Why Is ‘Song of Songs’ In The Bible?

Zack — February 8, 2013 — 23 Comments

Sex.

It’s not exactly a topic you associate with the Bible, at least not in a particularly positive sense.

If the Bible does talk about sex, we assume, it’s not in a very positive light. Often times that is true. There are many stories in the Bible that warn against all sorts of sexual vices.

But then there’s that funny book in the Old Testament called Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon.

Not only is it all about sex, it celebrates it. Not exactly the sort of thing you expect to be called “holy scripture.”

So, why is Song of Songs in the Bible? Does it even belong there?

If I can, allow me to momentarily add your confusion in order to offer an explanation that was given to me yesterday that I think does an excellent job of clarifying the role of Song of Songs in the Bible.

Why is Song of Songs in the Bible?

Because it can be the hermeneutical key for interpreting scripture.

Seriously.

Let me explain.

This semester I’m taking a course at Yale in medieval theology. It’s taught by the one and only Denys Turner. I say “one and only” because, not only is he one of the world’s leading scholars in this area, he’s a brilliant, kind, and utterly entertaining person.

During this first section of the course we’ve been covering the medieval monastic communities, those great men and went who left “the world” to find the real world.

As it turns out, despite their vows of celibacy, these monks were fascinated by Song of Songs. In fact, according to Denys, it was the second most commented on book of the Bible during this period behind only the Psalms, which the monks prayed and sang everyday.

So, why this obsession with Song of Songs? Was it simply pent up sexual frustration? Perhaps, but not likely.

As Denys so wonderfully put it yesterday, “This is where Freud has messed us up. We think the real thing is about sex, but the monks say “No, the real thing is God.”

In other words, Song of Songs isn’t really about sex. And if we think it is, it’s because our modern sexually saturated minds can’t let us see anything else.

The great church father Origen had a way of talking about this. For him, there are two ways to interpret scripture: the literal sense and the spiritual one. New Christians, or as the apostle Paul might call them, children in the faith, read the Bible in the literal sense, what is simply written on the page. They are not quite ready for spiritual meat, so they must settle for spiritual milk.

But God does not intend us to stay as children, reading Scripture merely in the literal sense.

God wants His children to grow into mature adults, to eat spiritual meat, to read the Bible in the deeper, spiritual sense God intended.

Such is the case with a book like Song of Songs. When we read Song of Songs as nothing more than a handbook on sex, it’s because we are spiritually immature. Spiritually erotic literature is not to be read as sublimating sex. What it’s really about is Christ and the church.

Why is that?

Because according to the Christian faith, the entire Bible is about Christ, including the Old Testament. In fact, Origen would go so far as to argue that because everything in scripture is directed towards Christ, there really is no Old Testament for Christians. It’s all the same story.

The monks understood this. Which is why they were so interested in Song of Songs. Not because they were sexually repressed, but because, celibate though they were, they understood what sex is really about – expectation and fulfillment.

Song of Songs is a beautiful poem describing the ebb and flow of expectation and fulfillment that comes about between two lovers. They long for each other, they embrace, and the process begins a new. Anticipation may not be better than the realization in this particular case, but it’s an essential component that makes the realization all the greater.

As the medieval monks so brilliantly observed, this ebb and flow of expectation and fulfillment isn’t just about sex. It’s a description of the entire Biblical narrative.

There is the expectation of creation, fulflled when the world is finally finished on the seventh day.

But the process begins anew when the flood waters come, the earth is remade, and new expectations begin for a people who will devote themselves to God, expectations that are finally fulfilled when God chooses a man named Abram and he says “yes.”

The story of the Exodus is one of hundreds of years of patient expectation in slavery, finally fulfilled when Moses leads the people of out bondage.

But then the process begins anew when 40 years of expectations in the wilderness are finally fulfilled when the people cross over into the Promised Land.

As Origen, and others, observed, the rest of the Old Testament is filled with the expectations of a coming Savior, expectations which are finally met in the Gospels.

But once again, the process begins anew after Jesus’ ascension and the rest of the New Testament begins a new set of expectations which will one day be fulfilled with the Second Coming of Jesus.

The narrative of scripture is one of expectation and fulfillment. It’s a story of longing and embrace between God and His people. It’s a story of expecting that God to be faithful, and then standing back in wonder when God fulfills His promises in ways we could never begin to imagine.

Song of Songs captures this beautifully. Which is why, strange though it may sound, the monks were right.

Song of Songs isn’t just a sex manual.

It’s the key to understanding the entire Bible.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

In Uncategorized

Zack

Posts

http://www.carisadel.com/ Caris Adel

This is so fascinating to read. Preston recommended the Brazos commentary on SoS to me, and it just came from the library yesterday…I started looking through it and wow. There’s a lot in there. But this post makes me want to dive in and give it a try. I’ve never heard anyone describe SoS like this before.
- ZackHunt
  
  Me either. This sort of thing wasn’t even on my radar until I took this class. Completely turned my understanding of Song of Songs upside down.
  - http://www.carisadel.com/ Caris Adel
    
    but it makes so much sense. “Song of Songs is a beautiful poem describing the ebb and flow of expectation and fulfillment that comes about between two lovers….It’s a description of the entire Biblical narrative.”
    I read that and it’s like, oh of course it is! That’s even deeper and more interesting than just ‘it’s a metaphor of Christ and the church’.
    - ZackHunt
      
      “I read that and it’s like, oh of course it is!”
      
      More truth bombs from Denys Turner…he also talked about (via Socrates I think) how when we have moments like that, it’s not really because we’re learning something new. The reason we recognize it as true is because we already knew it was true. We’re re-membering things we already knew more than we are learning. When you think about that in the context of prevenient grace and the gospel, it’s just, wow.
Kirsten

Hmm, I don’t think there’s anything particularly spiritually immature about noting that Song of Songs is about sex. Which it is. It may tell us something about what our relationship with God should look like, but its primary vehicle for doing so is poetry on a topic which frankly the rest of the Bible doesn’t say much about – what the ideal sexual relationship between male and female looks like. I don’t see any reason to dismiss the sexual imagery in Song of Songs in favour of a more “spiritual” interpretation – humans are made in the image of God and if we all knew that sex is part of reflecting that image then maybe it would help us have healthier approaches to the subject. Sex is spiritual. Dividing physical and spiritual as if they have nothing, or little, to do with each other does not really do justice to the God who created everything in the world (including sex) and entered it as a physical human. The method of interpreting Song of Songs which you cite was pioneered by an ex-Platonist who generally accepted as given the Platonic divide between physical and spiritual. And unfortunately the many scholars and monks who perpetuated the method had a fairly negative view of sex in general, and also of women. As a married female, experience inclines me to disagree with their views. I’m sorry, but passages which are positive about both those topics are too rare in the Bible for me to just dismiss their imagery as metaphor.
- Katie
  
  I agree, the church doesn’t know how to deal with anything relating to sex. I think when we look past what this book says to look at the deeper meaning behind it because talking about sex is to immature, does a great disservice to the church.
  
  More often than not, in the church, sex is discussed as only a means of procreation (which gives what message to those who are biologically unable to procreate for whatever reason?), or of something that is to be viewed as evil until you sign a piece of paper committing yourself to life to another, then you are suppose to love it.
  
  The more the church ignores the topic of sex, deeming it too immature, the more negative stereotypes we are going to have along with it.
  - ZackHunt
    
    No one is ignoring the topic of sex. Nor are there any negative stereotypes here. They (the monks, or even “the church” for that matter) are saying they understand it better than you (or I) do. The point Origen makes about maturity isn’t about being juvenile and giggling about sex. It’s about having a better theological imagination than thinking talking about sex is just about who gets to have it and with whom and how.
    - Katie
      
      I was not at all implying just talking about who gets to have sex with who and how. What I’m saying is that is all the church talks about. We need to do better. However, taking it to the other extreme, that the Song of Songs is about Christ, not sex, does just as much of a disservice. There needs to be a healthy balance.
      - ZackHunt
        
        Again, they’re not making this an either/or thing. They’re saying it’s about both, but there is not, nor should there be a balance. They’re not dismissing everything but Christ, they’re making the point that when it comes to the Bible and scriptural interpretation the scales always tip towards Christ.
        
        Likewise, as these medieval monks demonstrate, the who’s doing it with who conversation is not all the church talks about when it comes to sex. It may be all shallow evangelical churches talk about today, but the church does have great resources for talking about sexual ethics. We just may have to dig a little deeper than our recent past to find them.
      - Kirsten
        
        Zack, it’s fine having the meanings linked, but the funny thing is that actually, whenever I see anyone talk about the “deeper” meaning of Song of Songs they instantly stop talking about what the book tells us about healthy sex and instead spend a great deal of time trying to figure out what each stanza is saying specifically about Christ and the Church / Christ and believers / Christ and Israel (if you happen to be Jewish). Whether it’s supposed to be dualistic or not, it seems to end up becoming so. I’m afraid I must quote your own article here to prove my point – you say, “In other words, Song of Songs isn’t really about sex. And if we think it is, it’s
        because our modern sexually saturated minds can’t let us see anything
        else.” I see no way in which this statement cannot be said to elevate the “spiritual” interpretation above the “physical”. Saying that it “isn’t really about sex” implies to me that the book is therefore written in some sort of code. If you then extend that to say that actually, the whole Bible is written in the same way then I must ask whether God ever actually says what he means, as it were, or if only people capable of reading “the code” will really get it? Since the ancient Jews did not use allegory as a literary device in the way which the Greeks did (and it is a Greek literary device which Origen assumes), does this mean the Jews did not understand their own Scripture because God had inspired its writing in a literary code they themselves would not recognise? I have no problem with layers of meaning, but the tendency to fixate on and elevate one above others is something which I believe is really unhelpful.
      - ZackHunt
        
        Two thoughts…
        
        First, the Old Testament is full of allegory. To claim otherwise, is absurdly untrue. I mean, we’re talking about a tradition which elevates the spiritual so much, it’s considered a sin to even write the name of God and how else are we supposed to understand Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic texts? Honestly, it sounds like you’re trying to take some sort of pseudo-sophisticated approach to Biblical fundamentalism, which is entirely your prerogative to do, but know that we are not going to agree on this issue, nor will you find many biblical scholars (with any academic credibility) who will agree with you either. Likewise, metaphor/analogy/deeper meaning do not equivocate to “writing in code.” It simply means there are some truths/messages that escape our ability to express or understand in literal language. But you are correct that reading the Bible, especially books like SoS, does take more work than just picking up a Bible and reading it. It wasn’t written to you (or me). It was written thousands of years ago to a very different group of people with a very different mindset. Of course it would take work to understand what is really being said.
        
        Secondly, elevating the spiritual/transcendent above the physical/immanent is the fundamental basis for religion. I know it’s very en vogue right now to portray this as somehow negating or neglecting the physical/immanent, but that is not the case. In the Christian faith, and religion in general, it is the spiritual/transcendent that gives meaning, purpose, and importance to the physical/immanent. In other words, it is because we elevate the spiritual/transcendent (i.e. God) that we are compelled to care for the physical/immanent because that spiritual/transcendent God created the physical/immanent. Otherwise, from a Christian perspective, there would be no reason for the sort of compassion for the physical/immanent you are arguing for.
      - http://www.facebook.com/mattybob Mat Bob Jeffery
        
        just to clear up a slight misunderstanding here… The point being made was about how allegory looked different in respective Greek and Hebrew cultures, not that there was no allegory in the O.T.
  - Kirsten
    
    Yes, and the church will probably see more failed relationships too because we are equipping each other with Christ-centred relational practices. I think anyone in a healthy relationship knows Christian sex is about more than about who has it and how, the frustrating thing is that the “more” never gets talked about so we often get left wallowing on the surface.
- ZackHunt
  
  Obviously you’re free to disagree, but stating that there is a deeper, spiritual sense to scripture (or anything for that matter) isn’t a dismissal of the imagery being used. That’s why I said “it’s not just” about sex. Likewise, the belief that there is a deeper, more important meaning to scriptural is an approach to scripture that has been around, well since the existence of scripture, any scripture in any religion for that matter, and affirmed by virtually every great leader of the faith, or, again, any faith for that matter.
  
  Additionally, arguing for a deeper spiritual sense, is not dualism. Denys, Origen, the medieval monks’ approach is based on the assumption that the two are fundamentally linked, not radically distinct. No one here is arguing for a negative view of sex. If anything they are taking the idea that “sex is spiritual” in a much more serious fashion than what you are describing. The idea they present, that Song of Songs is the key to understanding scripture, is based entirely on taking the idea that sex is spiritual seriously, as opposed to what is advocated by so much of our culture today, that the physical act of sex is the telos of meaning.
Karen

I remember learning that SoS was viewed by Origen as speaking of Christ and the Church (not only of human sexuality) when I was a student at a major Evangelical bastion of higher learning, and the impression I got from the prof is that those early Church guys went overboard with the allegory thing and it’s really about sex. Since then I’ve become Eastern Orthodox, and let’s just say it has opened up a whole new world. Everything in the OT is about Christ. Adam is a type of Christ, the Angel that visited Abraham and whom he questioned about the destruction of Sodom was the pre-incarnate Christ, Joseph is a type of Christ, Moses is a type of Christ, Joshua is a type of Christ, the rock from which water flowed in the desert for the Hebrew children was Christ, the manna was Christ, Jonah in the whale is a type of Jesus in the tomb, etc. It doesn’t negate the first level of meaning (thinking of Kristen’s struggle in this thread); it just means there’s more.

You might enjoy this article by Eastern Orthodox Priest, Fr. Stephen
Freeman:

http://glory2godforallthings.com/2012/12/28/fulfilled-the-christian-reading-of-the-old-testament/
- ZackHunt
  
  Thanks for the link Karen, can’t wait to read it. I love reading EO theology!
ThisMicah

Still thoroughly unconvincing, sorry. And still ridiculous. For one thing, if that book is the key to understanding the Bible, God REALLY didn’t want the huge majority of people who’ve ever lived to understand the Bible.

You’re clearly an intelligent and well-educated and well-meaning guy, and I have nothing at all against you, but this is simply bunk.

Who do you believe wrote Song Of Songs, by the way?
http://www.facebook.com/mattybob Mat Bob Jeffery

Anachronistic readings of the Old Testament, super-imposing a Christ-metaphor/allegory on a text tends to bother me a bit… especially if you are going to dismiss someone else’s thoughts as a “pseudo-sophisticated approach to biblical fundamentalism”. It’s one thing to say what it “could” be for a Christian community, it’s entirely another to suggest that it was its original meaning. For certain, the reading as allegory is the reason why it was included. Again, that doesn’t point towards original intention (just so there is no dishonesty, I am Kirsten’s husband.)

Obviously, the idea that SoS should be viewed as allegory has been around longer than the church – Many Jewish writers thought it was an allegory of the relationship between Israel and God. Indeed, it is the traditional interpretation. So the argument doesn’t fall completely on its face when christocentric anachronistic readings are taken out of the equation. However, just like the danger within the Christian community to read through our christocentric lens, the same danger lay within the post-exilic, 2nd temple period Jewish community. Surely, it makes more sense to place it within its context, as an example of, or possibly a reaction against other culture’s A.N.E. erotic love poems? As such, it would make perfect sense for such a book to be highly valued within Jewish culture during this time period…

Obviously, there are a whole bunch of questions that are raised when we start to separate original intention with imposed meaning, such as the usefulness of a canon. I’m still exploring all of this to be honest. Nothing seems set in stone in my head about this, so tomorrow I might come back as a rabid fundy…
- ZackHunt
  
  We’re obviously coming from two very different perspectives on this. I think we’re going to just have to agree to disagree on this one.
- Karen
  
  Mat Bob Jeffrey, I’d be interested in your thoughts if you got a chance to read the article by Fr. Stephen Freeman I linked for Zack below.
  
  In a certain sense, given the Christian tradition that can be seen as dating back to Christ’s own exposition of the OT to the Apostles (see Luke 24:27, 44-45), our modern historical-critical approach to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures could be argued to be the anachronistic approach.
Jim

I always thought this was how everyone interpreted the Song of Songs. I am a little surprised to see that it’s not.
ThisMicah

No answer then?
Pingback: If Not "Sola Virginity," What Do We Teach? A Christian Approach to Sexuality and Intimacy Part 1 | Joy in this Journey

Why Is ‘Song of Songs’ In The Bible?

Zack

SUBSCRIBE

Search

Blogroll

Archives