Song of Solomon, a literal understanding of the text

[mark kennedy]

I wouldn't be surprised if this thread drifted into the stacks untouched but I think it's important to understand how a literal understanding of Scripture is important. I have what I think is a unique interpretation of the Song of Solomon. First of all, the text makes it clear that Solomon is not the groom, in fact the groom speaks of Solomon in the third person. More importantly these two never have sex in the narrative (actually a song) which are two lines of interpretation I think are not just wrong but ridiculous.

By all means feel free to comment at random and at will. I'm just putting this out there, curious if it might lead to a discussion of how highly figurative language can be interpreted literally and in this case, should be.

The Song of Solomon is a love song about two young people who were betrothed (engaged to be married) probably while they were infants. The opening scene is in the Palace in Jerusalem at the king's table 'While the king was at his table' (1:12). That night as she is leaving she turns to the daughters of Jerusalem and tells them not to let the excitement of their marriage make them anxious, they should be patient. They make plans to meet during the day while they were tending the flocks of their families. The next morning the groom visits her at her mothers house. The groom was responsible for building the house and she was responsible for planting the garden that would support the household.

They were not allowed to move in together until everything was ready, the famous scene where he tried to get into their bedroom was probably their first night in the house. She had feed him from the garden telling him the garden is bearing fruit. That night he leaves because she didn't want to get out of bed to let him in. He goes back to Jerusalem and she follows him, in the dead of night and she is knocked down by a city guard thinking she was an intruder. The guards find out who she is, takes her to the palace, the grooms sisters come out and she insists they go get him. When he finds out what is going on he tells her to go home, pack her things, we are moving into our house tomorrow.

At their home they complete their final vows and Solomon is in attendance. One of the last scenes is her negotiating the lease for a vineyard where she says she will pay what everyone else does to lease one of his vineyards. I suspect Solomon was very fond of these two, the groom may of been on of his sons and he obviously loved her. He probably would have just gave it to her.

They exchange their vows, the end. BTW, she tells the groom what his vows are indicating, to me at least, this was not a girl to be trifled with.

This is such a beautiful story and a window into the early reign of Solomon in Jerusalem. I find no basis whatsoever for the figurative interpretation that Bible scholars elaborate on endlessly, even though it does make a great metaphor for Christ and the Church or God and Israel.

Here are some of the other verses I think are important:

She worked in the family vineyard and had a dark tan.

Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept. (1:6)​

Both the bride and groom were shepherds.

Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? (1:7)​

They sat at the kings table indicating one of them was royalty, probably the groom since she didn't live in Jerusalem.

While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof. (1:12)​

He was completing work on their house, one of his duties that had to be done before they could move in together.

The beams of our house are cedar, and our rafters of fir. (1:17)​

The bride lived in the Sharon valley just west of Jerusalem, you can see it from the Mount of Olives.

I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys. (2:1)​

They occasionally met under an apple tree somewhere in the foothills of Judea.

As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. (2:3)​

He brings her to the Banqueting house, probably the family area of the palace. Possibly they are at another gathering in Sharon at her mothers Banquet house.

He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. (2:4)​

As they are leaving for the evening she says to the daughters of Jerusalem, who were no doubt virgins, not to be anxious to marry. They are encouraged to be patient and why this is not in every abstinence course is a mystery to me.

I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please. (2:7)​

The day after the gathering at the kings palace the night before, very early, he comes to Sharon to pay her a short visit. She is having breakfast with her brothers in her mothers garden and sees him coming down the hillside.

The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills. (2:8)​

He talks to her through the lattice.

My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice. (2:9)​

He tells her it's spring and time for them to finally come together as husband and wife. They were betrothed which means they were legally married but couldn't move in together until the house was completed, the garden was fully mature and their income was reliable.

Her brothers remind her that she still has some details to see to, reminding her of her responsibilities.

Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes. (2:15)​

This song has a depth of meaning as a lesson in commitment, natural affection and the passion they had to be with one another. Despite the fact that he had completed their new home and her garden was ripe with new fruit that spring, not all things were ready.

We wait for the Lord to come so we can be together always. For now we take what time we can together without neglecting our duties. There is a wonderful lesson here but the story is literal.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Catherineanne]

I have what I think is a unique interpretation of the Song of Solomon.

Congratulations.

Meanwhile, I prefer the allegory of Christ and his Church version, based on a love song between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.

Much more sensible than your teenage love letter version.

 

[mark kennedy]

Congratulations.

Meanwhile, I prefer the allegory of Christ and his Church version, based on a love song between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.

It remains a good allegory for Christ and the Church, those insights remain unaffected. What is more Solomon already had mulitple wives and concubines, this was probably early in his reign:

There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number. (Song of Solomon 6:8)​

I think he is saying that Solomon has all these wives and concubines but she is all he wants. Does this sound like a woman that will put up with 60 other wives and 80 concubines?

Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.

Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned. (Song of Solomon 8:6,7)​

Much more sensible than your teenage love letter version.

They were young adults.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I feel like this would get some more responses outside of Origins Theology, since it's off topic here. I would agree with you, though.

 

[Papias]

Is it literal when it says she has birds crammed into her eyesockets and livestock on her chest?

Papias

 

[Mr Dave]

Euphemism is word which brings a certain level in reading the Song

 

[mark kennedy]

I feel like this would get some more responses outside of Origins Theology, since it's off topic here. I would agree with you, though.

I did but thought it might start an interesting discussion of highly figurative language having a literal meaning. It was worth a shot and BTW, you are one of the rare people who actually agree with it. What really puzzles me is why Christians who are into abstinence till your married have not picked up on the theme of this book.

So many interpretations think this is describing someone's wedding night, and it does sort of. But there is nothing sexual going on, in fact they are so busy taking care of their responsibilities they simply don't have the time. I think the scene at the king's table was their betrothal, where she took his name and they were legally married (for lack of a better way of saying it) but they couldn't move in together until everything was ready.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is it literal when it says she has birds crammed into her eyesockets and livestock on her chest?

Papias

Well, here is an example of how figurative language can have a very direct message.

8 We have a little sister,
and her breasts are not yet grown.
What shall we do for our sister
on the day she is spoken for?
9 If she is a wall,
we will build towers of silver on her.
If she is a door,
we will enclose her with panels of cedar.


10 I am a wall,
and my breasts are like towers. (Song of Solomon 8:8-10)​

Her brothers tell her was have a sister with no breasts (a child), she responds my breasts are high towers (I'm a grown woman). What they are actually asking is if she has everything she needs, she says she's a grown woman now, she is ready for this. The day after the scene at the king's table when they are talking through the lattice at her mothers garden her brothers say, 'catch for us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines', I think they are saying she needs to take care of her responsibilities and so does he. She sends him off and he heads back toward Jerusalem.

One other thing that might be of interest. I'm sure you have heard the expression 'wall of separation' used in Constitutional law indicating separation of church and state. What most people don't realize is that this is where the imagery comes from, it's the idea of the garden wall.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

[EDIT: I actually do believe that an analogical meaning is likely now.]

 

[Catherineanne]

It remains a good allegory for Christ and the Church, those insights remain unaffected.

Not according to your first post.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Is it literal when it says she has birds crammed into her eyesockets and livestock on her chest?

Papias
​

Well, here is an example of how figurative language can have a very direct message.

​

8 We have a little sister,
and her breasts are not yet grown.
What shall we do for our sister.....
I am a wall,
and my breasts are like towers. (Song of Solomon 8:8-10)
​

Her brothers tell her was have a sister with no breasts (a child), she responds my breasts are high towers (I'm a grown woman). What they are actually asking is if she has everything she needs, she says she's a grown woman now, she is ready for this. ......

Yes, all good. I agree with you about the meaning - I was just pointing out that we both agree that the text is figurative. Because this thread is in origins theology, it seems to me that the multitude of figurative text in the S of Sol shows that figurative text can be expected in your or my Bible (just like the figurative text about the head& heel you are discussing with Philadiddle), so it als shows that we don't need to automatically approach Genesis as literal.

Similarly, I don't disagree with you that the S. of Sol can be seen as an allegory of Christ and the Church, and only note that you have taken a meaning far from what the literal text says, at least as far, or farther, that what TE's say about Genesis.

One other thing that might be of interest. I'm sure you have heard the expression 'wall of separation' used in Constitutional law indicating separation of church and state. What most people don't realize is that this is where the imagery comes from, it's the idea of the garden wall.

Cool. Thanks.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, all good. I agree with you about the meaning - I was just pointing out that we both agree that the text is figurative. Because this thread is in origins theology, it seems to me that the multitude of figurative text in the S of Sol shows that figurative text can be expected in your or my Bible (just like the figurative text about the head& heel you are discussing with Philadiddle), so it als shows that we don't need to automatically approach Genesis as literal.

Much of the language is figurative but there is a clear narrative, the meanings overlap, they are not mutually exclusive. The significance of this marriage probably is not a big event in the grand scheme of things which contrasts it strongly with the foundational events of Genesis. There is nothing automatic about a literal approach, a text without a context is a pretext and I've explored alternative treatments of Genesis and Song of Solomon and found them less then convincing.

Similarly, I don't disagree with you that the S. of Sol can be seen as an allegory of Christ and the Church, and only note that you have taken a meaning far from what the literal text says, at least as far, or farther, that what TE's say about Genesis.

The literal text is pretty clear as to where the events take place. For instance, the opening scene is in the Palace at the kings table. I don't really think there is much question about that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[cubinity]

Does the point you are really trying to make have anything to do with Origins Theology?

Are you trying to indirectly comment on the figurative/literal debates that go on about that subject or something like that?

 

[shernren]

I have what I think is a unique interpretation of the Song of Solomon.

Many people have unique interpretations of many parts of the Bible - Unitarians, Arians, Docetists, Nestorians, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons come to mind. We would do well to pay heed to this warning whenever interpreting the Bible:

Interpretation that aims at, or thrives on, uniqueness can usually be attributed to pride (an attempt to "outclever" the rest of the world), a false understanding of spirituality (wherein the Bible is full of deeply buried truths waiting to be mined by the spiritually sensitive person with special insight), or vested interests (the need to support a theological bias, especially in dealing with texts that seem to go against that bias). Unique interpretations are usually wrong. This is not to say that the correct understanding of a text may not often seem unique to someone who hears it for the first time. But it is to say that uniqueness is not the aim of our task.
- Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth"
​

First of all, the text makes it clear that Solomon is not the groom, in fact the groom speaks of Solomon in the third person. More importantly these two never have sex in the narrative (actually a song) which are two lines of interpretation I think are not just wrong but ridiculous.

By all means feel free to comment at random and at will. I'm just putting this out there, curious if it might lead to a discussion of how highly figurative language can be interpreted literally and in this case, should be.

Well I happen to agree that Solomon is not the groom, and your interpretation falls basically under the "shepherd lovers" category of interpretations which is widely known. But we cannot dismiss Solomon as the groom simply because he speaks of himself in the third person. (God speaks of Himself in third person in many prophetic oracles!) After all, "all Scripture is God-breathed", and that includes Song of Songs 1:1, which taken literally (since that is your approach) indicates that the song is "of Solomon", or written by Solomon!

The figure of Solomon is important in the narrative; but my personal interpretation is that he is portrayed either as a distant spectacle / authority figure, or as an antagonist. Many have interpreted the narrative as taking place between lovers who face tension when the lady is taken to be one of King Solomon's concubines or wives; that accords well with most parts of the text.

But really! They never have sex! The man's job is to build their house, and the woman's job is to tend their garden? That is such a painfully wooden interpretation of the Song of Songs and does great injustice to the text. Read chapter 4 in one go and finish at 5:1 to see what I mean. The lover begins by describing his beloved's beauty, beginning from her hair and heading towards her breasts. That alone should tell you what he's after, shouldn't it? He calls for her to join him, and speaks of how entranced he is, and how sweet her lips are, and she invites him to her garden, and there we find him satisfied:

Lover
​​​​​​​​I came to my garden, my sister, my bride,
I gathered my myrrh with my spice,
I ate my honeycomb with my honey,
I drank my wine with my milk.

Friends
​​​​​​​​​​​​​Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!
(Song 5:1, ESV)
​

Now, if we are to take your interpretation mark, the consummation of that beautiful description of the beloved is ... a fruit picnic? Really? Words fail me.

But I don't have to appeal to aesthetic considerations to show that your wooden interpretation has clearly missed the meaning and the impact of the text - a single word does it for me.

Lover
​​​​​​​​A garden locked is my sister, my bride,
a spring locked, a fountain sealed.
(Song 4:12, ESV)
​

See the word I've emphasized? A garden locked is the bride. Not, "a garden locked belongs to my sister, my bride", or "a garden locked is to be prepared by my sister, my bride". The text itself demands an approach where the richly sensual language has to be read as imagery, not literal constructs: where the garden is the beloved, and thus the lover's entry into the garden represents their consummation.

And so I think this is a good example where forcing a literalistic approach on the text completely mangles its meaning. By the way, mark, I'm very curious: your status icons say you're married; have you ever managed to win your wife over to this interpretation you're espousing?

 

[mark kennedy]

Does the point you are really trying to make have anything to do with Origins Theology?

Yes, actually there is. There can be a literal narrative even with highly figurative language.

Are you trying to indirectly comment on the figurative/literal debates that go on about that subject or something like that?

Something like that, it's an exercise in exposition and discerning between the figurative and an actual narrative. It usually gets a cool reception but I thought it might be a way of sharing my perspective on some things.

 

[mark kennedy]

Many people have unique interpretations of many parts of the Bible - Unitarians, Arians, Docetists, Nestorians, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons come to mind. We would do well to pay heed to this warning whenever interpreting the Bible:

Interpretation that aims at, or thrives on, uniqueness can usually be attributed to pride (an attempt to "outclever" the rest of the world), a false understanding of spirituality (wherein the Bible is full of deeply buried truths waiting to be mined by the spiritually sensitive person with special insight), or vested interests (the need to support a theological bias, especially in dealing with texts that seem to go against that bias). Unique interpretations are usually wrong. This is not to say that the correct understanding of a text may not often seem unique to someone who hears it for the first time. But it is to say that uniqueness is not the aim of our task.
- Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth"​

I understand that, I even agree with it. The fact is that the standard interpretations (Christ and the Church..etc) are unaffected. Let's see what else you have for me.
​

Well I happen to agree that Solomon is not the groom, and your interpretation falls basically under the "shepherd lovers" category of interpretations which is widely known. But we cannot dismiss Solomon as the groom simply because he speaks of himself in the third person. (God speaks of Himself in third person in many prophetic oracles!) After all, "all Scripture is God-breathed", and that includes Song of Songs 1:1, which taken literally (since that is your approach) indicates that the song is "of Solomon", or written by Solomon!

You do know that the song is from the perspective of the Shulimite right? I have never dismissed Solomon as the groom simply because himself in the third person, that never occurred to me. What is more they are not lovers, they are betrothed and I know that because he is building their house and she is raising the family garden. The Shulimite says:

The beams of our house are cedars; our rafters are firs. (1:17)​

Now the passage speaks of the king bringing her into 'his chambers' and 'sitting at the head of the table'. However, that does not mean that he is her beloved who is indicated in the original only by the personal pronoun 'he'.

The figure of Solomon is important in the narrative; but my personal interpretation is that he is portrayed either as a distant spectacle / authority figure, or as an antagonist. Many have interpreted the narrative as taking place between lovers who face tension when the lady is taken to be one of King Solomon's concubines or wives; that accords well with most parts of the text.

Solomon is neither distant nor is he an antagonist. I suspect that the beloved (the groom) is one of his sons. Think about it, he lives in Jerusalem, the daughters of Jerusalem are the ones the Shulimite interacts with right up to the closing scene, which by the way, is in their new home. She speaks to the daughters of Jerusalem telling them to go out and see Solomon and then turns and speaks to her beloved. Then later she speaks to Solomon and tells her that she will lease on of his vineyards at the same price everyone else does. Then they exchange their vows with Solomon, the daughters of Jerusalem and their friends in attendance.

But really! They never have sex! The man's job is to build their house, and the woman's job is to tend their garden? That is such a painfully wooden interpretation of the Song of Songs and does great injustice to the text. Read chapter 4 in one go and finish at 5:1 to see what I mean. The lover begins by describing his beloved's beauty, beginning from her hair and heading towards her breasts. That alone should tell you what he's after, shouldn't it?

They are crazy about one another but they were probably promised to one another since shortly after birth. It would have been permissible for them to sleep together but she doesn't let him in their bedchamber, they could but they were too busy. Of course they want to be together, that doesn't mean the text describes that union, as a matter of fact, I have seen nothing in the text that indicates they did.

Like I said, I think this should be in every Christian abstinence lesson.

He calls for her to join him, and speaks of how entranced he is, and how sweet her lips are, and she invites him to her garden, and there we find him satisfied:

Lover
​​​​​​​​I came to my garden, my sister, my bride,
I gathered my myrrh with my spice,
I ate my honeycomb with my honey,
I drank my wine with my milk.​

Give me one good reason why this can't be the family garden she has been working on for years. What is more, what are their friends doing in a metaphorical garden indicating some kind of nuptials?

Friends
​​​​​​​​​​​​​Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!
(Song 5:1, ESV)

Now, if we are to take your interpretation mark, the consummation of that beautiful description of the beloved is ... a fruit picnic? Really? Words fail me.

Everything is ready, the garden is bearing fruit because the plants have matured. It seems pretty straight forward to me and I'm not trying to debate this, just trying to open the discussion up a little.

But I don't have to appeal to aesthetic considerations to show that your wooden interpretation has clearly missed the meaning and the impact of the text - a single word does it for me.

Lover
​​​​​​​​A garden locked is my sister, my bride,
a spring locked, a fountain sealed.
(Song 4:12, ESV)
​

Of course it's locked, no one is living in the house and no one is allowed in the garden when their not there. They make it up there when they can so he can work on the house and she can tend the garden. As far as the spring locked and the fountain sealed, you have to have a water source right?

Wooden interpretation? I don't know, it could be wrong but the more I look at it the more I like it. Yes he compares her to it but you can compare something literal to someone in particular and still have a literal meaning.

See the word I've emphasized? A garden locked is the bride. Not, "a garden locked belongs to my sister, my bride", or "a garden locked is to be prepared by my sister, my bride". The text itself demands an approach where the richly sensual language has to be read as imagery, not literal constructs: where the garden is the beloved, and thus the lover's entry into the garden represents their consummation.

Yes it does, but that is not mutually exclusive with a literal garden.

And so I think this is a good example where forcing a literalistic approach on the text completely mangles its meaning. By the way, mark, I'm very curious: your status icons say you're married; have you ever managed to win your wife over to this interpretation you're espousing?

When me and my wife were 'courting', so to speak, I read to her from the poetic literature. We both thought the groom was Solomon for a long time. After a while she patiently listened to this line of interpretation and added a few general insights as well. She liked a couple of passages especially well. The one that describes all of Solomon's concubines and wives and saying:

Sixty queens there may be,
and eighty concubines,
and virgins beyond number;
but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,
the only daughter of her mother,
the favorite of the one who bore her. (Song of Songs 6:8)

She once said that she thought he was saying, Solomon has all these women but your all I want. It's a stretch I admit but like I say, the more I think about it the more I like it.

I'm not trying to force anything on the text, I'm just saying, I think the traditional interpretation of the text is missing something important here. The nice thing about this line of exposition is that it does not dismiss the comparison of Christ and the Church...etc. As a matter of fact, Paul uses his advice concerning marriage to teach the Corinthians about Christ even though the meanings overlap, they are not mutually exclusive.

I think this is a window into the early reign of Solomon and what life was like for two young people in his court. I have no axe to grind with this line of interpretation, I just think we are missing something if we make this all about sex and metaphor.

That's all I'm saying.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

I'm getting to the point where I'm afraid to use a metaphor every time I speak to you, mark, but I fear you have completely missed the forest for the trees in your reply to me.

Again, follow the train of thought in chapter 4 if we stick to your interpretation:

Lover
You are beautiful ... (4:1)
Your eyes, your hair, your teeth, your lips, your neck (4:2-4)
and your breasts (4:5)
I want to spend all night in "the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense" (4:6)
​

[By the way, mark, I'm very curious to know what your literal interpretation of that verse is!]

You are flawlessly beautiful (4:7)
You have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes (4:9)
Your love is better than wine and your perfume sweeter than any spice (4:10)
and your lips are sweeter than honey and milk (4:11)
​

And here, if we are to believe you mark, the lover goes on:

Hey, nice garden, great herbs and spices. (4:12-15)

Beloved
Want to grab a bite? (4:16)

Lover
Sure! Yum, I'm full. (5:1)

Chorus
Eat, drink, and be drunk with love! (5:1)
​

Did this guy just praise his girl from head to toe to get ... a fruit salad? That's not the Bible, man, that's a Monty Python sketch.

And once again the sex interpretation is hard to miss:

The beloved is a garden (4:12)
and the lover enters the garden (4:16)
hence, the lover enters the beloved.
​

This is straight from the text!

And by the way, that's why I've never read anything other than a verse or two of the Song of Songs to my girlfriend. It's incredibly romantic, but in a way that only a married couple would be entitled to know or understand firsthand.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm getting to the point where I'm afraid to use a metaphor every time I speak to you, mark, but I fear you have completely missed the forest for the trees in your reply to me.

I kind of expect this but let's see what you have here.

Again, follow the train of thought in chapter 4 if we stick to your interpretation:

Lover
You are beautiful ... (4:1)
Your eyes, your hair, your teeth, your lips, your neck (4:2-4)
and your breasts (4:5)​

Everyone said she was beautiful, even her brothers mention her breasts:

Brothers
8 We have a little sister,
and her breasts are not yet grown.
What shall we do for our sister
on the day she is spoken for?
9 If she is a wall,
we will build towers of silver on her.
If she is a door,
we will enclose her with panels of cedar.

Bride
10 I am a wall,
and my breasts are like towers.
Thus I have become in his eyes (Song of Songs 8:8-10)​

We had a sister with no breasts, she replies, my breasts are strong towers. She's saying she is a grown woman and she is ready to take care of her new family. They are asking if she needs anything, she says no, everything is ready. Why do you think the bridegroom in the parables was delayed?

Lets talk a little about the narrative:

2 I will get up now and go about the city,
through its streets and squares;
I will search for the one my heart loves.
So I looked for him but did not find him.
3 The watchmen found me
as they made their rounds in the city.
“Have you seen the one my heart loves?”
4 Scarcely had I passed them
when I found the one my heart loves. (Song of Songs 3:2-4)

The opening scene is at the Palace, Solomon is at the head of the table and she is reclined against him and the daughters are with them at the table. The next chapter he comes to see her at her mother's house in the Sharon valley, just before dawn where she is having breakfast with her brothers. In the third chapter she goes to Jerusalem and looks for him, finally finds him and apparently the Daughters of Jerusalem are with him, like I said, they are probably his sisters. She takes him back to her mother's house and apparently the daughters of Jerusalem came with them, she turns to them and says for the second time:

5 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires. (Song of Songs 3:5)

Then the passage describes Solomon coming, she tells the daughters of Jerusalem to go out and watch the procession.

6 Who is this coming up from the wilderness
like a column of smoke,
perfumed with myrrh and incense
made from all the spices of the merchant?
7 Look! It is Solomon’s carriage,
escorted by sixty warriors,
the noblest of Israel,
8 all of them wearing the sword,
all experienced in battle,
each with his sword at his side,
prepared for the terrors of the night. (Song of Songs 3:6-8)

The groom, not Solomon starts to speak to her in chapter 4 and we already know they are in her mother's home in the Sharon valley. They are definitely outside because they are watching the procession of Solomon. My guess is they are in her mother's garden, he keeps calling her, 'my sister, my bride' which seems to indicate that these two were raised together. Yes he says wonderful things about her but he loves her, there is nothing pornographic about this dude.

I want to spend all night in "the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense" (4:6)

6 Until the day breaks
and the shadows flee,
I will go to the mountain of myrrh
and to the hill of incense. (4:6)

All I can tell you here is they are going to their house and it's up north.

By the way, mark, I'm very curious to know what your literal interpretation of that verse is!]

You are flawlessly beautiful (4:7)
You have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes (4:9)
Your love is better than wine and your perfume sweeter than any spice (4:10)
and your lips are sweeter than honey and milk (4:11)​

He loves her and she is beautiful, I don't really see what you are asking here.

And here, if we are to believe you mark, the lover goes on:
Hey, nice garden, great herbs and spices. (4:12-15)

12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13 Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates
with choice fruits,
with henna and nard,
14 nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes
and all the finest spices.
15 You are a garden fountain,
a well of flowing water
streaming down from Lebanon. (Song of Songs 4:12-15)

Notice the reference to the stream coming down from Lebanon. Their house and garden is in the north, how far north I don't know but I expect it's in the foothills of mountains in southern Lebanon that was acquired during the reign of Solomon.

16 Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread everywhere.
Let my beloved come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits. (Song of Songs 4:16)

They start at her mother's home in the Sharon Valley, he invites her north, the daughters of Jerusalem, their friends and Solomon are all going to the wedding. They got an early start, it isn't even light when they left. When they get there she is feeding him from the garden that will support their family home.

Beloved
Want to grab a bite? (4:16)

Lover
Sure! Yum, I'm full. (5:1)

Ok, first of all why would their friends be in attendance if they were having sex? More importantly, Monty Python!!! Seriously!!!!

And once again the sex interpretation is hard to miss:

The beloved is a garden (4:12)
and the lover enters the garden (4:16)
hence, the lover enters the beloved.
​

This is straight from the text!

So are the remarks of their friends that you quoted as the chorus, it's right in the text you quoted.

And by the way, that's why I've never read anything other than a verse or two of the Song of Songs to my girlfriend. It's incredibly romantic, but in a way that only a married couple would be entitled to know or understand firsthand.

I know, Jewish young men were forbidden to read it until they were of age and married. I really don't see that, they are not having sex in this passage. Solomon, the daughters of Jerusalem and their friends keep popping up. The one passage that involves a bedchamber she won't let him in. He makes the journey back to Jerusalem and she follows, in the dead of the night. When he finds this out he takes her back home and they exchange their final vows.

I think the narrative is fairly easy to follow and your interpretation that they are having sex is just impossible to reconcile to the text.​

 

[shernren]

Once again, the point is in the flow of the narrative: mounting praises of the beloved's beauty and a declaration of undying love leading up to ... a fragrant picnic? Really? That's exactly why I posted the Monty Python video: in the video, the passionate foreplay of the couple leads up to a movie-watching session, to the palpable disappointment of Carol.

You also keep missing the main thrust of verse 12: the lover is not saying that the beloved owns the garden, he is saying that she is the garden. You have not explained that away, and you are probably not able to.

Just a few comments:

Yes he says wonderful things about her but he loves her, there is nothing pornographic about this dude.

I am wholeheartedly agreed that there is nothing pornographic about the Song of Songs. But I also believe that the Song of Songs does portray the consummation of love between a married couple.

The difference between the sensuality of the Song of Songs and pornography is this: while pornography focuses on depicting and encouraging the pleasure of the self, the Song of Songs is constantly focused on the other. The lover is not trying to seduce the beloved into giving him a night of pleasure; he is describing her beauty, praising her features, promising himself to her, giving himself to please her. There are no crass depictions of sexual acts designed to titillate (which is precisely why you have mistaken this for a book in which no sex occurs at all), but there is celebration of physical sex as a gift which God has given for the pleasure of married lovers.

(But my effort making such a fine distinction may be wasted in talking to one who won't even understand the distinction between owning a garden and being one!)

Notice the reference to the stream coming down from Lebanon. Their house and garden is in the north, how far north I don't know but I expect it's in the foothills of mountains in southern Lebanon that was acquired during the reign of Solomon.

Actually, I can tell you exactly where your supposed garden was: it was either in India or the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, because calamus doesn't even grow in Palestine. (See K&D on Jeremiah 6:20.)

Ok, first of all why would their friends be in attendance if they were having sex? More importantly, Monty Python!!! Seriously!!!!

Yeah, and Jesus asked his hearers to imagine a guy with a two-by-four sticking out of his eye. I believe firmly in the use of humor to communicate where all other means would fail.

In any case, K&D again shows that there is no difficulty:

Between Sol 4:16 and Sol 5:1 the bridal night intervenes. The words used in 1a are Solomon's morning salutation to her who has now wholly become his own. The call addressed to the guests at the feast is given forth on the second day of the marriage, which, according to ancient custom, Genesis 29:28; Judges 14:12, was wont to be celebrated for seven days, Tob. 11:18. The dramatical character of the Song leads to this result, that the pauses are passed over, the scenes are quickly changed, and the times appear to be continuous.​

K&D on Song of Songs 5:1

I know, Jewish young men were forbidden to read it until they were of age and married. I really don't see that, they are not having sex in this passage.

Yeah, I mean, when have thousands of years of Jewish interpretation ever been right, and mark kennedy wrong, about the meaning of an Old Testament text?

 

[mark kennedy]

What is most important to observe here is what he doesn't say. There is nothing in the response about what the message is or the theological implications.

Once again, the point is in the flow of the narrative: mounting praises of the beloved's beauty and a declaration of undying love leading up to ... a fragrant picnic?

The consummation of all their hard work, the family home is complete and the garden has matured. It all led up to her refusing to let him in their bedroom because she was tired. He left and she follows him to Jerusalem, she is knocked down by a guard and when he finds out what happened he takes her home.

It leads up to the vows:

6 Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
7 Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot sweep it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of one’s house for love,
it would be utterly scorned. (Song of Songs 8:6-7)

Really? That's exactly why I posted the Monty Python video: in the video, the passionate foreplay of the couple leads up to a movie-watching session, to the palpable disappointment of Carol.

What you did was to demean and demoralize the underlying message of the text, you have confused natural affection and poetic language with intercourse. A very common and worldly mistake.

You also keep missing the main thrust of verse 12: the lover is not saying that the beloved owns the garden, he is saying that she is the garden. You have not explained that away, and you are probably not able to.

I have explained that, he is using allusions from the garden. What you missed entirely is how the family garden informs the understanding here, but that's to be expected.

I am wholeheartedly agreed that there is nothing pornographic about the Song of Songs. But I also believe that the Song of Songs does portray the consummation of love between a married couple.

No it doesn't and I've studied the text extensively. The setting where you think they are consummating has others making statements and entering the dialogue. Invariably they are not alone except that one night at their new home and he leaves.

The difference between the sensuality of the Song of Songs and pornography is this: while pornography focuses on depicting and encouraging the pleasure of the self, the Song of Songs is constantly focused on the other. The lover is not trying to seduce the beloved into giving him a night of pleasure; he is describing her beauty, praising her features, promising himself to her, giving himself to please her. There are no crass depictions of sexual acts designed to titillate (which is precisely why you have mistaken this for a book in which no sex occurs at all), but there is celebration of physical sex as a gift which God has given for the pleasure of married lovers.

A couple of phrases come to mind, 'catch for us the foxes that spoil the vines', emphasis the importance of taking care of the details that could ruin everything. Then there's 'do not arouse love till it desires', which is an admonition to young, unmarried girls who were probably getting anxious for their wedding. This song preaches patience, hard work and I'm sure of one thing, Solomon loved this girl but not the way people think.

(But my effort making such a fine distinction may be wasted in talking to one who won't even understand the distinction between owning a garden and being one!)

Wasted indeed if you equivocate the figure with figurative language.

Actually, I can tell you exactly where your supposed garden was: it was either in India or the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, because calamus doesn't even grow in Palestine. (See K&D on Jeremiah 6:20.)

It was in Israel, that's just plain silly.

Yeah, and Jesus asked his hearers to imagine a guy with a two-by-four sticking out of his eye. I believe firmly in the use of humor to communicate where all other means would fail.

Again you are equivocating figurative language with parables, obvious fallacious dodge.

In any case, K&D again shows that there is no difficulty:

Between Sol 4:16 and Sol 5:1 the bridal night intervenes. The words used in 1a are Solomon's morning salutation to her who has now wholly become his own. The call addressed to the guests at the feast is given forth on the second day of the marriage, which, according to ancient custom, Genesis 29:28; Judges 14:12, was wont to be celebrated for seven days, Tob. 11:18. The dramatical character of the Song leads to this result, that the pauses are passed over, the scenes are quickly changed, and the times appear to be continuous.​

K&D on Song of Songs 5:1

Seven days, that sounds about right. In chapter 4 there are a number of allusions to Lebanon, parts of which were acquired during the reign of Solomon. I know you probably don't care but I'm wondering if this 'dance of two camps' wasn't part of that. At any rate:

1 I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride;
I have gathered my myrrh with my spice.
I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey;
I have drunk my wine and my milk.

Friends

Eat, friends, and drink;
drink your fill of love. (Song of Songs 5:1)

It only makes sense that they are having the conversation in a garden. He says so, 'I have come into my garden'. His friends are there as well, some time later they do go to bed:

2 I slept but my heart was awake.
Listen! My beloved is knocking:
“Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew,
my hair with the dampness of the night.” (Song of Songs 5:2)

She doesn't let him in.

Yeah, I mean, when have thousands of years of Jewish interpretation ever been right, and mark kennedy wrong, about the meaning of an Old Testament text?

Yea, because they did such a good job determining the arrival of their Messiah, can't argue with that logic.

What is really fascinating about your reaction is not that you are contradicting me but that you have no once offered a real interpretation. Sure, you argue against it being literal but what you never do is apply these figures to theological principles. I can see the Gospel in this song, I can also see history unfolding. It's ok that my interpretation doesn't follow standard lines because it only contradicts them on one point, there is no actual intercourse being described.

At any rate, I did actually learn something about the text. I think I found out where her family was from.