It is an error to empty the Song of Solomon of it's spiritual significance, but I did not say that you were "so off base." Saying God intended the nuptial rites to be pleasurable is only telling half the story.
Let me rephrase my question, what is God's central intention for sex? He made it pleasurable, but what is its end?
For example, God gives us food. He made eating the food a pleasant activity, but was pleasure God's central goal? Of course not. God's main purpose for food is to give us strength.
Now that I've all but straightforwardly answered the question about sex, let's get back to the Song of Solomon. Sex has just as much to do with Christ and the Church as any other aspect of the marital relationship. Our difficulty in perceiving that fact casts no aspersions upon its validity. Sex is not about us. It was given to us, but it is not about us. It is about Christ, His kingdom and His glory. All things were created by him and for him. If Christ is not clearly in view while in the throes of passion, we're not serving Christ by it.
Again, I would recommend the afore-mentioned books by Hannah Hurnard. They're like a children's guide to the Song of Solomon, and I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. A favorite line of mine in an old Gospel song is:
Tell me the story simply
as to a little child,
For I am weak and weary
And helpless and defiled.
Anyone?
Anyone?
I believe the point was that someone with an inordinate apetite might not benefit from reading the Song of Solomon. Indeed, strong meat sickens more than nourishes a babe, and it is no honor to the Song to come to it with a carnal mind.
Let me rephrase my question, what is God's central intention for sex? He made it pleasurable, but what is its end?
For example, God gives us food. He made eating the food a pleasant activity, but was pleasure God's central goal? Of course not. God's main purpose for food is to give us strength.
Now that I've all but straightforwardly answered the question about sex, let's get back to the Song of Solomon. Sex has just as much to do with Christ and the Church as any other aspect of the marital relationship. Our difficulty in perceiving that fact casts no aspersions upon its validity. Sex is not about us. It was given to us, but it is not about us. It is about Christ, His kingdom and His glory. All things were created by him and for him. If Christ is not clearly in view while in the throes of passion, we're not serving Christ by it.
Again, I would recommend the afore-mentioned books by Hannah Hurnard. They're like a children's guide to the Song of Solomon, and I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. A favorite line of mine in an old Gospel song is:
Tell me the story simply
as to a little child,
For I am weak and weary
And helpless and defiled.
Who in this thread asserted such a fanciful premise?TexasSky said:
If you start labeling the Bible as "too sinful to read," you've REALLY taken legalism too far.
Anyone?
Anyone?
I believe the point was that someone with an inordinate apetite might not benefit from reading the Song of Solomon. Indeed, strong meat sickens more than nourishes a babe, and it is no honor to the Song to come to it with a carnal mind.