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.

GE, you do realise you didn't actually answer the question I gave?

Nonetheless:

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?

Why is accepting an "allegory/typography" interpretation necessarily a denial of the historical?

Jesus referred to Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the fish as a typology of Himself, correct, did He not?

Paul referred to Hagar and Sarah as typologies of the law of bondage vs the law of life, did he not?

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.

Right. So why not Solomon here?

[missmuffet]

It is a poetry between a husband and his wife.It should be taken literally as a depiction of marriage.It is very different than the way this world sees marriage today.Solomon's Song says marriage is to be celebrated,enjoyed and revered.

[GoldenEagle]

It is a poetry between a husband and his wife.It should be taken literally as a depiction of marriage.It is very different that the way this world sees marriage today.Solomon's Song says marriage is to be celebrated,enjoyed and revered.

I agree.

[GoldenEagle]

GE, you do realise you didn't actually answer the question I gave?

I thought I did sister?

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.

My issue is with "over spiritualizing" a book that should be taken at face value. Marriage was the first institution created by God. It is sacred, beautiful, physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual in nature. Marriage precedes the covenant to Israel or the creation of the Church. By focusing on the allegorical side of this book it is easy IMO to miss the truths within about God's vision for marriage.

God is passionate. Passion in marriage is a good thing.

[GoldenEagle]

Why is a literal interpretation important? Some lessons we can learn from SoS… Bobeep's favorite site

1) Give your spouse the attention he or she needs. Take the time to truly know your spouse.

2) Encouragement and praise, not criticism, are vital to a successful relationship.

3) Enjoy each other. Plan some getaways. Be creative, even playful, with each other. Delight in God’s gift of married love.

4) Do whatever is necessary to reassure your commitment to your spouse. Renew your vows; work through problems and do not consider divorce as a solution. God intends for you both to live in a deeply peaceful, secure love.

Read more: http://www.gotquesti...l#ixzz2SpagfvRW

[nebula]

GE, you do realise you didn't actually answer the question I gave?

I thought I did sister?

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.

My issue is with "over spiritualizing" a book that should be taken at face value. Marriage was the first institution created by God. It is sacred, beautiful, physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual in nature. Marriage precedes the covenant to Israel or the creation of the Church. By focusing on the allegorical side of this book it is easy IMO to miss the truths within about God's vision for marriage.

God is passionate. Passion in marriage is a good thing.

OK.

And I have no disagreement with what you have said.

But why is there an either-or mentality in this? The OT is full of accounts that we see as typologies (Abraham sacrificing Isaac for example). Can we not regard both here as well? You even said, "The richest, deepest, most intimate marriage is only a mirror image of the greater love of God". Well?

[GoldenEagle]

GE, you do realise you didn't actually answer the question I gave?

I thought I did sister?

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.

My issue is with "over spiritualizing" a book that should be taken at face value. Marriage was the first institution created by God. It is sacred, beautiful, physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual in nature. Marriage precedes the covenant to Israel or the creation of the Church. By focusing on the allegorical side of this book it is easy IMO to miss the truths within about God's vision for marriage.

God is passionate. Passion in marriage is a good thing.

OK.

And I have no disagreement with what you have said.

But why is there an either-or mentality in this? The OT is full of accounts that we see as typologies (Abraham sacrificing Isaac for example). Can we not regard both here as well? You even said, "The richest, deepest, most intimate marriage is only a mirror image of the greater love of God". Well?

Some would de-emphasize the literal approach to the extent of claiming that the book shouldn't be taken literally. That somehow the sexual relationship is not for pleasure or pursuit of physical intimacy but instead simply for procreation. Song of Songs shows that God cares deeply for the sexual union.

Perhaps I'm not communicating my thoughts well.

[nebula]

Some would de-emphasize the literal approach to the extent of claiming that the book shouldn't be taken literally. ...

I don't. I believe we can see both aspects.

[gdemoss]

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?

When I found the sexual description disturbing it was due to my immaturity in understanding the true intimacy of physical intercourse between a husband and wife, and the direct correlation that it has to help us understand our spiritual intimacy with our husband who is Christ. As I grew in Christ and learned to share with him in such spiritual bliss that completely surpasses any ecstasy that I have had sharing a bed with a wife, I have become very comfortable in seeing the direct correlation between the temporal act versus the eternal one. I simply long for my sovereign one to come in unto me and fill me with love, joy and peace that goes beyond physical explanation and rockets me into the fourth dimension of existence. He is the lily of the valley and the song speaks of Christ, not Solomon. I had to grow in maturity before I could get it. My mind was yet to earthly and perverse in nature to wrap myself around the concept.

Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

[TheresaJ]

What is the best way to interpret Song of Songs?

The Song of Songs is to be interpreted as the love between Christ and the Church. Only those who are pure in heart should read this book.