Overwhelming Passion
Draw me after you: let’s run! The king has brought me into his bedroom. Song of Songs 1:4 (translated by Tremper Longman III)
Draw me – Is the woman of the Song of Songs just out-of-control? Does her passionate desire simply overcome proper decorum? Is she so intent on love-making that nothing will stand in her way? No, this Hebrew love poem does paint her as a nymphomaniac. But she isn’t the demur wallflower of our culture either. She is, in my opinion, Havvah in the Garden expressing the thrill of being with the perfect partner.
Notice in this verse that she is both aggressive and restrained. The verse does not say, “I will draw you after me.” In spite of her assertiveness, she defers to the leading of the man. “You draw me after you.” She suggests but does not control. She gives direction but not demands. “The aggressiveness of the woman in the Song undermines our stereotypes of ancient gender roles and instructs those today who look to the Bible for guidance in matters of relationships. This book will not support a dominance of the male over the female.”[1] Her intentions are clear but her recognition of submission is still intact. She is Havvah without the serpent; ready and willing to offer guidance in relationship yet choosing to follow in order to honor her lover.
Moshkeni, Hebrew for “You draw me,” is derived from the verb mashak, meaning “to draw up, to raise, to extend, to draw in, to entice or allure, to draw out (as with a weapon) and to drag or seize.” Perhaps the woman in this verse is using mashak in the sense of entice or woo. Or perhaps the sense is a bit stronger, like “Take me!” Either way, she is offering herself to her lover. But she is not forcing him. The point is important because it demonstrates the difference between love and lust. Love, even love-making, carries a sense of vulnerability and submission along with honor and glory. Lust turns this potent combination of opposing forces into an act of domination. Whether perpetrated by male or female, domination is never part of the Hebrew idea of intimacy. A man who insists that his bride provide sexual involvement because it is his right and her duty does not understand Scripture. And neither does he understand the God of Scripture; a God who loves through surrender and vulnerability leading to glorification.
Pretend for just a moment that these are the words of Havvah. Pretend that she is expressing her absolute delight in her partner, the one from whom she finds life itself. Pretend that her aggression is the result of her intense desire to give back to him the union he gave up for her. How does that feel?
Now pretend, for just one moment, that these are your words.
Topical Index: draw, mashak, Song of Songs 1:4, sex
Lover
1 How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead. 2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn, coming up from the washing. Each has its twin; not one of them is alone. 3 Your lips are like a Scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely.
Hmmm
Nathaniel Hawthorne must have been reading Song of Songs 4
When describing Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter
She is the scapegoat Hero in the Romance
“How beautiful you are, my darling!”
“Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your Veil”
“Hair like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead”
“Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely”
As you have probably determined, the 4th sentence should read, “does NOT paint her as”. Sorry.
🙂 I read the sentence, but because it starts with “no” I unconsciously plugged in “not”
Love, even love-making,……. Help! In most every occasion, when God is using the term “lovers”, bad stuff is happening. Generally, it’s in relationship to Israel turning from God to idols. Even in this case, though we use this book to teach about physical relationships, the King moved on to 999 other women….probably not what most women are looking for in a man.
The association between sex and love does not show up in the New Testament anywhere I can find…anyone out there know otherwise?
And….in the Old Testament, from the Hebrew mindset, is the physical act of sex considered “love-making.”
I realize this post is intended to clarify attitudes men should have towards women. However, I wonder if clarification of love-making would prove foundational to this effort.
Some clarification. First, I doubt that Solomon wrote this poem although it is attributed to him (see the technical stuff on authorship, esp. Longman)
Second, if you do some research on the web until current rabbinical teachings about sex, you are undoubtedly going to find that some rabbis teach that sex is a righteous act – within the confines of the marriage covenant, of course.
Third, perhaps you don’t find this association in the NT because the exclusivity of the act within marriage is ASSUMED to be the case and there isn’t much point writing about things that everyone already knows.
Fourth, finally, since the culture was so immoral in its worship of false gods, and since God likens His relationship with Israel to marriage, we would expect much of the material to be negative BUT there is an intimacy that is divinely approved and for that God gave us the Garden and Songs of Songs.
Skip-Though I am not a subscriber, someone passes these on to me, I wanted to comment. I realize it is controversial but for me this is the relationship Yeshua is intending for us. We are his Bride and he is our Bridegroom. It is difficult for a man to comprehend himself in the place of a bride but our spiritual encounters with him are supposed to be much like lovemaking.
Certainly NOT in a sexual context but in a passionate desire for Him and Him above all others in our life. Not to the exclusion of our earthly spouses as that is a natural and spiritual relationship that is meant to be a type. We, I think have much to learn about just how great His desire is for us to woo Him as much as He has wooed us to Himself.
Insofar as this being in the New Testament bridal terms and marriage terms are used pretty often in Paul/Shaul’s writings and in Revelation. I guess I don’t see how someone could miss that.
Blessings
E
But my point is this: If what you say is true, then the poem had no real meaning for readers from the time it was written until Yeshua. And that doesn’t make any sense at all. If this is really just about the Bride of Christ, then why is it included in Hebrew Scripture? You have your filter on. For more than 1000 years the CHURCH, not the Jews, has read this poem as allegory, but there is nothing in the poem itself to suggest that. It takes a presupposed interpretation to remove the implied sexuality, and the question is WHY. Why remove it? Why not recognize it as God’s endorsement of human intimacy? There’s not a single shred of evidence IN THE POEM that it is about Christ. Why insist that it is?
Can’t it be both? Endorsing intimacy and an allegory.
Not really. The allegory comes hundreds of years later, so it can’t be part of the original meaning. And it is the original meaning that we seek. You can make anything into an allegory if you bring meaning TO THE TEXT rather than find meaning IN THE TEXT.
I can’t see any issue with their being veiled meaning in scripture that later comes to light. I think there are several cases of this in the Bible.
But I’m not sure this is a case of veiled veiled meaning that’s only understood later. Non-mesiannic Jews see the allegory in our day.
Are you saying there are no examples of Rabbis teaching Song of Songs as an allegory prior to Christ?
Ryan
The rabbis did in fact teach that Song of Songs was an allegory – about Israel and the promised land. But they face the same issue. If the true meaning of S of S is allegorical, where is there any indication of such in the text. Even when Yeshua teaches parables as allegories (the soil and the sower, for example), he tell you that it is an allegory. The fact that the rabbis didn’t like the sexual imagery some 800 years after the text was written doesn’t give me any confidence that it was allegorical. It only tells me that the real meaning of the text was scandalous in their day, just as it was for the Church. But when did God become acceptable to the culture?
Veiled meanings? Yes, for sure. But then Scripture tells me later what the veiled meaning is (e.g., Matthew’s use of the OT). It never leaves it up to me to determine. If it did, I would get something like The Late Great Planet Earth stuff. I am not smart enough to figure out God’s version of allegory unless He tells me, and if I try, then I get allegories that fit my own cultural understanding.
Thank you for your reply.