Following Christ in Handling Genesis

Speaking of how to approach the opening chapters of Genesis, Henri Blocher says this:

We must approach the opening chapters of Genesis as inspired texts, rich with the truth of God, clothed with the authority of God. We must also, in order to understand them better, make use of the harmony of the Scriptures. We must take advantage of the common inspiration, bringing other passages to illumine the difficulties. That we shall do. We shall trust the method of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to "the analogy of faith." How could we reject that method if we claim to follow Christ?

—In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, transl. David G. Preston (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 17.

No Fixed Rules of Interpretation

Luther on hermeneutics:

I acknowledge no fixed rules of interpretation of the Word of God, since the Word of God, which teaches freedom in all other matters, must not be bound.

—The Freedom of the Christian (Luther's Works, vol. 31; ed. Harold J. Grimm; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), 341.

Grammatico-Historical Method Not Enough

Ahhh. A breath of fresh air. Peter Leithart on our approach to the Scriptures:

Since the Reformation, "grammatical-historical" biblical interpretation has been the main hermeneutical method among Protestants. A development of the medieval idea of "literal" meaning, the grammatical-historical approach attempts to understand Scripture in the light of the grammar of the original languages and the historical and cultural setting in which the text was written.

Something like the grammatical-historical method has been foundational to all biblical interpretation throughout the history of the church. Biblical interpretation would be a free play of signifiers without grounding in the vocabulary, grammar, and historical setting of the Bible.

But the grammatical-historical method, essential as it is as a foundation, cannot provide the overarching "grammar" for the interpretation of Scripture. If it becomes the sole method of interpretation, the study of the Old Testament will be reduced to a study of "what they did then" rather than a study of the glories of the Christ who was yet to come.

Liberal interpretation of the Old Testament can, in fact, be understood as the product of an exclusive reliance on the grammatical-historical method, and evangelical biblical study often has the same narrow focus. Interpretation of the Old Testament must be grounded in grammar and history, but if it does not move to typology, it is not Christian interpretation.

—A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Canon Press: Moscow, 2000), 27.

Principles of Interpretation: The Basics

Professor Greg Beale's course Principles of Interpretation taught at Wheaton College (before he left for Westminster East) has been one of the most enjoyable and helpful I've taken. I say this, among other reasons, because I've found his general approach to Scripture to be reverent, prudent, salutary, and devotional. Here's the basic approach urged by Professor Beale in three summary points:

1. The context is always king.
2. Let your concordance run away with your Bible.
3. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Luther on Studying Theology: Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio

Many big fat books pour forth today on interpreting Scripture. Hermeneutics, traditionally described as the science and art of interpretation, is the name of the discipline. And much of this is helpful and useful and profitable instruction. Yet, the single most important piece of hermeneutical counsel I’ve ever read (apart from Scripture itself) comes from Luther’s pen (which derives the counsel from Scripture itself!). And this comes from the Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of Luther’s German Writings (Luther’s Works, vol. 34, "Career of the Reformer," 283–288).

There he instructs not, speaking precisely, in hermeneutics as such, but in studying theology. He instructs in how to become a decent theologian. And though this instruction is not the sort given in hermeneutical instruction today, yet it has great bearing on the discipline. I do wish, hope, and pray that more teachers today said the sort of things Luther said when teaching others how to learn at Scripture's feet.

Luther describes the nut of the matter on page 285:

I want to point out to you a correct way of studying theology, for I have had practice in that. If you keep to it, you will become so learned that you yourself could (if it were necessary) write books just as good as those of the fathers and councils. . . . This is the way taught by holy King David (and doubtlessly used also by all the patriarchs and prophets) in the one hundred nineteenth Psalm. There you will find three rules, amply presented throughout the whole Psalm. They are Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio [prayer, meditation, Anfechtung (affliction, conflict, severe soul-struggle)].

The Song of Songs Typological?

Does the Song of Songs include typology?

Here is Graham Cole's definition of typology taken from his book He Who Gives Life (p. 289):

The idea that persons (e.g., Moses), events (e.g., the exodus), and institutions (e.g., the temple) can—in the plan of God—prefigure a later stage in that plan and provide the conceptuality necessary for understanding the divine intent (e.g., the coming of Christ to be the new Moses, to effect the new exodus, and to be the new temple).

This definition seems to summarize fairly well most if not all that this biblical phenomenon intends.  (And, incidentally, the prefiguring or pointing is by way of patterns and models intended and warranted by Scripture itself.)

Now, assuming Cole's is a good definition, back to the question: Does the Song of Songs qualify as typology or contain typological elements?  A second question: May we discern typological authorial intention?  One more: If so, how?