How not to read the Bible (2)

Love is as strong as death… Song of Songs 8:6

It doesn’t happen often, but I am always pleased when I get feedback on a blog I have published. This happened more than usually with the recent post on the Song of Songs; thank you if you took the trouble to write. Most of the responses were in agreement, I’m glad to say, though I did also receive a bit of a telling off (a friendly telling-off, I think) for daring to question the assumption that this little book is all about Jesus and the church.

Having said that, it later occurred to me that I might well have received some such message as this: “All right, Smarty-pants, you’ve told us what the Song of Songs isn’t about. That’s the easy bit. Now how about tackling the difficult part – tell us what it is about! What is it doing in the Bible at all, given that the Bible is God’s inspired Word?”

Such a message didn’t come; but if it had I don’t think I would have had any right to complain. So – fair’s fair, I thought; and I’ve returned to it, re-read it right through, and rummaged around in various commentaries and other books by respected Bible scholars. I certainly haven’t come up with any clear-cut, easy answers. But here’s a summary of what I have come up with.

First… It’s quite obvious that the book is centred on a story – a love story – of a man and a woman. And certainly, in both Testaments, the relationship between God and his people is sometimes depicted in this way.

In the Old Testament the prophets often portray Israel as, at best, a wayward wife (Hosea is the key example), and at worst a prostitute (as in Ezekiel 16).

Likewise, in the New Testament, Paul instructs husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church…” (Ephesians 5:22-32). And in Revelation the church is portrayed as “the bride of the Lamb” (19:7), beautiful in her purity, in stark contrast to “Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth” (17:5).

So it’s understandable that Christians (and Jews before us) should choose to read the Song in this allegorical way.

But, second, having said that, the book is frankly sexual and erotic – so much so that there are parts that I suspect only very rarely get read in church, if at all. The raptures and ecstasies of love are portrayed; so are some of the distresses and pains. Shakespeare wrote that “the course of true love never did run smooth”, and the Song certainly bears that out.

What sometimes stretches belief is when commentators insist on applying every little detail to Christ. Is he (to take just one example) really “like a gazelle or young stag” (2:9)? A classic case, surely, of reading something into the passage rather than just accepting it as it is – in effect, off foisting an alien meaning onto it.

A general kind of parallel is one thing: yes, human love provides a metaphor for God and his people. But to focus on “his locks… his eyes… his cheeks… his belly.. his legs… his countenance…” and so on is to go too far, making the text yield a meaning which simply isn’t there.

Third, it’s worth noticing that modern Bible translators add headings in order to indicate who is speaking at any given point – “He”, “She”, “Friends” and so on.

This is certainly helpful in giving a shape to the narrative. But we need to keep in mind that such headings are not part of the original text; they are simply intelligent guesses added by the translators or editors. So we can’t be sure they are correct – and in fact the various translations don’t always agree on them anyway. And even with these helps it isn’t always by any means clear what is actually going on. Anything but. On any showing this is not a simple book: let nobody pretend it is!

In fact, it’s not unreasonable to ask if this book is in fact a “story” at all. Isn’t it more like a sequence of love poems strung together?

In which case, isn’t the most likely reason the Holy Spirit caused it to be included in the Bible simply in order to recognise without embarrassment that human love, including sexual love, is part of God’s good creation? And, as long as it is enjoyed properly (a vital proviso, that, of course), is to be treasured and delighted in?

Isn’t this a message we desperately need in these days of pornographic films and books, where sex is vulgarised and horribly cheapened?

I’m sure there’s a whole lot more that could be said, and needs to be said, but my little blog isn’t the place to say it.

But one of the more thoughtful responses I received to the original blog finished like this:

“I think I veer towards it being an inspired poetical work: the glorifying of God through acknowledging Creation, and how sacrificial love in marriage can mirror the love God has for us and, ideally, we for Him.”

Ultimately, I’m not sure that I can do much better than that.

I can only remind myself, and you who are kind enough to read this, that we must respect the views of those who see it differently from ourselves. The Song of Songs is to be approached with reverence and respect, like the rest of God’s word - whatever its precise meaning, one thing is sure: we dishonour God’s word if we turn it into a battleground.

Dear Father, I pray that my understanding of the Song of Songs, as with the whole Bible, will grow and deepen as I read it and re-read it. Help me to grow in my appreciation of love in all its many forms, including the physical and sexual, and to honour Christ by always seeking to maintain its purity. Amen.