Song of Solomon: Literal or Allegory?

Dante and Beatrice, by Maria Spartali Stillman

My fiance and I had gone through the Gospel of Matthew a few months ago, and went through the Epistles of Jude and 3 John not too long after that. After some time, she asked if we could go through another book together. With some meditating and thinking, I decided on the Song of Solomon, as that was about a married couple, and we ourselves are soon to be a married couple. I studied through it and then went over it with her, and at this time we've finally completed the whole book. It's been a wonderful experience.

My initial studies into it led me to ponder over the controversy on how to interpret the book - namely, is it allegorical or literal? That is, is it a literal story of two people in love, or is it, as so many commentators throughout history have said, an allegory of Christ and the church? In fact, this latter interpretation didn't start with Christians - the earliest Jewish commentators believed that Song of Solomon was essentially one huge allegory about God and the Jewish people. This continued into the early Church Fathers and Christian commentators, who applied it to the Christ and the Church allegory, and continued well into the nineteenth century.

Perhaps it should be noted that people seem to fall into extreme camps: either it's completely allegorical or it's completely literal. For my own part, I find those who take the completely allegorical approach run into many, many problems with the language of the book. For example, in the very first chapter, the bride says to herself:

Draw me after you; let us run. The king has brought me into his chambers. [Song of Solomon 1:4a]

As the NET translation notes point out, this transition from present tense to past tense signifies a hope and desire. The "chambers" mentioned here are bedchambers. If we were to translate this into plain speaking, the bride would be saying: "I really, really want to make love to the king."

Another incredibly problematic verse is seen much later on, spoken this time by the bridegroom:

Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. [Song of Solomon 7:7-8a]

During his long description of his wife, the husband turns to her chest. He describes her stature like a palm tree (specifically, a date palm tree), and compares her breasts to clusters. He then describes climbing up the palm tree (which date farmers had to do) and "laying hold of its fruit." In other words, he would like to fondle her breasts. Please forgive me, dear reader, for my bluntness, but that is precisely why I described this verse as "problematic" for those who take the full allegory route for the entire book. What person, in his right mind, would compare this to Christ's relationship to the church?

It will be granted that those in the full allegory camp give responses to verses such as this. However, and with all due respect to them and the memory of those in days past, they do so in the worst possible way - they do it by naming the breasts: Old Testament and New Testament; Moses and Jesus; Law and Grace; etc. I am not making this up (similar treatment is given to the mention of breasts in the far more harmless passage in Sol 1:13). Something that usually women of loose morals do is now being done by theologians and applied to the woman in Song of Solomon, in an effort to conform with the presupposition that she must represent the church. It's as if some are saying, "No, it can't possibly mean what I think it means!" Especially today, with society's over-objectification of the female chest, it might make many a Christian man cringe to think that such a passage could be in the Bible.

I believe all this stems from a misunderstanding of what the book is truly about. Regarded as a giant allegory by some, regarded as pornography hidden away in the Bible by others, the Song of Solomon is either misunderstood or misrepresented by many who try to read it. The truth of the matter is, like the book of Revelation, Song of Solomon can be a wonderful read if properly understood. For it to be properly exegeted, its premise must first be properly understood.

The Song of Solomon is, at its heart, the story of two people of God in love with one another. However, this is not an empty love, or the vague idea known as "love" by many in today's society - this love grows over time, and is nurtured by the couple as well as their friends (Sol 1:11) and family (Sol 8:8-9). The moments of true physical intimacy only happen after the couple are married: those who are shocked by the descriptions and events of chapter four forget that the couple were married in chapter three, and are only now consummating their marriage. The love in the book is true love blessed by God, for the flames of love are called "the very flame of the LORD" (Sol 8:6). In short, the Song of Solomon is a literal love story about a believing man and woman.

It will also be granted here that there are those who tend to "oversexualize" the book, turning every single verse into a sexual metaphor. For example, the verse in which the husband is trying to get into the room where his wife is, and puts his hand through the latch of the door (Sol 5:4), is believed by some to be a metaphor for sexual activity. However, reading the entire context of this section, as well as looking into how doors of that time functioned, makes us realize that the husband is reaching through the latch of the door to unlock it, and nothing more.

So what of the more intimate moments which we know for certain are speaking of physical relations? Should they shock us? In fact, it might surprise some that there is nothing sinful about the attraction between a husband and wife, even in a Christian household. It is all too common for people today to confuse attraction with lust. The apostle Paul himself wrote:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. [1 Corinthians 7:1-5]

In these verses, the apostle explains that the husband and wife are to enjoy one another physically. In like manner, this is to be an equal enjoyment - too often today, some Christian women take the extreme that they are to "just lie back and think of England" when it comes to their marital duties. It might also be worthy to note that, in both these verses and in the entirety of the Song of Solomon, procreation is never mentioned. Now, this does not mean that birth control is to be utilized by the Christian couple, nor does it mean that a Christian husband and wife should not think about and be aware of the reproductive function of their bodies. However, it does present to us the realization that sex is supposed to an enjoyment for them. It is meant as part of the blessing of their relationship. It is not simply for procreation, although that is it's primary function. The act of lovemaking is partially what the very idea of becoming "one flesh" means (cf. Gen 2:24). We should not be shocked with the idea of a husband enjoying the physical features of his wife, as seen in passages such as Sol 7:7-8. It is perfectly fine for a husband and wife to enjoy one another in the confines of marriage - in fact, it's perfectly biblical.

A question that may arise from all this: is there any room for allegory in reading the Song of Solomon? Yes and no. We've already established that it is impossible to make every single verse allegorical without, at some point, becoming unintentionally blasphemous. However, there are certainly some sections of the book where we could find allegory. As most people know, the apostle Paul used marriage as an allegory for Christ and the church (Eph 5:22-33). However, when we go looking for allegories, it is first important to understand the plain context of what we are reading. We need to know what is being said before we go looking for deeper meanings.

Permit me to use art as a metaphor. When studying the trade of art, one of the things they first teach you is that you have to study how the world works in a plain way before you go into abstractions. For example, Picasso, in his early life, painted beautiful semi-realistic paintings. Later on in life, he began to dabble in the Cubism and other styles that made him world famous. In the image below, you see his work Science and Charity (painted in 1897) on the left, and a section of his later work Guernica (painted in 1937) on the right.

The one on the left was done when Picasso was just 16-years old, while the one on the right was done when he was 56-years old. No, I did not mix up the ages. Picasso once told someone that it took him his childhood to learn to draw like an adult, and his adulthood to learn to draw like a child. The point is that, before dabbling in the more abstract forms of natural representation, Picasso learned how to portray the world as it was. Before we deal with the abstract, we must understand the natural. In like manner, before we deal with allegory, we must understand the literal. Otherwise, we completely lose the original meaning of the passage we are dealing with. You won't be able to understand what is being represented without first understanding what can be represented. This is what was seen with Harold Camping, who would take a section of scripture and turn it into an allegory that completely contradicted its original context. Like Mr. Camping, we can become so engrossed looking for allegories that we can separate ourselves from the original intention of the authors.

So while it is not impossible to find allegory in the Song of Solomon, it is vital that its immediate context be understood first. Yet even with all the allegories thrown out, the Song of Solomon can still be read as a beautiful and wonderful book within the larger canon of Holy Writ.

Christians and Cafeteria Morality

I came across this meme a few weeks ago, and - after some interaction with certain people - asked a coworker to find it for me again, as it was quickly inspiring a blog post. The meme is called something like "hypocritical Christian girl" and is popular around some online atheist circles. Despite the source material, God always has a way of making truth come out of error, and I believe there's a lot to be said from this one image.

Throughout my life, I've encountered people who held what one might call "cafeteria morality" - in other words, they would pick and choose that part of God's moral law to follow. In my atheist days, I knew a girl who would lament my unbelief, then a few minutes later talk about the physical relations she had with her boyfriend the night before. I've known people who were on the level when it came to the teachings of God's word regarding homosexuality, abortion, the definition of marriage, etc., and yet would engage in sex with other people and even have premarital sex with their future spouse.

Of course, whenever anyone begins to talk of morality, straw men and emotional arguments fly, and so I must take a moment here to dispel any possible attacks against my person rather than my position. If you are like the people I described in the previous paragraph, then know that I am not saying I am any better than you as an individual. I am also not saying I am any more justified before God because you do x and I don't do x. At the time of this writing I am unmarried and a virgin, and intend to keep my virginity until marriage. However, I have done things in the past for which I am not proud, and still struggle in certain ways that would warrant judgment. I have always agreed with the words of the apostle James that being guilty of any transgression against God's commands made you are guilty of transgressing them all (Jam 2:10). Therefore, I am not writing this post in the spirit of "I'm better than you," but rather as a call for discernment and biblical dialogue about an important matter.

We must, first and foremost, recognize that the biblical teaching regarding sexual relations is that it always exists within the confines of marriage. When Adam and Eve first met, it was written in a kind of "divine commentary" that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This was something Christ later affirmed, saying "they are no longer two but one flesh" (Matt 19:4-6).

The apostle Paul wrote on this explicitly in his first letter to the Corinthians, continually drawing allusion to the concept of "becoming one flesh." Interestingly, he begins with the theology of Christ being the husband of the church, saying we are essentially of one flesh with him (cf. 1 Cor 6:13). He states that our bodies are "members of Christ," and so we should never do anything as bad as go to a prostitute for her services, for we are in essence "becoming one flesh" with her (1 Cor 6:14-15). We are therefore commanded to flee sexual immorality, as it is a sin against our body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (1 Cor 6:18-19). To commit a sin of the flesh is to transgress against God.

With the same flow of thought, Paul moves into a discussion regarding relationships within marriage. As the apostle recognized that sexual immorality would be a greater temptation to some, he encouraged marriage (1 Cor 7:2), adding later that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:9). However, this was not a case of the woman being a submissive outlet for the man's lusts - rather, this is a continuation of the "one flesh" mindset. I say this because Paul gives very clear language regarding man and woman completing one another physically: 1) the husband gives his wife her "conjugal rights," as does the wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:3); 2) the husband has rights over the wife's body, but the wife also has rights over the husband's body (1 Cor 7:4); 3) the husband and wife are not to deny their physical bonds except upon mutual agreement, and for moments of prayer and meditation, but even then they are meant to eventually unite together again (1 Cor 7:5). This is beautiful (and incredibly tasteful) imagery of what "one flesh" means: the wonderful bond between man and woman in marriage, submitting to one another as equals in physical intimacy. Husband and wife fulfill one another, and in this manner they truly become "one flesh." However, we must reiterate that such a beautiful bond is only possible within marriage.

Scripture has less kinder things to say about sexual relations outside of marriage. It is said many times that the sexually immoral have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8, 22:15). The apostle Paul even advised Christians not to associate with so-called "brothers" if they were guilty of sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:11). He also said that sexual immorality was one of the works of the flesh, which are opposed to the desires of the spirit (Gal 5:17-21). Let's also not forget that Christ identified looking with lust at someone to whom you were not married made you guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28) - if the mere thinking of non-marital relations makes you guilty, how much more does the very act!

Many, of course, will ignore all these relevant passages, as well as the clear teaching of the entirety of scripture. They will then do one of two things:

1) Jump to irrelevant passages. Many will find any way they can to abuse the word of God to justify what they do - some of them outright bizarre. In one Christian forum, I read a post where a man actually used Genesis 9:7 as justification to look at pornography! Some jump to the imperfect lifestyles of men like Samson, forgetting that such men eventually received judgment for their actions. Some jump to the strong physical language of the Song of Solomon, seemingly forgetting that the dialogue is between husband and wife. Some say that prostitutes were allowed to spend time with Christ, not seeming to realize that these were repentant prostitutes who weren't continuing their trade. If a person wishes to argue the morality of sex, they will have to do so by going to the passages that actually speak on the morality of sex.

2) Present philosophical arguments. When the word of God is clearly against you, people turn to the thoughts of man, which are by their very nature corrupt (Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9). They try to calculate and philosophize why sex outside of marriage would be all right, even within a religious context. One girl I was speaking to told me how she thought of buying her boyfriend's favorite yogurt while at the grocery store, and from this one experience she held the firm belief that God was all right with premarital sex. Perhaps my favorite argument used is "Surely God's OK with it if you love each other?" Paul gave us a fitting warning when, right after identifying sexual immorality as evil, he wrote: "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph 5:6).

Knowing, then, that the scriptural teaching regarding sexual relations is that it is meant for marriage, and sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral, Christians are compelled to at least acknowledge this reality. To not do so is not only moral hypocrisy, but playing games with the moral law of God - something very severe before the eyes of the Lord. "Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments," Christ said, "and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). We cannot pick and choose morality because it is simply not our place. When God says, "Don't do x, y and z," we don't get to say "Well I choose to do x and y while condemning z" because it is simply not our place.

For many, the issue is that they are quick to condemn homosexuality as a sin while they forget that homosexuality is but a part of the larger umbrella of all sexual immorality. Heterosexual sins make one just as guilty before a holy God as homosexuality. I would propose that a true Christian who struggles with homosexual desires is far more righteous before God than a supposed Christian who unrepentantly cheats on his wife in a heterosexual relationship. The former knows his sin is ever before him (Psa 51:3); the latter is blind to his own error, condemning the one brother for the speck in his eye while ignoring the plank in his own (Matt 7:4-5).

It was to such people that Paul wrote the second chapter of the letter to the Roman church. After detailing the depravity of the Gentile world, Paul turned towards the Jews and said "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Rom 2:1). He likewise wrote: "Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3) These are words many supposed Christians should be asking themselves, for in condemning homosexuals and abortion doctors while justifying their own personal sexual immorality, they merely heap judgment upon themselves.

Many reading this post may be such people who claim to be Christian and yet engage in premarital sex or sexual immorality. If this is the case, you must now be aware that what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of God, and that if you are to stand against one brand of sexual immorality, you must likewise condemn your own sexual immorality and repent of it. The good news is that while you still have breath and while you still have voice, you still have the ability, by the grace of God, to repent. Know that Christ is a far, far greater Savior than you could ever be a sinner. God bless.