Cânticos 1

Cânticos 1

DeHaan says that Adam is a type of Christ because Adam was put to sleep, his side was opened—he was wounded and his blood was shed—and from that wound his bride was taken. In the same way, Christ died, had His side pierced, and from that ordeal His Bride, the church, is produced. Just as Adam said that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (Genesis 2:23), so the church is the body, flesh, and bone of Christ (see Ephesians 5:30). (ED: THIS SADDENS ME AS I GREATLY RESPECT M. R. DEHAAN, NORMALLY A "LITERALIST," BUT IN THIS CASE HE IS SIMPLY TAKING THE TEXT TOO FAR FROM IT'S LITERAL MEANING.) Perhaps the most famous instance of allegorical interpretation is Origen’s explanation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. In the allegorical view, the man who is robbed is Adam, Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The priest is the Law, and the Levites are the Prophets. The Samaritan is Christ. The donkey is Christ’s physical body, which bears the burden of the wounded man (the wounds are his sins), and the inn is the Church. The Samaritan’s promise to return is a promise of the second coming of Christ. We need to recognize that allegory is a beautiful and legitimate literary device. John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress was written as an allegory of the Christian life. In this story, almost every action and character is intended to have a deeper, spiritual meaning. To interpret Bunyan’s story literally would be to miss the point completely. little difference between allegorical, typological, and symbolic interpretation. They all look for a deeper meaning behind what would seem to be a literal reading of the Bible’s text. Really, there is little difference between allegorical, typological, and symbolic interpretation. They all look for a deeper meaning behind what would seem to be a literal reading of the Bible’s text. However, these methods should not be set in opposition to “literal interpretation,” because every interpreter recognizes that some passages of the Bible are intended to be taken symbolically, typologically, or allegorically. For instance, Ecclesiastes 12:1–7+ speaks of a dilapidated estate, but this is an allegory for the ravages of age and time upon the human body (ED: AN BECAUSE IT IS SURELY ALLEGORICAL, ONE IS NOT SURPRISED THAT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF FANCIFUL INTERPRETATIONS ON SOLOMON'S DESCRIPTION!). All Christians would agree that the Old Testament sacrifices are symbolic for the greater sacrifice of Christ. When Jesus says, “I am the vine and you are the branches” (John 15:5), no one expects to find leaves and clusters of grapes sprouting from their arms. Even those who insist on a literal interpretation of the book of Revelation still expect “the Beast” to be a man, not an animal (see Revelation 13:4). To insist upon a literal reading for a passage of Scripture that was intended to be taken in a symbolic manner is to miss the meaning of the text. For instance, at the Last Supper Jesus says of the bread and wine, “This is my body. . . . This is my blood” (Luke 22:19–20). Jesus’ hearers in the room were partaking of a Passover meal in which every item on the menu was interpreted symbolically. For them to suddenly think that Jesus was speaking literally regarding these two elements is completely foreign to the context. Metaphor is a recognized literary device in use today and in the time of Christ. Jesus could have just as easily said, “This represents my body and my blood,” but in the context of the Passover, such directness was not necessary. The problem with the allegorical method of interpretation is that it seeks to find an allegorical interpretation for every passage of Scripture, regardless of whether or not it is intended to be understood in that way. Interpreters who allegorize can be very creative, with no control based in the text itself. It becomes easy to read one’s own beliefs into the allegory and then think that they have scriptural support. There will always be some disagreement about whether certain texts are to be taken literally or figuratively and to what degree, as evidenced by disagreements over the book of Revelation, even among those who have high regard for Scripture. For a text to be interpreted allegorically or figuratively, there needs to be justification in the text itself or something in the cultural background of the original readers that would have led them to understand the text symbolically. The goal of every interpreter who has a high view of Scripture is to discover the intended meaning of the text. If the intended meaning is simply the literal communication of a historical fact or the straightforward explanation of a theological truth, then that is the inspired meaning. If the intended meaning is allegorical/typological/symbolic/figurative, then the interpreter should find some justification for it in the text and in the culture of the original hearers/readers. Norman Geisler - When Critics Ask SONG OF SOLOMON—How did a sensual book like this get in the Bible? PROBLEM 1: The Bible condemns the lust of the flesh and sensuality (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:16–21; 1 John 2:16). Yet this love song is filled with sensual expressions and sexual overtures (cf.Song 1:2; 2:5; 3:1; 4:5). SOLUTION 1: The Bible does not condemn sex, but only perverted sex. God created sex (Gen. 1:27), and He ordained that it should be enjoyed within the bonds of a monogamous marriage and in a relationship of love. The Scriptures declare, “Rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love” (Prov. 5:18–19). After warning against those who forbid marriage (1 Tim. 4:3), the apostle declares that “every creature of God is good” (v. 4), and he goes on to speak of the God “who gives us richly all things to enjoy” (6:17). Hebrews insists that “marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). God realizes that normal people will have sexual desires, but He adds, “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). So, sex itself is not sinful, nor are sexual desires. God created them and intends that they be enjoyed within the loving bonds of a monogamous marriage. The Song of Solomon is a divinely authoritative example of how sensual love should be expressed in marriage. PROBLEM 2: Some question whether this book should be in the Bible, claiming that some rabbis rejected it. Was it always a part of the Jewish Scriptures? SOLUTION 2: From the very earliest times, this book was part of the Jewish canon. Centuries after it was accepted into the canon of Scriptures, the school of Shammai (A.D. 1st century) expressed doubt about its inspiration, but the view of Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (c. A.D. 50–132) prevailed when he declared, “God forbid!—No man in Israel ever disputed about the Song of Songs … for all the ages are not worthy the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holiest of Holies” (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, 1986, 259). PROBLEM 3: Many modern scholars propose that this book of Solomon is simply a collection of love poems that have been put together on the basis of their similarity in theme. However, as a whole, this book is said to have been written by Solomon. How can it be a book written by Solomon if it is really only a loosely connected group of poems? SOLUTION 3: Actually, the Song of Solomon is not a loosely connected group of love poems. The structure of the book demonstrates that it is a single poetic expression of the relationship between Solomon and his Shulamite bride. The structure of the Song of Solomon is revealed in the repetition of key phrases. OPENING PHRASES CLOSING PHRASES Song 2:8 “The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes.” Song 2:7 “I charge you O daughters of Jerusalem …” Song 3:6 “Who is this coming …” Song 3:5 “I charge you O daughters of Jerusalem …” Song 6:10 “Who is she …” Song 6:9 “The daughters saw her …” Song 8:5 “Who is this coming …” Song 8:4 “I charge you O daughters of Jerusalem …” The structure of this book can be illustrated by the following outline. I. The mutual compassion of the lovers - Song 1:2–2:7 A II.Pre-wedding events - Song 2:8–3:5 B III. Wedding details - Song 3:6–6:9 C IV. Post-wedding events - Song 6:10–8:4 B´ V. The mutual contentment of the lovers - Song 8:5–8:14 A´ The repetition of “A”s and “B”s is a pattern called chiasm that was frequently employed by the Hebrew poets as a means of structuring their material. This structure not only indicates the unity of the book, but it provides evidence of a single author who put the material together in this manner to tell a true story and communicate a message. This literal account of the love of Solomon for his wife teaches the sanctity of human love in the marriage relationship (cf. Heb. 13:4). The Speakers Song of Solomon The Song of Solomon is a dialogue which includes 5 different sets of speakers... (1) The Shulammite woman (Song 1:2-4a, 1:4c-7, 1:12-14, 1:16-2:1, 2:3-13, 2:15-3:11, 4:16, 5:2-8, 5:10-16, 6:2-3, 6:11-12, 7:9b-8:4, 8:5b-7, 8:10-12, 8:14), (2) Friends of the Shulammite (Daughters of Jerusalem) (Song 1:4b, 1:8, 1:11, 5:9, 6:1, 6:10, 6:13a, 8:5a) (3) King Solomon (Song 1:9-10, 1:15, 2:2, 2:14, 4:1-15, 5:1, 6:4-9, 6:13b-7:9a, 8:13), (4) God (Song 5:1e "Eat friends, drink and imbibe deeply O lovers") (5) Shulammite's brothers (Song 8:8-9) Solomon's abrupt change of speakers and settings can make the dialogue and plot difficult to follow. For this reason the Biblical text is supplemented with bold green annotations in an attempt to identify the specific speaker(s). The Timing Song of Solomon John