Allegorical Absurdity
My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh lodging between my breasts. Song of Songs 1:13 (Tremper Longman III in NICOT)
Breasts – But, of course, it can’t mean mammary glands! The Bible would never actually say anything about a man putting his head between the breasts of a woman, especially a woman who might not actually be his wife. And no woman of respectful religion would ever invite a man to lie between her breasts. Therefore, this verse must be reinterpreted to take away all sexual implications.
Cyril of Alexandria offered perhaps the most creative solution. In his view, the “breasts” are really the Old Testament and the New Testament and Jesus is the one who lies between them. Voilá. Problem solved. Song of Songs is really not about sex. It is about the Christian Church and the Bride of Christ. No sex, please.
Lest you think that Christianity is the only religion that has issues with the sexual connotations of this poem, please keep in mind that Judaism regarded the poem as an allegory about Israel and the Promised Land. Another version of avoiding sex. In fact, the sexual content of this poem kept it out of the canon for a long time. We might all like sex, but apparently we don’t want it to be part of our religious thinking.
Now the question is really this: Why don’t we want sex and religion to mix? The Bible is actually full of sex. There are a significant number of sexual prohibitions. Rules against behaviors are only needed when such behaviors actually exist, so this implies that during the time of Moses, incest, bestiality and necrophilia were occurring. Then there are plenty of stories about sexual behavior. Isaac, Noah, David, Solomon, Hosea come to mind. You can add the rest. And circumcision. Is there any more sexual sign than cutting the foreskin of the penis? In fact, other than circumcision, most of the texts about sexual practices are negative or prohibitions. Maybe that’s why we are so reluctant to embrace the sexuality of this poem. We have adopted the Victorian view that somehow, someway sex is taboo. Desirable but embarrassing. Perhaps it is embarrassing because it is so desirable!
All of this cultural reflection and allegorical rewriting leads us to the thought that maybe we need the Song of Songs because we need to know that God doesn’t hate sex. In fact, the Bible without the Song would be a pretty dour book. Song celebrates sensuality and sexuality, and I, for one, am very glad to have it in the canon. The “little death” is a great part of life. Once again we are faced with a biblical text that questions our usual assumptions. Once again we are asked to set aside our cultural view and step into the world of Scripture. But this time we might just find it is quite pleasant indeed. Perhaps that’s why some rabbis suggest making love on Shabbat as a truly righteous act.
Ah, I feel better already.
Topical Index: sex, breasts, allegory, Song of Songs 1:13
Song of Songs was and is a book that was opened to me by Yaweh. One day while pondering and reading it I actually felt myself being drawn from a knowledge of Him to a deep calling to know Him beyond church stuff. I began to see Him with eyes of Him being my true provider. I began to see Him as the only one who could meet my emotional, physical and spiritual needs. No man could ever fill my deepest longing for life as He can. He taught me about my own selfishness and about His forgiveness in this book. Sexuality is an expression between a man and woman created for us but this is also a book about so much more of who He is. At least to me.
Yes, glad to added that last bit since there is almost no mention of YHWH in the whole poem. Readers interpret what they need from poetry. We are only trying to distinguish between what the text says and what others have added to it.
Isn’t funny how none of the non-sexual interpretations are valid unless the sexual connotation is true? The notion of a division which excludes this truth implies there is no such thing as a divine intent or purpose in our sexuality when the truth is that human sexuality mediates covenant with in the duality of form and habitation. There is a distinct loss of contrast in inserting this seperation. Due to our failed nature it is often the case that we seek to eliminate one in favor of the other. Perhaps this is an expression of the curse in Genesis 3?
“But, of course, it can’t mean mammary glands!”
Hmmm
Freud was famous for, among other more important things, finding phallic symbols in literature
But in the end, Freud had to admit that sometimes “a nose is just a nose”
When I’m interpreting literary texts or movies, I like to think in terms of “levels”
If the text were in Spanish, I would have to translate it into a “literal” level of English
Then I would want to understand who the characters are in their Society
And then I would want to understand their society in History
I tend to think of this approach in terms of different levels of interpretation
Some time ago Skip introduced introduced me to a different approach
Pardes, or PaRDeS, refers to approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism
The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:
– Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — “plain” (“simple”) or the direct meaning. (sometimes a nose is a nose)
– Remez (רֶמֶז) — “hints” or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
– Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: “inquire” (“seek”) — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
– Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in ‘bone’) — “secret” (“mystery”) or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
:)!
So few comments on this one?! I’m looking forward to hearing more from Skip on this topic. Then I think it would be interesting to look at Hadassah lying at the feet of Boaz from a similar perspective. We serve an amazing Creator, and righteous G-d. One Who provides clear, sweet, and straight-forward pictures for us in His word in order to correct our perversions. I love that this poem re-directs our attention to how well He knows our passion, and then reflects His passion for us. Perhaps our problems originate in our fear and misunderstandings of the passion and power of intimacy. I recall that in the beginning, YHVH saw that man was alone, and that was not good. Could it be that Adam was experiencing difficulty maintaining and receiving intimacy with his Creator? Had he opted out of Divine intimacy because he had observed his own power? Did he fear loosing he own ability to call the shots so to speak? Afterall, hadn’t he been given authority over all the earth? Ah, and then there was woman brought forth to join with man through true, unadulterated, pure and holy intimacy! Change of perspective perhaps offered self examination. Had he obediently cared for Chava, and had he obediently excercised his authority in teaching her to obey YHVHs instructions? Or had he dismissed the passion of demonstrating his love for YHVH by obeying the commandments of His instruction. Hmm, sounds like something Yahshua said regarding love for Him and obeying His commandments being relational. I had an awesome Shabbat and rested well in Noach (reference intended). So maybe my rested mind in ready to hear the reality of Yah’s voice rather than to look at sleepy allegory. Keep teaching Skip, I for one am awake. And this is a powerful song of intimacy, so I’ll be listening carefully. Be Blessed
“Now the question is really this: Why don’t we want sex and religion to mix? The Bible is actually full of sex.”
Oh come on! Are you kidding? We’re all in this mess over a piece of fruit!
This is a tough one for Torah observant westerners. When we embrace Torah we begin by embracing the parts of it that don’t seem unreasonable and go from there. But I don’t know many Torah observant couples outside of Judaism that have arrived at the point of practicing self restraint while the wife is in her customary time of impurity even though G-d commands it and medicine has proven that it preserves her heath.
Aside from the prohibitions having to do with the perversions we commonly consider disgusting, there aren’t really very many sexual boundaries in scripture but they sure do bother us a lot.
It’s far easier to surrender our money to YHVH than to allow our animal appetites to be governed by our religion. IMO! :/
Literal Lions? Yes, Daniel (was he a real person?) was cast into a den of lions.. but was it a “real” den of lions? Or is this just an allegory? Is there any such thing as sex? How did I get here? BTW.. Mom? Dad? Were these real people? or just an illusion.. Boy, oh Howdy Doo.. Is dirt, dirt? Is the sky really blue?
Did “Man” invent sex? I think I need a cup of coffee.. (real coffee?) And the covenant of marriage? Boys will be boys? From boys to men? Real men? Real women? Really?
I’ll take “OY!” for $200 Alex.. (Please..) Absurdity? ? Go ahead.. – waste my day!! “Whoever invented grapes must have been a genius!!”
Is there such a thing as intimacy with God? Today, spend quality time with the ONE you love, for love is often spelled.. “T-I-M-E.”
Hey Carl…did you remember to take your meds today??? 🙂
Sex is a covenant act. It is marital communion in that man and wife reaffirm their covenant by “passing through the flesh”. circumcision is the picture of our death in christ. God never asks us to do anything he doesnt do himself. Messiah takes on sinful flesh and then is “cut off but not for himself”(Daniel 9). This is the circumcision of Christ, not made by human hands.(Colossians 2:11-15). By faith we are buried with him, putting off the body of sin, and raised with him to new life.
I’m sorry to say Skip, but this is very Greek of you.
We all owe our physical existence to Adam and Eve
taking to sex like ducks to water! At least in that regard,
they were in complete compliance with God’s will for them.
God’s intent was and is to enjoy complete intimacy with us.
So leave it to His extraordinarily creative and loving nature
to design His intimate love for us by enabling our marital sexual
intimacy of becoming one flesh to be a true and living
reflection of our larger spiritual Oneness with Him!
Sharing a beautiful version on Song of Songs by Bill Sanford:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8kG-NDKG-4
“This is the dramatized version of the NKJV bible with a short introduction from me. The wording is a little off but I am sure you will enjoy listening to this version by The Word of Promise and seeing where the Aleph Tav’s are placed. This allegory is clearly a story of about Y’shua the Messiah and seeing where the Aleph Tav’s are placed. This allegory is clearly a story of about Y’shua the Messiah and His bride.” Bill S
Enjoy!
Since Hebrew thinking uses block logic, is it not fair to say that choosing one way to interpret/view the Song of Songs is very linear and Greek? Isn’t the Song of Songs a literal love/sex poem (written by a woman), an allegory about YHWH/Yeshua and His people, prophecy, and more if we allow a Hebraic paradigm to govern our thinking?
I believe we miss so much by not allowing the literal view in the case of this book because it is too risqué to our sterile view of God. I find it liberating that the Shulamite expresses her desire for her man so freely on the pages of Holy Writ. The fact that she is not condemned or chastised for this behavior or desire is refreshing. Her unbridled passion for her man is relatable to my nephesh. Experiencing this passion helps me to grasp what it is like to really pursue YHWH. But one doesn’t cancel the other. As a human being, I experience both again and again. And this is the design of my Creator. Both pursuits are holy when they are lived out in the confines of “covenant”. We should never be ashamed of either one.