by Harry Reeder
I confess the Song of Solomon has always intimidated me as a preacher. Its vivid and excitable statements of marital sexual intimacy and the penchant of commentators to interpret it allegorically have combined to make me cautious. Even the ancients recommended that a young man not read the Song of Songs until he was either married or age 30. Yet, “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable…” (2 Tim. 3:16).
The Song of Songs is presented as a dramatic narrative that includes Solomon’s bride, the never-named Shulammite, secondly Solomon, thirdly, the daughters of Jerusalem, and fourthly, the brothers of the Shulammite. It could be the Shulammite is Naamah the Ammonite, Solomon’s first wife; the mother of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:21) who was born one year before Solomon became king, which probably occurred around age 20. Thus she would be his first love. It’s possible that Solomon met her through one of his father’s mighty men, Zelek the Ammonite who might have lived in the rural Ammonite town of Shulah. Now, how can a pastor use this “profitable” book? Let me recommend five ways.
First, this book celebrates marital, sexual intimacy enjoyed as God’s good gift. It elevates erotic love with dynamics of care and tenderness, associated with the depths of transparency, intensity, and delight between husband and wife. When read, one quickly recognizes the God-designed, benevolent, and powerful instrument of sexual intimacy within marriage. This explains Hebrews 13:4, which declares the marriage bed is to be held sacred and honored by all.
Second, it extends and promotes intimacy within marriage by affirming recreational and ministerial sexual intimacy and not only procreational sexuality. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 Paul emphasizes the husband and wife are to give themselves to each other with this ministry mindset. They do not come together to take from the other but to give - the sexual relationship is not hierarchal but reciprocal. The husband/wife relationship and the gift of sexuality is not for personal gratification but for the joy of giving gratification knowing that it is “more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). In other words, giving actually heightens one’s experience, and taking diminishes one’s experience.
Third, the Song of Songs is countercultural. It powerfully presents sexuality to be enjoyed within a relationship that is defined by God. It is covenantal, monogamous, and heterosexual. Any other definition of marriage will destroy a society.
Fourth, it attacks today’s resurgence of neo-paganism, which declares the spiritual as good and the physical as evil. When God made man - male and female - and the marriage covenant, He declared that both the spiritual and physical are “good.” The fall brought death to both. Therefore, redemption renews both. We are not only born again spiritually, we are renewed so that our bodies become “temples of the Holy Spirit” anticipating the new body, the new heavens and new earth. This includes God’s good gift of sexual intimacy within marriage as renewed and by grace properly enjoyed. Any other use of sexuality is idolatry and is destructive.
Finally, while one must refrain from allegorizing the text in its entirety in order to promote spiritual meaning, it is valid to see how Christ is being presented. Ephesians 5, while defining the marriage relationship between man and woman, also declares that the marriage covenant is a proper way to understand the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. In 1859 the great Presbyterian preacher James Henley Thornwell had the opportunity to announce the wedding of his daughter, Nancy. In the weeks leading up to this event, the hundreds traveling would end up at a funeral, not a wedding as she took ill from cholera typhoid and began a rapid demise. Thornwell, overcome, came to his daughter’s bedside in her waning moments and said, “Oh my dear daughter, such tragedy!” She replied, “Father, do not weep. I know my Savior.” He said, “But this was to be your wedding, your whole life now before you.” She, the youth, yet with greater maturity said, “Father, but I now go to a greater Groom that I am prepared to meet.” Nancy Witherspoon Thornwell was laid to rest in a wedding gown, and the tombstone reads: “As a bride prepared for her Groom.”
The Song of Solomon obviously has much pastoral use in the issues of marriage and biblical sexuality. Yet, its glorious and ultimate use is to point the people of God as the bride of Christ to our glorious, majestic, and intimate relationship with the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. Our gown is spotless, our relationship pure by His blood, righteousness, and promised presence. With Him there are more than ten thousand joys.
Jerry, in your post, you reference what you call the Song of Solomon’s “vivid and excitable statements of marital sexual intimacy.” I couldn’t agree more about the vivid and excitable statements of sexuality intimacy. But where in the book is there even a single reference to marriage? Answer: There is none.
ReplyDeleteCharles C. Ryrie of Dallas Theological Seminary, to cite one of many who disagrees with you, said that the allegorical interpretation of the Song “is contrary to all principles of normal interpretation and must be rejected.” Ryrie says that it is “rightly [understood] to be the historical record of the romance of Solomon with a Shulammite woman.” He notes however, “the rightful place of physical love” in this love story.
Whether you agree with Ryrie or not, fact remains the insistence that that the book celebrates “marital” sexual intimacy would seem to be yours and not the author’s.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
It might also be noted that Solomon with his harem of 1,000 does not furnish the best example of marital devotion. If we’re looking to champion the Song of Solomon as celebrating monogamous marriage -- and there are very good reasons for supporting monogamy -- this celebration of Solomon’s sex life is hardly one of them.
ReplyDelete-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Hey Alex, I appreciate the comments. However, there are a few points I need to address in your comments.
ReplyDelete(1.) I am not the author of the blog post above, Harry Reeder is. That is why his name is at the top of the article.
(2.)The term "marriage" is not mentioned, it is assumed. This book was written early in Solomon's reign. It could be the Shulammite, Naamah the Ammonite, Solomon’s first wife that the Song was written for. It wasn't until later that Solomon married many pagan women.
(3.)Your quote from Charles C. Ryrie, you never stated the source to where you got it.
(4.) Knowing King Solomon's royal upbringing, he would have been well aware of the ancient marrital laws of his people as well as the Scriptures that were available to him at the time. To assume the Song of Solomon does not celebrate "sexual intimacy" in marriage, but rather just sexual intimacy in general is to imply that God is okay with people committing adultery and fornication. This of course contradicts what Scripture says, "You shall not commit adultery"(Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18). So it can be rightly assumed that Solomon was referring to the Shulammite, one of his first wives.
(5.) Now as for king Solomon's many wives, "seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines" (1 Kings 11:3). I totally agree with you that Solomon violated the Scriptures in regards to his marrying many foreign women. God's original order and plan was for man to have just one wife. The sad commentary on an otherwise wise king was that he eventually became a fool when his many wives turned his heart away from the Lord. (Read 1 Kings 11:1-13). So the truth is king Solomon failed to live up to what he wrote in the Song of Solomon.
Remember Alex, the Song of solomon is not the only book in the Bible to refer to when it comes to the rights and wrongs of sexual intimacy. Still, it is a wonderful book that celebrates the joys of sexual intimacy that God intend for a husband and wife to enjoy together. Thanks for the good challenging comments Alex.
-Jerry Sheppard
Jerry, you are correct that the blog was written by Harry Reeder and not by you. My comments, however, still stand. Also, you say, “The term ‘marriage’ is not mentioned, it is assumed.” How do you know this? Do you have any evidence? Let’s remember that what we mean by “marriage” and what the biblical writers meant by it were often worlds apart. Tact is that while few human institutions claim to be as traditional as marriage, even fewer have undergone more traceable metamorphoses. Imagine, for example, how you’d like concubinage with female slaves functioning as secondary wives and surrogate mothers; a woman’s loss of property to her husband once married; levirate marriage where men were required to take a dead brother’s wife and produce heirs for him; marital indissolubility in the face of spousal or child abuse. All these and more were once part of marriage’s bedrock tradition.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question, my Charles C. Ryrie quote is from the “Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition” by Charles Ryrie, published by Moody.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Jerry, one last comment: You said to me in #4 above, “To assume the Song of Solomon does not celebrate ‘sexual intimacy’ in marriage, but rather just sexual intimacy in general is to imply that God is okay with people committing adultery and fornication.” No, sir. Bad argument, invalid conclusion and your words, not mine. I never said or implied any such thing.
ReplyDelete-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,I am sorry to have to inform you that your comments do not stand in the light of Scripture. you quoted me saying,“The term ‘marriage’ is not mentioned, it is assumed.” Then you responded, "How do you know this? Do you have any evidence? Let’s remember that what we mean by “marriage” and what the biblical writers meant by it were often worlds apart. Fact is that while few human institutions claim to be as traditional as marriage, even fewer have undergone more traceable metamorphoses." You ask me how do I know this? Do I have any evidence? Uh, yes Alex, first, traditional marriage here in North America is based on the Scriptures (not just the Song of Solomon, but the whole of Scripture that deals with marriage). It is true however that marriage custom were different that marriage customs today. That's expected. Many countries with differing religions are going to have various customs to marriage. There are even variations in marriage customs within the number of Church denominations here in the West. Despite that fact, all such marriages are based on the Bible. Secondly,concerning marriage, the Apostle Paul said, "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2, NIV). So whether there are differing customs or methods to marriage is not the point, marraige itself is the issue we are looking at in light of the Song of Solomon. I still stand by the fact that the Song of Solomon celebrates sexual intimacy in marriage, despite the fact that king Solomon did not live up to what he wrote in Song of Solomon. So whether marriage changes or gets redefined by the laws of man, does not change God's view on marriage according to Scripture. The fact is Alex, every ancient civilization and empire that ever existed in the past, all had this in common prior to their fall: sexual immorality, homosexuality, and bestiality.
ReplyDelete-Jerry Sheppard
Alex, as for your second response, “To assume the Song of Solomon does not celebrate ‘sexual intimacy’ in marriage, but rather just sexual intimacy in general is to imply that God is okay with people committing adultery and fornication.” No, sir. Bad argument, invalid conclusion and your words, not mine. I never said or implied any such thing." You say my comment is a "Bad argument" an "invalid conclusion?" The question that needs to be asked here is where did I draw my argument and conclusion from in regards to what you said?
ReplyDeleteI drew my argument and conclusion from your comment, "fact remains the insistence that that the book celebrates “marital” sexual intimacy would seem to be yours and not the author’s." So what you view as my "Bad argument" and "invalid conclusion" is without foundation. As you can see Alex, my arguments and conclusions are based on what YOU have wrote in response to me. So once again, it is YOU who is in error Alex and not me. Thanks for the comments. All the best my friend.
-Jerry Sheppard
Jerry, for you to infer from my original comment [that the Song of Solomon does not celebrate vivid and excitable statements of ‘marital’ sexual intimacy but rather vivid and excitable statements of sexuality intimacy] that I am implying God is okay with people committing adultery, is drawing an incorrect conclusion from my comment and inferring I am saying something that I most definitely am not. So please do not put such words in my mouth. To remind you, for example, that during biblical times a form of polygamy known as the levirate marriage where men were required to take a dead brother’s wife and produce heirs for him was a mandatory part of biblical marriage (and one I might add that Jesus himself mentions without criticism in Mark 12), does not imply I believe such practices as adultery should be considered acceptable today. But it does mean that we speak of what biblical marriage is and is not, we must to be careful to read the biblical text in its own unique historical and social context and not read our own contemporary concerns and prejudices back into the biblical text. There is no inference to marriage anywhere in the Song of Solomon. You can put it there it makes you feel good, but it simply is not there. Fact is there are scores of sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions we can list that are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative today.
ReplyDelete-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex, your comment, "for you to infer from my original comment [that the Song of Solomon does not celebrate vivid and excitable statements of ‘marital’ sexual intimacy but rather vivid and excitable statements of sexuality intimacy] that I am implying God is okay with people committing adultery, is drawing an incorrect conclusion from my comment and inferring I am saying something that I most definitely am not. So please do not put such words in my mouth." Again Alex, as stated in my last response to you. Now this is what you plainly said: "Whether you agree with Ryrie or not, fact remains the insistence that that the book celebrates “marital” sexual intimacy would seem to be yours and not the author’s." This is from the very last paragraph in your first response to me. Just read what you said there. You are concluding to me that it is my idea that the celebration of "marital sexual intimacy" is given in the Song of Solomon, and not the authors. Which I believe you are referring to both the Song of Solomon and Charles C. Ryrie as disagreeing with me. In other words, from what you are stating by this is that the Song of Solomon is promoting "the celebration of sexual intimacy" apart from marriage. What else am I suppose to conclude from such comments you have written? To make such a statement as the one you said above would pretty well lead any thinking person to interpret what you said as implying that the Song of Solomon (which is a part of God's Word)is promoting adultery and fornication. Just think for a minute about the issue, Alex, if the Song of Solomon is not talking about the "celebration of sexual intimacy" in marriage, which is what you are telling me, then you yourself are implying that the Song of Solomon is promoting the celebration of sexual intimacy outside the boundaries of marriage. This of course leads to the eisegetical interpretation that God is okay with "sexual intimacy" outside marriage. If you do not want me to conclude that from your statement, then I would advize you to not make such statements as the one I quoted from you above.
ReplyDeleteNow as for your further comments on the different customs in regards to marriage in the biblical times being different than our Western customs for marriage today. Yes, of course they are going to be different. Reread what I said in my previous response to you about that. Then you quoted an example of men taking their dead brother's wife to raise up heirs for him (levirate marriage). I believe the actual reference in Mark twelve you are referring to is Mark 12:18-27. The context here is referring to the Sadducees testing Jesus in regards to Marriage in the light of the resurrection. Remember, the Sadducees reject the resurrection. Verse 18 makes that clear. But what does levirate marriage or any different marriage custom have to do with the issue at hand Alex. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You are guilty of the Red Herring Fallacy. Our original topic had to do with whether Song of Solomon celebrates sexual intimacy in marriage or not. So once again my friend, you have been shown to be wrong. However, I do appreciate your challenges to what I write. It keeps me on my toes. You see Alex, I am learning from you. Thanks buddy.
-Jerry Sheppard
You missed the point of my original comment. It was about whether we DRAW OUT from the biblical text what is actually there (“exegesis”) or READ INTO the text our own contemporary concerns and prejudices (“eisegesis”). By "exegesis”, we mean the method of studying the Bible from scholarly rules, asking not "What DOES this mean?" which has come to mean "What does this mean to me personally?" Rather the question of exegesis is always: What DID this mean to the original author and to the original intended audience? That was and remains my point. The fact that you deduce from my original comment that I think God is okay with adultery is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteI used the example of the levirate marriage to illustrate that there are scores of sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions that are normative in Scripture but that we no longer accept as normative today. Even scores of sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions normative in the OT were no longer accepted as normative in the NT.
The fact that there are poems in the Song of Solomon that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation, is only one example. We must read the text in its own context and not read our own contemporary concerns back into the biblical text. Exegesis does not allow for tearing a passage from its context to replace it in another age for convenience.
To cite a few other examples:
-- The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. A married man in the OT who has intercourse with an unmarried woman is not an adulterer, a clear case of the double standard. A man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21).
-- Polygamy and concubinage were regularly practiced in the OT. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman through the act of sexual intercourse.
-- The OT nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin.
-- Jews were supposed to practice marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently, a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage. We have witnessed within our lifetime the struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
-- The OT and NT both regarded slavery as normal and part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys or breeding machines by their male owners, which Lev. 19:20, 2 Sam. 5:13 and Num. 31:18 permitted.
The Song of Solomon is not “promoting” the celebration of sexual intimacy outside the boundaries of marriage, but simply eulogizing physical love within a specific time, context and social milieu that permitted all of these things and more.
There is no inference to marriage in the Song of Solomon. You can read it into the text (eisegesis) if it makes you feel good, but it simply is not there. Responsible exegesis is reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. Eisegesis is reading one’s own ideas or prejudices back into the Bible. Exegesis is about getting out of the text what is truly there in the first place. Eisegesis is about putting into the text something never intended by the author. Exegesis is drawing out the true meaning of a Bible passage. Eisegesis is at best unwise, and at worst extremely dangerous.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex, once again, you have resorted to avoid answering the argument in my previous response to you. Instead, you spent an entire paragraph lecturing me on the rules of hermeneutics such as the terms "exegesis" and "eisegesis." Terms I am very familiar with my friend. Here is what you said in that paragraph: "You missed the point of my original comment. It was about whether we DRAW OUT from the biblical text what is actually there (“exegesis”) or READ INTO the text our own contemporary concerns and prejudices (“eisegesis”). By "exegesis”, we mean the method of studying the Bible from scholarly rules, asking not "What DOES this mean?" which has come to mean "What does this mean to me personally?" Rather the question of exegesis is always: What DID this mean to the original author and to the original intended audience? That was and remains my point. The fact that you deduce from my original comment that I think God is okay with adultery is ludicrous."
ReplyDeleteThough you continue to accuse me that I am not using these rules properly, because you insist on accusing me of using "eisegesis" but fail to show me exactly where in my argument that I have been guilty of eisegesis. Whereas I have been consistent in revealing to you where you have went wrong in your accusations. Tell me Alex, what does your first paragraph have to do with the comment you made in your very first response to the above "Song of Solomon" blog above? you said I missed your point altogether; then you went on to say what that "point" actually was-another lecture on understanding the hermeneutical terms "exegesis" and "eisegesis." Since only Alex understands how to apply such rules, you feel the need to educate poor "me" who does not seem to understand how to do that. But in actual reality, it is a smoke screen to avoid answering such statements I said in my previous response such as,"But what does levirate marriage or any different marriage custom have to do with the issue at hand Alex. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You are guilty of the Red Herring Fallacy. Our original topic had to do with whether Song of Solomon celebrates sexual intimacy in marriage or not." Reread what you said to me in your very first original response to me on this. There is absolutely NO MENTION of "exegesis or eisegesis" in that response.
Later in your above response, you made this REVEALING statement,"The fact that there are poems in the Song of Solomon that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation, is only one example." Alex, did you catch that? you said,"A LOVE AFFAIR BETWEEN TWO UNMARRIED PERSONS." Now you have returned back to what I pointed out to you in what the issue was originally about in your very first response to me. Need I remind you again, it had to do with whether the Song of Solomon was talking about "celebrating sexual intimacy" in marriage or not. That is the "ORIGINAL" topic that YOU brought up in your very first response to me in regards to the Song of Solomon blog above.
Alex, here's a further thought on a comment you made in your very first response to me, you said, "But where in the book is there even a single reference to marriage? Answer: There is none." Just think for a moment Alex, such terms as "Trinity" and "Sunday School" is not mentioned even once in the whole of Scripture, yet the Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity; and the Lord has blessed the Gospel work done in the teaching of God's Word to children in Sunday School. You see, none of these terms are mentioned in Scripture either, but it is taught in the Bible. So once again a part of your original comment is proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn your previous response, the first paragraph, you stated, "The fact that you deduce from my original comment that I think God is okay with adultery is ludicrous." Now let's compare this to what you said later in that same response, "The fact that there are poems in the Song of Solomon that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation, is only one example." Let's break this down. The fact that you yourself admitted, "a LOVE AFFAIR between TWO UNMARRIED persons" strongly supports my argument that you are indeed insinuating that "God is okay with adultery and fornication." Yet you contradict this by saying my argument "is ludicrous." By using your own words, "a LOVE AFFAIR between TWO UNMARRIED persons" I have just shown you that you do indeed support the idea that God's Word (for example: Song of Solomon)is okay with "unmarried people" committing adultery and fornication. If you don't want me to conclude that, then stop making such statements that incriminate your position. God's Word does NOT teach that. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14). See also the prohibitions mentioned in Leviticus 18:6-20; 20:17-27. Many more Scriptures could be added, but these few passages are sufficent to prove my point that God is AGAINST "sexual immorality."
May God open your eyes to his truth, Alex. All the best to you my friend.
Alex, one more thing i forgot to mention. Your comment, "though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation, is only one example." In some cases that could be true, especially from liberal commentators and theologians, but I highly doubt that it would come from real solid biblical scholars and commentators. What I would like to know, Alex, who are these "commentators" that have conspired to cover up this fact with heavy layers of supposed allegorical interpretation? Since you believe from your "revisionist" view that the "love affair" mentioned in the Song of Solomon is really about "two unmarried persons," which I refuted above. If I really am wrong on this Alex, as you believe I am, then please do show me where I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteAll the best to ya buddy.
YOU ASK: “Though you continue to accuse me that I am not using these rules properly, because you insist on accusing me of using "eisegesis" but fail to show me exactly where in my argument that I have been guilty of eisegesis.”
ReplyDeleteFor the hundredth time, you are guilty of EISEGESIS because you insist that the poems of the Song of Solomon celebrate “marital” sexual intimacy. That is a textbook case of reading something into the biblical text that simply is not there. Do the poems speak of and celebrate sexual intimacy? YES, they do. And they do so in particularly graphic terms that would make the prudish among us blush.
Is there any reference to the notion that the sexual intimacy celebrated is in the context of marriage? No, there is not. Is marriage even mentioned or hinted at anywhere in the book? No, it is not. Does that mean that I endorse adultery, anonymous sex or sex with concubines in the 21st century? No, it does not. Since the OT allowed polygamy, does that mean that I endorse this in the 21st century? No, it does not. But it does mean if we want to interpret the biblical text responsibly, we need to learn how to draw out from the text what’s actually there and not read into it our own political and prejudicial concerns. We need to “get” that our reading of Scripture is profoundly influenced by our own cultural context and worldview. Continue to ignore these rules and realities and your understanding will continue to be misunderstanding.
Solomon hardly furnishes the best example of marital devotion with his harem of 1,000. If we’re looking to champion the Song as celebrating monogamous marriage -- and there are very good reasons for supporting monogamy -- the celebration of Solomon’s sex life is hardly one of them.
Moreover, your feeble attempt to justify your EISEGESIS by equating it to the Trinity falls short. While the term “trinity” itself is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, God does reveal Himself in the Scriptures in His triune existence. It is in the trinity that each attribute of His Being comes into its own and takes on its profoundest meaning. Only when we contemplate the trinity can we truly get a sense of and know who and what God is. Gradually, but ever more unmistakably, the three-fold distinction within the Divine Being comes to expression in the history of God’s leading in Israel. The OT also includes promises that in the future, there will be higher and richer revelation, and in the NT this comes into much clearer light.
In God’s revelation, the Trinity did not happen in a single moment. Rather it has a long history spread out over the centuries. It began at the Creation, continued after the Fall in the promises and deeds of grace which were given to Israel, and reached its apex in the person and work of Christ, in the pouring out of His Spirit, and the establishment of the church. Because the revelation has had this long history, there is progress and development of God’s triune existence.
Your attempt to equate Song’s celebration of sexual intimacy outside the bounds of marriage, or even the permitted use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys or breeding machines by their male owners, all of which the OT allowed (e.g., Lev. 19:20, 2 Sam. 5:13 and Num. 31:18) to the trinity, is a case that hardly deserves a hearing.
Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com