J
jasonconners7
Guest
I was wondering if Song of Songs can be a spiritual allegory.
Pope St Gregory seemed to think it was.
Pope St Gregory seemed to think it was.
- Status
L
Limoncello4021
Guest
Yes, of course. Your question is vague, but it is typically interpreted as a love song between the soul and God. Have you read some commentaries on it? Bernard of Clairvaux is the best source.
T
TK421
Guest
Biblical language often compares the union of a creature and God and Christ with the Church as a union between a husband and a wife. It’s done poetically in the Canticles and it’s also thoroughly played out with the prophet Hosea.
Peace.
Peace.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
And St John of the Cross’ writings also.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Why would you think it was anything EXCEPT a spiritual allegory?
I do realize you’re Baptist, but I would hope they don’t teach that it’s some kind of literal love poem from a man to a woman. It’s obviously between the soul and God, and I have also heard it interpreted as being between God and His Church (the Catholic Church).
And why would you not take the word of St. Pope Gregory the Great? I think his opinion is extremely reliable.
I do realize you’re Baptist, but I would hope they don’t teach that it’s some kind of literal love poem from a man to a woman. It’s obviously between the soul and God, and I have also heard it interpreted as being between God and His Church (the Catholic Church).
And why would you not take the word of St. Pope Gregory the Great? I think his opinion is extremely reliable.
Last edited:
L
Limoncello4021
Guest
If someone told me (literally) that my teeth were like a gazelle’s, I’d deck them 
Last edited:
P
Pitcairn17
Guest
I’ve read that the SoS only made it into the Jewish canon because the Hebrew sages gave it the allegorical overlay, and that early Christian writers had a similar struggle and accepted the allegorical interpretation. I mean, heaven forfend that the physical love between a man and a woman should ever be Scriptually celebrated as something good and holy, eh?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s more like the reason we have such physical love between man and woman spouses is because it’s a reflection of God’s love for the soul. Which is one aspect of the writing. This is the best we can do to describe love between the soul and God. I personally think it probably falls far short of the actual God-soul experience, but us puny humans have to understand everything through the physical senses we’ve been granted.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Scripture traditionally can be interpreted literally or spiritually, with the spiritual senses divided into allegorical, moral, or anagogical senses. These are not exclusive; a passage may be read literally one day, or allegorically the next, or morally on another day. So, like every other passage in scripture, the Song of Songs can be read as an allegory.
The fundamental level of interpretation is the literal, which is a little different from what people often mean by the term. It does not mean there was a person who used gazelle teeth and had goats in her hair. The literal sense is in a poetic form that uses figures to convey the beauty of a woman. “an erotic celebration of sexual intimacy” is the literal sense, identifying the basic poetic genre and intent. This literal sense is basic to understanding the spiritual senses, though the spiritual senses may be more important to the reader, or the author. It may have been written to be interpreted spiritually, but it was written as a love poem.
It appears to be a late addition to the Scriptures, and its place was cemented when Rabbi Aqiba called it the most important book. Aqiba died around 135 CE, possibly in Jerusalem when the Romans destroyed the city. I think he is probably acknowledging that the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, the Temple of Israel, and even the nation of Israel would not destroy the relationship between God and the people chosen to be his. Even if kings, priest, prophets and all of Israel died off, we could still learn to know and worship God in our homes, in the love of a man and a woman.
The fundamental level of interpretation is the literal, which is a little different from what people often mean by the term. It does not mean there was a person who used gazelle teeth and had goats in her hair. The literal sense is in a poetic form that uses figures to convey the beauty of a woman. “an erotic celebration of sexual intimacy” is the literal sense, identifying the basic poetic genre and intent. This literal sense is basic to understanding the spiritual senses, though the spiritual senses may be more important to the reader, or the author. It may have been written to be interpreted spiritually, but it was written as a love poem.
It appears to be a late addition to the Scriptures, and its place was cemented when Rabbi Aqiba called it the most important book. Aqiba died around 135 CE, possibly in Jerusalem when the Romans destroyed the city. I think he is probably acknowledging that the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, the Temple of Israel, and even the nation of Israel would not destroy the relationship between God and the people chosen to be his. Even if kings, priest, prophets and all of Israel died off, we could still learn to know and worship God in our homes, in the love of a man and a woman.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The Babylon Bee had a funny take on this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
M
Maximian
Guest
I find it offensive that you poke fun at the Bible and I’m going to flag you.
N
NevermoreLenore
Guest
Lol, okay. Did you make sure to flag @Limoncello4021 for taking exception to gazelle teeth and @Genesis315 's candy hearts, also?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I thought the candy hearts were funny.
I did read an essay some years ago on Song of Songs that talked about how lovely those things mentioned in it actually would be to someone who lived in that milieu. Having been to the Holy Land, I can kind of see the bright side to the descriptions.
I did read an essay some years ago on Song of Songs that talked about how lovely those things mentioned in it actually would be to someone who lived in that milieu. Having been to the Holy Land, I can kind of see the bright side to the descriptions.
Last edited:
N
NevermoreLenore
Guest
That’s what I was taught as well, and as always the bible should be considered in the context within which it was written. The phrases are funny to our modern ears, but the Songs have incredibly beautiful passages:
“Place me like a seal over your heart, a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like a blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love, rivers cannot sweep it away.”
“All night long on my bed I looked for the one my heart loves.”
“I am my beloved’s and he is mine.”
I have difficulty finding adequate words for the love I have for my husband, but verses like these come closer than anything.
“Place me like a seal over your heart, a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like a blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love, rivers cannot sweep it away.”
“All night long on my bed I looked for the one my heart loves.”
“I am my beloved’s and he is mine.”
I have difficulty finding adequate words for the love I have for my husband, but verses like these come closer than anything.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Okay, this is yet another one where what’s going on is “obvious” if you are somebody who is steeped in Scripture. But for the rest of us, it isn’t obvious!
Song of Songs is a framing story for a whole bunch of scriptural references to the Lord and Israel. The poet is very skilled, and the framing device is very beautiful, and there are lots of further interpretations about God and the individual believer. It works because it does manage to be a really good love ballad, too.
But it’s about God’s plan of salvation, and His errant beloved people, which later was revealed to include being about Jesus and His Bride the Church.
And yes, it sounded weird to ancient people from the Middle East also. That’s part of how you can tell the references and imagery are being pressed right up to the edge, but it’s also a deliberate way to make the reader or listener wake up and wonder what’s going on. (“Oh, yeah, that’s why the flock of sheep thing!”)
The problem is that you really, really have to look up a ton of references for yourself, or find a really good commentary that is modern enough to just give the bare notes; because most Bibles don’t have all (or any) of the references listed in the little footnotes, and pre-modern commentaries spend a lot of time being devout and drawing out implications instead of giving you the references themselves. (Which is fine, but that means it’s a spiritual experience, not a reference work.)
There was one of the ancient Talmud rabbis who said that all the Scriptures were holy, but the Song of Songs was the Holy of Holies. They didn’t have Jesus yet and the Gospels, so the Song of Songs was the closest thing they had. It’s also very close to messianic material that is also romantic, like Psalm 45 about the king’s marriage.
The first thing that Song of Songs says is “Kiss me with the kisses of your mouth.” Psalm 2 (depending on your translation) says, “Kiss the son.”
Behold, He comes. Behold, the Lord comes.
Song of Songs is a framing story for a whole bunch of scriptural references to the Lord and Israel. The poet is very skilled, and the framing device is very beautiful, and there are lots of further interpretations about God and the individual believer. It works because it does manage to be a really good love ballad, too.
But it’s about God’s plan of salvation, and His errant beloved people, which later was revealed to include being about Jesus and His Bride the Church.
And yes, it sounded weird to ancient people from the Middle East also. That’s part of how you can tell the references and imagery are being pressed right up to the edge, but it’s also a deliberate way to make the reader or listener wake up and wonder what’s going on. (“Oh, yeah, that’s why the flock of sheep thing!”)
The problem is that you really, really have to look up a ton of references for yourself, or find a really good commentary that is modern enough to just give the bare notes; because most Bibles don’t have all (or any) of the references listed in the little footnotes, and pre-modern commentaries spend a lot of time being devout and drawing out implications instead of giving you the references themselves. (Which is fine, but that means it’s a spiritual experience, not a reference work.)
There was one of the ancient Talmud rabbis who said that all the Scriptures were holy, but the Song of Songs was the Holy of Holies. They didn’t have Jesus yet and the Gospels, so the Song of Songs was the closest thing they had. It’s also very close to messianic material that is also romantic, like Psalm 45 about the king’s marriage.
The first thing that Song of Songs says is “Kiss me with the kisses of your mouth.” Psalm 2 (depending on your translation) says, “Kiss the son.”
Behold, He comes. Behold, the Lord comes.
Last edited:
L
Limoncello4021
Guest
LOVE this!
R
redcatholic
Guest
Yes. 10 characters
- Status