Cânticos 1

Cânticos 1

Wiersbe comments that...While the Song of Solomon illustrates the deepening love we can have with Christ, we must be careful not to turn the story into an allegory and make everything mean something. All things are possible to those who allegorize— and what they come up with is usually heretical. It's almost laughable to read some of the ancient commentaries (and their modern imitators) and see how interpreters have made Solomon say what they want him to say. The language of love is imaginative and piles one image on top of another to convey its message. But to make the bride's breasts represent the two ordinances, or the garden stand for the local church, or the voice of the turtledove mean the Holy Spirit speaking, is to obscure if not destroy the message of the book. Other texts in the Bible may support the ideas expressed by these fanciful interpreters, but their ideas didn't come from what Solomon wrote. (Bible Exposition Commentary) (Bolding added) (2) Typological (See discussion of Study of Biblical types): This approach admits to the the historical reality of the Song but goes on to envision Solomon as typifying Christ and the Shulammite woman as a type of the church, thus picturing Christ's the Bridegroom's love for His Bride, the Church. You may be thinking that this sounds like an allegorical approach, but it differs in interpreting Solomon as a literal, historical person and by not seeking "hidden" or mystical meanings as in the allegorical approach. Scripture does in fact sanction the use of types, Adam for example being "a type of Him Who was to come" (see note Romans 5:14), but the Song of Solomon contains no verses that can be interpreted as indicating the various aspects of Solomon’s life are divinely intended to represent a type of Christ. Therefore this interpretative approach is to be as assiduously avoided as the allegorical approach. In summary, both of the previous interpretative approaches (1 & 2) invoke the church as vital to their respective interpretative schemes (allegorical or typological), but the careful student of Scripture will note that neither approach can be the primary interpretation since the doctrine of the church was a mystery, a truth previously hidden in the Old Testament and only revealed in the New Testament. Paul wrote that... by referring to this (the mystery), when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit...and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery (of the church) which for ages has been hidden in God, Who created all things (See notes Ephesians 3:4; 3:5; 3:9) (3) Literal, Historical and Grammatical: (discussion of literal approach) This approach is the only objective mode of interpretation, and seeks to attach the normal meaning to the words thus taking them at "face value". The earliest of the so called Early Church Fathers interpreted Scripture literally for the most part. Regarding the meaning of literal interpretation, Peter Lange writes... Literal is not opposed to spiritual but to figurative; spiritual is an antithesis on the one hand to material, and on the other to carnal (in a bad sense). The Literalist is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is simply, that the prophecies (Ed note: and the Song of Solomon) are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted-that which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal, and that which is manifestly figuratively being so regarded. The position of the Spiritualist (Ed note: AKA "allegorist") is not that which is properly indicated by the term. He is one who holds that certain portions are to be normally interpreted, other portions are to be regarded as having a mystical sense. The terms properly expressive of the schools are normal and mystical. (John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scripture: Revelation, p. 98) Sidlow Baxter observes that those who take the literal approach...rightly understand the book to be an historical record of the romance of Solomon with a Shulammite woman. The “snapshots” in the book portray the joys of love in courtship and marriage and counteract both the extremes of asceticism and of lust. The rightful place of physical love, within marriage only, is clearly established and honored. Within the historical framework, some also see illustrations of the love of God (and Christ) for His people. Obviously Solomon does not furnish the best example of marital devotion, for he had many wives and concubines (140 at this time, Song 6:8; many more later, 1 Kings 11:3). The experiences recorded in this book may reflect the only (or virtually the only) pure romance he had. (Explore the Book) Believer's Study Bible notes that some who take the literal approach go a bit too far and...maintain that the poem is therefore merely a secular love song expressing human romantic love at its best without spiritual lesson or theological content. They value the Song only as a divine sanction upon marital love and a timely warning against perversions of marriage popular in Solomon's time. However, there is also the option that the poem is a vital expression in frank but pure language of the divine theology of marriage as expressed in the love between husband and wife in the physical area, setting forth the ideal love relationship in monogamous marriage. Even the most intimate and personal human love is according to divine plan and as such is bestowed by God Himself (cf. Ge 2:18-25; Mt 19:4-6). The richest and best of human love is only a foretaste of the matchless, greater love of God. In this book, the scarlet thread of redemption is revealed, as man, through seeing and experiencing the purity and holiness of earthly love in marriage, gains a better and clearer understanding of the eternal, heavenly love of Christ for His church. Although there have been a number of interpretations of this book, the most obvious interpretation is no interpretation at all. Henry Morris makes an interesting comment noting that "Although there have been a number of interpretations of this book, the most obvious interpretation is no interpretation at all. That is, it is simply what it purports to be--a romantic love poem describing the love of young Solomon and a Shulammite maiden who became his first bride. There is nothing unseemly, of course, about a book of the Bible depicting the beauties of pure courtship and marital love. The union of male and female in holy matrimony is intrinsic to the creation itself (Genesis 2:24-25). In this sense, the narrative of the Song can be considered as an idyllic picture of courtship and marriage that might apply, with varying details, to all true love and marriage as ordained by God. (Defenders Study Bible) Clearly Morris' "non-interpretation" approach is a plea for us to interpret this beautiful love poem in its natural, literal sense. The highly respected evangelical theologian Roy Zuck notes that "Some Bible teachers view the Song of Songs as an extended allegory to depict God's relationship to Israel or Christ's relationship to the church. However, since there is no indication in the book that this is the case, it is preferable to view the book as extolling human love and marriage." (BORROW Basic Bible Interpretation) (Bolding added) Irving Jensen adds that "The literal purpose of the book has often been twisted by those not prepared to read frank and intimate expressions of love. Asceticism and lust--two perversions of the holiness of marriage-- are slain by the message of this book. If the reader is licentiously excited when he reads the Song of Solomon, he is out of tune with its purpose. The book's literal message is perverted only by those who do not see the purity and true beauty of all of God's creative acts." (Jensen's Survey of Bible online) Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa in discussing the theme and purpose write that "The purpose of this book depends on the viewpoint taken as to its primary thrust. Is it fictional, allegorical, or historical? (1) Fictional: Some hold that this song is a fictional drama that portrays Solomon’s courtship of and marriage to a poor but beautiful girl from the country. But the book gives every indication that the story really happened. (2) Allegorical: In this view, the primary purpose of the Song was to illustrate the truth of God’s love for His people whether the events were fictional or not. Some commentators insist that the book is indeed historical but its primary purpose is typical, that is, to present Yahweh’s love for His bride Israel and/or Christ’s love for His Church. But this interpretation is subjective and lacking in evidence. There are other places in Scripture where the husband/wife relationship is used symbolically (cf. Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3), but these are always indicated as symbols. This may be an application of the book but it should not be the primary interpretation. (3) Historical; The Song of Songs is a poetic record of Solomon’s actual romance with a Shulamite woman. The various scenes in the book exalt the joys of love in courtship and marriage and teach that physical beauty and sexuality in marriage should not be despised as base or unspiritual. It offers a proper perspective of human love and avoids the extremes of lust and asceticism. Only when sexuality was viewed in the wrong way as something akin to evil was an attempt made to allegorize the book. But this is part of God’s creation with its related desires and pleasures, and it is reasonable that He would provide us with a guide to a pure sexual relationship between a husband and wife. In fact, the union of the two sexes was originally intended to illustrate the oneness of the Godhead (see Gen. 1:27; 2:24; 1 Cor. 6:16–20). Thus, the Song is a bold and positive endorsement by God of marital love in all its physical and emotional beauty. This interpretation does not mean that the book has no spiritual illustrations and applications. It certainly illustrates God’s love for His covenant people Israel, and anticipates Christ’s love for His bride, the church. (Bolding added) (Borrow Talk Thru the Bible) Farrar summarizes such a long list (some 19 different ideas - see list below) of interpretations of the Song of Solomon one wonders how anyone could hope to glean any divine truth from the text. Farrar laments... Can anything be more grotesque and more melancholy than the vast mass of hypotheses about the latter (the Song of Solomon)—hypotheses which can make anything of anything? Like Esther (Song of Solomon) never mentions the name of God and it narrowly escaped exclusion from the canon (The Jews forbade any one to read it before the age of thirty, and anathematized its literal interpretation. Sanhedrin, iii. 1. and Sanhedrin, f. 101, i. … “Whoever recites a verse of the Song of Solomon as a secular song … causes evil to come upon the world.”). It represents, say the Commentators, (1) the love of the Lord for the congregation of Israel (Targum) (2) it relates the history of the Jews from the Exodus to the Messiah (R. Saadia Gaon) (3) it is a consolation to afflicted Israel (Rashi) (4) it is an occult history (Ibn Ezra) (5) it represents the union of the divine soul with the earthly body (Joseph Ibn Caspe) (6) or of the material with the active intellect (Ibn Tibbon) (7) it is the conversation of Solomon and Wisdom (Abravanel) (8) it describes the love of Christ to His Church (Origen, and the mass of Christian expositors, except Theodore of Mopsuestia [Ed note: he has been called "the prince of ancient exegetes"], the school of Antioch [Ed note: AKA, "The Antiochene Fathers" who otherwise generally emphasized a return to historical/literal interpretation], and most modern scholars [Ed note: This was published in 1886]) (9) it is historico-prophetical (Nicolas of Lyra) (10) it is Solomon’s thanksgiving for a happy reign (Luther, Brenz) (11) it is a love-song unworthy of any place in the sacred canon (Castellio, Dr Noyes) (12) it treats of man’s reconciliation to God (Ainsworth) (13) it is a prophecy of the Church from the Crucifixion till after the Reformation (Cocceius) (14) it is an anticipation of the Apocalypse (Hennischius) (15) it is the seven days epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh (Bossuet) (16) it is a magazine for direction and consolation under every condition (Durham) (17) it treats in hieroglyphics of the sepulchre of the Saviour, His death, and the Old Testament saints (Puffendorf) (18) it refers to Hezekiah and the ten tribes (Hug) (19) it is written in glorification of the Virgin Mary. (Many Roman Catholic commentators) Such were the impossible and divergent interpretations of what many regarded as the very Word of God! A few only till the beginning of this century saw the clear truth—which is so obvious to all who go to the Bible with the humble desire to read what it says and not to import into it their own baseless fancies—that it is the exquisite celebration of a pure love in humble life; of a love which no splendor can dazzle and no flattery seduce. (Borrow History of Interpretation: 1886) Grant R Osborne in his work The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation page 42 quotes from Childs who notes five different ways the Song of Solomon has been interpreted throughout history... (1) Judaism and the early church (as well as Watchman Nee, among others, in modern times) allegorized it as picturing the mystical love of God or Christ for his people. (2) Some modern scholars have seen it as a postexilic midrash on divine love (similar to the first option). (3) A common view sees it as drama, either of a maiden with her lover (the traditional view) or with three characters (as the king seeks to entice the maiden away from her lover). (4) Most modern critics see no structural development but believe it is a collection of secular love songs, perhaps modeled on praise hymns. (5) A few believe the book uses love imagery for purposes of cultic ritual and was used in the festivals of Israel. Of these the third and fourth have the greatest likelihood; my personal preference is to see it as a lyric poem describing the love relationship between the beautiful maiden and her lover, described both as a rustic shepherd and as a king... The poem has only a slight plot structure, and the love relationship is as strong at the beginning as at the end. Therefore whichever of the three major views we take, it is preeminently a love song and would be excellent in a marriage seminar. Tremper Longman writes that... The Song of Songs, then, describes a lover and his beloved rejoicing in each other's sexuality in a garden. They feel no shame. The Song is as the story of sexuality redeemed. Nonetheless, this reading does not exhaust the theological meaning of the Song. When read in the context of the canon as a whole, the book forcefully communicates the intensely intimate relationship that Israel enjoys with God. In many Old Testament Scriptures, marriage is an underlying metaphor for Israel's relationship with God. Unfortunately, due to Israel's lack of trust, the metaphor often appears in a negative context, and Israel is pictured as a whore in its relationship with God (Jer 2:2; 3:14; Jer 31:32 Is 54:5, Hos 2:19). One of the most memorable scenes in the Old Testament is when God commands his prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute to symbolize his love for a faithless Israel. In spite of the predominantly negative use of the image, we must not lose sight of the fact that Israel was the bride of God, and so as the Song celebrates the intimacy between human lovers, we learn about our relationship with God. So we come full circle, reaching similar conclusions to the early allegorical approaches to the Song. The difference, though, is obvious. We do not deny the primary and natural reading of the book, which highlights human love, and we do not arbitrarily posit the analogy between the Song's lovers and God and Israel. Rather, we read it in the light of the pervasive marriage metaphor of the Old Testament. From a New Testament Perspective. The New Testament also uses human relationships as metaphors of the divine-human relationship, and none clearer than marriage. According to Ephesians 5:22-23, the church is the bride of Christ (see also Re 19:7; Re 21:2, 9; Re 22:17). So Christians should read the Song in the light of Ephesians and rejoice in the intimate relationship that they enjoy with Jesus Christ. (Song of Solomon, Theology of - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology) (See also his comments on Song of Songs - Page 348) Michael Rydelnik and Tim M. Sigler have an excellent summary on the Interpretation of Song of Solomon (Borrow Moody Bible Commentary page 988): Scholars and theologians have offered numerous suggestions to understand the challenging poetic message of the Song. Their presuppositions determine how the book is understood. First, allegory has historically been the most common approach to the Song. Jewish tradition sees it as a story of God's love for Israel. Christian tradition has seen it as Christ's love for the Church. Although love is a key element in the Song, forcing an allegory strains the message of the text and imposes arbitrary meanings. Therefore, allegory has generally been rejected by modern scholarship as a valid approach to the Song. Second, it is common to interpret the Song as a drama. As a drama, Solomon and the Shulammite (see comments at 6:13 for this name) have the main roles with a chorus as minor speakers. The lack of plotline in the Song and the subjective imposition of scenes make a dramatic reading forced. Most importantly, full-fledged dramatic literature of this type was not known among the ancient Israelites. Third, some critical scholars see the Song as a sacred marriage story drawn from ancient pagan Near Eastern fertility cults. However, annual fertility rituals are absent from the Song. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the sacred monotheistic Scriptures would borrow from pagan fertility rituals. Fourth, a common current interpretation of the genre of the Song is that it is an anthology of love poems. The Hebrew title of the book provides readers with a literary clue to the book's genre—and therefore its interpretation. Shir Hashirim (the Song of Songs) is a collection of love poems or a song composed of many songs—thus a "song of songs." Those who differ with this interpretation argue it fails to see the intrinsic unity in the Song as well as the intertextual links within it. Fifth, recently it has been again suggested that the Song should be read as a messianic document. John Sailhamer and James Hamilton have both argued that the Song was written from a messianic perspective in order to nourish a messianic hope. Sailhamer views the Song as an allegory not of Messiah's love for the Church, but for His love for divine wisdom. He cites "Beneath the apple tree I awakened you..."(8:5b) as an intertextual reference to the prologue of the book of Proverbs and the fall in Gen 3 (J. H. Sailhamer, NIV Compact Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994], 359-60). In his view the beloved is understood as "wisdom" and Solomon represents the promised seed of Gen 3:15. Hamilton proposes a more likely messianic view. He posits a nonallegorical but symbolic interpretation, with King Solomon, as the son of David, representing "the ultimate expression of David's royal seed... the Davidic king, with all the messianic connotations that status carries" (Hamilton Jeremiah., "The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs," 331). Hamilton sees the theme of the Song as the "recovery of intimacy after alienation, which appears to match the hope engendered by Gn 3:15 for a seed for the woman who would come as the royal Messiah to restore the gladness of Eden" (339-40). After demonstrating the development of this theme of recovered intimacy through the Song, Hamilton points out that "I am my beloved's, And his desire is for me" (Sg 7:10) functions as the climax to the Song, using the same word for "desire" as in Gn 3:16. This word (Hb. tesuqah) is used only three times in the Hebrew Bible (Gn 3:16; 4:7; Sg 7:10). The first two uses refer to the alienation of the fall. Thus the Song appears to be making a direct allusion to the alienation found in the curse of Gn 3:16, suggesting that the messianic king will ultimately reverse the curse on the woman. These views notwithstanding, it remains best to understand the Song as primarily a poetic presentation of a biblical view of ideal love and marriage. This is not to treat the book as a sex manual, but rather as divine guidance for the most sacred earthly relationship created by God. It treats marital love as a spiritual creation. Roland Murphy correctly concludes that "the eventual canonization of the work... can best be explained if the poetry originated as religious rather than secular literature" (Roland E. Murphy, A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs, Hermenia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1990], 94-95). Love and marriage are divinely ordained and not mere cultural mores. (Borrow Moody Bible Commentary page 988 - recommended, conservative resource that approaches interpretation of Scripture literally) Henry