Sermon Tone Analysis

Song of Songs II

"The Lord has given me a hunger for righteousness and piety that can alone be of Himself.

Such hungering He alone can satisfy, yet Satan would delude and cast up all sorts of other baubles, social life, a name renowned, a position of importance, scholastic attainment.

What are these but the objects of the "desire of the Gentiles' whose cravings are warped and perverted.

Surely they can mean nothing to the soul who has seen the beauty of Jesus Christ."

So wrote Jim Eliot in November of 1947.

Jim would be a pioneer missionary in Ecuador and on Sunday, January 8, 1956, Jim Eliot, along with Nate Saint, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully, and Pete Fleming, would be murdered by the Auca tribesmen that they were trying to reach with the gospel.

Jim Eliot had seen the beauty of Jesus Christ.

That is what drove him away from family and friends and a comfortable life to try and reach Auca Indians with the gospel.

My prayer for you as we take up again this topic of the Song of Solomon, or as it is more properly titled, the Song of Songs, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, the Holy Spirit would at least grip your heart and you would run hard after the beauty of Jesus Christ, that like Jim Elliot, your soul would see the beauty of Jesus Christ.

Last time we discussed two of the three interpretations of the Song of Songs.

We discussed the allegorical interpretation, which has been the historical interpretation of the church.

Where every part and parcel of the book contains some spiritual truth.

We saw that this interpretation has fallen out of favor with most of the church.

Secondly we spent a long time on the "marriage manual" interpretation of the Song, or the "What You See Is What You Get."

That is, its main and highest purpose is simply to extol the beauty of covenant love between a man and a woman in pure marriage.

Let me again say that there is nothing inherently wrong with taking that application from the Song of Songs.

That is well and good, and should be encouraged, but we pointed out that if that is all we saw in the Song of Songs we could be compared to a little child who has ever only seen a puddle of water.

We invite him to come with us to see the ocean, but he refuses because he can imagine no grander body of water than the one he has before him.

Oh, how we hope that you will find in the Song of Songs, the ocean, the waves, and the sand, and the sea, the infinite sea, which contains Christ and all that he is to the church.

Richard Wurmbrand, who wrote the biography, "Tortured for Christ" and went on to found a ministry to persecuted Christians around the world, called "Voice of the Martyrs," wrote my favorite commentary on the Song of Songs.

He captures so beautifully what I feel the meaning of the Song is:  "In writing this book, I have no song of my own to sing.

I sing the Song of Jesus and His bride as Solomon sang it; and to make the song resound more beautifully than ever, I illustrate it with lives of saints and martyrs.

Let us sing for him with the same burning love and adoration with which the angels sang in Bethlehem at Jesus' birth."

If you pick up and read Wurmbrand's little book, "The Sweetest Song," what you will find, is that he has an experience of Jesus with which we are not familiar.

How then, do I think we ought to interpret the Song of Songs?

I take what is called the typological interpretation of the book.

We do not talk much about "types" these days, so I will quickly explain what I mean.

Here is how one commentator puts a biblical type.

A type is  a real, exalted happening in history which was divinely ordained by the omniscient God to be a prophetic picture of the good things which He purposed to bring to fruition in Christ Jesus."

People can be types, events can be types, rituals can be types, all of these in the Old Testament point to a truth in the New Testament revealed in Christ.

David was a type of Christ, as was Solomon, as we shall see.

Here is another commentator.

"For example, the Israelites ate Manna in the wilderness.

Jesus declared in John 6 that he was the bread of life for people to receive.

The fulfillment of the story is in Him; but there was manna!

And even though the idea is fulfilled in Jesus, Jesus does not try to make something out of every detail in the Old Testament about manna."

So a type is a person, place, or thing, in the Old Testament that actually happened, and God brought it about to be a foreshadowing of a greater reality that would take place in or through Jesus Christ.

Yet, every detail of the type does not have further spiritual meaning.

We have New Testament warrant for the use of types.

Paul writes in Romans 5.14, "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

There you have Paul saying, Adam was a type of Christ.

His life is to reveal something to us about Jesus Christ.

So, let me summarize.

We know that "types" are used in the Old Testament to reveal something greater that would take place in or though Jesus Christ.

We know that every event in the life of a person who is a type, is not necessarily spiritual truth in the New Testament.

So David can be a type of Christ, yet we do not draw spiritual significance from his murder of Uriah and adulterous affair with Bathsheba.

How then, is the Song of Songs typological?

I'm glad you asked.

Let me tease out what we know.

We know that Solomon was a type of Christ.

Turn to Luke 11.31, you need to see this.

"The Queen of the South will rise up with the men of this generation at the judgment and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here."

There is a beautiful example of how the New Testament understands type.

Solomon was a type of the greater wisdom that was to come in Christ.

Solomon was specially gifted by God with wisdom, but Christ's wisdom far surpasses Solomon's.

Turn to Matt 6.29.

Christ in the sermon on the mount.

Let's being in vs. 28, "And why are you worried about clothing?

Observe how the lillies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these."

Solomon is a type of Christ in the earthly glory that he had.

Yet one lily of the field is clothed in greater splendor that Solomon and if one lily is greater in splendor, that God has made, how much greater is Christ Himself in splendor and majesty than Solomon.

We could go on and on, but you get the point.

Solomon was a type of Christ, even though he was not perfect, as no type is, and we do not draw spiritual significance from his sins, from his wives and concubines, yet his life reveals a truth which is found much greater in Christ.

Second, we know that the figure of a bride is used again and again in the Old Testament to refer to Israel's relationship with her God.

Turn to Hosea 2.16,19-20.

This is one place of many that we can turn to.

"It will come about in that day, declares the Lord, that you will call me "My Husband" and will no longer call Me "My Master."

...

I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, in lovingkindness and in compassion, and I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness.

Then you will know the Lord."

This picture of Israel as the bride of God is used again and again and again, it permeates the Old Testament.

It is taken by Paul and used of Christ's relationship to the church.

Look at Ephesians 5.25.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her...vs.

28, So husbands ought also to love their own wives, as their own bodies.

He who loves His own life, loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church...vs.

32, This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church."

So we see the same relationship applied to Christ and his relationship to the church in the New Testament.

Okay.

We have Solomon as a type of Christ.

We have the marital relationship used again and again in both the Old and New Testament to reveal the relationship between God and Israel and Christ and the church.

We come to the Song of Songs and what do we find?

Solomon in love with the Shulammite, and the Shulammite ravished with the sight of Solomon.

"My beloved is mine, and I am His"  Song 3.16.

"On my bed night after night, I sought him whom my soul loves;" Song 4.1.

"Put me like a seal over your heart, Like a seal on your arm.

For love is as strong as death, Jealousy is as severe as Sheol; Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord" Song 8.6.

Do you see then, how we come to understand the Song of Songs as a type, as a foreshadowing.

This relationship, this love relationship is meant to point us to the far greater, far more lasting love relationship that is revealed in the New Testament between Christ and the church.

When we see it this way, it fits in so well with the unity of Scripture.

Here is a book revealing Christ, just as Genesis does and Exodus, and on through the Old Testament.

It is not a marriage manual, but a worship manual.

I want to ask a simple question, which I hope comes to mind here.

Why?

Why does Solomon use a love relationship to delve into the connection between God and His people?

Why does Paul use the marital relationship to point out the greater connection between Christ and His church?

Does the answer not seem obvious?

What greater relationship is there on earth, that we can understand, than the love relationship?

This is universal to the human soul.

This is why, when you turn on the radio day after day, most of the songs are about love.