Dr. Benjamin Shaw on the Song of Songs
As some of our readers will know, I have a special interest in the Song of Songs. I am greatly indebted to many of the Puritan expositions, not to mention the work of Jonathan Edwards, on this most wonderful book of the Bible. It is an understatement to say that it is bothersome to me to find so many in our day “stripping it” (pun intended) of its spiritual and Christological purpose. We, in the Reformed camp are quick to affirm that the Old Testament is about Christ and the redemption the Covenant God provides for us in Him. As one who espouses covenant theology, I am committed to the Christo-centricity of the whole OT. There is, however, a sad shift in our day in regard to one OT book–the superlative Song of David’s son. There is more than ample evidence that it was not meant to be a glorified sex manual, and yet, that is exactly what it has been reduced to, even in “calvinistic” churches. It is for this reason that I encourage our readers to check out Ben Shaw’s post here. If you would like a more nuanced hermeneutical defense you listen to Iain D. Campbell’s interview with Christ the Center here.
About Post Author
Pingback : Dr. Benjamin Shaw on Song of Songs « Reformation Faith Today
Pingback : Sensus Divinitatis News
What do you do with Derek Thomas’ book “A Biblical Guide to Sex and Marriage”? It is a book adapted from his own sermons on the Song of Songs.
He does say there at the end of his book, “The truth is, even if we admit that the analogy of Christ’s relationship to the Church as the bridegroom wooing his bride is a biblical one (and it is!), the fact of the matter remains that for this analogy to mean anything, the underlying issue to which it is a parallel must equally be true, otherwise the analogy is based on fiction.”
What say you?
Andrew,
With all due respect to Dr. Thomas (and I respect him more than I could ever articulate well enough) I believe that there is a fundamental failure on the part of many of our best Reformed theologians to do justice to the biblical theological and covenantal dimensions of the Song. The Song, as Dr. Shaw has suggested, is canonical. The canon is governed by God’s covenantal dealings with His people. God’s covenant is a covenant of redemption and grace. That redemption is purchased by Christ. The logic is self-evident. The same argument against a Christological interpretation of the Song could just as easily be applied to the book of Ruth, Esther and any other book of the OT that does not have “explicit” prophecies of Christ. This is the reason why typological principles of interpretation (which our Lord Himself exhibited–see Matt. 12) are supremely important in our exposition of the OT.
Nick
Can I encourage you to proceed as quickly as possible with your work on this, I recognise the work involved but from what you have written on this I think your work will be very important not just in clearing away a lot of dross regarding SoS but also as an exercise in developing reformed hermeneutics.
Paul,
Thank you or the encouragement. I have just finished a thorough analysis of John Cotton’s exposition on the Song and have uncovered what I believe will be some very significant factors in his and Edwards hermeneutics. I hope to have something finished in the next year or so–perhaps before I finish my Th.M.
I see the book as balanced as our own marriages. Nick, I think you should be careful not to go overboard with the old analogous readings: Christ loves us *despite* who we are (agape) not because of who we are (eros). On the other hand, marriage is a symbol of our union with Christ and our individual marriages are eschatological pointers (eph 5) to each of us of the true marriage to come (rev 19, rev 21). When my wife looks over my shoulder, she sees Christ her true husband. When the Shunamite looked over her Lover’s shoulder, she saw Solomon (but now one greater than Solomon is here).
Dr Shaw asks, “Then ask yourself the question, which is true, Durham (allegorical) or Driscoll (literal)?” He is implying the allegorical approach is superior.
This is an unfair and false dichotomy among interpretations. There are better options for interpreting the book other than either of these two.
Allegory, by definition, has no literal substance in the characters and narrative. The characters and events serve as metaphorical symbols of ‘another’ story ‘behind’ them. The characters and events themselves carry no real significance in themselves. Allegory is a creative tool of literature to use one thing to say something about another. This is to say the images of sexuality in the text are in themselves meaningless, and could have just as validly been some other symbols. Thats unfair to the literary context, and the significance given to sexuality illustrated elsewhere in Scriptures.
The pure literal approach is unfaithful to the text because it has no spiritual significance. This is also unfair given the discussion of sexuality elsewhere in the Scriptures. (like topics of marital purity in heb, christ/church significance in eph, covenant faithfulness in mal, institution of community in marriage in gen)
What about the fact that sexuality has a ‘sacramental’ (or typological to be more specific) nature, in that it is a REAL physical experience in time and senses, illustrating and preaching a REAL spiritual reality of union- between both the man and wife, and therefore simultaneously preaching the same between Christ and church to the believing participants. The symbol cant be separated from its significance. The literal approach is wrong in that it denies the clear illustration and purpose of sexuality to preach Christ to its participants, but also the allegorical approach is wrong because it denies the real illustrations in sexual contact between the husband and wife to preach something powerful about union between God and man.
the tie between sexuality and spiritual union is significant. We might call this a ‘sacramental’ or more specifically, a ‘typological’ interpretation of the text. Sexuality is a ‘type’, or preaching of a greater symbol. I believe the hermeneutical qualifications for ‘type’ to fit sexuality. This is vital to the text, and to correcting this confusion about sexuality for the covenant community, and restoring ‘worship’ and ‘Lordship’ to all of life.
Nick and All,
This does not have to be an “either/or” debate. It’s “both/and.” Yes the Song is about Christ and the Church. All the Scriptures are about Christ. But it’s also about physical love making between two lovers. And as we see in the Song, almost nothing is off limits in the marriage bed! It’s undefiled! This is not crass! It’s glorious! I’m glad God gave us a glorious sex manual!
Marriage is about two human lovers becoming one flesh, and it’s also about Christ and the Church. Both are absolutely undeniable!
Joseph,
I am not suggesting that the Song does not have practical value for husbands and wives as well as for individual Christians with their Lord. I am simply asserting that the Song has been greatly misunderstood in our own day. If marriage is a picture (or a type) of Christ and the Church, and if, as Dr. Shaw has so aptly noted, human marriage passes away but the marriage believers experience with Christ endures forever, then what should the principle interpretation of the Song be? Secondly, there is too much ambiguity in the symbols of the Song to affirm that it is indeed simply a love poem between a husband and wife. There are other parties in the Song that cannot be explained apart from the Christological interpretation. Why is the Shulamite wanting to stir up the passions of the Daughters of Jerusalem if it is a love poem between a husband and wife? All these things can be explained by a grammatical-historical-theological hermeneutic; saying the Song is a basic human love poem cannot be.
Robert, I am not supporting the old analogous readings. I am actually attempting, together with Iain Campbell, to do something new. I think the old writers got much correct. Calvin also favorably quoted from Bernard of Clarvaux on the Song as a love poem about Jesus. Seeing the Song as a sex manual is something that occured after the enlightenment and is popularized by Tremper Longman, a man who employed higher critical principles of interpretation. Now, who would I stake my interpretations on, men who faithfully interacted with the larger context of Scripture, or a man who tries to undermine parts of the Bible? I am not affirming a Puritan allegorical model of interpretation. I am suggesting that they got many things correct while sometimes being careless in their expositions. I would take serious issue with much of their expositions actually. But, they did use typology in their commentary, and that is what I am arguing for.
Well good! It’s just kind of confusing for us pre-seminary types since there only seem to be expressions of two extremes (and not even two, true ends of a dialectic!): R-Rated Driscoll and Cyril of Alexandria who thought 1:13 (a sachet of myrrh between two breasts) referred to Christ between the OT and the NT! (cited by your despised Tremper Longman, Intro to OT p260). Like you said on CtC with Iain Campbell, there really needs to be a commentary that takes the middle road.
I must say, for a level-headed guy, you get awfully bend out of shape over Tremper Longman. Isn’t he an Inerrantist who taught at WTS? This Intro to OT is very helpful, and we have nothing to fear from Higher Criticism, right? There is usefulness (sometimes) in the concept of Redaction and there is usefulness in Literary approaches (the current trend). But each can be used by non-Presuppositionists for evil.
Robert,
I did not mean to come across as being “bent out of shape” over Longman, I was simply trying to convey what I believe the source of Driscoll’s interpretation of the Song to be. I believe that Tremper Longman has some incredibly helpful and scholarly material in his commentary–much of which I have benefited from. I also believe that he is, as you say, “an inerrantist.” My contention has to do with his use of higher critical principles, which are, in my humble opinion, dangerous in the hands of presuppositionalists as well as non-presuppositionalists. Granted they are less dangerous in the hands of someone like Longman, they are nevertheless, dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. I know that the early Westminster men, Stonehouse excluded, would have agreed. I do not think that Stonehouse’s use of redaction criticism was helpful. It was actually an attempt to replace the historic explanations of Gospel difficulties. The old explanation were useful and ought not be abandoned because secular scholarship will not adhere to them.
With regard to Longman and the Song, I fail to see why we would want to go with a man who says, “Undeterred by his beloved’s apparently cool reception to his arrival, the man tries to force his way in. On the surface, he tries to undo the lock on the door, which is alluded to by the word hole (hor; the lock [man ul] is mentioned explicitly in the next verse). However, nowhere else does the word “hole†indicate a lock on a door, which may be a clue to the reader to look for additional significance to the word….we are justified in asking the question whether “hole†has some kind of sexual meaning. In the commentary to 5:2 we noted the potential sexual overtones of the door, and when we think about a hole in a door in such an erotically charged context, I believe we are led to the conclusion that this verse implies a sexual overtone on the part of the man. We might add that the noun hand, said to be thrust through the hole itself, is used occasionally in Hebrew for the male penis (Isaiah 57:8-10).”
Besides the fact that there is actually no ground for this sort of interpretation in Scripture (despite Longman’s exegetical maneuvers) it is just plain crass. Are you going to preach that interpretation to a 7 year old and 97 year old? I am not. Not because I don’t like it, but because that’s not what God meant! I can say that as definitively as Driscoll says He did mean it.
That is a great answer. I don’t think I regard HC as anathema yet, but I understand you a lot better now. I hadn’t read that commentary by TL before: it’s not in Intro to OT! Like you say, we can’t object to such language on the face of it (e.g. Ezek 16), only when it’s wrong.
David Howard and V.Philip Long use the term “redaction” without stooping to such filth. I’m trying to figure out what I believe about the NT (2 source, 4 source, “Q”, Markan priority), but it can wait til Covenant. Can I get a copy of your Th.M paper? I’m a little chiasm-happy, but otherwise a sound critic! 🙂
Nick,
My point is simple. It’s not an either/or discussion. Both the Christological and earthly love elements are present in the poem. Let’s not neglect one element for the other.