Not Quite
“My beloved extended his hand through the opening, and my feelings were aroused for him.” Songs of Songs 5:4 NASB
Through the opening – There’s a reason why Song of Songs is treated as allegory by both the Christian and Jewish worlds. That reason could be summarized in this verse; a verse that quite literally defies any attempt at allegorizing because of its powerful sexual innuendo.
The Hebrew text reads min-hahor. Debate over the proper translation of the preposition min has been intense. Min usually means “from,” but many translations change the word on the basis of context. Observe how translations alter the text in order to avoid sexual implications.
NKJV adds “by the latch of the door.” NIV reads “through the latch-opening.” NLT changes the entire passage, reading “tried to unlatch the door.” NASB is a bit better with “extended his hand through the opening.” ESV reads, “put his hand to the latch.” NRSV renders “thrust his hand into the opening.” The Orthodox Jewish Bible changes the text to “thrust his hand through the latch opening.” Young’s Literal comes up with “sent his hand from the net-work.” I have no idea how they arrived at this.
No one wants to translate the verse as its actually reads, “stretched out his hand from the hole.” Read as a sexual act, the rest of the verse makes perfect sense. Often translated something about her heart being excited, the actual Hebrew does not use the word leb. It uses me’ay, a word that means “belly or inner parts or organ of generation.” It is frequently associated with betsen (womb) when it is connected to a female. It seems to me that the picture here is obvious. The man is interested in sexual union. She is not. The man is sexually aroused. She has removed her special garment (see the discussion of the previous verse, Song of Songs 5:3) but does not want full sexual union. He is playing with her genitals and is becoming aroused. He “stretches out” (the meaning of the verb salah) his penis from her opening. If this is the real picture provided with double entendre you can see why translators take so much liberty to stress the completely non-sexual reading of the text. But even the word yad (hand) is sometimes used as a euphemism for penis. The fact that she expresses strong movement in her inner parts suggests the immediate possibility of intercourse. And no one wants to think that this poem is really about sexual intimacy, especially since there is no indication that the two are married.
The liberties taken to rework the eroticism of Hebrew double entendre is quite revealing. Why is it that sex is such a powerful motif in the Bible (covenant, bride, adultery, idolatry, etc.) and we are so careful to remove sexual language? Do you suppose that our cultural attitudes shape the choices of translators and theologians? What do you think an uncensored Bible might look like?
Topical Index: min-hahor, opening, latch, yad, hand, sex, Song of Songs 5:4
There seems to come a point when you just run out of other ways to avoid talking about sex. Whole generations can pass where unspeakable acts, acts of omission, and cover-up, not to mention the consequences for all the above, occur that just simply, I don’t think, would not have even been possible if the relevant folks had been talking. I don’t necessarily mean families running around sounding like the latest rap song, but families that have a sober, sensible, even a religious way (copied from the Song of Songs?) to talk about sex. Poor us post-Victorian people. We tried not to talk about it, so they say, because the situation had gotten so bad. Did we run out of words adequate to describe the situation? Inquiring minds want to know!
If sexual union was given to us by God to represent most closely our relationship with Him, then seems to me the more ways we have to talk about it, the better. I have suspected that part of the way the devil has been so successful in messing us up in this department was when he employed shame, and other ways, to convince us to just not talk about it. It just got worse.
It has crossed my mind that if the Church was setting the golden standard of the right way to talk about sex, and not only that, but to talk about it in terms of health on all levels; spiritual, mental, physical, as well as to talk about it in terms of our relationship with our Bridegroom-to-be, then the world would be the one that would have to shut up its dirty mouth and take lessons.
I am writing about this specifically for hurting people and hurting families that have been fractured and even destroyed because we have not been able to speak, and that for all the wrong reasons. Why shouldn’t it be good to talk about sex?
I have heard some teaching that suggests that the “fruit” in the garden was sexual relations with the serpent for both Adam and Hawwah. Any thoughts?
Skip – you mention that there’s no indication that the two are married, but then how would you interpret 4:8-10 where the word ‘kallah’ is used? I’d have to do more study into this, but Strongs mentions that it can refer to a bride or young wife. Is this enough to indicate these two are married?
As TWOT remarks (and others), the word kalla’ in most occurrences means a bride or a woman who is legally (culturally) sworn to another and set aside for that relationship. Longman makes a point of the fact that attempts to place this verse outside of the context of cultural expectations about marriage ultimately fail. Even if the word is found in the story of Tamar and Judah, the relationship assumed by the word is one of exclusivity. But my point is that there is no “official” ceremony ascribed to the couple. If covenant marriage is defined as exclusive mutual relationship, then Song 4:8 indicates such, but if we think of marriage in terms of social contract and administrative license, then such does not appear in Song. The point is particularly important because Song strongly implies that sexual intercourse occurs (as early as 1:4). As far as the two persons are concerned, they belong exclusively to each other. But there are several hints in the poem that the society does not recognize this union (even if God – who by the way never shows up in the poem – does).
My point is simply that our cultural expectations can’t be read into the verses. Your point is the there is reason to believe they fit covenant marriage. Perhaps both are correct.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so they say. I found myself in a common-law marriage situation, and a very awkward one at that. I got to sit a good while and ponder just exactly WHERE I was married, and by whose standards. When I read the Word, it was very clear that sexual relations equaled marriage in the eyes of God, and also in the eyes of the law of my state; one of the few that recognizes common law as extensively binding. It is ostensibly for the protection of the woman. Not that there is a whole lot of actual protection in a good-ole-boy state, but I digress. I decided that as I was married in the eyes of God, then I would act married. All in or all out. I feel that I was honored by God for that, even if the rest might have been lacking. Yes, I read the Song of Songs as a marriage tune: “Have Sex, We’re Married” (or something like that). Also, I have noticed in many cultures that have been around a long time that engaged couples were (and some still are) considered as good as married, and were even encouraged to act like it; sex and all. There was no dating, that’s for sure. Very different from nowadays.
I read somewhere that the letters OR have a connotation of God in Hebrew
Hand also has a connotation of God in Hebrew
YHVH and Ha Satan are two main characters in Hebrew
Min-Hahor and Door have something in common on a poetic level
Led Zeppelin’s Song, Stairway to Heave, come’s to my mind
On a literal level the psalm has some meaning and we see a number of symbols
Like hands and keys and such
My interpretation of this psalm on an allegorical level would be spiritual
That the psalm is suggesting that the spiritual experience of God can be like
Sexual intercourse
A kind of “spiritual orgasm”
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, and My ways are not your ways,” declares the Lord. “Just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts are higher than your thoughts.” Is. 55:8,9 Our ways in this physical earth realm are much lower and “boxed in” than His, who created all and all. In a sense, physical life, which is temporary, is an allegory itself to eternal, spiritual life. “So God created humans in His Image…” Gen. 1:27. “That is why a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife and they will become one flesh.” Gen. 2:24. Unlike our eternal spirits which leave the “solid mass” (mess?) of this physical world; the flesh, to become one, cannot disappear one into another….there must be a means for which “becoming one”will live in physical reality. What is the result? A union which brings forth life and continues going forward. We are free to interpret S of S anyway we want – but I believe it is the story of a love much “higher” and more pure then we can readily identify with. As with anything else in this life, for me, He is the most important reality…I press into Him daily to lead me into all truth without the lies and deforming nature our culture weaves around us-hoping to take our thoughts captive. We live on a battlefield…the enemy will pervert any and everything he can to steer us off course-and this particular time in history is both completely bound in darkness and miserably unhappy at the same time. What do I think an uncensored Bible might look like? There would be no box of written words in black and white….but blazing Light, piercing between soul and spirit. “God’s Word is living and active. It is sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts as deep as the place where soul and spirit meet, the place where joints and marrow meet. God’s Word judges a person’s thoughts and intentions.” Hebrews 4:12. I pray that for each of one us…it will be glorious.
Dear Marsha,
I appreciate your desire to see Song of Songs in a more spiritual light, but that does not mean we are free to interpret the Song anyway we like. That would be the equivalent of denying that it had any meaning for a specific audience, namely, the one first addressed. If this is the way we exegete a passage, then we can truly make the Bible say anything we wish.
Your comments follow the usual road of allegory, pretending that the sexual context of the text really isn’t there, that is, that it must be about “higher” love since the Bible really can’t have such erotic poetry in it. This way has been shown over and over to be nothing more than the re-reading of the text by the current audience, and not what it would have meant to the first audience. Dragging verses from other places in order to justify this “higher” love is not an appropriate way of understanding the meaning of the original author. Imagine how the current body-politic rereads the Constitution of the United States in order to justify today’s political nonsense. Does that make contemporary interpretation legitimate? Is it what the writers intended? Of course not. So why do we think the Bible can be put into the same cultural revision mold?
Song of songs is about sex. Good sex. Great sex. Exclusive, covenant sex. It is not about the “Church” or the “Bride” or the return of the Messiah UNLESS we make it so, and then we will have plenty of material we have to “adjust” to fit.
Sorry – out of the loop for a bit. No, I didn’t mean we SHOULD interpret to our own liking….only that usually, because we’re only human…we do to one degree or another. In regards to this particular question…I think it will be awhile before we can see the definitive answer. How about we meet…..say around….Eternity1,000 (probably sometime after the 21st chapter of Rev. and see how we feel about it then…that’s when it will really matter anyway!
Blessings cover you Skip!
An “uncensored” Bible? I can verify that no one in my church wants that. We might have to rethink our dogma. We might even find out that Potiphar was man who had been castrated. (Gen 37:36) Translated as “officer” the Hebrew word is “cariyc”, Strong’s H5631.
Imagine my surprise when this word was pointed out to me. I had always been told that the evil Mrs. Potiphar was a nymphomaniac.
Would that detail put Mrs. Potiphar in any different light? Did she know that was who she was marrying when she did so? Did she ever have a choice about that? What was the custom for women who had no children of their own, upon the death of their husbands? This tiny, UNSEEN DETAIL in the English translations, give me a whole list of possibilities that could have been present in that story. Imagine for a minute that SHE was the one who could not reproduce. I think we already know where that goes. 😉
Interesting — I had never noticed that Potiphar may have been a eunuch. And doesn’t that open the possibilities for where Sarah later came up with the idea of using Hagar to conceive, after living among Egyptian royalty? A slave as a surrogate for an infertile husband becomes an easy solution for an aristocratic childless couple, much like choosing donor sperm today. A simple and quiet solution. Potiphar may even have been complicit. His wife’s main complaint was that Joseph scorned them. Maybe that’s what caused Potiphar to react the way he did. Worth some additional study. Thanks for sharing!
Whoops — Sarah would have come up with idea before Potiphar’s wife, but might still have learned it in the Egyptian harem.
And perhaps it was also a practice of the Mesopotamian culture she came from.