One thing I really like is her take on ch. 3:1-ff (I don’t have my copy of her book handy, so I can’t give you the exact citation of where she thinks this particular poem ends.) She vies 3:1 as referring to the woman being asleep and the subsequent verses (including the section about the watchmen) as being dream imagery. (In fact, her rendering of the opening of vs. 1 is “While I slept, my heart was awake . . .”) To my mind, this all makes sense – there is a kind of surreal quality (I think) to the night wandering, encounter with the watchmen, etc. – and I’ve sometimes wondered if vs. 1 refers to being asleep.

In all, it’s really a joy to see someone taking such a close look at the poetry – not that Falk is unique in this. (And I doubt she’d make any claims to that, or to having an authoritative interpretation of the text/book.) It helps a *lot* to have our chapter/verse numbers pushed off to one side.

“Whoever trills his voice singing the Song of Songs in a banquet hall, regarding it as a common song, has no part in the world to come.”

I always had the idea that Rabbi Akiba was A Good Guy, but now I know for sure!

There’s much of Song of Songs that remains a mystery to us …

Absolutely. I’m leery of “definitive” interpretations of the SofS partly because it seems that so many Christians (throughout history) have used it as an argument for – or even an instructional manual for – all kinds of things, from what’s now referred to as “the bridal paradigm” to a Marian tract to… I was going to say “an eroticization of our relationship with Christ” (and i guess I still am saying that! ) a la John and Stasi Eldredge’s more recent books, to a sex manual to… only
God himself knows what all else. All of that makes me want to look at the book as a love poem first and foremost, and not speculate too much on doctrinal matters per se, other than noting that clearly, sex is a gift from God, seeing the respect and regard the lovers have for each other (not just focusing on their passion), etc.

I’m also amused by the way that we Christians don’t rush to these kinds of conclusions (in general) over books like Ecclesiastes or Job. Only the SofS seems to elicit such (err…) “passionate” responses.

And I like the idea that there’s “mystery” attached to this book, because in some ways that whole idea echoes the fact that there are “mysteries” in our faith. (Not meaning Gnostic-style views, but the simple fact that our human minds cannot figure out everything there is to know about God’s love for us, his nature, etc. etc.)

BTW, I ordered a copy of Marcia Falk’s annotated translation of the SofS yesterday, thinking that it’ll be a fun read! (Weird, I know, but hey, I’m geeky that way. )

Rick–> Your comments are more than welcomed and be assured I don’t someone sharing a different perspective or raising valid questions is after an argument. I greatly appreciate the diversity of thought and belief.

With that said, I’m going to respond somewhat briefly to the points you raised, but only because they head into some areas that I think will be addressed when I get into Jesus’ love ethic as the touchstone for Christian sexual ethics. Because my previous posts have appeared to break down the traditional prohibitions/considerations around our sexual behavior it might at first appear that I’m saying there are none or that the lines are lax. Nothing could in fact be further from the truth and I trust that will be apparent as I move forward in addressing the topic. For now however, let me respond to a couple textual questions you raised:

I’ve always believed that a marriage in the Bible is when flesh joins flesh, Genesis 2:24. That also seems to be the view of Jesus when He cites Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 16:5-6 and Paul in I Cor 6:15-16. If a Biblical marriage is when flesh joins flesh, then Solomon and his beloved were married, albeit, without the ceremony aspects and according to your reasoning, without others being officially aware of their union.

I absolutely agree with you Rick on becoming one when flesh joins with flesh and I’ll definitely be addressing that more in future posts as I told about the notion of casualsex. With that said, even in acknowledging that I would have some problem still with the fact that the young woman’s own brothers didn’t know, given that marriage in ancient Israel was a family (tribal, communal) event. The other problem I have with their relationship being as a married couple is the total lack, as I’ve already mentioned, of any mention of a future life, of children, and all those considerations that were so tightly connected to being married in an ancient culture.

Presuming you’re correct, that the male lover and the young woman were married, then I would of course have to acquiesce my original argument that their presence as unmarried leaves room around the whole conversation of the biblical attitude around pre-marital sex. Even doing so however, would then make a wider case for gay relationships, removing the notion that society has to approve a relationship or cultural norms for it to be valid since this couple certainly didn’t have the blessing of their community based on 5:7 and 8:1, since a union based on love alone, rather than on the exchange of property, child-bearing, tribal alliances, etc., was a radical idea in the ancient world. [Side note: Solomon is mentioned in the text but there's much debate as to whether he's actually the male lover.]

It appears that scripture uses porneia in I Cor 7:2 with the meaning of unmarried individuals having sex without being married. A man is to have his own woman and a woman is to have her own man to avoid porneia/fornication. According to I Cor 7:2, the sexual relationship in marriage is licit while sexual relationships outside marriage are viewed as porneia/fornication or illicit.

I see how you got there Rick but I don’t agree for several reasons. First, 1 Corinthians 7:1 begins with these words: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote,…” which means Paul is responding to a specific issue(s) that had been brought to him in a letter from the Corinthian community that has been lost to us. What was the matter they wrote about? Did they write that unmarried men and women were having sex with one another in the church? If so, then yes, porneia could include pre-marital sex. The problem is, I think it’s a stretch to reach that conclusion given what we know of Corinth, where worship to Aphrodite (goddess of love, lust, and sex) was prominent and its influence was no doubt something they encountered in daily communal life. The majority of their neighbors were worshipers of Aphrodite, as were many of their Corinthians converts to Christianity. They were living under the shadow of the Temple of Aphrodite with all its temple prostitutes. They witnessed the yearly festival that took over the city and the regular rituals that played out in the city square. Given all this, I just don’t see the question as being limited to a matter of simply pre-marital sex but of sex outside marriage that was influenced by the immoralities and behaviors uniquely associated with their immediate environment.

Without leaping into a whole other discussion, I think it’s also imperative to be familiar with Paul’s culturally bound understanding of what it meant to “burn with desire/passion” as he instructs those who can’t “control themselves” to marry. Dale Martin addresses it well in his chapter, “Paul without Passion” in his book, “Sex and the Single Savior”.

Scripture presents an interesting metaphor in I Cor 11:2 and Eph 5:27, presenting the church as a chaste virgin to Christ, without spot or blemish.

The metaphor of church as a virgin being presented to the Bridegroom (Who like His virgin bride, would not have been sexually active with anyone else) seems to argue against Christian women or men engaging in sexual relationships outside the committed, faithful partnership we call marriage or holy union.

Rick, I’m uncertain in both these passages how it’s being stated that the wife is a chaste virgin. Nothing is said of her life before being her husband’s wife just as nothing is said of the church before it’s union with Christ. That we (the church) are presented to Christ “without spot or wrinkle” has nothing to do with us and who we once were but is a direct result of Christ giving himself for us and sanctifying us and that is who we are now. What we were before becoming Christ is over and done. The past is the past and now we are joined with Christ, faithful and devoted only to him who made us anew.

And I said I was going to answer briefly….

I appreciate the way you write and the spirit in which you challenge us to think outside the box. You’ve made an interesting case that Solomon and the Shulamite were not married at the time they were intimate.

I’ve always believed that a marriage in the Bible is when flesh joins flesh, Genesis 2:24. That also seems to be the view of Jesus when He cites Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 16:5-6 and Paul in I Cor 6:15-16. If a Biblical marriage is when flesh joins flesh, then Solomon and his beloved were married, albeit, without the ceremony aspects and according to your reasoning, without others being officially aware of their union.

Reading your interesting articles about premarital sex for Christians raised several questions for me. You stated:

“As it happens, the Greek term “porneia” (also translated as fornication) that’s been translated as sexual immorality refers to particular activities of extra-marital sex, such as adultery and prostitution rather than any and all sexual activities that take place outside of marriage.”

It appears that scripture uses porneia in I Cor 7:2 with the meaning of unmarried individuals having sex without being married.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=7&verse=2&version=KJV#2

A man is to have his own woman and a woman is to have her own man to avoid porneia/fornication. According to I Cor 7:2, the sexual relationship in marriage is licit while sexual relationships outside marriage are viewed as porneia/fornication or illicit.

Scripture presents an interesting metaphor in I Cor 11:2 and Eph 5:27, presenting the church as a chaste virgin to Christ, without spot or blemish.

The metaphor of church as a virgin being presented to the Bridegroom (Who like His virgin bride, would not have been sexually active with anyone else) seems to argue against Christian women or men engaging in sexual relationships outside the committed, faithful partnership we call marriage or holy union.

I am not writing to argue but simply to ask, How do you reconcile I Cor 7:2 referring to the sexual activity of unmarried men and unmarried women as fornication/porneia and contrasting that with the sexual relationship in a marriage?

Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Mission.html

I once worked on a project where I was dealing with translated text (from Portuguese to English) and even though the literal translation aspect of it was relatively simple, the rest of it (the meaning) was anything but.

So I’m inclined to think that there are (as stated in the link I just posted) many ambiguities in the SofS. If I were to propose my personal take (only a guess), one thought that comes to mind is: a secret marriage; something/someone preventing the lovers from being together publicly.

Q. for Anita and Peg: are there any other texts (not biblical) dealing with marriages that can be referenced here? Something makes me think that there are all kinds of things happening in the SofS that are just outside our 21st c. American frame of reference… but of course, that’s all speculation on my part.