prime—but not exhaustive—examples, do not
require being interpreted as consummated love-making. The varied explanations of Garrett (Song of
Songs/Lamentations, 163, 174), Hess (99-100, 105-07and Estes (332-33, 337-39) all present highly plausible
exegetical alternatives to full-bore lovemaking in Song 2:17 and 3:4. A recently-published study making a fresh
positive case on one important aspect of the issue is B.P. Gault, “A ‘Do Not Disturb’ Sign? Reexamining the
Adjuration Refrains in the Song of Songs,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36 (2011) 93-104.
13
It is not an overstatement to observe that the impetus for the most erotic interpretations of many of the poetic
figures of speech in the Song comes from highly erotic love poetry of the surrounding Ancient Near Eastern context,
about which there is still no consensus concerning the degree of its impact on the Hebrew literature of the period.
14
Certainly, Song 4:16-5:1 and 7:10 picture being “right at the doorway,” so to speak, of coitus, though described
with poetic beauty. Hess is on target in saying: “Although anticipated and sometimes almost achieved, it is not
possible to find a clear and certain description of coitus having taken place” (35).
15
Among the notable efforts at setting forth the Song of Songs as a grand chiasm are: J.C. Exum, “A Literary and
Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs,” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 85 (1973) 47-79; Exum,
Song of Songs OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005); W.H. Shea, “The Chiastic Structure of the Song of
Songs,” ZAW 92 (1980) 378-96; E.C. Webster, “Pattern in the Song of Songs,” JSOT 22 (1982) 73-93; D.A. Garrett,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 376; Garrett, Song of Songs/
Lamentations, 30-35; D. Dorsey, “Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs,” JSOT 46 (1990) 81-96; and Dorsey,
The Literary Structure of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 199-213.
16
Garrett, Song of Songs/Lamentations, 31.
17
Ibid.
18
Dorsey, Literary Structure, 199-213. The diagram from which this chiastic structure is adapted is on page 212. A
significant, but more popularly-written, adaptation of Dorsey’s structure is found in S. Craig Glickman, Solomon’s
Song of Love (Monroe: Howard, 2004), which Glickman explains in some depth in ‘Appendix C’ (pp. 231-41).
Glickman’s chiastic understanding is also more recently reflected in his notes on the “Song of Songs” in the Holman