Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition?

[Dave-W]

. Throughout history, BTW, SS has usually been understood by commentators as an allegory between God & Israel or Christ & the Church.

It is not an either/or; rather it is both/and. Both a very erotic (almost inappropriate contentographic) love poem AND an allegory of God and His people. Both parts are scripture and good for "teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
2 Timothy 3:16

 

[Johnnz]

I think the NT would not approve certain OT sanctioned practices such as rape under particular conditions, stoning people to death for adultery, etc.

God worked within History and the prevailing cultures of that times. Thus, it doe snot 'teach' that polygamy or stoning etc were divinely sanctioned as God's ideal. In the NT we see the fuller revelation contained in Jesus reframing much of the Old.

IMO people don't need the Song of Solomon to tell them sex is enjoyable. There is plenty of secular erotic poetry, sex-ed classes, internet inappropriate content, etc. Evidently dogs, cats, monkeys & other animals like doing it too.

It's not simply that sex is enjoyable being the reason for Song of Sons. It is a celebration of human sexuality and love as God designed elements of our humanity that is its focus. That is very different from the surrounding pagan beliefs of those times, and later of Greek views, some of which have penetrated into church teaching.

How many wives & concubines did Solomon have? Over 1000? Would the NT approve of polygamy?

See above. We must not be dismissive of the OT but we must also read it in light of the much fuller revelation we have in Christ. The book of Hebrews is a good example of a reframing of the Mosaic covenant and laws.

The problem with sex occurs when it is not edifying, you are under its power or sinning against your own body (1 Cor 6). Do all to the glory of God.

The context in 1 Cor may indicate the sin is against the church as Christ's body. Sinful sex is always sinful sex. No debate about that.

To Paul the prescription for curbing illicit sex & uncontrollable lusts was marriage (1 Cor.7). This chapter bears little resemblance to the Song of Solomon. Does any NT writer quote the SS, hint at its meaning or apply it to marriage? Is it even talking about a married couple?

Paul was addressing specific issues within the Corinthian church, both ascetic and libertine. His themes were not in any way related to Song of Songs.

I accept the view that SoS is a collection of love poems. As such its themes and imagery assert a very positive view of human sexuality.

John
NZ

 

[Dave-W]

I think the NT would not approve certain OT sanctioned practices such as rape under particular conditions, stoning people to death for adultery, etc.

Jesus was all for stoning the woman in John 8, except He knew they were setting Him up, and the man involved was not also brought to justice.

How many wives & concubines did Solomon have? Over 1000?
Would the NT approve of polygamy?

The OT did not approve of his having that many wives.

Deut 17.14 “When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’
15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.
16 Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never again return that way.’
17 He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.​

But in certain conditions the OT COMMANDS polygny:

Deut 25:5 When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.​

Please note that there is no exclusion for the surviving brother if he is already married.

To Paul the prescription for curbing illicit sex & uncontrollable lusts was marriage (1 Cor.7). This chapter bears little resemblance to the Song of Solomon.

True. It closer resembles the Rabbinic/Pharisaic teaching on marriage and sex, with language to balance it out (for the gentiles). The Jewish teaching was/is that sex is a Wife's RIGHT and a husband's responsibility. (and was NOT his right at all)

 

[dayhiker]

I look at some of these verses different that you do Dave.
I don't think Jesus was for stoning the woman caught in adultery.
If we are to use Dt.17 to teach that poly relationships were and are not God's will then we also have to teach that having more than one horse is not God's will and not having more than one coin is not God's will as well. I've heard very few people teaching that! Today I'd assume that would be a car and many dollar bills. Which would make Jay Leno a pretty big sinner!

 

[Dave-W]

If we are to use Dt.17 to teach that poly relationships were and are not God's will then we also have to teach that having more than one horse is not God's will and not having more than one coin is not God's will as well.

That section applied ONLY to the kings of Israel/Judah. And it does not say "only one" of any of those things, only that it should not be multitudinous. (which Solomon definitely violated, but apparently David did not)

. Which would make Jay Leno a pretty big sinner!

Was Leno a king of Israel??

 

[dayhiker]

I agree Dave that it was only referring to the kings of Israel. Most don't preach it that way and then only pick one of the list and try to apply that one to everyone while ignoring the other two.

Even Solomon fall is viewed as his allowing the gods of his wives to be worshiped and not because of the number of wives and concubines as I read the text.

 

[ClementofA]

Jesus was all for stoning the woman in John 8, except He knew they were setting Him up, and the man involved was not also brought to justice.

Being God i think He knew in advance they wouldn't stone her.

By setting the standard for being able to be a stoner at being sinless, He effectively outlawed stoning anyone for anything.

Only He, being sinless, qualified to be a stoner, & He chose mercy instead.

 

[ClementofA]

The OT did not approve of his having that many wives.

Should Christians obey OT laws?

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." (1 Cor 6:12)

7But not everyone has this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that they eat such food as if it were sacrificed to an idol.
And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.…
1 Corinthians 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

13 Therefore let us stop judging one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.
Rom. 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15If your brother is distressed by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother, for whom Christ died.…

Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Indeed, both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

Gal.5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:18 But if you be led of the Spirit, you are not under the law.

 

[Shard]

While the book looks dumb I can see how the concept could be appreciated among people. I know many couples who after being married for a couple years started having issues relating to just a lack of interest in sex. Most the time it was because they had been raised believing that basically penetrative missionary style was it. Certainly their is more to sexually and more permitted than what anyone is ever taught but with the churchs lockdown of ever mentioning anything about sex even in pre-marital counseling it leaves a lot to be desired. Just a couple months ago we had a friend get married and actually had to give him sex advice because him and his fiancee were both virgins and he had no real idea.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Meh. Maybe people should read it before forming an opinion. Just my opinion.

I prefer someone to read it. And talk about it. Before I waste time on it. Personally, I doubt, I would have ever heard of this book. If I wasn't on here.

 

[The-Doctor]

Never read it

 

[xpower]

Never read it

OK? you never read it? Not much of a contribution to the thread.

 

[Dave-W]

Should Christians obey OT laws?

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

<sigh> That is a topic for another thread in another forum.