# Song of Songs- Literal, Typological, Or Both?



## greenbaggins (Mar 14, 2011)

On the KJV-NKJV thread, a discussion about the Song of Songs was brought up. Some argue for the literal interpretation, and some argue for the typological interpretation. I have never felt that we have to choose between these two things. Doesn't Ephesians 5 tell us that there is a very strong connection between the marriage of husband and wife, and the marriage of Christ and His church? 

The Puritans get a bad rap for interpreting the Song of Songs typologically (and some would say allegorically). I think this is wrong. The Puritans were right to interpret the Song this way. However, they were wrong to say that therefore the Song is _not also_ about human marriage and yes, sex also. 

Unfortunately, modern scholarship has swung the pendulum too far the other way and rejected all typological interpretation. They rightly note that the Song should be interpreted literally. However, they tend to say that therefore it can _not also_ be about Christ and His church. I believe both parties to this debate are guilty of false dichotomy. 

On the one hand, to say that the meaning of only the Song of Songs is not to be interpreted with any kind of literality (and by this, I do not mean that everything has to be interpreted in a wooden, literal fashion, but rather that it should be interpreted according to its genre, and the standard conventions associated with that genre) constitutes special pleading. We will say that all other genres of Scripture should be interpreted according to their genre, and then say that this love poem should not be interpreted that way. I could not possibly disagree more with this line of thinking. 

On the other hand, the modern dissociation of body and spirit typically results in saying that because the Song is literal, therefore it can't be typological. Perhaps it is the Edenic innocence of the Song that can sometimes get us all wadded up about this and makes the interpretation of the Song so incredibly divided. 

There will always be difficulties in interpretation, no matter what approach one uses to the Song. The only-literal approach might have difficulty with 1:4, as Matthew Winzer has pointed out. However, the only-typological interpretation will have to resort to allegorizing sooner or later that winds up in just as ridiculous a spot (here I'm thinking of the descriptions of the woman's body in 4:1-7). Maybe, just maybe, we don't necessarily have to go with only literal, or only typological. Maybe some passages lend themselves more to literal, and others more to typological, and surely quite a few would do both.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 14, 2011)

I've heard the approach which doesn't pretend to be able to explain every detail with a corresponding spiritual meaning as being "parabolic".


----------



## DTK (Mar 14, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> Maybe, just maybe, we don't necessarily have to go with only literal, or only typological. Maybe some passages lend themselves more to literal, and others more to typological, and surely quite a few would do both.



I think that the middle is the approach. To name a specific instance, when the woman says, "I am the rose of Sharon, And the lily of the valleys" (Sol 2:1), I think our hymnology has misled us with respect to that line exegetically. The rose of Sharon and the lily of the valley are not speaking of Christ, _per se_, . . . I think she is expressing a sense of personal insecurity, i.e., she views herself as a "common wildflower." And her beloved is quick to respond, in essence, "yes, but you're a lily among the thorns! You stand out among the others!" It seems to me that here her beloved picks up on an insecurity with which she wrestles, and like a loving husband, seeks to address her insecurity in order to let her know that he doesn't view her as a "common flower."

This is how a husband, lovingly, addresses the insecurity, weakness with which his wife is wrestling, and how he seeks to put it to rest. In other words, he sees this weakness that she has, and dismisses it in way that lets her know that in his mind and heart she is anything but common. Here is something that men do well to learn about their wives . . . because no wife, no husband can live secure in a relationship where he or she thinks there’s the possibility of a rival to their affection and attraction.

Christ is to be found throughout this OT book, but He is not under every leaf, as it were, and He's not the lily of the valley. Ephesians 5 does come into play as a hermeneutical principle, because according to Eph. 5 our marriages are intended to be a miniature reflection of the love which Christ bears to His church . . . 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)

My 2 cents


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> On the KJV-NKJV thread, a discussion about the Song of Songs was brought up. Some argue for the literal interpretation, and some argue for the typological interpretation.



As one of the participants I need to point out that I argued for neither. "Typological" still requires something literal. If one is arguing that the Song is a literal marriage with redemptive-theological significance then that is the typological approach. Besides the literal and typological there is also the view that it is drama. Besides these three, the traditional view is that the Song is allegorical. That is the view I maintain.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 14, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> I have never felt that we have to choose between these two things. Doesn't Ephesians 5 tell us that there is a very strong connection between the marriage of husband and wife, and the marriage of Christ and His church?



When I saw the title of your thread, this is how I indended to respond. I, for one, think your approach is probably the best one, though it's hard to be sure.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 14, 2011)

If the entire OT is about the sufferings of Christ and the glories that follow, as the NT instructs us, then that would certainly include the Song of Songs. But just as the Book of Proverbs is wisdom literature that instructs us in how we should behave towards one another, convicting us of sin and thereby pointing us to our need of Christ, and to his perfect righteousness that is credited to us, so too as the Song of Songs speaks to us of human marriage, it must necessarily point us to Christ who is the answer to our failures in marriage by becoming the perfect husband for his church. 

To interpret every aspect of the Song of Songs allegorically is the same category mistake made by those who interpret every aspect of the Tabernacle allegorically. Sometimes a tent peg is just a tent peg, not a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ because it is partly in the ground and partly out of the ground (thank you M.R. DeHaan). But the meaning of the tabernacle is more than just a great big tent. So too the Song of Songs is more than "an hot carnall pamphlet" (as the Westminster divines rightly warned). But it is as we understand what the Song of Songs has to say about our flawed and failing marriages that we will see it properly speaking to us about Christ and the gospel. 

That's easy to assert in theory. It's much harder in practice. I look forward to having an attempt at preaching it in the next couple of years or so and would love to know if anyone knows of resources that strike that balance. In my experience most books written by OT academics tend to be very literal and most written by pastors tend to be allegorical. I don't know of anything much that really captures that middle ground. But maybe there are resources out there I haven't found yet.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2011)

iainduguid said:


> To interpret every aspect of the Song of Songs allegorically is the same category mistake made by those who interpret every aspect of the Tabernacle allegorically.


 
James Durham distinguishes between interpreting Scripture allegorically and interpreting allegorical Scripture.

Again, type and allegory are being confused. The tabernacle was a real building in time and space. If the Song were to be canonised as a real marriage typifying the ideal marriage it would prove disastrous not only for Christian marriage but also for Christological reflection.

We are reformed. This is the Puritan board. Durham's key to the Canticles in the opening of his commentary really is worth the time and effort to read and digest. Reformed believers with a love of the Puritans would learn much from it. Alternatively, in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, vol. 5, one will find an excellent introduction to and analysis of Durham's approach to the Song.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 14, 2011)

> I have never felt that we have to choose between these two things.


 I've been thinking along similar lines, but with different details in view. I think it records the story of a very real, contemporaneous couple, perhaps even temporarily peeling away the awful separateness of our sin and to give us a glimpse of love without the full effects of the fall. And it also serves the purpose of illustrating God relationship to Hisi people. Look at Hosea and the language of pursuing his love, his wife, and of the humiliating cost he had to pay to get her back. I also think it can be possible to view this as an individual in his pursuit of God, and God's faithfulness in pursing His own. If our closest, most intimate relationship in this earth is with our spouse, how much more so should our relationship be with God? 

This would not be three different interpretations, but three applications depending upon the viewpoint in time. I think here of the very real-time situations that the prophets faced and how their writings stand for us today as a stern warning to pursue God in the way He has ordained.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> This would not be three different interpretations, but three applications depending upon the viewpoint in time. I think here of the very real-time situations that the prophets faced and how their writings stand for us today as a stern warning to pursue God in the way He has ordained.


 
The very real problem faced by this approach is that God is not to be seen in the book, there is no mention of the concept of sin, and there is no covenantal basis to the relationship/s in the book. This approach must explain whence these ideas are arising if the commitment to the literal is to be taken seriously.


----------



## TimV (Mar 15, 2011)

So, would this book be a good source of pick up lines?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The very real problem faced by this approach is that God is not to be seen in the book



Says who ?

After I get my books out of storage, I can get the exact reference from the exact author, but I recall reading that 5:1c ("Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!") - well....Who else is going to be able to see the act of the consumation of the marriage and approve of it ?



> , there is no mention of the concept of sin, and there is no covenantal basis to the relationship/s in the book. This approach must explain whence these ideas are arising if the commitment to the literal is to be taken seriously.



Maybe you're looking for things that aren't there and that's what guiding your exegesis (and even some of the things you claim aren't there with the literal approach....are).

My take on it is pretty straightforward - the book as it stands, is about the marriage relationship - various different facets of it - and is a celebration of marital love and intimacy. To read anything else _into_ it is to do the text an injustice.

Overall, the book can be _said_ to point to Christ just as marriage (and all of the 'markers' in marriage) points to Christ. It can be treated as typological in that sense. 

God wrote it for our benefit. To go the route of saying "it can't be about this" is to be a child at Christmas who takes the toy out of the box..... and plays with the box, neglecting the gift given.


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 15, 2011)

BlackCalvinist said:


> God wrote it for our benefit. To go the route of saying "it can't be about this" is to be a child at Christmas who takes the toy out of the box..... and plays with the box, neglecting the gift given.



Wouldn't taking Christ out of the interpretation be taking the toy out of the box and playing with the box instead?


----------



## Skyler (Mar 15, 2011)

My  is that Song of Songs is about a literal husband-and-wife relationship. Parallels can be taken from it that apply to Christ and the Church just as from any other husband-and-wife relationship. But I don't think we can say that it's "typological" just because there are aspects that remind us of Jesus.


----------



## MW (Mar 15, 2011)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Says who ?



Said me. 

Seriously; if one rejects the allegorical approach in favour of the literal one is not at liberty to make up things which are not in the text, and God is not to be found in the text.



BlackCalvinist said:


> After I get my books out of storage, I can get the exact reference from the exact author, but I recall reading that 5:1c ("Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!") - well....Who else is going to be able to see the act of the consumation of the marriage and approve of it ?



Who *else*? According to the literal approach, there is nothing *else* but the literal.



BlackCalvinist said:


> Maybe you're looking for things that aren't there and that's what guiding your exegesis (and even some of the things you claim aren't there with the literal approach....are).



The text is guiding my exegesis. If the literal sense is the immediate sense of the text then all manner of absurdities follow. If one insists on a literal approach one is not at liberty to explain away any part of the text in order to save the literal approach from the difficulties it has created.



BlackCalvinist said:


> My take on it is pretty straightforward - the book as it stands, is about the marriage relationship - various different facets of it - and is a celebration of marital love and intimacy. To read anything else _into_ it is to do the text an injustice.



There seems to be alot of intimacy outside of the marital relationship as well. There also seems to be some degree of brutality within it. It is not normal for a woman to invite her friends to love her husband, and it is not normal for a man to abandon his wife and expose her to being beaten on the streets. One does not normally encourage a man to become intimate with his sister. And if the woman happens to be one of Solomon's foreign wives, as some suggest, this union is condemned as unlawful.



BlackCalvinist said:


> Overall, the book can be _said_ to point to Christ just as marriage (and all of the 'markers' in marriage) points to Christ. It can be treated as typological in that sense.



Marriage points to Christ because it is ordained as a type. This particular "marriage" has no such appointment, and interpreters are not at liberty to make up types at random.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 16, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > God wrote it for our benefit. To go the route of saying "it can't be about this" is to be a child at Christmas who takes the toy out of the box..... and plays with the box, neglecting the gift given.
> ...


 
Christ IS in the interpretation.....just not directly in the text.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 16, 2011)

If "the very real problem is that God is not to be seen in the book" means that we have to allegorize it to get any spiritual value about it, then you have a problem preaching from a great deal of wisdom literature, not to mention the entire book of Esther! And if we want to talk about "all manner of absurdities" that misguided interpreters have found in the text, then the allegorical approach is far from above reproach. My favorite example is the allegorical interpreter who identified the "garden of nuts" in the Song as the church - on the grounds that like a nut it is tough on the outside and tender in the middle. I've certainly seen churches that would fit the description of a garden of nuts, but that is not the exact parallel that I would draw. Of course, there can be more responsible allegorical exegesis, but I would argue that there can be more responsible attempts at historical-grammatical exegesis as well, which do not end up in the moral absurdities that you suggest. You might start with Duane Garrett's Word commentary as just one example.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2011)

iainduguid said:


> If "the very real problem is that God is not to be seen in the book" means that we have to allegorize it to get any spiritual value about it, then you have a problem preaching from a great deal of wisdom literature, not to mention the entire book of Esther! And if we want to talk about "all manner of absurdities" that misguided interpreters have found in the text, then the allegorical approach is far from above reproach. My favorite example is the allegorical interpreter who identified the "garden of nuts" in the Song as the church - on the grounds that like a nut it is tough on the outside and tender in the middle. I've certainly seen churches that would fit the description of a garden of nuts, but that is not the exact parallel that I would draw. Of course, there can be more responsible allegorical exegesis, but I would argue that there can be more responsible attempts at historical-grammatical exegesis as well, which do not end up in the moral absurdities that you suggest. You might start with Duane Garrett's Word commentary as just one example.


 
Responses are best presented in context. The statement to which you are referring was written in reply to the idea that God can be found in the text using a literal approach. If one is going to adopt a literal approach then fidelity to it must recognise that God is not to be found in the book.

Again, I draw attention to Durham's distinction between interpreting allegorical scripture and interpreting scripture allegorically. Your misrepresentation was perhaps excusable the first time, but it simply hinders discussion for you to continue to misrepresent the approach you are opposing.

Esther's silence of "God" turns out to be an elaborate theological statement on the silence of God.

The beauty of wisdom literature is its preconception of God only wise, which is usually spelled out in a preface (Proverbs), in the course of the narrative (Job), or in the conclusion of the matter (Ecclesiastes). It is not spelled out at all in the Song of Solomon.

The fact that the book does not present itself as history or wisdom means that the way of approaching the book must be unique. The literal approach presently identifies the genre as love-letters. The approach to the book subsequently makes many figurative allowances. The figurative handles in the allegorical approach are consistent with viewing the book as an allegory. The reference point for the figures of speech is different, but as a method it cannot be rejected without also rejecting other non literal reference points for the speech.

The book calls itself "the song of songs." It makes a claim of pre-eminence. If this title is to be taken seriously it is difficult to imagine its main object lesson is to teach us about human love and relationships. One faces the immediate problem that there are songs about the divine relationship with man which are far more deserving of the claim to pre-eminence. Should one insist from the outset that the title itself must be allegorised it is impossible to reject the allegorical method.

Concerning "absurdities," I agree that there have been many absurd claims to allegorical exegesis, as has been the case with many parables; some scholars react so far in the opposite direction as to refuse any extended allegory in parables even though the Lord Himself has provided an extended interpretation to at least two of them. More moderate scholars recognise the need for balance, and see the need for strict exegesis even while maintaining that the type of literature requires non-literal referents. In the case of the Song, a classification of allegorical Scripture would still require a strict grammatico-historical approach in order to properly understand the allegory. This approach would serve to minimise the absurdities.

On the other hand, there is no way of avoiding the absurdities if the Song is necessarily approached as if it provided a literal referent to human love. EVERY APPROACH involves itself in absurdity and thereby provides an indirect proof that the book was not intended to be understood literally.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> On the other hand, there is no way of avoiding the absurdities if the Song is necessarily approached as if it provided a literal referent to human love. EVERY APPROACH involves itself in absurdity and thereby provides an indirect proof that the book was not intended to be understood literally.


 
What are some examples of supposed absurdities that abound from a literal approach ?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > This would not be three different interpretations, but three applications depending upon the viewpoint in time. I think here of the very real-time situations that the prophets faced and how their writings stand for us today as a stern warning to pursue God in the way He has ordained.
> ...



The problem with what you're saying here, Matthew, is that you are artificially limiting the term "literal" to exclude typology. I, for one, do not follow that definition of "literal." My definition of literal is flexible enough to include typology. Besides, what biblical evidence do you have that the Song is an allegorical text? Ephesians 5 doesn't help, because that only demonstrates typology, something I would allow in a literal interpretation. But typology is NOT the same thing as allegory. In typology, the type has the same historical pattern as the antitype. This is not true of allegory.


----------



## discipulo (Mar 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Again, I draw attention to Durham's distinction between interpreting allegorical scripture and interpreting scripture allegorically. Your misrepresentation was perhaps excusable the first time, but it simply hinders discussion for you to continue to misrepresent the approach you are opposing.



It’s good that we don’t have to be so strict as Calvin against Sebastian Castelio on the Songs, while of course Castelio’s view that the Canticum Canticorum shouldn’t be in the Canon was heretical in the first place.

And yes, the contemporary trend of viewing the Song of Salomon in the merely human level alone is a great impoverishment in the line of Castelio.

I didn’t know James Durahm’s commentary +/- 500 pages but his Clavis Cantici by James Durham, can be found here, also PDF.

Clavis Cantici: A Key Usefull

As I read this, and I can’t wait to read more from Durham's work,

The Strain and Subject of it is so very Spiritual, that it necessitates the Students thereof, to aim at some nearness with God; and ordinarily it leaves some stamp upon their affections, which is not the least cause, nor the smallest encouragement to me in this undertaking

I was recalling how I was moved by some of Bernard of Clairvaux’s sermons.

So I wonder how you see Bernard’s work, Rev Winzer?

Yes, I know, there we are back in romanism where the Song has been a tour de force for any decent speculative mystic or theologian…

…but just try reading it with some Palestrina playing, never allowing your feet to get out of Redemptive History - from courtship to consummation.

[video=youtube;EFFBaT_r6zU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFBaT_r6zU[/video]


----------



## MW (Mar 17, 2011)

BlackCalvinist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, there is no way of avoiding the absurdities if the Song is necessarily approached as if it provided a literal referent to human love. EVERY APPROACH involves itself in absurdity and thereby provides an indirect proof that the book was not intended to be understood literally.
> ...



I noted some in an earlier post. "There seems to be alot of intimacy outside of the marital relationship as well. There also seems to be some degree of brutality within it. It is not normal for a woman to invite her friends to love her husband, and it is not normal for a man to abandon his wife and expose her to being beaten on the streets. One does not normally encourage a man to become intimate with his sister. And if the woman happens to be one of Solomon's foreign wives, as some suggest, this union is condemned as unlawful." The only way a literal approach can resolve these less than ideal marital conditions is to turn the whole piece into a melodrama or explain away specific statements.


----------



## MW (Mar 17, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> The problem with what you're saying here, Matthew, is that you are artificially limiting the term "literal" to exclude typology. I, for one, do not follow that definition of "literal." My definition of literal is flexible enough to include typology. Besides, what biblical evidence do you have that the Song is an allegorical text? Ephesians 5 doesn't help, because that only demonstrates typology, something I would allow in a literal interpretation. But typology is NOT the same thing as allegory. In typology, the type has the same historical pattern as the antitype. This is not true of allegory.


 
Lane, typology is a specific field of hermeneutics. Basic to a type is its divine institution. There is no divine institution in the Song of Solomon. You appeal to Eph. 5, which speaks of the institution of marriage itself as type, not to this particular marriage as a type. If we were to allow the exegete to make up types at random the whole field of study would be back in the mess it was in before Patrick Fairbairn entered into his foundational study. Secondly, basic to a type is the fact that it is literal redemptive history. Allegory does not require the text to be history; typology does. The absurdities of the literal approach are the result of requiring an historical referent in the text. By adopting a typological approach, which seeks an historical referent in the text, the exegete immerses himself in the absurdities of the literal approach at least so far as the type is concerned. To the degree he consistently applies these to the Antitype his Christological reflections are bound to go astray.

Please consult the aforementioned article for Durham's distinctions between typology and allegory. If I remember correctly it follows your useful article on the Sabbath.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 18, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with what you're saying here, Matthew, is that you are artificially limiting the term "literal" to exclude typology. I, for one, do not follow that definition of "literal." My definition of literal is flexible enough to include typology. Besides, what biblical evidence do you have that the Song is an allegorical text? Ephesians 5 doesn't help, because that only demonstrates typology, something I would allow in a literal interpretation. But typology is NOT the same thing as allegory. In typology, the type has the same historical pattern as the antitype. This is not true of allegory.
> ...


 
I am well aware of Durham's approach and his distinction between typology and allegory, having edited that article myself. It was an article with which I found myself somewhat at odds. I deny that a literal approach to a text implies that the text itself is necessarily historical. Whether the Song is historical or not has no bearing on whether one should approach the text with a literal hermeneutic or not. As an example, Jesus made up parables (the ungrateful servant is a good example) to explain His teaching. Just because they are made up does not mean that we have to take a non-literal approach to His parables. Surely, it is also possible to have a text that is a poetical expansion on an historical event. Examples of this would be Deborah's song in Judges 5, and Israel's song of deliverance in Exodus 15. If it is a poetical expansion, then a literal approach need not have to find everything immediately explainable. You have yet to answer some of my earlier queries. 1. How do you know that the Song is an allegorical text? I can find no support for this in the text. Simply saying that the literal approach has problems does not mean that one has eliminated the literal approach from contention, as I have hopefully already demonstrated above. There are many biblical passages where the literal approach has difficulties. That does not mean we should abandon the literal approach for something else. 2. How would, say, Song 4:1-7 be allegorical? Allegorical of what? And how would you prevent the interpretation of said passage from running into absolute flights of pure fancy?


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> I am well aware of Durham's approach and his distinction between typology and allegory, having edited that article myself. It was an article with which I found myself somewhat at odds.



It is good that we have a common base for understanding terms and ideas even if our views are at variance. Let's proceed.



greenbaggins said:


> I deny that a literal approach to a text implies that the text itself is necessarily historical.



I think you mean that the referent of the text is historical. The text itself must of necessity be historical in order for it to be canonical.

That the referent is historical is obvious by the very definition of a type. There is Antitype, which is the ultimate object to which the type looks; and there is Type, which is called a shadow of good things to come. As a shadow it appears on the scene of history; it cannot do otherwise. If it were anything other than historical it could not shadow forth a great historical reality which was yet to come. If we look at the example you provided from Eph. 5, in referring to the type which marriage affords of the relationship between Christ and the church, the apostle appeals to the historical enactment of marriage in the beginning. It is impossible to consider a type as existing without this rock-solid historical enactment.



greenbaggins said:


> Whether the Song is historical or not has no bearing on whether one should approach the text with a literal hermeneutic or not. As an example, Jesus made up parables (the ungrateful servant is a good example) to explain His teaching. Just because they are made up does not mean that we have to take a non-literal approach to His parables.



Two points seem to be conflated which need to be distinguished. As noted in a previous post, exegesis will still be of a grammatico-historical kind even when the referent of the text is non-literal or figurative. The parable is a good example of this. The seed is not seed, it is the word of the kingdom. The word "seed" will require an understanding of what a seed is and what a seed does in order for the parable to make sense. It will be necessary to use all the resources at the exegete's disposal in order to understand aright what the speaker understood by the terms he was using and how those terms fit within the context of what he said. Nevertheless, the ultimate referent is not physical seed, but a spiritual reality. Hence the "parable" receives its own genre designation, and is often classified among non-literal forms of speech.



greenbaggins said:


> Surely, it is also possible to have a text that is a poetical expansion on an historical event.



This seems to suggest that "historical event" is afterall the literal referent lying behind what is being called a type. Certainly poetical expansion is perfectly legitimate. But the poetic expansion will always be tied to whatever historical event is postulated for the book. What is the historical event? As soon as one tries to answer that question he finds himself tangled in knots. Should he actually succeed in answering that question, he will discover that the historical event is useless as a type because his demand for a literal referent entails all kinds of absurdities in the real world. Let's take as an example the view that the historical event is the marriage of Solomon with one of his foreign wives; let's say, Pharaoh's daughter, who fits the description of being "black, but comely." Is this "marriage" (1) an ideal marriage situation, or (2) of divine institution that it can serve as a type? The biblical text expressly says that this marriage to strange women, including Pharaoh's daughter, was forbidden by the Lord.

Now, turning from the historical event to the poetical expansion, how far is the language permitted to expand beyond literal referents before this poetry itself forms the nucleus of an allegory. Take, for example, the idea that the lover is both king and shepherd. Must both be taken literally? If so, can they now be taken as referring to two different people? In that event, the Song has moved beyond love poetry and now has a melodrama underlying its message. What we see is that allowing the broadest scope to poetical license, the book is in fact demanding us to read it as containing a variety of images which are connected in the abstract but not in the concrete world. But that is, by definition, allegory. The only question is, whether the allegory intends to teach about a human union or a divine-human union. Once allegory, or an abstract connection, has been permitted, there is no reason for tying it to the concrete world of human relationships; as the "Song of songs" we are led almost instinctively to think of it as referring to a pre-eminent relationship, even the pre-eminent relationship which exists between God and His people. That is the traditional allegorical view. 



greenbaggins said:


> You have yet to answer some of my earlier queries. 1. How do you know that the Song is an allegorical text? I can find no support for this in the text. Simply saying that the literal approach has problems does not mean that one has eliminated the literal approach from contention, as I have hopefully already demonstrated above. There are many biblical passages where the literal approach has difficulties. That does not mean we should abandon the literal approach for something else. 2. How would, say, Song 4:1-7 be allegorical? Allegorical of what? And how would you prevent the interpretation of said passage from running into absolute flights of pure fancy?



Good questions.

1. Three points. First, its title. "Song of songs;" it simply cannot be understood of a human relationship. As great as that relationship is, the Bible presents the virtue of the union as proceeding from God Himself. To have a book extolling the very heights of that union without any reference to God is in itself untenable. So the title itself demands the reader to think beyond the sphere of the natural. "Of Solomon," who is renowned for his "proverbial" teaching, and has set forth those proverbs using all manner of similitudes. Secondly, its canonicity. The Song is never alluded to in the NT with reference to human marriage. Its phraseology, however, is distinctly taken up and used with direct reference to the relationship between Christ and the church. The extended imagery employed in Rev. 3 undeniably has its roots in the Song with reference to the door, knocking, and supping. We see the same dynamic expressed in the Westminster Confession: the Song is not used of human marriage but of the relationship of believers to Christ. When therefore we confess that the Song is canonical with WCF 1.2, it is undoubtedly with this understanding in mind. Thirdly, its content -- no historical event explains the great diversity which is to be found in the contents of the Song. As such, it demands a non-historical referent.

2. Being consistent with the commitment to grammatico-historical exegesis it must be insisted that it be viewed through eastern rather than western eyes. Again, the literary unit must be properly identified. With these controls the flights of fancy are already being limited. One point is certain, even through eastern eyes these descriptions would be ghastly if they intended to exalt the physical appearance. It is only as ideal abstraction that the imagery makes proper sense. Then, one would look for hints to physical features which can be found in the biblical story. We have the abounding fruitfulness of sheep, as in the Jacob pericope. There is the tower of David and its highlighted feature of defensive arms. Then vv. 6, 7 present a change of scenery, with imagery from tabernacle ritual. What is being depicted is therefore an Israelite indeed, standing in the Davidic covenant which promised everlasting mercies, and worshipping without spot. It is the latter characteristic which is highlighted by the text as the ideal place in which the lover would like to meet his beloved. These images cannot be understood of anyone other than the redeemed of the Lord bearing sacral ties to the Lover.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 18, 2011)

I find it difficult to see Song of Solomon as being about Christ and/or the church not least because the New Testament, as far as I know, completely ignores this book - no quotations or allusions at all. If Song were to be understood as being about Christ, one would logically assume that the NT writers would think so, too, and comment appropriately.

Along the same lines, no NT writer remarks upon the alleged connection between Christ and Proverbs 8, either. So, in both cases, I'm very reluctant to make those connections, either. As the Rev. Winzer states, interpreters are not allowed to make up their own biblical types at will.


----------



## TimV (Mar 18, 2011)

Just an aside, but "black" or tan is what 99.99 percent of women throughout the ages tried to avoid, since it shows they are manual laborers i.e. peasants. The Hottentot women who worked for me and are yellow/brown used that word about themselves and always in a depreciating way. In this case it's not an ethnic marker but economic.


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 18, 2011)

bookslover said:


> I find it difficult to see Song of Solomon as being about Christ and/or the church not least because the New Testament, as far as I know, completely ignores this book



Revelation chapter 3 seems to allude to the Song.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2011)

Mr. Winzer, do you think it would be appropriate to add as an additional evidence that the Song is allegorical its relation to Ecclesiastes? In that book Solomon has carefully spoken of life under the sun and condemned it as vanity. How could he then write a sort of epyllion so highly extolling something that is ultimately also 'under the sun'? Or if Ecclesiastes was composed after the Song we would be forced to consider that the Song repudiates something of Ecclesiastes. It seems quite difficult to reconcile Ecclesiastes 9:9 with taking the Song as having a historical referent. Is it really a love 'under the sun' that is 'as strong as death'?


----------



## bookslover (Mar 19, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I find it difficult to see Song of Solomon as being about Christ and/or the church not least because the New Testament, as far as I know, completely ignores this book
> ...



Well, in my ESV, there's a marginal reference at Revelation 3.20 to Song of Solomon 5.2, but it's just to a similar use of the word "knocking." It's a verbal reference, not a doctrinal one. And, that's it, as far as I can tell.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 19, 2011)

Matthew, several points (and thanks for a very thoughtful post). Firstly, "historical" does not have to be concretely historical. That is, the author could be referring to a non-specific marriage situation. Surely it is too narrow to say that only a concrete, specific historical event can be a type. The author could simultaneously be idealizing marriage, showing us the way it ought to be. Secondly, your objection with regard to the historical situation being absurd is weak. Most commentaries these days do not argue that the historical situation in view is Solomon with one of his many wives. The king language is usually interpreted these days as the woman's picture of her husband, calling him king, even if he is not an historical king. Thirdly, the argument from the title of the Song only works if I am arguing that the Song is ONLY about human marriage, and not also about God's marriage to His people. I would argue that it is equally about both, and that Eph 5 is a precedent for arguing this way. According to your view, the Song cannot be about human marriage. But I would say that the typology also works in reverse. If it is about God and His relationship to His church, then it is also about marriage, since the two are organically related (again, see Eph 5). Fourthly, your argument from the canon doesn't work either. It doesn't have to have New Testament attestation as being about marriage if it echoes the Garden of Eden. I don't really have time right now to explore that, but I would say that being naked and unashamed is an echo of Eden, and the descriptions of the man and the woman of each other follow that line. The references to the garden paradise (even down to the possible Persian loanword) also point in this direction. Fifthly, your assertion that the descriptions of the man and the woman are "ghastly" if referring to human love don't work, because you are stating that objection from a Western perspective. The descriptions I have read of the point of the metaphors as descriptions of human beauty are anything but ghastly. You should test your assertion against some of the modern commentaries, which are becoming more and more adept at seeing the point of the comparisons as being a thing of beauty, and not of ghastliness.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> Firstly, "historical" does not have to be concretely historical. That is, the author could be referring to a non-specific marriage situation. Surely it is too narrow to say that only a concrete, specific historical event can be a type. The author could simultaneously be idealizing marriage, showing us the way it ought to be.



Lane, It sounds like you are promoting a view similar to Tremper Longman's, where the characters are literary rather than literal -- the creation of the artist rather than real-life people. Might I suggest that the word "literal," which heads up this discussion, is now irrelevant. The Song cannot be considered both literal and typological, as suggested by the OP, when in fact it is not regarded as being literal. As the word "literal" is irrelevant to the discussion, my remarks, in which I answer the claim that the Song is to be taken literally, have been rendered inapplicable. I guess it was an useful mental exercise even if I was being led down the "garden" path.

It is not too narrow to require historicity as a precondition of type, because that is basic to the definition of type. I would ask you, in the interest of helpful, clarifying discussion, to please use terms with accepted hermeneutical meaning. The two elements necessary to a type are divine institution and resemblance between the type and thing signified. Your use of "type" destroys both these elements. (1.) There is no transaction in which God designates this "marriage" as a type. Your only appeal is to marriage in general, an appeal which depends on the historical enactment in the beginning. Moreover, it is accepted by those (like Longman) who make use of the canonical process approach, that there is no "marriage" in the book. Marriage can only be read into it because of its canonical positioning. (2.) An ideal cannot be a type. A type is always less than ideal and looks to something ideal to perfect it. To say that ideal marriage is in view in the Song is really to say something about the Antitype, not the type.

I think you would be better off abandoning the idea of "typology" and adopt the concept of "analogy," as in Longman's approach. A type requires similarity and dissimilarity with the Antitype. An analogy holds true while there is similarity, and ceases where there is dissimilarity.

In the final analysis, it appears that the OP must be answered in the negative, even by your own approach. The Song is neither literal nor typological, if we use those terms as they are usually understood.



greenbaggins said:


> Secondly, your objection with regard to the historical situation being absurd is weak. Most commentaries these days do not argue that the historical situation in view is Solomon with one of his many wives. The king language is usually interpreted these days as the woman's picture of her husband, calling him king, even if he is not an historical king.



I acknowledge what you are saying. The weakness of my statement is the result of having been misled by the word "literal" as it appears in the OP. I have distinct objections against the modern literary approach, and will attempt to make those clear in response to your fifth point.



greenbaggins said:


> Thirdly, the argument from the title of the Song only works if I am arguing that the Song is ONLY about human marriage, and not also about God's marriage to His people. I would argue that it is equally about both, and that Eph 5 is a precedent for arguing this way. According to your view, the Song cannot be about human marriage. But I would say that the typology also works in reverse. If it is about God and His relationship to His church, then it is also about marriage, since the two are organically related (again, see Eph 5).



Given my understanding of the function of a type I find this way of speaking quite confusing. One may not argue from the Antitype back to the type. It is like reversing history. The book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the type gives way to the Antitype; if it were otherwise, the Hebrews would have been quite justified in continuing with OT ceremonies. Earthly marriage shall give way to the eschatological marriage. It may even be argued that the "first" marriage alone is a type because it is distinguished by the characteristic of being without spot, a characteristic which is not to be seen in post-fall marriage. There are also numerous ways in which it is fallacious to argue back from Antitype to type with regard to marriage. E.g., there is legitimate divorce, and there is the reality of death breaking the bond. I am sorry, but the acceptance of your third point would turn the reformed understanding of marriage on its head. 



greenbaggins said:


> Fourthly, your argument from the canon doesn't work either. It doesn't have to have New Testament attestation as being about marriage if it echoes the Garden of Eden. I don't really have time right now to explore that, but I would say that being naked and unashamed is an echo of Eden, and the descriptions of the man and the woman of each other follow that line. The references to the garden paradise (even down to the possible Persian loanword) also point in this direction.



As noted above, the characteristic of being without spot is not possible after the fall, and will not be seen again except in the eschatological bride of Christ. The garden imagery is legitimate and I accept its functionality within the Song; but this provides an argument against seeing human marriage as the reference point.

My argument with respect to the Canon is an important one. On what basis do we accept this book as canonical? The numerous allusions in the NT would place it on an equal footing with other books which are directly referenced with a Christocentric message.



greenbaggins said:


> Fifthly, your assertion that the descriptions of the man and the woman are "ghastly" if referring to human love don't work, because you are stating that objection from a Western perspective. The descriptions I have read of the point of the metaphors as descriptions of human beauty are anything but ghastly. You should test your assertion against some of the modern commentaries, which are becoming more and more adept at seeing the point of the comparisons as being a thing of beauty, and not of ghastliness.


 
No, I stated that would be the case even from an eastern perspective. The examples of love poetry from other ANE cultures demonstrate that physical beauty was expressed in terms of other earthly objects which were pleasing to the eye. It is accepted by scholars who have compared these with the Song that they are of a different nature. The imagery in the Song does not present the physical appearance in terms of objects of desire and pleasure which are of an earthly nature. They are more abstract; in fact, they are religious by nature. There is sensuality, but the senses are informed by religious teaching. This provides another argument in favour of the strictly allegorical approach.

Since you mention modern commentators, I will take this opportunity to voice my objections to the "love song anthology" view.

(1.) The concept of an anthology contradicts the title of the Song, and requires a strong subjective bias to determine the structure.

(2.) On this view "Solomon" must be reinterpreted in a non-historical way and denied authorship in some sense. Once internal textual controls like this are rejected there is really no way of hoping to arrive at the author's intended meaning.

(3.) The characters are non literal. They are fictional. This means that they function in the abstract in the same manner as an allegory. The road by which scholars have come to the point of identifying genre as "love poetry" is by rejecting the concept of allegory. If they are going to accept abstract terms of reference for the words of the text then they are genuinely required to explain why the original approach was invalid in the first place. It is worthwhile observing that this "generation-gap" in biblical introduction is apparent in most modern works. An earlier generation has rejected one reading and posited a new reading, while a subsequent generation rejects the preceding reading without considering the earlier rejection of an original reading. Such a trend can only spiral downwards.

(4.) There is no "marriage" in the book. At best, those who follow Childs' canonical process approach can read marriage into the story from the broader canonical requirements for sexual intimacy. Those who do not take this approach are able to look at the book's internal features and conclude that the kind of sexual intimacy is in fact anti-institutional; the fictional characters of the book are then able to be understood as representing "institutional love" in some way. From my point of view, they would have a strong argument because they are reading the book as an integral unity and are not forcing concepts from other literary environments. Also, the "presupposition of canon" undermines the process by which we acknowledge the internal marks of Scripture and accept a book as canonical. Without this process we have no basis upon which to reject a different canon. Why is the Song in the Protestant canon of Scripture? It was accepted on the basis of its allegorical nature and because it did not speak of human love. Those who insist that it speaks of human love are therefore bound to explain why it should be regarded as canonical, at least within a Protestant context.

(5.) If we cannot find "marriage" in the book, how can it be regarded as holding forth ideal human love? Ideal human love is God-united love. The absence of God in even a fictional capacity in the book means that there can be nothing "ideal" in the book. Further, if there is no marriage in the book, the issue of moral questionability comes to be raised of the "love poetry" reading as equally as of the "drama," "typological," and "literal" readings.

(6.) If the symbols of the book refer to human love of an idealised nature, the book as a whole must be leading us (1) to think of marriage as ideal, and (2) to seek ideal marriage. As already noted, the "ideal" of marriage is to be found in its divine institution. This institution left open the option not to enter into marriage for higher purposes. It also made provisions for the function of marriage under the fall. In fact, under the economy of redemption, "love" takes on new characteristics relative to its less than ideal situation; self-sacrifice rather than physical indulgence becomes the emphatic requirement for marriage in the fallen state. If the Song intended to teach about human love in an idealised form it becomes an unrealistic book in a fallen world, and would be irrelevant for those who are not married. In fact, it might serve as a temptation for those who are unmarried, especially when they see the exaltation of physical pleasure without any respect to divine institution.

(7.) Finally, the doctrine of the soul-body unity which is being advanced in Tremper Longman's NICOT commentary is highly questionable from a reformed point of view. He doesn't give a detailed explanation of his terms, but he says enough to show that this approach to the Song is perhaps being guided (or misguided) by erroneous views of human sexuality. To what degree these views affect the interpretation of the book is difficult to tell; it may be that the love poetry reading can exist without these views. Nevertheless, there is something in these erroneous conceptions which makes the love poetry view to be more appealing, and that should at least make us stop and examine ourselves before we enter into the presence of the holy and take up holy things lest we do so with unclean hands.

Blessings!


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer, do you think it would be appropriate to add as an additional evidence that the Song is allegorical its relation to Ecclesiastes? In that book Solomon has carefully spoken of life under the sun and condemned it as vanity. How could he then write a sort of epyllion so highly extolling something that is ultimately also 'under the sun'? Or if Ecclesiastes was composed after the Song we would be forced to consider that the Song repudiates something of Ecclesiastes. It seems quite difficult to reconcile Ecclesiastes 9:9 with taking the Song as having a historical referent. Is it really a love 'under the son' that is 'as strong as death'?


 
Ruben, homiletically I am happy to apply Ecclesiastes to Solomon, but in terms of strict exegesis the omission of "Solomon" per se has a bearing on the interpretation. I wouldn't be inclined to use him on a strictly exegetical question where his name does not appear because it will make the exegesis questionable at the least. But I think your point is perfectly valid from a theological point of view. Excellent reference to Eccl. 9:9. Human marriage suffers from the vanity of life. Idealising it is not a good thing. Idealising it without reference to God might be considered an inherently bad thing. Blessings!


----------



## hrdiaz (Mar 21, 2011)

"Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in *ALL* that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and *ALL* the Prophets, He expounded to them in *ALL* the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

"You search _*the Scriptures*_, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these [the Scriptures] are they which testify of Me."

"Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come - *in the volume of the book it is written of Me* - to do Your will, O God.’

In light of our Lord's own testimony about the entire Old Testament canon, is there any justification for thinking that the Song of Songs can _not_ be about Him?

I think one's argument is with Christ Himself, if one contends that Christ is not found in the Song of Songs.

It may present us with some interpretive difficulties, but apparently our Lord wasn't stumped by it.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 21, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Ruben, homiletically I am happy to apply Ecclesiastes to Solomon, but in terms of strict exegesis the omission of "Solomon" per se has a bearing on the interpretation. I wouldn't be inclined to use him on a strictly exegetical question where his name does not appear because it will make the exegesis questionable at the least. But I think your point is perfectly valid from a theological point of view. Excellent reference to Eccl. 9:9. Human marriage suffers from the vanity of life. Idealising it is not a good thing. Idealising it without reference to God might be considered an inherently bad thing. Blessings!



Thanks, Mr. Winzer! That's very illuminating.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 21, 2011)

Matthew, I'm not going to respond in detail to what you've written here, since I don't have the time right now. But I will clarify a few things. Firstly, I reject most of Longman's approach, so lumping me in with him is certainly not very conducive to clarity. His anthology approach I reject utterly, and therefore I completely fail to understand why you even brought it up, as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

Secondly, the idea that my interpretation of the Song would turn the Reformed idea of marriage on its head is ridiculous, and I resent the implications of that. We had such a good conversation going, until you extended my argument WAY beyond what I said. The archetype of all marriage is God's covenant with mankind. Archetype can come before type and antitype, both logically and temporally. See Lane Tipton's excellent discussion of Christology in his doctoral thesis, which includes an excellent exegesis of Colossians. The conclusion here is that I believe your definitions of "typology," "literal," and a number of other terms are simply too rigid. As a result of your rigidity on these definitions, you can come back with saying that my position would turn the Reformed position of marriage on its head. Divorce is irrelevant to the discussion, since it is nowhere mentioned in the Song.


----------



## MW (Mar 21, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> Matthew, I'm not going to respond in detail to what you've written here, since I don't have the time right now. But I will clarify a few things. Firstly, I reject most of Longman's approach, so lumping me in with him is certainly not very conducive to clarity. His anthology approach I reject utterly, and therefore I completely fail to understand why you even brought it up, as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that my interpretation of the Song would turn the Reformed idea of marriage on its head is ridiculous, and I resent the implications of that. We had such a good conversation going, until you extended my argument WAY beyond what I said. The archetype of all marriage is God's covenant with mankind. Archetype can come before type and antitype, both logically and temporally. See Lane Tipton's excellent discussion of Christology in his doctoral thesis, which includes an excellent exegesis of Colossians. The conclusion here is that I believe your definitions of "typology," "literal," and a number of other terms are simply too rigid. As a result of your rigidity on these definitions, you can come back with saying that my position would turn the Reformed position of marriage on its head. Divorce is irrelevant to the discussion, since it is nowhere mentioned in the Song.


 
Lane, I am sorry that I have missed the mark again. Of course, it may just be easier for you to actually state what your approach is and whose it resembles so that I am not left trying to clasp a shadow. I am also sorry if you are beginning to resent anything about this discussion. I specifically showed how arguing from antitype to type would turn the reformed view of marriage on its head. Instead of resenting what I have said, as if I had said something personal against you, answering the concerns which I raised might be much more helpful. Should you wish, in the future, to take up any of the matters I have raised, I am more than happy to discuss them with you, but I really don't see any benefit coming from resentment.

Blessings!


----------

