Posted on 08/19/2014 2:05:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Song of Solomon gets a lot of ‘bad press.’ Are there spiritual lessons to be found in this book?
The Song of Solomon or Song of Songs has probably roused more confusion than any other book in the Hebrew Bible, similar to the New Testament’s complex Book of Revelation. Roland K. Harrison of the University of Toronto says the Song provides “almost unlimited ground for speculation.” The Bible’s usual piety, preachments, and prayers are totally absent, nor is God even mentioned (except for 8:6 in some translations). Yet readings from the Song are chosen for Judaism’s Passover liturgy and Catholicism’s feast of Mary Magdalene.
Why was this book chosen for the Bible in the first place? Did King Solomon write it? Is it about him? And, most important, is this a book of erotic poetry, as it appears on the surface, or something totally different, an unusual expression of the spiritual love bond between God and believers?
Pioneer Protestant John Calvin said the Song was about physical love and saw nothing wrong with that. But the notable 17th Century Protestant commentator Matthew Henry insisted on the spiritualized view and warned against reading the Song “with carnal minds.” Such interpretation carries danger of “death” and “poison,” he declared.
“Therefore the Jewish doctors advised their young people not to read it till they were 30 years old” lest they kindle “the flames of lust.” (!!)
Such distaste for the erotic as inappropriate for holy Scripture typified official views through much of Jewish and Christian history. There’s evidence that Christianity’s Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) condemned a theologian partly because he took the Song literally and therefore said it should be removed from the Bible.
Tremper Longman III of Westmont College says no other biblical book has undergone such a radical shift in interpretation since the 19th Century. In modern times Calvin’s view prevails and the spiritual reading gets little regard. And yet the “Catholic Study Bible” says most scholars in that church think the Song portrays “the mutual love of the Lord and his people” as a “parable” — not an “allegory” as was often claimed. However, this study Bible adds that it’s “possible” to also see an idealized portrayal of the “sacredness and the depth of married union.”
The late Father Roland Murphy, an influential Catholic scholar, said the literal and erotic sense “seems to be the obvious meaning.” A standard evangelical reference work, the “New Bible Commentary” is more emphatic that the Song “must be taken literally as what it appears to be,” and finds love poems fully appropriate because the Bible teaches the “righteousness and value of true love” between a man and woman. Yet this commentary thinks it’s probable that ancient Jewish authorities, and early Christians who followed them, only included the Song in the Bible because of a strictly spiritual understanding. The Guy concludes from various experts that this book obviously honors and celebrates physical love in marriage, which matches the biblical Book of Genesis where God’s creation of male and female is “very good.”
However, Longman advises us, “the Song is not a dating guide or a sex manual.” And the spiritual understanding adds inspirational value.
Tradition said Solomon himself wrote the Song but few think so today. Saying “of” Solomon seems to indicate it was “by” Solomon, but the preposition can also mean “dedicated to” or “in the manner” or “tradition” of Solomon, who was the symbol of biblical “wisdom” authors (see 1 Kings 4:29-34). Is the Song “about” Solomon? Apparently not, since he’s referred to in the third person. Moreover, Harrison notes that this king was “a licentious and capricious oriental despot” and thus an unlikely biblical role model. The Song celebrates marital monogamy and exclusivity, whereas King Solomon defied God and took 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-4).
Since the Song’s woman lover is more prominent than the man, there’s intriguing modern speculation that a woman might have written some or all of these poems. Longman concludes that Solomon might have written a poem or two but clearly the book “is not telling a story about Solomon” and in fact nothing “indisputably connects the book with Solomon,” which he says is no problem since there’s “little at stake” in authorship.
Liberal professors typically prefer late dates for biblical writings and say the Song’s Aramaic, Persian, and Greek vocabulary indicates it was completed long after Solomon’s day, following the Babylonian Captivity that ended in 538 B.C., or even later than that. Carl Ernst of the University of North Carolina tells us “scholars agree” that the Song dates to “around the first century” of the Christian era. That’s a remarkable claim since the Song would have been a brand-new production in the same century when Jewish sages decided it was appropriate for inclusion in the Bible. What are the odds?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Richard N. Ostling, a religion writer for the Associated Press, was formerly senior correspondent for Time magazine, where he wrote twenty-three cover stories and was the religion writer for many years. He has also covered religion for the CBS Radio Network and the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS-TV.
Because the proper and wonderful expression of sexual love was part of the plan from the beginning. In the garden, before Adam sinned, the first command that God gave Adam and Eve as a couple was “be fruitful and multiply.”
It is a silly misconception, both within and outside of the Church, that sex is in someway offensive or less than tasteful in the eyes of God.
Does Song of Songs have a spiritual application? Absolutely! The passion and zeal that the young lovers have for each other in the poem is the same passion and zeal that God has for us. We should long and yearn to be pleasing to him, to be ready for our time with him, and to be ever on alert for his voice or his touch.
But it is a celebration of sexual love. A pure sexual love. It gives instruction on why waiting, why longing, and why choosing love is best for us.
I think this is the most correct vies — if He didn't he wouldn't have made it necessary for reproduction.
How did Song of Solomon make the cut, yet The Book of Enoch did not?
The spiritual application can be a tough one to figure out. If you can find a good guide, the song of songs is a great study.
Song of Songs has a cameo in this movie.
EGR plays a refined gentleman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOQeqcPocsQ
Could you give me a link or a source, that is, for evidence? This is not a"challenge" question: I'm sincerely loking for more info.
Terms like “Rose of Sharon” are found in SOS and allude to Christ’s relationship with the church.
How about the term : “LILY OF THE VALLEY”?
RE: How did Song of Solomon make the cut, yet The Book of Enoch did not?
Here’s another interesting factoid — The Book of Esther DOES NOT mention the word “God” at all — either by name (Yahweh), title (Adonai), or being (El).
St John of the Cross used it as the basis for his brilliant “Dark Night of the Soul”.
I have trouble with this implication, although I'll admit the writing is ambiguous and does not directly state that polygamy was an offense against God. As the son not of David's first seven wives Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, or Eglah, but of his eighth wife, Bathsheba, I have trouble seeing Solomon's multiple wives alone as defiance of God. Certainly his openness to other religious observances on his land was an offense against God, but polygamy alone was not at that time a clear offense.
It is in the Bible because it symbolizes the love of Christ for His Bride, the Church.
FWIW, it does in acrostic form.
You probably already know this.
It is there so we can have whine, women, and song
Next to Revelation, the Song of Solomon is a confusing book for me. There are indeed spiritual lessons in it:
but that doesn't make it less confusing.
I have a number of my seminary texts which I would be happy to share. However, here is an online source: faculty.gordon.edu/.../text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf. It is not surprising that there are few sources since the Council was after the Roman reconquest of Samaria and Judea and the Jews were being heavily persecuted for the uprising. That included the destruction of the most recent Temple.
Thanks very much for the link, I’ll check it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.