Against LSM's Allegorizing

[OBW]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I then began to actively seek out the writings of other "branches" of Christian thought besides "Inner Life" and "Plymouth Brethren". I found so many marvelous examples of Christian practice that were utterly unknown to Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the Blended Brothers. I discovered some incredibly irenic, peace-loving, self-sacrificing, faithful-unto-death branches of Christianity. The obedience, the faith, and the love shown by these Christian groups was incredible. I am so glad that I went beyond those ministers and those groups normally associated with "The Lord's Recovery". Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, and the LRC do not have any kind of monopoly on what is pleasing to God's heart - far from it.

I have intentionally left out any reference to what was before. It is where we go that matters.

My studies are not as profound as yours. I read somewhat limitedly. Partly because lengthy reading has been difficult due to allergies and a general dislike of the reading glasses that I should be using. But my reading — mostly of a collection of blogs that give interesting insights into many things, including many books — has me realizing that even those long-despised liturgies and times given to a deliberate "walk" through such a "traditional" thing are rich with meaning. And it gives such time for contemplation. Something that more lively meetings do not allow for. They still are not my preference. But I no longer presume that they are "dead" because of their form. A contemplative life is a rich and rewarding life. Surely there are those who simply do rituals. But to presume that upon everyone is as great an error as saying that the LRC's odd-ball version of the trinity is so heretical that they are a "cult of Christianity."

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have intentionally left out any reference to what was before. It is where we go that matters.

My studies are not as profound as yours. I read somewhat limitedly. Partly because lengthy reading has been difficult due to allergies and a general dislike of the reading glasses that I should be using. But my reading — mostly of a collection of blogs that give interesting insights into many things, including many books — has me realizing that even those long-despised liturgies and times given to a deliberate "walk" through such a "traditional" thing are rich with meaning. And it gives such time for contemplation. Something that more lively meetings do not allow for. They still are not my preference. But I no longer presume that they are "dead" because of their form. A contemplative life is a rich and rewarding life. Surely there are those who simply do rituals. But to presume that upon everyone is as great an error as saying that the LRC's odd-ball version of the trinity is so heretical that they are a "cult of Christianity."

Hello again dear brother OBW,

I fully agree with you. While they are not my preference either, some of the liturgies are really rich with meaning. The last time my family attended a a meeting of the Moravian church, it happened to be "Trinity Sunday" according to the liturgical calendar. The liturgy that was being used for "Trinity Sunday" had been written by Count Zinzendorf himself back in the mid-1700's. I was very much impressed with the insights expressed by Zinzendorf in his liturgy and by the sermon given on the topic of the Trinity by the Moravian pastor.

There are lots of profound riches scattered throughout documents like the various "Apologies" of the "Church Fathers", the Westminster Confession, the various versions of the Anglican/Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, etc. etc.

I think we are all familiar with the first point of the "Westminster Shorter Catechism" written in the 1640's:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

[kisstheson]

Hello dear brothers Igzy and Ohio,

Is everything good between us regarding Song of Songs and which OT books are not quoted in the NT vs. which OT books are not quoted, alluded to, or contain verbal parallels with the NT? I hope all is good between us and I hope we are all reconciled on this point.

I was referencing the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" in the back of the USB4. According to this Index, Song of Songs is the only OT book which is neither alluded to in the NT nor contains any verbal parallels with any passages in the NT. As the example from the book of Obadiah showed, the scholar(s) who complied this index were fairly liberal regarding what constitutes an "allusion or verbal parallel". In spite of this fact, there are no entries for Song of Songs in this index. All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever touched it!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear brothers Igzy and Ohio,

Is everything good between us regarding Song of Songs and which OT books are not quoted in the NT vs. which OT books are not quoted, alluded to, or contain verbal parallels with the NT? I hope all is good between us and I hope we are all reconciled on this point.

I was referencing the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" in the back of the USB4. According to this Index, Song of Songs is the only OT book which is neither alluded to in the NT nor contains any verbal parallels with any passages in the NT. As the example from the book of Obadiah showed, the scholar(s) who complied this index were fairly liberal regarding what constitutes an "allusion or verbal parallel". In spite of this fact, there are no entries for Song of Songs in this index. All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever touched it!

There never was anything but good between us. I only asked for clarification on your post since I have UBS3 and you have the later UBS4, which has another index which mine does not have.

Igzy brought up the point that SofS was just romantic in nature, and why should it be anything more. I am not sure either way, but since none of us is poetically fluent in the ancient Hebrew language, we really can't appreciate the song for what it is. Neither do we have the musical accompaniment, which, knowing Solomon, might have been symphonic with opera-like singers.

Since their is no N.T. mention, do you know how long it has been since the church has first interpreted the SofS allegorically?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There never was anything but good between us. I only asked for clarification on your post since I have UBS3 and you have the later UBS4, which has another index which mine does not have.

Igzy brought up the point that SofS was just romantic in nature, and why should it be anything more. I am not sure either way, but since none of us is poetically fluent in the ancient Hebrew language, we really can't appreciate the song for what it is. Neither do we have the musical accompaniment, which, knowing Solomon, might have been symphonic with opera-like singers.

Since their is no N.T. mention, do you know how long it has been since the church has first interpreted the SofS allegorically?

Here's an interesting site on allegory of SofS, before and after Christianity.....
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_...fSongs-GTJ.pdf

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There never was anything but good between us. I only asked for clarification on your post since I have UBS3 and you have the later UBS4, which has another index which mine does not have.

Igzy brought up the point that SofS was just romantic in nature, and why should it be anything more. I am not sure either way, but since none of us is poetically fluent in the ancient Hebrew language, we really can't appreciate the song for what it is. Neither do we have the musical accompaniment, which, knowing Solomon, might have been symphonic with opera-like singers.

Since their is no N.T. mention, do you know how long it has been since the church has first interpreted the SofS allegorically?

Hello dear brother Ohio. Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your reply.

From my understanding, there were two Pre-Nicene "Church Fathers" who interpreted Song of Songs. The first was the partial commentary (perhaps most has been lost over the centuries??) by Hippolytus, written approx. 200 A.D.. Hippolytus viewed SofS as a kind of "love triangle" between Israel, Jesus Christ, and the Church. The second was a commentary by Origen, written approx. 240 A.D.. If I understand correctly, Origen was the first one to compose a commentary on the whole Bible. He would speak his messages, and his friends would write down what he said. Origen viewed SofS from much more of a mystical viewpoint, seeing a love story between a soul and Jesus Christ. If I understand correctly, Origen was the first to state that SofS should only be studied by those who are "spiritually mature" and that "immature" Christians could be harmed by studying SofS. While the interpretation of Hippolytus shows up here and there throughout Church History, it seems that Origen's interpretation has largely prevailed.

The well-known Eastern Orthodox "Church Father" Gregory of Nyssa published a series of 15 messages on Song of Songs in approx. 370 A.D.. Gregory appears to have followed the interpretation of Origen, that SofS is a love story between a soul and Jesus Christ.

Extremely influential for the Medieval Roman Catholic Church was the series of messages on SofS by Bernard of Clairvaux, spoken (and also written down) over a long span of years, 1135 - 1153 A.D. (If I remember correctly, some other Cistercian monks completed Bernard's series of messages.). I have read some of these sermons in the book Bernard of Clairvaux: Selected Works, which is part of the "Classics of Western Spirituality" series published by Paulist Press, and Bernard brings out some really rich points here and there. Interestingly, Bernard used the SofS as a kind of "springboard" to reflect on various current events, his own personal experiences, human life in general, and the importance of loving God.

Another collection of messages on SofS which I am familiar with is the series written by Teresa of Avila in approx. 1570 A.D., found in The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, Vol. 2. She also followed the basic interpretation of Origen, seeing SofS as a love story between a soul and Jesus Christ, with her own unique emphasis on the culmination of this love story being the bliss of "spiritual marriage". I also have found many rich points in Teresa's messages, but I would warn readers that due to Teresa's Medieval Roman Catholic background, there are lots of references to "The Blessed Virgin Mary".

We all know about the interpretations of SofS by WN and WL. The interpretation of SofS from a "Protestant" viewpoint that I enjoyed the most is the one by Hudson Taylor in the short book Union and Communion, written in 1893. Another interpretation of SofS which I enjoyed was the one written by H.A. Ironside, consisting of messages spoken in 1931 and 1932.

I see that dear brother awareness has posted a link. I am sure that there is a ton of information out on the web regarding the history of the interpretation of the SofS by both Jewish and Christian authors.

I hope this helps, dear brother! Much grace, peace, and love in Christ be with you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I see that dear brother awareness has posted a link.

Here's something especially interesting, from that site :

A specimen of such allegory is found in Mekilta (Exodus),
Shirata, Beshallal:t, § 3:
R. Akiba said: I will speak of the beauty and praise of God before all
the nations. They ask Israel and say, 'What is your beloved more than
another beloved that "thou dost so charge us' (Cant. V, 9), 'that you die
for Him, and that you are slain for Him' as it says, 'Therefore till death
do they love Thee' (a pun on Cant. I, 3), and 'For thy sake are we slain
all the day' (Ps. XLIV, 22). 'Behold,' they say, 'You are beautiful, you
are mighty, come and mingle with us.'


Apparently, the Jews believed in mingling.....don't know if it is meant "mingle in our spirits," or, "come and party among us."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I was referencing the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" in the back of the USB4. According to this Index, Song of Songs is the only OT book which is neither alluded to in the NT nor contains any verbal parallels with any passages in the NT. As the example from the book of Obadiah showed, the scholar(s) who complied this index were fairly liberal regarding what constitutes an "allusion or verbal parallel". In spite of this fact, there are no entries for Song of Songs in this index. All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever touched it!

Dear Brother,

I don't think we can come to this conclusion based on allusions or verbal parallels. Jesus said that He was the greater Solomon. This was said in the context of the Queen of Sheba coming to hear the wisdom of Solomon. When we talk of the wisdom of Solomon I see no basis to exclude his writings, particularly his "Song of Songs".

In chapter 5 of Ephesians Paul talks of the walk for both Singles and the married couples and concludes saying "this mystery is great but I speak with regards to Christ and the Church". Therefore, speaking of romantic love and marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church is a NT sanctioned metaphor and something that the Apostle Paul did touch. To apply that same metaphor to Song of Songs is clearly within the boundary of what the Apostles taught.

The Apostle John referred to the church as the Bride of Christ and said that she had made herself ready. So here is another Apostle that touched this figure of speech with regards to Christ and the Church. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone looking for this metaphor in the OT would overlook Song of Songs. Why isn't the phrase "she has made herself ready" a verbal parallel with SofS since it clearly describes this woman making herself ready?

Jesus also used this analogy, saying that He was the bridegroom and talked about the marriage of the Bride and groom.

So that list of verbal allusions and parallelisms may be interesting, but I don't see that it in any way can be used to say that the SofS is not touched on by Jesus or the Apostles.

While thinking on this I was reminded of an experience I had when I was 12 years old that left an indelible mark on my brain. I was on a Pee Wee football team, we were playing the last game of the regular season, we were undefeated and our opponent was undefeated, so this game would decide the conference champion. We had been the conference champion the previous year, but the newspaper was predicting we would lose this year. Their reasoning was simple, they put a side by side comparison up of the score from every game showing that our opponent had done equally well, if not better against every other team in the conference. Also, they pointed out that their linemen were, on average, bigger than our linemen. Pee Wee football is all about the running game, so this also seemed to be a very relevant observation. I read this article and I realized that their facts were accurate, their reasoning was logical, and the article was complete trash. I felt, why didn't this guy take 5 minutes to talk to anyone on the team, I could easily have made it clear that the whole article was complete rubbish.

So we played the game, every single possession our 1st string offense scored a touchdown, and our 1st string defense held them to negative total yards. It was such a blowout that the coach pulled the first string out at the end of the 1st quarter. The final score was something like 45-0 (I think they might have scored a touchdown against our third string, I can't remember).

Here is what the writer missed -- During the entire season our 1st string had never played in the second half, and for most games we hadn't played in the 2nd quarter. Also, as far as their linemen being bigger, I was the smallest lineman on the first string, I weighed 97 pounds and the weight limit was 99. Everyone else on the starting team ran around in sweats all week to make sure they made weight. So because the guy across from me is 2 pounds heavier, that is their advantage? Statistics cannot replace common sense or research.

[kisstheson]

Hello dear brother ZNPaaneah. Thank you for your post. I appreciate your insights and I enjoyed your football testimony. That is a very timely testimony considering the fact that football season is upon us once again.

I am certainly comfortable saying “All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever directly touched it or made a clear-cut allusion to it." If we extend the definition of “allusion or verbal parallel” used by the scholar(s) who compiled the list in the USB4 to make the phrase more generous and more inclusive, then we could certainly find some “allusions or verbal parallels” to Song of Songs in the NT. No doubt about it - by broadening our definition of "allusions or verbal parallels", we could find some "allusions or verbal parallels" to SofS. The problem with extending the definition of “allusion or verbal parallel”, however, is that the term would be so generous and inclusive that we could never be certain which OT verse is being alluded to by an NT verse, since in almost every case multiple OT verses would exist which could to be linked an NT verse.

In the case of Song of Songs, there are so many other portions of the OT which contain clear examples or images of romantic love/marriage/husband-and-wife, that it would be impossible to know exactly which OT passage is being referred to by an NT verse. An NT verse using the language of romantic love/marriage/husband-and-wife might be alluding to SofS, but it could also be alluding to Adam and Eve as “the man and his wife” in Genesis 2, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel, the bridal imagery between God and Israel in the books of Moses, the bridal imagery in the prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc.), Psalms like Psalm 45, etc.

For example, take your discussion of the phrase "this mystery is great but I speak with regards to Christ and the Church" in Ephesians chapter 5. This phrase is found in Eph. 5:32. The verse right before this one, Eph. 5:31, is a direct quote from Genesis 2:24, from a portion speaking about Adam and Eve. While I cannot definitively say that Paul did not have SofS somewhere back in the far recesses of his mind when he wrote Eph. 5:32, the clear context to the phrase “this mystery is great but I speak with regards to Christ and the Church” is Adam and Eve (called “the man and his wife” in Gen. 2:25). A direct quotation from Genesis 2 is right there in black and white in the verse before Eph. 5:32, so there is no absolutely no need to go looking to SofS in this case when Genesis 2 is the obvious source.

Regarding your discussion of the phrase “the Bride of Christ had made herself ready” from Revelation 19:7, there is once again no clear-cut tie to SofS. If there is an OT passage being alluded to here, that OT passage could very easily be Psalm 45 instead of SofS. Part of the Hebrew title for Psalm 45 translates to “A Song of Love”. Also, look at Rev. 19:8, the verse right after Revelation 19:7. Rev. 19:8 speaks of the clothing of the wife of the Lamb, and, in a parallel manner, Psalm 45:13 & 14 also speak of bridal garments. Furthermore, Psalm 45:6 & 7 are plainly identified with Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1:8-9 since these verses in Hebrews are clearly speaking about the Son of God. Since the author of Hebrews has already made such a definitive link between Psalm 45 and Christ, I can more confidently speak of “Christ and the Church” in Psalm 45 compared to SofS.

Of course, some verses in Psalm 45 have parallels to verses in SofS. For example, Psalm 45: 9 & 14b somewhat parallel SofS 6:8, Psalm 45:14 somewhat parallels SofS 1:4a, etc. While SofS could have been in John’s mind when he wrote “His wife has made herself ready” in Rev. 19:7, this is not necessarily the case. If there is indeed an OT passage being alluded to in Rev. 19:7, Psalm 45 is at least as strong a candidate as SofS. Due to the link with Hebrews 1:8-9, Psalm 45 actually appears to be an even stronger candidate, than SofS.

It could even be the case that John had in mind the words spoken by Jesus in Matthew 24:44 or 25:10 when he wrote the words “His wife has made herself ready” in Rev. 19:7. In other words, there may not even be an OT allusion behind the words regarding the wife making herself ready! Matthew 25:10 seems like the most appropriate verse to link to the second half of Revelation 19:7 out of all the verses in the Bible. I see no OT passage which links to the second half of Revelation 19:7 as much as Matthew 25:10 does. In this case there is most likely no need to go to SofS since the words of Jesus are what is being alluded to.

In summary, it seems to me that your links between the NT and SofS are rather strained and forced, not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they function at too high a level and because they do not take into account other possible OT sources. If we follow the criteria laid down by the scholar(s) who compiled the “Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels” in the USB4, then there are no allusions or verbal parallels to SofS in the NT. If we extend the meaning of “Allusions and Verbal Parallels”, we may indeed find some links to SofS, but the NT verses in question will not necessarily link only to SofS – other OT passages will also emerge as likely candidates. Since SofS is definitely not quoted by Jesus or His apostles, and since there are no clear-cut allusions in the NT which necessarily link back solely to SofS, I repeat my statement from my opening paragraph: “All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever directly touched it or made a clear-cut allusion to it.”

Thank you for the discussion, dear brother. I appreciate your comments because they helped me to further clarify my position on this matter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Thank you, I think that cleared things up for me as well. If I understand correctly you are not saying that they didn't touch SoS but rather they didn't touch the language or expressions of SoS

[awareness]

The Song of Songs can't be used to allude to Christ and the Church because as admitted Witness Lee took her virginity.....

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thank you, I think that cleared things up for me as well. If I understand correctly you are not saying that they didn't touch SoS but rather they didn't touch the language or expressions of SoS

You got it, dear brother ZNPaaneah. You nailed it. That is exactly what I am saying and what the index in the USB4 is saying: It is not that Jesus and His apostles did not touch SofS, but rather they didn't touch the language or expressions of SoS. Well said.

I love it when we end on the same page!!

SofS was definitely part of the spiritual heritage of Jesus and His apostles, so SofS, like all of the OT, was always there in the background. SofS contributes greatly to the "lovey-dovey, touchy-feely, smoochy-woochy" collection of OT passages, so whenever Jesus or His apostles employ imagery along these lines, SofS is definitely part of the background - even though the language and expressions of SofS are never directly utilized.