Song of Solomon and Lust

Thanks. I agree some of them are hard to get through.

 

You have shown time and time again to have no understanding of basic hermeneutics. I have answered every one of your points by simply calling for the text to say what the text says. You argue around in circles and in the end you just cannot let the text say what it wants to say. You have to go on a snipe hunt looking for something that is not there. I prefer to be faithful to what the text says and let it say what it says.

 

Question 1: Where did I state that?

Question 2: See response to SBC.

Question 3: Again, see response to SBC.

 

Cop out.

 

Maybe you can point me to one. I'm dying for some worthy opposition here!

 

If attempting to be faithful to what the text says in its historical, grammatical, syntactical, theological and literal context is a cop out, then may I cop out for my entire ministry.

 

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?</font>[/QUOTE]I think the difference comes in that the Biblical writers offered their reinterpretation under the authority of the inspiration of God. I am not sure we can do that in modern times, or else we would end up with subjective truth, guided mainly on what anyone might believe based on what they think God may have revealed to them. This would, IMO, lead to confusion and a post-modern low view of Scripture with no objective standard for truth, and heresy would abound.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Jospeh great point, you are absolutely correct.

 

"spiritual arrogance" - many (perhaps not all) of these masterpieces only amount to theological, educational, and spiritual "one-upsmanship" - a petty game where individuals have no intention of losing in a public display of so-called expertise in bible matters.

Are there any that really believe this kind of behavior can be pleasing to God?

 

Except that there are hermeneutical rules. (Still waiting for SBC to illuminate us about them.) The primary rule was laid down by Christ Himself:

I object to the term "reinterpreted". What Paul gleaned from the narratives was either in them, and was intended to be in them, or it wasn't. They either testified of Christ or they didn't. To suggest that the meaning wasn't there, but was implanted later, is to make Paul and the Holy Ghost liars.

If you're not saying that, but saying it was always there, but could only be gleaned by an Apostle, then the narratives do us no good whatever. All Paul would have had to say was, "As an Apostle of Christ, and by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, I say cast out Judaism and the Law." But he didn't. He appealed to the authority of Scripture, and such an appeal implies the expectation that others reading the passages intelligently and devoutly could come to the same conclusions.

I agree that Postmodernism is something to be wary of. But no one is advocating a private interpretation here. It's only in these "modern times" that the Song is interpreted as merely a love song celebrating the joys of sex. (Talk of your "low views of Scripture"!) Since ancient times in Judaism and Christianity, God and His elect were seen in this Song. If the Song does not testify of Christ, how is it a better work than the works of Chaucer or Shakespeare?

In this thread, we have two novices claiming they have a better grip on hermeneutics than—not just me—but all the sages of the past. Even that of some modern scholars whose books they've no doubt been required to read. (And I'm the arrogant one?)

Let's sum up SBC's objections to a spiritual interpretation of the Song of Solomon.

</font>

• 1) No one agrees on what it means. This is a false statement. There may be minor differences in the reading of some passages, but, by and large, there is consensus among those who see the Song as allegorical.</font>
• 2) You can't find that meaning coming to the Song alone. True, one must read it as Scripture understanding that the true and sole subject of Scripture is Christ and Redemption. So the point's moot. BTW, he later abandoned this line of reasoning after being shown that it was invalid.</font>
• 3) "This view comes pretty close to spiritualizing a text to make it say something that is not there." This is just a way of saying that allegorical views are in and of themselves invalid. Again, a premise shown quite conclusively to be false.</font>
• 4) It's not a surface meaning. He objects to being required to "dig," thinking that having to dig for something makes it invalid. I think this is more a character issue than an intellectual one. He wants it simple and something easily understood. Honestly, this argument strikes me as coming from laziness more than anything else. If I'm wrong, then maybe he can post the hermeneutic principle requiring ease of interpretation. Regardless, I've posted the Scriptural admonitions that say otherwise.</font>

I've answered every objection he's raised. More than that, I've shown from the Scriptures that seeing Christ and His bride in the Song is a natural and logical conclusion from the doctrines of marriage. He, on the other hand, has yet to show me which hermeneutic principle I, Spurgeon, Henry, and a host of sages from the past have violated to "force" an unintended meaning from the Song. He just keeps insisting, "it's not there."

That's okay, though. I have no time for lackadaisical Bible study.

 

Aaron, I am very disappointed in the way you have handled yourself. You have made no one look bad but yourself. I am glad you are not my pastor.

 

"spiritual arrogance" - many (perhaps not all) of these masterpieces only amount to theological, educational, and spiritual "one-upsmanship" - a petty game where individuals have no intention of losing in a public display of so-called expertise in bible matters.

Are there any that really believe this kind of behavior can be pleasing to God? </font>[/QUOTE]USN Spiritual arrogance is right on the mark. People never cease to amaze me.

Aaron I thought you were not responding on this post any longer?

 

My response was to Joseph.

 

Some of Spurgeon's sermons on The Song of Solomon:

http://www.spurgeon.org/index/r_so.htm

 

bump.

 

I think we can maybe say that the Song of Solomon is only about the wedded joy of marriage in and of itself, but in light of the NT, it can exemplify the marriage of the Lamb. But that is only because we look at the OT through the light of the NT, not because in and of itself the Song is about Christ and the church, because there is no way to get that from the text itself.

I myself am wary of allegorizing a text because that reads meaning into it that is not there, something I used to do as a New Ager to an extreme degree. You can make the text say almost anything if you allegorize it.

 

Here's the thing, Marcia. If marriage itself is allegorical of Christ and the Church, then applying that allegory to a song about the "wedded joy of marriage" is neither an arbitrary nor a forced application. It is eminently proper and docrinally sound.

Christ is King of kings, Lord of lords. It is just as true to call Him the Shepherd of shepherds, the Pastor of pastors, the Prophet of prophets, the Preacher of preachers, and...

the Bridegroom of bridegrooms. Love, divine, all loves excelling.

If wedded joy is something to sing about, wouldn't the song of Christ and His bride be the "Song of songs"?

 

bump