Book of Song of Solomon?

[Magnetic Poles]

It seems pretty clear to me that to attach allegory of God and humans to the song is a bit twisted. It is, as it appears, a simple song celebrating marital love and the enjoyment of this gift from God.

 

[J.D.]

How is it that a passionate expression of God's love for His elect could be "a bit twisted"?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

How is it that a passionate expression of God's love for His elect could be "a bit twisted"?

Because I don't think God sees his people in a sexual way.

 

[J.D.]

Because I don't think God sees his people in a sexual way.

Do you see this Whatever? This is why I used the word "carnal".

 

[PastorSBC1303]

JD, no one that you quoted showed how they can come to this conclusion from the text of SOS alone.

There is absolutely no way you can come to your conclusion from simiply reading the text. You have to read into the text allegory. That is dangerous IMO.

 

[John of Japan]

John, are you serious? Maybe you didn't read my post thoroughly. I didn't say that the Song is pornographic. I implied that CLARK as quoted above apparently sees it as pornographic. And maybe he has issues with its canonicity. In my view of the book, it not only belongs in canon, but has become the most precious of books when I need reassurances of His love.

But let me ask a question at this point - should our greatest passion be our wives, or the Lord?

The point I meant to make here, which I evidently did not do well in expressing, was that the logical conclusion of your (or Clark's, as you say) view would prohibit even the allegorical view of the Song. This is why I purposefully used the word "if" to you.

As for our greatest passion, absolutely it should be the Lord. Now let me ask you, how deep should our love for our wives be if we are commanded in Ephesians to love them as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it? According to this statement there should be absolutely no limit to our love for our wives, other than the obvious one that God comes first. I believe that our love for our wives should portray to the lost and immoral world what Christ's love for us is like. I think it is an absolute shame that so many Fundamentalists (including pastors) sacrifice their marriage and family for "God's work," supposedly. In my view, if you are not careful here you will put an unbiblical barrier between the symbol of Christ's marriage to the church and the reality of your marriage to your wife.

Here on the mission field a godly marriage and family life becomes even more important. The love of my wife and me is the model for the married folk in the church. I was thrilled the other day when Mr. U. publically thanked God for his wife. This is a very un-Japanese thing to do.

The typical Japanese couple knows absolutely nothing about how to have a good marriage. They are surrounded by pornography and other filth. There are Shinto festivals so filthy I wouldn't even tell you about them in private. In Japan's past, the Samurai, Buddhist tradition was filled with homosexuality, pornography and prostitution, including child prostitution. America is fast headed that way.

In the light of this, I am unapologetic for interpreting the Song of Solomon literally, and finding great good in it, wonderful advice for having a pure, sweet marriage.

 

[John of Japan]

JD, no one that you quoted showed how they can come to this conclusion from the text of SOS alone.

There is absolutely no way you can come to your conclusion from simiply reading the text. You have to read into the text allegory. That is dangerous IMO.

I agree! :thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

Hello Whatever, maybe I used "carnal" in a technically wrong way although I still don't see a connection that can be made between my comments and gnosticism. I was using it as a descriptive of my attitude toward the so-called "literal" interpretation which I call a low view of the SOS. My scriptural training has always been that the view of SOS as apparently held by Clark - that the words if literalized would be too graphic, in fact, porno-graphic, for polite people - is the liberal view of scripture. I've been in shock since reading this thread to find people here I consider sound fundamentalists to hold that view.

The more I think about this the stranger it seems. You think you are in shock? This is the first time in my long fundamentalist life that I've been accused of holding a "liberal view." And why? Because I interpreted a book of the Bible literally!! That is bizzarre to me!

All of my youth I was told we Fundamentalists interpret Scripture literally. "That's what the Bible says, Johnny, so we believe it." Then I got to Bible college and seminary and was taught grammatical-historical interpretation, basing Bible interpretation on the historical culture and the grammatical/lexical meaning of the text. "The Bible said it, that settles it, I believe it."

Even before taking that "Courtship and Marriage" class at Tennessee Temple in the early 1970's from eminently Fundamentalist teacher Dr. Preson Phillips, I was not attracted to an allegorical interpretation of any part of Scripture. I'm still not.

 

[DHK]

All of my youth I was told we Fundamentalists interpret Scripture literally. "That's what the Bible says, Johnny, so we believe it." Then I got to Bible college and seminary and was taught grammatical-historical interpretation, basing Bible interpretation on the historical culture and the grammatical/lexical meaning of the text. "The Bible said it, that settles it, I believe it."

I agree John. Unless there is a good reason for allegorization then it shouldn't be used. Scripture should always be taken literally unless otherwise indicated.
Why has no one discussed the theme or content of the book before jumping to unwarranted conclusions?

The real theme of the book is the glorification of true love.
It appears that Solomon had fallen in love with a beautiful maiden who, unfortunately, was beneath his class in life, being but a shepherd girl. The narrative relates the struggle of the king, who had everything else he desired but the maiden, to woo her affections, apparently successfully. Primarily we have dialogues in which he describes her and his love for her, and in which she also descrbies him. The final result is that Solomon wins the maiden and she enables him, by her beauty and character, to see that God’s intention is for man to have one wife and not the many who had come into his life to lead him from God. Thus Solomon releases her, and she goes back to her people and to her family who rejoice upon her return.

It is a beutiful story that has its purpose in the Old Testament Canon which was completed over 400 years before Christ was even born. It had purpose then, as it has purpose now.

Should we censor out of the Bible Jacob's love for Rachel; his marriage to Leah; Esther's involvement in the harem of Ahasuarus; the Levi who butchered his concubine into 12 pieces; of the 600 remainng Benjamites the 300 that "stole" wives when the maidens came out to dance at a festival; etc.
Should we cut out and censor those passages of Scripture that are offensive to us even though God saw fit to include them in our canon of Scripture? Should we allegorize them all to make them more palatable to our sensitive politically-correct conditioned natures of the day?
DHK

 

[Terry_Herrington]

God's plan is so wonderful, amen? :thumbs:

I have several books on the Song, but not Aiken's. My favorite is The Song of Solomon by H. A. Ironside.

Great commentary, I really enjoyed it. If fact, its been many years since I read it. Maybe I will read it again soon.

 

[John of Japan]

Great commentary, I really enjoyed it. If fact, its been many years since I read it. Maybe I will read it again soon.

Ironside takes the allegorical "Christ and the Church" view, but his comments on the Christian life and serving Christ are such a blessing! :thumbs:

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Ironside takes the allegorical "Christ and the Church" view, but his comments on the Christian life and serving Christ are such a blessing! :thumbs:

I find most things Harry Ironside says to be a blessing.

 

[Rippon]

I'm a former Plymouth Brethren ( Open variety ) . I used to read a lot of books by Ironside when I was in my early 20's especially . I remember his treatment of the book of Proverbs . He made more sense to me at the time than Kelly , Darby and others with their esoteric language . Some of the older folks among us back then thought Harry had kind of betrayed his Plymouth Brethren roots by accepting the pastorate at Moody Memorial Church . But many others among the PB's still thought highly of him nontheless . My father actually had the opportunity to hear him preach in 1951 ( the year of Ironsides' death ) . He was blind but preaching from an open Bible which he had long since memorized .

 

[El_Guero]

Just finished studying the book of The Song of Solomon. Apparently, the Song of Solomon can be looked at in a number of ways:

1. The book is simply a compilation of a number of songs involving two principle characters, i.e. two lovers.

2. The book describes a story of three principle characters:

The Shephard - representing Christ.
The Shulammite woman - representing the individual Christian.
King Solomon - representing the world.

The story envolves the Shulammite women becoming a part of Solomon's harem; rejecting Solomon as a lover; and returning to her true love, the shephard. Some believe this was an attempt by Solomon later in life to get Israel to reject Solomon's worldliness and return to God.

Any comments on this?

drfuss

I have yet to read a compelling argument that SoS is not a love story between two 'lovers'. Most of the arguments that I have read, sounded like the authors did not believe that romantic love between a man and a woman was truly possible. I still believe in love.

 

[John of Japan]

drfuss

I have yet to read a compelling argument that SoS is not a love story between two 'lovers'. Most of the arguments that I have read, sounded like the authors did not believe that romantic love between a man and a woman was truly possible. I still believe in love.

Well said! :thumbs:

I believe that God invented romantic love.

"And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death" (Gen. 24:64).

"Be thou ravished always with her (your wife's) love" (Prov. 5:19).

"As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters" (Song 2:2)."

 

[J.D.]

Just curious, I wonder how many of you bothered to read Durham's defense of the allegorical interpretation.

Also, I wonder if any of you have a fear that God could actually love His elect with that selective, special love that a man has for his bride.

 

[Rhetorician]

Song of Solomon

Hey Guys,

Did anyone ever think to get a Rabbi's or Jewish interpretation of the SOS? It would probably be a good input so that us Gentiles could have some additional light shed on the issue.

Justathought!

sdg!

rd