Why We Ought to Sing to the King of kings with the Song of songs

In my last post I laid out the various interpretive approaches to the Song of Songs.  I briefly mentioned that, in my understanding, the parabolic/allegorical view best fits Scripture.  I want to lay out a positive case for this position, though some refutations of the other views will be slightly alluded to.

The position I want to argue for is basically parabolic/allegorical, while integrating the biblical theological emphases of the typological view.  Much credit is due to Dr. Jim Hamilton, professor of biblical theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Song of Songs is written by Solomon late in his life.  As not only the Davidic king, but the Davidic son, he knows his place in redemptive history.  He knows that King David was promised a son who would sit on his throne and rule over God's eternal kingdom; Solomon is the type of that Son and King.  Therefore, as a statement of repentance, and in order to give hope to Israel of the Messiah to come, he writes his greatest song (hence the title).  The Song pictures Solomon as a faithful husband and king, conjuring up images of the Garden of Eden and teaching God's people that godly marriage and intimacy is a return to that place (this convinces Dr. Hamilton that the Song, along with its dark counterpart Ecclesiastes, is also a statement of repentance given his idolatrous lifestyle).  However, not only is Solomon providing us an apologetic for a God-honoring human marriage, but also a glorious picture of the coming King's love.  This Son of David's divine love is not only a foretaste of the Garden, but a restoration of it.  A return to Eden is a return to pure worship and intimate communion with God (compare this to the decorations of the tabernacle/temple).  All this is fulfilled in the New Covenant ushered in by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

There are other images in the Song to discuss, such as the shepherd king and of course marriage itself.  All of this pictures our fellowship with God in Christ.  Therefore, this is not a literal-historical marriage; it's a song, so why would it have to be?  However, it does have typological imagery that strengthen the Christocentric reality of the parable and protects us from arbitrary interpretations (some allegorical interpreters miss the biblical-theology of the Song).

So if Song of Songs is not primarily about instructing us in our human marriages, then does it have any application for those marriages?  Of course!!!  Our model for marital love is Christ and the church!  Therefore, this interpretation actually provides a better model for faithful spousal relations.  Men, get this book in your soul and receive training on loving your wives!

But even more than that, learn the precious, but oft forgotten pleasure of communion with the Triune God!

Grace & Peace,
Pastor j

Views on the Song of Songs (revised)

Next to the book of Revelation, perhaps no other book of the Bible has caused as much debate and speculation as the Song of Songs (otherwise known as the Song of Solomon.  I will explain in a later post why I prefer the former title). Today I wish to lay out the various views, along with their proponents, what are the, at least allegedly, best commentaries for each view, and their strengths and weaknesses.  I pray this not only informs you, but entices you to study this glorious little book in the center of the Bible!

Allegorical/Parabolic: The Song is a parable of the mutual love between Christ and His church (or God and the Jews prior to Christ's advent).  Solomon is not depicting a literal marriage, but is using himself and the bride as pictures of the spiritual marriage I mentioned above.
Recommended resources: commentaries from James Durham (here is a free online version), John Gill (free online version), and George Burrowes; The Love of Christ by Richard Sibbes (collection of sermons on Song 4:16-6:3); The Most Holy Place by C.H. Spurgeon (a collection of Spurgeon's sermons on the Song); Communion with God by John Owen (not an commentary of the Song per se, but it is a theological treatise on what the Song is about, intimacy with God in Christ.  He also does exposition on particular sections of the Song as well.).

Prophetic: The Song prophecies the entire history of the church.
Recommended resources: John Cotton is the most notable proponent of this view.  Also the revered 17th century English Particular Baptist Hanserd Knollys appears to have marks of this view in his exposition of the Song's first chapter.

Literal: King Solomon is picturing for us an actual marriage between him and his bride.  Therefore, the Song is useful for instruction in Christian marriages.  Since it does seem to portray some intimacy between the bride and groom, some go so far as to think of this as a "Christian sex manual".
Recommended resources: most modern day scholarly commentaries from an evangelical perspective take this view.  Some of the most notable are those written by Tremper Longman III, Tom Gledhill, Lloyd Carr, and Richard Hess.  One very popular DVD series on the Song from the literal perspective taught by Tommy Nelson, pastor of Denton Bible Church, is available as well.  For a frankly shocking example of the "Christian sex manual" view, look no further than Mark Driscoll's series on the Song, "The Peasant Princess."

Typological: This is what we call a both/and view.  It is a literal marriage between a man and a woman, but it is a "type" or "shadow" of Christ and the church.  An example of a type in Scripture is the sacrificial lambs slaughtered for the sins of God's people in the Old Testament.  Those sacrifices are "types and shadows" that point forward to the once-for-all sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes the sins of the world.  Solomon and the bride are types and shadows of the mutual communion between Christ and the church, a la Ephesians 5:22-33.  Therefore, the Song provides principles and instruction for our temporal marriage to our spouses and our spiritual marriage to our Savior.  

Recommended resources: Commentaries by Gary Brady, Iain Duguid, and Douglas Sean O'Donnell. Iain Campbell has done much scholarly work on the Song.  Check out this article in the Westminster Theological Journal, this interview, and these sermons.

*With regard to the Literal and Typological views, the difference is more a matter of emphasis than substance.  At the risk of giving a hasty generalization, the Literal pays lip service to a typological fulfillment, but basically expounds on marriage and sexuality; the Typological pays lip service to literal instruction, but basically expounds on Christ and His church. 

Shepherd-boy: This is not necessarily a separate view as much as it is how one understands the identity of the characters of the Song.  Most commentators believe that the Song is written by Solomon with him as the only male character.  However, others argue that the bride's Beloved is a shepherd boy and Solomon is the villain, trying to sway the bride from her true love by his riches and pomp.  This structure can apply to any of the views.  For example, in the allegorical/parabolic view, Solomon represents false lovers (the world, the flesh, the devil) tempting the bride away from her true love, Christ the Shepherd.
Recommended Resources: The Expositor's Bible Commentary is a good place to start. I really wish I could offer more info on this.  The problem, however, is that commentaries do not include what interpretation they take in their title.  

Sample Interpretations
To wrap things up, let's look at how each view interprets Song of Songs 2:1-2, I am the rose of Sharon, the lily of the valleys.  A lily among the brambles is my love among the daughters. (Song 2:1-2).

Allegorical/parabolic
Most allegorical commentators believe that Christ is describing Himself in verse 1, commending His own sweet-smelling excellencies to His bride for her enjoyment.  In verse 2, He gives the Bride a similar description.  Durham explains why this is so: "Wherein her beauty consists, it is in likeness to Him...from Whom it comes, it is from Him, her being His love makes her the lily."  

Historical Prophetic
According to John Cotton, verse 1 describes "the estate of the church from Josiah's repair of the temple".  That repair of the temple, according to Cotton, was described at the end of the first chapter of the Song.

Literal

From Adam Clarke: "The bridegroom had just before called her fair; she with a becoming modesty, represents her beauty as nothing extraordinary, and compares herself to a common flower of the field. This, in the warmth of his affection, he denies, insisting that she as much surpasses all other maidens as the flower of the lily does the bramble, Song of Solomon 2:2."

Typological
From John Balchin (New Bible Commentary): "The girl has no moved away from her earlier self-consciousness.  The king's love for her causes her to have a new self-esteem.  She sees herself as a beautiful flower.  It is a very beautiful thing how being truly loved can bring about a transformation in the view you have of yourself.  As believers we are the object of Christ's unfailing love, and we are beautiful in His eyes."

Next post, I will argue for why I believe Allegorical/Parabolic best fits with Scripture, most exalts Christ, and provides the most food for the soul.

Song of Songs...?

Next to the book of Revelation, perhaps no other book of the Bible has caused as much debate and speculation as the Song of Songs (otherwise known as the Song of Solomon.  I will explain in a later post why I prefer the former title). Today I wish to lay out the various views, along with their proponents, what are the, at least allegedly, best commentaries for each view, and their strengths and weaknesses.  I pray this not only informs you, but entices you to study this glorious little book in the center of the Bible!

Allegorical/Parabolic: The Song is a parable of the mutual love between Christ and His church (or God and the Jews prior to Christ's advent).  Solomon is using himself and a Shulamite bride as figures of these two parties.  Negatively speaking, this is not a historical account of King Solomon and a real bride.
Proponents: church fathers, medieval theologians, Reformers, Puritans, Separatists, Scottish Covenanters, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Hudson Taylor, George Burrowes, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Jim Hamilton.
Essential Commentaries: James Durham, John Gill, George Burrowes, Jim Hamilton, Paul Washer.
Strengths: beautiful exalts Christ; provides the church with principles on how to enjoy our greatest blessing, communion with God; instructs spouses on how to display that Gospel through its vivid picture of Christ's eternal love; the predominant view of the church until the 19th century(!).
Weaknesses: authorial intent is possibly confused due to the potential guess work on what the different poetic figures mean; could possibly provoke the false idea that God does not care about physical, human love.

Prophetical-Historical: The Song prophecies the entire history of the church. 

Proponents: John Cotton, some Hanserd Knollys; I am sure there are more, but I am not very familiar enough with this view to know.
Essential Commentary: John Cotton
Strengths: many poetical sections of Scripture are also in some way prophetic (i.e. Psalm 2; 22; 72; 110).
Weaknesses: though there could be prophetic aspects, there is nothing about the text that causes us to think that every detail functions in that manner (unlike Daniel or Revelation).

Literal: King Solomon is picturing for us an actual marriage between him and his Shulamite bride.  Therefore, the Song is useful for instruction in Christian marriages.  Since it does seem to portray some intimacy between the bride and groom, some go so far as to think of this as a "Christian sex manual".  

Proponents (most predominant view today): John Murray, E.J. Young, John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll (famous for his highly sensual sermons on the Song).
Essential Commentary: Tremper Longman, Tom Gledhill
Strengths: takes the grammatical-historical view of Scripture seriously; careful with authorial intent; recognizes and celebrates God's creation of marriage and sexuality.
Weaknesses: songs do not have to be literal-historical events, so insisting on it seems to be unnecessary; over emphasis on physical beauty (contra Prov. 31:30); moralistic rather than redemptive; historical problems (Solomon was not a shepherd, nor did he engage in war); theological problems (Solomon was not a good model for marital fidelity; how does this exalt Christ, who is the center of Scripture?); commentators end up allegorizing just as much as the allegoricists.

Typological: A via-media, a both/and middle view of the literal and the allegorical.  Solomon and the bride are types and shadows of the mutual communion between Christ and the church, a la Ephesians 5:22-31.  Therefore, the Song provides principles and instruction for our temporal marriage to our spouses and our spiritual marriage to our Savior.  

Proponents: this view is gaining momentum among many who even once held the Literal view with a tight fist.
Essential Commentaries: look for Iain Campbell's article in the Westminster Theological Journal called "The Song of David's Son" (he also has a couple of sermons on it); Gary Brady, Iain Duguid, Douglas Sean O'Donnell.
Strengths: the strengths of the allegorical and literal views apply here; fits nicely with a redemptive-historical reading of Scripture.
Weaknesses: the weaknesses of the allegorical and literal views apply here; everyone ends up functioning as either allegorical or literal; it is questionable on whether Solomon's marriage can be considered a type of Christ and His church; there is more pressure to figure out the details than in the allegorical view.

*With regard to the Literal and Typological views, the difference is more a matter of emphasis than substance.  To put it crudely, the Literal pays lip service to a typological fulfillment, but basically expounds on marriage and sexuality; the Typological pays lip service to literal instruction, but basically expounds on Christ and His church. 

Next post, I will argue for why I believe Allegorical/Parabolic best fits with Scripture, most exalts Christ, and provides the most food for the soul.

No Creation without the Trinity

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).  Though it is not explicit in this verse, Scripture teaches that each person of the Godhead played a significant role in creation.  Each day of the account given us in Genesis, the Father spoke creation into existence.  This means that His word, or Word created all things.  In the first chapter of his gospel, the apostle John reveals that this Word is none other than Jesus Christ, God in the flesh (John 1:1-4, 14).  Therefore, God the Father created the world through God the Son, His Word.
The Spirit of God is mentioned in Genesis 1:2 as present prior to creation.  Job proclaims, the Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.  

So to put it all together: the Father created the world through His Son by the power of the Holy Spirit.

What ought to amaze us is the fact that our salvation is paralleled with creation.  If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:21a).  For God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).  This text reminds us, as my favorite living preacher Paul Washer loves to proclaims, conversion is not a mere human decision, but a miracle of the living God on par with, if not greater, than the creation of the world.  In creation the Father, Son, and Spirit created ex nihilo ("out of nothing").  In the conversion of the soul, God takes a dead, evil heart that hates God and refuses to worship and adore Him, changes it, and resurrects it into a living heart that loves God, loves His law, and hates evil.

Praise the Triune God for His mighty creation and salvation!   

If God is not three in one, we cannot be saved...

Salvation is impossible with a non-trinitarian God.  Ephesians 1:3-14 is possibly the best explanation of this.  Each member of the Trinity is so interwoven in this text, it is difficult to separate them.  From the get go in verse 3, it says Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.  According to this, it was the Father's work to bless us, but He did it in Christ.  We do not receive the Father's blessings apart from union with Christ.  From v. 13, we see that Holy Spirit seals these blessings for us; we are brought into union with Christ by the power of the Spirit (see also John 6:44).  

Another angle to view the Trinity's work in our salvation is to notice the progression in the passage.  Let me note that I learned this from "Pastor Joe" who is featured on this song that I highly recommend.  In verses 4 & 5, the Father chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world...In love, He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will (notice again, the difficulty of separating this work from union with Christ).  From this we see that the Father arranged our salvation.  Then v. 7 says that in [Christ] we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses.  Here we see that the Son, through His life, death, and resurrection, accomplished our salvation.  Finally, v. 13, [we] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit applied our salvation.  

So why is salvation impossible without a Trinitarian God?  Because of His holiness and our sin.  In order for God to restore us to Himself, His justice and wrath must be satisfied.  So He arranged our salvation and sent His Son to accomplish it by dying a substitutionary death on the cross, bearing the guilt of our sin upon Himself and absorbing God's fierce and holy wrath.  He rose again proving that His death was victorious and now He commands all men to repent and believe this news.  However, men are still dead in their sin and are unable to come to Christ.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit comes and applies the work of Christ to our souls and gives us new hearts so that we can believe this Gospel when it is proclaimed.  And that Holy Spirit will continue applying that salvation so that we can persevere to the end.  

I pray this spurs us on to daily repentance and faith (especially those of you who have not received this message!).  May we be pleased to enter God's courts, through Christ, by the power of the Spirit, with thanksgiving and praise (Psa. 100:4)!

Are you a confessional Trinitarian, but a functional Unitarian?

I cannot think of a moment where I have heard a professing Christian deny the Trinity.  They might be ignorant or even fuzzy on some of the details, but usually they will assent to them once explained.  Plus, there is a fundamental difference between ignorance and denial.  Ignorance of the Trinity is immaturity; denial is damnable heresy. 

But while Christians would never dream of denying the Trinity, many I know, if not most, do not let it affect their day to day lives.  In fact, I speculate that these people wonder if God’s triunity is even necessary for their salvation or Christian life.  They are confessional Trinitarians (one God in three persons), but functional Unitarians (one God in one person). 

Therefore, I want to do a series of brief blog posts on how the Trinity affects our Christian lives.  Today, however, let us remind ourselves on what the Trinity actually is. 

God is one God in three distinct, co-existent, co-equal, co-eternal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The one Godhead consists of three persons who exist at the same time; all three are equally God, and thus they have always existed and will always exist.  Notice also that they are distinct.  This means that though the Father = God, the Son = God, and the Holy Spirit = God, at the same time the Father ≠ the Son or Holy Spirit, the Son ≠ the Father or Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit ≠ the Father or the Son.  Here is the best diagram of the Trinity I have yet to see.

If these distinctions seem unnecessary, just ask yourself, Who died on the cross?  The Father?  Of course not, the Son did.  If you think to yourself "does this really matter?", be very careful.  The first two commandments reveal that God is not only concerned that we worship Him only, but that we worship Him rightly, and we cannot do the latter if we confuse, or worse deny, His very nature!  Among those who are near Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified (Lev. 10:3).  God is passionate about His glory and honor, especially among His people.

In this series of posts, I want to give brief thoughts regarding the Trinity and our salvation, prayers, worship, preaching, and more.  My prayer is that we would not only grow deeper in our knowledge of God, but also in our conformity to Christ by the power of His Spirit. 

Down with functional Unitarianism! 

Why ANOTHER blog and why the pretentious title?

Simply put, this blog is an attempt to express theological thoughts and insights in a brief and concise manner.  The purpose is twofold: for the sake of the reader and good practice for myself.

With regards to the reader: there are many many great blogs out there.  However, many contain lengthy posts.  I am not against reading lengthy theological insights; on the contrary, I am quite edified by them.  Typically, however, if I am going to read something like that, I want it to be from the pen of an old, dead, seasoned theologian like John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, or one of the Protestant Reformers, not a blogger (no offense brothers).  However, I do pray this spurs you on to read Owen and/or other men like him (this dude, or this dude, and of course this dude that everyone loves).

With regards to myself: my wife will be the first to tell you that I tend to be long-winded.  Therefore, this blog is a disciplined way to grow in expressing biblical thought in a concise and precise manner.  And since I cut my theological teeth on guys who are the opposite of concise, the name "Pithy Puritanism" seemed to fit ("pithy" is another word for brief or concise).

So I pray this be edifying for you and sanctifying for me.  Grace and Peace!