Day 27, Song of Songs 1-2

The Song of Songs has been a controversial book throughout much of Christian history. Its sensual elements lead to two or three errors that I think stem from this element of the Song.

• Some think it is too sensuous to be part of the Holy Scripture.
• Some love the sensuosity and arguably use it to support actions that are not in agreement with Scripture.
• Some are perhaps intimidated, and this may be one factor that has lead to a purely allegorical interpretation.

It seems to me that as it is a part of the Holy Scripture given to us by God, there is no sexual element in the book that should be considered perverse. The reasoning should proceed from 'It is Gods Word' therefore ' It is pure' rather than 'It is impure' therefore 'it is not Gods Word'. The issue is more complicated than this, as a legitimate argument for a book to be included in the Bible is that the book is in agreement with Biblical ethics and theology. But the key thing here is to question your own understanding before you question the Bible, and before we question whether a book should be in the Bible we should question whether our dislike of the book is due to our own misunderstanding of ethics and theology rather than errors in the Bible. It may be that we are too slow to admit the purity of the sexual union of a married man and woman, due to sin being a problem for all of us.

I believe in an interpretation of the Song which could possibly be called the 'typological' approach. This approach respects the most obvious reading of the Song, that it is in the first place about the love of two people for each other, but this approach goes beyond this, as it is clear from reading the Bible that there is no greater love than the love of God, and imperfect human affections are incapable of being close to the power and depths of the love of God. Added to this are the frequent allusions throughout the Bible of God being like a husband to Israel, such as in Ephesians 5 and the book of Hosea.

So when reading the Song I interpret it first in its most obvious way, the love between a man and a woman. But I remind myself that there is no relationship more fulfilling than the one we have with God. The human sexual relationship is a temporary one, which will last at most from some time after ones birth, to the time of ones death; but this relationship is not guaranteed to anyone. Some are incapable of this relationship due to social, mental, or physical constraints. If the sexual relationship between a man and a woman was the supreme end of human experience, some people would be without hope of attaining this. However, there is a hope greater than that hope which comes from sexual union.

God says in Isaiah 56:3-5

'Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. '

Thus, it is true that the Song is firstly written about human relationships, but I think that what it tells us about the love of God is much more important.

The most helpful resources on this song I have found online are:http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2011/02/17/john-sailhamers-messianic-interpretation-of-the-song-of-solomon/

http://www.nwts.edu/audio/JTD/SongOfSolomon.htm