Song of Solomon and Lust

The Bible covers such a wide spectrum of godly living. Why is it that SOS can't be a biblical look at how God views the marital act when done according to godly principles?

 

Okay, I'll jump back in.

I'm in agreement with Tater and SBC on the issue, but I'm not all "up in arms" because some see a parellel to the desired intimate relationship with God. I believe it is true that He desires an intimate spiritual relationship with His believers.

Having said that, I'll say again - "let the scriptures say what they say." Seeing how much it occupies the mind of society, it is important to me that God would not leave the subject of wholesome marital relations out of the Bible. With all sorts of falsity floating around in the world, why shouldn't God have some truth to tell us on the subject?

Hope that clears up my position.

 

I think we can all agree on that!

 

Let's not forget the original question. If a man has a problem with lust, should he avoid the Song of Solomon? Yes, he should. If he can't get past the descriptions of breasts and thighs (which is only about 7% of the verses) he is not mature enough to benefit from the book.

Where from Leviticus alone do you come to the view that sacrifice and offering are of Christ for His church? Or from Genesis alone, where marriage is instituted, that marriage is of Christ and His church? Or from Exodus alone that the tabernacle is a picture of Christ and His church? Or from Deuteronomy alone that the crossing of the Jordan is a picture of death and resurrection?

So, you see, the hermeneutic you're imposing on us is invalid. I don't have to come from the text of the Song of Solomon alone in order to interpret it correctly. Quite the opposite really. It's not intended to stand alone.

God spoke to the fathers by the prophets in time past in diverse manners. Christ spoke to the multitudes in parables to hide His meanings from those with no heart for the Gospel, and to motivate His disciples to ask for wisdom to discern them. Not every meaning is on the surface.

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2.

Sages for millennia have seen God and His elect in the Song of Solomon. It is not wisdom to deny their teaching because of the difficulty we have in understanding it. The texts say what they say, and more.

I will not go verse by verse to illuminate the passages. Almost everyone has access to Matthew Henry's commentaries. Go there if you want to see how to interpret every passage. Read especially his introduction to the book.

Generally speaking, we're told that marriage is a picture of Christ and His church. Removing the sexual act from that comparison is inconsistent and arbitrary. Marriage is given to us for the purpose of fruitfulness. Be ye fruitful and multiply, and therein is God's primary purpose for creating sex.

Fruitfulness is the primary purpose of Christ's union with the Church:

Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

The fruitfulness of the church is a result of its intimacy with Christ.

No one here said, as was implied, that sex is not a good and holy act when God's purposes are clearly in sight. My purpose here was first of all to answer the question that started the thread, and second to tell the whole story.

 

The silence is deafening.

 

Sex in marriage is not a sin. How do we get married? We have sex. Paul can be saying two things here. But it all boils down to the couple having sexual intercourse. Paul can be saying after the coming together in the marriage act, now make it legal, as put forth in Deuteronomy 22:29. “Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” This seems to me what Paul could be saying for he had humbled her.

So here the act took place first, the act of marriage. Then to make it legal pay the father of the girl, and by law she is his wife and cannot be put away, and what is his is now hers.

We have to notice here it is not the other way around. Some civil event takes place, and they are married, so now they can have sex. If we look at it this way then aren’t we saying that it is man that instituted marriage with a law, and then it was OK to have sex? This was not so from the beginning.

It seems Diane may be saying something along these lines. God is the one that instituted marriage, and He tells us what constitutes a marriage. Marriage can only be accomplished by a man and a woman (eat your hearts out homosexuals). How do we know this? Genesis 1:28, ”…. Be fruitful, and multiply…….” God is talking to only two people, they being male and female, and He tells them to get together, and become as “one flesh”, just as Adam said, and become one flesh. Sexual intercourse is the only way this first married couple could obey their God. Lust for each other in a marriage is not a sin. As the married couple is considered one, therefore they do not lust after anyone else but themselves. They are having “safe sex, approved of and commanded by God."

The marriage certificate is a binding contract, protecting property rights, the rights of both parties, and their children. Just because a couple have a certificate and a ceremony doesn’t mean they are married in the sight of God, or man. In both cases to be considered married, the marriage must be consummated. If the marriage is not executed, in a court of law the marriage can be legally annulled. It is the same in God’s law, for the couple did not carry out God’s command to give it the old college try to “be fruitful and multiply”. In this case the man and/or the woman may leave and marry another and not commit adultery for they were really never married before, if they never came together.

Genesis 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Eve was a helpmate, and yet a wife. At this time they were married without knowing each other, for they were of “one flesh”. But all after their fall could only become “one flesh” by consummating the marriage by physical act of the body.

We don’t get to be one by holding hands, and God says they become one. ”What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh”, 1 Cor. 6:16. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Guys, 1 Cor. 7 is NOT about a man who molests a virgin, feels guilty about it and then decides to marry her.

Also, sex does NOT create a marriage. Puh-leeze!

A marriage is a covenant relationship ratified by an oath. It's the exchange of vows that creates a marriage, not sex.

1 Cor. 6:16 CANNOT be made to say that harlotry is a marriage. That is completely antithetical to the whole doctrine. When Moses and Christ said, "They two become one flesh," it was in reference to marriage and not harlotry. They are one flesh because God has pronounced them so, not because they did it.

Sheesh! You gotta wonder where people get their ideas.

[ June 22, 2005, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Still waiting for SBC to respond...

 

actually, me too.

 

Also, sex does NOT create a marriage. Puh-leeze!

A marriage is a covenant relationship ratified by an oath. It's the exchange of vows that creates a marriage, not sex.

You do know this is the way God’s people got into trouble when they gave oath with Him in covenant. They did not obey Him. They had to do a work to validate the oath, but they went off and did works that produced nothing. They vowed, but did not carry through as a nation.

Can you name one oath that produced one baby by exchanging vows? Is this “oath” you speak of oral, mental, or what? I really don’t believe that is going to do the job, now is it. That is a new way not documented since the beginning. Can you please explain it to us. If not, I imagine the homosexual male couple, or female couple may very well be a good source. They think along the same lines as you for they also give oath to each other, making their vow of marriage, and many of them are monogamous being faithful to the end.


1 Cor. 6:16 CANNOT be made to say that harlotry is a marriage. That is completely antithetical to the whole doctrine. When Moses and Christ said, "They two become one flesh," it was in reference to marriage and not harlotry. They are one flesh because God has pronounced them so, not because they did it.

Sheesh! You gotta wonder where people get their ideas. </font>[/QUOTE]I get mine from scripture. In what book do you find yours? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

I believe that PastorSBC is gone on a mission trip.

 

The improper action here spoken of, whether you think the one behaving improperly is the father or the fiance, is preventing marriage, NOT molestation. By what evidence, Scriptural or otherwise, do you say the apostle is here speaking of fornication? He already dealt with that iniquity in the preceding verses.

Paul commended celibacy, and wanted to spare the Corinthians the marital problems which would only be magnified by tribulation, or as he called it, "the present distress". What would your tendency be as a devout Christian in those circumstances, especially hearing Paul's instructions freshly read? If you loved your children, you would be prone to forbidding them to marry, or if you loved your fiance, you would consider postponing the date or cancelling it altogether, which would require a writing of divorcement.

But, not all have the gift of celibacy. If youthful lusts are raging too hot (this does not mean the lusts were being fulfilled prior to marriage), you're better off marrying or letting them marry. It's better to marry than to burn. But if one has the gift of celibacy, he (or she) does better to remaing unmarried—for the present distress.

This is obvious to the most casual peruser. The only way to get fornication, or any other related misbehavior, out of this passage is to wrench it from it's context and interpret it in the light of the Western concept of dating.

I sure get tired of this old chestnut. No one who uses that tired old argument has really thought the issue through. Who here has said that sex is dirty? You want to know who is profaning the act? It's folks that handle it like some cheap piece of limestone instead of the precious jewel God intended it to be.

Adam and Eve were also naked, but not ashamed. Are you now going to say that those who don't cast off their clothing and garden in the buff think their bodies are dirty? How is it then that you would so malign those who treat the subject of sex with discretion and sensitivity? We wear clothes because that's what's required now to maintain our vessels in purity and honor. Exposing them to the view of sinful men only profanes them. So it is with the topic of sex. Because of the sin of men, is there a topic more vulnerable to perversion and profanity?

We speak of the subject so tenderly, and only in certain companies, not because we think it's dirty. Quite the opposite. We think it's holy.

No one has changed the Word of God. Maybe you should read up on why there are alternate readings.

Yes. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110:4.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Heb. 10:5.

First of all, let's look at why God created woman. It is not good for man to be alone. I will make an helpmeet for him. He didn't say He was making a blow-up doll for man, but an helpmeet. Woman is not there for you to consume your lusts upon.

Second, Elohim said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness. "Elohim" is the plural form of "ahllah" (not Allah), which itself is derived from a root meaning, "to swear". It denotes one who stands in a covenant relationship ratified by an oath, (Andrew Jukes, The Names of God in Holy Scripture).

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110:4.

God is love. Love requires "a Lover, a Beloved, and the Spirit of love," (St. Augustine).

As God is one God, yet distinct persons, a man and wife are one flesh, yet distinct persons. This image and likeness of God is not in the sex act, but in the covenant relationship. Adam pronounced Eve bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, when God presented her to him in the Garden, before he had any carnal knowlege of her.

Joseph took Mary as his wife before he had any carnal knowledge of her as well. Would you say they weren't married until after Christ was born?

And so what that sodomites pervert this holy institution? Their inability to procreate is not what disqualifies their "unions" as marriages. What of Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth? Were they not truly married until they could conceive a child? Men cannot marry men because God said that men cannot marry men.

A man and woman are made one when they enter into the marriage convenant, not on the honeymoon.

Do you now see why it's impossible to take Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 6:16 as a marriage? If not, maybe John Calvin can help.

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol39/htm/xiii.iii.htm

 

God spoke to the fathers by the prophets in time past in diverse manners. Christ spoke to the multitudes in parables to hide His meanings from those with no heart for the Gospel, and to motivate His disciples to ask for wisdom to discern them. Not every meaning is on the surface.

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2.

Sages for millennia have seen God and His elect in the Song of Solomon. It is not wisdom to deny their teaching because of the difficulty we have in understanding it. The texts say what they say, and more.

I will not go verse by verse to illuminate the passages. Almost everyone has access to Matthew Henry's commentaries. Go there if you want to see how to interpret every passage. Read especially his introduction to the book.

Generally speaking, we're told that marriage is a picture of Christ and His church. Removing the sexual act from that comparison is inconsistent and arbitrary. Marriage is given to us for the purpose of fruitfulness. Be ye fruitful and multiply, and therein is God's primary purpose for creating sex.

Fruitfulness is the primary purpose of Christ's union with the Church:

Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

The fruitfulness of the church is a result of its intimacy with Christ.

No one here said, as was implied, that sex is not a good and holy act when God's purposes are clearly in sight. My purpose here was first of all to answer the question that started the thread, and second to tell the whole story. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]First of all, I have been out of town all week on a mission trip. So that is why I have not answered you.

Basically in this entire answer you have avoided my questions. There is no way from reading Song of Solomon that you can come to the interpretation that you come to, it is frankly impossible. There is chaos in that view as no one agrees on what the different aspects of Song of Solomon mean when you begin using a spiritualized hermeneutic.

So you are saying that we can use the same principles in interpreting Genesis, Leviticus, and any other Biblical book by the same principles as Song of Solomon? I agree that Song of Solomon should not stand alone. But that does not mean that we first intrepret the book based on other texts. You interpret the text first and foremost based on the text. God through the Holy Spirit inspired Song of Solomon and He has an intended purpose for His people in doing so. You take away that purpose by trying to spiritualize the text into something that is not there at all. You are reading into the text and have no clue what it actually says.

You said, "Not every meaning is on the surface." So where is it then? So did God hide the meaning of His Word? Don't you see how silly that sounds? God wrote His Word for His children to read and to understand and to apply to their lives. Yet by your standard we have to go digging in all different directions to find a spiritualized meaning of a text, instead of just simply allowing the text to say what it says. Why is that so hard?

You should really get a handle on the issue of hermeneutics. You might want to read Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Jr. That way you can study for yourself what the text has to say instead of relying solely on Mr. Henry and his commentary.

Again, all I am asking for is this simple thing: Let the text say what the text says! Is that so hard? Obviously so!

 

I think the book is a literal rendition of the love between a man and a woman and God included that in the Bible to show us that is ok...it's not "icky" and "unspiritual".

 

Which questions have I avoided? You asked, "How do you come to this view from the text of Song of Solomon alone?" I answered that one quite conclusively. Let me rephrase my answer to avoid any confusion.

One doesn't come to this view from the text alone, but God does not require me to come to that book alone in order to interpret it. Only those who are attempting to rob it of its spiritual significance will force me to come to it alone.

But to show you that it is not intended to be read alone, and that from its own text, I will cite verses 1:1, 1:5, 3:7, 3:9, 3:11, 8:11 and 8:12. All these verses appeal to a prerequisite knowledge of Solomon to communicate their meaning (actually, there are more, but these are the ones where Solomon is named). Tell me, where in the Song of Solomon ALONE do we find the information required for a proper understanding of these verses?

You also asked, "And by what hermeneutical principles did you use to come to this conclusion?" Now, honestly, SBC. I answered this with the answer to the first question. In fact, aren't you just repeating yourself? Your first question attempted to impose your guiding hermeneutic (which is just a fancy way of saying "method of interpretation") on me, which I've already proven to be an invalid one. But lest you accuse me of avoiding the question, I'll rephrase it.

I started with the text itself, of course, which, as I've already shown, directs me to others. I considered the theological context. The poem is Scripture, and therefore, by definition, testifies of Christ, John 5:39. I considered the historical context. It's author is Solomon, which makes it one of the "words of the wise" and a "dark saying," Prov. 1:6. In other words, it is hard to be understood. It requires "subtilty" in the reader (Prov. 1:4) in order to glean it of its deeper meanings. Keep in mind its literary context. It's poetry. It is therefore not a straitforward historical account. The language is embellished (but not vainly so) and allegorical devices are used more extensively than in historical narratives.

No it isn't, as I've shown you and will show you again.

Again, the difficulty that babes have in digesting strong meat does not mean that strong meat is not good for food. Our dull ears and gross hearts make many things the Spirit wishes to teach us hard to be uttered. He said so Himself, Heb. 5:11. Hard-to-understand is not a disqualification for a view, nor is it a sign of weakness in the text.

But why are you so willing to glibly dismiss of the consensus of sages from ancient times till now? I assume you have your copy of Gleason L. Archer's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Read up about the Song of Solomon, and you will see that until liberal scholarship gained preeminence, the song was universally accepted as a type of the relationship between Jehovah and His elect. Archer himself agreed saying:

But you say it's impossible to see it that way. Are you wiser and more knowledgable than Archer? What of Henry, who, BTW, I do not "soley rely upon", or Calvin or Luther? Are you wiser than Charles Spurgeon?

All these men saw Christ in the Song, but you say it's impossible. Were they deluded? Misled? Stupid? Or were they just so uptight and sexually frustrated that they couldn't allow themselves to take the Song "for what it says?" And what special endowment do you possess that was absent in them that loosed you from the bondage of tradition and prevented you from being so beguiled?

But let's try an experiment. Let's use your methods to interpret the book. First, we'll have to abandon it's theological context. For this expeiriment, it DOESN'T testify of Christ, which kind of disqualifies it from having a place in the Scriptures, but, hey, you're the one with the grip on hermeneutics.

Second, we have to read it alone. We don't know anything else about anything except what is in the Song. We know about shepherds, sheep, black women, vineyards, spices, flowers, Solomon, etc.

Hey, lookie here! Solomon and a gentile gal getting naked and going at it! Woo hoo! Which one of Solomon's thousand women is this one? So much for monogamy.

Hey! I'm beginning to see the appeal of your method of interpretation!

Wow! God thinks it's okay to marry and frolic naked with young foreign women even if you're already married to another! Hubba! Hubba!

Huh? What do you mean? You say God wants us to marry and have sex with only ONE woman! Tell, me, how do you get that from the text of the Song of Solomon alone? If you can't get that coming to it ALONE, then it ain't valid!

Oh, wait!

Oh, well then nevermind! Your entire point is moot!

Why would interpreting the Song of Solomon be any different than interpreting "any other Biblical book"? Because there's sex in it? Of all the arbitrary and inconsistent choices to make! My point is that a spiritual theory of interpretation is a valid one. Your stated objection to spiritualizing something was in the supposed inherent weaknesses of the method itself. You say it makes the text say something that isn't there. But only if you come to it alone. I'm glad you've abandoned that folly.

Agreed. Where did anyone here NOT interpret it based on the text?

I've already shown you that "spiritualizing" the text is a valid method. It's proper name is the allegorical method. Christ used it. The Apostles used it. It doesn't mean that Solomon and the Shunamite girl didn't fall in love and frolic in the valleys and fields. It simply means there's more than meets the eye of flesh.

Now, this is really the question, isn't it. How do you know it's not there? You can't see it? I've already shown you that it takes a certain amount of maturity to glean it. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consensus of spiritual giants through the ages.

So how do you know Christ and the church aren't in the Song? Because it doesn't say so on the surface? I've also shown you why that's an invalid premise.

Because I have to bring the teachings of other Scriptures to it, such as John 5:39 and Eph. 5:25-32? You've already agreed that it doesn't stand alone.

So, how do you know it isn't in there? What theory of interpretion or "principle of hermeneutics" was violated by myself and the sages for millennia?

We shall see.

Not only did I say it, but God said it too. Didn't you read my post? I not only stated that not every meaning is obvious, I cited the Scriptural evidence. So, your argument isn't with me, it's with God.

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing.

Why did Christ speak in parables? So that seeing they would not perceive, and that hearing they would not understand.

It is the honour of kings to search out a matter.

If you don't work, you don't eat. That applies to spiritual eating as well as physical. A slothful approach to the Scriptures will yield shallow wells and overgrown fields. Don't forget the Parable of the Talents.

There are those Scriptures that are easily discerned. The Spirit calls them the milk of the Word, and we should desire it to grow thereby. But much more of the Scriptures are strong meat. They aren't easily discerned and require maturity in the reader to correctly interpret them, namely those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Oh, and this isn't MY judgment. This comes straight from one of those milk sections of the Scriptures themselves. But remember what God said. If you use only milk, you're unskillful in the word of righteousness.

Quit putting words in my mouth. Not only is it dishonest, it's unsanitary. No has to dig in "all different directions," but one must dig.

Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

Again, the text DOES say what it says, and more, but why do you insist on taking the easy path only. There's no promise of reward there.

 

Aaron,
Three questions(for now):

1) If you are so against "tradition", as you stated above, why are you so vigorously defending a fundamentalist tradition?

2) Have you ever actually read a hermeneutics book completely?

3) Where did Christ and the apostles use the allegorical method? (Remember that allegory and allegorical method are two different things)

Have a nice day!

 

Great questions Tater

Aaron, I again make a simple plea, Let the text say what the text says. This is basic hermeneutics here, nothing that difficult. One of the basic rules of hermeneutics is that the text cannot mean something now that it did not mean to the orginal author and audience. Can you honestly tell me that Solomon and his audience at the time of writing would understand and comprehend your spiritualized meaning of the text? But if you want to make it difficult, that is fine by me. I realize I am not going to change your mind.

 

The improper action here spoken of, whether you think the one behaving improperly is the father or the fiance, is preventing marriage, NOT molestation. By what evidence, Scriptural or otherwise, do you say the apostle is here speaking of fornication? He already dealt with that iniquity in the preceding verses.

Hello Aaron: A married couple cannot fornicate with each other. They are married to each other upon the sexual contact. This is not promiscuous sex, rape, or adultery, but marriage. We can be husband and wife in marriage, civil marriage, but for two to become one, the marriage act must be consummated.

It may be well to note here that it is the man that takes the woman in marriage, many times she not having any say so in the matter, so what does that say about vows, and spoken oaths? Witness Genesis 38:8, Deuteronomy 24:1, 21:10-13, 22:13, 25:5, Ruth and others. They become one in the flesh, by flesh meeting flesh in only one way, and that is only by the method whereby reproduction is possible, other than artificial insemination, which would not be considered a marriage. This is what God told the man and the woman to do in marriage, whether it is the first thing done or the last, in a marriage.

Paul commended celibacy, and wanted to spare the Corinthians the marital problems which would only be magnified by tribulation, or as he called it, "the present distress". What would your tendency be as a devout Christian in those circumstances, especially hearing Paul's instructions freshly read? If you loved your children, you would be prone to forbidding them to marry, or if you loved your fiance, you would consider postponing the date or cancelling it altogether, which would require a writing of divorcement.

Yes celibacy for those tended in that direction, by not by command of man or church, for it is unnatural for most. Agree with you if you are saying “present distress” means the tribulation is perhaps just around the corner. Paul is like as we, looking for the rapture any day. Also there were persecutions going on at this time (Nero was in town for the Olympiads) , and who would wish to have a baby that could soon be orphaned? But still, it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

But, not all have the gift of celibacy. If youthful lusts are raging too hot (this does not mean the lusts were being fulfilled prior to marriage), you're better off marrying or letting them marry. It's better to marry than to burn. But if one has the gift of celibacy, he (or she) does better to remaing unmarried—for the present distress.

If my daughter had willingly passed her flower before the age of consent, I would have consented to a marriage ceremony so they would be legally married in the sight of man. In the sight of God they have already been married. It is better to marry than to burn with lust, for all cannot be as Paul, and all cannot be a woman that does not need to be married. This is what married people do. They have sex, that wonderful gift from God within marriage.

This is obvious to the most casual peruser. The only way to get fornication, or any other related misbehavior, out of this passage is to wrench it from it's context and interpret it in the light of the Western concept of dating.

I don’t know if you are married, but if so, then from what you say, you knew you were committing fornication the first time the two of you had sex, whether it was before a civil marriage or afterwards. Wouldn’t this be willingly committing fornication, and/or condoning this sinful act when others do it?

I sure get tired of this old chestnut. No one who uses that tired old argument has really thought the issue through. Who here has said that sex is dirty? You want to know who is profaning the act? It's folks that handle it like some cheap piece of limestone instead of the precious jewel God intended it to be.

It need not be said for it is not accepted by some that sex is qualified to stand on its own in marriage. If it hasn’t been said here, I will then say it first. Sex is dirty, outside of marriage. Since I believe sex is not dirty at the time of marriage, I can say I’ve never had dirty sex, for the first time that I did it was when I married, which is not fornication, because I was married.

Adam and Eve were also naked, but not ashamed. Are you now going to say that those who don't cast off their clothing and garden in the buff think their bodies are dirty?

There’s quite a bit of difference between Adam and the woman who were pure and innocent when they were naked. I make no such claim. I am from seed of the first son of God that fell, having that same nature in the flesh that will die. But through faith of, and in Jesus Christ I’m a new creation in the Body of Christ Jesus.

How is it then that you would so malign those who treat the subject of sex with discretion and sensitivity? We wear clothes because that's what's required now to maintain our vessels in purity and honor. Exposing them to the view of sinful men only profanes them. So it is with the topic of sex. Because of the sin of men, is there a topic more vulnerable to perversion and profanity?

I don’t malign, just observe some believe sex is dirty, and outside of marriage it is, so I agree with what you wrote above, though you are describing voyeurism.

But do you believe sex within marriage is dirty? Have you never seen your wife (if you are married)in the nude, or vis-à-vis? Do you view your own body as “dirty”, the body that is made in the image of God, and also the wife taken from man, is now one in the marriage act? I’ll not ascribe that definition to the image of God.

We speak of the subject so tenderly, and only in certain companies, not because we think it's dirty. Quite the opposite. We think it's holy.

We’re talking aren’t we? You believe what I believe, but will not admit that sex is what God decreed in marriage.

No one has changed the Word of God. Maybe you should read up on why there are alternate readings.

The leanings are obvious.

Yes. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110:4.

This is off subject, for this was not an oath of marriage between a man and a woman. The Lord swore, and the Lord does not need to make oath with another to implant what was necessary into the vessel of His choice to form the baby Jesus.

I believe you are saying what the Catholics may believe, that Jesus is the “mother of God”. This is the reason I don’t believe an oath denotes marriage, for we fall into this trap of God marrying Mary.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Heb. 10:5.

God does love us, even becoming flesh as we.

First of all, let's look at why God created woman. It is not good for man to be alone. I will make an helpmeet for him. He didn't say He was making a blow-up doll for man, but an helpmeet. Woman is not there for you to consume your lusts upon.

Why do you make-up a false assumption of me believing woman was put here to lust after? God said He made woman for man, and that is the way it is. Is man the head of the woman, or vis-à-vis? She is our helpmate, and we husbands are to love her as ourselves and give her pleasure – ” Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” Genesis 18:12. Doesn’t Genesis 3:16 advise the woman is to desire her husband, and He is to be the head? It seems today men and women are becoming much smarter than God and changing things around.

Second, Elohim said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness. "Elohim" is the plural form of "ahllah" (not Allah), which itself is derived from a root meaning, "to swear". It denotes one who stands in a covenant relationship ratified by an oath, (Andrew Jukes, The Names of God in Holy Scripture).

Yes and Adonai is interpreted Lord, and like Elohim enforces the plurality of Persons in the one Being. We also notice now, and then the Jew believe in One God, for until the modern eras we know the plural was not known to the those kingdom subjects of God, the Hebrews. Judaism today detests the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

To me these “theories” of then and now, and something else in the future will never be agreed upon. The plural of majesty doesn’t belong to the Bible, but to modern times. Elohim, or Eloah of the Arabic verb alih of old, give the possibility of meaning one takes refuge out of fear and/or reverence, or is the object of such. We cannot make some things “cut and dried”, when we don’t know for sure. I don’t know for sure about this, and neither does anyone else, so I’ll remain silent beyond this, in this post, and most likely others.

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110:4.

You quoted this verse above.

God is love. Love requires "a Lover, a Beloved, and the Spirit of love," (St. Augustine).

We can’t deny what St. Augustine says, for he repeats what he read in the Bible.

As God is one God, yet distinct persons, a man and wife are one flesh, yet distinct persons. This image and likeness of God is not in the sex act, but in the covenant relationship. Adam pronounced Eve bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, when God presented her to him in the Garden, before he had any carnal knowlege of her.

Amen! They were perfect. But they became Imperfect. They separated themselves from God, and from each other in their shame. Satan got in-between, causing the division. How can the man and woman again become one? How can we today become one with Christ Jesus? Carnally and bodily there is only one way we can be one with the woman. Is it by oath? Is it by Vows? This does not work for we are in sinful flesh that was separated way back then. We have to “mate”. We must become “one flesh”.

How do we become one in Christ Jesus? It is by the Spirit of God. By the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ became man, and by the Holy Spirit we are placed into the living Body of Christ by the grace of God today throughfaith.

Joseph took Mary as his wife before he had any carnal knowledge of her as well. Would you say they weren't married until after Christ was born?

Of course they weren’t, for Mary was a virgin until after the birth of Jesus.

And so what that sodomites pervert this holy institution? Their inability to procreate is not what disqualifies their "unions" as marriages. What of Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth? Were they not truly married until they could conceive a child? Men cannot marry men because God said that men cannot marry men.

A child does not have to be produced to be married, but the sex act is necessary for the man and the woman to become one, so they may produce one from the two. Homos cannot do this, for it is impossible for the two coming together to produce one from the two. Two women cannot produce one any more than can two men.

You say God says the same gender cannot marry. Is there scripture for that from your point of view?

A man and woman are made one when they enter into the marriage convenant, not on the honeymoon.

But can’t covenants be broken, and the couple then marries again without committing adultery, for the virgins are still virgins. The man has not humbled the woman, and the woman has not received a man. A civil union is formed, and that is it, and by law of sharing, property rights, adopted children, etc. is all legal as far as man is concerned. But even human courts allow freedom of the married if the act of marriage is not preformed.

Do you now see why it's impossible to take Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 6:16 as a marriage? If not, maybe John Calvin can help.
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol39/htm/xiii.iii.htm </font>[/QUOTE]I believe the Word, and not mans, and I do not follow Calvin in his understanding of verses 15 and 16 of I Corinthians 6, but can only believe what God allows me to understand. Of course I agree this is fornication, but I will not change the Word to conform to some mans view.

In my Baptist belief I believe in Once Saved Always Saved. Does Calvin? Do you? Calvin does not, and Calvin leaves himself open here to not believing in the Power of God. Please take a moment to see what Calvin is saying. Quote from the website you furnished, concerning verse 16. Quote “…. for he becomes one body, and hence he tears away a member from Christ's body.[/I] Unquote. Can you not see Calvin is saying that the man, or the sin (the man’s sins have already been forgiven) has the power to tear away from the grasp of the Holy Spirit this saved person? Is this what you believe? I don’t.

Also why does Calvin not wish to accept the word “flesh”, when that is what Paul intends. Calvin’s problem is the same as most in Christendom of trying to mix law and grace, or carnal with spirit, as he (Calvin) joins them together in carnal flesh, and a Holy spirit. Notice Paul has the two separated, as it should be. Verse 17 is completely separated from verse 16 and stands by itself, which the translators of long ago were wise to do.

And so we in the body of Christ are separated in the Spirit from this carnal body. We are dead to sin in the Spirit, but we still live in this “flesh” that came from the first son of God, Adam. We will never be free from sin while we live in these sinful bodies of contaminated flesh. Paul says we are at war, the spirit against the flesh, so we do our best to not hurt the cause of Christ, by doing sinful things such as fornication, adultery, and the rest. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

 

SBC, I appreciate your well-thought-out, to-the-point responses. Some of the literary masterpieces on this thread (and others) are hard to get through.

 

Are you sure you're stating that rule accurately? If so then you've disqualified Paul's allegorical treatment of the historical narratives of Isaac and Ishmael, Gal. 4:21-31.

You've also disqualified the application of certain Psalms, like Psalm 22, undoubtedly penned by David with respect to the immediate afflictions he suffered, to the passion of Christ.

How is it any more of a stretch to think that the Song of Solomon was understood by Solomon and his recipients as prefiguring Christ and the church than it is to think that the narratives of Isaac and Ishmael were understood as such by Moses and the children of Israel?

Don't the Gospels confront us with several instances of Christ's words not being immediately understood by His own disciples until after they were filled with the Holy Ghost? That takes us to who the true original author of Scripture is, the Holy Ghost. And who is the true intended audience? The church. 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Peter 1:12, 1 Cor. 10:6.

The works of men with regard to interpreting the Bible can be a help, and, yes, I have read a book on hermeneutics by the late A.J. Conyers, a former teacher of mine. I've perused several others. Here is something I've found. Each author will tend to emphasize one principle more than another. These works are helpful, but they're not infallible. The Scriptures themselves are our only authoritative, infallible guide.

Biblical interpretation is first of all a spiritual exercise. God has given to us in His Word all that we need in order to interpret it correctly. If we fail to approach it with faith, prayer and supplication, and reduce it to a mere scientific approach of rules and logic then we've missed not only the correct interpretations, but eternal life itself.

If Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Jr. say, as you do, that the human author and his immediate audience had to have perfect understanding of the Scriptural work, and had to see in it those things that we can now see more clearly looking back with the light of the Gospel, they're wrong.

First, it's impossible to know whether Solomon knew or even intended the spiritual implications "latent" in the Song. If it's Scripture, it's not really his work anyway. It isn't hard for me to say that he did. He was wiser than the sages who not many years after its authorship saw Jehovah and Israel in it.

Second, it's based on the premise that only the literal meanings are the valid ones, and the Scriptures are repleat with examples to the contrary.

Perhaps you could clarify their meaning by posting their exact words here for me to see. I'm thinking you just misunderstood them. I'm thinking they said, as did all the other works I've seen, that the words themselves cannot have definitions other than what was in common use at the time. In other words, Solomon wrote of breasts and thighs, and his audience read breasts and thighs. That is not to say, however, that there was no spiritual significance to his descriptions of such.

Anyway, I have been more than accommodating to your demands. I have made several points supported by Scripture and the interpretations of universally recognized and accepted authorities on the subject. In short, I've been doing your homework for you, but you have not returned the favor by pointing out any of the weaknesses of arguments. You just keep trying to elevate yourself as more learned and a better judge, but you don't actually behave like one more learned by responding to my points and questions.

How are you more learned than Matthew Henry or Charles Spurgeon? This is a real question. How is it that Spurgeon could glean rich sermons about Christ from Canticles when it's impossible to do so?

No more responses from me until you actually deal with a point I've made, exposed it's weakness and with a Scriptural example or precept invalidated it—much as I have done with every objection you've raised to my approach to the Song.