7 Reasons Why You Won’t Hear a Sermon on Song of Solomon
Sunday, January 24th, 2010
You know there’s something wrong with the abstinence movement when young people are discouraged from reading parts of the Bible! We were encouraged not to read Song of Solomon, aka Song of Songs, as single people, because it was so sensual. I think it was because the woman is described in a way that Solomon must have seen her naked, even though there is no explicit part stating they are married. (It can be argued both ways, but you can do your own research on that.) In fact, in my margins, it says that it chronicles a relationship from courtship to marriage. It seems as if they get married at the end of chapter 3 or 4 (it’s pretty ambiguous), but by chapter 5 it does seem as if they are married. But considering they talk about sex in the first chapter, not so good for the abstinence movement! Really, what kind of example is Solomon’s loads of wives and concubines anyways? Probably another “real” reason people tend to skim over the book. And when was the last time you heard a sermon on Song of Solomon? It was rare that the Baptist preachers I heard even mentioned it, let alone preaching an entire sermon about it!
I actually have never read the entire thing. It’s the one book of the Bible that I haven’t. I snuck in passages here and there as a teen/college student, curious, but I mostly shied away from it. Once married, I was no longer quite so curious, and I busied myself with other theological ideas that interested me (the ones that ultimately led to my eschewing of religion). I decided to skim over it, and here is what I found.
Here are 10 reasons why WASPy people tend to shy away from it:
- Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth–for your love is more delightful than wine. (Take that, Josh Harris and the “no even kissing before marriage” crowd! 1:2)
- Take me away with you–let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. (1:4)
- How handsome are you, my lover! Oh, how charming! And our bed is verdant. (1:16)
- Strengthen me with raisins, refresh me with apples, for I am faint with love. His left arm is under my head, and his right arm embraces me. (2:5-6).
- Scarcely had I passed them when I found the one my heart loves. I held him and would not let him go. (3:4)
- Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires. (This is found throughout the book. Notice it doesn’t say “until marriage”, just the right time. 3:5b, etc.)
- Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies. (4:5)
There are plenty of other sensual passages in the book, but it is more easily argued they are married at that point.
Really, it’s pretty opposite of Joshua Harris’s protect yourself stance. These lovers obviously let themselves feel every bit of passion. There was no admonition to only get married if you must, like Paul writes. There is no courtship. There are no boundaries whatsoever.
Really, too, the Bible is rather ambiguous concerning sexual relations before marriage anyways. It says quite frequently to stay away from sexual immorality, but never defines it as sex before marriage. In fact, it can be argued just as well that the term synonymous with adultery in a few places, or other forms of sex (like what, we won’t know). We tend to interpret the Bible through our own cultural lenses, so it seems obvious that the Bible is talking about premarital sex when it’s really not so clear if you just read the words. We’ve just heard that that’s what it means our whole lives. But really, it makes as much sense as if I said “don’t sin with food” and everyone interpreted that to mean not to eat any chocolate before dinner.
Edited to fix a few rather glaring typos I somehow missed and to add: For more interesting tidbits on the Bible and the abstinence movement, check out Scott’s site.)
Tags: abstinence, Joshua Harris, premarital sex, sex and the Bible
Loading ...
January 24th, 2010 at 12:13 am
Unfortunately, some preachers nowadays are doing “sex series” using Song of Solomon, which I have mixed emotions about. It’s good to talk more frankly about that sort of topic than has often been done in the church, but a lot of these pastors seem to be crude for the sake of shocking and being “cool.” I don’t like that tactic for a lot of reasons, especially because how is that going to actually teach people to be grateful for the gift of sexuality and have a good and comprehensive respect/happiness for it when you are being crude and making light of it?
January 24th, 2010 at 12:31 am
The reason it’s not used is that a great deal of the sensuality is described in chapter 2 but the wedding isn’t until chapter 3. This is one of my 3 Quick & Dirty Facts the ‘Christian’ Right will never tell you about premarital sex in the Bible. Even Southern Baptist Pastor Tommy Nelson describes Chapter 2 as Sexual Activity in his Song of Solomon series.
If you happen to notice that sexuality occurs in Chapter 2 then the wedding in Chapter 3 they have to start running to weird academic theories why the book is not chronological. But those are only theories which a Bible Believing Christian would not have to accept as true. Further it’s only chapters 2 and 3 they are concerned about, chapters 3 & 4 have to be chronological because chapter 4 is the honeymoon. For some weird reason they think chapter 2 is out-of-place. My natural analysis of the book is as follows.
Chapter 1: Dating and Flirting
Chapter 2: Premarital sex
Chapter 3: Engagement and Wedding
Chapter 4: Honeymoon
January 24th, 2010 at 1:02 am
In the Baptist church, I don’t recall ever hearing a sermon on Song of Solomon. However, in my non-denominational charismatic church, Metropolitan Vineyard Christian Fellowship, in Kansas City, MO….I heard many, many sermons on it. However…the pastor’s take on it, which is widely accepted throughout Vineyard churches, and probably most Pentacostal-flavored denominations, is that it isn’t a book about sex at all, but rather meant to be an allegory and metaphor on Christ’s relationship with the Church, His bride. And all of the sexual inuendo (as it appears to be, anyway) is really meant to communicate to the Bride, Christ’s great passion and love for the Church.
Oooookay. Yeah…I know…I’m kind of baffled about all that still too. lol
January 24th, 2010 at 5:31 am
Great post, Laura. I think I’ll make this the subject of my ‘Sunday Scriptures’ post on my blog later!
I think you picked the clean bits in your excerpts though
I love your last paragraph. Right on!
Is there really a movement for no kissing before marriage? Wow. That just blows my mind. Could you *design* a better way to make relationships more disfunctional? That isn’t on my radar over here (in the UK), and I’m very glad about that.
It has been quite normal in many periods (biblical and since) to have sex before marriage, but usually in the context of an engagement. The current prudishness about it is a C19 thing.
Matt 1:18 – anything strike you as odd? Why would you make a point of saying it was during their engagement but before their ‘coming together’? Being engaged means ‘before being married’, so it would be redundant to say ‘during their engagement but before they were married, she was found pregnant’. No ‘coming together’ here means what it sounds like: sex. ‘During their engagement but before they had sex, she was found pregnant.’ What does that say about sexual norms in 1st century Galilee?
But anyway, we are in a new context now with a *very* extended early adulthood, radically different sense of social freedom, a lack of legal betrothal, and – invention of the C20 – (relatively) reliable contraception. To me the idea that 2200 year old cultural norms should be ‘morality’ for us is laughable!
And, of course, in Songs, it is an interracial couple too!
January 24th, 2010 at 7:13 am
I would encourage you to do more study on this book. You may find that you are guilty of anachronism by placing 21st century ideas into the text of very different culture.
Keep on thinking though! I think a person has to discover the truth for themselves which makes this journey normal and natural for everyone who really wants to know the truth.
January 24th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Oh, I see! Well, it looks like I should have titled this post “7 Reasons You Won’t Hear a Sermon on Song of Solomon in a Typical Conservative Churh”! My bad.
And yes, I have heard the whole “it’s an analogy” bs. Heck, there is even a song called “His Banner Over Me is Love.” It’s based on a verse in this book, and the song generalizes it to mean God.
January 24th, 2010 at 7:27 am
Oh, and Ian, I was trying to get the verses that sounded sexual before there was any explicit mention of marriage. Did I miss some? And yes, there is a no kissing movement, but it is small. Josh and Anna Duggar didn’t kiss. Lots of fundamentalists at least aim for no kissing, even if they don’t succeed (I didn’t. :S )
And Scott, I should have thought to check your blog before I posted this. Hmm . . . I think I might just fix that.
January 24th, 2010 at 8:07 am
I encourage you to read it, Laura – the New Jerusalem BIble is esp’ly beautiful. (A Bible I became familiar with while lounging in the bed of my boyfriend at the time.)
And a glimpse of the future for you – my 8 year old said to a fundamentalist friend “Now, Jesus is the god that died on the cross right?”
January 24th, 2010 at 8:29 am
I preached a number of sermons from SOS. However, in good Puritan, Reformed fashion I spiritualized the text and made it about Jesus (the groom) and his love for the Church (the bride) Not a novel approach 200 years ago but it is today.
For example. SOS 3:4 It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.
I found who my soul loveth
I held whom my soul loveth
I would not let him go
As we used to say “that’ll preach”
As for “actual” reading of the text. I am with you on your take.
January 24th, 2010 at 9:49 am
zdenny I would encourage you to do more reading of the entire Bible. You may find you’re guilty of placing ancient ideals on to the 21st century.
Keep on thinking though! I think a person has to reject superstition on their own, which makes this journey normal and natural for people that want to understand the truth.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:12 am
1. I was going to reply to zdenny…but Anon was perfect….
@Ian…”Is there really a movement for no kissing before marriage? ”
You betcha…Not only that, but they have a rap group rapping about the only “holy” way to hug someone…that is the “Christian Side Hug”…because those evil wimmins…like your mom…when they hug you from the front are trying to turn you evil by giving you funny feelings below the belt.
Don’t believe me? Either look up “Christian Side Hug” on youtube (or google for that matter), or just go to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpTokfdfV_w) She starts saying many of the same things Laura points out over various posts, then goes into a hilarious review of the “Christian side hug” rap…Finally, giving her hypothesis as to the reason why these people have issues with hugs. It is a thoughtful, and funny video, well worth watching. Even zdenny should watch it!
January 24th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Rich,
You made OUR day here in NW Ohio. That video was simply the best. On my way to share that with my blog readers.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:34 am
[...] Rich who left a link at The Redheaded Skeptic Share/Bookmark Tagged with: Abstinence Education • Christian Sexuality • Christianity [...]
January 24th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, I think we got a sermon or two on SOS in my church (Evangelical Covenant). I definitely got a talk about it from my mother, who used it to explain to me how beautiful sex is when it’s with your husband. It is BS though, because they aren’t really married. Not to mention that sex is awesome, both pre- and post-marriage!
January 24th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
@rich, Oh my. I really wish I didn’t know that.
You absolutely couldn’t parody it.
And whats with this:
Don’t give me a front-hug, if you do I’ll call your mother or send you home in a coma!
Wow. Just… Wow.
January 24th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
@Ian
Yup, just more of Christ’s love, putting someone into a coma because they wanted to show some affection…
TOES EVUL GIRLZ!
Why do I feel dirty just parodying their attitude?
January 24th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
@Laura,
I’m not sure I can be helpful. My point was that premarital sex, while normal, was tied to engagement. And engagement is a legal contract. And the bible has a lot to say about the contract-law around that, married or not. The states of being betrothed (or otherwise legally obligated to marry: Ruth, for example) and being married aren’t always distinguished. One word for ‘sex’ in the NT is a tweak of the word for ‘marriage’ (sometimes translated ‘marital relations’), for example.
There’s certainly no sense of whether it is right or wrong for two people, who have fallen in love, to have sex while they’re trying to work out whether their relationship is worth committing to. Because socially if this were to happen, then the very relationship (sex or not) would be scandalous and worthy of condemnation.
The problem is that biblically women were property. So most of the bible’s comments on sex and marriage have to be understood from that point of view. You could directly swap sex and marriage for ‘eating’ and ‘purchase’ of a sheep, and the laws would pretty much look the same.
But there are glimpses that, as long as the woman wasn’t already sold, sorry engaged, to another man, then the offense was primarily economic.
Notice for example in Exodus 22:16-17 the only punishment the man has to pay is compensation for the loss of virginity (since dowries were smaller for non-virginal daughters) and offer to buy her outright. In the case of rape of a virgin, Deut 22:28-29, there is no sanction for the immorality, again only the compensation to the father.
On the other hand adultery *is* heinous (and punishable by stoning to death), because that is akin to steeling someone’s prize cow. Clearly premarital sex is of a different league than adultery. (There is a quote about stoning a girl found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, but this is if she’d *claimed* to be a virgin, and was marrying another man – clearly a breach of contract no different to adultery).
As for references to it happening: Esther sleeps with Ahasuerus before marriage (Esther 2:12-18). And there are various Genesis stories of unorthodox sexual relations that pass without great comment. Including gang-rape.
So I am tempted to reject the premise of the question. The bible has some vile writings about sex, and viler things about the status of women in marriage. Even if it said anything at all on the subject of modern C21 premarital sex, then it would be worth discounting its advice. The same thing is true of homosexuality in the bible, for many of the same reasons.
Sorry I can’t be more helpful.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:58 am
As promised, your homage is posted: http://irrco.org/2010/01/sunday-scriptures-sex/
January 25th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
haha, thanks! And I thought I replied to your comment yesterday, but it looks like I didn’t. I see what you are trying to say. Trying to place our cultural norms onto Biblical norms is like comparing apples to oranges. There is SO much more than what originally meets the eye so much of the time. I did completely forget about Esther.
Thanks! As always, I enjoyed your insights.
May 24th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
[...] Rich who left a link at The Redheaded Skeptic Share/Bookmark var a2a_config = a2a_config || {}; a2a_config.linkname="How to Hug a Girl You Are [...]
July 31st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The Song of Solomon is one of those parts of the people where people can celebrate their sexual liberty in Christ