In his commentary on Song of Songs, Iain Duguid takes a view that the Song, in its most basic sense, is a love poem. However, he argues there is also analogy to the relationship between Christ and the church, an analogy that cannot be denied based on Ephesians 5. Yet while he seeks to bridge natural and spiritual interpretations by noting similarities between human married love and God’s covenant love for His people, Duguid denies the presence of typology in the Song.
Dividing the book into six poems (including the introduction and epilogue), Duguid traces the themes of desire and difficulty, drawing parallels between this idealized love story, our own earthly relationships, and how the shortcomings in human love draw us closer to our Heavenly Husband. He also shows the involvement of community in marriage, the Song’s biblical sexual ethic, and its emphasis on the pleasures of marriage in their own right, yet also not divorced from fertility. These motifs place the Song squarely in wisdom literature, showing God’s design for sexuality, while also pointing ahead to Christ like the rest of the Old Testament does.
The greatest weakness of Duguid’s commentary is how little attention he gives interpretive methods of Song of Songs. He defines more than interacts with different viewpoints, making his brief dismissal of typology in the Song unconvincing. While Duguid restrains himself to analogy when explaining the meaning of a passage, he notes metaphors (such as the woman being described in terms of the Promised Land) and intertextual links (Hosea 14:5-7 is the clearest example of this) that point to the Song containing something deeper than simple analogy. Because understanding the Song depends on one’s interpretation, he should have made a more robust case to be made before denying typology.
Yet there is much to appreciate in Duguid’s commentary. Most notable, he is adamant that there be no free association in interpreting the Song, something that both allegorical and literal commentators are prone to do. Duguid guards against this with care in how he both draws analogies and interprets metaphors (neither overly spiritualizing them nor finding erotic euphemisms everywhere).