Song of Solomon and Lust

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.

Who in this thread asserted such a fanciful premise?

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.

 

It is a gross misuse of Colossians 1:16 to say that it refers to sexual activity, b/c the verse itself defines "all things". You can't superimpose what you want the scripture to say. You must consider the genre and the general flow of the passage in interpretation. I am not saying that Song of Solomon has no spiritual significance, but it is indirect - it shows the picture of God blessing the marital act (chapter 5) and what a picture of what the godly marital union should be. That is its spiritual significance.
And as for thinking of Christ while "in the throes of passion"...

 

So, Christ didn't create sex? He has no purpose nor plan for it? Be careful. He did create it and He has a plan and a purpose for it.
You would agree that it's purpose is rightfully served only in marriage. You agree, therefore, that it is created by Him and for Him. It was His idea, as the popular sound byte goes. But in this thread you're not telling the whole story.

The question was, what is God's central intention for sex? He made it pleasurable, but what is its end?

Those are some pretty knuckleheaded responses. No one suggested that anyone fantasize about Jesus. Saying "if Christ is not in view" is merely a way of saying that if doing God's will and the furtherance of His kingdom is not the end you have in sight, then you're doing it wrong. I think you knew that.

 

You really thought we knew what you were saying? I sure didnt. I was apalled.

I didnt say God didnt create sex. You put those words in my mouth. I am saying that in the contect of the scripture you quote, you are twisting it to mean that. Yes, of course, God created the gift of sex, for pleasure and for procreation.

 

Aaron, if you believe that based on the text of Song of Solomon, then please explain to me how you come to that conclusion based on the text of Song of Solomon alone? Also, please explain to me the hermeneutical principles that you used to come to this intpretation?

 

Friends, unless you actually enjoy this exchange, I'd quit responding. You won't get anywhere.

 

Actually I think it is a great topic. We are 6,000 years, give or take a couple, from creation and since the fall things have been going downhill realtively uninterrupted. And one of the things that has been caught up in that fall is the right mindset of sex.

Unfortunately here in America we have been bombarded with a wrong idea of what sex is and what it's purpose is. That's one of the biggest reasons why there are so many problems with sexual sin even among "Christian" men mostly, but also "Christian" women.

We have a wrong idea of what it is all about.

I haven't personally done an extensive study of SOS, but I would tend to agree with Aaron that there is a picture of Christ and the church in the sexual act.

But because our views of sex are so humanistic any time someone brings up sex we revert to acting like we are junior high kids all over again.

Sexual intercourse between a husband and his wife is also a beautiful picture of Christ and His church. The idea is intimacy. A man requires the permission of the woman before the act can take place (if done properly). And there is nothing more intimate than that.

But it's exactly the same way with our relationship with Christ. He wants to be intimate with us not physically, but spiritually, but He doesn't force Himself upon us. He wants us to give Him permission to be intimate with us.

God may we continue to grow in our understanding of who You truly are as revealed by Yourself through Your Word!

No need to let this exchange die down, because while no one's mind may be changed, but there are many people who read and don't respond that can learn from a healthy exchange of ideas.

God's blessings to each of you!

 

I agree...with the key phrase "healthy" exchange. That isn't always the case on this BBS.

Okay, then - here's my take: The Word of God says what it says. It may present to us a picture of the intimate love relationship between a people and their God, but it does present a pattern for a wholesome, yet Christian love relationship between a man and his wife.

One of the great things about the Word - it doesn't leave anything out when it comes to living the Christian life - including this part of life: the love relationship between husband & wife.

The picture of an intimate relationship between the believer and God is admitedly an acceptable parellel, but let the Bible say what it says in black and white, too. When you read the text, there's no denying what's happening, and I'm not ashamed to teach about it, discuss it, or preach it.

 

I will ask you the same question I asked Aaron...how do you come to this view from the text of Song of Solomon alone? And by what hermeneutical principles did you use to come to this conclusion? If this is a legitimate position on the text, then there must be a clear way to present from the text how you came to that point.

This view comes pretty close to spiritualizing a text to make it say something that is not there. Why can't we just let the text say what it says?

 

USN . . . yes these exchanges become way to "unhealthy" way too fast way too often. We should be able to share with one another without pointing figures and calling each other ugly names. They will know that we are followers of Christ because of our love for one another. I think we lose sight of that all too often and I know that I have been guilty of this myself in the past and for that I am truly sorry and have repented.

PastorSBC I can't say that from the SOS scripture as I state before I haven't done an extensive study of the book. I was making a much broader statement just to show support of the idea that Aaron is sharing. However, I don't know if SOS speaks specifically to this. I will be interested in studying this book in the near future as this has sparked my interest.

And I have to agree with USN once again why do we have such problems with something having two meanings. Why does it ALWAYS have to be one meaning.

Jesus said we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. And John tells us that life comes from knowing God. So every word in the Bible should lead us to a deeper understanding of who God is even though it may have another meaning for the people of that time. I completely agree that we need to let the Bible say to us what it said to the people back then, because it only helps us to have a better understanding.

But as an example if we look at the dietary instructions that God gave in the OT most would probably agree that those dietary standards are not in effect today the same way it was back then. But these words also have to mean something to us because they are a part of "every word." So to us it shows us that God is interested in our physical well being. And while these standards are not a "must" today, if we were to live by them we would certainly be more healthy than living the fast food way that we do now.

Just some thoughts to ponder. And I am looking forward to continued "healthy" exchange on this and other topics.

 

I think equating sexual love with God's love for humanity is a bit twisted.

 

That's because our view of sex has been twisted for such a long time. Sometimes intentionally and others not so intentionally.

 

But you did make such a statement about Song of Solomon???

Where did USN make a statement that a text has 2 meanings?

When you begin to state that a text has 2 meanings you are heading down a slippery slope. For who determines which meaning is correct? When is one meaning correct and the other meaning wrong? Heresy and cults arise from the argument that there are 2 meanings from a text.

Just let the text say what it says. Why is that so hard for people?

 

No brother I did not make such a statement about SOS. I can't make that kind of statement about a book of Scripture that I have not studied indepthly. I look forward to studying that book in the near future so that I can allow the Holy Spirit to teach me what it is that He would have me learn.

If that's what you took away from my post I apologize for misleading everyone, because my intentions were not to say that about SOS, but just to let everyone know that there are other people that believe there is a correlation between sexual intimacy and our relationship with Christ.

Once again I was making a much broader statement about the intimate act of sex and our relationship with Christ as believers. I don't know if that is what SOS says or speaks to, but I will study through it to find out.

Here is a quote from USN's post.

"It may present to us a picture of the intimate love relationship between a people and their God, but it does present a pattern for a wholesome, yet Christian love relationship between a man and his wife."

That says to me that he is open to the Scripture saying "both" things. And I was probably putting words into his mouth, so for that I apologize if that is not what he holds to.

PastorSBC let me ask you this question then. If Jesus teaches that we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God and John teaches that life is in knowing God. What does the Scripture that teaches about dietary and hygiene practices mean to us today?

Looking forward to your response.

God's blessings to everyone!

 

No, I'd say that is because some have a twisted view of God that they would think he has sexual desire for humans.

 

I don't believe anyone in the three pages of discussion that I have read so far has made that statement. I know I certainly have not.

God has absolutely no desire to have sexual relations (as we know them) with me or any other human being. For one it's not even possible.

And while I don't want to speak for anyone else again, what I have said is that the sexual act does give us a pictoral view of the intimacy that Christ wants to have with all His believers.

Hope this helps.

 

What USN said in no way states that there are 2 meanings to the text. There is one clear meaning and many possible applications. I think that is more of what USN is saying, but maybe he will pop in here and share with us what he meant.

This thread has nothing to do with hygiene practices or dietary laws for Israel. If you want to discuss those, please start a seperate thread, and I would be more than happy to discuss them with you.

All I am asking is that we allow the text to say what the text says....instead of always looking for a way to spiritualize things into something that is not there.

Specifically in Song of Solomon there is no way from reading that text that you can come to an interpretation of the relationship between Christ and the Church. It just is not there. To hold that view is to read other things into the text and/or laying on top of the text a preconceived view.

If we truly believe in the truthfulness and sufficiency of Scripture, then let it say what it says. God knows what He is doing.

 

I would agree that hopefully USN will share with us what he truly meant.

As to the other I will email you and we can continue our conversation there.