Book of Song of Solomon?

And here's Wesley:

 

And Matthew Henry:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

From the Geneva bible commentary:

Geneva Study Bible

Song of Solomon 1
1:2 Let a him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love [is] better than wine.

(a) This is spoken in the person of the Church, or of the faithful soul inflamed with the desire of Christ, whom she loves.

 

From Jamieson, Faucet, Brown:

Faussett, and Brown

 

So now I remember where I got the crazy idea that the Song was an allegory of Christ's love for the elect (church). I was beginning to wonder if I had just awakened from a dream.

 

I would like to know why SOS cannot be both literal and figurative? Where in Scripture does it say that it has to be either / or?

J.D., finding a bunch of men that agree with you, does not mean that you (and they) are correct.

 

I agree that the ability to quote other men does not necissarily make the doctrine correct. I was just feeling lonely. But I think I rallied a pretty good group to my side.

 

It is a book written to the Jews in the time of Solomon. It would have no relevance to the "Church" for more than a thousand years after that time. Thus to count it only as allegorical of Christ and his church is to make the book totally irrelevant for the intervening thousand years up until the beginning of the Church at Pentecost. The book definitely had another meaning. The historical context must be taken into consideration. It was not even written to Christians.
DHK

 

It is accurate to say it was written about and to the "church" if you take the right sense of "church". Was there not a church in the wilderness? The asssembly, or gathering, of called-out people is a church in any age. They may not be a Church in the N.T. sense, but they are a church nevertheless. This is why many scholars use "elect" and "church" interchangeably, for in their root meanings they are nearly the same word. So we see that God has always loved His elect of all ages, those called out and gathered.

 

Like most people, I doubt if you have a good solid Biblical definition of the loosely defined English word church ( a word that has many meanings today). The word "church" in the New Testament is ekklesia, and should always be translated congregation or assembly. There is no such thing as a universal church or assembly when you think of it. How can one have an unassembled assembly? Ridiculous! An assembly gathers together and meets together. That rules out the "church universal" as a phrase without meaning. It doesn't make sense. You cannot have an assembly that is and cannot be unassembled.
That being said, the word ekklesia is used in other ways as well. In Acts 19 there was an ekklesia (an assembly) that gathered in the theatre. They were in an uproar because of the preaching of Paul. The mayor dismissed the "assembly." The same word, ekklesia, used for church. A church is an assembly, first and foremost. There is more to that definition, but I will not get into that now.

Just as the assembly in Acts 19 was not a church, so the assembly in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel was not a church, and it is ridiculous to equate the two. Your semantics is a game. It is not rightly dividing the Word of truth. There was no church before Pentecost. You know it and I know it. And if you wish to allegorize the Bible in such a way, then what does the blood of Jesus Christ mean. Maybe it means something else rather than blood. The J.W.'s allegorize the resurrection to make it mean a spiritual resurrection and not bodily resurrection. You can make the Bible mean anything you want if you try hard enough. It says in Psalms 14:1 "There is no God." Try again.
DHK

 

So the commentators I quoted were gnostics and allegorists who made the bible mean anything they wanted to? You obviously feel that way about me, but how about them? And add Spurgeon to that list.

 

I can't say it any better than James Durham has already said it here.

http://www.puritansermons.com/durham/durham_key.htm

 

And in my desparate attempt to find someone that endorses the literalist view of the Song I found this:

Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) of 2006 refers to the Song of Songs in both its literal and allegorical meaning, stating that erotic love (eros) and self-donating love (agape) is shown there as the two halves of true love, which is both giving and receiving.

 

Adam Clarke says...

Let us for a moment consider the different opinions held on this book, without entering into the discussion of their propriety or impropriety. They are the following: -

I. It is a plain epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and is to be understood in no other way.
II. It is an allegory relative to the conduct of God towards the Hebrews, in bringing them out of Egypt, through the wilderness to the Promised Land.
III. It is intended to represent the incarnation of Jesus Christ, or his marriage with human nature, in reference to its redemption.
IV. It represents Christ’s love to the Church or elected souls, and their love to him.
V. It is an allegorical poem on the glories of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.
VI. It is a collection of sacred idyls; the spiritual meaning of which is not agreed on.

Now each of these opinions has its powerful supporters, and each of these has reasons to offer for the support of the opinion which is espoused; and nothing but a direct revelation from God can show us which of these opinions is the correct one, or whether any of them are correct.
The antiquity of an opinion, if that be not founded on a revelation from God, is no evidence of its truth; for there are many ungodly opinions which are more than a thousand years old. And as to great men and great names, we find them enrolled and arranged on each side of all controversies. It may be asked, What do Christ and his apostles say of it?

1. If Jesus Christ or any of his apostles had referred to it as an allegory, and told us the subject which it pointed out, the matter would have been plain: we should then have had data, and had only to proceed in the way of elucidation. But we find nothing of this in the New Testament.

2. If they had referred to it as an allegory, without intimating the meaning, then we should be justified in searching everywhere for that meaning; and conjecture itself would have been legal, till we had arrived at some self-testifying issue.

3. If they had referred to it at all, in connection with spiritual subjects, then we should have at once seen that it was to be spiritually understood; and, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, we must have humbly sought for its spiritual interpretation.

4. Had the Supreme Being been introduced, or referred to in any of his essential attributes, or by any of the names which he has been pleased to assume in his revelations to men, we should have then seen that the writer was a spiritual man, and wrote probably in reference to a spiritual end; and, that we should pass by or through his letter, in order to get to the spirit concealed under it.

But none of these things appear in this book: the name of God is not found in it; nor is it quoted in the New Testament. As to certain references which its allegorical expositors suppose are made to it, either in the Gospels, Epistles, or Apocalypse, they are not express, and do not, by any thing in or connected with them, appear unequivocally to point out this book. And after all that has been said, I am fully of opinion it is not once referred to in the New Testament. But this is no proof of its not being canonical, as there are other books, on which there is no doubt, that are in the same predicament. But still, if it refer so distinctly to Christ and his Church, as some suppose, it certainly would not have been passed over by both evangelists and apostles without pointed and especial notice; and particularly if it points out the love of Christ to his Church, and the whole economy of God’s working in reference to the salvation of the souls of men.
From all this it will appear to the intelligent reader, that the spiritual meaning of this book cannot easily be made out:

1. Because we do not know that it is an allegory.

2. If one, the principles on which such allegory is to be explained do nowhere appear.

Whom then are we to follow in the interpretation of this very singular book? The Targumist, who applies it to God and the Hebrews, in their journeyings from Egypt to the promised land? Origen, who made it a Christian allegory? Apponius, who spiritualized it? Gregory the Great, who in the main copied them? The good man, who in 1717, at Paris, so illustrated it as "to induce men to devote themselves to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary?" Mr. Durham, Mr. Robotham, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Romaine, and Dr. Gill, who endeavored to prove that it concerns Christ and the elect? Or Mr. Harmer and others who acknowledge it to be an inimitable composition, and to be understood only of Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter? Or, finally, Dr. Mason Good, who considers it a collection of sacred idyls, the spiritual interpretation of which is not agreed on?

I had for a long time hesitated whether I should say any thing on this book; not because I did not think I understood its chief design and general meaning, for of this I really have no doubt, but because I did not understand it as a spiritual allegory, representing the loves off Christ and his Church. I must own I see no indubitable ground for this opinion. And is it of no moment whether the doctrines drawn from it, by those who allegorize and spiritualize it, be indubitably founded on it or not? The doctrines may be true in themselves, (which is indeed more than can be said of those of most of its interpreters), but is it not a very solemn, and indeed awful thing to say, This is the voice of Christ to his Church, This is the voice of the Church to Christ, etc., etc., when there is no proof from God, nor from any other portion of his word, that these things are so?

It is much better, therefore, if explained or illustrated at all, to take it in its literal meaning, and explain it in its general sense. I say general sense, because there are many passages in it which should not be explained, if taken literally, the references being too delicate; and Eastern phraseology on such subjects is too vivid for European imaginations. Let any sensible and pious medical man read over this book, and, if at all acquainted with Asiatic phraseology, say whether it would be proper, even in medical language, to explain all the descriptions and allusions in this poem.

 

Looks to me like Clark would pitch the Song into the garbage if he could. "it should not be explained". Sums it up.

 

J.D.,

I used the word gnostic, so I'll respond. If you can show me where Spurgeon or those other fellers equated a literal interpretation of S of S with a "carnal" interpretation then I'll read what they said, and I'll either call them gnostic too or I'll take it back. Until then, though, I maintain that you're the only gnostic here.

(I don't really think you're gnostic. I do think that's a gnostic view that you espoused.)

My statement is not about how S of S should be interpreted. My statement is about whether a literal interpretation is "carnal", period.

 

Hello Whatever, maybe I used "carnal" in a technically wrong way although I still don't see a connection that can be made between my comments and gnosticism. I was using it as a descriptive of my attitude toward the so-called "literal" interpretation which I call a low view of the SOS. My scriptural training has always been that the view of SOS as apparently held by Clark - that the words if literalized would be too graphic, in fact, porno-graphic, for polite people - is the liberal view of scripture. I've been in shock since reading this thread to find people here I consider sound fundamentalists to hold that view.

If I've offended you unnecessarily by referring to your view as carnal, then I apologize. But my attitude toward your view remains unchanged and I would urge any bible believer to seriously consider the allegorical view as the only acceptable view as is explained very well by Durham.

 

The words in the Song stand as they are whether with literal meaning or allegorical meaning. They are the same words either way. Personally I think it ridiculous to call them pornographic. No one I know of (the courts, literary experts, etc.) has ever thought the mere mention of body parts to be pornographic. Frankly, I always thought the "porno" charge to be a tool of enemies of the Bible, who will say the song is "pornographic" regardless of the interpretation--since they don't interpret the Bible, they merely criticize it.

The Bible in other places praises women who were "fair of form and face." Is that pornography, too?

If you think the Song to be pornographic, then he problem for you, J. D., becomes whether or not the Song should be included in the canon, and that should be where you argue from.

 

John, are you serious? Maybe you didn't read my post thoroughly. I didn't say that the Song is pornographic. I implied that CLARK as quoted above apparently sees it as pornographic. And maybe he has issues with its canonicity. In my view of the book, it not only belongs in canon, but has become the most precious of books when I need reassurances of His love.

But let me ask a question at this point - should our greatest passion be our wives, or the Lord?