All this talk about boundaries was leading up to something, as I have warned you.
I wanted to point out that it is no small thing to move a boundary mark where real estate is concerned. It is also no small matter to transgress people's personal boundaries, men, women, or children.
Just as this is true for property and person, so also is it true for scripture.
I am saddened by the fact that a boundary marker has been moved in the Bible book, Song of Solomon (SOS). But I wrongly accused a Major Shock Jock (MSJ) of doing so. Now I know it was moved before, and he just read a book, or two, or several on SOS that led him to believe that SOS is not chronological. I am saddened to say that I also read one of those books. It is called, The Act of Marriage.
I read this book long ago. My husband and I were given this book when we were married. And I thought it was a decent book back then. And for the most part, I'm okay with it now. Except for one thing.
In my opinion, they have moved a boundary marker. It is subtle and for noble reasons. Even so, the moving of this marker is what has opened the door for others to do some serious trampling of scripture in my strong opinion.
The LaHayes wanted to use SOS 2:6 for a euphemism for something sexual. I do not know if it originated with them or with someone else. But regardless, they knew they could not use it for something sexual if the book was written chronological because the couple are not even married until chapter three. Thus, it was declared, 'not chronological'.
Just as I heard MSJ flippantly declare it, with no support, so others make the same claim and find, more secret 'euphemisms' for sex.
Those following this blog know I've brought this up before with a little bit of evidence as to why I strongly disagree with the 'not chronological' take on SOS. I'm bringing it up again for two reasons. One, I'm acknowledging that MSJ didn't come up with this himself. He read others who said it first. He liked what they said and now teaches it as fact.
The second reason I brought this up again is because I want to show more evidence that SOS is, in fact, chronological. That though there may be euphemisms for sex in it, they do not occur before the middle of chapter three.
I will present this evidence later. For now I just want to say, I understand what the LaHayes were trying to do. But what they have accomplished is to move an ancient boundary marker, thus sowing to the wind. Now the body of Christ is reaping the whirlwind with renegade preachers ordering wives to perform certain things in the bedroom that were, at one time, against our nation's sodomy laws.
[I blogged on this June 27, 2009, A Lil' More on SOS 2:3 for those who missed it]
celebrating women’s history month: Betty Greene
18 hours ago