SOS PART ONE

this is my teaching on the Book of Song of

Songs, which is also referred to as song.

Um and for my exploring the old testament class.

So, so, um, the song of songs or the divine

romance, um the first line here is a song of

songs that is of Solomon.

And so that's where the name comes from, that's common

in poetry.

Uh, so I think song of songs is a better

name for it because it's more descriptive rather than just

saying the author.

And now this book is part of the Hamish meg

a lot.

I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly, but that

some jewish scriptures, which contains the song of songs, Book

of ruth lamentations, Ecclesiastes Esther the characters, there are two

of them, the main ones, the bride and the shepherd

king, which are the Shulamit and perhaps Solomon, reflecting on

his early marriages.

That speculation that the word for bride, Shulamit is the

corresponding feminine name to the name Solomon, which is rooted

in the word shalom, which is peace.

It's kind of like Julia and Julius Shulamit of Solomon.

Um and his bride was likely given his name after

marrying, so she was inherited his name, which is pretty

cute. There are also two minor character with the daughters

of Zion, which are like the ladies friends or like

the other people in the echinacea and then who long

for the relationship and the city watchman whose main purpose

are just to hurt the bride and take off her

covering. Um There are six basic interpretations, typical dramatic cultic,

just doing an outline here, um cultic or theological dream,

literal and allegorical.

Um And the author is King Solomon, King of Israel.

At the very least it's attributed to King Solomon within

the poem.

And so for the tend to, of the poem, King

Solomon is the writer.

The type of literature is love poetry and wisdom literature

no most complexity.

The meeting within the book is found specifically in the

words chosen or the parallelism in each line.

So because of this, I think the best way to

explicate the book would be to go line by line,

but that's not possible.

So I'm just gonna sit on the 1st, 1st later

on and bring out its step the meeting and share

how it exemplifies what we can determine to be the

theological purpose, the historical context and the literary spirit of

the book.

Um, now, because our conversation of song is so immature,

I'm going to spend some time defining what song of

songs isn't and why we haven't been able to see

it clearly.

And I'll do that through the first line of the

poem and then mentioning just some, some other uh, scholars

opinions on it.

And the second line is uh The 2nd line of

the poem is a just as beautiful and meaningful as

the first, but I just have to do the first

because it's the first line of the poem and I

don't have time to do both.

Um Now the first line of the poem gives the

readers a context for the rest of the poem and

how it is, because every line is just full of

meaning and it's beautiful.

Um but it's very similar to this story at the

beginning of humanity, where God kneeled down to bless, adam

starts out with kisses, breathing life and spirit wine.

Um just the same way that jesus breathed life and

news disciples um with a kiss, breathing life into their

lips, um blowing into their mouth, so to speak.

And this verse sets the scene for the drama of

the bride, longing for the affection and intimacy of her

bridegroom. That's the literal action of the poem.

I know I just did a comparison of biblical comparison,

but the literal action of the poem is the bride

longing for her bride groom and vice versa.

But the meaning is not the same thing as the

action of the poem because it's a poem, If the

meeting was the same as the action, it wouldn't be

a poem, it would be a chronology.

And the stage of the poem is not to be

said about a man uh and a woman longing for

each other's kisses, but rather this 1st 1st about kisses

and longing is the theological and literary context of song

of songs.

It sets that up as intimacy between God and men.

So that's me arguing this.

Um so here in the first line, we have an

ecological crisis to whether to interpret these kisses as literal,

as whole, as carnal, just physical, solely physical, with no

meaning attached to them, or holy kiss something that with

a kiss, that longing that has meaning under it.

So, the text within the course work that this presentation

is for have conveyed that the sexual intimacy in this

poem is meant to be understood as a reflection of

nothing but sensuality and I would disagree.

And I'm not without sources there, I'm not alone in

thinking this, nor with am I without hermeneutics?

I want to convey the emerging and theological, the emerging

theological purpose of the book, which is a spoiler alert,

not that physical love is okay between is okay between

God ordained uh marital subjects as hill and Walton's combined

academic prowess, convinced them of being of it being that's

the text for this course.

Um, I would like to use the example of the

1st, 1st.

I'll go into detail later, I know I keep saying

that. Um and the dilemma of how we should handle

this literal meaning in the underlying poetic nature and the

spiritual reality of poetic nature is um revealing to expand

our understanding of the book of the bible in line

with modern and ancient, expose eaters whose sources I will

cite. Because I'm disagreeing with Helen Walton rather than just

using my arbitrary categorization of the book as my guide.

I'm going to be using the person of jesus for

the grounding of my theological understanding of scripture and in

this scriptures get bigger and they don't get smaller because

my favorite pastor says so, I won't dwell on that

on what I disagree with for long, but I'm going

to use what's empty about um that definition to point

us to what could be full about something that's actually

true. The problem with a materialistic um un poetic or

a materialist that are set in poetic, literal reading of

song of songs is that it's literarily blind is theologically

dead. It flies in the face of all rigorous ancient

modern scholarship in the book and it's inconsistent with the

books own definition of itself.

I'll just spend just a moment um, on all of

those things as far as literarily dead, the literal meaning

of um, uh, this is a picture of the Dalai

drew of Solomon.

He did a number of drawings on song of songs.

So that's what that is.

I'll spend a second on each of these things.

I said that already.

Um the literal meaning of the poem is not just

the words of a poem the meaning of, but it's

the meaning that the poem is alluding to.

Poems are figurative songs.

Canticle is about something.

The literal meaning of Clare de lune, for example, is

not the frequency of 261.63 hurts.

It's the beauty of the moon played alone.

Um, so I'll mention citations for this disagreement later in

the presentation, but pill and Walton in their chapter of

songs and songs.

Um note that the song of songs never stayed since

an allegory.

Now, I don't know what poem would state it is

an allegory.

And I don't know that not stating you are in

allegory would entail that no metaphorical paralytic or deeper meeting

should be derived from the text.

Um, and thinking so it would be a convenient right

way to shoot the text of its spiritual meeting.

Um, I think a rigid naturalist perspective has been seeking

to drive the song of songs of its literary category

and the proper reading of that quote category and its

concomitant meeting uh, meaning.

I think the theology of an academia that denies the

affection of God is one that empties that is empty

of new wine and in desperate need of kisses from

heaven. Um, so in desperate need of the song songs.

Uh I believe our spiritual adherence to enlightenment ideals has

blinded us of heavenly spirituality and we're trading our longing

for heavenly mysteries of God for the solace of unknown

earth were already full of so Charles Spurgeon wrote, give

me the wounded body of divinity over the sound system

of theology and I think it's actually the failings of

the sound system in theology that have marred our understanding

of song.

Song says the wounded body of divinity to be unrecognizable

as christ, the failings, particularly surrounding the intimate meaning of

the book.

Um, A contemporary pastor, eric Gilmore writes about the song

of songs, the use of almost erotic language in the

song of Solomon causes some to recoil.

They struggled to grasp the use of spiritual imagery to

convey a deeper reality.

Um, so the deeper reality is an element, I think,

recent scholarship and only recent scholarship, post enlightenment has been

particularly buying to do due to the poetic nature of

the book.

The bible is poetry and to dismember the bible of

its beauty is to put a lamp shade over the

shining body of christ the language.

Poetry is putting words to an inexpressible truth similar to

how Daniel described angels.

His body was like barrel.

His face was like lightning.

That might have been literal, but more likely it was

just poetry of an inexpressible truth.

That's what poetry does.

The meaning of the words and song of songs isn't

just in their literal D notations, that's not how language

works, but in their interplay illusions and picture of the

emerging story.

Um the overwhelming abundance of references, parallelism and thematic elements

are lost when throwing the baby of deeper meaning out

with the bathwater of negligent typology, and ice and jesus,

which is I guess what this view is responding to

because that's real.

Um So here is a visualization of the Crawford Cross

references in the bible.

Uh sorry to just skip that picture.

Um this could be as big as like in the

beginning in Genesis one and John one.

there's a lot of interplay in the bible.

There's a lot of motifs and meetings and this directly

relates to the literary conventions of Hebraic poetry that we're

studying right here.

Because the structure of Hebrew poetry is not in meter

but in meaning.

Um as a leading scholar in this field, uh Ilana

Parties, who is the professor of comparative literature at Hebrew

University of Jerusalem, writes about song songs.

She basically just says it's uh biblical poetry is not

based on systematic metrics or rhyming, but rather on parallelism

between two and at times three components of the line.

Um so I just argued for integrating a poetic understanding

of the bible because I believe that the bible is

poetic, but in order to apply this category to the

book in question, I have the burden of proof to

define song of songs as a poem that could be

reasonably understood to have been written with it, meaning in

mind because that's an important hermeneutic principle.

Uh So here I will look at scholarship throughout the

years and look at um what song the song states

it is, which is the song of all songs.

So just just to mention that ancient scholars have considered

there to be a deeper meaning to spiritual, to human

sexuality than worldly sensuality.

They considered marriage the reflection of the love of God

and man.

Um, bridal imagery is not uncommon in the bible as

you can see here.

Um and to mention just my first scholar, my first

reference, I will invoke the principle of a sweet gypsies

interprets, I don't know how to pronounce latin.

Um or the text own interpretation of itself.

We can see that the first bold lines of a

giant red arrow pointing to christ from the words of

john. Um And here I have a number of scholars

just mentioning that this parallel is um is clear.

The definition of this parallel is clear.

It's academically conclusive that um the one use of songs

in new testament is within the context of the christ

illogical allegory and actually bridal chronological allegory.

Uh and ignoring this inter text data would be lacking

in humility and it would be negligent.

Um and then also here at the bottom, if you

see any quote skipping through quotes because I don't have

time. Um Origin specifically says this book seems to be

a marriage song that Solomon wrote in the form of

drama and saying under the figure of the bride uh

towards her bridegroom who is the word of God.

So Origin, one of the uh like an early early

church father.

Um consider the song of songs to be the holy

of Holies of all scripture.

Um That's what he said about it, as did Robbie

Aqui Akiva, Rabbi Akiva.

Um The writings are wholly, all of the writings are

holy and the song of songs is the Holy of

Holies. That's what he says about that.

Um, and then I have a few other scholars mentioning

basically uh, that they're reading of of song is one

that is christ a logical surprise.

Um sorry, I'm just skipping through so much right now

because I don't have much time.

But I'll mention Charles Spurgeon's quote because he's popular in

his exposition of song of songs.

He writes this the song of Solomon is only to

be comprehended by men who are standing in the veil,

the outer court worshippers and even those who only enter

the court of the priests think the book very strange.

But those who come near to christ can see the

song of Solomon as the only expression to which their

Lord the love to their Lord desires.

Um, so this paints a picture of song, of songs,

this dangerous, deep and passionate, anything but boring, shallow and

literal. And so that brings me to my last point

about the outline of of song of songs, how we

should treat it because I think we've been treating it

poorly. Um Song song has a self declaration as the

song of all songs.

Um So it at the very least it believes itself

to be the song of all songs.

And if this isn't the canticle of cannibals then what

is the best picture jesus could come up with?

For example, for the Kingdom of God, the best parable

he could come up with was a wedding feast.

Anyone who has a better story than this should write

it, go for it, then christ and his church and

be wise enough like Solomon was to discern that it

actually is.

Uh So I believe that the song, it seems clear

based off of that those facts that song of songs

is what it says it is.

Um, but how can the song, and so how can

song of songs be a story about a man and

a woman who enjoy having sex with each other and

there's no greater meaning to that.

Um brian Simmons, who was a linguist and a missionary

who translated the bible to unreached peoples in Pay Acuna

has a note on this um, in his exposition of

song of songs, the Sacred Journey.

I'll just do the last quote because we don't have

time. Um, yeah, here's in his, in his introduction and

his team's introduction to the translation of the bible and

the passion translation truly, if this is the song of

all songs, it's theme goes beyond and reaches higher than

merely literal human sexuality extends to our union with the

living god.

Um, and hear his idea and those quotes, I hope

you're reading them.

Um that making Solomon's greatest song, one of his, one

of one of his many polygamist affairs is not a

perfect model in which to interpret songs songs.

Um making human sexuality the highest song is a bad

idea. Were left wanting more.

That's that's this point and that's a darn good point.

Um, so just in a historical sense, hit break poetry

is about parallels and we don't really need to come

to to invoke the idea of the greater purpose of

the bible or the concept of census plenty or which

does support this idea or the fact that songs was

found in biblical manuscripts.

But the meaning of the songs themselves, the meaning of

the poetry line by line extrapolate into the beautiful image

of the bride adored by her shepherd king.

That is perfect in love.

So under the 1st, 1st to give us a taste

of literary elements.

And almost all verses have rich meetings that present this

picture of christ and I'd love to go through all

of them.

But um now that I've established an impetus for interpreting

the book as a whole in this way, let me

just go through the first line and talk about how

deep, how deep the meaning is and how non literal

it is.

Dad, nah.

But

SOS PART ONE

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated