What is the best way to interpret Song of Songs?

[nebula]

I believe it is an allegory of Christ's love for the Church.

If Song of Songs were a symbolic book representing Christ and the Church and/or Israel and God then the sexual description would be disturbing. At least it would be to me. What do you think?

Also it is placed with wisdom books in the Bible which would indicate that the early Church fathers thought it should be taken literally perhaps?

This book portrays the importance of the healthy sexual relationship in marriage. It stands in contrast to the Law where the sexual relationship is corrupted such as adultery, homosexuality, etc. It also contrasts with the idea of the worldly woman in Proverbs to show where sexual advances are natural, joyful, and a blessing. This book shows that a man can enjoy his wife and a woman can enjoy her husband.

God is love. God's love is eternal. This is God's greatest quality. We are made in God’s image to be sexual creatures. This includes emotions and physical attraction. That’s a good thing.

This book is very helpful to me in understanding the love between a man and a woman. I read it a few times as a single man. Being married and re-reading it brings this book to life. While I don’t believe it is symbolic it has helped me understand the longing that God has for His people.

God bless,

GE

Would you consider then that the Song of Solomon to be the only book in the Bible that does not point to Jesus and show you Jesus?

Yes, you spoke of "God's love," but I'm not sure the interpretation you gave paints a picture of Jesus the way the rest of Scripture does.

[Guest]

makes for great wedding night reading. . .

~

Amen~!

But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me,

that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth:

for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 9:24

My LORD And My God~!

[GoldenEagle]

I believe it is an allegory of Christ's love for the Church.

If Song of Songs were a symbolic book representing Christ and the Church and/or Israel and God then the sexual description would be disturbing. At least it would be to me. What do you think?

Also it is placed with wisdom books in the Bible which would indicate that the early Church fathers thought it should be taken literally perhaps?

This book portrays the importance of the healthy sexual relationship in marriage. It stands in contrast to the Law where the sexual relationship is corrupted such as adultery, homosexuality, etc. It also contrasts with the idea of the worldly woman in Proverbs to show where sexual advances are natural, joyful, and a blessing. This book shows that a man can enjoy his wife and a woman can enjoy her husband.

God is love. God's love is eternal. This is God's greatest quality. We are made in God’s image to be sexual creatures. This includes emotions and physical attraction. That’s a good thing.

This book is very helpful to me in understanding the love between a man and a woman. I read it a few times as a single man. Being married and re-reading it brings this book to life. While I don’t believe it is symbolic it has helped me understand the longing that God has for His people.

God bless,

GE

I personally do not see a problem concerning this portrayal and interpretation of scripture. Solomon (as you know) was and is, very literate concerning women in totality. So I think understanding His writing style is crucial.

From what I understand of the Song of Solomon, it is Christ to the church, along with that, to the believers. I think your description concerning that issue, makes it quite evident. (concerning the "how to live.")

The reason I am lead to believe this is because I think Jesus is typified in the Bridegroom's love for, and marriage to, the bride.

Jesus uses this same illustration Himself, when conducting a proper healthy relationship between a man and His wife- so I do not think it is any different here.

Interesting Yacov.

If this book of poetry is a depiction of Christ to the Church then how does one explain why Solomon had so many wives? Polygamy isn't exactly something God approved of...

I believe all Scripture points to Christ as Messiah as a part of God's plan for himself. However, I don't believe that allegory or typography are present in this book.

[GoldenEagle]

3. Literal, Historical and Grammatical: This approach is IMO the only objective mode of interpretation and seeks to attach the normal meaning to the words thus taking them at "face value".

I want to clarify that by literal I don’t mean opposed to spiritual but instead opposed to figurative. Spiritual would be the antithesis to material (physical) or carnal (in the evil physical sense).

To look at this book of poems in a literal form (or literal approach) doesn’t mean that I (or others who hold this view) deny that Scripture has figurative language, that symbols are used in prophecy, nor do I deny the spiritual truths of the passages. This means that the text that is manifestly literal should be regarded as literal (i.e. Song of Songs) while the text that is manifestly figurative (i.e. Revelation) should be interpreted as such.

On the other hand those who have a spiritual view (i.e. allegorical or mystical approach) simply means that this position holds that certain portions are to be interpreted normally or literally while other portions are to be regarded in the literal sense.

I believe Song of Songs is a historical record of the romance of King Solomon with a Shulammite woman. This book helps portray the joys of courtship/marriage in contrast to the extremes of asceticism (ascetic: A person who renounces material comforts and leads a life of austere self-discipline, especially as an act of religious devotion) and lust. Both asceticism (the idea that the sexual union is evil and the sexual relationship is simply for procreation) and lust (perversions) are perversions of what God created marriage to be and are slain in this book of poems. Solomon as I expressed to Jacob doesn’t exactly furnish the best example of marital fidelity in the sense that he ended up having 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). I believe that this book may indeed reflect perhaps the only pure romance he had with his first wife.

However, It’s possible to take this literal approach too far and claim that this poem is a secular love song without spiritual lessons or theological content. Perhaps there is validity in the pure language of love between husband and wife in the physical area, hopefully setting forth an example for a monogamous marriage.

I firmly believe the most intimate, personal human love is according to God’s divine plan and given by God Himself. The richest, deepest, most intimate marriage is only a mirror image of the greater love of God - ultimately pointing to Jesus Christ and the cross.

The Song of Songs describes a lover and his beloved rejoicing in each other’s sexuality in a garden where they feel no shame. As Israel was the bride of God we learn about our relationship to God through this story as the Song of Songs celebrates the intimacy between human lovers.

[GoldenEagle]

makes for great wedding night reading. . .

Yes it does. We read it our entire first week (honeymoon) to each other. It is a wonderful picture of love.

[GoldenEagle]

I Simply Don't Understand The Insertion Of Allegories

Or Key Philosophical Points Into God's Big Book Of Jesus

Parallel Truth Would Be My Words For The Song Of Songs

I don't either brother.

This is probably a good perspective. Love you brother Joe!

[GoldenEagle]

What is the best way to interpret Song of Songs?

I have read commentary which claims the Shulamite was Solomon's first love and wife Naamah.

1Ki 14:21 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

Pro 5:18-19 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. (19) Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

I think this is probably true. I would agree with such a stance that this story of poems is about Solomon's first wife.

[GoldenEagle]

I believe it is an allegory of Christ's love for the Church.

If Song of Songs were a symbolic book representing Christ and the Church and/or Israel and God then the sexual description would be disturbing. At least it would be to me. What do you think?

Also it is placed with wisdom books in the Bible which would indicate that the early Church fathers thought it should be taken literally perhaps?

This book portrays the importance of the healthy sexual relationship in marriage. It stands in contrast to the Law where the sexual relationship is corrupted such as adultery, homosexuality, etc. It also contrasts with the idea of the worldly woman in Proverbs to show where sexual advances are natural, joyful, and a blessing. This book shows that a man can enjoy his wife and a woman can enjoy her husband.

God is love. God's love is eternal. This is God's greatest quality. We are made in God’s image to be sexual creatures. This includes emotions and physical attraction. That’s a good thing.

This book is very helpful to me in understanding the love between a man and a woman. I read it a few times as a single man. Being married and re-reading it brings this book to life. While I don’t believe it is symbolic it has helped me understand the longing that God has for His people.

God bless,

GE

Would you consider then that the Song of Solomon to be the only book in the Bible that does not point to Jesus and show you Jesus?

Yes, you spoke of "God's love," but I'm not sure the interpretation you gave paints a picture of Jesus the way the rest of Scripture does.

I'm just curious why so many people take this view of allegory/typography of the Song of Songs. The book of Ruth for example is accepted as the literal story of Naomi and Ruth (and her eventual marriage to Boaz). While there are elements that point to Christ such as the "kinsmen redeemer" very few would claim that this story of Ruth is an allegory where Boaz represents Christ and Ruth represents the Church/Israel. Or should we read allegory/typography into the book of Esther?

Everyone God created are created as His image bearers. Samson was a deliverer and judge of Israel. Samson's story points people to God and ultimately Christ. Yet I imagine we could agree Samson isn't exactly a Messianic figure and his story shouldn't be treated as such? Samson failed miserably to keep his Nazarene vow and allowed a woman to rule his life instead of God.

See post #24 for further clarification of my position sister. I wasn't able to get to the 3rd position last night.

[Jayyycuuup]

I believe it is an allegory of Christ's love for the Church.

If Song of Songs were a symbolic book representing Christ and the Church and/or Israel and God then the sexual description would be disturbing. At least it would be to me. What do you think?

Also it is placed with wisdom books in the Bible which would indicate that the early Church fathers thought it should be taken literally perhaps?

This book portrays the importance of the healthy sexual relationship in marriage. It stands in contrast to the Law where the sexual relationship is corrupted such as adultery, homosexuality, etc. It also contrasts with the idea of the worldly woman in Proverbs to show where sexual advances are natural, joyful, and a blessing. This book shows that a man can enjoy his wife and a woman can enjoy her husband.

God is love. God's love is eternal. This is God's greatest quality. We are made in God’s image to be sexual creatures. This includes emotions and physical attraction. That’s a good thing.

This book is very helpful to me in understanding the love between a man and a woman. I read it a few times as a single man. Being married and re-reading it brings this book to life. While I don’t believe it is symbolic it has helped me understand the longing that God has for His people.

God bless,

GE

I personally do not see a problem concerning this portrayal and interpretation of scripture. Solomon (as you know) was and is, very literate concerning women in totality. So I think understanding His writing style is crucial.

From what I understand of the Song of Solomon, it is Christ to the church, along with that, to the believers. I think your description concerning that issue, makes it quite evident. (concerning the "how to live.")

The reason I am lead to believe this is because I think Jesus is typified in the Bridegroom's love for, and marriage to, the bride.

Jesus uses this same illustration Himself, when conducting a proper healthy relationship between a man and His wife- so I do not think it is any different here.

Interesting Yacov.

If this book of poetry is a depiction of Christ to the Church then how does one explain why Solomon had so many wives? Polygamy isn't exactly something God approved of...

I believe all Scripture points to Christ as Messiah as a part of God's plan for himself. However, I don't believe that allegory or typography are present in this book.

In the Song of Songs, it is to my understanding that it is the depiction between one man (Solomon) and one woman (the Shulamite) So I am not sure how Solomon having many wives, effects or takes away from the supposed typified message of Christ and the Church.

This same argument can be applied to other biblical characters including Solomon. Obviously polygamy is not something God approves us, yet God still used them. Why?

I believe it is because we fail, but God's message does not. God can and does use the least of these.

I still think that this book typifies the Messiah- as do all of the books of the bible. So why should this book be any different?

I do see why and do agree that this book should be applied as literal, but with that being said, there are elements that foreshadow the Church and it's relationship with the King, Jesus Christ.

[nebula]

If this book of poetry is a depiction of Christ to the Church then how does one explain why Solomon had so many wives? Polygamy isn't exactly something God approved of...

An answer I heard for this: the Bride of Christ is composed of many people. But not everyone has the same intimacy with him.