I believe that as marriage is a spiritual coming together of two people as one. From what I understand, the woman is the “girlfriend” not the wife yet. The way they express their love and desire to be together and through the word we know that marriage and the consummation of the marriage is Holy and something we should achieve before the eyes of God. It is giving us a best way to understand how Jesus and the church should want to come together spiritually when He presents His bride to His Father. Just my take on it.
I had a revelation about 3 years ago while reading the man is God, woman is us (people or church), the women ( people of the world and things in the world that wants to take/keep you away from God. Brothers( Holy Spirit). Breast symbolize righteousness as written in the book of Ephesians 6....as a matter of fact read this book while studying songs. Also ask the Holy Spirit to reveal other books to relate with this book and you will understand that God is speaking to us our groom and us His bride and not in a dirty sequel manner as we might think
Song of Songs is a descriptive book that tells a story. I do not believe that Solomon represents God. If it is an allegory Solomon represents the world, it’s desires, money, and comfort. The Shepard would represent Christ. The woman in the story struggles as she falls in love with these two men. It reminds me of our struggle as individual believers between following the world and following Christ.
As much as we enjoy our earthly marriages, we must understand that they will not continue into heaven because they are only an illustration of the marriage to Jesus. There is no sexual intercourse in heaven because earthly marriage is an illustration of the marriage to Jesus. Our heavenly bodies will be without the desire or reproductive abilities like how the angels of heaven do not marry each other or reproduce. We will not be naked or erotic with Jesus, but in the marriage to Jesus, His love, intimacy, presence, pleasures and beauty will provide us with joy and satisfaction that is infinitely greater than erotic joy and pleasure because earthly marriage is only the illustration so it is no longer needed. We will receive a name and place better than sons and daughters. And we will enjoy the opposite sex in a non-erotic way that is infinitely better than erotic love because we will love and be like Jesus having been transformed into His image. We will not be naked in heaven because nakedness is only allowed for earthly marriage, and outside of earthly marriage, it is still unrighteous even within the marriage to Jesus, which is why we will be given white linen to wear to represent righteousness. The purposes of illustrating the marriage to Jesus and to produce the amount of people God intended for to exist have already been fulfilled, so earthly marriage is no longer needed in heaven.
It is impermissible to see Godly sexual desire[appreciation for one's spouse] to be "dirty"[as you said in your other comment]. Godly sex is symbolic for our relationship with Jesus. UnGodly sex is a diabolical perversion and undermining of that symbol[aside from the more obvious consequences]. Prudishness[the view that sex is dirty or bad or a lesser evil or something that should not be joyfully received with thankfulness] is a deception of the enemy. The enemy uses perversion to distort sexuality because sex has such a wonderful purpose[and I am not just talking about procreation which is obviously also important]. Prudishness is one of the enemy's deceptions. Consider what peddlers of perversion say about sex, they call it "naughty" and "dirty" and spew all kinds of denigration against sex. Imagine what a testimony it would be if people hear in one ear pornographers and perverts were talking about how dirty and filthy it is while in the other ear christians are speaking truth about it's goodness. Instead of buying into and spreading the lies of pornographers and demons that sex is a dirty, naughty, guilty pleasure, we should instead affirm that it is a wonderful gift and guiltless pleasure in it's proper place in marriage. Review what Paul says about sex. The "two becoming one flesh"[AKA having sexual intercourse] is symbolic for Jesus and the church[I think it refers to our individual relationships with Jesus too]. I think that freaks out a lot of guys. I certainly don't anticipate that we will be doing anything sexual or gay with Jesus, I agree that would be a bizarre interpretation. But I do think that our relationship with God is analogous to romance and sex in some ways, we are going to be emotionally and spiritually intimate with Jesus, not in a gay way. In some mysterious way, sexuality is a shadow of something that we will experience with Jesus. Maybe things like joyful zeal, figurative nakedness[openness/emotional-intimacy/"vulnerability"], zealous exclusivity[a desire and not mere obligation to have no other idols]. I anticipate a zealous totally not gay "bromance" with Jesus like the relationship between David and Jonathan. I like C.S. Lewis's response to people who worry about no sex in heaven, he acknowledges that sex is good but he anticipated that there will be no sex, not because God begrudgingly tolerates sex, but because sex is a great thing that will have no use in heaven because it will be made obsolete by being replaced with something far better. The enemy wants us to believe that God begrudgingly allows us pleasures and takes them away from us, the enemy wants us to think that God is being miserly and selfish toward us, so that is another reason why the enemy wants us to have a low negative view of sex and other Godly pleasures like delicious and healthy food. I regard the view that sex is bad as heresy, Paul implies that such a view is a doctrine of demons. 1 Timothy 4:1-5
Can you imagine Christ telling his Church "I think you have beautiful boobs."? God gave you intelligence for a reason. The Song is in the Bible because it was attributed to Solomon, and for no better reason. The supposed allegory is from the New Testament, and those who wrote the Song wouldn't know what you were talking about. The idea of pasting together texts from just anywhere in the Bible has no merit. Each text has its owh context.
If you want to understand Song of Songs, I would recommend looking into "Theology of the Body" . The Bible opens and closes with a wedding scene (the one in the garden, and the wedding of the Lamb and the Church) - and Song of Songs is right in the middle! It isn't an accident. And though the human authors of the Bible may scratch their heads at the idea, it wasn't really the human authors who wrote the symbolic meaning of the Song of Songs - or for that matter, a single word of the Bible. If you read the Bible carefully, you can see the nuptial language leap out at you on every page! That Song of Songs feels out of place as a metaphor for God's love is rather an indication of _misunderstanding the context_ than understanding it. The context of the _entire_ Bible is replete with sexual imagery from Genesis to Revelation.
"Can you imagine Christ telling his Church 'I think you have beautiful boobs.'?" Well yes, yes I can. Paul says in 1 Thess 2:7 "we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children." A nursing mother, of course, is using her breasts to feed her babies. And what is the milk that the church feeds and nourished new believers with? The Bible! 1 Peter 2:2 "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby." So if the church is doing this well, feeding new believers the pure milk of the Bible, it makes her very attractive to Christ. It's actually astonishing just how well the allegorical reading works when you really get into it.
If. Hypothetically speaking, if the rest of scripture was lost and only songs of song was left, can it help u understand something about salvation or how God is. And remember Solomon was once in lust so not everything that he said in his life time was inspired by the Holy Ghost,
In Exodus 19:15, God commanded husbands NOT to have sexual intercourse with their wives and commanded them to put on clean clothes when He was about to come down onto Mount Sinai. Could it be that it is only the non-erotic parts of marriage that illustrates Jesus's love for us, and that the erotic parts are inherently dirty but that God had to allow it temporarily through marriage to produce the amount of people He intended for to exist? Erotic love is a manner of this world that will pass away since men and women in heaven do not marry or remain married to each other.
Theology of the Body Institute has a pretty good video on this that actually dives into not demonizing the word "erotic", but just understanding the sinful corruption of it. It's in his video on Song of Songs: ua-cam.com/video/PBlvgybm3L0/v-deo.htmlsi=dP8dWuCJ3S3Imlgx
The entire Old Testament has to do with Christ: Luke 24:27 "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Thanks pastor John! Will be always grateful for your faithful wisdom and obedience, it’s pushed me towards God
I believe that as marriage is a spiritual coming together of two people as one. From what I understand, the woman is the “girlfriend” not the wife yet. The way they express their love and desire to be together and through the word we know that marriage and the consummation of the marriage is Holy and something we should achieve before the eyes of God. It is giving us a best way to understand how Jesus and the church should want to come together spiritually when He presents His bride to His Father. Just my take on it.
I had a revelation about 3 years ago while reading the man is God, woman is us (people or church), the women ( people of the world and things in the world that wants to take/keep you away from God. Brothers( Holy Spirit). Breast symbolize righteousness as written in the book of Ephesians 6....as a matter of fact read this book while studying songs. Also ask the Holy Spirit to reveal other books to relate with this book and you will understand that God is speaking to us our groom and us His bride and not in a dirty sequel manner as we might think
It is BOTH!
Jesus paid the price for our sins so we wouldn’t have to! So trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Also repent so you don’t perish!
How else are we supposed to interpret Song of Solomon with a Christocentric lens?
Song of Songs is a descriptive book that tells a story. I do not believe that Solomon represents God. If it is an allegory Solomon represents the world, it’s desires, money, and comfort. The Shepard would represent Christ. The woman in the story struggles as she falls in love with these two men. It reminds me of our struggle as individual believers between following the world and following Christ.
Hmm 👌🏾
Hi
As much as we enjoy our earthly marriages, we must understand that they will not continue into heaven because they are only an illustration of the marriage to Jesus.
There is no sexual intercourse in heaven because earthly marriage is an illustration of the marriage to Jesus.
Our heavenly bodies will be without the desire or reproductive abilities like how the angels of heaven do not marry each other or reproduce.
We will not be naked or erotic with Jesus, but in the marriage to Jesus, His love, intimacy, presence, pleasures and beauty will provide us with joy and satisfaction that is infinitely greater than erotic joy and pleasure because earthly marriage is only the illustration so it is no longer needed.
We will receive a name and place better than sons and daughters.
And we will enjoy the opposite sex in a non-erotic way that is infinitely better than erotic love because we will love and be like Jesus having been transformed into His image.
We will not be naked in heaven because nakedness is only allowed for earthly marriage, and outside of earthly marriage, it is still unrighteous even within the marriage to Jesus, which is why we will be given white linen to wear to represent righteousness.
The purposes of illustrating the marriage to Jesus and to produce the amount of people God intended for to exist have already been fulfilled, so earthly marriage is no longer needed in heaven.
Nope
It is impermissible to see Godly sexual desire[appreciation for one's spouse] to be "dirty"[as you said in your other comment]. Godly sex is symbolic for our relationship with Jesus. UnGodly sex is a diabolical perversion and undermining of that symbol[aside from the more obvious consequences]. Prudishness[the view that sex is dirty or bad or a lesser evil or something that should not be joyfully received with thankfulness] is a deception of the enemy. The enemy uses perversion to distort sexuality because sex has such a wonderful purpose[and I am not just talking about procreation which is obviously also important]. Prudishness is one of the enemy's deceptions. Consider what peddlers of perversion say about sex, they call it "naughty" and "dirty" and spew all kinds of denigration against sex. Imagine what a testimony it would be if people hear in one ear pornographers and perverts were talking about how dirty and filthy it is while in the other ear christians are speaking truth about it's goodness. Instead of buying into and spreading the lies of pornographers and demons that sex is a dirty, naughty, guilty pleasure, we should instead affirm that it is a wonderful gift and guiltless pleasure in it's proper place in marriage.
Review what Paul says about sex. The "two becoming one flesh"[AKA having sexual intercourse] is symbolic for Jesus and the church[I think it refers to our individual relationships with Jesus too]. I think that freaks out a lot of guys. I certainly don't anticipate that we will be doing anything sexual or gay with Jesus, I agree that would be a bizarre interpretation. But I do think that our relationship with God is analogous to romance and sex in some ways, we are going to be emotionally and spiritually intimate with Jesus, not in a gay way. In some mysterious way, sexuality is a shadow of something that we will experience with Jesus. Maybe things like joyful zeal, figurative nakedness[openness/emotional-intimacy/"vulnerability"], zealous exclusivity[a desire and not mere obligation to have no other idols]. I anticipate a zealous totally not gay "bromance" with Jesus like the relationship between David and Jonathan.
I like C.S. Lewis's response to people who worry about no sex in heaven, he acknowledges that sex is good but he anticipated that there will be no sex, not because God begrudgingly tolerates sex, but because sex is a great thing that will have no use in heaven because it will be made obsolete by being replaced with something far better. The enemy wants us to believe that God begrudgingly allows us pleasures and takes them away from us, the enemy wants us to think that God is being miserly and selfish toward us, so that is another reason why the enemy wants us to have a low negative view of sex and other Godly pleasures like delicious and healthy food.
I regard the view that sex is bad as heresy, Paul implies that such a view is a doctrine of demons. 1 Timothy 4:1-5
Can you imagine Christ telling his Church "I think you have beautiful boobs."? God gave you intelligence for a reason. The Song is in the Bible because it was attributed to Solomon, and for no better reason. The supposed allegory is from the New Testament, and those who wrote the Song wouldn't know what you were talking about. The idea of pasting together texts from just anywhere in the Bible has no merit. Each text has its owh context.
If you want to understand Song of Songs, I would recommend looking into "Theology of the Body" . The Bible opens and closes with a wedding scene (the one in the garden, and the wedding of the Lamb and the Church) - and Song of Songs is right in the middle! It isn't an accident. And though the human authors of the Bible may scratch their heads at the idea, it wasn't really the human authors who wrote the symbolic meaning of the Song of Songs - or for that matter, a single word of the Bible. If you read the Bible carefully, you can see the nuptial language leap out at you on every page! That Song of Songs feels out of place as a metaphor for God's love is rather an indication of _misunderstanding the context_ than understanding it. The context of the _entire_ Bible is replete with sexual imagery from Genesis to Revelation.
"Can you imagine Christ telling his Church 'I think you have beautiful boobs.'?" Well yes, yes I can. Paul says in 1 Thess 2:7 "we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children." A nursing mother, of course, is using her breasts to feed her babies. And what is the milk that the church feeds and nourished new believers with? The Bible! 1 Peter 2:2 "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby." So if the church is doing this well, feeding new believers the pure milk of the Bible, it makes her very attractive to Christ. It's actually astonishing just how well the allegorical reading works when you really get into it.
If. Hypothetically speaking, if the rest of scripture was lost and only songs of song was left, can it help u understand something about salvation or how God is.
And remember Solomon was once in lust so not everything that he said in his life time was inspired by the Holy Ghost,
In Exodus 19:15, God commanded husbands NOT to have sexual intercourse with their wives and commanded them to put on clean clothes when He was about to come down onto Mount Sinai.
Could it be that it is only the non-erotic parts of marriage that illustrates Jesus's love for us, and that the erotic parts are inherently dirty but that God had to allow it temporarily through marriage to produce the amount of people He intended for to exist?
Erotic love is a manner of this world that will pass away since men and women in heaven do not marry or remain married to each other.
Theology of the Body Institute has a pretty good video on this that actually dives into not demonizing the word "erotic", but just understanding the sinful corruption of it. It's in his video on Song of Songs:
ua-cam.com/video/PBlvgybm3L0/v-deo.htmlsi=dP8dWuCJ3S3Imlgx
Ain't got nothing to do with Christ and the Church.
Then it wouldn’t be scripture..
The entire Old Testament has to do with Christ: Luke 24:27 "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
@@ljdrew3233yeah u are right it's not scripture