The first is the allegorical approach, in which this book is seen as an allegorical poem, which is designed primarily to picture the love of Christ and His Church. In such an approach, the interpreter would often bypass the obvious surface meaning of the text, so that all that is said by the Shulamite woman is taken as being said directly by the Church, and all that is said by her lover may be taken to be said directly by Christ to His bride; and every recorded detail has signification in therelationship between Christ and His Church. The most obvious justification forthis approach is that elsewhere in the Scripture, the Church is spoken of asthe bride and Christ is spoken of as the groom (Jn 3:29; Eph 5:22–23; Rev18:23; 22:17; etc.). And moreover, Christ is also portrayed as a Shepherd, a King, and a Husband, as the lover is so portrayed in the Song.

This allegorical approach was taken by the Jews, though they speak of it asbeing an allegorical picture of the love of God for Israel; and it was theapproach of most of the early church fathers, such as Origen, Jerome,Athanasius and Augustine. Although there has been by no means consensus oragreement with regards to details, it was the approach maintained by most, ifnot all, of the Reformers and Puritans, and continued to be the approach untilaround the 19th century.

A second approach to the Song, which gained popularity at around the beginning of the 19th century, is the dramatic interpretation. In this approach, the Song is seen as some kind of a script for a romantic drama. Scholars who advocated this approach include Franz Delitzsch, H. Ewald, and S.R. Driver. However this approach has been criticised, firstly, for failing to note that the literary genre of drama scripts was not known among the Israelites and, secondly, for failing to show that the Song can indeed be analysed into scenes, acts, mimes, etc., which are the essence of a dramaticwork.

The third approach, which is very popular today, is to take the Song simply as a lyrical poem to extol human love and marriage. There are some disagreements as to whether there are two or three main characters (Solomon and the Shulamite; or Solomon, the Shulamite and her Shepherd-lover).

The fourth approach, which is in some ways a combination of the first and the third approaches, is known as the typological approach. In this approach, the Song is viewed as an extended type, with Solomon typifying the Christ and the Shulamite typifying the Church. The difference between this approach and the allegorical approach is that, unlike the latter, it preserves the obvious sense and apparently historical settingsof the poem, and only seeks broad typological allusion to the relationship between Christ and the Church. This approach finds its basis in the fact that much of the Old Testament has typological references to Christ, which are confirmed in the New Testament (e.g., Mt 12:40; Jn 3:14; cf. Gen 28:12, Lk 19:28).

What approach do I believe is correct? I see no value in the dramatic approach;and I am not at all comfortable with seeing the book as being purely a romanticpoem. I am convinced that all of the Old Testament points to Christ in one wayor another (Lk 24:27, 44). On the other hand, I am acutely aware of how apurely allegorical interpretation of the Song can lead to extremely divergentviews; and yet I think there is more than just broad and occasion typologicalallusions to Christ and His bride in the book. It appears to me, rather thatthis book is, by design, to extol the love between Christ and His Church,though expressed in an allegorical parabolic way. It appears to me that just asthe Lord’s parables make good sense even when read on the surface; so the Songdoes make good sense when read on the surface. Yes, as the Lord’s parables havetheir intended lessons and/or didactic meanings in the spiritual realm, so tooin the Song. Though on the surface, the Song speaks about the love between theShulamite woman and her lover, it is intended to point to the love between theChurch and Christ. And just as it is necessary to understand the surfacemeaning of a parable before the spiritual meaning can be derived, so it isnecessary to understand the surface meaning of the Song to some degree beforedrawing the spiritual meaning, or else our interpretations will run wild.Moreover, just as it is necessary to interpret the parables of the Lord bycomparing Scripture with Scripture, so it is necessary to do so in the case ofthe Song. In this regard, I do not think that any theology not found elsewherein the Scripture may be derived from the Song, and yet the Song gives a veryrich exposition to the biblical theology it touches on.

But how can the Song be parabolic if it describes the actual love story betweenthe concubine of David and King Solomon, as many commentators suggest? Well, Ido not personally think that the Shulamite woman refers to David’s concubinewhom he gave to Solomon when he died, nor do I think that her lover in the Songis Solomon!

In the first place, the lover is painted as a shepherd in the song (1:7; 6:3), and Solomon was not quite a shepherd although he did own flocks of sheep. In the second place, by the time this Song was written, Solomon had 60 queens,and 80 concubines, and the number was increasing because there were “virginswithout number” (6:8)! And furthermore, as we read the Song, it makes a lot more sense if we see the references to Solomon as part of the imagination or dream of the Shulamite woman concerning her lover. That is, although Solomon is not the lover, in her mind he is like Solomon the king.

Who then were these two persons? Well, I am quite persuaded through my ownstudy that these two persons in the Song did not really exist in real life.It appears to me that Solomon was not writing the love story between two real persons. He was writing, I believe, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, a parable of perfectlove personified,—a parable of the love between the Messiah and His bride.

With this in mind, a study of the Song with the illuminating help of the HolySpirit would be most enriching and satisfying spiritual experience. MatthewHenry expresses it well when he says:

Itrequires some pains to find out what may, probably, be the meaning of the HolySpirit in the several parts of this book; as David’s songs are many of themlevel to the capacity of the meanest, and there are shallows in them learned,and there are depths in it in which an elephant may swim. But, when the meaningis found out, it will be of admirable use to excite pious and devout affectionsin us; and the same truths which are plainly laid down in other scriptures whenthey are extracted out of this come to the soul with a more pleasing power.When we apply ourselves to the study of this book we must not only, with Mosesand Joshua, put off our shoe from off our foot, and even forget that we havebodies, because the place where we stand is holy ground, but we must, withJohn, come up hither, must spread our wings, take a noble flight, and soarupwards, till by faith and holy love we enter into the holiest, for this is noother than the house of God and this is the gate of heaven (introductory noteto “An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of the Song of Solomon” in Comm., vol. 3).