Elagant and articulate as allways shernen, thanks for the thoughtfull response. Some of my thoughts on your comments:
shernren said:
Why is this in Origins Theology? I dislike the fact that this seems to be an extremely loaded topic. If you want to blast us figurative-Genesis-1 people then just do it and don't bother taking the scenic route there. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
I'm trying to make a point about interpruting things literally in Scripture. This is a window into the the early part of Solomon's reign. At this point he has 60 queens and 80 concubines (6:8), he calls here 'O princes daughter' (7:1) so I think she was the daughter of one of Solomon's sons. How and why things are taken literally is vital to Origins Theology, if we are going to be consistant then there has to be a principle for it.
Having said that, it *is* an interesting question. Recently I was at a camp with an Old Testament scholar - a conservative one, mind you, one of those who has nothing to do with the documentary or two-Isaiah or any other "modern" hypotheses about the Bible. But what he said there (we were doing a set of classes on Wisdom Literature and Psalms, that section of the OT) was that with recent developments in comparative study of contemporary songs, the consensus was shifting to the idea that it is a love song. Well, I'm not a Solomon-period Jew so I don't think any form of translation would really help me to capture the response of the original reader to the original (vs. translated, not vs. corrupted or edited!) text. But an example he quoted was this:
Song of Solomon 2:4 He has taken me to the banquet hall,
and his banner over me is love. (NIV)
This is even the chorus of a Sunday School song. (The speaker's daughter was one of our classmates and after class she said, "oh, so
that's why my dad told me not to sing it in Sunday School!") According to scholarly reappraisal, the "banquet hall" is actually the inner chambers, the "banner" is better translated as "intention", and the "love" is to be interpreted ... physically. (I am a modest young person. I shall leave the reconstruction of the verse to your own imaginations, which are surely sufficient.
)
Soldiers that guarded the royal family most likely had manners that represented their title (Queen, prince, king...etc). The banner he has over her is love which is what binds a relationship like marriage. He brought her into the Kings Chambers, they are accompanied by the Daughters of Jerusalem and her beloved who meet her on the way to the banquete. (1:4)
"We will run after you. The king has brought me into his chambers"
There is a conversation going on between the Daughters of Jerusalem, the Shulamite and the beloved. This is all going on at the King's table:
"While the king is at his table" (1:12), which is in a banqueting house, "He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love" (2:4). The are reclining at the table he has his left hand behind her neck and embraces her with her right. This isn't sex, in fact it sounds to me like they are just cuddled up. She tells the Daughters of Jerusalem not to stir nor awaken love untill it pleases (2:7). That is her concluding remarks to them, she goes home and doesn't see him until early the next morning.
This is a narrative, it give very specific referances to where they are, what they are doing and who is with them. King Solomon is at the head of the Banquete Hall and they are sitting with the daughters of Jerusalem.
Even without that there is a very obvious sensuality to the book which we miss out in our efforts to "holy-fy" the Bible. It is a very earthy and imaginative book. There is constant reference to "the garden" which is locked and sealed to everyone besides the lover - the beloved's body. Taking that image alone the whole book becomes highly suggestive and erotic - "erotic, but never obscene", the speaker said.
At the Banquet Hall the Shulamite mentions 'our bed is green' (1:16) and the beams of our houses are cedar (1:2). She is talking about their home and the garden which at their primary responsiblities. She is saying that everything is almost ready. When she charges the daughters of Jerusalem not to stir or arouse love she is talking about being responsible. Here brothers the next morning remind her of her responsiblities when her beloved (espoused husband) visits them briefly:
"Catch us the foxes, The little foxes that spoil the vines, For our vines have tender grapes." (2:15)
So she sends him on his way 'Turn my beloved, and be like a gazelle' (2:17). Apparently she lived in hill country since he comes skipping on the hills of Bether which is visible westward from the Mt. of Olives.
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple01.htm
The the north would be the gardens of King Solomon which is where the final scene is. It is there that she agrees to pay him the going price for one of his vineyards along with the wages of the husbandmen.
Is this a real-life story, or a fictional one? The answer is: It doesn't matter.
I think it's very important to discern when the Scripture are speaking a narrative or allegory.
I mean, look at modern love songs. They are vastly inferior, but my point is this: some love songs take the form of semi-narrative (e.g. "Lonely" by Akon
) ... does it matter whether the writer personally went through these experiences? Is the song somehow "wrong" or "a lie" if the songwriter isn't in fact "lonely" and hasn't in fact "woken up in the middle of the night / and noticed that my girl wasn't by my side"? Would the song somehow be "less relevant" or "less real" if the writer isn't actually desperately single and is actually happily married with grandchildren? I doubt so.
That's just it, it gives you minute details about what is going on. The Scriptures give us glimses of what was going on in Jerusalem during the height of the United Kingdom. Now we can consider what the practices are with regards to marriage. Solomon is showing us one of the most beautifull illustrations of a loving marriage. They prepare everything before they move in together. That is how is was done for centuries. This makes a great model for marriage and like I said before, love is center stage in God's Word. It is clear from the New Testament that love (agape) is the mystery being revealed in Scripture.
As for the theological implications: if you understand where I'm coming from in interpreting the Songs of Solomon you'll understand why I feel extremely uncomfortable about any form of linking the love displayed here to the love of Christ for the church or the Christian. Song of Solomon describes a highly erotic love that is perfectly appropriate between the married husband and wife, but inappropriate everywhere else. For me as a male reader I might not be in so much danger, but if a sister were to identify herself as the Beloved and Christ as the Lover ... I would fear that it might bring about some distortion.
It could be distorted if you told her this is describing a marital union like the one in Genesis that says Adam 'knew' Eve. They are not having these kind of relations yet, don't you get it. The text makes it clear that they are preparing to come together as soon as everything is ready.
Ok, take a look at this, in Matthew 25 we have the parable of the Ten Virgins. The bridegroom is delayed, he has to make sure everything is ready. This is loaded with both cultural and theological insights. The process these two were going through would have been very common. Often these marriage festivities are used the Kingdom Parables. The Church is described as a bride in the final pages of Scripture. If you know how marriages were done in this period you can understand better the teachings of the New Testament.
They were not fully married yet, they were espoused/betrothed just as Mary and Joseph were.
I don't believe the book is there in the Bible to point directly and explicitly at Christ's love for the church - frankly, it is written very inappropriately if that is its real purpose, to me. I think that it is there in the Bible more to say what God's presence / Christ's love (in an NT context) means to the married couple. Erotic love is a very important and profound part of human experience and it is only appropriate that the Bible should have something to say about it. And whether or not the story is a real story (what little of a story there is in between song-and-dance sequences
) I think the points it brings forward are relevant in today's society - not to awaken love until it so desires, to keep the garden locked for that one lover, to remember that love is immensely jealous and something to be kept tightly under guard and given away only with much prayer and consideration. It is the perfect antidote to either an over-spiritual outlook that considers sexual pleasure to be inherently sinful, or the anything-goes permissiveness society treats sex with.
Not that I need that antidote just yet ...
There is nothing erotic about this book, I don't know where people get this. At their new house she does not let him into her bedroom. There is no indication that they had consumated their marrige yet and good reason why they had not. They were too busy taking care of their responsiblities, he was finishing up their house, she was finishing up the garden. The final peice of the puzzle was the lease of the vineyard. The text seems crystal clear to me, I don't know how so many people miss it.
