Just thinking
In a recent discussion on the blogsphere I expressed doubts conerning Solomon. Here's another thought that is bothering me, why is Solomon mentioned in the lineage of Jesus as described in Mathew Chapter 1, especially if he is a type of the devil or an anti-type of the Lord. Remember that Solomon's name is studiously ommitted from the record of faith heroes as listed in Hebrews 11.
Solomon was heir to the Davidic covenant by grace and was granted his wisdom by grace.
In his role as Davidic heir, builder of the temple and teacher of wisdom he is a type of Christ.
However, in his immorality, idolatry and his role as seducer in Song of Songs, he is a type of Anti-Christ.
He is certainly a peculiar figure typologically. However, I think aspects of both can be seen in his life.
In a sense I suppose he might be seen as a type of the nation of Israel. Blessed and given a pivotal position in the Kingdom, but fallen into idolatry.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
I take the alternative view that Song of Songs concerns three characters, not two. The Shulamite who is in love with a shepherd. Solomon abducts the Shulamite and tries to seduce her, but in the end, she spurns the glamour of Solomon's court and is united with her shepherd lover.
I think this view makes more sense of the narrative of the song.
This view is defended in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. You may be aware that Dake's study Bible teaches some false doctrines, but we both share some of Dake's more sound opinions, such as the nature of the eternal state and the Sons of God.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
I believe Dr. Ruckman jas a commentary on Song of Solomon. I am going to check his views out and let you know.
You made me curious.
Do you have a link to Dake's reference material on the subject. I am truly interested in this new theory.
I had heard about Dake annotated Bible, but I never obtained a copy. Can you tell me more about him, and to what printing press should I refer? Thanks.
Finis Dake was a Pentecostal. As with many Pentecostal leaders, there is soem scandal attatched to his name.
His reference Bible is a mixed bag. It makes some really important points that others miss, such as the fact that angels have bodies and the continuation of human reproduction in eternity.
However, it teaches some awful false doctrines, such as the denial of eternal security and all three members of the Trinity having bodies. He effectively introduced the Trinitarian error of Benny Hinn.
The official website for the Dake's Bible is:
http://www.dake.com/
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Thanks.
That perspective shuts down so many gems about Jesus, the church and the virgin jews that it's sad.
{not that all I'm thinking about is typology, for while it would seem to make more sense of the narrative; (which argument I contest as a conclusion stemming from a certain
"the Bible couldn't be displaying that" outlook) it doesn't account for the role the book has in being part of the Bible. Indeed historically some have opposed it.
One is then reduced to saying (which many say) that it is a good picture of a saintly marriage. The difference between such people, and those who believe it conceals the mystery of the relationship of the church to Christ is not as imposing as that between the reading of the english between the "no church" group and the Dake perspective. And incidently, did he believe the AV text to be the Word of God as it stood? I think that is important to know}
Ruckman doesn't have a commentary on it but he mentions it often, and takes the "traditional christian view", although little is "traditional" with Peter Ruckman.
I wonder how much of that view was initially due to asceticism being offended by what it could not reconcile.
However, never shutting a door completely on things I am not a hundred per cent sure about (and I've been very wrong before), I'll research this a bit more.
God bless you
I think his view offers alternative typology, while the Trad view has negative elements in its typology.
The trad view does not exactly give us a happy ending. The Shulamite simply becomes an addition to one of Solomon's collection of wives. Hardly a great picture of Christ and the Church.
The shepherd could still represent Christ in a limited sense.
Solomon could represent the seductions of this world (fitting in with the rest of the wisdom literature) or the Jewish law as an wrong alternative to the Gospel. Perhaps that is fanciful, but I think it offers interpretive scope to what otherwise seems just a useless soap opera of a story.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Thanks for dropping in on your own blog, Rev. 2:17. Long time no see.