And then the other day I was reading a Christian book on marriage when the author suddenly felt the need to argue strongly at some length against the idea that the Song of Songs can be interpreted allegorically of Christ and the Church. So maybe it’s worth going through the key arguments the author made there against what is the traditional interpretation through church history that the Song is primarily to be taken as referring to the relationship between Christ and the Church.
1. The topic of the Song of Songs is obviously sex. Solomon is plainly writing about human, romantic relationships. That is his theme. Not Christ and the Church. In answer: That’s a fair observation. The plain literal reading is a story about a man and a woman (or more likely on a literal reading two men and a woman) and their relationship. But then the plain literal reading of Psalm 22 is that David is surrounded by bulls and dogs. The point is, what if it is metaphor that isn’t waving a big flag saying “I’m a metaphor”? In Psalm 22 the surface topic is wild animals but the referent is David’s human enemies, and the subject/message of the whole metaphor (which cannot really be reduced to non-metaphorical language, hence the importance of the metaphor) is a graphic portrayal of the ferocious, powerful, merciless, terrifying assault of enemies. So it would be quite possible to say that the surface topic / plain reading of the Song of Songs is human romantic/sexual relationships and yet the referents are Christ and the Church and the real subject/theme is a beautiful expression of that tender, intimate relationship.
2. The Bible never suggests that this book isn’t primarily
about sex. There are no OT or NT quotations from this book showing that it
should be taken as about Christ and the Church. In answer: It’s true that it is
not quoted explicitly but three things in the canon point very strongly in the
Christ-Church direction:
1) The very strong theme throughout the OT which
represents the relationship between God and his people as a marriage (esp.
clear in Ps. 45, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hosea), picked up in the NT
(e.g. Mark 2, John 3, Rev. 19-21) – in fact the shape of the whole Bible is
from marriage to marriage, as Christopher Ash says, “In a sense Genesis 2:24 is
the proleptic preaching of the gospel, for the first marriage foreshadows the
climactic marriage of the Lord with his people” (Marriage, p. 88-89).
2) The explicit interpretation at Eph. 5:31-32
of marriage oneness in terms of Christ and the Church suggests that we
should always see marriage as a picture of something else.
3) Texts indicating
that all the OT Scriptures are designed to teach us Christ and faith in him
(Luke 24; John 5; 2 Tim. 3) mean that the difficulty is rather with those who
would have a non-Christological book in the Bible.
But even within the book of
Song of Songs itself, there is a strong explicit indication that it is
ultimately about God’s love for his people. Chapter 8 verse 6 starts talking
about the sealing of the love of the lover for the beloved, bases this on the
nature of love and jealousy (a common word for God’s love for his people) and then
equates this with ‘the very flame of the LORD’ (the reference to Yah is hidden
in some translations). Coming close to the end of the book this seems a strong
pointer to how we should be understanding this love that it describes so
beautifully.
3. God’s relationship with man is not sexual. It is
inappropriate to use erotic language to describe the relationship between
Christ and the church. In answer: it is true that God does not have a sexual
relationship with man (in contrast with many ancient near eastern and
Greco-Roman mythologies). However God has chosen to use human marriage as the
great picture of oneness between Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:31-32). And
marriage is a man and a woman becoming ‘one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24). And 'one flesh' here,
is more than but not less than sexual intercourse (Ash, Marriage, p. 348-349). So at Ephesians 5 Scripture is very happy to
interpret the human marriage (in all its fleshiness) as referring to Christ-Church
oneness.
Further, we might look at Ezekiel 16 where the relationship between
the LORD and Israel is pictured in very intimate language (esp. v6-24). We need
to remember that (see point 1 above) this is metaphor. When the idolatry and faithlessness of God’s people is
pictured as prostitution (in extraordinarily explicit language – e.g. Ezek.
16:25; 23:19-21) it does not mean
that God’s people had a sexual
relationship with the foreign powers or their gods. They may well have been
outwardly very upright people. It was a heart issue. It is metaphor. And
likewise, when Israel is the wife of God (Hosea etc.) it is metaphor describing
a heart/spiritual reality.
We might also add that the word ‘erotic’ is not helpful.
Ezekiel and the prophets and the Song of Songs are actually very discrete and
restrained when describing the love between those representing the Lord and his
people and hold back from describing an actual consummation between them. Their
emphasis is on love, tenderness, delight and longing.
4. Spiritualizing the book doesn’t work. Examples are
brought out to show how, in the history of Christological interpretation of the
Song of Songs, the imagery has been forced into an allegorical mould and the
plain meaning ignored. For example, SoS 1:2 is clearly about real kisses and
7:7-8 about real breasts; 1:13 is about myrrh between breasts not Christ
between the two covenants. In answer: Clearly the imagery has been abused in
the past. But on the other hand, the ‘keep simply to the plain meaning’
approach doesn’t work particularly well either. You only have to turn to some
of the more liberal commentaries on the Song of Songs to find that a ‘plain
reading’ can result in a woman with two lovers (a shepherd boy (1:7) and a king
(3:7-11)) or endorse sex before marriage. Actually, looking to Christ and the
church makes a lot of sense of the book. When we think of a ruddy Davidic
shepherd and a Solomonic king then we find them in one man – Jesus the Christ.
The allegorical reading actually makes much more sense of some of the stranger imagery – “What is that coming up
from the wilderness like columns of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense”
(3:6) – it’s the column of fire (LORD) leading his people through the
wilderness, it’s the fragrance of the High Priest. Why is the beloved described
in terms which seem more appropriate to the land of Israel or the city of
Jerusalem (4:1,4,6,11-12,15-16; 5:1; 6:4-5; 7:4-5)? Could it be a clue to who
she is? In other words there is plenty of material within the Song of Songs
itself that suggests that this book may be more than it seems at first glance
and points towards Christ and the Church.
5. We need instruction on sexuality. That is why the Song of
Songs is there. If we don’t teach it like this then Christians will run to the
world for their bedroom advice. In answer: There is some truth there. We
certainly mustn’t be prudish and think sex is any way dirty or unspiritual or
not appropriate to teach about as perhaps some wrongly believed in the Middle Ages and Victorian England. The Bible is incredibly earthy and often more
explicit than we would be. God invented sex and the fact that marriage is great
picture of the gospel shows what a massive importance he places on it.
But I
don’t think it’s either/or – i.e. just teach about human sex/marriage or just teach about
Christ/Church. You can have both. But also I don’t think it’s a case of ‘balancing’
– i.e. preach a bit about sex/marriage and then a bit about Christ/Church. In
Ephesians 5 Paul says that marriage refers to Christ and the Church. Human marriage
is all about Christ and the church.
And then he shows how Christ and the Church is the model for human marriage. So
it works like this: Marriage takes us to The Ultimate Marriage which we then apply
to our marriages. I think exactly the same thing can work well for our
preaching and applying of the Song of Songs: a) Look at the marriage language, get
a feel for the tenderness and love and dynamics going on there; b) Look at how
it is pointing to Christ and the Church, dwell on those great gospel realities
of oneness and justification and intimacy (e.g. as Luther did from SoS 2:16);
c) apply this gospel of Christ and the church – both into our Christian lives (is
this how we understand our relationship with Christ?) and particularly into our
marriages (are they shaped like the Ultimate Marriage?). Taking this route
means that we avoid gospel-less moralism and superficial application and means
that we get much deeper, richer more powerful marriage applications than if we just read
it as a good sex handbook.
Here’s some great stuff on the Song:
- Love the church, Dave Bish
- http://firebrandnotes.com/2013/07/22/dark-are-we-yet-lovely/
- http://digitalpuritan.net/richard-sibbes/(look particularly at Volume 2)
Comments
Post a Comment