Sunday, October 26, 2008

Song of Songs 5

I've just written and scrapped a post criticising an online sermon I listened to this morning. In many ways it was a good talk. It said lots of useful and insightful things about the ways that wives deny their husbands. Problem was that it linked the ideas to Song of Songs 5.

For the record, I'd just like to state what I think S of S 5 is about. Here's the passage. It's accepted that it's the woman speaking, except for the words in italics, which are the man.

2 I slept but my heart was awake.
Listen! My lover is knocking:
"Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew,
my hair with the dampness of the night."

3 I have taken off my robe—
must I put it on again?
I have washed my feet—
must I soil them again?

4 My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.

5 I arose to open for my lover,
and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with flowing myrrh,
on the handles of the lock.

6 I opened for my lover,
but my lover had left; he was gone.
My heart sank at his departure. [a]
I looked for him but did not find him.
I called him but he did not answer.

7 The watchmen found me
as they made their rounds in the city.
They beat me, they bruised me;
they took away my cloak,
those watchmen of the walls!

8 O daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you—
if you find my lover,
what will you tell him?
Tell him I am faint with love.

To me, this is what is going on. The woman is in bed at night, flitting in and out of sleep waiting for her lover. Her lover arrives at the door and calls for her to let him in. She calls back teasingly that she can't get up because she's already undressed. He tries the lock. She gets up to open the door for him (with perfumed hands - she's been expecting him!), but he has fled for some reason - perhaps because of the watchmen who feature in the following verses. The woman, in desperation (perhaps dreaming) goes out to look for him and is beaten by the watchmen. Overall, I think, the verses picture the desperate intensity of sexual love. It's like a fever. A dangerous thing.

Do you have any thoughts?

8 comments:

  1. Simone -- what would an alternative reading be? What was the reading you had critiqued?

    (My issue with S of S is that it's hard to say exactly what is happening at each point. It is intense poetry, and not practical in the ways that we would perhaps like it to be.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. don't like to pick on preachers... And there are many worse sermons than this one out there. But here's the alternative reading:

    The man has arrived at his own home (they are married) after a long day at work (he has a life-style job - not a 9-5 job). His wife is cross with him for being late home and whinges about having to get up and let him in. He realises she is not going to let him 'be with her' tonight and so goes off somewhere else. Eventually she gets up, realises that he has gone and regrets it. The moral of the story is that wives should not deny their husbands - which is a fine thing to say (1Cor 7 says something like that) but I don't think it's what Song of Songs 5 is saying.

    If you want to know who the preacher was, read down my blog a few posts and you'll work it out pretty fast!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simone, your 'mystery preacher's' (MP) reading is such a bizarre one that I don't know where to start. As you say, if MP wanted to make that particular point about refusing sex with your spouse, he could make it from 1 Cor 7, where Paul carefully (bless him!) applies his teaching equally to men and women. I think this preacher is importing his own anxieties about men's and women's relationships in the modern world and largely ignoring both the socio-cultural context and the actual content of this passage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes. I think so too.

    Feels like a dreadful abuse of the passage. I hate to think there are thousands and thousands of people out there thinking this is what s of s is about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I haven't done work on that text for a long time. When I did, I did not end up with the alternative reading -- for that I am sure. But thanks for 'testing the spirits', and for doing what the Bereans did: check the words of a speaker against the Word.

    Keep doing that, Simone. And I will keep reading.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Simone,

    I haven't done enough thinking about this passage to comment on your interpretation, but I do agree that the other reading doesn't seem to make sense!

    And I also wanted to say that I admire for you for not attacking the preacher himself. I think I may have crossed the line there once or twice, and I am encouraged by your good example!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks justin and nicole. There is a fine line between critiquing a preacher's ideas and catty criticism.

    Trouble is, I think this one matters because the rest of his series seems to hinge on his interpretation of this passage - not that he's speaking heresy - we're just not hearing what God is saying to us through the song. And I'm sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete