Since I am new this whole blog thing, I thought that I would start out by asking a question, and one that I have been thinking about for awhile but I am just having trouble resolving. Last month my wife (Laurie) and I started listening to Mark Driscoll preach through the Song of Solomon. I recommend this series, if you are married, or thinking about, in the fact that it has a lot of good practical ways on how we should view Christian Marriage. As we were listening it got me thinking about the book itself, and so my question is this: How should we read/think about/interpret/and ultimately apply the Song of Solomon to the Christian walk. Now from my understanding there are two camps that people generally view this book. The first is a more literal view - and they see this between Solomon and his wife, and it some think of it as a how-to for Christian marriage. The other camp sees this as a representation of Christ and the Church and this is supposed to show how Christ passionately loves His Church. I often find myself not fully agreeing with both of them. If it is about Christ and His Church, what should we do with the overtly sexual references? This book is also Jewish Poetry and I dont know if it is necessarily supposed to be instructional. I do know that canonically it falls after Ruth in the Old Testament, but what significance does that give the interpretation? All of that to say, what do yall think?
D to the L
Drew,
ReplyDeleteI've always had my reservations about interpreting the book as about an instruction guide to proper Christian marriage, or as an allegory of Christ and his Church. For one, it is poetry, and as poetry, it uses images that are by their very nature figurative. Images need to be interpreted. Typically, the images are understood literally, as Solomon and one of his wives, or as an idealist Solomon (Christ) and his bride, the Church. Secondly, what are we to do with that part of the book where the Bridegroom leaves the bride to get beat up in the streets? How does that fit in?
Canonically (to get to your question), there is an interesting array of poetic figures (images) that begin in Proverbs and continue through Songs. Chapters 1-9 in Proverbs are instructions from a father (Solomon?) to his son to pursuade him to pursue wisdom. He does so by using two Ladies - Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly. Wisdom, then, takes on the image of a woman. The book of Ruth takes this personification further, idealizing Ruth as the P31 woman - a wise woman. Interestingly, the description of the woman in Songs 1 matches up quite well with the story of Ruth and Prov. 31. Understanding the images canonically, then, I think we can identify the woman in Songs as Lady Wisdom of Proverbs. That much I've theorized so far, and I could defintitely be wrong.
If I'd have to guess at the Groom, I'd say Solomon. The book seems to capture the concept that the pursuit of wisdom is like the pursuit of a wife - do not stir up love until you are ready. If this is right, then we see that the groom often fails in that pursuit - and does not consummate with wisdom until the end of the book. I think the sexual imagery helps to show that this pursuit is intimate and deeply spiritual. The book would then use Solomon's own canonical story (see 1 Ki 3) to teach us how to pursue wisdom, and learn from his mistakes (c.f 1 Ki 11). ~aw
Okay, so I know I am way behind here but I wanted to throw out some questions about Eve, Cain's mark, and Lamech (Not Noah's padre). I read Pentateuch as Narrative this past summer and was wondering what you guys thought of some of Sailhamer's translations of (1) Eve's response to Cain's birth, (2) Cain's Mark and (3) a more positive look at Lamech.
ReplyDeleteIn 4:1 Sailhamer translates Eve's response to Cain's birth as "I have created a man equally with the Lord" and he says this is more likely since her response to Seth's birth is very different "God has appointed for me another offspring..." As if she understands her place now. She was a little cocky the first go around, perhaps thinking she had created the seed of Gen 3:15 but then realizes "he" can only come God's way.
Secondly, he says Cain's mark is actually the city of Nod which was a place of refuge where Cain could not be "attacked". This sounds like a prototype of the cities of refuge in the Pentateuch. Pretty interesting...Before this he says Cain's response to God's punishment was not so much a complaint but actually a repentant statement, "My iniquity is too great to forgive" (4:13). This changes the outlook on Cain quite a bit. any thoughts?
In regards to Lamech, Sailhamer says his response about killing a man for wounding him (4:23)is appealing to a system of justice. I don't have the book in front of me so I don't want to misquote his ideas but it made me look at Lamech quite different as well.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I know these are side issues and not necessarily in keeping with the canonical theme but I am interested to see if those who have read Sailhamer are in agreement.
As a final note, I apologize for bringing Sailhamer into this discussion if indeed his name is forbidden in this blog. If you must, replace all use of Sailhamer with Susan B. Anthony. I can only respond like my brother Adam, "That woman whom you gave me..." (3:12) Luchky