Amazon.com Widgets

Should Pentecostals Interpret the Song of Songs Allegorically? by Brandon Biggs

| December 29, 2013 | 12 comments

⁴Richard S. Hess, Song of Songs, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms, ed. Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 32.

⁵Ibid., 31.

⁶Carr, The Song of Solomon, 123.

⁷OT 3618, Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Electronic Database [PC Study Bible v4] Biblesoft, Inc., 2002)

⁸Carr, 139.

⁹Ibid., 136.

¹⁰Ibid., 68-69.

¹¹Longman, Song of Songs, 58.

¹²Richard S. Hess, Song of Songs, 33.

¹³Carr, 171.

¹⁴Ibid., 93.

¹⁵Longman, 59.

Works Cited

Carr, G. Lloyd. The Song of Solomon. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D.J. Wiseman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Hess, Richard S. Song of Songs. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms, ed. Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition. Electronic Database [CD–ROM], PC Study Bible Vol.4.

Longman, Tremper. Song of Songs. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, eds. R.K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2001.

OT 3618, Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Electronic Database [PC Study Bible Vol. 4] Biblesoft, Inc., 2002.

Page 6 of 6« First «...2 3 4 56

Tags: bible commentary, Canticles, Song of Solomon

Category: Biblical Studies

About the Author: Brandon Biggs is a graduate student at a classical Pentecostal institute of higher learning and lives in Texas.

Pneuma Review says:

June 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, ET said: “I don’t see anything ‘Pentecostal’ in this article.”

Pneuma Review says:

June 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, AH said: “I think this [interpretation] is used at places like iHop and the like, it’s called ‘Bridal Paradigm’ doctrine, and it’s heretical. …”

Pneuma Review says:

June 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, RW said: “[ET], I agree. The article in no way speaks to Pentecostal issues of reception of this text. It fails to speak to a number of other issues: history of interpretation and reception (whether Jewish or Christian).”

Bibliata TV says:

June 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm

Dr. Frank Macchia wrote: They pressed us on two issues. One: transcendence (that Pentecostalism is otherworldly while Tillich is not) and Two: Christology (that we want Jesus to be definitive for pneumatology while many Tillichians are moving beyond this). I responded to the first by saying that Pentecostals (from Hollenweger to Yong) are seeking to move beyond the older dualism b/w nature and supernatural and that Tillich could be a resource. Interestingly, Mark Taylor said that for Tillich transcendence is “beyond” but without leaving the “within.” I told him in conversation afterward that we would press the “beyond” “further out” to include new creation in the image of the risen Christ. “We’re apocalyptic types!” I stressed. I should have added, “Had Tillich followed this, he might have had an eschatology!” About the Christology issue, there wasn’t time for us to respond to this. Here I would say that there is no moving away from the centrality of Christ for pneumatology. I would repeat what I said at the session, namely, that Tillich sounds oneness in his Christology: Christ is the definitive manifestation of Spirit for all history. Tillich throws us into a family squabble within Pentecostalism. All in all, everyone agreed that Tillich was a theologian of the third article. I thought it was a good session and that Nimi and Lisa did really well.

Pneuma Review says:

June 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, MAL wrote: “Pentecostals should have no specific exegetical bias, and therefore, there should be no ‘pentecostal’ interpretation. Being Pentecostal is descriptive, not proscriptive.

“Therefore, being Pentecostal would have no interest in violating proper hermeneutics and do violence to the text to turn the Song of Songs into allegory. This article would imply an unfortunate and basic misunderstanding of pentecostalism. Therefore, there is no need to read the article as it is on it’s face and in it’s title a misguided effort.”

Monte Lee Rice says:

June 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm

Contrary to the drift of this essay, much good Pentecostal scholarship confirms an innate congruence between Pentecostal spirituality (with its dynamically open view of revelation) and allegorical readings of Scripture, and conversely, its incongruence with the modern historical-grammatical stress on authorial intent as the most determinative meaning of Scripture. Notwithstanding a valid role to historical-grammatical exegesis, Simon Chan for instance notes this dissonance, while suggesting a measured congruency between Pentecostal openness to meanings beyond authorial intent, and the mediaeval understanding into the “sensus plenum of Scripture.” (Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition [Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 27-28). Kenneth J. Archer similarly notes the incongruence of the “Evangelical historical critical method” with early and innate Pentecostal postures towards Scripture (A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community [Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2005, 2009] p. 201).

I would say that notwithstanding the historical role which Pentecostal Bible exegetes who ultilised Evangelical author-centred interpretive methods for bringing Pentecostal biblical theology into viable dialogues with Evangelical scholarship, we need not uphold their methods as the only valid Pentecostal approaches to Scripture readings. They represent just one phase of Pentecostal hermeneutics, amongst several other phases, all of which need to inform a robust Pentecostal hermeneutic, which would include— early Pentecostal allegorical readings of Scripture (Louis William Oliverio Jr., Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account [Netherlands: Brill, 2012], pp. 15-17).

Dale M. Coulter provides two helpful essays on the seminal role which allegory served towards early Pentecostal theologising. First is his essay titled, “What Meaneth This? Pentecostals and Theological Inquiry” (Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 1 [2001]: pp. 38-64). There he points out how early Pentecostal presumptions about “different levels of meaning” in Scripture helped Pentecostal discern the varied experiences of the Spirit in salvation history (e.g., outer court, holy place, holy of holies → redemption, sanctification, Spirit baptism), which also illustrated how their dynamic view of revelation shares resemblance with the medieval multilevel hermeneutic. Second to note is Coulter’s essay, “The Spirit and the Bride Revisited: Pentecostalism, Renewal, and the Sense of History” (Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 [2012]: 298–319), where he calls attention to how bridal imagery in Scripture shaped early Pentecostal historical consciousness. This of course, includes examples of allegorical reading of Song of Songs in early Pentecostal preaching and teaching.

There is so much more we can say. But to conclude for now, I would also say, as I understand the history, that the early Protestant Reformers never wholly dismissed allegorical readings of Scripture, and neither did they adhere to a modern scientific “author-centred only” reading of Scripture. Rather, they sought a theological reading of Scripture, which means they read Scripture in light of the great creedal confession and patristic readings. What they sought was not the quest of total objectivity in getting “behind the text,” but rather, a Christian reading of the Bible, and hence— a theological reading, fostered through a theological hermeneutic.

A good Pentecostal theological hermeneutic is therefore what makes that chorus so applicable for us who walk in the way of salvation, “My Beloved is mine, and I am His; His banner over me is love.”

Bibliata TV says:

January 3, 2014 at 6:17 pm

Dr. Frank Macchia wrote: They pressed us on two issues. One: transcendence (that Pentecostalism is otherworldly while Tillich is not) and Two: Christology (that we want Jesus to be definitive for pneumatology while many Tillichians are moving beyond this). I responded to the first by saying that Pentecostals (from Hollenweger to Yong) are seeking to move beyond the older dualism b/w nature and supernatural and that Tillich could be a resource. Interestingly, Mark Taylor said that for Tillich transcendence is "beyond" but without leaving the "within." I told him in conversation afterward that we would press the "beyond" "further out" to include new creation in the image of the risen Christ. "We're apocalyptic types!" I stressed. I should have added, "Had Tillich followed this, he might have had an eschatology!" About the Christology issue, there wasn't time for us to respond to this. Here I would say that there is no moving away from the centrality of Christ for pneumatology. I would repeat what I said at the session, namely, that Tillich sounds oneness in his Christology: Christ is the definitive manifestation of Spirit for all history. Tillich throws us into a family squabble within Pentecostalism. All in all, everyone agreed that Tillich was a theologian of the third article. I thought it was a good session and that Nimi and Lisa did really well.

Pneuma Review says:

January 2, 2014 at 1:37 am

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, MAL wrote: "Pentecostals should have no specific exegetical bias, and therefore, there should be no 'pentecostal' interpretation. Being Pentecostal is descriptive, not proscriptive.

"Therefore, being Pentecostal would have no interest in violating proper hermeneutics and do violence to the text to turn the Song of Songs into allegory. This article would imply an unfortunate and basic misunderstanding of pentecostalism. Therefore, there is no need to read the article as it is on it's face and in it's title a misguided effort."

Monte Lee Rice says:

January 1, 2014 at 2:30 am

Pneuma Review says:

December 31, 2013 at 8:13 pm

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, AH said: "I think this [interpretation] is used at places like iHop and the like, it's called 'Bridal Paradigm' doctrine, and it's heretical. …"

Pneuma Review says:

December 31, 2013 at 8:08 pm

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, RW said: "[ET], I agree. The article in no way speaks to Pentecostal issues of reception of this text. It fails to speak to a number of other issues: history of interpretation and reception (whether Jewish or Christian)."

Pneuma Review says:

December 31, 2013 at 8:07 pm

On the Pentecostal Theology Worldwide Facebook group, ET said: "I don't see anything 'Pentecostal' in this article."

Should Pentecostals Interpret the Song of Songs Allegorically? by Brandon Biggs

Connect with PneumaReview.com

Recent Comments

Featured Authors

Recent Posts

Archives

Should Pentecostals Interpret the Song of Songs Allegorically? by Brandon Biggs

Related articles:

Connect with PneumaReview.com

Recent Comments

Featured Authors

Recent Posts

Archives