Posted: 8/15/06
Explore the Bible Series for August 27
The love song of the Old Testament
• Song of Songs 1:1-8:14
By James Adair
Baptist University of the Americas, San Antonio
Imagine a reader standing before the congregation on a Sunday morning: “Our Old Testament lesson today,” he begins, “is from Sonnets from the Portuguese by Elizabeth Barrett Browning. ‘How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. …’”
Such a reading might raise a few eyebrows. Some congregants might be indignant. “Why is he reading that? That’s clearly not Scripture!” Others might find it refreshing. “Well, we finally have a reading that’s a little bit different!” Others might just find it amusing. “Someone must have tricked this guy into reading love poetry instead of the real reading. What a dope!”
This week’s lesson is from a collection of love poems known as the Song of Solomon, the Song of Songs or Canticles.
Some people over the years have disputed this book’s right to a place in the canon. Others have allegorized it so that it is read as an idealized description of God’s love for Israel, God’s love for the church or the soul’s search for God. The allegorical interpretation probably best explains its acceptance into the canons of both Judaism and Christianity. Its attribution to King Solomon probably sealed the deal. How else would a collection of love poems gain recognition as sacred text?
The historical-critical approach to biblical interpretation that has been prevalent for the last hundred years or more has little use for allegory. Conservative detractors of the historical-critical approach largely agree with their opponents that a more literal approach to the Bible is better. However, it can be argued an allegorical approach to this particular book has some value, particularly if we are interested in how it has been understood by previous generations of believers.
The first Christian of whom we are aware who interpreted the Song allegorically was Hippolytus of Rome, around the year 200. Only fragments of his commentary remain, but it is clear he took a decidedly non-literal approach to interpreting the book.
A few decades later, Origen, the greatest biblical scholar of his day, produced a 10-volume exposition of the book, four of which have been preserved in Latin translation. Origen, heavily influenced by Greek philosophy as were many other contemporary Christian leaders, believed earthly, fleshly love was far inferior to heavenly, spiritual love, and he interpreted the Song accordingly. In commenting on Song 1:4, he says, “There is a love of the flesh which comes from Satan, and there is also another love, belonging to the Spirit, which has its origin in God; and nobody can be possessed by the two loves.”
Most other Christian commentators throughout antiquity and the medieval period, including Athanasius, Jerome, the Cappadocian Fathers and Bernard of Clairvaux, read the Song allegorically, as a picture of Christ’s love for the church. Bernard’s allegorical expositions were so detailed he preached 86 sermons on the book—and didn’t even reach the end of the second chapter.
At least one prominent theologian, however, Theodore of Mopsuestia, interpreted the Song literally, believing it was a literal love poem Solomon wrote to his Egyptian bride. Theodore’s views were not widely accepted, and in fact his teachings on the subject were condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 550, albeit more than 100 years after his death.
Perhaps the most provocative advocate of the literal view of the Song was a Roman monk named Jovinian. Although he lived an ascetic, celibate life himself, Jovinian disputed the notion that asceticism was superior in virtue to a more ordinary Christian life. Even more shockingly, he questioned whether celibacy was superior to marriage. He regarded the Song as a literal description of marital bliss, replete with explicit references to sexual fulfillment between husband and wife. He was opposed roundly by most of the ecclesiastical powerhouses of his day, including Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome.
Most of the Reformers and their successors, including Luther, Calvin and Wesley, continued to read the Song allegorically. Some who did see it as a literal, erotic love poem suggested it was unworthy of inclusion in the Christian canon. Others, beginning in the 18th century, saw value in the frank expressions of love the Song reveals when read literally. It is this literal interpretation of the Song as a love poem, or a collection of love poems, that predominates today.
Song of Songs 2:8-13
For purposes of illustration, we will look at a single passage from the Song and consider how it might be read either literally or non-literally. Taken allegorically, this passage paints a luscious portrait of God’s love for believers. God is likened to a gazelle, running swiftly over the mountains, leaping high in the air, beautiful to behold (v. 9). And this exotic, mysterious being longs to share our company! “Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away” (v. 10). This reading of the passage reminds us we don’t seek God; God seeks us. God initiates the relationship, and if we respond to God’s overtures, our lives will never be the same.
When we move from an allegorical to a literal (or, better, literary) approach, the poems in this book say something profound about the love of one human being for another. Human love at its best inspires, exalts and transforms us.
When two people love each other, their lives together are more than just the sum of the two individuals, for their love causes each one to grow. “Now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land” (vv. 1-12). Love makes the heart feel like spring. Without love, life is drained of its joy.
Discussion questions
• Do you think the Song of Songs was accepted into the Jewish and Christian canons as an allegory or as a collection of sometimes erotic love poems?
• Is there room in modern interpretation of Scripture for a non-literal approach? If so, what are the benefits and limitations of such an approach?
• What is the significance of the fact that almost all of the most prominent Christian leaders prior to the 18th century—including Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Wesley—interpreted the book allegorically?
• If we read the book literally, what is its overall message? Are the topics discussed by the poet or poets the sorts of things appropriate to discuss in a typical church setting (e.g., a Sunday school lesson or a sermon)?
News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.