Going through the "proof texts" of the Westminster documents is an interesting and profitable exercise as it shows their thinking and reasoning when formulating the statements. Does the above quotation seem to indicate what their view/interpretation of the Song of Solomon would be?
Westminster view of Song of Songs
- Thread starter nwink
- Start date
- Status
Going through the "proof texts" of the Westminster documents is an interesting and profitable exercise as it shows their thinking and reasoning when formulating the statements. Does the above quotation seem to indicate what their view/interpretation of the Song of Solomon would be?
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
Most people I hear (Calvinist and non-Calvinist) interpret Song of Solomon/Song of Songs/Canticles to be a picture of the love between Christ and the church, and they tend to get a little squeamish when the earthly romantic side of the book is brought up. Frankly, I don't understand why they do.
That the book may be analogous with Christ in the church is certainly possible and a side interpretation, but to be frank, I think the book is God's stamp of approval on romantic love between a husband and a wife. In our zeal to counter ungodly lust and illicit sexual thoughts and activities, we tend to go overboard and shun anything that talks about romance and sex period, even when it's done within acceptable bounds. And that can be a bad thing in and of itself.
That the book may be analogous with Christ in the church is certainly possible and a side interpretation, but to be frank, I think the book is God's stamp of approval on romantic love between a husband and a wife. In our zeal to counter ungodly lust and illicit sexual thoughts and activities, we tend to go overboard and shun anything that talks about romance and sex period, even when it's done within acceptable bounds. And that can be a bad thing in and of itself.
J Dean, the reason I started this post was to show that if it seems some in the Westminster Assembly interpreted Song of Songs as allegorical literature, I think that should cause people to pause and consider/seek-to-understand that interpretation before blowing it off.
Last edited:
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
That it is allegorical may be true, but my point was that it's not out of the realm to consider that Solomon was writing a love letter to his wife.
I don't dispute that there may be allegorical application; just saying that the initial motive behind the letter may be exactly what it appears to be: a love letter from Solomon to one of his wives.
cajunhillbilly53
Puritan Board Freshman
I would have to agree with your statement. Yes the Song is a love letter between Solomon and one of his wives. It also has an allegorical apllication to Christ and the church
I suppose James Durham is fairly representative:
Clavis Cantici: A Key Usefull
Clavis Cantici: A Key Usefull
FedByRavens
Puritan Board Freshman
Song of Songs is to the old testament what the book of Revelation is to the new testament. I agree with J. Dean and nwink. I love the allegorical quality to Song of Songs, it further displays the validity of Jesus claim when He said the scriptures testified to Him. I believe that Song of Songs is evidence of the repentance of Solomon in his latter years.When you consider the wisdom of Solomon, it certainly isn't impossible that His intention of writing the book was to testify to the care of God towards His people. When i read Song of Songs chapter 5 I see a lot of Solomons character in the shulamite.
Bradley-1991
Puritan Board Freshman
I haven't done much looking into commentaries and views on SoS, but after hearing a little of what Mark Driscoll says on it I am very afraid of taking a literal view other than allegorical. Maybe that's because he tries to get different sex things out of the text that just makes it too much like a pornographic book, in which I believe it is not. I just hate it when God's word is used in such a vain way by a man trying to reach the culture in such a way that I believe is unbiblical. Idk, maybe it's just me and my past. Before God saved me I was a p0rn addict, so I struggle with anyone trying to pull out such graphic sexual acts out of Scripture that are all over p0rnography and try and say they are biblical. As far as I read the Song of Songs I don't see anything in the manner that Mark Driscoll does. Maybe one of you would like to enlighten me on how one can take such a view on certain passages as being different acts of sex.
P.S. I left out what Mark Driscoll says about some of the passages in SoS because of how graphic he explains them as. Sorry if I have somehow made my case unreasonable but I know how hard it is keeping our hearts pure as men of God in such a culture that idolizes sex and did not want to cause my brothers in Christ to stumble in any way.
Before I end my post I thought I would link y'all to John MacArthur's rebuke to Mark Driscoll and others on perverting SoS.
It's a 4 part article called "The Rape of Solomon's Song"
(Click on each Part to be taken to the part of the article at Gty.org)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
P.S. I left out what Mark Driscoll says about some of the passages in SoS because of how graphic he explains them as. Sorry if I have somehow made my case unreasonable but I know how hard it is keeping our hearts pure as men of God in such a culture that idolizes sex and did not want to cause my brothers in Christ to stumble in any way.
Before I end my post I thought I would link y'all to John MacArthur's rebuke to Mark Driscoll and others on perverting SoS.
It's a 4 part article called "The Rape of Solomon's Song"
(Click on each Part to be taken to the part of the article at Gty.org)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
It is not a mere 'certain possibility' that the Song is about Christ and the Church is an absolute certainty. Neither is it "a side interpretation" but one of the two main themes. For two reasons;
a) Luke 24:27 7 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Songs is as much about Christ as any other book.
b) we already know without any guesswork that the love and union between man and wife is analogous with the love between Christ and the Church.
Ephesians 5:25-32 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 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.
Marital and yes sexual union are analogous with Christ and the Church. Any interpretation of the Song that does not major on Christ's love and union with the Church is way off. Driscoll denies this with his then normal humour in the first sermon, it is no surprise then that the series of sermons goes where it does. Eisegesis.
I am not discounting the marital love theme, that also must be preached, but it is about Christ and there is no doubt about that at all, and it is a main them not a side issue to get into now and again.
Furthermore while you are correct to say that the book is God's 'stamp of approval' on marriage that is not its purpose, God already did that in Eden, it may be a stamp of approval, but it is not the stamp of approval, there are many more of those in Scripture.
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
Paul, I think the natural reading is best, but I agree with you, inasmuch as:
What bothers me most about the allegorical interpretation is that the interpretations are as creative as the commentators, i.e. the church's breasts are the Old and New Testaments, or the two sacraments. This also strikes me as eisegesis.
What bothers me most about the allegorical interpretation is that the interpretations are as creative as the commentators, i.e. the church's breasts are the Old and New Testaments, or the two sacraments. This also strikes me as eisegesis.
Weston Stoler
Puritan Board Sophomore
Your gonna need a signature good man! One of the moderators will be able to help you find out how to to make one.
Sexual activity in the bible would not be pornographic. I disagree with driscoll's handling of it but he dives into what most of us staunch Calvinists are afraid to go to. This isn't sheer pornographic material for the sake of sexual pleasure. It is to show how marital intimacy can be between a man and a women not to mention an allegory for Christ and the church.
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Don
Agreed! I'm not actually sure I agree even with the use of the term 'allegory' in reference to the Song, for the very reason you raise. It IS a love poem or something like that, it has a spiritual meaning however as well, though that message is not hidden but derived or developed from NT theology.
Weston,
I am not at all convinced by the literalist sexual interpretations (a la Driscoll) of the metaphoric language, such preachers take poetry and interpret it literally almost, instead of as a metaphor. I also maintain that the purpose of the book is not to show that marital intimacy is approved by God, that goes without saying on the basis of Genesis. There must be something else. My guess it that it shows that deep marital intimacy is not just right, but to be delighted in. Again this is not even unique (Prov. 5:19).
Bradley,
Click the blue link below my signature to set up yours.
Agreed! I'm not actually sure I agree even with the use of the term 'allegory' in reference to the Song, for the very reason you raise. It IS a love poem or something like that, it has a spiritual meaning however as well, though that message is not hidden but derived or developed from NT theology.
Weston,
I am not at all convinced by the literalist sexual interpretations (a la Driscoll) of the metaphoric language, such preachers take poetry and interpret it literally almost, instead of as a metaphor. I also maintain that the purpose of the book is not to show that marital intimacy is approved by God, that goes without saying on the basis of Genesis. There must be something else. My guess it that it shows that deep marital intimacy is not just right, but to be delighted in. Again this is not even unique (Prov. 5:19).
Bradley,
Click the blue link below my signature to set up yours.
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
If we think this is just a literal picture of a marital love, how do we square statements where Paul talks about the love of Christ for His Church being like marital love?
And of course in Ezekiel 16, look at the vivid imagery God uses to talk about His faithless bride. To me, this is a perfect example of how we are to interpret the Song of Songs as the picture of the love Christ has for His Church, and the intimate soul searing love we are to have for our BrideGroom. He's not just our chum, he's the love of our lives, the lover of our souls, the most beautiful captivating person ever.
And how God grieves when we abandon Him and whore after the idols in our lives!
[BIBLE]Ezekiel 16:6-22[/BIBLE]
And of course in Ezekiel 16, look at the vivid imagery God uses to talk about His faithless bride. To me, this is a perfect example of how we are to interpret the Song of Songs as the picture of the love Christ has for His Church, and the intimate soul searing love we are to have for our BrideGroom. He's not just our chum, he's the love of our lives, the lover of our souls, the most beautiful captivating person ever.
And how God grieves when we abandon Him and whore after the idols in our lives!
[BIBLE]Ezekiel 16:6-22[/BIBLE]
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Indeed.
Bradley-1991
Puritan Board Freshman
Amen, No matter how high we hold marital love and intimacy it's always a resemblance of Christ and His Church.
Before God saved me I was looking for love in all the wrong places (p0rn, chick flics, music, tv shows, movies, etc.), but when my stoney heart was turned to flesh and I received the Holy Spirit, my eyes saw love in a totally different light. The Gospel is the story of love and God is indeed the example of love as it is one of His attributes. The Gospel makes worldly love seem so small doesn't it? Makes you want to go and be with God now doesn't it?
The Gospel makes me want to be married one day more then anything ever could. To be a living parable of Christ and His Church just sounds so romantic to me. I know it's kind of weird hearing romantic out of guy's mouth but I just can't wait to romance my future wife (if the Lord wills for me to marry). I want to do it the right way (the biblical way) because no one in my family has ever done or are doing it that way. I got to stop before my mouth gets ahead of my brain and I start to not make sense. But anyways, y'all get the gist of what I'm saying, at least I hope you do.
It makes you just want to fall to your knees and worship God for all that He is, first and foremost, and then for all that He has done.
"Praise to the lord
O let all that is in me adore him
All that hath life and breath
Come now with praises before him
Let the amen Sound from his people again
Gladly for aye we adore him"
Before God saved me I was looking for love in all the wrong places (p0rn, chick flics, music, tv shows, movies, etc.), but when my stoney heart was turned to flesh and I received the Holy Spirit, my eyes saw love in a totally different light. The Gospel is the story of love and God is indeed the example of love as it is one of His attributes. The Gospel makes worldly love seem so small doesn't it? Makes you want to go and be with God now doesn't it?
The Gospel makes me want to be married one day more then anything ever could. To be a living parable of Christ and His Church just sounds so romantic to me. I know it's kind of weird hearing romantic out of guy's mouth but I just can't wait to romance my future wife (if the Lord wills for me to marry). I want to do it the right way (the biblical way) because no one in my family has ever done or are doing it that way. I got to stop before my mouth gets ahead of my brain and I start to not make sense. But anyways, y'all get the gist of what I'm saying, at least I hope you do.
It makes you just want to fall to your knees and worship God for all that He is, first and foremost, and then for all that He has done.
"Praise to the lord
O let all that is in me adore him
All that hath life and breath
Come now with praises before him
Let the amen Sound from his people again
Gladly for aye we adore him"
Last edited:
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
I don't think anybody disputes that. What I dispute is trying to "sanitize" the book by eliminating any earthly or romantic elements from it at all.
We must ALWAYS remember in hermeneutics the original author (Solomon in this case) and the author's intended audience (The Shulamite woman, his wife). This isn't denying that there is application to Christ and the church, but it is remembering that the Christ/church analogy isn't the ONLY thing the book is about, and we should not treat it as such because sex or romance might be an embarrassing topic.
As for the stamp on approval in Genesis, yes there is that stamp. But I would contend that Genesis could be interpreted in a purely utlitarian sense. There's really nothing about romance in leaving your father and mother and clinging to your wife. And just because it's said in one place in the Scriptures doesn't mean it isn't reinforced or repeated in other areas of the Bible. For example, we don't have the gospel in just one place in Scripture; it's found throughout. Same with the call for Christians to live holy lives: it's found in different passages of different books. Why couldn't the same be said of God's approval of a husband and wife loving one another in an intimate and romantic manner?
Again, that the book can have application to Christ and the church is certainly within the scope of allowed application. But that doesn't mean Christ and the church is the ONLY thing the book is about.
Given that we look forward to a marriage feast with the lamb, it doesn't seem likely that Song could be interpreted without Christ by any means. I don't see why there should be a problem in seeing Song having a proximate context as well as it final place in Jesus, just as we can see in the prophets both the proximate (Israel you're in a heap of trouble!) and fulfillment in Christ.
I listened to a fascinating sermon by Dr. Ferguson recently where he sees two betrothed individuals giving most of the speeches, but with the story line being the young woman trying to forestall Salomon's advances. The sermon is on the First Presbyterian Church Columbia SC website.
I listened to a fascinating sermon by Dr. Ferguson recently where he sees two betrothed individuals giving most of the speeches, but with the story line being the young woman trying to forestall Salomon's advances. The sermon is on the First Presbyterian Church Columbia SC website.
- Status
