LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

INTERPRETATIONS OF SONG OF SOLOMON: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. DAVID PETTUS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE OBST 620 THE POETRY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

BY ROBERT C. STILWELL, JR.

BETHALTO, IL OCTOBER 19, 2010

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Allegorical Interpretations........................................................................................................... 2 Jewish Allegorical View ............................................................................................... 2 Christian Allegorical Views .......................................................................................... 3 Evaluation of the Allegorical Method.......................................................................................... 6 Typological Interpretation ........................................................................................................... 7 Dramatic Interpretations ............................................................................................................. 9 Two-character View ...................................................................................................... 9 Three-character View ................................................................................................. 10 Defining Drama ......................................................................................................... 11 Natural/Literal Interpretations .................................................................................................. 12 Lyrical Expression of Human Love ............................................................................. 13 Literal-Didactic View.................................................................................................. 14 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 16 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 18

Introduction The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon, and Canticles, is unique among the books of the Bible. It does not contain the name of God, nor does it directly teach any moral or ethical principles. It is never quoted in the New Testament. Nevertheless, it has long been recognized as divinely inspired by both Jews and Christians. For centuries, many have believed it to contain a veiled message from God and have filled volumes with outlandish speculations.1 The Song of Songs is also one of the most controversial books in the Bible, simply because it speaks openly, joyfully, and rather graphically of human sexuality.2 This sexually explicit imagery has, in part, led to a wide range of interpretations. A brief glimpse at the history of the various interpretations "reveals a diversity of opinion unequaled in the study of any other biblical work.3 The major difficulties that must be addressed with the Song are deciding what type of literature it is and what hermeneutic approach to employ in developing a sound interpretation. Marvin Pope reveals the complexities of the issue by dedicating 140 pages to the problem of interpretation alone and comments that it is just a brief sketch based on previous surveys with some attention to more recent developments.4 Historically, there have been four chief methods of dealing with the question, with many variations within these broader categories: 1) allegorical; 2) typological; 3) dramatic; and 4) natural/literal. This essay examines the most prominent interpretational approaches by evaluating the hermeneutical foundations on which they reside and asserts that the most credible and exegetically sound
Conrad R. Willard, Song of Solomon, in The Teachers Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1972), 385
2 1

J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping Gods Word, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

2005), 404 Jack S. Deere, Song of Songs, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Vol. 1, ed. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1009
4 3

Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 89

2 understanding of the Song of Songs is the literal-didactic view; the celebration of the love and sexuality between man and wife, stressing the elements of faithfulness and unwavering loyalty, just as God designed within the institute of marriage. Allegorical Interpretations Before examining the allegorical interpretations of the Song, it is critical to understand the difference between allegory and allegorizing. In its basic sense, an allegory is an extended metaphor which conveys the idea of saying one thing but meaning something else. When employed as such, it is a valid and useful literary device.5 However, allegorizing as a method of interpreting Scripture is something significantly different. Fundamental to the allegorical method, i.e., allegorizing is the presupposition that a given passage contains no factual or historically true record of any past event, but is merely a vehicle for some deeper spiritual truth.6 This type of interpretation brazenly reads something into the text that is simply not there, which leads to a host of problems, including the teaching of unbiblical doctrine. The grammatical-historical meaning of the text is disregarded and what the interpreter wants to say is given primacy over what the original author actually said. Jewish Allegorical View Examples of allegorized interpretations of Song of Songs within Judaism can be found in the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Targum on the Song of Songs. In the Talmud (A.D. 100 500) the lovers are understood to be God and his bride, Israel. The Targum, which reached its present form in the seventh or eighth century, interprets the book as a five stage allegory of the history of Israel: (1 the exodus, Sinai, and conquest of the Promise land (1:2-3:6); (2 the
For more on allegory, see A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 230235. G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, vol. 19 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 22
6 5

3 Solomonic temple (3:7-5:1); (3 Israels sin and exile (5:2-6:1); (4 the return and rebuilding of the temple (6:2-7:11); and (5 the Diaspora and expectation of the Messiah (7:12-8:14).7 This interpretation seems to have developed in response to Jewish Gnosticism and is to some extent a polemic meant to counter Christian interpretations of the Song as the relationship of Christ and the church. The eleventh-century scholar Rashi suggested the Song expressed the longing of exiled Israel for God, the husband of her youth, who will ultimately return to her.8 Many other dissimilar allegorizations have been offered as well. In the sixteenth century, D. I. Abravanel presented the view that it as Solomons song of his love for wisdom.9 In this interpretation, only the bride was allegorized. Ibn Ezra interpreted 7:2 in a unique manner: Your navel was viewed as a reference to the Great Sanhedrin, blended wine was the law, and Your waist is a mound of wheat was taken to allude to the Little Sanhedrin.10 The wide range of these allegorizations speaks volumes concerning the inconsistency and invalidity of the method. Christian Allegorical Views Christian allegorization would appear to be supported by the metaphor of the church as the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33; Rev. 18:23-24). It must be noted, however, that the NT offers no indication of interpreting the Song in this way. The first appearance of the Christian allegorizing tradition is in the commentary by Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 200).11 Jerome, Augustine, and most passionately, Origen, followed in the allegorical tradition of interpreting the

Ibid., 353 Allen C. Meyers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 963 Pope, Song of Songs, 110 Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 353

10

J. Paul Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (Jan.March 1997): 27. The author acknowledges his indebtedness to Dr. Tanner for his comprehensive study of the subject at hand.

11

4 Song. It is peculiar to note that the Song of Songs became a favorite book of the most radical ascetics, such as Origen and Bernard of Clairvaux. Origen wrote ten volumes of commentary on the Song12 and Bernard preached eighty-six sermons, nearly 170,000 Latin words, on the first two chapters alone.13 The idea of devout monks and ascetics engrossed in a book of love poetry and declaring it to contain the most transcendent philosophy is a somewhat humorous visualization. In fact, Christian commentators wrote more on the Song of Songs than any other OT book from the late patristic period through the Middle Ages.14 Common allegorizations are that the kisses (1:2) are the word of God, the dark skin of the girl (1:5) is sin, her breasts (7:7) are the churchs nurturing doctrine, her two lips (4:11) are the law and the gospel, and the army with banners (6:4) is the church as the enemy of Satan.15 But, as with the Jewish allegorizations, there are myriad variations within Christianity as well. Among the Reformers, Luther refused to follow the lead of the medieval church, wisely noting that it takes no effort to invent [allegories].16 He took a more restrained approach, interpreting the Song as a Solomonic song of praise for Israels deliverance. Nonetheless, many of his notes follow traditional allegorical views.17 Calvin, although he offered no commentary on the Song, also seemed to discard his usual grammatical-historical method of interpretation,

See Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, trans. R. P. Lawson (London, UK: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1957)
13

12

Cited in Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 355 Roland E. Murphy, The Song of Songs (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 21 Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 353 Martin Luther, Luthers Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1972), 15:200 Ibid., 15:196-264

14

15

16

17

5 allegorizing 5:3 as repentance: I have washed my feet, says the believing soul according to Solomon, how shall I defile them anew?18 Later, the Puritans appeared to follow in this same vein. John Flavel began his reflection on Song 8:6 with the words, This book is a sacred allegory.19 John Cotton contributed a significant commentary from the allegorizing tradition as well.20 Some Christian commentaries share a view similar to the Targum and see the Song as an allegorical history of redemption. Along these lines, the Song has been divided into two periods, with 1:14:6 as the true church from David to the death of Christ, and 4:78:14 as 34 A. D. to the Christs return. A further restriction on the time frame was suggested by Johannes Cocceius, who proposed the Song as a history of the church, with special emphasis on the Protestant Reformation.21 Traditional Roman Catholic commentaries have often attempted to interpret the woman as the Virgin Mary, thus turning the Song into a text supportive of Mary veneration. For example, one interpretation of 6:4 presents Mary as beautiful in her holiness, like Jerusalem in that peace between God and man came through her, and awesome in that she was surrounded by a troop of angels.22 However, more recent Roman Catholic interpreters seem to have turned away from this type of allegorization. A multitude of alternative interpretations exist, but the boundaries of this forum prohibit addressing them here.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, trans. Henry Beveridge (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 16.4
19

18

Cited in Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 354

See John Cotton, A Brief Exposition with Practical Observations upon the Whole Book of Canticles, reprint ed. (New York, NY: Arno Books, 1972)
21

20

Pope, Song of Songs, 128-29 Ibid., 563

22

6 Evaluation of the Allegorical Method Due to the overwhelming popularity of the allegorical method, it seems to deserve a closer critical review than other methods of interpretation of the Song. The belief that the Song of Songs must be understood in its basic sense has been steadfastly resisted throughout most of its history. Advocates of the allegorical view have been adamant that there must be some spiritual message beyond the apparent theme of human sexuality. Tanner notes, The interpretation of the details, however, became quite varied and fanciful.23 This statement points out the greatest weakness of allegorization. Its diverse and often bizarre interpretations lack objectivity, consensus of meaning, or any proof of validity. 24 Proponents of allegorization claim that Scripture elsewhere demands an allegorical method, such as Psalm 45 and Isaiah 51:1-17. It has also been argued that other passages of Scripture use the marriage relationship to illustrate a greater spiritual truth, as in Isa. 54:6 and 61:10, where it parallels God's position toward Israel. However, when considering the symbolic portrayal of the husband-wife picture elsewhere in Scripture, the distinctiveness of such instances is quite clear. Harrison astutely notes: A fundamental objection to allegorical method, based upon other Old Testament Scriptures...is that when the male-female relationship is employed allegorically it is clearly indicated as such, whereas in Canticles there is no hint of an allegorical approach.25 It must be noted that the Song of Songs gives no indication that it should be interpreted allegorically. The presence of figures of speech does not allow interpreters to detour into

23

Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, 26

Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1998), 492. For example, the eighty concubines in 6:8 have been interpreted as eighty heresies destined to plague the church, but there is absolutely no substantiation of this idea anywhere in Scripture. Roland K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969), 1053. For example, see Ezek. 16:3 and Hosea 1-3.
25

24

7 unreserved allegorical treatment of the text.26 Furthermore, the Song does not have a lucid progressive story line, as is usually present in allegory. But rather, it seems to depict an actual historical episode in Solomon's life that should be understood literally.27 Likewise, the Song in no way implies a description of the covenantal love between God and his people. Elsewhere in Scripture, as well as in other literature, an allegorical intent is signaled by the use of incredible imagery or obvious allusions, such as the tale of Jotham, which contains talking trees (Judg. 9:715). In the Song of Songs, however, fantasy of this kind as well as references to major events in the covenant history of Israel are nonexistent; they can only be placed within the text by extravagant allegorizing on the part of the interpreter. Similarly, clear allusions to Christ are absent apart from reading those ideas into the text, and none of the NT writers suggest any connection.28 Additionally, Solomon, with his enormous harem, presents a poor resemblance of Christ. Although the allegorical interpretation of the Song may be attractive to many interpreters, this approach does not stand up to the grammatical-historicalcontextual hermeneutic.29 Typological Interpretation The second major approach is typology. While many interpreters make no distinction between this method and allegory, there is, nevertheless, a clear difference that must be recognized. Whereas allegory denies or ignores the historicity or factuality of the OT record and forces a hidden spiritual meaning on the text, typology acknowledges the weight of the OT account in its own right, and then locates in that account a clear, parallel link with some event or
26

Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, 30-31 Ibid., 31 Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 355 Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, 31

27

28

29

8 teaching in the NT which the OT account foreshadows.30 Therefore, the key to understanding the nature of typology is the recognition of the doctrine of the unity of Scripture; that is, the NT is the fulfillment and culmination of the OT. The NT presents the coming of Christ as a fulfillment of all the law and the promises given in the OT. Hebrews 1:2 states, In these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son.31 Romans 5:14 offers a clear example of typology, in that, Adam, the head of the human race, is a type of Him who was to come, meaning Christ, the head of a redeemed humanity. And Luke 24:27 relates that shortly after His resurrection, Jesus joined two men walking on the road to Emmaus, and Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. With this understanding, many commentators have argued that typology is the correct approach to the Song of Songs. Most would reject the anti-historical view of the pure allegorist, and would acknowledge the Song to be describing real, though not necessarily historical, relationships among the characters of the book and would also understand the Song to be speaking of something more than merely human love.32 Scripture does indeed employ typological fulfillment at times, and certain verses or passages may be prophetic in nature, such as Ps. 22. In fact, even Solomon is used as a type of Christ elsewhere (2 Sam. 7:12-17; 23:1-7; Ps. 72; cf. Matt. 12:42). Therefore, the typological view does garner some claim to legitimacy and is undoubtedly more credible than the allegorical method, if only by the simple fact that it is much more restrained. However, the question here is not whether typological interpretation is valid, but whether the Song should be interpreted in this

30

Carr, Song of Solomon, 25-26 All Scripture from the NASB, unless noted otherwise. Carr, Song of Solomon, 26

31

32

9 manner.33 Similar to dilemma of the allegorical method, the text itself provides no indication that it is intended as typology, nor is there any suggestion from the NT that the Song is intended to be interpreted Christologically. Therefore, interpreting the Song by the typological view leads to the same predicament as the allegorical method, which is relying on the interpreter's proposition rather than not that of Scripture. Dramatic Interpretations The Song of Songs is often interpreted as a drama telling the story of the love of Solomon for the Shulammite girl. As early as about 250, Origen claimed that the Song was a marriage-song written by Solomon in the form of a drama. This view was largely ignored until the late 1800s, when Franz Delitzsch re-introduced it in his commentary on the Song. Since that time, numerous commentators have proposed variations of this idea as the key to understanding the Song. Despite the differences in these various views, the understanding that the Song is a dramatic script that was originally intended to be acted and/or sung is the universal theme that binds them together.34 Fundamentally, two distinct interpretations are proposed; the twocharacter drama and the three-character drama. Two-character View In this view, the Song tells the story of the mutual love between Solomon and the Shulammite woman. The interpretation is quite old and was supported by John Milton35 and Delitzsch,36 among others. A more recent variation has argued that the Song is a drama about

33

Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, 32 Carr, Song of Solomon, 34 In John Miltons treatise, The Reason of Church Government Urged against Prelatory, cited in Pope,

34

35

Song, 35

10 the marriage of Solomon to a princess.37 Those who hold to the two-character interpretation normally argue that the woman was Solomons one true love. However, the noticeable weakness of this view is the difficulty of associating a man with Solomons reputation with a song of true love (cf. 1 Kings 11:4).38 Three-character View This interpretation suggests three major characters; Solomon, the Shulammite, and her shepherd lover. With this understanding, the song relates the story of Solomons unsuccessful attempt to entice the girl from her true love, the simple shepherd. In this way, the Song is interpreted as a type of morality play, proving that true love cannot be tempted by wealth and led away from the object of that love. First suggested by Ibn Ezra, this interpretation was further developed by J. F. Jacobi (1772), the Jewish scholar Lowisohn (1816), and further still by Ewald in 1826.39 It was subsequently received by S. R. Driver40 and is still upheld by a number of conservative interpreters, such as C. H. Bullock.41 Garrett notes that this approach spoils the aesthetic beauty of the piece in that much of the love poetry is treated as Solomons attempted seduction. It is also somewhat confusing as to whom the girl is speaking. Even where she addresses her lover as you and invites him to

Franz Delitzsch, The Song of Songs, trans. M. G. Easton, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 8-11. Delitzsch calls the Song a dramatic pastoral, although he admits that the dramatic form did not exist among ancient Semites. He also asserts that the poem is not a theatrical piece (p. 8). Michael D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, vol. 36 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1986)
38 37

36

Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 358 See Pope, Song, 35, 11112, and Harrison, Old Testament Introduction, 1054

39

S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, reprint ed. (Cleveland, OH: World, 1956) C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, rev. and exp. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1988)
41

40

11 come away with her (7:10-8:4), she is not addressing Solomon, who is with her, but the shepherd, who is absent from the scene. A solution has been suggested by stating that it can be assumed that Solomon withdraws before the Shulammites soliloquy. Garret wisely notes that exegesisshould not be driven by assumptions unsupported by the text.42 Dramatic interpretations suffer from several weaknesses. Those who view the Song as a drama fail to recognize that the literary genre of a full-fledged drama was not known among the Israelites.43 It begs the question to assert the Song of Songs is unique in ancient Near Eastern literature. Although the drama was developed by the Greeks in the fifth century, Greek dramatic influence is nowhere evident in the book. Additionally, Greek dramas are quite unlike the Songs of Songs.44 Defining Drama It is essential to define drama as suggested in the context of the Song of Songs. Drama is distinguished by its narrow focus and essential unity. Carr offers an excellent in-depth definition of drama: Aristotles statement, that to be drama a piece has to have a beginning, a middle and an end, correctly assumes that a drama has to be a self-contained and selfconsistent unit. Beyond this, an effective drama must show elements of progression in the story, development of theme and character, and some sort of conflict and resolution. In the technical realm, dramatic works must also clearly indicate speakers, individual speeches and stage directions, and generally be written in dialogue form.45 The Song of Songs contains elements of conflict and resolution (e.g., 3:1-4; 5:2-7), but barely any development or progression in the story line. There is a glaring absence of any stage directions, and much confusion concerning the assigning of speeches to various characters.
42

Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 359 Deere, Song of Songs, 1009 Ibid. Carr, Song of Solomon, 35

43

44

45

12 Additionally, there is no discernable division of the book into acts or scenes. There are nearly as many proposals on these points as there are writers proposing them.46 Carr employs his skill in theater in discussing the possibility of the Song as a dramatic work: Considerable experience in theatrical production and direction has persuaded me that the Song, as it now stands, is unactable. It would be virtually impossible to stage effectively without major rewriting, and it lacks the dramatic impact to hold an audience. One could, perhaps, choreograph a dance routine around 6:13-7:11 or a street fight around 5:6-8; one would probably attract an audience, but the spectacle would still fail as drama. The long speeches, the lack of character development and of a plot developing to dramatic climax and resolution, all militate against the Song being considered drama.47 Natural/Literal Interpretations One of the most basic principles of hermeneutics states that for any passage, the plain, normal meaning is preferred unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.48 Contrary to this rule, the idea that the Song of Songs should be understood literally as the loving and sexual relationship between man and wife has traditionally been the least accepted view. However, this view has been given more attention over the past two centuries. In the early church, Theodore of Mopsuestia49 (ca. 350-428) took a bold stand for a literal interpretation of the Song of Songs. He suggested that it should be read in its plain sense as an erotic song. However, the popularity of the allegorical view was so strong that his position was regarded as heresy by the Second Council of Constantinople in A.D. 553.50 Consequently,
46

Ibid. Ibid., 35-36 Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, 39

47

48

Theodore was educated alongside the distinguished John Chrysostom and in 392 was appointed bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. He was a prolific writer and renowned interpreter of the Bible, though his image was somewhat tarnished by his pupil Nestorius. In a day when the allegorical method of interpretation was flourishing, Theodore wrote Against the Allegorists (though the work was eventually lost). See Rowan A. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (Westminster: Faith, 1961), 86-131.
50

49

Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1055

13 the literal view was virtually ignored for many centuries. In the more modern era, the trend
61

toward the literal interpretation can be traced back to Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), but it was Christian Ginsburg who breathed new life into this view. 51 Bullock summarizes Ginsburgs view: Thus Ginsburg concluded that the purpose of the book is not to celebrate love, even though that be worthy of canonicity, but to record an example of virtue, which is still more worthy of a place in the sacred canon. Our society and world can profit immensely from that message.52 Ginsburgs work has led to considerably more interest in the literal interpretation of the Song of Songs. Several variations of this view have been proposed, including the position that the Song is a collection of unrelated love poems or Syrian wedding songs known as wasfs. However, these approaches are quite weak and do not necessitate further discussion. This study will focus on two major views within the realm of literal interpretation. Lyrical Expression of Human Love Some commentators believe that the Song is quite simply a poetic celebration of the bliss of romantic and sexual love between man and wife. Carr comments that this view interprets the Song as what it appears naturally to be--a series of poems which speak clearly and explicitly of the feelings, desires, concerns, hopes and fears of two young lovers--without any need to allegorize or typologize or dramatize to escape the clear erotic elements present in the text.53 This view has also been embraced by Deere and Craig Glickman.54 Deere notes: The purpose of the book is to extol human love and marriage. Though at first this seems strange, on reflection it is not surprising for God to have included in the biblical canon a book endorsing the beauty and purity of marital love. God created man
51

See Christian D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs and Coheleth, reprint ed. (New York, NY: KTAV, 1970) Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, 255-256 Carr, Song of Solomon, 36 S. Craig Glickman, A Song for Lovers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 176

52

53

54

14 and woman (Gen. 1:27; 2:20-23) and established and sanctioned marriage (Gen. 2:24). Since the world views sex so sordidly and perverts and exploits it so persistently and since so many marriages are crumbling because of lack of love, commitment, and devotion, it is advantageous to have a book in the Bible that gives Gods endorsement of marital love as wholesome and pure.55 The difficulty faced by this view appears when both Solomon and his bride are held up as a model of romantic love as God intended it. As previously noted, Solomon, based on his polygamous reputation, as well as statements in the Song concerning multiple wives and concubines, fails miserably to present a proper example (1 Kings 11; Song 6:8). Solomon is hardly a model of faithfulness in marriage. Literal-Didactic View Several commentators have taken the unique position that the Song should be taken literally with its expressions of romantic and sexual bliss in marriage and it also communicates a moral lesson on marital love that goes even deeper. Therefore, the Song is didactic as well as literal. There are several slight variations, however, on the exact nature of the moral lesson. E. J. Young took the position that the Song not only celebrates the dignity and purity of human love but that it also points to the greater love of Christ: The Song does celebrate the dignity and purity of human love. This is a fact which has not always been sufficiently stressed. The Song, therefore, is didactic and moral in its purpose. It comes to us in this world of sin, where lust and passion are on every hand, where fierce temptations assail us and try to turn us aside from the Godgiven standard of marriage. And it reminds us, in particularly beautiful fashion, how pure and noble true love is. This, however, does not exhaust the purpose of the book. Not only does it speak of the purity of human love; but, by its very inclusion in the Canon, it reminds us of a love that is purer than our own.56 It should be noted that Young's view is different from either the allegorical or typical view, in that the Song is not a typology of Christ, but rather reminds the reader of His love. Similarly,

55

Deere, Song of Songs, 1009-1010 E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 336

56

15 Dennis Kinlaw has stated that the Song "speaks of marriage as it ought to be," but there seems to be something more: "there must be something pedagogical and eschatological about marriage" (emphasis his).57 A minor weakness in this view is that it does not take into serious account the moral lesson at the climax of the book in chapter 8, particularly the theme of jealousy. While much truth is contained this view, it appears to fall a bit short of the fully intended purpose of the author by failing to focus on the moral lesson the author himself provides.58 Robert Laurin expounds on this view and suggests that the Song is an affirmation of God-ordained sex while elevating exclusiveness and faithfulness. This view celebrates the Godordained integrity of sexual intimacy, but also indicates that love is more than physical, as attested by the aspects of exclusivity and fidelity in the Song. Laurin's explanation is most insightful: The contemporary world has popularized infidelity to the marriage bond, has televised comedies on the theme of adultery, and has left the impression that love is where you find it in the satisfaction of lust. Not so the Song of Songs. It speaks of the exclusive love of two people, each wrapped up in the other, each pure, each faithful to the other, each innocent of any involvement with others. So the maiden tells her lover that she has reserved the fruits of love exclusively for him (7:13).59 This view is quite refreshing in that it not only takes a literal view of the book in the affirmation of marital love and sexual union, but it also emphasizes a key ingredient lacking in all other interpretations, specifically, the subject of fidelity and devotion in marriage. This is indeed the topic that comes out of the moral lesson in the final chapter of the book, and Laurin is correct in

Dennis F. Kinlaw, Song of Songs, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 1207-1208
58

57

Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, 44

Robert B. Laurin, The Life of True Love: The Song of Songs and Its Modern Message, Christianity Today (August 3, 1962): 11

59

16 highlighting this.60 However, it must be noted that this moral lesson comes from the brides example, not from that of Solomon, for reasons previously stated. It is hardly believable that the two are each wrapped up in the other, each pure, each faithful to the other, each innocent of any involvement with others. This may be true of the bride, but it certainly seems to be far from true of Solomon. If the book addresses the subject of marital fidelity and devotion, as it appears to do, then it does not do so through Solomon as a model of these God-ordained qualities.61 Conclusion This study has examined numerous variations of interpretations of the Song of Songs and shown both strengths and weaknesses of each. With no guideline provided from the NT, the best approach to take--the one most consistent with a grammatical-historical-contextual hermeneutic--is the literal one in which Solomon and his bride are used to address the topic of the romantic and sexual experience within God-ordained marriage.62 It seems that the most accurate understanding of the book is found within the confines of the literal-didactic view, exalting the original design and purpose of true love and sexual intimacy, while also stressing the elements of fidelity and devotion, as presented in the example of the bride. In fact, the bride can be said to be the real heroine of the book, a truth confirmed by the role she has of delivering a lesson on love and its jealousy in the final chapter.63 However, the book appears to be saying something more in light of the hints and moralistic lesson found in chapter 8. It also seems that the Song could be used to illustrate the relation of Christ to His church. Reformed theologian John Murray eloquently notes, If the Song portrays true marital love on the highest levels...then
60

Tanner, The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs, 45 Ibid. Ibid., 45-46 Ibid., 46

61

62

63

17 surely it may be used to exemplify what is transcendently true in the bond that exists between Christ and the church.64

Cited in Carr, Song of Solomon, 25 as quoted in The Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland, March 1982, 52

64

18 Bibliography Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1998. Bullock, C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. rev. and exp. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1988. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997. Carr, G. Lloyd. Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 19 Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984. Cotton, John. A Brief Exposition with Practical Observations upon the Whole Book of Canticles. reprint ed. New York, NY: Arno Books, 1972. Deere, Jack S. Song of Songs. Vol. I, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, edited by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, 1009-1010. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985. Delitzsch, Franz. The Song of Songs. reprint ed. Translated by M. G. Easton. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970. Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. reprint ed. Cleveland, OH: World, 1956. Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God's Word. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Garrett, Duane A. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Vol. 14 New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Song of Songs and Coheleth. reprint ed. New York, NY: KTAV, 1970. Glickman, Craig S. A Song for Lovers. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976. Goulder, Michael D. The Song of Fourteen Songs. Vol. 36 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1986. Greere, Rowen A. Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian. Westminster: Faith, 1961. Harrison, Roland K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969. Kinlaw, Dennis F. Song of Songs. Vol. 5, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991. Laurin, Robert B. "The Life of True Love: The Song of Songs and Its Modern Message." Christianity Today, August 3, 1962: 10-11. Luther, Martin. Luther's Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1972.

19 Mickelson, A. Berkeley. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963. Murphy, Roland E. The Song of Songs. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Origen. The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies. Translated by R. P. Lawson. London, UK: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1957. Pope, Marvin H. Song of Songs. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. "Song of Solomon." In The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, edited by Allen C. Myers, 963-964. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Tanner, J. Paul. "The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs." Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March 1997: 23-46. Willard, Conrad R. "Song of Solomon." In The Teacher's Bible Commentary, edited by Franklin H. Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs, 385. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1972. Young, E. J. An Introduction to the Old Testament. rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960.