I was reading the Song of Solomon and noticed a couple things . . .

I just went through The Song of Solomon as part of my “read the Bible in a year” program and couldn’t help but notice that:

1. The love story involved one man and one woman.

2. The man seemed to know he was a man, didn’t question it and had certain manly traits and roles.

3. The women seemed to know that she was a woman, didn’t question it and had certain womanly traits and roles.

4. There wasn’t even a hint in this iconic book on romance of relationships between two men, two women, transgenderism, etc.

5. Despite their obvious passion for each other, the theme of waiting until marriage for sex was repeated at least four times:

Solomon 3:5 I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
by the gazelles or the does of the field,
that you not stir up or awaken love
until it pleases.

How politically incorrect!  I wonder how the theological Liberals deal with this work (other than immediately denying that it is God-inspired).  After all, they teach that homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender, etc. are preferences assigned by God.  It seems odd that He wouldn’t have been more inclusive.

And they also support the Planned Parenthood mantra of waiting to have sex until you are ready, and ignoring what your parents and religion have to say (Shockingly enough, kids tend to decide they are “ready” when they really, really want to have sex.  And then lots of disease and unplanned pregnancies happen.  Go figure!)

Seriously, it is a great book.  Sex is “God’s wedding present,” a truly great thing designed for a life-long relationship between one man and one woman.

16 thoughts on “I was reading the Song of Solomon and noticed a couple things . . .”

  1. “I was reading the Song of Solomon and noticed a couple things . . .”

    It’s kinda difficult to not notice things in this book 😉

    In all seriousness, this book is profitable because it shows the beauty of sex within its God-ordained context, marriage. Evangelicals have went to one of two extremes when it comes to this topic- totally ignoring and bowdlerizing it or treating this topic with the same irreverence the world does. The world has been allowed to define what constitutes a healthy sexuality and their version of the story is far from the narrative the Bible speaks, that of a man and a woman in a covenantal union.

    Consider the following from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

    “I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.

    II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.”


  2. While I understand the Christian view on homosexuality and bi-sexuality (though…is it wrong if a person considers themselves bi-sexual but doesn’t act upon any same sex relations?), I guess I don’t get why being transgender is wrong. Maybe when it comes down to wanting to change their gender (I get that), but not with just the feeling.

    Also what are manly traits and roles and what are womanly traits and roles anyways? ‘Cause as a woman and a bit of a tomboy, I don’t get that at all…


    1. I would say it is the same as being tempted by any other sin. With God’s help we try to resist temptation, if we fail, we confess our failure, ask forgiveness and try again.

      For me at least, the problem is saying that a sin is not a sin.


      1. That’s not…an answer to what I was asking at all…In fact that’s something that I already knew about. I understand how acting upon something is a sin. I fail to realize how feeling something about you is different is a sin though. Because there are transgender people who though they might feel the opposite gender choose to live in the gender that they are and don’t try to change it.

        Gender roles are just something that goes right over my head. I’m very happy being female. But I have no interests in typical “feminine” things. Or rather very little interest in them. Outside of stereotypical female interest, behaviors, etc…what is it that defines what is a man or a woman (other than chromosomes and genitals)?


      2. Assuming the feelings are not just random thoughts that many people experience, to “feel” is not the same as to act. If the feeling leads to indulging in fantasies of a sinful nature, then one is acting on those feelings as much as one who physically does. When insulted or injured, one’s first “feeling” may indeed be to lash out. But we put such feelings aside knowing that to act out the feeling is wrong. The feelings don’t necessarily go away easily.

        I don’t think there is any real issue with a woman as a tomboy, or a man who likes to cook. Such things don’t necessarily constitute a real gender role, per se. A woman who wants to play baseball or work with power tools isn’t the same thing as a woman who wants to be a man, or prefers to see herself as a man, or insists on being treated as a man. This would be true even if she were to prefer short hair, pants and construction boots over pumps and gowns. It’s just a preference.

        I think so-called transgender folk are merely obsessed. How they got to be so is not as important as how they deal with the obsession. From a Christian point of view, our own desires are not important compared to God’s Will. Few people adhere perfectly with God’s Will, but when one’s own desires supplants God’s Will, when it becomes the driving force in their lives, that should signal a problem that needs additional attention.

        Just my thoughts.


      3. Okay, well I understand it a little better. But at the same time, there’s always a reason for such things. And though people can learn to love themselves as they are and cope with such feelings, I don’t think they entirely go away. Mostly due to a psychological component. So that “obsession” is there for a reason and won’t likely go away so easily.

        I’m still curious about what are actual gender roles though…


      4. Hi Sombra,

        Good questions. The Bible doesn’t give exhaustive lists of “men do this, women do that.” There is nothing wrong with women liking sports (a classic “tomboy” thing) or with men cooking. The key is living as God designed you and not wanting to be the other sex or desiring the same sex romantically.


  3. Regarding the Song of Solomon, it has been offered to me as proof that there is attention given by Scripture to sex. That is, as a defense for attitudes about sex that I think are not supported by Scripture. Reading most definitely supports my position regarding human sexuality and God’s Will on the subject because of the roles of the main characters. The girl, desired by the king, wants the traditional relationship with the man she truly loves and who truly loves her. The king wants to jump her bones. He is enamored with her looks, while the girl is not interested. The kings desires are portrayed in a negative sense, while the young couple are portrayed as being on the proper course, with sex really not the issue between them, but only something that will wait until the proper time. In fact, all allusions to sex by the girl involve waiting until marriage, and then, only really in response to advances by the king. She never really expresses sexual desire, but only love. This is not to say she has no such desire, but that it isn’t the focus of her love, while it seems to be that which compels the king’s advances.

    My position, by the way, is the regardless of how much I enjoy sex myself, it is a completely selfish thing. The pleasure of the experience provokes all sorts of hyperbole and poetry of romance, but there is nothing in Scripture that suggests the overwrought sentiment that it is a “wonderful gift from God”. That’s a human belief, but it is not supported by Scripture. It is no more a gift than any number of human biological functions. The Song does not refute this belief in the least. Sex has a specific purpose: to bring about little Christians. No place in Scripture places any value commensurate with “wonderful gift”. Indeed, putting aside all the possible behaviors Leviticus lists as forbidden, Scripture seems to allow for lust by recommending marriage and insisting we don’t refuse our spouses except for times of prayer. There’s not even anything in Scripture that truly ties sex with love, as the erotic term for love in the ancient language (eros) never shows up (at least in the NT—I won’t swear to it being present in the OT).

    Speaking in this way leads people to think I may be a prude or something. Not the case. It is what it is. Stating this fact, I believe, provokes guilt feelings, though I don’t believe it ought to.


  4. MarshallArt you have no clue !

    Verse1: One verse in NT in bible says love your spouse as you love Christ.

    Verse2 : Another one says sexual immorality is a violation of man’s love or honor for the Christ as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20(.In other words sex is a validation of your love for your wife and hence Christ)

    Put the two together and you have enough of a link between sex and love and not just sex as a vehicle for procreation.


    1. Someone with the handle of “Polyamorous” is telling me I have no clue. Ironic.

      You force meaning onto Scripture in a manner Scripture never intends. That there is something described as “sexual immorality” does not suggest anything like what you imagine. That is injecting your own biases about sex onto Scripture. (Do you know Dan T?) The love one is to have for one’s spouse is not the eros type of love. That is the lust that attracted them in the first place, but not the love that sustains them, nor is it the love they vow to maintain for each other until death. One’s commitment to each other is the validation of their love for each other. Sex will happen whether they commit or not if they are attracted to each other (rather, it will be desired). One saves one’s self for the person to whom one will commit one’s life. The commitment and the honoring of that commitment validates the love each has for the other. Sex is more a reward while at the same time a duty to the spouse (albeit one most people are eager to serve).


  5. Since Eve was created for Adam as a “helpmeet” – that is as a companion in life, the first use of sex would have been the unitive function. Sex is indeed pleasurable, but if you find it to be selfishness, I submit your focus is wrong. If one’s focus is pleasuring their partner, then that is not selfishness. There have been many studies which demonstrate that sexual relations tend to forge an emotional bonding between the partners, moreso for women. It sort of works like “glue” to solidify the relationship. This, then, makes it a wonderful gift in that God designed it for a unifying purpose of making the two one.

    I think your analysis of SoS having the guy more interested in “jumper her bones” is more a reflection on you and not proper exegesis. Tommy Nelson has an excellent teaching series on the SoS which I highly recommend – well, I’m assuming it is still available; we got ours almost a decade ago. A text with it is called “The Book of Romance.”

    Also, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum has a very good commentary, “Biblical Lovemaking.”


    1. I haven’t read the Tommy Nelson study myself but my 18 yr. old daughter went through it at church last year and loved it. It transformed the way she looks at dating and marriage. She couldn’t be happier with that, and neither could I.

      This is one of those rare times when I disagree with Marshall. Biologically, the purpose of sex is procreation. But God also gave it to us to unite us: The “one flesh” theme is taken very seriously in the Bible. In an important metaphorical way, we are to be united as one.


      1. I don’t disagree with the intention of God. I disagree with how that intention is interpreted by man. Of course we’re to be united as one, loving the other as we loves ourselves. But even the bonding that takes place is biological, as it exists, and more strongly in fact, in many animal species. Some birds are known to mate for life. What’s more, it is not a bond that is so strong that it can’t be easily overcome,as we see way too often in our culture. The rise of radical feminism has proven that.

        But remove the pleasure and try to pretend any overpowering urge to do the nasty will exist within any of us, especially men. Could there be any doubt that the species would have died out long ago without the pleasure of the act to drive us? Get real. I have a real hard time believing that an honest person would be so concerned about pleasuring their partner with deriving pleasure of his own. This also is borne out by the lack of interest when one’s libido wanes. The partner might not be lacking interest, but the one who’s desire evaporated often has no desire to even make the attempt.

        I think the notion of sex as selfishness is supported by Paul’s teaching of remaining celibate, but for those unable to maintain celibacy, he says it is better to marry.

        Sex HAS to feel good. Selfish pleasure is the best way to insure procreation takes place. God says to be fruitful and multiply. This would just be another command ignored if not for the personal pleasure involved.

        “One flesh” is the consequences or result of joining with a member of the opposite sex. It is God’s intention that this should be so for the proper care of each other and the children that ensue. We’re gonna come together no matter what, with or without His blessing. We can’t help it because we are designed that way so that the species survives.

        As to SoS, it is the king indeed who desires to jump the bones of the girl in the story. His desire for her is not “love”, but lust. He already has a stable of talent to satisfy his lusts, but has grown bored and is attracted to this new girl. But that is not love at all. It is mere lust. He is drawn to the superficial aspects of her beauty, whereas she and her “true love” have something much deeper. My point is that the story is not about sex as a “wonderful gift of God” at all, but about a love that transcends physically getting it on. The story rejects that aspect in favor of the deeper love.


      2. The fact that animal species may have more strong biological attachments is only due to the instincts God placed in them – they really don’t make moral choices as do humans. I think when God gave us free will choices, the ability to break strong bonds was a natural outcome, but that doesn’t mean God intended for it to be that way.

        The point of the pleasure involved was for the bonding, and the procreation comes naturally from that. The problem is that humans in their sin have separated the two.

        I think you have a very cynical view of marriage. Marriage is all about focussing on the other person’s needs, including sexual needs. Even Paul points that out in 1 Cor.

        You certainly misapply Paul. People have strong sexual desires, and Paul is only saying that if you have such desires that you need to find someone to share them with, then get married rather than burning with the desires. That does not make it selfishness.

        Sexual pleasure may indeed be based on selfishness, especially among the unbelievers. Yes, even Christians sin, but Christians who really follow the Lord’s teaching are not self-centered with sex any more than with any other aspect of marriage. And I one thing I taught my son when he was getting married is that one derives the most pleasure by ensure the pleasure of their partner. Is that selfishness or is that working together for mutual benefit?

        You are reading much more into SoS than is there. Most commentators believe this woman was Solomon’s first wife – before he acquired the harem. This was the one he loved. For you to claim that it is only lust that was driving him makes you know the mind of the person at the time – which you cannot know.

        It is indeed about sexual love as PART OF the deeper love. The two go hand in hand.


  6. My analysis of human sexuality often freaks out the reader/listener. It is not meant to imply that I am not a romantic (I most certainly am) or without passions of my own (I most certainly do). I simply see this for what it is in truth and practice. Call it a clinical observation. But I’ve yet to see any Biblical reference to sex, even within a proper marriage, in such lofty terms as “a wonderful gift” or anything remotely like it. Indeed, as Polyamorous speaks of sexual immorality, find me one place in Scripture where it speaks of sexual morality. It doesn’t.


    1. By the way, your “analysis of human sexuality” is based on what you see in the world rather than what God designed it for. Eros is very much a part of true love. Eros is what often is the first draw to the person, but eros love never wanes in a good marriage. Eros and agape go together hand-in-glove.

      Scripture does indeed speak of sexual morality when it tells us that the only sexual relations which aren’t sinful are within the confines of marriage. It doesn’t have to say that is moral any more than it says not killing your neighbor is moral.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s