The Bible In Paintings, #130: THE QUEEN OF SHEBA VISITS SOLOMON, Part 3

“I’m sure you must have read the stories that the ‘Line of David’ branched off at this point.......................”

You’re probably not referring to this, but comparing Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus with Luke 3, they begin to differ with David. Luke’s goes through Nathan, David’s son, while Matthew is the official kingly line through Solomon.

I enjoyed the diversity of races for Queen Sheba. Sheba was at the tip of the Saudi peninsula, west of Yemen. She may have looked Arabic or Somali or Kenyan or Ethiopian. The European visions of her are the artists’ imagination of European beauty and queenliness.

Solomon is not described in scripture. David was called beautiful and ruddy. Bathsheba was very beautiful. Solomon’s half brother Absolom was attractive with long, thick hair. Very likely Solomon was attractive. I’m not sure of the hair length.

Solomon is not described in scripture.

Just read this morning:

Song of Songs 2:8-9--his movement:

Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes,
leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills.
My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag.

Song of Songs 5:10-16--his appearance:

My beloved is radiant and ruddy, outstanding among ten thousand.
11 His head is purest gold;
his hair is wavy and black as a raven.
12 His eyes are like doves by the water streams,
washed in milk, mounted like jewels.
13 His cheeks are like beds of spice yielding perfume.
His lips are like lilies dripping with myrrh.
14 His arms are rods of gold set with topaz.
His body is like polished ivory decorated with lapis lazuli.
15 His legs are pillars of marble set on bases of pure gold.
His appearance is like Lebanon, choice as its cedars.
16 His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely.
This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.

Heh. Like many things in the Bible, this one is subject to debate. Your view is one I had for many years. I’ll review the pros and cons of this being a self-description of Solomon.

Pros:
1. Solomon wrote the book ‘Song of Songs’ and it seems appropriate for him to insert his self-description in here.
2. This character, the husband/lover of the Shulamite, is a shepherd. Solomon may have used this persona to portray himself. The king in a sense is the shepherd of the country. David was a shepherd and Solomon may have used this metaphor in this song.
3. In Song 4:8-11

There are sixty queens
And eighty concubines,
And virgins without number.
9 My dove, my perfect one,
Is the only one,
The only one of her mother,
The favorite of the one who bore her.
The daughters saw her
And called her blessed,
The queens and the concubines,
And they praised her.

Here the Shulamite is compared to the queens and concubines of Solomon, which is logical if he is the beloved.

4. The Shulamite seems to offer herself to Solomon in 8:12 At least she addresses him in 2nd person.

My own vineyard is before me.
You, O Solomon, may have a thousand,
And those who tend its fruit two hundred.

Cons:

1. Solomon is mentioned by name in the book, later, in third person. In the context of the book, he seems to be distinct from the beloved of the Shulamite. Song 3:6-11
2. Again, Solomon is mentioned in 3rd person: Song 8:11 Solomon had a vineyard at Baal Hamon;
He leased the vineyard to keepers;
Everyone was to bring for its fruit
A thousand silver coins.
3. I had read a couple of commentaries which expressed the opinion that the Shulamite and her Beloved are distinct from Solomon and his wives.

Reviewing my own list of pros and cons, I think I’ve persuaded myself that the Beloved is Solomon. But it is not explicitly stated.

I think everyone knew Solomon was talking about himself at the time he wrote the Song, probably for a new wife and there was no need for him to be more explicit.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.