SOS 2:3 And Our Relationship With God

Before I get into SOS 2:3 itself I'd like to thank another preacher for coming against the vulgar assumptions the shock jock preacher made concerning it. John MacArthur did a 4 part series refuting the shock jock's teaching in April of 2009. Now, I don't follow MacArthur, but I know his name and know he is a respectable man. He is also in a far better position to refute the shock jock than me for two big reasons. 1. He has a large, established, respectable ministry. 2. He's a man. (The shock jock has displayed misogynist tendencies.) And to MacArthur, the body of Christ is in debt for dealing head on with the debasing of scripture like this. So thank you Pastor MacArthur. But I do respectfully disagree with MacArthur in one thing. He, along with many other men, pastors, and teachers... He holds that the PRIMARY purpose of SOS is the story of Solomon and his bride their mutual love which includes the marriage bed. http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4172 While I agree that SOS is not PURELY allegorical. I disagree with the idea that the love between Solomon and his bride as an example of married love being the primary purpose of SOS. And I'm not alone: http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/song-of-songs-approval-of-the-harem-is-not-romantic/ Though I don't agree entirely with the above link, I can see where people would come up with this. Solomon was no expert on married love. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines for pete's sake. He was clueless. And yet this book of his, this song of songs made it into the Bible. In the rapture of young love, the Spirit spoke through him and God has used his words to bless the generations that followed him. For me and others, the allegorical relationship between Christ and His bride is a source of wonder and worship that we feel God has called us into. And we see this in SOS as well as other places. So, in essence, as I appreciate MacArthur's defense of SOS, still I feel that he, like so many men have a blind spot concerning this book. Sex is sooo important and held up as such a primary thing that any attempt the make the "biblically accepted marriage/sex manual" into an allegorical springboard to worship is looked upon with contempt and viewed as sacrilegious. Which is very sad. Our highest purpose is worship of our Creator and Savior. Not sex. Anyway, in a nutshell. Many men have a blind spot where sex is concerned since sex is so important to them personally. Many (Can't say all. That would be unfair) men also have a huge blind spot to the needs of wounded women forced to live in a man's world (and church) that favors men and wants women to sit down, shut up, and don't make waves. "Just fit in this little box we have for you. Sorry for past and present abuses but it's not our fault so just get over it since it is your lot in life." Now let's look at SOS 2:3. SOS 2:3 Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, So is my Beloved among the young men. In His shade I took great delight and sat down. And His fruit was sweet to my taste. Yep, the above verse is the one the shock jock pastor claimed was about oral sex. Just by looking at it can you see where he was stretching it quite a bit?

But from my position, that verse beautifully illustrates God's protection, nourishing and cherishing, and refreshing.

Look at these verses:

Psalm 36:7 How precious is Thy lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of They wings. (NAS) Psalm 63:4 Thou hast been my help, And in the shadow of Thy wings I sing for joy. (NAS) Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the Lord is good; How blessed is the man who takes his refuge in Him! (NAS) They are verses of worship and praise that closely parallel SOS 2:3 The Lover is seen as protective and refreshing to the Beloved. A wonderful change from the oppressive brothers who made her work out in the sun. He brings rest and contentment not abuse and drudgery. She can relax and be at ease in the shade of his presence.