iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Just to clarify, what I am offering is a copy of that particular sermon, not the whole book. I think my publishers would have a legitimate concern over that, though I acknowledge that my language was ambiguous.
What constitutes a biblical marriage?
- Thread starter pgwolv
- Start date
- Status
No Other Name
Puritan Board Junior
Nah, looking back, I think you were clear enough. The mistake was on my end in reading your comment too quickly. Though I will keep my comment as is, since I am merely hoping to give an endorsement here of your work.
So now, brothers, if you feel the need to get that sermon on Song of Songs 4:8-5:2, then I would also recommend the full series of sermons from chapters 1 - 8 that are included in the Song of Songs Reformed Expository Commentary. Wholeheartedly.
I've read a few of these literal commentaries on the Song and every time they want to make it religiously significant they end up inventing a new allegory. Not only marriage, but even sexual intercourse, is turned into a sacrament. Commentators even liken the symbolism to the promised land. My thought was, Why not explore the promised land as an obvious point of contact rather than invent a sex scene? Bizarre is the only word I can come up with.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I wrote a paper during my university days (early 1990s) arguing for Solomonic authorship of the Song of Songs. My main thesis was that the intricate structure of the song could not have been achieved by multiple authors. I've shared it with a few folks over the years who said it was helpful and was encouraged several times to rework it and publish it - I did rework it, but I never pursued publication (in my opinion the academic citations are too old). I've posted it here not because I think it's particularly compelling, but because it reached the same conclusion in the 1990s as Dr. Duguid today - that the part roughly marked Chapter 4 is the consummation of a real marriage (I believe there are textual clues that identify the particular marriage). I also believe that the marriage relationship ultimately exists in order to shed light on that great mystery of the love of God for His chosen people. In other words, I don't believe that Song of Songs is an allegory beyond the fact that marriage is itself an allegory. I believe Solomon composed this for a real marriage and gave us one of the greatest pictures of marriage - which is in turn one of the greatest pictures of Christ's love for His people.
Marriage itself is real, so it is not an allegory. Do you mean a type of something else?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Just because something is real does not mean it cannot be used as an allegory. You cannot understand an allegory without comprehending the reality of the narrative it is based on. (I think many of Christ’s parables function this way.) An allegory is a story, as is a marriage.
Consider the end of Ephesians 5 (vv.25-35) - there is a metaphorical usage in v.29 ("even as the Lord the Church") but there is also the allegorical in vv.30-32: "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. This is a great secret, but I speak concerning Christ, and concerning the Church."
You said marriage IS ITSELF an allegory. Now you are saying it is USED AS an allegory. You might need to tighten up your argumentation.
OK, let's consider it. The love between Christ and the church is the examplar which the marriage between a man and a woman is to follow. There is no allegory here. Then the latter part of the passage speaks of a mystery in the union between Christ and the church.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for your response - I apologize for not responding sooner.
Ephesians 5.31 summarizes human marriage: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." When v.32 begins "This is a great mystery..." isn't it still referring to human marriage, followed by a conjunction of contrast (translated "but" or "however") - in other words, not an exemplar, simile, or metaphor? Is it really talking about "a mystery in the union between Christ and the church" or is it showing that human marriage can function as an allegory of divine love, neither of which we can fully understand? Isn't this "mystery" the same one referred to by Agur in Proverbs 30: "There be three things hid from me: yea, four that I know not: The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a stone, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid." (vv.18-19)?
Is your concern is the break with what some view as a Puritan tradition of viewing Solomon's Song of Songs as an allegory to avoid the grotesque hyper-sexualized interpretations of The Song? I do acknowledge that danger, and I do believe the marriage described in Songs of Songs is an allegory, but only insofar as it is describing a real, historical marriage. I also believe this interpretation is in keeping with WCF 1.9: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." I believe the evidence I laid out in my paper demonstrates that The Song was about a real, historical marriage - I would be curious to know if you find the intertextual reasoning convincing or not.
Yes, marriage at times is an allegory/is used as an allegory in Scripture. In context I was saying I believe that Songs of Songs is not an allegory - it is a real love song about a real marriage, with the latter being an allegory of God's love for His people. I'm not sure I see any of this being contradictory as you seem to suggest.
I see this passage as a bit more than just showing how "The love between Christ and the church is the examplar which the marriage between a man and a woman is to follow." For example, in vv.25-27, he could have just said: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it..." as John does when he wrote "Greater love than this hath no man, when any man bestoweth his life for his friends." (John 15:13) and "Hereby have we perceived love, that He laid down His life for us: therefore we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren." (1 John 3:16). But Paul goes further in Ephesians 5 and continues "...that he might sanctify it, and cleanse it by the washing of water through the word, that he might make it unto himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing: but that it should be holy and without blame." In my mind that goes far beyond simply providing an exemplar for marriage.
Ephesians 5.31 summarizes human marriage: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." When v.32 begins "This is a great mystery..." isn't it still referring to human marriage, followed by a conjunction of contrast (translated "but" or "however") - in other words, not an exemplar, simile, or metaphor? Is it really talking about "a mystery in the union between Christ and the church" or is it showing that human marriage can function as an allegory of divine love, neither of which we can fully understand? Isn't this "mystery" the same one referred to by Agur in Proverbs 30: "There be three things hid from me: yea, four that I know not: The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a stone, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid." (vv.18-19)?
Is your concern is the break with what some view as a Puritan tradition of viewing Solomon's Song of Songs as an allegory to avoid the grotesque hyper-sexualized interpretations of The Song? I do acknowledge that danger, and I do believe the marriage described in Songs of Songs is an allegory, but only insofar as it is describing a real, historical marriage. I also believe this interpretation is in keeping with WCF 1.9: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." I believe the evidence I laid out in my paper demonstrates that The Song was about a real, historical marriage - I would be curious to know if you find the intertextual reasoning convincing or not.
I am surprised you cannot discern the difference. It seems basic to me. As for the Song of Solomon, most introductions will point out the difference between an allegorical and literal approach to it, and the allegorical is always connected with being fictional. This is why the typological approach emerged as an alternative.
"Even as ... so." It is fairly straightforward. He gives the pattern to be followed.
No. Charles Hodge: "The word mystery does not refer to the passage in Gen. 2:24, as though the apostle intended to say that passage had a mystical sense which he had just unfolded by applying it to the relation between Christ and his church. It is the union between Christ and his people, the fact that they are one flesh, he declares to be a great mystery."
The issue is with inventing things that are not in the Scriptures and making the Word serve as a fairy tale. I don't have time to interact with your paper here, but if you want to bring forward an argument from the paper I will interact with it. What you are setting out is a typological approach. If you read the commentaries which take an allegorical approach they will point out the problems of using the Song as a type.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure where the "fairy tale" charge is coming from...
I can see that - fair enough.
In any event, it's a tangential issue with respect to the OP so probably best not for us to hijack the thread.
- Status
