Not An Allegory!
In Sunday's message we said that the Song of Songs was not an allegory. In this post, I'll give some reasons why.
First, from a literary perspective, the allegory is rare. There are not many of them. The most famous are probably "the cave" in Plato's Republic and Pilgrim's Progress. So if you're asking if an unknown work is an allegory the odds are it isn't.
Second, allegories are not hard to identify. They are easily identifiable. Not only are the characters in an allegory flat types but what they represent is also obvious. In Pilgrim's Progress, the lead character's name is Christian. He leaves the City of Destruction and is headed for the Celestial City. He has a companion named Mr. Worldly Wiseman. It's self evident what these characters and destinations represent.
Song of Songs does indeed have relatively flat characters. But they are not given names which represent ideas. We are not given their names at all. They call each other by various pet names. Also, the Song of Songs does not have an identifiable plot. It's not a love story but a collection of love poems. Allegories have flat characters, aptly named to represent other realities, who move through a plot. The Song of Songs has flat characters but the naming and the plot elements of allegory are missing.
Third, historically the allegorical method of interpretation has a dubious origin. Basically, Greek philosophers invented the method as a way of re-interpreting Greek myths to teach their own ideas. It goes something like this. You want to teach a new idea. So you take a common story that everyone knows. But you then assign philosophical ideas to the characters and presto-chango you have your idea disseminated through popular stories.
For example: let's take Adam and Eve. Everyone knows that story. But I'm going to tell us the REAL meaning which you have all missed. Adam represents the rational side of humanity. He’s the head. Eve represents the emotive side of humanity. She’s the heart. And we fall when we listen to our hearts instead of our heads. And so the story of Adam and Eve REALLY is about the inner battle within each person between reason and passion and the damage that happens when we listen to our hearts.
And of course we could use the simple story of Adam and Eve to teach just about anything by simply re-assigning meanings to Adam, Eve, the fruit and the serpent and telling people what the "REALLY" represent.
And this is what people have done with the Song of Songs. One commentator noted that the only time two allegorists agree on an interpretation of any particular verse is when they've copied each other. My favorite example is the TRUE meaning of the womans breasts. They are said to represent: the old and new testaments, the church on which we feed, the love of God and love of neighbor, baptism and communion, and the inner and outer man united in one sentient being.
I humbly submit to you that the woman's breasts represents...breasts.
The Song of Songs is not an Allegory.
Recent Entries
Latest Comment
Amazing!! God is good.
Announcements Show
150 Day Challenge
New Series Starts 01/11/09
Class 401: Made for a Mission
Comments
Hi Vince, hopefully i will listen to your sermon soon. i started a blog series last winter on SoS in preparation for a sermon i did from it. Since Jesus says all the scriptures speak of him, i think it is our perpetual question whenever we read the O.T. to ask, "where is Jesus?" This doesn't obscure the literal reading of a passionate marriage. so in my series i looked at both angles, but offended some Christian friends so i stopped. they told me i was 'dead wrong' where i saw Jesus. the series: http://umbl0g.blogspot.com/search/label/Song%20of%20songs God is good jpu
john umland | Tue 14 Oct 2008
Thank you for clearly making the case against reading the Song as an allegory. Have you run across Calvin Seerveld's (sp?) take on the poem? He thinks of it as a verse drama (and has published a version of it as such) that lays into the sin of Solomon -- that S. used his royalty to established a harem -- and contrasts Solomon's love industry with the authentic love of a maid (in "exile" in the king's harem) for her shepherd (who will yet come for her). Following Seerveld's take, the verse drama would have been a reminder to Israel-in-exile (not unlike a piece of apocalyptic literature) to remain true to her First Love and not fall prey to the hollow seductions of the Babylonian empire. I have loved Seerveld's take since I "found" it when studying Wisdom Lit in seminary.
Brad Davis | Tue 14 Oct 2008
Thanks John and Brad for your thoughtful comments.
John, my take on the Song of Songs is that it depicts how God intends marriage to be. The passion, the intensity, the desire, and exclusivity of this sacred relationship is what it depicts.
I do think it speaks of God indirectly. The rest of Scripture tells us that God loves his people like a husband loves his wife. It's a metaphor taking what we know (marriage) and explaining what we don't know (God's love). Unfortunately, many people don't know what marriage is suppossed to be. Song of Songs tells us. Song of Songs is really about the love between a man and a woman and Song of Songs shows us what the metaphor of God loving us like a hubsand loves his wife means. That's my take.
And Brad, I'm aware of readings seeing the Song of Song as drama. And that's fine. But I'm more inclined to see it as a collection of love poems. I think trying to plot the poem will only drive you nuts--I've tried. So I think "mood" not "plot". But certainly it has dramatic elements in that we have these 3 characters (man, woman, daughters of Jerusalem) and the whole thing is a dialogue. So maybe it's a both/and. I just lean more towards the poetry side than the drama side.
And I think it does have a dig at Solomon at the end as "one who tries to buy love". I'll probably post on Solomon's role next week. But I don't think he wrote it. I think probably comissioned it for one of his many weddings. But I don't think it changes the reading of Song of Songs. It doesn't matter who wrote it, it's good stuff. But I'd rather think better of Solomon. And if he wrote it and made himself the star, than he's arguably the worst hypocrite in the Bible. Because Kings is quite clear. He is not a model to follow in the area of love. Not even close.
Vince Gierer | Tue 14 Oct 2008
Please Leave a Comment
Please review the Comment Policy before posting for your first time.