What is the Song of Solomon?

There is the danger that in the hands of some fleshy readers their interpretations tell not about the Bible so much but rather about themselves."All things are pure to the pure; yet to those who are defiled and unblelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience have been defiled. "(Titus 1:15)People often pick up from the Bible wrongly what they themselves are occupied with. The words are pure and spiritual. But the mind of a man reflects the man.This Song of Songs book about the love affair between Solomon and the feminine equivalent of Solomon "Shulamite" a country maiden. The poem portrays spiritual aspects of the progression and growth of a seeker of God.The seekers of God belongs to a corporate and collective body which ia the romantic counterpart of God. It could be applied to God and Israel. But I think in New Testament times it speaks more to many of us as the love between Christ and the church which consists of both saved Gentiles and saved Jews. So it is prophetic.It is definitely a book for those experienced in the spiritual life. I often feel that I am not ready for it even though I have been through more than one indepth study of it. It was considered apocryphal because some books were slow to be accepted as divinely inspired canon. Canonicity is not something assigned or bestowed to a book by God's people. It was something recognized in a book by His saints.Though some books were slow to be recognized as divinely authoritative, they eventually were recognized as such. Song of Songs was such a book.And appealingto F.F. Bruce kinfd of sounds impressive. However, I am pretty sure that if you read all that F.F. Bruce had to say he would probably have indicated that Song of Songs is part of the Old Testament Canon and was recognized and vindicated as the word of God. That has nothing to do with the subject matter. And it is also nonsense.Like I said, you are somewhat of a sensationalist like one of the cheaper Tabloid magazines one sees on the way out of the super market.What does John 21 have to do with this discussion on the Songs of Songs anyway?John 21 just includes some backround to a rumor that spread among the disciples. They were human and were subject to misunderstandings too. There is nothing there about Jesus lying.That's skeptic hype.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I enjoy being a little captive of Jesus Christ. I need to be captured more and more by Jesus.Do you think I see in anything you write a great example of "freedom?" I haven't said anything which has anything to do with the Papacy. That's a loaded question like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes, I know that I really need Christ to be my purity. You're right about me not being left out. I need my thoughts cleansed in His precious blood of redemption to study any part of this holy Bible. including the Song of Songs.What about you?The EKKLESIA in Greek is the church. A called out assembly is translated church. It is used for Isreal in one place at least in the New Testment. It is used for the body of believers which Christ the Son of God brought into existence. I think it is even used in one place for an unruly crowd having nothing to do with spirituality.Of course my usage of church relates to the Body of Christ. It relates to those who have been redeemed by Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit and constitute His mystical Body.In the end of the Bible the New Jerusalem is the enlarged and expanded church. The church is for eternity.No, the Pope didn't invent the church. No the Papacy did not found the church.The Papacy tried to make a World Wide Public congregation called the Roman Catholic Church. It was in fact another division.The churches in the New Testament were established accordingto cities - the church in Ephesus, the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, the church in Smyrna, the church in Philippi, etc.The churches were established one per city. What Roman Catholicism did was try to make the most important Empire ciry- Rome, the head of all the churches on earth. So instead of the church in Rome there arose an heresy and an abbaration - the Roman Catholic Church.This was taing a worldly method not ordained by God to make the major city of the Roman Empire the Mother Church of all the local churches on the earth.But neither Catholicism nor the Popes invented the church. The New Testament church came about on the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts. The first local church was the church in Jerusalem.There are two aspects to the church - Universal and local. Jesus speaks of the church throughout all places and all times in Matthew 16:18. This is the universal church which includes all the redeemed of Christ throughout all ages and all places. She is universal. Then He speaks about the practical local church in Matthew 18:17. This is the practical local church because you can take your problem to it and discuss it.You cannot take your practical problem to the universal church as you can to the local church. So when Jesus says "But if he does not listen to you, take with you one or two more, that by the word of mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to hear the church also, ..."You cannot take your personal and practical problem with another disciple to the universal church which knows no particular geographic boundary. You cannot tell your problem to Paul, or Peter, or Calvin or all the saints in the universal church as in Matthew 16. But you can tell your problem to the local church.So both the universal and the local aspect of the church were taught in the Gospels by Jesus. This was long before the emergence of the Papacy. Point out a lie that I wrote. And if you cannot I expect you to retract your charce.This charge of lying is uncalled for and also false. But you have a opportunity to show me what lie I lied. If not I expect an apology. If you are a typical fallen sinner as I am also then sure, your mind can get dirty and often is.I admit that without the mercy of God and the filling of the Holy Spirit my mind is often dirty. And I bet your's is also. Fallen man has a heart and a mind which is defiled.You came on hard calling the Song of Songs pornography. Don't be offended if someone insinuates that you may be reading your own defiled thoughts into the book.There is plenty of worldy poetry about romantic love. I bet you don't go out of your way to call D.H. Lawrence pornography. I think you're interested in sounding provocative and sensationalist.I don't think you are ready to study the Song of Songs. I don't think you could appreciate the rich symbolism embodied in it at this point. The way I wrote that I said that there was a danger of doing so. That is different from me specifically calling you dirty minded.Look again at how I phrased it. It was phrased in such a way that it could also include myself. I said that there was a danger that the book could be taken that way. We need to be pure in heart.This is what I wrote: I did not mention you specifically. And I wrote as not to automatically exclude even myself. But it was a warning to all.You seem to want to be scandelous by writing Song of Solomon = Pornography. To be pure in this sense really means to be single to want God and God alone. A single eye is an eye focused on one thing. There are of course many sexual symbols in the Song of Songs. But it is about the spiritual pursuit of God and Christ.God's people are mentioned as His Spouse a number of times in the Bible. So it is the Divine thought of God that His people consitute His spouse in a divine romance -Isaiah 54:6;
Jeremiah 3:1;
Ezekiel 16:8;
Hosea 2:19;
Second Corinthians 11:2;
Ephesians 5:31-32;
These passages all speak of the redeemed of God as His Spouse. Song of Songs is the book dedicated to the full development of this idea.For you to dismiss it as pornography is more than superfiscial.
You are not ready to study a book like Song of Songs yet. This discussion is about the Song of Songs. The Beast and the Papacy may be your favorite topic to talk about. But this discussion is on the Song of Songs. I don't feel the need to add much to what I already told you. I said that it is superficial to dismiss SS as pornography. And there is a danger that we read our own defilted and fleshy lust into it. I didn't deny that F.F. Bruce said that it was not accepted in the Canon. I said if you read on my bet is the F.F. Acknowledges that Song of Songs is NOW in the canon of inspired books of the Bible.First prove that F.F. Bruce does NOT presently or did not FINALLY tell you that Song of Songs is a canonical book. Prove that FIRST. Then I will restract my statement a wrong with apology. But if you cannot prove that F.F. Bruce recignizes Song of Songs as canonical then at best all you did was say that F.F. Bruce taught that the book had difficulty being accepted in the OT canon. It was late to be accepted. That is all.Now its your turn to prove to ME what the final verdict of the scholar F.F. Bruce was concerning the canonicity of Song of Songs. Do you read the Gospel of John?Demonstrate to be the teaching of Atheism anywhere in JOhn 21:23-25. What are you talking about?By what exegitical analysis do you find Atheism being taught anywhere, for that matter, in John's Gospel? Where is the Atheism taught in the twenty first chapter? Whatever. You have a little homework to do. Reply to me concerning:1.) F.F. Bruce's FINAL verdict on the Song of Songs.2.) Show me the Atheism taught in John 21.Who knows? Maybe I'll turn out to be convinced. But at present I have serious doubts.You show me that F.F. Bruce had his last verdict on the Song of Songs NOT being an Old Testament canonical book and you'll get a big apology from me.Otherwise you'll get a "See? I told you so." The word of God has taken care of itself for a long time.
The word of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.Losing side? Do your homework first then we'll see if on these issues I am on the losing side or not. I know that God changes people. He transforms people. He initiates the change.Let's be specific here. On the issue of F.F, Bruce and the alledged Atheism in John 21 we will see who is on the losing side after you do a little homework to back up these charges.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Since the experience of God subjectively is a pure enjoyment, there is this Old Testament book which foreshadows this destiny of the redeemed.Song of Solomon is a kind of preview of a few NT passages like these startin with what John the Baptist said concerning Christ:"You yourselves testify of me that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him.

​

He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the freind of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This joy of mine therefore is made full.

​

He must encrease but I must decrease." (John 3:38-30)The Bridegroom is Jesus. The Friend of the universal BRidegroom is John the Baptist. Disciples were leaving the following of John and going after Jesus. John was not concerned or jealous. He said that he must decrease and that the Bridegroom Jesus must encrease.People being added to Christ was therefore the formation of the Bride of Christ and was the encrease of Christ.Then we have Paul saying that the disciples were presented by him as virgins of pure love to Jesus:"For I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God, for I betrothed you to one husband to present you as a pure virgin to Christ." (2 Cor. 11:2) Here again God incarnated as a man Jesus Christ is depicted as the one Husband to the pure collective virgin wife betrothed to Him in eternal marriage.We also have the teaching parable of the 10 virgins in Matthew 25 concerning the loving prepardness for His second coming.And the Bible concludes with a marriage of Christ and the New Jerusalem, a corporate Wife made to match Him in splendour (1 John 3:2):"And I saw the holy city New Jerusalem, coing down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." (Rev. 21:2)"And one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls ffull of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, Come here; I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

​

And he carried me away in spirit onto a great and high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God." (Rev. 21:9,10)The climax of human history is with this aggregate collective "city" the holy New Jerusalem. She is the bride of the incarnate and redeeming God - the Lamb, Jesus Christ.This understanding of God's eternal purpose is the key to intepreting the luxurious and sensous symbolism in the Song of Songs.The neck, breasts, navel, hair, locks, cheeks, etc. are all sensous symbols depicting some aspect of this consummate Bride which the redeeming God is forming for Himself.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I do not spend a great deal of time in Song of Solomon. However I am aware of two or three in depth spiritual treatments of this book which I have come to respect.Now I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt that you are genuinely interested in how in the world some of these passages could possibly be interpreted in a Christian theological context.Probably, I will utilize or quote portions of the Footnotes written by Witness Lee in the Recovery Version Bible which serve as study notes to this book. These comments will not be developed but concise. Which usually means they are easy targets for objection from the skeptical.I will have to make scattered and somewhat random references to a book which is treated as a progressive development. "I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers; Then I was in his eyes like one who has found peace" (SS 8:10)Here the lover of Christ testifies that she is a sanctified one. The symbol of the separating wall suggests sanctification. That is set apart as holy unto Christ.The church should have an open door to seeking sinners. The church should have a wall to keep out sinful living.The large breasts may symbolize that faith and love have been developed in the Christian in contrast to a younger more immature Christian.Breasts like "towers" suggest the guarding of faith and love for Christ as a treasure of value. For example, Paul's exhortation "Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. (2 Tim. 1:14)In the eyes of her Lover the Savior she is as one who has obtained "peace" based upon her sanctification - "And may the God of peace sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess. 5:23)Peace cojoins the blessing of God's sanctification of His lovers. The previous verse to First Thess 5:23 speaks of abstaining from every form of evil.This sanctification is beautiful in the eyes of Christ. The the separating wall and the beautiful breasts like vigilant towers speaks of the lovers attention to cooperate with the sanctification of her being in Christ's salvation. "We have a little sister, And she has no breasts; What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken of?" (SS 8:5)Since the lover has matured in life at this stage of the book, she is prepared for rapture. She is concerned about younger lovers of Christ whose faith and love - "breasts" (See 1 Tim. 1:14)have not yet matured.Towards the end of this church age a minority of the believers have matured and are ready for rapture. They will be concerned for those fellow believers who also pursue the Lover Christ yet they are still immature."If she is a wall, We will build on her a battlement of silver; And if she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar." (8:9)This building matter has to do with older Christians building up younger Christians into the Body of Christ. The church is a corporate building as the house of God.If the younger ones under the building and edification of the shepherding older Christians is a wall - signifying separation of sanctification - the older ones will build them up based on the redmeptive work of Christ, signified by "silver".Though the younger ones are immature they are made to stand firmly on the eternal redemption of Christ. He has purchased them and will complete His work within them to perfect them. Older Christians must always cause new believers and younger disciples to have a firm foundation in the eternal redemption of Christ.This is a brief comment.If the younger less mature Christian is a door that means that they are functioning as an entry for others into the church. Sometimes younger ones are much more successful at inviting others to be saved than older ones are. I led many more people to Jesus as a young person than I did after 35 years of age.At any rate, if the younger disciple is a "door", facilitating the entry into the church of many of their friends, for example, the lover of Christ will perfect that one by building a protective enclosure around them.The boards of cedar speak of the heavenly and glorfied humanity of Jesus (Matt. 26:64; ACts 3:13). The protective enclosure of teaching the believer to live by the fine heavenly and glorified humanity of the man Jesus. This indicates that the more mature lover of Christ knows how to build up the younger one with the proper material according to their particular need.The younger one is helped in the development of Christ filled humanity which is transcendent and proper for the building of the church. Continued below.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

"This your stature is like a palm tree, And your breasts are like clusters. I said, I will climb the palm tree; And I will take hold of its branches; And let your breasts be like clusters of the vine, ..." (7:7,6a)I will have to do more research on this passage. I will try to get back to you on this matter latter. It would be helpful if you referenced the passage. It would save me a little time.I will return to this matter after further study.

"How beautiful are your footsteps in sandals, O prince's daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skilled artist." (7:1) "Sandels" relates to gospel preaching. The beauty of the co-working lover in Christ is praised in her gospel preaching (footsteps in sandels - Romans 10:15)."How beautiful are the feet of those who announce the news of good things!"The lover is beautiful because she co-works with Christ in the spreading of His Gospel.She is also beautiful in her standing power signified by the thighs. The mention of jewels in connection with the thighs means that her standing power is the result of the transformation work of the Holy Spirit. See 2 Cor. 3:18.The Holy Spirit has transformed the lover of Christ to stand against the tide of the sinful age. The lover is beautiful in her standing power and in her going forth to preach the gospel. She is ravishing in the eyes of Christ.Again verses 1-5 are the speaking of a third person the Holy Spirit who speaks is Christ in another form and is also one with the church. Spirit and Bride speak together - Rev. 22:17.The skillful transforming work of the Spirit qualifies the lover to co-work in the vinyards with her Lover.The beauty of the naval and belly refer to the inward parts which are filled up with the divine life received through drinking Christ's blood (wine) and eating of His flesh (wheat) by faith (lilies)."Your naval is a round goblet that never lacks mixed wine; and your belly is a heap of wheat, fenced in by lilies." (7:2)"Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle." (7:3)This refers to her beauty in her active ability to feed others in a living way (John 21:15,17 compare SS 4:5). It is most ravishing to Christ that His lover is also able to pass on the spiritual life through his or her shepherding and feeding care of others. The lover is truly doing the same work as Christ in ministering the divine blessings of spiritual life to others.The breasts as gazelles probably speak of the lover's agility and flexibility to nourish others right where they are in thier situations.The disciple is agile and always ready to minister the Holy Spirit. Ths ability is attractive to Christ as a man would be attracted to the beautiful breasts of a romantic pursuer. Latter I may be able to speak to it briefly below.

At this point I think a further word on the feeding breasts might help.When Peter denied the Lord Jesus three times Jesus restored him by thrice telling Peter to prove his love for Him by feeding His sheep or His lambs.Peter do you love me more than these? Was asked three times to the dejected Peter. Peter's reply was the he did love Jesus and Jesus knew it. Jesus repeated again three times this exhortation in essence:"Peter, I know that you denied me. But now you are forgiven. If you really love Me Peter, I want you to show your love by feeding my other disciples. PLease Peter, show me that you love Me by feeding and shepherding My sheep." See John 21:15-25)Christ is now within the disciples. He has limited Himself to them. His earthly ministry has completed. Now it is time for Him to continue with His heavenly ministry. That is His further ministry from heaven. In this He is depending on His lovers to shepherd, nourish, and feed His people.To feed is not simply to teach. To feed is to impart something of hygenic spiritual health of life though fellowship, example, teaching, encouragement, exhortation, intruction, prayer.It is easy to teach people knowledge. To feed people spiritually requires that you live the life you are speaking about. You feed from your own experience of living Christ.It is beautiful to Christ in heaven when His lovers on the earth are able to feed His other sheep. God makes this known to His people in the Song of Songs by the praising of the breasts of the woman. In this case the breasts signify the feeding and nourishing of the woman of the young.Remember that Peter was somewhat of the leader among the disciples. It was very important for him to set the example. Jesus wanted Peter to express his love for the Master by feeding His sheep. In this way you should see the NT confirmation of the symbolic language in the Song of Songs.In one portion the expositor mentioned breasts in relation to faith and love. In another portion the breasts were related to feeding. This is really not a contradiction. It is the disciple who has faith and love in a subjective way who is perfected and qualified to feed the other disciples, especially the younger disciples.This is utterly beautiful to the Bridegroom Christ.When reading a Christian book it is good to ask God if you are being fed or just taught. There is a time for just gathering information. But for real life development more than correct data is needed. One must be feed, nourished spiritually. One's hunger for the divine must be met and one's thirst for the Spirit must be quenched.It is beautiful in the eyes of Christ when His people are mature enough to be able to feed others.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

A brief word I may give." My beloved put his hand into the opening [of the door], And my inner parts yearned for him.

​

I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dripped with myrrh, My finger with liquid myrrh, Upon the handles of the bolt.

​

I opened to my beloved, But my beloved hand withdrawn; he was gone. My soul failed when he spoke; I sought him, but found him not; I called him - he answered me not." (5:4-6)The beloved's Lover shows His pieced hand. That is the hand pierced with the nails of His crucifixion. He shows this hand through her narrow opening so that her inner parts are moved for Him.Here Christ reminds the narrow hearted one that He died for that one. The love of His sacrifice contrains the seeker in the inward parts to long after such a Savior. He was crucified for her.The lover hastens to open to Christ to show her appreciation for His death on her behalf. The heart is touched. The constricted heart is softened and the lover's inward parts long for Christ Who has died by crucifixion for her. She wants to show appreciation for His sweet death for her (myrrh).The apparent hiding of the Beloved has to do with Christ wanting the seeker to go deeper in the divine life. He wants the seeker to pursue Him on a deeper level still. Now that her hunger has been stirred up for Christ it seems that He draws her on by disappearing.We are ever called by Jesus to sink deeper and deeper in love with Him. We not only appreciate that He died for us. We are to go on that He lives now in us.This is very experiential teaching which the non-believer in Christ has the adventure to learn only after being saved by Christ.IF you recall early in the book the lover pursues the King and is compared to the chariots of pharoah. This means that though the newly saved person loves Jesus he still is carrying quite a bit of the world along with him in his immaturity. The chariots of pharoah there signfy the world.The new believer in Jesus loves Jesus. But she still has a love for the things of the world - pharoah's chariots. The Song of Songs includes passages about the progression and progress of the lover of Christ to deeper and deeper levels of pursuit of Christ as the unique Lover.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This morning I will not have too much time. But I will speak to this first point.It is true that one can be challenged when one speaks beyong his personal experience. I am aware of that. I admit that this kind of exposition I learned from others.So I appreciate that warning. Having said that there is the other side. Jesus came in the Gospel of Matthew and started His speaking ministry saying exactly the same thing that John the Baptist did - "Repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." (Matt. 3:1,2 compare Matt. 4:17)The Son of God did not find it wrong to follow someone else's speaking. Why should I ? I am quite concerned about "teaching diffferently" from the prophets and the apostles of Christ.My aim is not to be able to stand up and say "Look everyone, I can say something original!" My concern is to follow the New Testament ministry of the apostles and those who are vertually doing the work of apostles in building up the church of Christ.We have a sense about the teaching which is anointed of the Holy Spirit and used by God to build up the church. When I have the conviction that such a speaking is blessed of God to enlighten, edify, and nourish the church or lead sinners to Jesus, I have no problem to speak the same thing.I have not yet finished your response above. And there are more things I would like to write on your questions,, if not for your benefit then for the benefit of some truth seeking others.As far as defending what did not come out of my original teaching, I am not too concerned about that. I tend to check evrythhing with the word of God first before excepting it.For one thing I would endorse many of these points because they HAVE become mine in experience to some degree. Though can't say I personally discovered some of these matters I can say someone else's labor does confirm what I have learned. It echoes my experience. It also echoes things I have learned elsewhere in Scripture.I am not afraid to follow others when I sense that that teacher is speaking according to the truth of God's new testament economy. You may call this "parroting". I call it following the brothers in the Body of Christ.Paul's words to Timothy come to mind."Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you may charge certrain ones not to teach different things nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies which produce questionings rather than God's economy which is in faith." (1 Tim. 1:3,4)These teaching on the Song of Songs are centered on God's economy which is in the realm of faith for the nourinshoment of faith, encouragement of faith, and building up of faith. If one's faith in Christ is encreased or helped by such expositions that is wonderful. And it is safe even if some aspect is not 10000% defensible against the cynical attacks.If you work hard enough you can probably find some arguable problems many expositions much less allegorical than this. "We know in part and prophesy in part" (1 Cor. 13:9) I would suggest you simply prove all things and hold fast to that which is good in what I explained.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If I was afraid of your refutation then I would not have written anything about it in the first place.If you would like to only derive from the Song of Songs "musky smelling, slippery fingered, titty bouncing, woman climbing, wet dream fantasy" that is your right to do so.Some of us apprectiate the spritual ministry which we are convinced is enfluenced by the wisdom of the Spirit and conveyed with spiritual words to those with spiritual life. See First Corithians.Generally about these things I think that if it causes one to love Christ more and depend on God more than it is at least safe teaching. IF it causes you to have a cold heart towards CHrist and to be independent from God then there is something wrong with the teaching no matter how "good" and scholarly it seems to appear.You have the right to say that you see only "smut" in the Song of Songs. Actually, I don't like to put it that way because Sex is God's creation and He's the expert on it. It is clean and pure in the proper God ordained context. That one book in the Bible contains some intoxicating poetry on sexual enjoyment doesn't shock me.I do believe that there is something deeper there as Christ and the church is the central focus of the whole divine revelation.Some of us are convinced that there are some deeper things to be derived in the Holy Spirit in this book. And I am not afraid to defend that attitude.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The matter of the wall I would expect came about by careful consideration of how the matter of a wall is used elsewhere in the Scriptures. Walls, are significant in God's economy. The expositor certainly considered the wall of the New Jerusalem in the end of the Bible. And he probably considered the wall that was rebuilt around Jerusalem after the return of the Baylonian Captivity.The expositor considers these passages on walls significant to God's over all action of protecting His interests on the earth.It is okay if you think we read a little too much into it. That's OK. Maybe after some more spiritual progress you might one day come to realize that the analysis was not bad.I don't even know if you are born of the Spirit. I don't know yet if even the most basic things of God's salvation are clear to you.Concerning my personal life, I have been married for over 30 years and have raised two children which are now adults in thier upper twenties.My parents just celebrated a 60th annivarsary!

Purely, your own prejudicial observation.Simply because a number of teachers have seen something deeper in the Song of Songs does not mean they are reactionary against it's sexual imagery.Paul saw something deeper in the revelation of Abraham and Sarah with the concubine Hagar. This doesn't mean Paul was a reactionary trying to suppress the obvious sexually aspects of the romantic triangle.If all you feel to exclaim is "Song of Songs! Oooo La La !" Go ahead. Some teachers want to consider with it the symbolism to mine the depths of revelation in the book.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Have you ever read this saying of Jesus after His resurrection?" And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things written in the Law and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled.

​

Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures;

​

And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day." (Luke 24:44-46)We believe Christ as the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17) is still opening the minds of His disciples to appreciate how much the revelation of His Person is in the Old Testament. Seeing that the whole Bible ends with a marriage I suppose your overview of Scripture is perhaps just too elementary.You have the 66 books of the divine revelation of the Bible close with a marriage of God and His people. So expounding the Song of Songs in this way is quite consistent with the climax of the Bible.I don't think we are dealing with pure "guess work" in this kind of exposition. Maybe you are just too superficial or spiritually immature to appreciate it. No. Otherwise I would have expressed that.Are you suggesting that God could not use sexual imagery to communicate matters concerning His eternal purpose ?Are you suggesting that God could not use the erotic to express the human / divine enjoyment of His relationship with man ? You asked questions about how certain passages could possibly relate to Christ and the church. I gave you some samples.If you are suggesting that I insist that every reader on the first study of Song of Songs pick up these deeper symbols or else they derive no benefit from the book - that would be a false view of my position.I would encourage any new believer to read the Song of Songs and allow the speaking Spirit to impress them in any way the Spirit seemed suitable.Some believers with considerable deeper experience may have something profitable for the church related to how the Holy Spirit has impressed them with the book.Must be back after a few errands.

That's interesting. I don't recall saying anything that indicated it was NOT a celebration.But I would be interested to see how I "destroyed" the book.What exactly was destroyed? You asked for samples of Christian interpretations of passages in the context of Christ and the Church.I gave you some. How did that "destroy" the book for you ?

* Flush *

​

* Spray * I don't like to do Bible Studies with potty mouths.I think we're through right here. If you have to bolster your points with your personal home style language, I think I'd rather converse with someone else.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.