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.