Allegory
The allegorical approach ignores all the actual facts, events, and history of the text of Scripture in search of a “deeper” spiritual truth. This approach originated as a pagan method of interpreting Greek mythology, but was picked up in Jewish and Christian circles by Philo (20 BC – AD 54) and Origen (AD 185-520).[1] Unfortunately, this method still continues today.
Rather than taking their view of sex from Scripture—allegorical theologians have allowed their view that sex is gross to become the interpretative lens through which they read the book. They completely ignore the sexual marriage relationship described in the Songs and interpret the book only as an allegory of Christ and his relationship with the church or God and his relationship to Israel.
Allegorical writings give evidence that they are allegorical. The Pilgrim’s Progress is the most famous Christian allegory and it’s filled with names and locations that are clearly not real or factual (Mr. Reason and the Giant Despair; the Doubting Castle and Vanity Fair). In contrast, the Song of Solomon speaks only of real historical people—King Solomon (1:1), the lover, the watchmen—in real historical places—Engedi (1:13), Sharon (2:1), Lebanon (3:9).
Allegory is an approach that has no respect for the Bible as actual, historical events, facts and people. The approach divorces meaning from the author’s intent and places it instead at the whim of the reader.
Typology
Typology has been the most common approach to the Song of Solomon.[2] Where allegory denies the facts and events of the original text, typology accepts the validity of the text, but finds meaning only linking the text to a teaching or event in the New Testament.
Typology can be helpful as the New Testament gives direction, but only after careful study is given to the original meaning, grammar, and context of the passage. There are plenty of passages we can turn to in the New Testament that speak clearly of marriage as a parable of Christ’s love for His church (Ephesians 5:23-33), but if we read the Song of Solomon only through that lens, we miss the Bible’s vivid teaching and depiction of God-honoring and joy-filled sex in a passionate marriage.
These two approaches of ignoring the plain, literal meaning of the text has led to some absurd interpretations. One Jewish commentary argued the song is an allegory of God’s love for Israel. “My beloved is to me a pouch of myrrh which lies all night between my breasts” was interpreted as the Shekinah Glory of God between the two cherubim that stood over the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle. Christian commentators taking the same approach of typology instead held that the “pouch of myrrh” “between my breasts” was a picture of Christ appearing between the Old and New Covenants.[3]Additionally, “Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine” (Song 7:2) was said to refer to a pool for baptism and the wine of the Lord’s Supper.[4]
Drama
A less popular approach is reading the Song as a Drama. Origen write in his commentary that the Song was “a marriage-song Solomon wrote in the form of a drama.”[5] The idea is that the Song was meant to be a script that should be acted or sung. The closest resemblance to a drama the Song comes is the elements of conflict and resolution, but there are no directions to the actors or clear division between scenes. Although, I would joyfully recommend married couples acting out scenes from the Song of Solomon, the lack of a clear plot or character development prevents the Song from being interpreted as a drama.
Literal
The most biblically accurate and helpful approach to Scripture is the literal approach.[6] We want to understand the original author’s intent. This requires getting the accurate context of the passage by asking, “Who’s talking to whom?” “What’s going on historically?” “How was the language used in that culture?” “What’s being addressed?” “When is it being written?” and “Where are these events happening?” After discerning the original intent, we then bridge the cultural gap and apply that text theologically and personally to our lives and context. [7]
The Song of Solomon is poetry, and as such it is filled with brilliant metaphors. Metaphors are not without meaning, but contain literal meaning in a figurative way. When Solomon refers to his bride’s teeth as a flock of goats each one with its pair. He does not literally mean that her teeth have wool and say “baa,” but he does have a literal meaning intended by the figure-of-speech (she has pearly, white teeth and is not missing a single one).
Pastor and theologian John MacArthur rightly says, “The Song has suffered strained interpretations over the centuries by those who use the “allegorical” method of interpretation…. A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality… In this way, the Song expresses the wonders of marital love while distancing itself from anything crass.”[8]
We’ll be studying the Song of Solomon as a collection of poems which describe vividly and at times erotically the attraction and fear and hope and excitement between two lovers on their journey from dating through marriage.
[1] G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 23.
[2] Ibid., 27.
[3] Joseph C. Dillow, Solomon on Sex: The Biblical Guide to Married Love, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1977), 9.
[4] Carr, 28.
[5] Carr, 34.
[6] The big word is a “literal-grammatical-redemptive-historical hermeneutic”.
[7] For more on how to study the Bible, read “Grasping God’s Word” by Duvall Hayes (or the smaller “Journey into God’s Word”).
[8] John MacArthur, The Macarthur Study Bible, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1997).