Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
What are the best audio or printed resources for defending the traditional view of the Song of Solomon? Also, what are most sober critiques of this viewpoint?
Resources defending the traditional view of the Song of Solomon
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The allegorical interpretation.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I am just after reading Donald J. MacLean's article '"So great a love" - James Durham on Christ and his church in the Song of Solomon' in Confessional Presbyterian Journal 5 (2009), pp 239-55. This is an outstanding essay, which helpfully overturns the myth that the Song of Solomon was allegorised owing to the influence of Greek philosophy.
Dr MacLean mentions some other essays that should be useful:
Iain D. Campbell, 'The Song of David's Son: interpreting the Song of Solomon in the light of the Davidic covenant', Westminster Theological Journal, 62, 1 (2000), pp 17-32.
Hugh Blair, 'Preaching from the Song of Solomon' in Reformed Theological Journal, 9 (1987), pp 47-58.
Maurice Roberts, 'Samuel Rutherford: the comings and goings of the heavenly bridegroom' in The trials of Puritanism: papers read at the 1993 Westminster Conference (1993), pp 119-34.
Dr MacLean mentions some other essays that should be useful:
Iain D. Campbell, 'The Song of David's Son: interpreting the Song of Solomon in the light of the Davidic covenant', Westminster Theological Journal, 62, 1 (2000), pp 17-32.
Hugh Blair, 'Preaching from the Song of Solomon' in Reformed Theological Journal, 9 (1987), pp 47-58.
Maurice Roberts, 'Samuel Rutherford: the comings and goings of the heavenly bridegroom' in The trials of Puritanism: papers read at the 1993 Westminster Conference (1993), pp 119-34.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Daniel,
Iain D was the first name I thought of - here is a podcast from a few years ago on the subject which I think I remember was very good.
http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc67/
Iain D was the first name I thought of - here is a podcast from a few years ago on the subject which I think I remember was very good.
http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc67/
GloriousBoaz
Puritan Board Freshman
I take Mark Driscoll's view. Ok I was going to just leave it at that, but I have to make sure you know that was a joke. I kinda have gone more toward a literal view because of Driscoll's approach. I don't find Driscoll as appalling as a lot of guys on here but at least his older teaching on Song of Solomon was a bit out there. So the traditional version is that it is an allegory for Christ and His bride? I honestly don't have a problem with that, I guess its just a matter of 2 ditches on either side; and keeping the balance.
ProtestantBankie
Puritan Board Freshman
A modern more "popular level" commentary, with a few comments about the above issue was published by Christian Focus. Pastor Richard Brooks CFP | Song of Songs - Focus on the Bible | Richard Brooks
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Great! I will give this a listen soon.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
If you look at Spurgeon's Commenting & Commentaries this will give you a list of the better Puritan & Reformed Commentators Commenting & Commentaries—Catalogue
or http://www.forgottenbooks.org/download_pdf/Commenting_and_Commentaries_1000564999.pdf
or http://www.forgottenbooks.org/download_pdf/Commenting_and_Commentaries_1000564999.pdf
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
I've been working on the Song of Songs for a number of years now for a revised version of the Tyndale OT commentary, and have become convinced that we have a terminological problem in this discussion. For example, in Iain Campbell's article above, he is arguing not for an allegorical interpretation but a typological one. His work is in response to the assumption from the side of "literal" interpretation that any spiritual interpretation involves allegory (= free association). This is an understandable conclusion for them to reach, since so much spiritual interpretation does fall into that category - not just the ancient fathers who found Christ between the two testaments in the sachet of myrrh between the beloved's breasts, but in modern interpreters as well: just look at Richard Brooks' discussion of the church as a "garden of nuts" for an example. What this association "spiritual = allegorical" tends to obscure is the fact that free association interpretation is equally rife on the side of "literal" interpretation (see Tommy Nelson's Book of Romance for a classic example).
I am not convinced that the Song of Songs is an allegory, like the Pilgrim's Progress, where every detail is intended to teach spiritual truth rather than having any foundation in history. I find that approach almost inevitably ends up in free association somewhere, even though the truths being taught may well themselves be biblical and profound (Christ does come between the testaments, after all). But I am nonetheless convinced that like the rest of Scripture, the Song has profound things to teach us about our relationship with God as well as with our spouses, or as single people. Personally, I think the key is in good Biblical Theology rather than specifically in typology, as Campbell sees it. But I do want us to be able to distinguish between spiritual readings of the Song that are well-grounded in the text itself and flights of allegorical fancy. The goal of a sermon on any Biblical text should be people going away saying "How obvious that is now that you have explained it; how could I have missed it?" not "How amazing that interpretation is - I would never have seen it in a million years!" And my experience of allegorical interpretation on the Song tends towards the latter, perhaps because (like Revelation) it is one of the most complex and difficult parts of Scripture. Hopefully, my commentary will help when I finally get it done!
The bottom line, then, is a plea to move away from the language of "allegorical" towards "spiritual", "typological" or "biblical-theological" in order to make it as clear as possible that what we are aiming for is not free association but a well-grounded theological interpretation of the text, rooted in the meaning of the text itself.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Hello Dr Duiguid,
Yes, I am listening to the podcast now. I was just listing his article in order to draw attention to the source for those who did not know about it; Dr MacLean notes that Dr Campbell's proffers a typological interpretation.
I hope the commentary writing goes well. BTW, are you any relation to Timothy Duiguid?
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
I would commend Chas. D .Alexander's study of the first chapter who has leant on
Dr Hengstenberg's commentary, which is resident in the British Museum. Tragically
Alexander' treatment was never recorded fully and so not printed. I believe someone in Canada
has put his works on line. Dr Gill, who preached 112 sermons on the Song has certain similarities
to Alexander. Dr Campbell's viewpoint I feel has aspects of conjecture and speculation.
Dr Lloyd Jones stated that it is the most neglected book in the Bible.
It is a book directly addressed to the Church and we ought to give a more earnest heed to it.
Dr Owen uses it as the basis of communion with Christ, and heavenly Sibbes sermons on the book
likewise.
Dr Hengstenberg's commentary, which is resident in the British Museum. Tragically
Alexander' treatment was never recorded fully and so not printed. I believe someone in Canada
has put his works on line. Dr Gill, who preached 112 sermons on the Song has certain similarities
to Alexander. Dr Campbell's viewpoint I feel has aspects of conjecture and speculation.
Dr Lloyd Jones stated that it is the most neglected book in the Bible.
It is a book directly addressed to the Church and we ought to give a more earnest heed to it.
Dr Owen uses it as the basis of communion with Christ, and heavenly Sibbes sermons on the book
likewise.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Thank you, Mr O'Neil. For those interested, Richard Sibbes has a series of expository sermons on Song of Solomon 4:16; chapters 5 and 6 called Bowels Opened and a sermon on Song of Solomon 1:2 entitled The Spouse, her earnest desire after Christ in volume 2 of his works (available here).
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
On that basis alone - please, please, do get that commentary finished!
with those assumptions it will be of great value to us Iain.
GloriousBoaz
Puritan Board Freshman
So it would be better just to say that it isn't allegorical but it is history that is divinely typological? And then would you say that Solomon and the Shulamite woman are clear types of Christ and His bride?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
This is a good question which I don't have time to answer, since I'm supposed to be writing the commentary...
All I wanted to say at this point is that the word "allegorical" is used to cover a wide variety of different kinds of interpretation of the Song. Some of these are free association of ideas that are not well grounded in the text. Others draw on Biblical Theology in a way that is more controlled. I personally wouldn't want to limit the Christ-centered application of the Old Testament simply to typology, as I think that there are a variety of ways in which it points forward to "the sufferings of Christ and the glories that will follow". Greidanus has given us some excellent resources on this, though his categories are primarily designed with narratives in mind. I think more needs to be done on wisdom literature.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
have often thought that myself, but you can take the wrap if fellow PBers renounce it as Heresy
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
I find it hard to accept that Solomon who had 300 wives and 700 concubines could lecture me on
the love that should pertain between husband and wife. That was reserved for Paul to deal with
in his letter to the Ephesians, and there shows the connection of the 'great mystery' of Christ and
the church.
I can accept that He is used by the Holy Spirit to write not of himself( with some affair with a shepherd
girl, or one of his harem, or the princess of Egypt, as modern critics favour), but of another, for a greater than
Solomon is envisaged. And I hold that for a number of reasons.
The name Solomon is pregnant with meaning. It is used 7 times in the Song, which lifts it up to a higher level.
Solomon means the Prince of Peace, and the Shulamite the Princess of Peace. Solomon as other OT saints, lived on
the promises. The foundational promise being Genesis 49, 'the sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.'
Shiloh being the root from which Solomon is derived, and means Peace. Which thought Isaiah 9 takes up, "He shall
be called ,the Prince of Peace." And Micah 5:5 continues the theme," And this man shall be the Peace." Thus Paul
caps it by writing," He is our peace" (Ephes).
The Scripture is redolent with the marriage of God in Christ married to His Bride, the Church. This is her destiny!
Isaiah62 :5, Jerm3 :14; Hosea2:19; Eph2:32.
But Solomon knew he was not writing of himself, for he was brought up on his father David's Psalm45, which plainly
declares and prophecies of Christ and the Church. He develops this amazing relationship further by this love duet.
This is The Song of Songs, Psalm45 is tiled The Song of Loves. Solomon had another name which is Jedidiah, meaning
'beloved of God.' The voice from heaven claimed, "this is My beloved Son." So Solomon was typical of One to come.
The Shiloh. Of interest look up 1Chron 22:9.
the love that should pertain between husband and wife. That was reserved for Paul to deal with
in his letter to the Ephesians, and there shows the connection of the 'great mystery' of Christ and
the church.
I can accept that He is used by the Holy Spirit to write not of himself( with some affair with a shepherd
girl, or one of his harem, or the princess of Egypt, as modern critics favour), but of another, for a greater than
Solomon is envisaged. And I hold that for a number of reasons.
The name Solomon is pregnant with meaning. It is used 7 times in the Song, which lifts it up to a higher level.
Solomon means the Prince of Peace, and the Shulamite the Princess of Peace. Solomon as other OT saints, lived on
the promises. The foundational promise being Genesis 49, 'the sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.'
Shiloh being the root from which Solomon is derived, and means Peace. Which thought Isaiah 9 takes up, "He shall
be called ,the Prince of Peace." And Micah 5:5 continues the theme," And this man shall be the Peace." Thus Paul
caps it by writing," He is our peace" (Ephes).
The Scripture is redolent with the marriage of God in Christ married to His Bride, the Church. This is her destiny!
Isaiah62 :5, Jerm3 :14; Hosea2:19; Eph2:32.
But Solomon knew he was not writing of himself, for he was brought up on his father David's Psalm45, which plainly
declares and prophecies of Christ and the Church. He develops this amazing relationship further by this love duet.
This is The Song of Songs, Psalm45 is tiled The Song of Loves. Solomon had another name which is Jedidiah, meaning
'beloved of God.' The voice from heaven claimed, "this is My beloved Son." So Solomon was typical of One to come.
The Shiloh. Of interest look up 1Chron 22:9.
GloriousBoaz
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks Robert lol.
So you see it as more allegorical than typological? based on your first statement
I kinda lost you on this point.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
I would agree with you on this point, and suggest that it is a difficulty for a strictly typological approach that sees Solomon describing his own experience (or another author describing Solomon's). Solomon's love life should have been repented of, not celebrated.
That would not, however, in itself rule out a "natural" interpretation that saw the two characters in the book as an idealized (but imperfect) man and woman who give us a model of love that contrasts with the Solomonic model of "love" as a means to political power and wealth. This model would than speak to us of Christ and the church in the way that, for example, the encounter between Abraham's servant and Rebekah at the well invites us to compare that story with Jacob and Rachel's encounter and Jesus' with the woman of Samaria. These are not merely superficial similarities of the kind that has rightly given allegorical preaching a bad name, such as linking the piece of wood that Moses threw in the water at Marah to make it sweet with the cross. Indeed, all three meetings may have taken place at the same well. But the connections highlight the fact that alongside the important dating lessons to be learned from contrasting Abraham's servant with Jacob (prayer vs trust in yourself; character vs outward beauty), the earlier encounters point us to the larger story of the gospel in which the Father is seeking to find those who will worship him in Spirit and in truth.
It would take a much longer interaction than I have time for to support the interpretation above as the correct one. Hence the reason why the commentary is already overdue. Like the Book of Revelation, the Song is theologically rich and profound, as well as pastorally deeply relevant to the congregation (largely of college students) to whom I preached it last year. If you want to hear what that sounds like, the sermons are available at Christarp.com.
My point in this interaction is much more modest: I simply want to encourage my brothers who take an "allegorical" approach to discern the difference between well-grounded Biblical theological connections and flights of fancy. Even Spurgeon, who defends allegorical preaching in his "Lectures to My Students" as a tried and trusted method of "practical preachers" who are not "learned grandees" draws the line at a sermon on the Trinity drawn from the three baskets on the head of Pharaoh's baker! I think that the connections are there to be made appropriately, but it doesn't help you to defend your position if you don't also acknowledge the dangers that come with it. That's why I wish we could find another term for this position than the "allegorical" approach as that name encourages searching for meaning in the tiniest of incidental details of the text.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Thanks, Iain. I think that you are right on the mark here. This is, in my view, the most helpful and fruitful way to approach and understand the Canticles.
BTW, Professor Duguid gave three excellent lectures on "Preaching Christ from the Song of Songs" in November 2012 at Mid-America Reformed Seminary.
Peace,
Alan
BTW, Professor Duguid gave three excellent lectures on "Preaching Christ from the Song of Songs" in November 2012 at Mid-America Reformed Seminary.
Peace,
Alan
To offer some clarification to the traditional view, as James Durham noted, there is a difference between interpreting Scripture allegorically and interpreting allegorical Scripture. Allegorical Scripture still requires grammatico-historico-theological exegesis. Obviously the classification of "allegorical" is too broad to be useful today, especially given the technical definitions which have emerged relating to genre. One might prefer "parabolic," in order to bring this book into closer affinity with Proverbs, the other work directly associated with Solomon. The title is the key to the book. "Solomon" is the son of David who built the house of God. The "song of songs" reflects the "temple songs" which bring the house to life and express the marriage-covenant between God and His people. The traditional approach which emphasises "the union of Christ and the Church" provides the ultimate redemptive-historical development of the book's message.
- Status
