


  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez



    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook


    Latest Posts



    Ministry Links

  • « Paul, to the Galatians | Main | The Law Promised Life »

    Solomon's Song

    Question: I am trying to make sense of the Song of Solomon. I recently went to a Bible study where the teacher was saying that it is a book about Christ and His Bride (the Church) but as I read it, I am not sure about that and this interpretation seems to raise more questions than it answers in my mind. Any thoughts?

    Answer: Thanks for your question. I believe you are right to question the interpretation you heard for the simple reason that the Song of Solomon is not a book about Christ and His Church. What you heard is not a new idea, but though quite widespread, actually has no basis in Scripture.

    The concept stems from what theologians call the â€œallegoricalâ€ method of interpretation, which ignores the historical background and the actual subject matter on display to instead look for a â€œdeeperâ€ or â€œhiddenâ€ meaning, spiritualizing every word and detail to seek to make application to Christ. Though the method has noble motivation, the fact remains that Christ and His Church are never mentioned in the book.

    Actually the book is about romance and love, even erotic love between Solomon and his bride. I am told that in Hebrew society, young boys are not permitted to read the book until their â€œbar mitzvahâ€ when they â€œcome of ageâ€ so to speak, and are considered fully adult men by their community. That is because the Jews understood the book to be something of a handbook for marriage. More here. - JS

    Posted by John Samson on March 4, 2011 02:22 PM


    Interesting... so if Song of Songs is "not a book about Christ" why is it in the Bible. The way I understand the Old Testament and, it seems, the way Christ understood it, is that it is ALL about Christ. The book of Hebrews rather liberally applies the temple, sacrificial system, and preisthood to Christ... why not the Song?



    "Everything written about me" is not the same thing as saying "everything written is about me."



    Its important to stay within biblical perameters in our hermeneutics (Bible interpretation). The Amorites here are the Amorites... Mount Heres is Mount Heres... Akrabbim is Akkrabim.. etc., etc. It would be grossly incorrect to seek to force the text to make these people and places refer to "Christ" in some way.



    Think about the profound ramifications of this for a moment. He could have said to couples, "just mix substance A with substance B, put it in a pot and leave it overnight and whammo - you will have a child." That was an option. Instead, God gave the human race sex with all that goes with it. God is certainly no killjoy, though He is quite clear regading the biblical boundaries for sexual enjoyment and pleasure, namely marriage (between a man and a woman).



    Why could these gifted leaders of the Church not see what is obvious to us? Its actually fairly simple to answer: because they saw the Song of Solomon through the lens of the allegorical method of interpreation and therefore saw it as being ALL about Christ and His Church, rather than what it actually is, a book about romantic love.

    The Hebrew people never viewed this book as an allegory of God's love for Israel. As I pointed out before, that is why boys were not allowed to read it until they were considered adults in society. All understood what the book was truly about.


    Now I'm really confused.

    First, you want us to take the Bible literally.

    Then, you say that, "The Song of Solomon is in the Bible because it is a wonderful God inspired love story and a reflection of God's own love for His people." Is that not allegorical?

    Then you want to say that Song of Soloman deserves a literal interpretation concerning, "romance, eroticism and sexual pleasure."

    What is obvious in Scripture is that both John the Baptist and Jesus Himself refer to Jesus as the Bridegroom! (Mat. 9:15; Mat. 25:1-10; Mar.2:19-20; Luk. 5:34-35; Joh. 3:29.) Are they speaking literally or allegorically?

    Then you say that the Book is not about Christ and His Church, rather romantic love. And as an authority on Scripture, you cite the Hebrews!

    I think I'll stick with allegory.

    Hi Bob,

    Sorry to learn that you are really confused.

    When talking of taking the Bible literally, I do not seek to intend to mean a wooden type of literalism that ignores the intent of the author. There is a vast difference between taking the Bible literally (which is what we should do) and what we call "literalism."

    When interpreting the Bible, nouns are interpreted as nouns, verbs as verbs, parables as parables, narrative as narrative.

    Song of Songs should be interpreted in the way it was intended, as a love story.

    Of course, Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride of Christ. However, Scripture never tells us that Solomon is a type of Christ or his bride is a type of the Church. A logical result of doing so would be to wrongly interpret the erotic and sexual word images of Song of Solomon as in somehow relating to Christ and the Church - and therefore lead to seeing Christ as an object of sexual desire. Some are doing that in our day as they speak of "making love to God" and that is NEVER what was intended.

    Hope that clarifies.

    Thank you for your quick (and lengthy) response.

    While I would disagree with you bluntly categorizing my legitimate question as "a huge oversimplification", let me carefully make the same observation about you opinion of allegorical method and the Old Testament.

    It is a huge oversimplification to say that an entire passage of scripture is categorically NOT about Christ, when Christ and the writers of the New Testament did not treat the Old Testament in the way that you state they do. "Everything written about me" in Luke 24:44 is not the same thing as saying "everything written is about me" as you wisely point out. It is also not the same as (since we're quoting verses now), Luke 24:27 "in all the Scriptures the things concerning me" or John 5:39 "the Scriptures [as a whole]... bear witness about me."

    No one is trying to force Christ out of or into random passage of scripture (although the text from Judges you cite does remind me of Hebrews 4:8). Mount Heres here IS Mount Heres, but the entire passage is also a reminder of an unfulfilled promise made "yes" in Christ. 2 Corinthians 1:20.

    Authorial intent is always a good starting point for interpretation, but as one who holds to the inspiration of Scripture I cannot see how the Holy Spirit would "intend" anything other than leading people to Christ through the scriptures. To leave the Song of Songs as simply a book about erotic love AND to claim that this was God's sole purpose in writing it removes any sense of inspirational intent. Christ came to fulfill/complete the Old Testament, is the Song complete without Him? Is this book about a God-approved some sexual enjoyment in marriage which Christ does not need to redeem? Can God rejoice in any created thing without rejoicing in the One for whom all things were created.

    The fact remains that God is never mentioned in the book. Because of this any interpretation which treats the Song as divine will require an answer to the question of God's intent for all of the Scriptures and for all of history. What other answer can we give but that it was written to bring glory to the Son he loves? In some way, it must be about Christ because everything is for him and his glory. (Colossians 1:16-17 if you need references). The Church Fathers who saw in the Song an allegory of Christ must've been on to something.

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "e" in the field below: