Let the Reader Decide
“I have taken off my clothes, should I get dressed again? I have washed my feet, should I get them dirty? Song of Songs 5:3 Tremper Longman III
Feet – Let’s get straight to the point. Song of Songs is Hebrew erotic poetry. It is intentionally disguised intimations of sexual pleasure and passion. That’s the way Hebrew treats this subject—with innuendo and double entendre (as any proper person in this worldview would). Given this fact, the reader is asked to use imaginative connections and cultural associations to fill in the rest of the story. The words give us the plot. Our sensitivity to the poetry fills in the picture.
Therefore, before we read about the woman’s hesitation to step out of bed onto a dirty floor, read Exodus 4:25, Judges 3:24, I Samuel 24:3 and Ruth 3:4 and 7. Feet are not always “feet.” Now look at the context here. The male lover comes to the woman at night. He asks her to open the door. He is knocking, in Hebrew dopeq, a verb for driving hard, pushing and knocking used in Judges 19:22 of men who demand sexual favors. He describes himself as wet with the night. Are you filling in the picture?
But she defers. She has already taken off her clothes. But that isn’t quite right since the word kuttonet isn’t clothing in general but rather a specific article of clothing, a fine garment, designed for show. A negligee? Are you seeing the picture? She has already taken it off, but she isn’t interested in dirty “feet.” Actually, it doesn’t mean dirty feet. The word is ‘atsan-nepe. It means to soil or defile. It occurs only here. What if she says, “I have already bathed my (private parts) and I do not want them defiled.” Would that fit an erotic poem?
Ah, enough, we are all blushing. Better not share this translation with the children. So why do we even bother to raise such a delicate subject? Two reasons, maybe three. First, we discover that any allegorical reading of the text (like Christ and the Church-Bride) stumbles completely over the intricacies of Hebrew erotic poetry. Allegory has to go. This poem is not about the Bride of Christ. Secondly, we discover that our definition of morality may be more the product of our culture than we wished to believe. Song of Songs celebrates sexuality—exclusive sexuality—but it never suggests a formal set of wedding vows. Finally, we discover that culture greatly influences translation even when it is not theologically motivated. Some pictures can’t be painted in too much detail. What this means is that we really can’t understand some texts unless we get into the mindset of the author in the culture of his or her time. Surface assumptions don’t work.
Now go back to bed.
Topical Index: feet, ragla, knock, dopeq, clothes, kuttonet, poetry, Song of Songs 5:3
I can’t my feet are dirty.
Shalom,
(Is it Shabbat Yet?)
appropriately cryptic
I’m actually in the bed reading this.
My ezer is out of town visiting friends.
Drats!
Reading erotic poetry makes for yearning.
I miss her.
Absence.
More fonder. My heart.
For her.
Skip,
You mentioned getting “into the mindset of the author in the
culture of his or her time.”
That’s good insight into any written work, is it not?
Let the reader beware.
My question, is tempered with my own personal experience
with God’s Word, and a particular scripture which clearly
suggests, at least to me, that that which separates God’s Word
from all other written works is His insightful, personal annointing
which abides in His believers and thus opens their eyes to the
understanding as only He can provide.
I refer to 1 John 2: 27. “But the annointing which you have received
from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you;
but as the same annointing teaches you concerning all things, and is
true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always keenly sensed His presence with me
as I read His Word. It’s like His mind is gripping my mind and helping to
infuse my understanding with His insight.
I also feel a similiar presence, although not nearly as often, when I’m on
the field doing my best to put His Word into practice.
John mentions “the annointing which you have received from Him.”
Is it possible that the “receiving” is a deep, personal encounter with
the Lord and until we choose to do so, we may not have the annointing
and the understanding that comes with it?
While I have greatly appreciated and have been keenly instructed by
many gifted teachers, you most notably included, nothing possibly
compares to the direct, personal revelation that His Word conveys.
I’d be interested in your thoughts and experiences.
Yes, of course we need the Spirit to open our minds and hearts, but that does not and cannot mean setting aside all the other avenues of study. Students of the Quran (and other sacred works) would claim the same “feeling” when they read. How are we to determine which of them is true and which is not?
Shadow and Substance
Allow the Word of God to speak..
~ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ (the Messiah) and the “called out ones..” ~
This is old stuff. Someone has walked this path before us. Adam and Eve? Male and female made He them? Say, who “invented” intimacy anyway?
Whoever created grapes must have been a genius! Er-uh.. For realz.. ~ Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled? ~ Go for it, kids!
But, (always something) what was the downfall of the (second, supposedly) “wisest” man ever to have lived? Solomon, (you big dummy) God’s plan has always been and will always be- (who am I to disagree?) -One man and one woman in covenant union ’til death do you part.
But the “earthly” is also a parallel of the “heavenly”- for there will be (who am I to disagree?), let’s think about this..- the wedding supper of the Lamb (yet to be!). Who (he inquired) will be there? -and.. what does His “invitation” read? RSVP- ~ “whosoever will, may come..”
Our definition of morality may be more the product of our culture than we wish to believe.It is very easy to think this is right or that is wrong based on the culture around us.I have to remind myself to step back and look at the big picture,does scripture actually say its good or bad.We live in a society that considers itself the most moral society that ever existed,(this should be a clue in itself).A lot of the things society tell me are good or bad seem so right, but they go against scripture,and a lot are allowed by scripture wich our society says are bad.
Very true.
Have you heard Mark Blitz’s explanation of Song of Solomon? He presents the poem as a play: The Lord (Shepherd) is the Lover, The Shulamite is the church/bride (not implying that all of the church is the bride) and that Solomon represents the world and all of the riches it has to offer.
In the beginning, she declares her love for the Shepherd but doesn’t know anything about him. She goes in search of him on the broad path (the one that leads to destruction). He keeps coming to visit her and encourage her to work the fields with him, but she is sleeping and entranced by what the world (Solomon has to offer)
At one point she is searching for him in her bed. (Doesn’t that seem like us? Desperate prayers at night. – maybe it is just me)
Then there is this verse that you reference here, where the Shepherd comes and knocks on her door, wet from the dew (blessings) and wants her to come out and enjoy the blessings with him. Her response is that she is already in bed (sleeping again), then she gets up and gets dolled up (the part about the myrrh) and then she has to unlock her door, not only is she sleeping, not working, but she isn’t even allowing others in to hear the gospel.
In the end she goes out to work the fields with him.
I thought it was an interesting way of looking at the whole story that makes sense of parts that often leave me scratching my head about how it all fits together.
And it all ALLEGORY! Another attempt to avoid the actual sexual imagery. Why must be always try to make it about Christ and the Bride? Why can’t it just be what it is? Erotic, playful and filled with double meanings.
ALLEGORY
Could it be that when when we see we are naked or behold the nakedness of others, our natural instinct is to make coverings for ourselves?
Why can’t it have layers of meaning?
Of course it can have layers of meaning, but allegory ADDS meaning from other paradigms. It does not derive meaning from the text. There is NOTHING in this poem that suggests it is about Christ and the Church. In fact, NO ONE reading this when it was written or for 1000 years after it was written would have ever thought it was about Christ and the Church. That meaning has to be ADDED from outside that text. So allegory is invalid as inherent int he text UNLESS the author tells us it is allegory (for example, the parable of the sower IS allegory because Yeshua, the author, tells us that it is).
Well, if it is erotic, then we have a good case of God condoning immorality, because there’s no indication that the woman was Solomon’s wife.
For the first 400 years of the church every church father taught it was the divine allegory of Christ and his bride. Aren’t you making it an erotic allegory (using the word allegory for parable or story, since “sex,” “erotic” etc is not in the literal text??
Using the Hebraic interpretive model of PaRDeS, there could be deeper meanings than human sexuality in the Song of Songs. I’m new to your ministry, but to sweep away allegory in order to make a sexual reference from the Biblical text seems more of a stretch to me than the obvious reference of Christ and His eternal partner. Doesn’t Hebrew poetry leave room for more than sensuality, since it is the greatest Song ever composed, it likely speaks of the Greatest One to walk the earth.
Yes, you are definitely new to this blog. What you have done in your comment is apply a paradigm that no one would have thought of until after Christianity became a religion. That means the poem was incapable of being deciphered for more than 1000 years. It further means that the obvious sexual imagery in the poem is really just a facade. Your mistake is to believe that if there is no mention of MARRIAGE then the poem can’t be what it says it is because it doesn’t meet YOUR standard of sexuality. Why must the poem mention marriage in order for it to not be immoral? Whose standard are you applying?
Consider this. If the author (a women, not Solomon) writes an erotic Hebrew poem about what it would be like to be in the Garden BEFORE the Fall, what the experience of Havvah would be with her lover Adam, does she have to mention marriage in order to avoid immorality? Your requirement is why both Jewish sages and Christian fathers fought so bravely to REMOVE the obvious from this poem and make it about something entirely different, something they found acceptable.
PaRDeS is an excellent way to approach Scripture, but PaRDeS requires being true to the text. Tell me where IN THIS TEXT there is any indication whatsoever that this is about Christ and the Church, or Israel and God for that matter. NOWHERE! You have to bring that interpretation to the text and that interpretation is impossible for the first listening audience, so you violate the first requirement of PaRDeS right from the beginning. You say this is an “obvious reference to Christ.” Where is it obvious? There isn’t a single word that describes Christ or the Church or anything about Christian paradigmatic thinking UNLESS you bring those meanings to the text. The idea that the greatest poem must be about the greatest person already supplies a paradigmatic view that even the author could not have anticipated. Your view is in line with Christian apologists from 300 AD to 1800 AD but it falls apart with any critical/analytical exegesis of Scripture (i.e., Kaiser, et. al.)
For further discussion of this issue, see Trevor Longman’s introduction to The Song of Songs in the NICOT series.
Just one more thing. If you think any sexuality in the Bible must occur within marriage in order for it to avoid the charge of immorality and be blessed by God, then tell me what you do with Ruth on the threshing floor.
It sounds like you (Skip) have been exposed to many erroneous allegory interpretations of this text. However, why throw out all possible deeper meanings. The original author may not have been thinking, “I hope people understand this is also about Jesus Christ.”, but the symbolism of a betrothed people was certainly established by then.
For example, the adultery test in Numbers 5 always seemed so bizarre to me – and as I understand it, the scribes don’t have any record of the process actually being implemented. Why would so much biblical space and detail be dedicated to a ceremonial (seemingly magical) deterrent to adultery? It seems to make much more sense as symbolism, and fits in with the blessings/curses paradigm.
First, I have addressed the test in Numbers 5. Please take a look on the web site material. Second, I am more than happy for others to APPLY biblical material to their own interpretative paradigms if it helps them find deeper relationship with YHWH, BUT do not try to tell me that the AUTHOR had this in mind unless the AUTHOR tells me so. Allegory is allegory only when the author tells me that his or her symbols stand for something else (Orwell – Animal Farm) and ONLY THE AUTHOR can tell me what the symbols mean. When I read Little Red Riding Hood and decide that it is about Communism and the Russian Revolution I have ADDED meaning to the text that was never intended by the author.
Bottom line is this. If the author tells me this is an allegory, then I know what the symbolic meaning is because he says this is what he had in mind. But if there is no KEY in the text to the symbols, then the only way I can understand it as allegory is to bring my own key to the text, and what is to prevent me from bringing ANY KEY I WISH. You think Song of Songs is about Christ and the Church. Some rabbis teach it is about YHWH and Israel. How would you be able to determine which one is right? You can make ANY ALLEGORY you wish from the text if you depart from the author’s intention.
Read what the early church fathers taught about the parable of the two sons. That is allegory that stretches credibility to the limit, yet it was common Christian practice for 1000 years.
I would like to read what you said about ‘Numbers 5’, but when I put that in to search, I don’t know which article to choose. Many appear by title, and show a few words, but it is hard to see the text referenced. And this search seems to choose too many unrelated things. How do I search more effectively?
not sure how to help you. Try “vow” or some other key word in the verse. Sorry.
Love the Red Riding Hood analogy 🙂
Skip, when I say “church” I do mean believing Israel. Of the three circle of people, Israel by birth, Gentile by birth, Church being the intersection of these two who have accepted the Messiah as the Messiah. As opposed to the churches definition of the church.
When I was applying the allegory to this poem I was assuming that those on this site would understand that difference. So this is perhaps a better choice of explanation – “Some rabbis teach it is about YHWH and Israel.”
The thing that I found most interesting about looking at the Song from the perspective of the woman, the Lord and the world, is that piece about the world. (the Solomon represents the world). I had never really considered Solomon as a type of antichrist tempting the woman with all the pleasures of the world.
As far as attributing characters to the poem, her lover is a shepherd, the Lord Himself said, “I am the good shepherd”. That part isn’t a stretch. As far as the rest of the allegory goes, I don’t cling to much dogmatically these days, simply like to look at things from different perspectives gleaning what I can from that perspective, trying not to get so entrenched in any one perspective to the exclusion of being able to see other perspective.
While I agree that we tend to look at sexuality from a Puritanical perspective, I do not believe that there would be anything in this poem that glorified the transgression of the Torah. In the case of Ruth, she did offer herself up to Boaz, but we don’t see that Boaz took her up on the offer (at least not in the translations I have available – though I’m sure you will correct me if he did) and he married her.
And finally, doesn’t this statement apply an allegory or at least apply something to the poem that isn’t directly stated in the poem?
” If the author (a women, not Solomon) writes an erotic Hebrew poem about what it would be like to be in the Garden BEFORE the Fall, what the experience of Havvah would be with her lover Adam, does she have to mention marriage in order to avoid immorality?”
Points (quickly)
1. OK on definition of the “church” but better not to use the word at all because it has no basis in Scripture. The word is qehelah – assembly. Church has a different etymological history.
2. The lover in the Song doesn’t “tempt” the woman with the pleasures of the world. SHE PURSUES HIM!
3. Shepherd, yes, God is that, but this incidental connection in the poem doesn’t imply that the lover is God. If He is, He certainly doesn’t fit the woman’s physical description of Him, including some very sexual imagery (conveniently translated OUT of the English Bible).
4. There is nothing here that overturns Torah. Our vision of Torah is too limited. That’s why we need Song. Celebration, not rules.
5. Get my lectures on Ruth. You might be surprised about what ISN’T said.
6. Allegory is not allusion. Allegory is the deliberate attempt to make one symbol mean something else. The Parable of the Sower where Yeshua TELLS US what each symbol means. Allusion is veiled connection to other accounts. If the Song were allegory about the Garden, then each person in the story would really be a symbolic representation of someone in the Garden story.
Thank you for engaging me in this discussion, I have much to think about. I will go find your lecture on the book of Ruth.