SONG OF SONGS 4:1-7

Wasf

This book, also known as the Song of Solomon, is filled with imagery. Among the types of figurative language in it is the wasf, so named from the Arabic word meaning “description” used to designate a type of wedding song. It “has come to refer to a kind of poem or poetic fragment that describes through a series of images the parts of the male and female body.” (Falk) The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery adds to this definition the fact that the images are taken from objects in nature.

The four wasfs in this book are found in 4:1-7; 5:10-16; 6:4-7; and 7:1-5. Of these four, only 5:10-16 describes the man and the others are concerned with the characteristics of the woman. Also, whereas the description in 7:1-5 moves from feet to head, the others move in the opposite direction. I originally planned to write about all of these wasfs, but there was too much material to cover, and so I will just concentrate on Song 4:1-7. But first, a few words about interpretation.

Methods of Interpretation 

The most obvious approach is to take the details in the wasfs at their face value and consider them to be literal descriptions of the person involved. Falk quotes other writers who label the results of this method of interpretation as bizarre, absurd, grotesque, comical, or puzzling. I also think of the attempts to utilize a strictly literal and visual approach in interpreting Revelation. Falk concludes, “The difficulty resides not in the nature of the wasfs but rather in the critical interpretation.”

A popular but outdated method of interpretation is to take everything in the book, and especially the wasfs, as an allegory. Longman feels this is driven mainly by an attempt to evade the clearly sexual nature of some of the imagery. Marvin Pope has written an exhaustive, 743-page commentary on the Song of Songs. The main reason that it is so long is that he discusses many of the numerous allegorical interpretations given by Jewish rabbis over the years. But the Christian commentators are no better. As Orr says somewhat sarcastically, “The allegorical method can find the whole counsel of God in every dimple of each anatomical system.” But he is not far off in his assessment. Just consider the interpretation of 4:1-7 by Matthew Henry, an extremely popular commentator of a previous century:

    “This descriptive section may be viewed allegorically as Christ's description of his espoused church. The eyes may be her ministers, the hair her comely behavior, the teeth her ministers again, the lips her praise of God, the cheeks her humility and modesty, the neck her faith, and her breasts the two testaments.”

    Similarly, Baldwin notes: “The whole passage has been used as an illustration of the fact that Christ sees His church in her final form without spot, wrinkle or blemish. cf. Eph. 5:27.”

So how should the imagery be understood if not literal or allegorical? Almost all modern commentators advise some sort of figurative or symbolic approach. In many cases, the metaphor or simile involved appears to point to some sort of visual comparison. But Schwab feels that a “better approach is to recognize that the associations often are not about what the beloved looks like but rather treat senses and qualities other than sight.” He adds: “Often in the wasf equivalences are not obvious and thus necessitate careful meditation.” And Gledhill cautions, “We should not always be looking for precision in every aspect of the metaphor.”

Some commentators such as Falk gravitate toward the position that at least some of the five senses are involved in the imagery, even if the visual sense is the primary one utilized. And Snaith notes that in 1:3 the imagery is of smell, in 2:3 of taste. On the other hand, the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (DBI) takes the stance that: “More than anything else, images of nature portray the quality of the beloved, and here we see evidence of the Hebrew fondness for structure and how things are formed.” “The style aims at an association of feelings and values rather than visual correspondence, and the imagery is symbolic rather than pictorial, figurative rather than literal.”

The culmination of the above reasoning leads to Soulen's more extreme approach which says that the description has nothing whatsoever to do with the woman herself, it merely is an attempt to conjure up the emotions that the lover experiences upon seeing her. This method of interpretation has been criticized by several other commentators as being a rather arbitrary method of writing and one that would be  very unhelpful to the reader.

Song of Songs 4:1-7

Regarding this particular wasf, Bullock states, “The beauty of the maiden in overwhelming, as is the speaker's poetic imagery.”

Song 4:1a (Introduction)

The practically identical wording here and in v. 7 functions as a set of bookends, or inclusio, for the actual wasf.

Song 4:1b (eyes)

The image of eyes like doves also appears in 1:15. Snaith expresses the opinion of most scholars when he says, “In 4:1 the girl's eyes peep through the veil like doves – a reference to the shyness of doves, which hide away in clefts among rocks.” He also makes the interesting observation that there may be the influence of Egyptian art here in which “eyes were given a linear clarity which resembled the contours of a bird's body.” The veil denotes “her inwardness, her hiddenness, her reluctance to be drawn out of doors,” as Munro expresses it.

Another aspect of this picture is brought out by Gledhill: “It is possible that fluttering timidity is what is in mind here.” Regarding the veil, he states that “in any relationship there will always be some element of mystery behind the successive unveiling. And that is part of the adventure of knowing each other.” Schwab is of this same general opinion: “Perhaps a dove's flapping wings remind him of her eyelashes. If the dove is a symbol for innocence or purity, then the association invokes her sexual fidelity.”

Song 4:1c (hair)

Most commentators interpret this image in basically the same manner. Balchin is a typical example when he says, “One imagines these black goats covering the hillside in the same way as the Shulammite's black locks fall gently down from the crown of her head and over her back.”

By contrast, DBI tends to stress the “value” of the image rather than any physical resemblance. Thus, in this case, her hair is compared to “its most valuable counterpart in nature,” i.e. sheep's wool.

Song 4:2 (teeth)

Commentators are divided as to whether the one Hebrew word for the sheep means animals which have been shorn or those which have been freshly washed prior to shearing. Longman expresses the opinion of several scholars when he says, “the sheeps' image is mirrored in the pool where they were washed.” Thus, the upper teeth match up perfectly with those below (also the opinion of Schwab).

By contrast, DBI sees the point of comparison to lie with their “wetness and whiteness.” And Balchin says that the teeth “because of their smoothness and whiteness, are likened to shorn sheep.”

I have purposely refrained from quoting any of the many allegorical interpretations of these verses, but just to give you an idea of how far afield that can go, here is one example that Phipps offers: “The Bishop of Hippo had interpreted 'Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes' as an allusion to the teeth of the saints tearing at heretics!”

Song 4:3a (lips)

Balchin says that “her lips are brilliantly red and, surprisingly for an oriental, thin.” Gledhill points out that “the word used in the Hebrew here for mouth (midbar) is the one that describes it as an organ of speech...Her speech is consonant with her beauty.” Smaith picks up on this point and suggests that a double pun is at work here and concludes, “Her mouth is thus cleverly portrayed as a fertile oasis with lovely words flowing out of it – not to mention possible heavy wet kissing.” Longman expresses his doubts that the comparison has anything to do with speech since other descriptions refer to her physical appearance.

Song 4:3b (cheeks)

G.A. Long notes that the key word here has also been variously translated as temple, temple and jaw, brow, forehead, cheek, and open mouth.

Longman feels that “It likely compliments her complexion. The fruit is a sort of reddish orange.” Balchin echoes this opinion when he says that “the cheeks remind Solomon of the rounded form and russet tan of the pomegranate.” But Schwab translates the word as "mouth," and so he states, “This is probably a reference to its taste and juiciness.”

Finally, several commentators such as Phipps go into a little more detail concerning the physical similarities between her cheeks and a sliced pomegranate: “As her cheeks lie behind her veil, the reference may be to the membranes in a pomegranate which separate the red seeds like a kind of webbing; so the features of the girl can be detected behind the 'webbing' of the veil.”

Song 4:4 (neck)

Schwab points out that this imagery is similar to Song 8:10 where her breasts are also compared to a tower. In both cases, “The metaphor is warlike – she is intimidating and dangerous.” “With David's name the tower becomes an impregnable citadel.” (Snaith)  Longman adds: “David's association with the tower lends a further sense of power and dignity to the image: It also fits into the pervasive use of military imagery to describe the woman.” As another example, Song 7:4 pictures the woman's nose or face as a military outpost, “the point being that this damsel is formidable and not to be approached lightly.” (Schwab)

DBI makes the dubious assertion that “the beloved's neck is the best of its kind, raised to transcendent value by being surrounded with glorious national associations.”

The second half of the verse is a little uncertain in the Hebrew original. Balchin says that it may mean either “armory” or “trophies.” In any case, he feels, “The whole verse indicates regality of bearing.” But Snaith feels that it is in this part of the verse that we can really discern the metaphor. He says that “the point of comparison was not the neck but the necklaces hanging round it, not unlike rows of shields on a tower.” Gledhill agrees with this assessment.

Song 4:5 (breasts)

Longman says regarding this verse, “Moving down her body, he next focuses on her breasts, objects of male erotic interest that need no explanation.” They may need no explanation, but other scholars have attempted to elaborate nonetheless. Delitzch says that the comparison is “in respect to their equality and youthful freshness.” Snaith: “Gazelles are well known for their grace and sprightliness, and the author's intention is probably to ascribe these qualities to the girl.” Gledhill: They are graceful, sprightly and playful. Their texture and softness are invitations to caressing and fondling.” DBI sees a correspondence with their softness to the touch and to the girl's modesty. Snaith feels that the mention of “lilies may refer here to the scent of the girl's body, as the lover's lips are compared to lilies in 5:13.”

Song 4:6

There is the opinion among some scholars that the wasf proper actually ends with v. 5. For example, Delitzch calls it “an interruption.” However, this view may be dictated by a sense of delicacy which does not wish to venture any further down the woman's body. Gledhill says, “The mountains are singular in this case, but I am not certain that they can be equated with any particular part of the female anatomy, although some have tried to do so (e.g. the mons veneris).”

Thus, Longman carefully expresses his opinion that the lover “subtly and tastefully describes his desire to be intimate with her.” Snaith similarly states, “It is difficult to avoid suggesting that the climax of his love is their intercourse, here expressed in imagery of hills and spices.”

Song 4:7 (Conclusion)

This final line basically repeats the first sentence in the poem.