WHO IS SPEAKING IN SONG OF SONGS 8:6a?

Popular mottoes featuring “love” abound in culture. They include:

    the cute – Love is a warm puppy,

    the theological – God is love,

    the controversial – Love makes the world go round (one young woman at church got extremely mad at me when I took issue with her statement that this was literally true),

    the nonsensical – Love is never having to say you're sorry,

    etc., etc.

But perhaps the most unexpected statement comes from Song of Songs 8:6. This verse states, “Love is as strong as death.” I have already dealt in some detail with the meaning of this statement (see the post titled “Song of Songs 8:6”). But one aspect was overlooked – the speaker in this verse.

There are two places in this poetic book, which can also be read as a play, in which the identity of the speaker is in doubt. And interestingly, these are also the two places which have been identified as the literary conclusion of the Song.

In another post titled “What is the Importance of the Organization of the Song of Songs?” I proposed that the center point of the book in terms of its literary structure was located at 5:1b, a short benediction which has been variously attributed to the chorus or to God Himself. If it refers to God, then that verse has the distinction of being the only one in the book to do so.

However, there is the more common understanding (with accompanying confusion) that Song 8:6 should have that honor. For example, Pokrifka says, “Although God is mentioned only once in the book (Song 8:6b), it portrays life as redeemed from the curses of Genesis 3; it is life under divine blessing beyond the hostility of nature and male domination,” and Oswalt says that “a divine title occurs only once in Song of Songs: 'the LORD.'”

However, Oswalt continues by saying that “the reference is of almost no theological significance. Most modern versions actually take it as an adjective of intensity. Thus, the literal '[jealousy] like a flame of the LORD' is rendered with 'like a mighty flame' or something similar.”

The common confusion regarding these two candidates for the central passage in the Song involves the identity of the speaker. Verse 5:1b has been attributed to either God or to the Chorus in the book. And there are actually three candidates for the person talking in 8:6.

As to the speaker in that verse, Gledhill says “that here, the author of the poems is himself intruding into his own creation and meditating on the nature of love itself. No longer is it the particular love of our young lovers, but love in its most abstract guise...For many, this unit represents a high point in the Song. If 5:1 represents a climax in the lovers' physical relationship, then these verses represent a climax in praise of the unconquerability of love in the face of all its foes.”

Longman states: “This verse is arguably the most memorable and intense of the entire book. M. Sadgrove remarks on this verse and the next that 'this is the only place in the Song where any attempt is made to probe the meaning of the love that is its theme; everywhere else it is simply described'...the woman gives a motive for her request to the man.

Dobbs-Allsopp agrees with this attribution: “The woman desires to be bound closely and always to her lover.” R.B.Y. Scott says, “The lovers return, the maiden imploring her lover to be faithful.” NIV asigns this speaking part to “She;” TEV and The Message to “The Woman;” and The Living Bible to “The Girl.”

By contrast, The Jerusalem Bible and NEB both assign speaking parts to each verse and identify 8:6 as being said by the bridegroom. And although Pope in his Anchor Bible commentary opts for the woman to be the speaker, he mentions that there is some confusion regarding the gender of the pronouns in the passage.

This whole issue, which will probably never be settled, is but one of several that certainly set Song of Songs apart from all other books in the Bible.

WHAT EVENT IS MICAH 5:5-6 PREDICTING?

What event is Micah 5:5-6 predicting?

Trying to make sense out of Old Testament prophecies is probably one of the most difficult tasks faced by a Bible interpreter. It is actually quite easy to get a consistent picture as long as you limit your sources to those who hold to the same general view of prophecy. But once you stray outside that narrow field, you are bound to get as confused as I am in attempting to explain this one verse.

Let me start out, as I often like to do, by diagramming this passage to point out the symmetry within it.

                                                        Structure of Micah 5:5-6

    And this shall be peace:

        1. when the Assyrian comes into our land

            2. and treads upon our soil

                3. that we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men

                    4. they shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword

                    4'. and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword

                3'. and they shall deliver us from the Assyrian

    1'. when he comes into our land

        2'. and treads upon our soil

This literary organization helps to settle one minor disagreement among commentators, some of whom take the events in these two verses in chronological order while others feel that it should read in reverse order so as to make sense. In fact, both camps are partially correct, since the chronological order reads from both ends toward the middle. The order of events is therefore: (1) the Assyrians come into the land, (2) Israel's rulers fight them off, and finally (3) Israel actually conquers Assyria.

Seven and Eight

Let us start with the easiest issue to deal with – the significance of these two numbers.

Those conservative scholars who hold to a dispensational premillennial interpretation of prophecy generally make a fetish out of the fact that they take everything in the Bible as literal. Thus, most of them steer away entirely from trying to explain the meaning of the numbers 7 and 8. One exception is J.B. Payne, who states: “The progression 7>8, seems to be a literary figure for augmented strength (cf. Amos 1:3,6, Prov 30:15,18, etc.); but the concept itself remains essentially literal.” He rightly recognizes the figurative meaning of the numbers, but needs to add that the “concept” is literal, whatever that might mean exactly.

“There seems to be no special significance to the numbers seven and eight. Probably they are used in the same manner in which Amos uses three and four (Am. chs. 1 and 2), and simply indicate a number of leaders adequate to meet the exigencies of the situation.” (D.J. Clark)

This opinion is echoed by R.L. Smith: “The seven shepherds and eight leaders are not to be taken literally. This is a Hebrew literary device to indicate than an indefinite yet adequate number of leaders will arise to overthrow the Assyrians (Prov 30:15,18,21,29; Eccl 11:2).”

Clark is correct in as far as he goes, but Gleason Archer probably hits on the most complete explanation: “The number seven represents the full and perfect work of God, and would be quite sufficient, but one more (eight) is added to ensure that there will be more than enough to furnish the proper leadership against all assailants.”

Then there is the opinion of Andersen and Freedman, who tentatively endorse the figurative use of these numbers: “Parallelism of numbers x/x+1 is a feature of West-Semitic literature, used sparingly elsewhere...It is not clear whether the numbers...have a precise meaning and refer to some specific group leadership pattern. In a context that has memories of David's historic role, there may be an echo of the fact that he was the eighth and youngest son of Jesse...But there is no tradition that he held the primacy in leadership shared in some way with his brothers.”

Assyria

But the major dividing point among scholars involves the identification of “Assyria” and the concomitant issue of the expected timing of the predicted event in Micah 5. The five basic opinions appear to be (a) events during Sennacherib's reign and attack of Israel, (b) events directly following the Assyrian/Babylonian exile, (c) events that are still in our future, (d) figurative fulfillments throughout history, and (e) a partial fulfillment soon after the prophecy with a more complete and literal fulfillment during the Last Days.

(a). One school of thought tends to look for the nearest adequate fulfillment of a prophecy occurring after the prediction itself. Thus we have the opinion of McConville: “An oracle such as Micah 5:2-6 appears to come from a time when the Assyrian invasion of Judah was a threat that had not yet been realized...On one view, Micah here refers to none other than King Hezekiah. This is plausible because Hezekiah is remembered in 2 Kings 18-19 as a righteous king who averted a national disaster by his prayer and trust in Yahweh. The passage may be taken quite differently, however, because it avoids the term 'king'...On this view the predicted ruler is actually contrasted with Hezekiah, because of the (equally valid) memory that in his day Judah had in fact been overrun by the Assyrians. This debate is hard to resolve.”

“In 5:1-6 there seems to be little reason to take Assyria (vv. 5f.) as other than literal. The resultant period can be narrowed down by the reference in v. 1 to the state of siege Jerusalem was undergoing. Accordingly 701 B.C. appears to be the year when this oracle was delivered...It is evident that Micah placed the fulfillment of these promises in an eighth-century B.C. setting of threat of Assyrian invasion. The coming of this royal hero is presented as the eventual antidote to the threat and fact of Assyrian invasion. Eventual, because his birth lies in the future and so his saving activity is to be later still. There will be no immediate end to Assyrian domination. The attacking imperialist will be allowed his fling for a time, but is doomed to meet his match in the person of the victorious king of Israel. In this respect Micah agrees with his greater contemporary Isaiah, who also depicted this promised king as the answer to the menace of Assyria.” (L.C. Allen)

The problem with this view is pinpointed by the following two commentators:

    “Not only will they 'deliver us from the Assyrian' invader, but they will 'rule the land of Assyria' itself...These verses are rather difficult and admit of more than one interpretation. If referred to the background of Sennacherib's siege, they portray not merely deliverance but even military conquest of Assyria itself...Such a situation is...out of keeping with the historical realities...” (D.J. Clark)

    “This passage is difficult to interpret. If 4:14-5:3 refers to the messianic age, does 5:4-5 follow chronologically the coming of the Messiah according to the prophet's understanding? If so, Micah expected the Messiah to come at the end of the Assyrian crisis. It appears that Isaiah at one time expected a new king of the line of David to appear when the Assyrians were cut down (cf. Isa 10:34-11:10...'He' in 5b 'he will deliver' probably refers to God rather than the new king.” (R.L. Smith)

(b). The scholar D.J. Clark says, “The prophet here looks into the dark tunnel of exile to see what awaits the nation there...it seems preferable to view these verses either as a reference still future events [option c], or perhaps as a figurative description of Judean leadership coming into positions of prominence during the exile, and delivering the people in the sense of preventing their assimilation and disappearance as a distinct religious and ethnic group.”

(c). “The fact that Christ will reign over the earth is of course embedded in practically every prophecy concerning the millennial kingdom...It should be clear from the details surrounding these predictions that these prophecies are not being fulfilled in the present age, nor are they a description of the sovereignty of God in the heavenly sphere. Many other Scriptures can be cited [including Micah 5:2-5] to substantiate the reign of Christ as King in the millennium...” (Walvoord) I will not bother going into all the hermeneutical assumptions that go into this sweeping statement.

The fulfillment, according to J.B. Payne, concerns “the activity of Christian leaders at the Lord's return; cf. the more general forecast of Rev 20:4,6, about those who 'live and reign' with Christ.”

(d). “Christ will constitute the peace and welfare of His people as they come under the attack of their foes, who are (very appropriately for Micah's time) represented by the Assyrians, but doubtless this term here includes all the future enemies of Israel and the church: the Seleucid Syrians, the Romans, the Inquisition, the Modernists and the Marxists. All these will be checked and repulsed by Spirit-empowered leaders: the Maccabean patriots, the apostles, Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliffe and Luther, and whoever else would be needed to preserve the community of true believers from conquest or extinction.” (Archer)

(e). Andersen and Freedman believe that “the language of v. 5b – 'and he will rescue us from Assyria' – does not suggest merely the successful repulsion of an attack. It suggests rather that after Israel has been conquered...and prisoners have been taken back to Assyria the shepherds will go to the land of Assyria and recover the captives from there. This is the task of a shepherd, to rescue the flock, stolen by a thief, going after him with the sword. If Micah 5:1-5 is an eighth century prophecy that the outcome of menacing Assyrian imperialists would be the fresh creation of David's empire, then it was not fulfilled. Israel never conquered Assyria. Such a prophecy would retain its vitality in later interpretation only by postponing it to the End-Time...In this later setting Assyria has now become an archetypical symbol. Assyria is named in Isa 52:4 in a context that clearly refers to Babylon. If the usage in Mic 5:4-5 is similar, it could be likewise exilic.”

This is one of those issues in which I am not comfortable enough with any one interpretation to endorse it to the exclusion of the others. So feel free to investigate the possibilities for yourself and make up your own minds on the subject.