Song of Solomon

[GeratTzedek]

I thought the woman in Song of Solomon was the Queen of Sheba. Doesn't it refer to her dark skin?

 

[ContentInHim]

I thought the woman in Song of Solomon was the Queen of Sheba. Doesn't it refer to her dark skin?

I view her as the Bride of Yeshua!

 

[cyberlizard]

uhhh.... i hate it when people allegorize the song of solomon.

around a month ago, my friend scott was talking/preaching and used song of solomon and allegorized it to death like this. He insisted the song was about God and the church and nothing else. He delighted in telling the women of the church how lovely they were and used verses from it.... then he asked if anyone had anything else to add.... due to the way he interpreted it, i had to restrain myself from standing up and telling the ladies in the meeting that 'G-d thinks you have nice pert breasts', however i restrained myself - though it took some doing.

i did tell him the next week though and he found it funny.

i prefer the view that if you're going to do something with it, use it to show how sensual and sexual both parties in a marriage can be, and how both sides can encourage one another by highlighting one anothers positive attributes.

Steve

p.s. please do not be offended anyone - no offense is intended!

 

[ContentInHim]

LOL, I'm not offended, Steve!

 

[tm2cruz]

Can you guys help me a lil' bit about this book? Because someone interpreted this book about sex between unmarried people. He responded in this way, I'll paste it here...

Timothy got it all wrong. If you are going to be literal about the translation, verses 4:9 and 5:1 would even imply incest. When you read verses 6:8-9, then the context changes. At the second to the last verse, 8:8, the nature of the woman is now revealed. (She is still unspoken for...)

Contextually speaking, the whole book is about lovers and the transitions and complications of their relationships. Yet, the nature of their relationship was not really as important as the LOVE they felt for each other.

Here:

Song of Solomon 4 9 Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck. :

Song of Solomon 5 1 I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. :

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

Song of Solomon 6 9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. :

Song of Solomon 8 8 We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for? :

Because I posted my comment that the whole book of Song of Solomon is between husband and wife... Can you give me a detailed comment on the context of this book?

I'm just really concerned about the people he talks to in the forum making them believe that the bible agrees with his perspective that sex before marriage is ok. He's not a Christian btw, he just want to lead them away of the faith I believe.

Thanks guys!

 

[zaksmummy]

Ive just been shown how to get Youtube stuff on here so here I go again, sorry I have no answer about the OP, but everytime someone says Song of Solomon I have the chorus from this song going around in my head.

YouTube - Robbie Williams / Kiss Me

I know this isnt the original but I like this video.

 

[IreneAdler]

I agree with Steve. I think it shows the beauty of marriage sexuality. It's a far cry from what I was taught in my church on the subject - lol.

 

[Gnostophorrion]

This also, is listed in the books of the Bible

 

[rjw64]

I thought the woman in Song of Solomon was the Queen of Sheba. Doesn't it refer to her dark skin?

That's what I was taught too.

Rashi, however, allegorizes the book to be a dialogue between G-d and Israel. In his translation, it's actually really moving and beautiful - it shows the love G-d has for His people and how we should truly long for union with Him.

 

[FlatpickingJD]

Can you guys help me a lil' bit about this book? Because someone interpreted this book about sex between unmarried people. He responded in this way, I'll paste it here...

Because I posted my comment that the whole book of Song of Solomon is between husband and wife... Can you give me a detailed comment on the context of this book?

I'm just really concerned about the people he talks to in the forum making them believe that the bible agrees with his perspective that sex before marriage is ok. He's not a Christian btw, he just want to lead them away of the faith I believe.

Thanks guys!

The "sister" passages are not to be taken literally, as between literal brothers and sisters. Consider the context of the book and the time when it was written. In Semitic literature, the words brother and sister are used as terms of endearment. Think of it this way: we refer to each other in the church as brothers and sisters in Christ. Are we literally brothers and sisters?

The term is also intended to symbolize closeness. The book is not about incest whatsoever.

The last verses the person quoted were quoted incompletely; you really need 8:9 in order to understand 8:8. Ironically, here the terms are used literally. But in context, the verses refer to how the brothers will treat their sister. Walls and doors refer to her purity or lack of it. If she is pure, they will reward her; if she's not, they'll punish her (presumably by not allowing her out anymore).

 

[tm2cruz]

The "sister" passages are not to be taken literally, as between literal brothers and sisters. Consider the context of the book and the time when it was written. In Semitic literature, the words brother and sister are used as terms of endearment. Think of it this way: we refer to each other in the church as brothers and sisters in Christ. Are we literally brothers and sisters?

The term is also intended to symbolize closeness. The book is not about incest whatsoever.

The last verses the person quoted were quoted incompletely; you really need 8:9 in order to understand 8:8. Ironically, here the terms are used literally. But in context, the verses refer to how the brothers will treat their sister. Walls and doors refer to her purity or lack of it. If she is pure, they will reward her; if she's not, they'll punish her (presumably by not allowing her out anymore).

Thank you, that really helps, especially about the "sister" one... If it says "incest" then it contradicts Leviticus 18 eh? So sad people nowadays teach others with twisted meaning..

 

[ContraMundum]

"You know you're not reading your Bible enough when your kids come back from Sunday School having read the Song of Solomon and you say 'WHO GAVE YOU THAT STUFF?!?!'"

 

[Ivy]

As Garrison Keillor says, "I was looking for the Psalms!.....honest, friend!"




Does anyone know why this interesting book was included in the canon? (I'm asking because I don't know--not that I don't want it to be there-- but I'm sure they weren't thinking of Wednesday Bible Study Night material.)

 

[FlatpickingJD]

Ivy, that's an interesting question. According to F. F. Bruce in The Canon of Scripture, rabbis at the Council of Jamnia asked a similar question: whether Song of Songs should be in the Hebrew Bible. Since it's in Jewish bibles to this day, it's probably safe to say they concluded it should. Jewish scholars, on the other hand, say there was never any question of whether it belonged (see the Artscroll Tanach intro).

It seems that the main question about Song for everyone who tried to draft a canon list (Jew and Gentile) was whether it was thought to be "divinely inspired," and if it was the commentator(s) would include it. The conclusion appears to be that, if one accepts it as an allegory of God's relationship with Israel, or His relationship with the church, then it was inspired. The Artscroll editors say the Sages wrote that the truth of Song could only be found in its allegorical relationship. They also note that even though it's a song, it follows the same patterns of many of the prophetic books.

Christians debated the work for centuries, just as they did works for the New Testament. Tertullian, for example, quoted from it. Erasmus didn't think it belonged in the canon. Luther must have found Christ in the book because he didn't squawk about Song like he did Esther and James. Some allegorized it as between God and Israel, others as between God and the church.

So it was accepted by Jew and Gentile alike because it was a divinely inspired allegory about God's relationship with his people, either the Jewish nation or the church.

 

[ContraMundum]

Ivy, that's an interesting question. According to F. F. Bruce in The Canon of Scripture, rabbis at the Council of Jamnia asked a similar question: whether Song of Songs should be in the Hebrew Bible. Since it's in Jewish bibles to this day, it's probably safe to say they concluded it should. Jewish scholars, on the other hand, say there was never any question of whether it belonged (see the Artscroll Tanach intro).

Typical Artscroll comment, really. I wouldn't refer to anything from Artscroll as coming from "Jewish scholars" unless of course scholarship involves unquestioning and blind loyalty certain sects without regarding the greater and broader Judaism. It's pretty much accepted from other Jewish (and non-Jewish) scholars that there would have been a lot of debate at Jamnia (Yavne- if it ever really happened that way at all) because the Jewish canon was very loose at the time.

It seems that the main question about Song for everyone who tried to draft a canon list (Jew and Gentile) was whether it was thought to be "divinely inspired," and if it was the commentator(s) would include it. The conclusion appears to be that, if one accepts it as an allegory of God's relationship with Israel, or His relationship with the church, then it was inspired. The Artscroll editors say the Sages wrote that the truth of Song could only be found in its allegorical relationship. They also note that even though it's a song, it follows the same patterns of many of the prophetic books.

Christians debated the work for centuries, just as they did works for the New Testament. Tertullian, for example, quoted from it. Erasmus didn't think it belonged in the canon. Luther must have found Christ in the book because he didn't squawk about Song like he did Esther and James. Some allegorized it as between God and Israel, others as between God and the church.

So it was accepted by Jew and Gentile alike because it was a divinely inspired allegory about God's relationship with his people, either the Jewish nation or the church.

In any case, we have this book in the canon now- Christians accept the decisions of later Christian councils (you know, ones where the Holy Spirit turns up) for their list of books. Unless of course you are Protestant, as you have pointed out indirectly.

 

[FlatpickingJD]

I wouldn't dismiss Artscroll too quickly on that score. When I referred to "scholars" Artscroll was talking of the Sages; I regard them in the same way Christians regard the early church fathers. Here's the quote: "(m)oreover, although some of the Sages wondered whether Ecclesiastes should be included among the Books of Scripture, there was never a question about Song of Songs." The JPS Jewish Study Bible says pretty much the same thing, in different words of course (referring to rabbinic tradition and the Targums). I just didn't want to make my response seem more academic than it already was.

Like them or not, Artscroll's rabbis are pretty faithful to the text (except in Song where they use Rashi's translation). For the most part their comments are spot on, particularly when they include commentary from the great rabbis, not just their own contemporary rebbes: Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Ramban. Their commentaries don't betray any of the Chasidic messianic belief.

 

[ContraMundum]

Like them or not, Artscroll's rabbis are pretty faithful to the text (except in Song where they use Rashi's translation).

What makes you say that? My thought is that they are very biased in their translation and at times embarrasingly so.

For the most part their comments are spot on, particularly when they include commentary from the great rabbis, not just their own contemporary rebbes: Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Ramban.

While these guys have made interesting contributions to the interpretation of the Tanach, I don't think they are always as good as the hype that accompanies their veneration. Same with the ECF, actually. Often, these commentators ("Sages" and ECF alike) invoke a chuckle to me. They are, after all, merely men of their time and often heavily immersed in the zeitgeist in which they lived, and it shows in their writings.

Their commentaries don't betray any of the Chasidic messianic belief.

I think that is a little vague here. "Chasidic messianic belief" is a term that would need a lot of qualification, and even then its relevance to Christian theology would need to be established.

 

[torahpointstoHim]

I saw an article in our sunday newspaper that the Songs of Solomon (Shir ha-Shirim: songs of songs). I never knew that the writer was a Shulammite woman! King Solomon was just the 3rd party of this seemingly love triangle. Just think that an ordinary woman kidnapped/courted by the wisest, richest and influencial man of his time is really something. And she turned him down for an ordinary shephered boy. And on the days that she was kidnapped, she would describe the man she loves to Solomon's other wives.

What I see in this loving story, a faithful woman to her lover. How she will yearn for him whatever happens. Same as us "the future brides" of Y'shua that we should yearn for Him no matter how we are courted by sin.

*I'm not sure if this is how the story really goes though since I just saw it in an article. But it would be cool if it does.*

 

[Rhamiel]

it is about how wonderful sexual love is between husband and wife
it is about How G-d loves Israel
It is about how the Church is the Bride of Christ
I think that this Song can be viewed on many levals, to say that it is not about sexual love at all seems to take away a core part of the Song, but to say that it is just about erotic love, even to show that it is something the Lord made, seems kind of odd to be in the Bible
So i think it is both