How do you deal with the refrain that first occurs in Song of Solomon 2:7? It reads:
I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the does of the field, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases. (Song of Solomon 2:7; cf. 3:5, 8:4)
I can understand this phrase as an interjection into 'a poem celebrating human love and sexuality' (p. xiii, Song of Songs (NICOT), by Tremper Longman III), but why would we not stir up love for Christ?
I've looked up Matthew Henry and John Gill who follow the allegorical interpretation and they seem to be using the reading do 'not stir up or awaken my love' - i.e. do not bother Christ or the church (depending on who you think is speaking). Is this a valid translation?
Longman seems to admit of two meanings of the warning:
One suggestion is that the phrase has the force of a “do not disturb sign.” Don’t disturb us until our love (the love of the man and the woman) has had its fill. Yet this seems an odd way to express the idea. More naturally, the verse is a warning of the woman to other women who may look on the relationship and want to experience something similar; she is, in essence, telling them not to force it. Wait for love to blossom; don’t hurry it. In a sense, then, the daughters of Jerusalem are surrogates for the reader. We too are to learn the same lesson: Wait for love to blossom; don’t try to stimulate it artificially…. She warns the others not to arouse love until they are ready to meet its rigors, both physical and emotional. Love is not a passing fling but rather a demanding and exhausting relationship. (pp. 115-116)
In addition to what Longman says I can see how a longing for the love you see in happy couples can actually lead to lust, and the idolatry of that kind of relationship.
So I cannot see how such an important verse can be made to fit the allegorical interpretation, for all its other strengths. At the moment I remain an unfashionable literalist, but please try and pursuade me.
PS I realise 6 posts in 2 days is not very good for a person only 3 weeks away from a very important exam... but I have a lot of stuff going round my head. I think it is all out though now!
Try this by Daniel Newman
ReplyDeleteThanks Dave.
ReplyDeleteDaniel's post is interesting. I like that he notices that 2:7 et al are refrains which structure the song, but he doesn't seem to deal with how you can fit it into the allegorical interpretation. The Geneva Bible notes that he refers to were interesting but again seem to insert 'my' before love to make sense of the verse.
However following rabbit trails I appreciated Matthew Mason's old post explaining clearly and briefly why he thinks that the allegorical interpretation is correct.
Still unconvinced though... sorry.
Interestingly I posted this just before your post on Mark Driscoll doing the Song. Seems to have sparked some good discussion over there.
My approach was to take a week reading The Song with Daniel's series of posts on it as my commentary - I tried adopting the hypothesis and seeing how it fitted on the way through. Seemed to win me over.
ReplyDeleteDave (K): I'm with you, for what it's worth! (As you'd probably worked out from my comments on the bluefish).
ReplyDeleteMy first stop over at the blog, and I'm liking what I'm seeing...
Thanks Daniel
ReplyDelete