|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Ecclesiastes & The Song of SongsFailing to see JesusECCLESIASTES & THE SONG OF SONGS The Apollos Old Testament Commentary Series aims to deal with the Old Testament text, but also its connection with the New Testament, the church and the Christian. This is a demanding goal and Ecclesiastes & The Song of Songs presents significant challenges in pursuing it. Fredericks and Estes were well aware of the difficulties they faced. Each points out that ‘his’ book has suffered either by (i) being regarded as in conflict with the New Testament (Ecclesiastes) or as an allegory of it (The Song of Songs), or (ii) being dealt with in recent scholarly publications (see the considerable bibliographies) without much reference to it at all. Both are thoroughly conversant with the Hebrew text, situate the books in the context of Genesis 1-3 and connect them with Solomon and wisdom. They follow the same pattern in laying out their material. After a most valuable introduction to each book, the text is divided into suitable portions, freshly translated, considered with regard to its form and structure before (exegetical) comment and (pastoral) explanation are made. A misunderstood bookFredericks asserts that Ecclesiastes is about the transience of life and not its futility. He regards ‘vanity of vanities’ as an incorrect translation of 1.2 that has been responsible for the book being misunderstood and misused over the years. His argument is strong and sound. He translates 1.2 as ‘breath of breaths . . . everything is temporary’ and this connects well with what the New Testament has to say about the transience of life in a fallen world in Romans 8, 2 Corinthians 4 and James 4. He sees the book as directed to enable ‘the godly’ to live wisely ‘under the sun’, a most valuable message for Christians and unbelievers. But he fails to connect ‘the Shepherd’ (see 12.10) explicitly with Jesus and makes no mention of being ‘in Christ’ as that which enables and elevates Christian living to the plane of eternal worth. In addition, his comments about justification and judgment (see 12.13-14) omit any reference to ‘no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 8.1 see also the aside on page 21). Song of SongsEstes argues that the Song is about heterosexual love within a monogamous marriage — a view of the book that is to be warmly welcomed. His unfolding of the book’s content along the lines of courtship, betrothal, marriage and the greater enrichment through subsequent difficulties is well supported from the text. He recognises sexual attraction and activity as God’s good gift that is not to be enjoyed before marriage, but cultivated within the mystery of its inter-personal union. This is so pastorally valuable. Although the variations of the book’s refrain are noted (2.16; 6.3 & 7.10), their note of mutuality could have been highlighted. Estes recognises that the Song has connections with other biblical books, e.g. Hosea and Ephesians, but he denies that this amounts to typology on the ground that there is nothing explicit in the Song that points to a larger horizon. There is, however, something that could, namely Song 8.7, which can be translated as ‘a flame of Yah’ or ‘a mighty flame’ which Estes prefers. But, even if he is correct in that detail, the question arises as to whether verbal warrant is needed for typology to be established, or whether the amount of correspondence between Old and New Testament material is enough to avoid the bogeyman of allegory. After all, the Bible is only ‘canonical’ because it is divine. Hywel R. Jones PhD, © Evangelicals Now - July 2010 |
|
