 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/28/2002 10:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | This post is inspired by Tony Campolo, who complained that not enough sermons are based on Song of Songs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first human words in the Bible are a love song:
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken. (Gen. 2:23)
This song is sung for the first woman by the first man. Genesis does not record what, if anything, the woman had to say in response. But some people think Song of Songs is her answer. The Garden of the Beloved in Song of Songs has many allusions to the Garden of Eden. Whereas the first man and woman were cursed and exiled from the Garden of Eden, the Garden of the Beloved is open to friends and lovers and contains the antidote to the curse: love.
Like the Garden of Eden, the Garden of the Beloved contains trees that are “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9), including: mandrakes (SoS 7:13), fig trees (SoS 2:13), pomegranates (SoS 4:3, 13; 6:7), cedars (SoS 5:15), palms (SoS 7:8), and “all trees of frankincense” (SoS 4:14). Unlike the Garden of Eden, the Garden of the Beloved does not have a tree of knowledge. Instead of the prohibition, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 3:17), in this Garden permission is unqualified: “Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!” (SoS 5:1) The lovers drink wine mixed with spices, milk mixed with honey, and water from “a garden fountain, a well of living water” (SoS 4:15; cf. 4:12), that flows freely like the stream in the garden of Eden, “that would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground” (Gen. 2:6).
The Garden of the Beloved also contains all kinds of animals, including: mares (SoS 1:9), turtledoves (SoS 2:12), lions and leopards (SoS 4:8), even mischievous little foxes (SoS 2:15)—but no serpent (Gen. 3:1). In this garden, work and play are both present and intertwined without toil and labor (Gen. 3:16–19). Mothers and motherhood are celebrated, and references to birth (SoS 6:9; 8:5) do not mention multiplication of pain in childbearing (Gen. 3:16). The lovers have their own voices and instead of proper names that are given by the powerful (Gen. 3:20), they give each other many play names that are a source of delight: “your name (shemeka) is perfume (shemen) poured out” (SoS 1:2).
In this garden, love is mutual: “My beloved is mine and I am his” (2:16). Whereas desire is unrequited in the Garden of Eden: “Your desire [teshuqa] shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16), in the Garden of the Beloved it is reciprocated: “I am my beloved’s, and his desire [teshuqa] is for me” (SoS 7:10).
God is not mentioned in the Garden of the Beloved, unless you count love’s flashing fire and raging flame [shalhevet-ya—flame of the Lord] (SoS 8:6). This burning passion is as fierce as death and the grave (or fiercer, depending on your translation). The waters of chaos [mayim rabbim] (SoS 8:7) cannot prevail against the living waters [mayim hayyim] of love (SoS 4:15). And it cannot be bought. It must be freely given and freely received and freely given again and again and again.
I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
by the gazelles or the wild does:
do not stir up or awaken love
until it is ready! (SoS 2:7)
I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
by the gazelles or the wild does:
do not stir up or awaken love
until it is ready! (SoS 3:5)
I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
do not stir up or awaken love
until it is ready! (SoS 8:4)
Make haste, my beloved,
and be like a gazelle
or a young stag
upon the mountains of spices! (SoS 8:14)
Some of this was adapted from Phyllis Trible’s God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality
Edited by - Electra on 04/28/2002 3:42:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/29/2002 2:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
Wonderful! My mind starts working here. As is also in the case with the book of Esther, I believe it is, God is not mentioned. And yet the thrust of the book surely could neither exclude God's inivisible hand, nor could it be that the book (in my opinion) is merely history; God was busy, working to to set his people free, and is, indeed, the Deliverer.
As I read your post, I was reminded again of the complexity of Song of Songs, not the complexity of the Song itself, though that it is, but the complexity of finding its Biblical purpose which many of folk have pondered. Just the "It's God's love for the church" kind of statements are insipid and vapid. Were that the truth of the Song or not, it leaves one still hungry for the Song's richness and depth to, say, come out of hiding!
I don't claim to have the complexity of the Song in my heart-felt theology, but I'm working on it. However, one thing I do when I read Scripture is ask the following: "What does this have to say about relationship with God?" My theology is built upon all of God's Word this way, and you've given more, with regard to Song of Songs, for me to chew.
Mucho gracious, Electra!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/29/2002 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: This song is sung for the first woman by the first man.
Tom: Yeah, but that was BEFORE the Fall! 
Electra: Genesis does not record what, if anything, the woman had to say in response. But some people think Song of Songs is her answer.
Tom: How typical for the woman to respond to a four line poem with EIGHT CHAPTERS! 
I like the resemblance to Eden. And I especially like that fact that you don’t think the Song is an allegory of Christ and the Church. Pleeeease nobody write back and say that’s what it is!
It’s about SEX folks! Romance and Sex.
Vive la difference!
Signed,
An anonymous poster using Tom’s computer 
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/29/2002 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And I especially like that fact that you don’t think the Song is an allegory of Christ and the Church. Pleeeease nobody write back and say that’s what it is!
It’s about SEX folks! Romance and Sex.
Hmmm…what would my sister Theresa say about this dichotomy?
Is the Song of Songs about Christ and the Church or romance and sex? Yes. 
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
He said to me, “Mortal, can these bones live?”
I answered, “O Lord God, you know.”
Ezekiel 37:3
Edited by - Electra on 04/29/2002 3:59:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 4/29/2002 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hmmm…what would my sister Theresa say about this dichotomy?
Well...in this particular sculpture the 'ecstacy' of St. Theresa is certianly very sexual, as is the imagry of her own discription of the pains that would visit her. She saw them as being probed by flamed tiped arrows sent by God. You could go nuts with her writings, and this sculpture.
i'd love to dump all of my thoughts about the 'Song' but i don't have time yet.
as i see it there are five very good reasons why the 'Song' cannot be an allagory between God and Israel or Christ and the Church. but that will all come latter.
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/29/2002 5:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Speaking of the SoS...
quote:
from the thread: "Love...Sex...Kierkegaard...Sex...&...Love," page two
THE SACRAMENT OF LOVE
by Paul Evdokimov
. . (leading up to this section). . .
The Song of Songs, the most sublime of all poems, praises
love and the sacred dyad of the nuptual union.*** As a wedding
song, it shows the betrothed searching for one another, but
its real subject is neither the bucolic shepherd nor the beauti-
ful Shulamite, but Love itself.8 The Song was written because
of the theme expressed in the closing lines: "Set me as a seal
upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is strong
as death. . . . Its flashes are flashes of fire, a most vehement
flame" (Sg 8:6). As an image of the love of the betrothed,
it is also a figure of the nuptial love between God and the
human soul. The essential revelation of the Song is that
human love has its source in God and is kindled by the tongues
of the devouring fire of Jahweh, a nuptial Pentecost.
*** Historians surmise that the song was sung during the Jewish wedding ceremony. It recapitulates and enlarges upon the first utterance of human love, "This at last is flesh from my flesh" (Gn 2:22).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/30/2002 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Nicholas Wolterstorff said this: In the first place, when interpreting Scripture for what God said thereby, we have to treat the Bible as one single book, Godís book. That is, we must interpret it not as Godís collected works but as Godís one work. The whole in terms of which we interpret a part is not just the whole of that one of those 66 or so books within which that passage is found; rather, the whole consists of the totality of Scripture, the totality of the canon. (article titled "The God Who Speaks" - found on this site)
Something that cannot be forgotten when considering the Song is exactly what Nicholas has said. To find the significance of the Song predicated upon a Biblical theology has been found wanting. To say that the Song rings of romance and sex is not to say that it cannot reflect something of Christ and the Church; quite the opposite.
Sex is for a married couple that which says something most intimate about Christ and the Church. So frequently in the NT when marriage is discussed by the Biblical author, it is not to teach on marriage, but to teach on Christ and the Church (for example, Eph 5). The Bible doesn't have marriage counseling or even marriage as a seperate entity taught as if it were next in line with a host of several other topics that need to be discussed. Marriage is couched in the framework of Christ and the Church. The Song of Songs is misunderstood, perhaps more easily than any other book in Scripture, because of this very truth: sex is to the married couple what ___ is to Christ and the Church. Well, what is it that is as intimate of an act between Christ and the Church Scripture; so intimate that death is one of the judgments for mis-appropriating this intimate act? Communion! Yes, communion--we commune with Him as a body, as the wedded Church to Him that we are. And I believe the Song has something to say of this, though I confess I've yet to flush it out more deeply than just to say that the romance and sex indeed to speak of Christ and the Church. Much more must be said to give this flesh and bones or the confession remains vapid and shallow.
There is also the movement through Israel, to whom the Song has relationship with also. But eventually, God's Word moves in finality to Christ, to His body--the mystery unfolded years later.
For the marriage supper,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 4/30/2002 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Today’s title is:
From Secular Sex to Sacred Text:
Why is a Secular Love Song like the Song of Songs in the Hebrew Canon?
quote:
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. 1 John 4:7-8
Starkman, i like your take on sex being communion, i think it is very bibilical. however i think it is best supported by the bible in places other than the Song.
i also really really like Nicholas Wolterstorff, i love his work, so i am somewhat cautious to go against him. but my experiance is valid so i guess it can count for something, and my own experance of reading the bible is that it only really came alive when i started to look at it as a library and not as a single book. i do think it is a single TEXT, (and maybe that's what Wolterstorff was getting at) but it is a bunch of books, 66 in our case. that's just been my experance, however, take it for what it is worth (probably nothing).
The Song of Songs has been troublesome for both Jewish and Christian commentators since it was canonized. This is in part because it has lots and lots of hot sex between two UNMARRIED kids. But the whole sex and religious sexual ethic is not even the biggest sticking point. The real stumbling block has been it’s complete indifference to religious matters all together. The Song does not conform to the sexual ethic, yet the Song of Songs does not seem to have been included to thumb its nose at religious piety either. Rather, it is a non-religious celebration of erotic love. It does not go out of its way to conform to the religious norms nor does it go out of its way to transgress them. The Song’s indifference to the Jewish faith coupled with its sexual content is what makes it so problematic.
Among those who balk at the sexual nature of the Song is Pseudo-Dionysius (who is becoming one of my all time favorite thinkers ever right now) who claimed that “in the Song of Songs there are those passionate longings fit only for prostitutes.” Viewed this way the influence that such a text might have was cause for concern if readers took its meaning literally. Origen thought that only those mature enough for spiritual ‘solid food’ should read it. “Thus, if those we have called ‘little ones’ come to these places in Scripture, it can happen that they receive no profit at all from this book or even that they are badly injured either by reading what has been written or by examining what has been said to interpret it.” According to Shemariah ben Elijah of Crete (1275-1355 C.E.) “If [the words of the Song] had their literal meaning, there would be nothing in the world so thoroughly profane as they, and there would have been nothing more damaging to Israel than the day the Song of Songs was given to them, for its literal meaning stirs up desire, above all sexual desire, than which nothing is more blameworthy.” This reluctance to take a literal interpretation forced most Jewish and Christian commentators to read the Song allegorically.
Support for early Jewish allegorical readings of the Song of Songs can be found in the Targum, three midrashic compilations (Canticles Rabba, Aggadat Shir Hashirim, Midrash Shir Hashirim), a number of remarks in the Talmud and early homiletical midrashim, and a fragment from an unknown midrash. The earliest record of a Christian using allegory is the late second century commentator Saint Hippolytus of Rome. But it was not until Origen (184-287C.E.) that an allegorical interpretation took root within the Christian tradition. Jewish commentators read the Song of Songs as an allegory of Yahweh’s love for Israel, while in the light of the New Testament Christian commentators saw an allegory of Christ’s love for the Church citing Ephesians 5:31-32 as a model. Could this be the reason why the Song of Songs was included in the Bible? Was its purpose to illustrate God’s love for us?
The allegorical interpretation is still the majority position taken by the laity within the Church today but it has five major problems that ultimately undermine it and call for a different approach. First, there is nothing in the text itself that lets us know we are reading an allegory. The Bible clearly uses allegory in other places but it always lets us know that this is what it is doing. As Michael V. Fox notes, “In general, parables and allegories do not hide their identity...Why then would the Song hide its allegorical function if it had one?.” The Bible specifically uses marriage as allegory in at least three places (Hos 2-3; Isa 5:1-7; and Ezek 16, 23) but with some notable differences. Here not only is the allegorical nature spelled out (Hos 1:2; Isa 5:7; Ezek 16:8, 23:4), but the marriage metaphor is also used to highlight Yahweh’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness. In contrast to this the Song of Songs presents two equally devoted individuals. We must analyze the motives for such an interpretive agenda. The driving force that authorizes this interpretation comes from our inability to conform the Song of Songs to what we think the Bible should be like and not from the Bible itself.
Second, an allegorical reading is too easy. Why not suggest that the B52’s “Love Shack” (c. 1989 a.k.a. Song of Songs 2:4) is an allegory of Christ’s love for the Church and let our ultra-flexible allegorical rendering fit any secular, sexual round peg into Biblical square holes? Anyone with a healthy imagination can read almost anything they want into the text. One of the Church father’s greatest gifts was their imagination. Simply compare a handful of allegorical commentaries on the Song and generally speaking no two of them will agree on any given passage. The only consensus seems to be that the book as a whole should be read allegorically but when forced to come to terms with specific verses no stable consensus as to what each verse means has formed. This is not the case with other allegorical passages in the Bible. A solid consensus has formed on the specific meaning of Isaiah 5:1-7, for example.
Third, the meaning of the content of the Song of Songs is simply untrue from the Jewish worldview at the time if the text is taken allegorically. According to the postexilic Jewish worldview the relationship between Yahweh and Israel is one of radical asymmetry, not equality as found in the Song of Songs. Again Fox says it well:
quote:
As modern commentators generally recognize, the Song was not written as an allegory of the love between Israel and God. Equality is the essence of the relationship between the lovers in the Song, and this can hardly have been intended as a model for God’s relation to Israel (or to an individual soul). Patriarchal marriage, where the man initiates the relationship and provides for a woman, from whom he can then demand fidelity, is a more appropriate metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel and is so used by the prophets, most notably Hosea and Ezekiel. But premarital courtship of equals such as we see in the Song, where the only bond is mutual attraction and equivalent need, and where full consummation depends on social acceptance by individuals outside the relationship, is a poor correlative of the relationship between God the master and Israel his possession. The equality of the lovers and the quality of their love, rather than the Song’s earthy sensuality, are what makes their union an inappropriate analogy for the bond between God and Israel.
Note also that in the Song we see a picture of the conditional love associated with physical attraction. Each of the lovers meets the others conditions of loveablity in their physical beauty. This hardly fits the history of Yahweh’s unconditional love for Israel despite their continual failures. Especially since moral beauty was often allegorically represented as physical beauty elsewhere in the Bible. If the Song were taken allegorically its meaning would be one of strict legalism that sets up an economy of mutually dependant conditional love.
Fourth, since the allegory does not reflect Jewish theology it could not have been the original author’s intention. If the author had wanted to write a love song that was an allegory for Yahweh and Israel he or she could have done so but it would have looked much different that the Song of Songs does. This has significant consequences for anyone who gives authority to the author’s intention when interpreting a text.
Lastly, the interpretation as allegory owes a debt to Hellenistic influences that the text simply does not share. Many commentaries take an almost Gnostic reading of the text claiming that the physical interaction of the lovers is impure in itself and therefore must symbolically represent a higher spiritual love. For example Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes, “…I hope that my commentary will be a guide for the more fleshly-minded, since the wisdom hidden [in the Song of Songs] leads to a spiritual state of the soul.” Origen writes, “I give warning and advice to everyone who is not yet free of the vexations of flesh and blood and who has not withdrawn from the desire for corporeal nature that he completely abstain form reading this book.” The Jewish mindset would not have bifurcated the physical and the spiritual in this way. Furthermore the Song of Songs shows according to Fox an “…absence of recognizable Greek influence on the poem” itself. The poem remains Jewish through and through (Although there are some scholars who have argued that the Song of Songs had pagan religious origins. See Theophile Meek, “The Song of Songs and the Fertility Cult.” A Symposium on the Song of Songs. Ed. W.H. Schoff. (Philadelphia: Commercial Museum, 1924), 48-79. And Samuel N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite. (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1969), 90. But it is unlikely that the Song would have been included in the Hebrew canon if it had any religious associations beyond Yahwehism. See Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture. (Hamden: Archon Books), 132-134) and it is not until much later with the influence of Greek thought on the Jewish mind that an allegorical interpretation is generated. For these five reasons we cannot appeal to allegory, or at least not allegory alone, to explain the presence of the Song of Songs within the Bible.
So what is it doing there? We do not know why it was included but we can reconstruct how a non-religious erotic love song came to take on religious significance. Nothing within the actual content of the Song has to do with religion but its function within ancient Jewish society does. The Song of Songs was one of many ancient Near Eastern love songs that was used for entertainment or ‘a diversion of the heart’ (see Ezek 33:31-32 and Isa 5:1). Religion provided the occasion for its use. Again Fox: “To explain how the Song came to be regarded as part of the sacred literature of Israel, it may be enough to postulate that the Song, though not intrinsically religious, was sung as part of the entertainment and merrymaking at feasts and celebrations, which would naturally take place for the most part on holidays in the religious calendar.” Evidence exists that the Song of Songs was traditionally used during the Passover and that this has something to do with its placement within the canon. This inclusion by association theory basically states that the religious significance of Passover eventually rubbed off onto the secular love songs that were associated with it. Over time people felt they had to justify this aura of religiousness and did so mostly through allegory. This all led up to an eventual inclusion in the canon.
For the umpteenth time, Fox:
quote:
Certainly allegorization was necessary prior to canonization, but what impelled the rabbis to allegorize it to start with? Here was a dangerous choice for allegorization, for the Song’s eroticism could never be entirely obscured, and the identification of the lover with God suggests some audacious, uncharacteristic anthropomorphisms. In any case, one does not simply come upon a song and interpret it by midrash. Midrashic exposition is applicable only to a text that is considered authoritative and inspired. The Song must have been regarded as in some way part of the national religious literature before it was read allegorically.
So if inclusion by association is true then this would be sort of like how we celebrate some of our religious holidays today. Something like this happened when missionaries from the West tried to communicate the concept of Christmas to the Ngalik tribe of New Guinea. A year later the Ngalik put on a Christmas pageant where Joseph and Mary wore Santa Clause costumes. They had no way of comprehending how in the West we keep the religious and non-religious aspects of holidays separate in our celebration of them. Now imagine trying to account for Santa Clause by means of a Christian theology and you have essentially got how the Song of Songs came to be in the Bible.
At the end of the day we cannot know what meaning the Song is supposed to have in the same way that we can with other books of the Bible. The text simply does not supply us with an outline for how it is to be understood. Finally someone different than Fox, a dude named Rowley (quoted in Fox) writes, “An intelligent reviser would have taken care that the Yahwism whose interests the book was to serve would be unequivocally displayed in it, and not left to he reader to supply.” But this is not how the text presents itself. It does not tell us what it means; rather it presents a question and creates a problem. How we answer this question and solve this problem will determine how we render the Song meaningful for our lives but this meaningfulness is ultimately supplied by us.
With this authority cautiously self-granted I would suggest that the Song is about the nature of love itself and not about an allegory of God and His people. We do not have to transgress the intentions of the original author to say that love is the subject matter of his or her poem. Love “…assumes a life of its own, as though love acted as the central character of the drama and the players simply responded to its demands. Love follows its own timing” (A guy named Donald K. Berry said that). Since God is Love (1 Jn 4:7-8) we can learn something about His nature by exploring the potentials of love within all kinds of relationships, even the wild sexual love relationship between two UNMARRIED kids. Perhaps this prefigures the unlikely places in which love shows up in the New Testament, places that even look illegal from a Pharisaical point of view, like extra-marital sex.
So I would say that we do not know why the Song of Songs is in the Bible and we can only make informed speculations as to how it got there. The allegorical interpretation has generated a rich and edifying tradition that has value in and of itself, which we should celebrate, but ultimately it is removed from the actual life of the text (that is until we canonize our commentaries). The original author could not have intended any religious meaning but perhaps it acquired its meaning when God chose to appropriate it for use in the Bible. For me the capstone of the Song is in 8:6, I think it is the key to understanding everything the Song has for us. The Song it is about the reality and power of love in a world where sin, death, and evil often seem more real and more powerful. It prefigures the resurrection. It’s what the “Princess Bride” is all about: true love conquers all, even death! (Maybe we should cannonize the “Princes Bride”? But not until we cannonize the “Dekalog” and “Koyaanisqatsi” first! This far shall we come but no more.
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown
Edited by - Seymour on 04/30/2002 11:37:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/30/2002 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for this, Seymour.
The meaning of the refrain in 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4 has occasioned much debate. But I think when this refrain is considered alongside 8:6–7, your suggestion that love is portrayed as an agent in the Song of Songs rings true. Love’s power is compared superlatively to raging flames and waters (it is interesting that these are the primary Old Testament metaphors for wrath—not sure what that means in this context…). Consumers feel threatened by the prospect of being consumed. We want to be able to arouse love or awaken it or own it on our own terms. All our best efforts win us is scorn (we remain ashamed of our nakedness).
But what if we stopped trying so hard and let love arouse, awaken, and own us on its terms? Would we survive the fire and the flood? I’m not sure what you meant when you said the Song “prefigures the resurrection,” but I think you’re on to something.
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
He said to me, “Mortal, can these bones live?”
I answered, “O Lord God, you know.”
Ezekiel 37:3
Edited by - Electra on 05/01/2002 01:04:42 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/1/2002 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Seymour,
Say, is your last post your own work? If not, can you from where it comes? Thanks.
You stated: i like your take on sex being communion, i think it is very bibilical. however i think it is best supported by the bible in places other than the Song.
I didn't mean to convey that the Song supports my concept of communion, or for that matter, Christ and the Church. I was just tangentially stating there's a connection, but I've not flushed out the bedrock on which to stand theologically firm regarding the point.
I've given more of the quote from Nicholas Wolterstorff below. Perhaps that'll elucidate his point a tad better; the texts are to be considered individually, but eventually they are to be considered in whole as God's Word, the Book. Here's his quote:
quote:
In the first place, when interpreting Scripture for what God said thereby, we have to treat the Bible as one single book, Godís book. That is, we must interpret it not as Godís collected works but as Godís one work. The whole in terms of which we interpret a part is not just the whole of that one of those 66 or so books within which that passage is found; rather, the whole consists of the totality of Scripture, the totality of the canon.
Why is that? Well, suppose somebody writes and asks me for my philosophy. (People do in fact sometimes do that!) One thing I could do, obviously, is send them a philosophical essay I have written. But another thing I could do is put together a number of things other people have written--a poem, perhaps, a short story, a biblical passage, or a fragment of philosophy--and send this totality to my inquirer with the instruction that to grasp my philosophy he or she must read all those items together and interpret each in the light of the others.
So too for the Bible. What we call ìthe booksî of the Bible were written by different authors and assembled by different editors. In the first hermeneutic we interpret them more or less separately. But God has appropriated this totality for his speech to us, by inspiring the church to select this totality as its canon, and that implies that when interpreting Scripture for Godís speech we must treat the totality as one book.
The church has long recognized that when we do this we will rather often conclude that what God says by way of some passage is different from, or goes beyond, what the human writer says. For example, when we interpret what God says in the Song of Songs as part of the totality of the Christian canon, we discern that what God says by way of some passages diverges from, or goes beyond, what the ancient writer said. When distinct writings are put together into a larger literary unit, new things happen!
Since I'm not very educated about the Song--thanks again for the info on it--I gotta keep my comments short here so as not to make a fool of myself! So here's six points I'll offer:
First, If the Song were not be included in Scripture, it wouldn't have been; God would have made sure of it.
Second, since the Song is included, there must ultimately be (in my approach to God's Word) a larger picture and purpose than just the first hermeneutic, as Wolterstorff has noted.
Third, that the historical framework of the Song neglected understanding of a God/Israel connection, or a Messiah/Israel/Church connection--if the song, in fact, is such-- shouldn't surprise us; up to the resurrection of Jesus, Israel still hadn't understood Messiah or his deeper work.
Fourth, That the couple is unmarried might be commentaried by Joseph and Mary, Jesus' parents--yet unmarried but "betrothed"; about Christ and the Church--betrothed, yet soon to be married. The diciples partook of communion with Jesus while He was alive (the betrothal), yet He said, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until the Kingdom of God comes"(Lk 22:18); marriage. The betrothal speaks of intimacy allowed spiritually between Christ and the Church; it did not directly speak, however, the same between Joseph and Mary, but the issue of her pregnancy had bespoken of a betrayal toward Joseph equal to that of breaking marriage vows; the betrothal is accepted as equally binding as the marriage.
Fifth, the Song's flow on the surface of the physical--heat and passion--should never allow for devaluation or underestimation of either the necessity of physical passion as part of God's handiwork, or the theological implications of both the physical and spiritual. That the Song is passionate in foundation should perhaps cause us to ask what are the theological implications of passion--all too often relegated as just an attractant--rather than assume the shallowness in place of the greater depth.
And sixth, In my opinion, the Song is not, nor was it ever meant to be, allegorical. That's exactly the kind of shallowness I'm trying to avoid attaching to the Song. It's theological, not allegorical.
As I mentioned, the Song cannot just be subsumed within God's Word with shallow connections to Israel, Christ or the Church; however, nor should the purposes God intended to set forth in the Song be set aside because other's see the Song's content as superficial or unrelated to Jewish history.
Okay, did I get all my points in? Yeah, looks like it. Rats, time's runnin'!
For the joy of Song,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|