King Solomon. (Song of Sol. 6:11, 12) Either seen there by the king himself or noticed by someone else and then recommended to him, the Shulammite was brought to Solomon’s camp. King Solomon made known his admiration for her. But she felt no attraction for him and voiced a longing for her shepherd lover. (1:2-4, 7) The “daughters of Jerusalem” therefore recommended that she leave the camp and find her lover. (1:8) Solomon, however, was unwilling to let her go and began praising her beauty, promising to fashion circlets of gold and studs of silver for her. (1:9-11) The Shulammite then informed the king that the object of her love was someone else.—1:12-14.

Thereafter the Shulammite’s shepherd lover came to Solomon’s camp and voiced his affection for her. She, too, assured him of her love. (Song of Sol. 1:15–2:2) When speaking to the “daughters of Jerusalem,” the Shulammite compared her lover to a fruit tree among the trees of the forest and solemnly charged them by what was beautiful and graceful not to try to arouse unwanted love in her. (2:3-7) Always, even during the night hours, she continued to long for her shepherd lover, and she reminded the “daughters of Jerusalem” that they were under oath not to attempt to awaken love in her until it felt inclined.—2:16–3:5.

Returning to Jerusalem, Solomon took the Shulammite along. Seeing the procession approaching the city, several “daughters of Zion” commented about the appearance of the cortege. (Song of Sol. 3:6-11) At Jerusalem, the shepherd lover, having followed the procession, got in touch with the Shulammite and praised her beauty, thereby assuring her of his love. (4:1-5) The Shulammite voiced her desire to leave the city (4:6), and he continued expressing his admiration for her. (4:7-16a) “Let my dear one come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits,” she said. (4:16b) His response to this invitation was: “I have come into my garden, O my sister, my bride.” (5:1a) Women of Jerusalem encouraged them, saying: “Eat, O companions! Drink and become drunk with expressions of endearment!”—5:1b.

When the Shulammite, after having a bad dream, related it to the “daughters of Jerusalem” and told them that she was lovesick (Song of Sol. 5:2-8), they wanted to know what was so special about her dear one. At that the Shulammite proceeded to describe her lover in glowing terms. (5:10-16) Asked by them where he was, she informed them that he was shepherding among the gardens. (6:1-3) Once again Solomon confronted the Shulammite with expressions of praise. (6:4-10) Told that she had not sought his company (6:11, 12), Solomon appealed to her to come back. (6:13a) This prompted her to ask: “What do you people behold in the Shulammite?” (6:13b) Solomon used this as an opening to express further admiration for her. (7:1-9) But the Shulammite remained changeless in her love and called upon the “daughters of Jerusalem” not to awaken love in her when it did not feel inclined to come forth spontaneously.—7:10–8:4.

Apparently Solomon then allowed the Shulammite to return to her home. Seeing her approaching, her brothers asked: “Who is this woman coming up from the wilderness, leaning upon her dear one?” (Song of Sol. 8:5a) The brothers of the Shulammite had not realized that their sister had such constancy in love. In earlier years one brother had said concerning her: “We have a little sister that does not have any breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day that she will be spoken for?” (8:8) Another brother replied: “If she should be a wall, we shall build upon her a battlement of silver; but if she should be a door, we shall block her up with a cedar plank.” (8:9) However, since the Shulammite had successfully resisted all enticements, being satisfied with her own vineyard and remaining loyal in her affection for her lover (8:6, 7, 11, 12), she could properly say: “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. In this case I have become in his eyes like her that is finding peace.”—8:10.

The song concludes with the desire expressed by her shepherd lover to hear her voice (Song of Sol. 8:13) and she desired that he come leaping, crossing the mountains that separated them.—8:14.

VALUE

The Song of Solomon illustrates the beauty of enduring and constant love. Such unswerving love is reflected in the relationship of Christ Jesus and his bride. (Eph. 5:25-32) Thus The Song of Solomon can serve to encourage those professing to be of Christ’s bride to remain faithful to their heavenly bridegroom.—Compare 2 Corinthians 11:2.

See the book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,” pp. 115-117.

SON(S) OF GOD

The expression “Son of God” primarily identifies Christ Jesus. Consideration here is given initially to others also called “sons of God.”

“SONS OF THE TRUE GOD”

The first mention of “sons of the true God” is at Genesis 6:2-4. There such sons are spoken of as ‘beginning to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose,’ this prior to the global flood.

Many commentators hold that these ‘sons of God’ were themselves human, being in reality men of the line of Seth. They base their argument on the fact that Seth’s line was that through which godly Noah came, whereas the other lines from Adam, that of Cain and those of any other sons born to Adam (Gen. 5:3, 4), were destroyed at the Flood. So, they say that the taking as wives “the daughters of men” by the “sons of the true God” means that Sethites began to marry into the line of wicked Cain.

There is, however, nothing to show that God made any such distinction between family lines at this point. Corroborating Scriptural evidence is lacking to support the view that intermarriage between the lines of Seth and Cain is what is here meant, or that such marriages were responsible for the birth of “mighty ones” as mentioned in verse four. It is true that the expression “sons of men [or “of mankind”]” (which those favoring the earlier mentioned view would contrast with the expression ‘sons of God’) is frequently used in an unfavorable sense, but this is not consistently so.—Compare Psalm 4:2; 57:4; Proverbs 8:22, 30, 31; Jeremiah 32:18, 19; Daniel 10:16.

Angelic sons of God

On the other hand, there is an explanation that finds corroborating evidence in the Scriptures. The expression “sons of the true God” next occurs at Job 1:6 and here the reference is obviously to spirit sons of God, assembled in God’s presence, among whom Satan, who had been “roving about in the earth,” also appeared. (Job 1:7; see also 2:1, 2.) Again at Job 38:4-7 the “sons of God” who ‘shouted in applause’ when God ‘laid the cornerstone’ of the earth clearly were angelic sons and not humans descended from Adam (as yet not even created). So, too, at Psalm 89:6 the “sons of God” are definitely heavenly creatures, not earthlings.

The identification of the “sons of the true God” at Genesis 6:2-4 with angelic creatures is objected to by those holding the previously mentioned view because they say the context relates entirely to human wickedness. This objection is not valid, however, since the wrongful interjection of spirit creatures in human affairs most certainly could contribute to or accelerate the growth of human wickedness. Wicked spirit creatures in Jesus’ time on earth, though not then materializing in visible form, were responsible for wrong human conduct of an extreme nature. (See DEMON; DEMON POSSESSION.) The mention of a mixing into human affairs by angelic sons of God could reasonably appear in the Genesis account precisely because of its explaining to a considerable degree the gravity of the situation that had developed on earth prior to the Flood.

Supporting this are the apostle Peter’s references to “the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days” (1 Pet. 3:19, 20), and to the “angels that sinned” mentioned in connection with the “ancient world” of Noah’s time (2 Pet. 2:4, 5), as well as Jude’s statement concerning “the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place.” (Jude 6) If it is denied that the “sons of the true God” of Genesis 6:2-4 were spirit creatures, then these statements by the Christian writers become enigmatic, with nothing to explain the manner in which this angelic disobedience took place, or its actual relation to Noah’s time.

Angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Gen. 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus’ statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the “angels in heaven” shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female principle being indicated among them. (Matt. 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude’s reference to angels as not keeping their original position and forsaking their “proper dwelling place” (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: “So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example.” (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the ‘sons of God’ of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons.—See ELOHIM (Angels); NEPHILIM.

FIRST HUMAN SON AND HIS DESCENDANTS

Adam was the first human “son of God” by virtue of his creation by God. (Gen. 2:7; Luke 3:38) Since he was evicted from God’s sanctuary in Eden, and condemned to death as a willful sinner, he was, in effect, disowned by God and lost his filial relationship with his heavenly Father.—Gen. 3:17-24.

Those descended from him have been born with inherited sinful tendencies. (See SIN, I.) Since they were born of one rejected by God, Adam’s descendants could not claim the relationship of being a son of God simply on the basis of birth. This is demonstrated by the apostle John’s words at John 1:12, 13. He shows that those who received Christ Jesus, exercising faith in his name, were given “authority to become God’s children, . . . [being] born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God.” Sonship in relation to God, therefore, is not viewed as something automatically received by all Adam’s descendants at birth. This and other texts show that, since Adam’s fall into sin, it has required some special recognition by God for men to be designated as his “sons.” This is illustrated in his dealings with Israel.

“ISRAEL IS MY SON”

To Pharaoh, who considered himself a god and a son of the Egyptian god Ra, Jehovah spoke of Israel as “my son, my first-born,” and called on the Egyptian ruler to “send my son away that he may serve me.” (Ex. 4:22, 23) Thus the entire nation of Israel was viewed by God as his “son” due to being his chosen people, a “special property, out of all the peoples.” (Deut. 14:1, 2) Not only because Jehovah is the Source of all life, but more specifically because God had, in harmony with the Abrahamic covenant, produced this people, he is called their “Creator,” their “Former,” and their “Father,” by whose name they were called. (Compare Psalm 95:6, 7; 100:3; Isaiah 43:1-7, 15; 45:11, 12, 18, 19; 63:16.) He had ‘helped them even from the belly,’ evidently referring to the very beginning of their development as a people, and he ‘formed’ them by his dealings with them and by the Law covenant, giving shape to the national characteristics and structure. (Isa. 44:1, 2, 21; compare God’s expressions to Jerusalem at Ezekiel 16:1-14; also Paul’s expressions at Galatians 4:19 and 1 Thessalonians 2:11, 12.) Jehovah protected, carried, corrected and provided for them as a father would for his son. (Deut. 1:30, 31; 8:5-9; compare Isaiah 49:14, 15.) As a “son” the nation should have served to the praise of their Father. (Isa. 43:21; Mal. 1:6) Otherwise they would belie their sonship (Deut. 32:4-6, 18-20; Isa. 1:2, 3; 30:1, 2, 9), even as some of them acted in disreputable ways and were called ‘sons of Belial’ (literal Hebrew expression rendered “good-for-nothing men” at Deuteronomy 13:13 [NW] and other texts; compare 2 Corinthians 6:15). They became “renegade sons.”—Jer. 3:14, 22; compare 4:22.

That it was in this national sense, and due to their covenant relationship, that God dealt with the Israelites as sons is seen by the fact that God simultaneously refers to himself, not only as their “Maker,” but also as their “Repurchaser” and even their “husbandly owner,” this latter expression placing Israel in the relationship of a wife to him. (Isa. 54:5, 6; compare 63:8; Jeremiah 3:14.) It was evidently with their covenant relationship in mind, and recognizing God as responsible for the formation of the nation, that the Israelites addressed themselves to Jehovah as “our Father.”—Isa. 63:16-19; compare Jeremiah 3:18-20; Hosea 1:10, 11.

The tribe of Ephraim became the most prominent tribe of the northern kingdom of ten tribes, its name often standing for that entire kingdom. Because Jehovah chose to have Ephraim receive the firstborn son’s blessing from his grandfather Jacob instead of Manasseh the real firstborn son of Joseph, Jehovah rightly spoke of the tribe of Ephraim as “my firstborn.”—Jer. 31:9, 20; Hos. 11:1-8, 12; compare Genesis 48:13-20.

Individual Israelite ‘sons’

God also designated certain individuals within Israel as his ‘sons,’ in a special sense. The second psalm, attributed to David at Acts 4:24-26, evidently applies to him initially when speaking of God’s “son.” (Ps. 2:1, 2, 7-12) The psalm was later fulfilled in Christ Jesus, as the context in Acts shows. Since the context in the psalm shows that God is speaking, not to a baby, but to a grown man, in saying, “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father,” it follows that David’s entry into such sonship resulted from God’s special selection of him for the kingship and from God’s fatherly dealings with him. (Compare Psalm 89:3, 19-27.) In a similar way Jehovah said of David’s son Solomon, “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son.”—2 Sam. 7:12-14; 1 Chron. 22:10; 28:6.

Loss of sonship

When Jesus was on earth the Jews still claimed God as their “Father.” But Jesus bluntly told certain opposing ones that they were ‘of their father the Devil,’ for they listened to and did the will and works of God’s adversary; hence they showed they were “not from God.” (John 8:41, 44, 47) This again shows that sonship with God on the part of any of Adam’s descendants requires, not simply some natural fleshly descent, but primarily God’s provision of a spiritual relationship with Him, and that such relationship, in turn, requires that the “sons” keep faith with God by manifesting his qualities, being obedient to his will and faithfully serving his purpose and interests.