# Song of Solomon Hermeneutic



## Arch2k (Jun 20, 2005)

What is your take on Song of Solomon....

1) primarily meant to be an analogy between Christ and the church, 

2) primarily meant to be an example of a proper relationship between a husband and a wife,

3) or equally both?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 20, 2005)

I think both. I definitely see Christ and His Church in this Scripture. But just as the passage in Ephesians which relates the love of Christ for His Church to the love of a husband for his wife, the allegory makes sense because it is grounded in the husband-wife relationship. Likewise, in the Song of Solomon, the husband-wife relationship serves as the touchstone for the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 20, 2005)




----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 20, 2005)

Both


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jun 20, 2005)

I answered "primarily meant to be an analogy between Christ and the church", because I believe that is what it is _primarily_. The imagery of the relationship between a husband and wife is incident to this allegory, but it would not seem to me that this aspect was meant as the central focus, and so I would not say "equally both".

By the way, Dr. Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle has written a helpful devotional commentary on the Song of Solomon entitled "The Mutual Love of Christ and His People" which elaborates on this central aspect of the book. It was written in conjunction with a series of Wednesday night messages he presented on the subject.

http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?partno=MAST13

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 20, 2005)

both


----------



## Solo Christo (Jun 20, 2005)

Both, but I don't know about the 'equally' part.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 20, 2005)

both


----------



## Poimen (Jun 21, 2005)

I voted for primarily an analogy of Christ and His Church. Though the book definitely addresses the physical aspects of the marital relationship, all things are ultimately about Christ (Ephesians 1:19-23)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 21, 2005)

I'm not sure I'd want Christ to do some of the things discussed in this book to His Church. Maybe I'm alone on this one ...


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm not sure I'd want Christ to do some of the things discussed in this book to His Church. Maybe I'm alone on this one ...



Gabe

That depends on whether you accept some of the more modern, lurid, ideas about what this book is describing.

This book is very much a victim of the modern, hollow hermeneutic beloved of so many seminaries today.

I voted 'primarily Christ', but I would rather have had the option of 'both, but Primarily Christ'

JH


----------



## New wine skin (Jun 21, 2005)

I vote for both. 

Neither hermeneutic takes away from the gospel. The analogy of Christ and His church relates well to the doctrine of Union with Christ. Likewise, the literal reading is a means of grace and wisdom for the courting phase and marriage phase of interpersonal relations. I see neither interpretation as mutually exclusive, but rather one as a fine complement to the other.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> the literal reading is a means of grace and wisdom for the ... marriage phase of interpersonal relations.



Except there is no marriage in the Song of Solomon.



JH


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> ...



What makes you say that?


----------



## New wine skin (Jun 21, 2005)

You ve got to love the can o' worms image... : ) 

I didn't say there was a "marriage ceremony" in the Song, just that there is a relationship between man and women who engage in sensual activity, which being a couple, they must relate to each other is some phase of a relationship (be it analogous to marriage or ??), and thus I contend that the Song gives a picture of the dynamics of that relationship. The Song itself is scripture and scripture is a means of grace and wisdom. 

Seems that this thread has been done before.


----------



## New wine skin (Jun 21, 2005)

I recommend that any interested in this topic interact with Song of Solomon commentary by Tremper Longman. It will not end the debate, but you will be well informed by a reformed brother.

Word to ya!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm not sure I'd want Christ to do some of the things discussed in this book to His Church. Maybe I'm alone on this one ...



It's safe to go to hell now. 

It's frozen.

Gabriel and I agree.


----------



## DTK (Jun 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What is your take on Song of Solomon....
> 
> 1) primarily meant to be an analogy between Christ and the church,
> ...


It is both, but it is the analogy of Christ and the church that takes precedence in terms of the macrocosmic picture. Our marriages are intended by God to be a microcosmic picture of the relationship between Christ and his church, as we learn explicitly from Ephesians 5:31-32...


> 31"œFor this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


Thus our marriages are intended by God to be a minature reflection of Christ's relationship to his church, which is why the Song of Solomon can be applied to our personal relationships with our spouses, because they are to reflect the bigger picture (the macrocosm) of Christ's relationship to the Church. Marriage is meant by God to be a minature relationship of the union that we the Church have with Christ. Our marriages are not the ultimate reality"”They are a temporary reality foreshadowing the great union of Christ with his Church. This gives a strong incentive to us to live godly with and before our spouses, to be tender with them, and as husbands to love them as Christ loves His Church. 

It also has reference to how we are to regard one another as fellow members of Christ's spouse, the church, because it is together that we make up the spouse of Christ, not as isolated individuals.

Blessings,
DTK

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 21, 2005)

Jie-Huli made this recommendation



> By the way, Dr. Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle has written a helpful devotional commentary on the Song of Solomon entitled "The Mutual Love of Christ and His People" which elaborates on this central aspect of the book. It was written in conjunction with a series of Wednesday night messages he presented on the subject.
> 
> http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?partno=MAST13



And I would second it. Time for you puritanheads to get back to the puritan hermeneutic!

Will post a little more on the marriage/sensual relationship thing later.

JH

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 22, 2005)

Just as a passing comment....

Isn't it a bit gnostic to try and spiritualize SoS instead of just letting it be what it appears to be on the surface ?


----------



## Poimen (Jun 22, 2005)

I think it was Origen who thought that 

1:13 A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, That lies all night between my breasts.

was the cross lying between the Old and New covenants.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Just as a passing comment....
> 
> Isn't it a bit gnostic to try and spiritualize SoS instead of just letting it be what it appears to be on the surface ?



More soon. Suffice to say I wholly disagree!

JH


----------



## Average Joey (Jun 22, 2005)

I think in a way both.However,not equally.There it is spoken of lovemaking.I would deffinently say that it is a physical representation of Christ`s marriage to the church.Of the love and care for his beloved wife and his wife`s undying love for the husband.Good tool in showing why we have a devotion for Christ.It is written of the love a husband and wife show to each other.If we are to claim he is our husband,then we are to love him.

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Average Joey]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Just as a passing comment....
> 
> Isn't it a bit gnostic to try and spiritualize SoS instead of just letting it be what it appears to be on the surface ?



I whole-heartedly agree, Kerry

A few thoughts,
Rev Kok is certainly correct to see all things finding their fulfilment in Christ, but how do we draw the parallels in a way that is faithful to the scriptures?

Normally, in cases of typology/allegory we let Scripture itself determine how it is to be read, or in this case the allegory drawn.

In some ways we need to be careful of reading modern-day luridity into the otherwise sexual language of the poem. However, breasts in the OT were the same as breasts in the New Covenant age.

Average Joey makes a good point in saying that this should be a spur for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. I agree and hope the reference to the physical love between husbands and wives is still maintained in the poem.

I think DTK balances the line best when he sees the physical aspect of the poem as a temporal reality foreshadowing the marriage banquet of the Lamb (my reference here).



> It's safe to go to hell now.
> 
> It's frozen.
> 
> Gabriel and I agree.



I just now saw that. Great!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 22, 2005)

James Durham is worth reading.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 22, 2005)

I have to admit I am surprised at how the poll is going. I guess I shouldn't be, though, considering how the puritans generally viewed the SoS.

It is clear to me (though obviously not to most of you) that the SoS is *primarily* about marriage and the man/woman relationship. That is what is overtly spoken of throughout the entire book! God founded marriage _before_ He founded the church . . . so is it really that surprising that He would dedicate 1 of His 66 books to the subject? We know from Genesis 2 that God considered marriage important for man even in his perfect pre-fall state. And there is no passage in SoS corollary to Ephesians 5, where the author says, 'now I'm really talking about Christ and the church here . . ."

Of course Christ and the church are in view as well. I don't think a person can honestly read SoS side by side with Ephesians 5 and not see a Holy-Spirit-intended connection. We have a lot to learn from SoS regarding Christ and the church. But that is not what the book is *primarily* about, in my opinion.


----------



## DTK (Jun 22, 2005)

*A snapshot exegetical consideration*

I had a few moments, so I thought I'd post this comment, which is really an exegetical point from I sermon I preached sometime back on this passage while preaching a series on marriage. Growing up, I used to sing, as perhaps many of you did, the refrain to the hymn...


> He's the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star,
> He's the fairest of ten thousand to my soul.


I suspect that this intended praise of Christ for the beauty and glory of His person was drawn from, and thus based on a verse from the Song of Solomon, 2:1...


> I am the rose of Sharon,
> And the lily of the valleys.


Now, while we can appreciate the intention of the hymn writer, I would suggest that this is an example where the exegesis of hymnology has gone a bit awry. We´ve become so use to the interpretation of this Song that it is just a story about the relationship between Christ and His Church that we can miss the point made on the first level of the story. And as I´ve mentioned, I believe it is a picture of Christ and His Church of that on the macrocosmic level. But I think that´s been done by some without giving adequate attention to the fact that it is actually (at the first level) a story between a man and a woman. 

In our haste to find Christ Here and there in this book, some of us have tried to find Christ in every place, i.e., under every leaf, as it were, but He´s not the rose of Sharon. Now, to be sure, Christ is there, but these are the words of the Shulamite woman. When she uses them of herself, she doesn´t use them as a compliment. The flower of which she speaks are undoubtedly common wild flowers. They´re not like the big Easter lilies that you find at your local florist, one of the most beautiful of flowers. No, she sees herself as a common wildflower. She is expressing her feelings of inadequacy. She can´t feel that she´s that special person that her beloved keeps telling her that she is. She simply can´t believe that about herself. When back in v. 5 of chapter 1, she says, "œI am dark, but lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem," she is comparing herself to other women. And as She compares herself to other women, she feels herself falling short in comparison to other women, though at the same time trying to find some redeeming value in herself. She doesn´t think she measures up to what her beloved deserves. It is a window into her heart which reveals a weakness she has.

In a day and age where the emphasis of the world is upon appearances, she is no different from so many precious women in our own day who share her weakness. Now, this is probably going to be a weakness throughout her whole life, just as most all the weaknesses we bring into our marriages are going to be with us throughout our whole lives. We´re simply going to have to learn to live and work through them. We can´t simply recognize them, and expect that these are going to disappear from our lives. Such needs are probably going to persist over time and here hers comes to the forefront again"”"œI´m just a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valley! I´m just a common wildflower, a dandylion!"

But the wonderful thing about her beloved here (and I do think we see Christ in this) is that he (her beloved) meets her on the level where she is, and he tells her, "œYou´re a lily, and you´re a LILY AMONG THORNS!" He´s telling her how special she is among all women. No wife, no husband can live secure in a relationship where he or she thinks there´s a competitor to their affection and attraction. When there are other competing interests out there in the world, She will not feel safe in her love, she will not be Secure. She will not be free to set loose the passion that he wants to feel, until she knows she´s Special. So he tells her, "œLike a Lily among thorns, So is my love (My Wife, My Beloved) among the daughters!" And she responds in chapter 2, vs. 3-4, _Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, So is my beloved among the sons. I sat down in his shade with great delight, And his fruit was sweet to my taste. He brought me to the banqueting house, And his banner over me was love_.

What was it that stirred up all these feelings of insecurity and inadequacy in her? What was responsible for all this hurt and pain? One was the sun (though, no doubt, other things contributed), the sun burned her, it darkened her skin (a tanned body was not considered an expression of beauty in her day). But what had her beloved given her to relieve her insecurity?"”Shade. He gave her the shade of an apple tree. And she says, "œI sat down in his shade with great delight!"

The point is that, as a compassionate husband, he is seeking to protect her from all that is assaulting her dignity, all that tears her down in life, and that would tell her that she´s not worthwhile. He gets between all of that and her to protect her from it. If It´s the sun, he becomes a tree and shades her. If It´s a lack of affirmation from men (those mother´s sons who were angry with her)"”he lets her know that far from being angry or displeased with her that he loves her and finds everything about her attractive and fulfilling. Instead, he becomes a mountain of praise for her, and his fruit is sweet to her taste.

This is what Christ does for us, and as husbands we are to reflect His love and nurture, and cherish our wives as Christ does His church. We are to reflect Christ's love for His Church in our relationships with our wives. So while on the first level (the microcosmic level), it instructs us about our relationships with our wives, but the bigger picture on the macrocosmic level is that this is how Christ loves His Church (Eph 5:28-33). May God help us to protect our wives in our love for them, giving reassurance to them everyday of how much they mean to us, and thereby reflect Christ's love for His Church to the world.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by DTK]

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by DTK]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 22, 2005)

I also like what Matthew Henry has to say. He connects the Song of Solomon with Psalm 45. Both husband-wife and Christ-Church.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jun 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> In our haste to find Christ Here and there in this book, some of us have tried to find Christ in every place, i.e., under every leaf, as it were, but He´s not the rose of Sharon. Now, to be sure, Christ is there, but these are the words of the Shulamite woman. When she uses them of herself, she doesn´t use them as a compliment. The flower of which she speaks are undoubtedly common wild flowers. They´re not like the big Easter lilies that you find at your local florist, one of the most beautiful of flowers. No, she sees herself as a common wildflower. She is expressing her feelings of inadequacy. She can´t feel that she´s that special person that her beloved keeps telling her that she is. She simply can´t believe that about herself. When back in v. 5 of chapter 1, she says, "œI am dark, but lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem," she is comparing herself to other women. And as She compares herself to other women, she feels herself falling short in comparison to other women, though at the same time trying to find some redeeming value in herself. She doesn´t think she measures up to what her beloved deserves. It is a window into her heart which reveals a weakness she has.




That is a possible interpretation, but I believe there are good reasons as well to believe the "Rose of Sharon" and the "Lily of the Valley" are indeed Christ.

As Dr. Masters has written in the book I mentioned above, "The rose of Sharon is the very best. It is delicate, picturing Christ coming in human flesh, and although it lives on the driest soil it possesses unparalleled splendour, picturing Christ, the perfect Man, living in a barren, sin-sick world . . . The lily of the valleys depicts the purity of Christ in His 'valley', which is His time of humiliation on the earth."

And John Gill wrote, "Christ may be said to be the lily of the valleys because of His wonderful humility and condescension in assuming our nature, suffering in our stead, and in His humbling Himself to the death of the cross for us. His whole life was one continuing sequence of humility. Christ on earth did not appear as the lofty cedar, but as the lowly lily, and though He is the high and lofty One in His divine nature, yet He condescends to dwell with such who are of a humble and contrite spirit".

I do not believe that all the old Puritan writers were just rushing to conclusions when they wrote that this was Christ speaking.

As to our interpretation of the entire book, Dr. Masters has written a number of arguments as to the central message of the book being the love of Christ and His Church (rather than a human courtship). I will not write them all out here, but I will share one which I think is an interesting one to ponder:

The original Hebrew name of the book is actually the "Song of Songs" (as it is translated in the Authorised Version), meaning the greatest and most beautiful song every composed. Which relationship is most worthy of such a title: the love of Christ and His Church, or human love?


----------



## New wine skin (Jun 22, 2005)

Pastor King

As a newly wed I found your sermon excerpt very uplifting and edifying. Thank you for sharing !!!

Blessings


----------



## DTK (Jun 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> That is a possible interpretation, but I believe there are good reasons as well to believe the "Rose of Sharon" and the "Lily of the Valley" are indeed Christ.
> 
> As Dr. Masters has written in the book I mentioned above, "The rose of Sharon is the very best. It is delicate, picturing Christ coming in human flesh, and although it lives on the driest soil it possesses unparalleled splendour, picturing Christ, the perfect Man, living in a barren, sin-sick world . . . The lily of the valleys depicts the purity of Christ in His 'valley', which is His time of humiliation on the earth."
> ...


With all due respect to Dr. Masters, he's not the _sine qua non_ of biblical interpretation. Moreover, as my post indicates in its exegesis, I haven't jettisoned the common Puritan exegesis of this passage. I implemented it. 

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 22, 2005)

husband and wife, which is obviously --> Christ and Church. i.e. both


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> husband and wife, which is obviously --> Christ and Church. i.e. both



Was it obviously both before Ephesians 5 was written?

I do think it's both, but I think the primary emphasis is the husband/wife relationship.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> With all due respect to Dr. Masters, he's not the _sine qua non_ of biblical interpretation. Moreover, as my post indicates in its exegesis, I haven't jettisoned the common Puritan exegesis of this passage. I implemented it.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK



DTK, I did not mean to suggest you were "jettisoning" the Puritans, and indeed you gave a very thoughtful exegesis. I was mainly expressing reservation over your statement that "In our haste to find Christ Here and there in this book, some of us have tried to find Christ in every place, i.e., under every leaf, as it were, but He´s not the rose of Sharon." I think there are good exegetical reasons as well for the view that it is Christ speaking as the "rose of Sharon", and just offered a few quotes which explained the "humility" aspect of the statement as applying to Christ.

But at any rate, I agreed very much with your post earlier which said "It is both, but it is the analogy of Christ and the church that takes precedence in terms of the macrocosmic picture," and I believe we are in agreement.

But to those who believe the book is primarily about a human romantic relationship, I am still curious to know what you make of the book's original Hebrew title, the "Song of Songs"? I believe this title already gives a great hint as to its primary meaning.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Romans922_
> ...



It was by the time of Hosea


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 23, 2005)

It might help to go back to the original intent of the book's composition. Why was it written? I believe (after a long study on the book itself) the SoS to be a eulogy written by Solomon about the Shulamite, his first love. Let that thought simmer a while. (Solomon then tries to rekindle that love with 300 wives and 700 concubines later. True love is hard to come by). Obviously, there are then aspects of the marriage relationship that are similar to Christ and the church, but as DTK said, Christ is not found under every leaf turned over in that sense. Exegetically, it would be a good idea to find out why the book was written in the frist place. Then, after that, to heed what Christ said in the _sensus plenior_.

John 5:39, "and it is they [The OT Scriptures] that bear witness about me"


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> It might help to go back to the original intent of the book's composition. Why was it written? I believe (after a long study on the book itself) the SoS to be a eulogy written by Solomon about the Shulamite, his first love. Let that thought simmer a while. (Solomon then tries to rekindle that love with 300 wives and 700 concubines later. True love is hard to come by). Obviously, there are then aspects of the marriage relationship that are similar to Christ and the church, but as DTK said, Christ is not found under every leaf turned over in that sense. Exegetically, it would be a good idea to find out why the book was written in the frist place. Then, after that, to heed what Christ said in the _sensus plenior_.
> 
> John 5:39, "and it is they [The OT Scriptures] that bear witness about me"





Thank you for hitting the nail on the head, Matt. We have to look at the primary authorial intent first. _Then_ we proceed with further interpretation/application.


----------



## Robin (Jun 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> I recommend that any interested in this topic interact with Song of Solomon commentary by Tremper Longman. It will not end the debate, but you will be well informed by a reformed brother.
> 
> Word to ya!





Dr. Mark Futato is good, also....

Robin


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> ...



Even if one disagrees with him, anythign Longman writes is worth reading. I just picked up his _How to Read Genesis_


----------



## Archlute (Jun 24, 2005)

Of course it refers to both, but the typological fulfillment of the OT as a whole is found in Christ. There is not one passage of the Hebrew Scriptures that do not in some way point to Christ's person and His redemptive work as regards the Church. I am often amazed by how many Reformed folk spout off this truth to Dispensationalists, making reference to passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Emmaus road in Luke's Gospel, etc. and then totally backpedal when it comes to applying this hermeneutic to the Song.

If we are agreed that Christ must be preached every time the minister mounts the pulpit (and I hope that we are), and that the entire Old Testament is valid for preaching (and it certainly is), then those who will not preach Christ and the Church from the Song are in a bit of an hermeneutical/homiletical bind!

Also, the "authorial intent" can be a diversion, although not always. If you want to see what I'm talking about just pick up a dozen commentaries on any OT book and you'll get the picture. We cannot look into the mind of any author in order to discern his intent as it may have been influenced by socio-political considerations, etc. (Matt avoided this by stressing the study of the book itself), we have only the text as given by the Holy Spirit. That being said, we also have a fuller understanding of the history of redemption than did the writers of the OT. Adam and Eve did not understand the full import of the protoevangelium in Gen. 3:15 in the same way as the apostle Paul. Likewise, many of the Psalmists would not have fully understood the typology of thier Psalms prior to the coming of the Christ, but we can. Should we therefore not also say that even given Solomon's original intent in writing this work we, as the New Covenant Church, can make these connections given our fuller revelation? And also preach them?

If you read Calvin's commentaries (and he did not write one on the SofS - but don't give me an "Ah Ha!" since he didn't write one on the non-poetic book of Judges that precedes it either  ) he makes many statements of inference of this nature in the prophetic writings. Some of these statements would make the average reformed reader a bit uncomfortable (as they did me in times past), but the more I read these works, and those by Witsius and Vos, the more I am convinced that he had a far better grasp on biblical interpretation than most of us will attain to. And if you can apply this method to the Psalms and the Prophets, hold not thyself back from doing so with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb!

(Author then ducks and runs to the trench, anticipating multiple barrages of anti-RH rhetoric  )


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> 
> If we are agreed that Christ must be preached every time the minister mounts the pulpit (and I hope that we are), and that the entire Old Testament is valid for preaching (and it certainly is), then those who will not preach Christ and the Church from the Song are in a bit of an hermeneutical/homiletical bind!



I think most of us on this board would probably agree with your statement. So who are you arguing against?

Many of us (including me) are not suggesting that we should "not preach Christ and the Church from the Song". I think we ALL agree that we should, to some extent.

The question is not the *presence* of that hermeneutic, but the *primacy* of it.

I do believe that the SoS is about both the marriage relationship, AND about Christ and the Church, so BOTH should be preached.

But that doesn't change the fact that the book is *primarily* about the marriage relationship.

I think we are only debating the *primacy* of one view over the other. But please correct me if I am wrong here.

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Archlute (Jul 1, 2005)

Joseph,

I believe that you understand me correctly, but we differ in where we place the primacy of the hermenuetic. 

There are always two planes of understanding in Scripture, the human and the the Divine. If we are to grant that the human sphere of intent and understanding holds the primacy, then yes, the SofS would primarily be about the marriage relationship. 

If, however, we affirm that the Divine perspective is overriding in our growing understanding of Scripture's meaning and center in Christ's redemptive work, then we must say that it is indeed the archetypal foundation of Christ and His Redeemed Bride that are the primary meaning, from the intratrinatarian perspective of the "pactum salutis", of any part of Scripture. This is not to say that the humanity of the Word is to be overidden, just placed in its properly supportive role.

I believe that the disciples on the road to Emmaus had this same difficulty. They were certainly familiar with the Scriptures, but they were looking at them from less than the primary angle. Christ had to properly expound to them the Divine intent in the OT wrotings.

BTW, sorry that I took so long in responding. I only have time to get to the computer every so often, which makes ongoing discussion a tad slow at times. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Joseph,
> 
> I believe that you understand me correctly, but we differ in where we place the primacy of the hermenuetic.
> ...



I am curious what you mean by "Always two planes of understanding?" On what basis do you make the claim of the "always" condition? is that an aboslute statement? Do you mean the way Van Til speaks of how we think God's thoughts after Him??? when you say "divine perspective" do you mean what God actually thinks as Archtype or just that everything is christocentric.... I dont mean to nitpick, but I am not following your logic and I am interested in learning more. I thank you for any clairification.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

Theodore Beza's Sermon on the first three chapters of the Song of Solomon.


----------



## gwine (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not to place a lot of emphasis on the Jewish leaders of long ago, does anyone have any sources or comments on what they had to say about the meaning of the book? It would be interesting to know if they saw a Messianic message in it.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Aug 8, 2005)

I just cannot understand how someone could recognise that the Song of Songs has a spiritual meaning concerning Christ and His Church, and yet believe that this meaning is not the principal meaning, but that the principal meaning is about human courtship. How can Christ possibly not be the principal focus of anything written which concerns Him? I just cannot understand the view that both meanings are there but that the "human" side is the primary; you might just as well say that various messianic prophecies which also had reference to immediate events in the Old Testament times were _primarily_ about those immediate events and not about Christ.

While understanding what the human author meant to convey is important (and I see no real evidence that the human author meant primarily to convey a message about human courtship at any rate), surely God's purpose in inspiring the text is the main question. Prophets were inspired to record and foretell things they themselves did not fully understand at the time. The question is, what was God's purpose in putting this book in the canon?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 28, 2005)

I obtained a photocopy of John Cotton's _Exposition of the Whole Book of Canticles, or Song of Solomon_, Chapter 1 (1642). His exposition very much teaches the primacy of the Christ and his Church hermeneutic. It is very interesting reading.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2005)

I just read through the Song last week. I think if more Christian married men and women (committed to biblical authority) read this book on a regular basis, they would see the fruit of it in their spousal relationship, and in their mutual love to Christ. Its not a book that is meant to be grasped in one reading, or even in a dozen. It reveals its treasures over time. And what one finds on the "earthly" level can and should be taken "higher" with much profit. I think this is the "direction" it should be read, in order to maximize its utility. If you begin "above", you may "only" miss out on the "lesser" matters, but what a pity to be so deprived.


----------



## Preach (Aug 28, 2005)

I've written a little devotional for married couples entitled: "Rated 'L' for Lovers". If anyone is interested I would be happy to mail you a copy, or perhaps send it out via email. You can u2u me. 
"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 10, 2005)

Henry Ainsworth wrote _Solomon´s Song of Songs in English Metre_ (1623). I would dearly love to read this work someday.


----------

