Song of songs
When we say 'Waterloo', we may be speaking of a place, or as a reminder of a person, his lack of preparation, or his opponent's good fortune, as in Wellington's Waterloo. They are all descendant mataphor for the original idea which incorporates them all.
By using different words, and looking at different angles, it appears that addtional meaning is being imposed. But the original idea does not change. It is merely restated in a different way. We enter the idea by one of the expressed portals and can exit by expressing it differently.
I haven't studied Song of Songs/Solomon in detail, but let's take a quick look:
So 1:1 ¶ The song of songs, which [is] Solomon’s.
The yod י is the creator or his creation.
The shin ש is the the word returning with an increase, or the Word returning with his bride, the marriage of the Word and his bride, the Spirit which gives life to the bride enabling the marriage, and since marriage is doctrine; The Spirit which leads you in all truth (teaching) and enables the return to God in holiness. (fire).
The rosh ר is revelation, also described as water by John.
- שיר shiyr -song
The song starts off by singing three times:
ShiR e-ShiRim aShR שיר השירים אשר
Solomon - peace.
Since 3 represents the Trinity, The book is about the joy of God in his marriage/teaching of his bride/church.
You already knew that instinctively, because God's Spirit guides you. Your instinct is not free-for-all allegory as some would say, as they deny that the book has anything to do with Christ. They would say it is merely a love song.
We have exegeted, in detail what you know to be true. The only thing required to make this NOT free-for-allegory is the observation of the thrice singing hidden in the words. We did not put meaning into it. We observed what was there.
