Do you think that using pornography is equal to cheating?

[Hazelelponi]

I don't think I'd call Song of Solomon a kind of female porn when the whole connotation for porn in New Testament lingo has to do with "sexual immorality," of one kind or another. If Song of Solomon is about sexuality and sensuousness within the institution of marriage, then it is a conflation of terms to suggest that Song of Solomon is a kind of "porn."

Just sayin.'

I don't think we should have to redefine words used in day to day speech because when you do that no one knows what your meaning is, other than what's apparent.

And when what's apparent is all desire for your spouse is evil, you have done every one who is reading your words a disservice.

Marriage is a gift from God, and should be seen as such.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think we should have to redefine words used in day to day speech because when you do that no one knows what your meaning is, other than what's apparent.

And when what's apparent is all desire for your spouse is evil, you have done every one who is reading your words a disservice.

So then, it sounds like you're in agreement with me.

 

[DZoolander]

Really? A much more reasonable interpretation would be that she is wearing perfume, don't you think? And maybe 4:16 is talking about an actual garden. Maybe you just have a dirty mind.

It is interesting how much our modern perspective warps our translation of God's word. We are so willing to accept that lust is now OK because our immoral society is steeped in it! Often I see posts saying the early church did this or that so it must be right, but as soon as it is a view we don't like or that is inconvenient for the fiction we wish to believe, then they must have got it all wrong. Lust is sin. Period. Whether it is for your spouse or a stranger, it is still lust.

I didn't realize that way of interpreting Song of Solomon was a relatively new thing.

 

[Hazelelponi]

So then, it sounds like you're in agreement with me.

okay so I misunderstood your intention? lol.

Happy to agree with you!!! I'll go have some coffee now!

 

[Dave-W]

Really? A much more reasonable interpretation would be that she is wearing perfume, don't you think? And maybe 4:16 is talking about an actual garden. Maybe you just have a dirty mind.

Not according to poetic word usage of ancient near east erotic poetry.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

okay so I misunderstood your intention? lol.

Happy to agree with you!!! I'll go have some coffee now!

Yeah, I don't think that strong sexual desire (lust?) for one's spouse is ever a sinful, dirty thing. Only if what we want is something that would be reasonably hurtful or harmful to our spouse, and I think most of the time, if we truly love our spouses with the kind of heart that God in Christ wants us to love them with, there won't be anything malevolent involved. .....I feel sorry for those Christians who see all sexual desire, specifically that with a spouse, as something to guard against.

 

[Dave-W]

I didn't realize that way of interpreting Song of Solomon was a relatively new thing.

It isn't. The eroticism has been understood for at least 2500 years. In Jewish circles that is.

But Hebrew text, and ESPECIALLY poetic text, has multiple levels of meaning and ALL are considered correct. So the plain (erotic) meaning does not detract from the allegorical Christ and the Church (or Israel and God) understanding; or vice versa.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It isn't. The eroticism has been understood for at least 2500 years. In Jewish circles that is.

But Hebrew text, and ESPECIALLY poetic text, has multiple levels of meaning and ALL are considered correct. So the plain (erotic) meaning does not detract from the allegorical Christ and the Church (or Israel and God) understanding; or vice versa.

Back during my year at Bible college, one of the professors told the class that Song of Solomon was used as a kind of old Jewish "sex manual." Would you say that was a fair description?

 

[Dave-W]

Would you say that was a fair description?

Eh - not really. While it described a variety of sexual acts**, that kind of stuff would be taught by the parents.

I don't really need a book describing walking in the woods to tell me what a tree looks like. Kinda the same thing.


** intercourse, seduction, masturbation, oral sex, "hand job"

 

[Deidre32]

Except people keep re-defining it. The early church fathes of the 2nd to the 4th centuries went so far as to define sinful lust as any sexual thought or feeling - even for your spouse.

Lol Misery loves company, I guess.

 

[Dave-W]

Lol Misery loves company, I guess.

IMO they had an almost idolatrous worship for virginity.

Do you remember what Joseph told his brothers (who had sold him into slavery) when he revealed himself? "What you meant for evil God meant for good."

This approach turns that on its head. What God meant for good, the ECFs (and the whole church world after them) turned into evil.

 

[Hazelelponi]

IMO they had an almost idolatrous worship for virginity.

I think that's because of a misunderstanding of scripture or misapplication of it. When you take some of Paul's comments and couple them with Revelation 14:4 then I think that's how that was born.

I don't believe 14:4 had anything to do with not having a wife or being an actual virgin though.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think I'd call Song of Solomon a kind of female porn when the whole connotation for porn in New Testament lingo has to do with "sexual immorality," of one kind or another. If Song of Solomon is about sexuality and sensuousness within the institution of marriage, then it is a conflation of terms to suggest that Song of Solomon is a kind of "porn."

Just sayin.'

Whether the Lover and the Beloved are married is controversial.

 

[RDKirk]

Really? A much more reasonable interpretation would be that she is wearing perfume, don't you think? And maybe 4:16 is talking about an actual garden. Maybe you just have a dirty mind.

You might find Gill's exposition on this useful.

It is interesting how much our modern perspective warps our translation of God's word. We are so willing to accept that lust is now OK because our immoral society is steeped in it! Often I see posts saying the early church did this or that so it must be right, but as soon as it is a view we don't like or that is inconvenient for the fiction we wish to believe, then they must have got it all wrong. Lust is sin. Period. Whether it is for your spouse or a stranger, it is still lust.

I would disagree. There was a much more earthy attitude about sexuality in earlier times than today, without it being nearly as pruriently puritanical or puritanically prurient as it is today.

Being a poor farmgirl, the "perfume" she speaks of is unlikely to be the expensive ablutions of the wealthy Jerusalem city girls that she contrasts herself with. Those were for the rich girls, which she points out she clearly is not.

And women back in the day did dab themselves with their natural fragrances.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whether the Lover and the Beloved are married is controversial.

...........and so is the issue of whether Solomon ended up "saved" or not by the end of his lifetime.

But, regardless, I think the basic context of SoS is marriage.

 

[Dave-W]

Whether the Lover and the Beloved are married is controversial.

Yes. That is an interesting point. There is nothing in the text that says they are actually married.

The general ASSUMPTION is that they are. But we all know how to spell ASSUME.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes. That is an interesting point. There is nothing in the text that says they are actually married.

The general ASSUMPTION is that they are. But we all know how to spell ASSUME.

The text is a celebration of love and desire.. God doesn't celebrate sin.. The Bible, every last word, is God Breathed, His message to us.

Therefore, the celebratory context must necessarily be inside the institution of marriage.

 

[Dave-W]

The text is a celebration of love and desire.. God doesn't celebrate sin.. The Bible, every last word, is God Breathed, His message to us.

Absolutely.

Therefore, the celebratory context must necessarily be inside the institution of marriage.

In general I agree with that. And that is EXACTLY what our western logic minds come up with.

But it is interesting that it is never actually mentioned; even in passing. And I have found sometimes the eastern mindset behind the Hebrew text will go off in an unexpected direction.

So that is likely that they were married, but I will not stake a doctrine on it. There is a slim possibility they were not.

And what would THAT say to us???

That book blows my mind sometimes.

 

[RDKirk]

Absolutely.

In general I agree with that. And that is EXACTLY what our western logic minds come up with.

But it is interesting that it is never actually mentioned; even in passing. And I have found sometimes the eastern mindset behind the Hebrew text will go off in an unexpected direction.

So that is likely that they were married, but I will not stake a doctrine on it. There is a slim possibility they were not.

And what would THAT say to us???

That book blows my mind sometimes.

I think it's more than slim that they're not married, but there is a distinct possibility that it's all just in the torrid imagination of the Beloved.

 

[Dave-W]

but there is a distinct possibility that it's all just in the torrid imagination of the Beloved.

And if that is the case, given what Hazelelponi said that the text is a celebration of love and desire and that God doesn't celebrate sin; what does that tell us about our ideas of legitimate vs sinful sexuality? An elaborate erotic fantasy?

It is questions like that, that are essentially unanswerable, that blows my mind on this book.