Song of Solomon, a literal understanding of the text

[grizzlyburr]

The Jews believe it is written for Israel.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Jews believe it is written for Israel.

They're right, it was.

 

[shernren]

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

Sure, they didn't get their Messiah, which surely means that their Song of Songs and Genesis is wrong too - how on earth could they have missed the documentary hypothesis? (Ain't it wonderful what broad overgeneralizations can do?)

While this is tangential I would like to point out that the hardening of the Jews with respect to Christ is spoken of clearly and specifically in Romans 9-11. There is no comparable Scripture saying that any other part of their interpretation of the Old Testament was similarly fatally flawed. As such, their interpretations of Old Testament, while clearly not normative, offer valuable insights into how the Old Testament was interpreted by its original readers - and doesn't conservative hermeneutics say this is exactly how the Bible is to be interpreted? From the viewpoint of its original readers?

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. ...

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.

And that just shows how often it is a waste of time talking to you. I did offer "a real interpretation": I said they were having sex between chapter 4 and chapter 5, and that is an interpretation, no? What you don't get is that that is the major problem I have with your "interpretation". Thanks for all your hard work, fascinating little piece, but to me this major roadblock needs to be cleared before anything else can proceed, which is why I am harping on Song of Songs 4:1-5:1.

By the way, I see you presenting precious little theology in this thread, but I'll take up your offer and show my hand: to me the Song of Songs is a witness to the goodness of sex as originally created by God. This is important because sex is a potent motivation that drives people, whether for better or for worse.

It is precisely because sex is potent that it gets all the attention as a symbol of wickedness. So, for example, the stories of Lot's daughters raping their father and Amnon raping Tamar are prominent displays of wickedness, and both are signposts to increasing depravity (in Lot's line in the former case, giving rise to the wicked nations Moab and Ammon, and in David's family in the latter case, giving rise to the rebellion of Saul and ultimately the temporal undoing of David's dynasty). Homosexuality is similarly used to show the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah, and used by Paul as the first and one of the most important examples of God's wrath on mankind's depravity in Romans 1. To this day many of the most potent insults and curses in the English language are related to sexual activity - "harlot", the f-word, and many others which the good profanity censor here will most likely catch.

But take this just a bit further and you end up with the idea that sex itself is bad. So, for example, had you studied original sin you would no doubt have come across Augustine's idea of concupiscence: roughly speaking, the very fact that biological parents desire pleasure as they have sex is sinful, and that guarantees that sin's taint is spread to the child who results from that sexual act. Given the sordid record in Scripture (leaving the SoS out for now) it would not be hard to back this up. What (in Scripture) is sex good for? Of course, every time there is a baby in Scripture (other than Jesus) there is a sexual act, but that's about it. In fact, the sexual act itself is never described, which only lends weight to the theory that sex is just a necessary evil in the process of procreation; then you get to the RCC's stand that sex must result only in procreation and thus that condoms, the pill and the like are actually wrong - because with them you could have sex just for pleasure! Imagine that!

Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul tells young people that it is better to be married "than to burn with passion" - which is strictly true, but it's the only positive thing he says about marriage in the passage, which makes you wonder if he thinks it's the only reason to get married. Similarly, Proverbs 5:18 counsels a young man to "rejoice in the wife of your youth" - but in the context of warning him to avoid the prostitute. One gets the idea that married sex is somehow a concession to avoid the specter of extramarital sex! And of course that's where the RCC got its idea of celibacy, against which your own John MacArthur has so often railed in the past.

Of course, we are told in Genesis 2 that a man and his wife will become one flesh, but that is only descriptive and not prescriptive - nowhere in Scripture are the pleasures of "leaving your father and mother" described (real though they may be) either. And again, while we are constantly told the virtues of having a good wife (Proverbs 31 in particular) and the need to love our wives (Ephesians 5), these commands are arguably given in the context of the platonic side of marriage. The good wife of Proverbs 31 is praised for her productivity and her character - not her bedroom antics.

This all leaves us with a terribly confused and negative view of sex - "sex is dirty and dangerous and bad, so save it all for the one you truly love", as the teens put it. Now, all these warnings are truly necessary, as sex is indeed so easily abused and put to work for sin - I am not gainsaying the Bible on that. But against it we need the positive witness of the Song of Songs that sex within marriage - and not just the broader institution of marriage itself - is good and pleasing in the sight of man and God. The Song of Songs is sex as it was meant to be: monogamous, matrimonial, unabashed, pleasurable, desirable. You yourself have noted that the book takes place entirely within the context of a faithful marriage and that, yes, the emotional relationship needs to be taken care of ("catch the little foxes" etc.) along with the physical relationship. And that needs to be said, because to deny the pleasure in something that God has indeed created for pleasure would be in some small way to diminish God's glory in creation.

And so, along with the blisteringly obvious textual cues, the theology of Scripture compels me to believe that the couple do consummate their relationship between chapter 4 and chapter 5.

Now you tell me your theology. Why do we need an entire book of the Bible to describe to us the pleasure of wine and cheese garden picnics?

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.

When God calls Israel and Judah a vineyard (Isaiah 5:7), and complains about its bad fruit, is He judging Israel and Judah, or is He judging an actual physical vineyard?

Similarly, when the lover calls his beloved a garden (Song of Songs 4:12), and enters this garden, is he entering his beloved, or is he entering an actual physical garden?

Cling to your presuppositions all you want: the text is clear enough in this regard.

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.

And I've explained before, and good commentaries concur with me, that there is a time lapse and a change of scene between 5:1a and 5:1b. Is that so extraordinary in this poetic book? You yourself believe there is a time lapse and a change of scene between 5:1 and 5:2, so it's only fair that I get to insert one where it makes sense too.

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

Look, this is simple Bible interpretation:

Calamus was not grown in Israel; it was imported, which made it very expensive (Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20).
According to you, calamus was grown in the garden (see Song of Songs 4:14).
Therefore, the garden was outside Israel.

 

[artybloke]

The Jews believe it is written for Israel.

It wasn't written 'for' anything of the sort. It was written 'as' a love-poem between two lovers. It was later applied to Isreal. Then it was applied to the church. That's how it works.

As for what this has to do with the literal interpretation of a bunch of ancient Hebrew fairy-tales I've no idea. Of course it has a 'literal' meaning; but it still has no reference to the real world. At least a (probably fictional) love story has some relation to the real world. People fall in love, people give each other hand-shandies.

But God still did not create the world in six days.