SONG OF SOLOMON From Book Divine Sex
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=SONG_OF_SOLOMON_From_Book_Divine_Sex
81
CHAPTER FOUR
GOD’S EROTIC POETRY –
Nowhere in the Bible do we find a clearer illustration of God’s
attitude toward sex and the human body, than in the Song of
Solomon.
Few people understand the graphically erotic nature of
this love poem. Its explicit yet unashamed eroticism has been the
cause of problems for commentators even before NT times.
Spiros Zodhiates says this about the book, “Because of its explicitly erotic
character, ancient Jews and Christians alike rejected its literal
interpretation and allegorized it…
The early Christian inability to
deal with this book at the literal level was influenced more by the
Greek philosophy of the time than by the Bible itself…The erotic
nature of the book was probably a source of embarrassment, but
these legal God-ordained gaieties should not be shunned, only properly
understood…” (Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible, introduction to Song of
Solomon emph. mine, D.C.).
Other commentators are likewise
straightforward in labeling this book as erotic poetry.
The issue of whether the book is to be interpreted literally or
allegorically is irrelative. That God used erotic language in either
case, says something about God that we must consider carefully.
If the language God uses in this book is unfitting to be used in a literal
sense how can we possibly argue that it is good to use it in an
allegorical sense? If the allegory is appropriate, then so is the
language in which the allegory is framed.
Sex and sexual language,
in this case very explicit sexual language, cannot be inherently nasty
and still be used as an allegory for Christ and the Church. The
human body cannot be considered shameful and yet be used as an
allegory of Christ’s delight in His Bride, the church. It cannot be
vulgar to describe the sexual body parts of the opposite sex, and at
the same time good to use such descriptions to allegorize Christ’s
love for His Bride. Like it or not we have here a book in which God,
through the Holy Spirit, uses the most explicit sex language some
people will ever hear. The language God uses here and the sexual
situations He describes, cannot be thought of in any other way than
that God delights in and approves of what He is writing about. In
doing so, God reveals more about His attitude toward sex, the
naked human body, and the beauty and sexual eroticism involved
in looking at another’s sexual organs, than most church leaders and
82
most Christians can handle. Most of them will not accept the literal
references of this book. In his commentary on the Song of Solomon,
Adam Clarke overtly condemns much of it as being too sexually
graphic for even true translation. Some have even decided that the
book should not even be accepted as Divinely inspired, on the sole
basis of its erotic language.
So here we have a book, inspired by God, that deals intentionally
and positively with all aspects of sexuality, without shame or
apology. This is truly erotic poetry. It was inspired by God. What is
recorded in this little book stands as God’s testimony to sexual
experience and the beauty of the human body. Let’s look at what is
there.
A woman asks for the kisses of her lover, “Let him kiss me with
the kisses of his mouth,” (1:2). Later, she says, “his mouth is full of
sweetness,” (5:16), and he says, “her mouth is like the best wine,” (7:9).
In both these last two cases the same Hebrew word for “mouth” is used (Strong’s #2441). It means the inside of the mouth. The
marginal note says it literally means “palate.” She is asking for, and they enjoy, deep mouth kissing. The Anchor Bible,
commenting on these verses, says these verses were “explicit references to kisses…including amative oral activities,” (i.e. oral sex).
That is, not only the lips, but also the tongues were involved, and not only the mouth, but other parts of the body were involved, including kissing the genitals.
The Jerusalem Bible also implies that the kissing
was all over the body: “Your lips cover me with kisses.” So right at the
start of this poem, we have references to an activity that most
“holy” people can’t believe to be in the Bible. But the references are
there! And it only gets “worse!” (?)
The sexual closeness of the couple has excited the woman and
she says: “While the king was at his couch, my spikenard gave forth its
smell,” (1:12). This refers to the custom of perfuming her sexual
parts. Her rising body heat caused the smell of her perfume,
mingled with her natural sexual musk, to fill the air.
“How handsome you are my beloved, and how luxurious is our
couch,” (1:16) is an unabashed reference to her delight in looking at
him and delighting in the place where they make love. He asks to
“see your form…for your form is lovely,” (2:14). He wants to look at
her body because she had a great figure! That he asks to look at her
83
naked body becomes apparent as we continue reading through the
book, noting the many description of her body, from head to toe.
There is an abundance of highly sexual images in this poem,
even though veiled from the modern reader. The translators
evidently could not bring themselves to actually translate many of
these words literally and demurred from literal translation in other
places because of the figurative references to explicit sex practices.
Adam Clarke, a highly esteemed and respected, conservative
commentator, wrote:
“There are many passages in it which should not be
explained…the references being too delicate; and Eastern
phraseology on such subjects is too vivid…Let any sensible and
pious medical man read over this book, and if at all acquainted
with Asiatic phraseology, say whether it would be proper, even
in medical language, to explain all the descriptions and
allusions in this poem.” (Clarke’s Commentary).
The questions we just must ask about such a statement, is: “Did
God intend that His people read this book, and understand it? And
did God realize that His language was too crude and indelicate to
be translated into language that the common person could
understand?”
If God caused it to be written, He intended it to be
understood, and if God inspired the language of this book, then our
assumption must be that this inspired language is appropriate.
Surely such statements as the above reflect more upon Mr. Clarke’s
faulty sense of propriety than it does upon the book itself. And surely
such attitudes impugn the spirituality and holiness of the God who
inspired this book.
If there is anything wrong with the language in
the Song of Solomon then there is fault with God, for He should
have known better than to use such language! How insane it is for
humans to think they have reached such a state of superior
morality, that they can correct God and overtly label anything He
does or says as “improper.”
Perhaps we humans actually
understand sex better than the God who created it! Perhaps God
should now condescend to adopt our moral standards, rather than
we adopting His! Perhaps God should have consulted such
superior intellects as Mr. Clarke’s before He wrote this erotic poem.
Surely Mr. Clarke would have been glad to guide God into a choice
84
of language that would have been “acceptable” to the human
reader! Surely we can think better than this.
The imagery in this book may be meant to be an allegory of
something else, but it is definitely sexual imagery, and is used in
other places in the Bible. “Fruitful” is elsewhere a reference to
sexual reproduction (Gen. 1:28), and “fruit of the womb” refers to
offspring, (Gen. 30:2).
Semen is called “seed” in Lev. 15:16. Today
we say a man “sows his wild oats”; a virgin has a “cherry”; testicles
are “nuts,” etc. Exactly the same sort of sexually euphemistic
imagery is used throughout the Song of Solomon.
One of the fruits that represented sexual activity in Israel was
the pomegranate. Because of its many seeds it has been a symbol of
fertility from the most ancient times.
In Mythology, the mother of
Attis conceived him by putting a pomegranate between her breasts.
A fertility deity that Naaman worshipped was called “Rimmon,” (2
Kg. 5:18), the same word that is translated “pomegranate” in Song of
Solomon (Strong’s # 7416, 7417).
So when the woman says “I would cause you to drink the spiced
wine of my pomegranate,” (8:2) she is not offering him a juice drink!
She is offering him her fertility, her sexual love. Some believe she is
asking for oral sex! But sex indeed is what she is after, for the next
line (8:3) shows that the couple is reclining, and his left hand
should be under her head while his right hand “embraces” her. It is
in this position that she tells him to drink of the juice of her
pomegranate. As Adam Clarke says above, those who are “at all
acquainted with Asiatic phraseology” can see the erotic reference
here.
“The fig tree puts forth her green figs…arise my love, and come
away.” (2:13) “Figs were used from early times as symbols of sexual
fertility. The word “fig” signified “vagina” in several
Mediterranean languages, and one only needed to split open a
purple fig to see why.” (Kevin Aaron, Journey From Eden, p. 196).
The obscene gesture of “giving the finger” by which the male penis
and testicles are manually represented, is also called “making the
fig.”
“Mandrakes” (7:13) also are figurative of sexual fertility. They
are called “love apples”, and the Arabs refer to them as “the Devil’s
testicles.” The mandrake root itself resembles a man’s sex organs.
Many cultures believed that mandrakes were an aphrodisiac; they
were thought to arouse sexual desire. This is the explanation
85
behind Rachel’s attempt to bargain with Leah for her mandrakes in
exchange for the sexual favors of Jacob, (Gen. 30:14-16).
“Pomegranates,” “figs,” “apples,” “grapes,” “mandrakes,” all to
be enjoyed “in the garden” – all these are erotic images, used over
and over in this poem, as now the woman and then the man use
these fruits to refer to their persistent passion for sexual love. All
this comes to a focus when we read that the young woman is herself
a “garden,” and she invites her male lover to “come into his garden
and eat its choice fruits!” (4:12-16).
For a parallel in Eastern poetry, read these lines from a
Palestinian poem:
“Your breast, O You, is like a pomegranate fruit,
And your eyes have captured us, by God and by the
Merciful One.
Your cheek shines as it were a damascene apple;
How sweet to pluck it in the morning and to open the
garden.” (The Anchor Bible)
An Egyptian poem has this similar line:
“I entered your garden and plucked your pomegranates…”
(The Anchor Bible)
Now if we were trying to explain the meaning of these lines,
(4:12-16), how would we go about it? Would you not have to
comment that the woman’s body, specifically her vagina, is the
“garden,” and that her invitation to her lover to “come into your
garden” and “eat its fruit,” is an invitation to enter her vagina and
make love to her. And wouldn’t you also need to mention that the
probability is also extremely high that oral lovemaking was a part
of this invitation?
The erotic power of this woman’s invitation arises from the fact
that this man’s “garden” (her body) smells delightfully of myrrh,
aloes, cinnamon and frankincense (4:13, 14). These spices were
much in use in those days, to perfume the sexual organs, and
provide a sensual aroma for the love bed. Prov. 7:18,19 reads: “I
have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take
our fill of love until the morning.” The Song of Solomon has the man
describing her beauty, specifically her breasts, then saying “Until
the day breaks, and the shadows flee away, I will get me up to the
86
mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of incense.” (4:5, 6). He is not talking
about a midnight hiking trip into the mountains! He is going up to
the “mountain” and the “hill” of her pubic area!
This woman is a “garden enclosed,” but she will open to her
lover. She invites him into his garden – her body – to eat her fruits,
and drink the water of her love (4:12-16). The Interpreter’s Bible says
this: “In Oriental imagery the wife is described in terms of a
fountain, and sexual enjoyment in terms of drinking water.” This
same symbolism is used in Prov. 5:15-20: “Drink water from your
own cistern…Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of
your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts
satisfy (margin: “water”) you at all times; and be ravished always with
her love.” Eating and drinking are euphemisms for sexual activity as
are the “hind and doe,” images that repeatedly appear in Song of
Solomon.
After inviting him into her garden, the man responds as he says,
“I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my
myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have
drunk my wine with my milk,” (5:1). He has enjoyed all the delights
of her body. God evidently sees sex as a pleasant appetite to be
filled, not as something dirty and disgusting to be endured only
when it is necessary!
A marriage poem from Sumeria uses this same imagery, as the
bride speaks to the groom, enticing him with an erotic description
of her charms:
“My god, sweet is the drink of the wine-maid,
Like her drink, sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Like her lips sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Sweet is her mixed drink, her drink.” (The Anchor Bible)
In such lines as these, the references to oral lovemaking cannot
be missed. In both this Sumerian poem and in the Song of Solomon,
the delights of sexual love most obviously involve enjoying the
entirety of the partner’s body, and “eating” and “drinking” sexual
enjoyment until each lover is full. Objections to oral sex are imposed
upon people in spite of the Bible’s teaching. Such objections do not
come from the Bible.
Another scene depicts the male lover in this Song, as feeding
among the lilies (2:16,17); “My beloved is mine and I am his: he feedeth
among the lilies. Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my
beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart upon the mountain of Bether.”
87
The roe and the hart were known for their beauty and
sensuality. The reference in this case to the all night “feeding”
among the lilies, is an erotic reference to love making. From ancient
times, in many cultures the lily or lotus has been used as a symbol
for sexual activity. The term “lotus licking,” is just another way of
saying cunnilingus. Lilies are used in reference to the mons veneris.
The Anchor Bible says that feeding among the lilies on the “mountain
of Bether,” refers to the “mountain of division,” referring
transparently to the divided vulva. Because women perfumed the
“mountain” of their “division,” or vulva, Moffatt’s Translation
translates this line this way: “Play like a roe or hart on my perfumed
slopes.” References to the male lover “feeding among the dark lilies”
located at the “divided mountain,” virtually demand that we
understand this to be a reference to oral sex. And such a reference,
in this context, means God recommends such delightful activity for
the enjoyment of His children. We suspect these references are
among those phrases that Adam Clarke felt should not even be
explained by a doctor using medical language! In other words, even
if God Himself refers to oral sexual activity, we should not read it that
way, should not approve of it, and should never teach it to others.
This means that, even if God said it, it is wrong!
In another scene, (2:3,4), the man is likened to an apple tree,
beneath which the woman sits with great delight. “As the apple tree
among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down
under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
He brought me to the banqueting table, and his banner over me was love.”
The meaning of these phrases may be a general reference to love
making, but they can also clearly be taken as a reference to fellatio,
as she sits “under his shade” or between his legs, and pleasures him
with her mouth. The Anchor Bible says “one could hardly miss the
sexual sense of the metaphor.” The “meal” these lovers are eating
in the “banqueting house” is not physical food, but sexual love.
And “the banner of love” he spreads over her, is not a tapestry he
hung on the wall!
Having compared the man to an apple tree, the Song now says
the woman is a palm tree, which the man intends to climb! (7:6-9).
“How beautiful and how delightful you are my love, with all your charms!
Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I
said, I will go climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks: O may
88
your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath
like apples.”
This man is going to delight himself in the sight and feel of his
lover’s breasts. As one would pick the fruit from the branches he
sees her breasts as the fruit he will pick: they will be as clusters of
the vine, ready to pick and eat. When she asks him to “sustain me
with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick,” (2:5),
she is asking him to delight in her body.
The Song refers to a woman’s breasts as “clusters of grapes”
hanging down, sweet to taste, delightful to behold and delightful to
touch. He mentioned one woman who had breasts like “towers”
and expressed concern that his little sister’s breasts had not yet
developed, (7:8; 8:8-10). The woman says “A bundle of myrrh is my
well beloved to me; he shall lie all night between my breasts.” (1:13).
God is obviously not embarrassed by a woman’s breasts. He
created woman’s breasts as much to be sexual objects as for nursing
children. For a man to delight in a woman’s breasts is pure and
natural. And the desire to “eat” the nipples as he would eat grapes
is not only normal, it is recognized by God as part of the very reason
He made women’s breasts as He did, and made them a delight to men.
In other words, the reason men like women’s breasts is because God
made women’s breasts for men to enjoy.
There are more such references to sexual love making, and the
pure delight of a man and woman looking at each other’s naked
bodies, and describing them in the most explicit fashion. Such
forthright sexuality in the Bible has been a real stumbling block for
humans. This book has been the source of more controversy than
any other Biblical book – only because of its sexual language. The
Song refers to the human body, sexual organs, and love making in
all its forms, as beautiful, wholesome and erotically satisfying. The
body is not something that must be covered. It is not “nasty” to
talk about the human body nor to delight in its naked, sexual
beauty. Rejoicing in sexual activity is not something only
“perverts” do. Enjoying the act of sex for the pure pleasure of it is
good, healthy, and blessed by God. This book stands forever as
God’s personal commendation of human sexuality as something
good and delightful for His children. What is “perverted” is the
opposite attitude, that sees human nakedness and sexual activity as
inherently “unclean” or “unholy,” and something that all truly
spiritual people avoid talking about or thinking about.
89
Consider this scene: “Come back, come back O Shulammite; come
back that we might gaze at you! Why should you gaze at the Shulammite,
as at the dance of Mahanaim,” (6:13).
In 7:1-6, the girl is wearing nothing but shoes, for the boy’s
description of her whole body moves from feet to head. Admiring
her “navel” refers to her vulva, according to Interpreter’s Bible. In
the context, the girl is dancing, (thus the shoes) and the people call
to her to “come back” or as we would say “encore!” so they can
continue to look at her naked body. As the girl dances the “dance of
Mahanaim,” she is evidently either totally naked, or covered only by
a sheer, see-through garment, for the lover sees her whole body,
and describes it in detail, (7:1-9). Not only he, but also a number of
onlookers watch this nude dance, and he teases them by asking
“why are you looking at the Shulammite while she dances?” He knows
that they look for the same reason he looks. This girl is
exceptionally beautiful and her figure is “lovely.” They are looking
with great admiration upon this naked girl. As she finishes her
dance they beg her to return so that they can continue to look at
her. The Interpreter’s Bible commentary says this was some special
dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary
says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture
through which the details of her body and breasts could be seen,
“according to the mode of dancing in the East.” (Journey From Eden, p.
49). Such nude dances as these were common place in that culture.
Adam Clark thinks she wore “transparent garments,” which would
allow her body to be viewed. The girl was dancing in such fashion
that her breasts were visible and described as a perfectly matching
pair, “two young roes that are twins.” As she danced, her breasts
bounced like young roes jumping on the hill. This girl had breasts
like “towers” – large, firm breasts – and this was a major factor that
caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).
God designed the male body and the female body specifically and
intentionally to be sexually attractive to each other. There is such an
openness in this book in describing the body and the act of love
making, and such a delight in the whole process that we humans
surely should take thought about the legitimacy of our attitudes
toward these things. If God speaks this way about nakedness and
sexuality why is it wrong for us to do so? If God sees all this as
beautiful, clean, desirable and even “holy,” how can we view it as
dirty and needing to be kept in the closet?
90
This erotic poem also represents the girl as being equally
unabashed about enjoying the sight of her naked lover. No
blushing rose here! In 5:11-15, the woman describes with obvious
delight, the man’s naked body from head to toe, including
euphemistic references to his penis (“belly”). Strong’s #4578 says
mayaw refers to “the abdomen…by extension the stomach, the
uterus ( or of men, the seat of generation…)” or as one translator
wrote, “His rod is arrogant ivory,” indicating that she marvels at
his erect penis. She likes to look at his body, he likes to look at her
body, and as the preceding paragraphs show, others like to look at
both of them too. Appreciation of the beauty and sexuality of the
human body is recognized here. Men and women looking at each
others bodies and loving the sight, is approved of in these
Scriptures.
Studying the Holy Spirit inspired language of this book forces
us to reconsider the validity of all our presumptions, opinions and
convictions about anything sexual. We can see from the foregoing
study that there is nothing about the body and its sexual organs, or
using those organs for their created purpose, that is dirty enough or
“unseemly” enough for God to hesitate to write a book about if for
all the world to read and understand. If The Perfectly Holy God
Who created our bodies and sexual apparatus and made us such
that our most powerful passion is sexual passion, sees sex as we
read about it in this book, then we must admit that this attitude is
the right attitude. God’s attitude toward sex is the perfect attitude
toward sex. If God brings sex out of the closet for all the world to
see, then we must resist every urge to stuff it back in there.
Nothing in all the Bible suggests to us that we should not talk
about sex with one another, even using the real words for all the
parts of the body. We have created euphemisms for sexual love and
sexual organs because we have a sense of shame and impropriety
about these things and just can’t bring ourselves to talk about them
without “covering” our language. Thus instead of saying penis we
say pecker, rod, dick, tool, etc. When we must refer to a woman’s
vulva, we say pussy, cunt, pet, door, etc. etc. If we refer to
masturbation we have to say things like spank the dog, beat the
meat, pump the handle, etc. Why? Since the Creator of all things
sexual does not show embarrassment about sex, why do we?
Our attitudes have not been derived from the Bible. We
assume the Bible avoids sex and treats it as basically dirty. The truth
91
is that the Bible regards sex highly and counts it as one of the
greatest blessings humans can enjoy. If not for our jaundiced views
of sex and the human body we would be free to fully and openly
enjoy sex. If we were not ashamed of our bodies we would not feel
compelled to hide from the view of all others. All of our foolish
opinions about these issues come from church leaders who cannot
trust people to read their Bibles and draw correct impressions from
it about sexual matters. They have taken the practical position that
God did not sufficiently reveal to humans all the rules and
regulations we need in order to truly control sex. We believe we
must be more sensitive and secretive about sex than God is. We
think we know better than to use the same “crude” language of sex
that God used here.
The modern church has tried its best to help God out since
apparently, in many minds, He did not do an adequate job of
defining decency. Modern religious people are offended at the
suggestion that God would actually inspire such a book as Song of
Solomon. Yet the fact remains that this book is part of the inspired,
eternal Word. Any suggestion that its language and sexual
references are crude, unacceptable for decent society, vulgar, etc, is
an accusation against God’s Personal Holiness, Purity and
Righteousness. On the other hand, if we can accept that this book is
inspired by God Himself and that its sexual content is not
shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to God’s character,
then we are in a position to be able to understand God’s true
attitude toward sex. God made sex. God made sex enjoyable. God
made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look at. God also
created men and women such that we experience automatic sexual
reaction to the naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it
is all in harmony with His essentially Holy nature. There is no dirt
connected with sex or human nakedness. All dirt exists in human
minds.
We do not defend vulgarity or disregard for public morals. We
do however, defend Biblical morality, and the Biblical manner of
referring to and thinking about sex. Our deeply rooted, underlying
assumption that sex is basically dirty, is the reason we cannot see sex
as Scripture actually presents it. If we can get over this one hump
we are well on the way to developing a healthy, Biblical view of
sex. May that day hasten for as many individuals as are able to look
at God’s Word objectively and escape their sexual prisons.
92
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=SONG_OF_SOLOMON_From_Book_Divine_Sex
81
CHAPTER FOUR
GOD’S EROTIC POETRY –
Nowhere in the Bible do we find a clearer illustration of God’s
attitude toward sex and the human body, than in the Song of
Solomon.
Few people understand the graphically erotic nature of
this love poem. Its explicit yet unashamed eroticism has been the
cause of problems for commentators even before NT times.
Spiros Zodhiates says this about the book, “Because of its explicitly erotic
character, ancient Jews and Christians alike rejected its literal
interpretation and allegorized it…
The early Christian inability to
deal with this book at the literal level was influenced more by the
Greek philosophy of the time than by the Bible itself…The erotic
nature of the book was probably a source of embarrassment, but
these legal God-ordained gaieties should not be shunned, only properly
understood…” (Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible, introduction to Song of
Solomon emph. mine, D.C.).
Other commentators are likewise
straightforward in labeling this book as erotic poetry.
The issue of whether the book is to be interpreted literally or
allegorically is irrelative. That God used erotic language in either
case, says something about God that we must consider carefully.
If the language God uses in this book is unfitting to be used in a literal
sense how can we possibly argue that it is good to use it in an
allegorical sense? If the allegory is appropriate, then so is the
language in which the allegory is framed.
Sex and sexual language,
in this case very explicit sexual language, cannot be inherently nasty
and still be used as an allegory for Christ and the Church. The
human body cannot be considered shameful and yet be used as an
allegory of Christ’s delight in His Bride, the church. It cannot be
vulgar to describe the sexual body parts of the opposite sex, and at
the same time good to use such descriptions to allegorize Christ’s
love for His Bride. Like it or not we have here a book in which God,
through the Holy Spirit, uses the most explicit sex language some
people will ever hear. The language God uses here and the sexual
situations He describes, cannot be thought of in any other way than
that God delights in and approves of what He is writing about. In
doing so, God reveals more about His attitude toward sex, the
naked human body, and the beauty and sexual eroticism involved
in looking at another’s sexual organs, than most church leaders and
82
most Christians can handle. Most of them will not accept the literal
references of this book. In his commentary on the Song of Solomon,
Adam Clarke overtly condemns much of it as being too sexually
graphic for even true translation. Some have even decided that the
book should not even be accepted as Divinely inspired, on the sole
basis of its erotic language.
So here we have a book, inspired by God, that deals intentionally
and positively with all aspects of sexuality, without shame or
apology. This is truly erotic poetry. It was inspired by God. What is
recorded in this little book stands as God’s testimony to sexual
experience and the beauty of the human body. Let’s look at what is
there.
A woman asks for the kisses of her lover, “Let him kiss me with
the kisses of his mouth,” (1:2). Later, she says, “his mouth is full of
sweetness,” (5:16), and he says, “her mouth is like the best wine,” (7:9).
In both these last two cases the same Hebrew word for “mouth” is used (Strong’s #2441). It means the inside of the mouth. The
marginal note says it literally means “palate.” She is asking for, and they enjoy, deep mouth kissing. The Anchor Bible,
commenting on these verses, says these verses were “explicit references to kisses…including amative oral activities,” (i.e. oral sex).
That is, not only the lips, but also the tongues were involved, and not only the mouth, but other parts of the body were involved, including kissing the genitals.
The Jerusalem Bible also implies that the kissing
was all over the body: “Your lips cover me with kisses.” So right at the
start of this poem, we have references to an activity that most
“holy” people can’t believe to be in the Bible. But the references are
there! And it only gets “worse!” (?)
The sexual closeness of the couple has excited the woman and
she says: “While the king was at his couch, my spikenard gave forth its
smell,” (1:12). This refers to the custom of perfuming her sexual
parts. Her rising body heat caused the smell of her perfume,
mingled with her natural sexual musk, to fill the air.
“How handsome you are my beloved, and how luxurious is our
couch,” (1:16) is an unabashed reference to her delight in looking at
him and delighting in the place where they make love. He asks to
“see your form…for your form is lovely,” (2:14). He wants to look at
her body because she had a great figure! That he asks to look at her
83
naked body becomes apparent as we continue reading through the
book, noting the many description of her body, from head to toe.
There is an abundance of highly sexual images in this poem,
even though veiled from the modern reader. The translators
evidently could not bring themselves to actually translate many of
these words literally and demurred from literal translation in other
places because of the figurative references to explicit sex practices.
Adam Clarke, a highly esteemed and respected, conservative
commentator, wrote:
“There are many passages in it which should not be
explained…the references being too delicate; and Eastern
phraseology on such subjects is too vivid…Let any sensible and
pious medical man read over this book, and if at all acquainted
with Asiatic phraseology, say whether it would be proper, even
in medical language, to explain all the descriptions and
allusions in this poem.” (Clarke’s Commentary).
The questions we just must ask about such a statement, is: “Did
God intend that His people read this book, and understand it? And
did God realize that His language was too crude and indelicate to
be translated into language that the common person could
understand?”
If God caused it to be written, He intended it to be
understood, and if God inspired the language of this book, then our
assumption must be that this inspired language is appropriate.
Surely such statements as the above reflect more upon Mr. Clarke’s
faulty sense of propriety than it does upon the book itself. And surely
such attitudes impugn the spirituality and holiness of the God who
inspired this book.
If there is anything wrong with the language in
the Song of Solomon then there is fault with God, for He should
have known better than to use such language! How insane it is for
humans to think they have reached such a state of superior
morality, that they can correct God and overtly label anything He
does or says as “improper.”
Perhaps we humans actually
understand sex better than the God who created it! Perhaps God
should now condescend to adopt our moral standards, rather than
we adopting His! Perhaps God should have consulted such
superior intellects as Mr. Clarke’s before He wrote this erotic poem.
Surely Mr. Clarke would have been glad to guide God into a choice
84
of language that would have been “acceptable” to the human
reader! Surely we can think better than this.
The imagery in this book may be meant to be an allegory of
something else, but it is definitely sexual imagery, and is used in
other places in the Bible. “Fruitful” is elsewhere a reference to
sexual reproduction (Gen. 1:28), and “fruit of the womb” refers to
offspring, (Gen. 30:2).
Semen is called “seed” in Lev. 15:16. Today
we say a man “sows his wild oats”; a virgin has a “cherry”; testicles
are “nuts,” etc. Exactly the same sort of sexually euphemistic
imagery is used throughout the Song of Solomon.
One of the fruits that represented sexual activity in Israel was
the pomegranate. Because of its many seeds it has been a symbol of
fertility from the most ancient times.
In Mythology, the mother of
Attis conceived him by putting a pomegranate between her breasts.
A fertility deity that Naaman worshipped was called “Rimmon,” (2
Kg. 5:18), the same word that is translated “pomegranate” in Song of
Solomon (Strong’s # 7416, 7417).
So when the woman says “I would cause you to drink the spiced
wine of my pomegranate,” (8:2) she is not offering him a juice drink!
She is offering him her fertility, her sexual love. Some believe she is
asking for oral sex! But sex indeed is what she is after, for the next
line (8:3) shows that the couple is reclining, and his left hand
should be under her head while his right hand “embraces” her. It is
in this position that she tells him to drink of the juice of her
pomegranate. As Adam Clarke says above, those who are “at all
acquainted with Asiatic phraseology” can see the erotic reference
here.
“The fig tree puts forth her green figs…arise my love, and come
away.” (2:13) “Figs were used from early times as symbols of sexual
fertility. The word “fig” signified “vagina” in several
Mediterranean languages, and one only needed to split open a
purple fig to see why.” (Kevin Aaron, Journey From Eden, p. 196).
The obscene gesture of “giving the finger” by which the male penis
and testicles are manually represented, is also called “making the
fig.”
“Mandrakes” (7:13) also are figurative of sexual fertility. They
are called “love apples”, and the Arabs refer to them as “the Devil’s
testicles.” The mandrake root itself resembles a man’s sex organs.
Many cultures believed that mandrakes were an aphrodisiac; they
were thought to arouse sexual desire. This is the explanation
85
behind Rachel’s attempt to bargain with Leah for her mandrakes in
exchange for the sexual favors of Jacob, (Gen. 30:14-16).
“Pomegranates,” “figs,” “apples,” “grapes,” “mandrakes,” all to
be enjoyed “in the garden” – all these are erotic images, used over
and over in this poem, as now the woman and then the man use
these fruits to refer to their persistent passion for sexual love. All
this comes to a focus when we read that the young woman is herself
a “garden,” and she invites her male lover to “come into his garden
and eat its choice fruits!” (4:12-16).
For a parallel in Eastern poetry, read these lines from a
Palestinian poem:
“Your breast, O You, is like a pomegranate fruit,
And your eyes have captured us, by God and by the
Merciful One.
Your cheek shines as it were a damascene apple;
How sweet to pluck it in the morning and to open the
garden.” (The Anchor Bible)
An Egyptian poem has this similar line:
“I entered your garden and plucked your pomegranates…”
(The Anchor Bible)
Now if we were trying to explain the meaning of these lines,
(4:12-16), how would we go about it? Would you not have to
comment that the woman’s body, specifically her vagina, is the
“garden,” and that her invitation to her lover to “come into your
garden” and “eat its fruit,” is an invitation to enter her vagina and
make love to her. And wouldn’t you also need to mention that the
probability is also extremely high that oral lovemaking was a part
of this invitation?
The erotic power of this woman’s invitation arises from the fact
that this man’s “garden” (her body) smells delightfully of myrrh,
aloes, cinnamon and frankincense (4:13, 14). These spices were
much in use in those days, to perfume the sexual organs, and
provide a sensual aroma for the love bed. Prov. 7:18,19 reads: “I
have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take
our fill of love until the morning.” The Song of Solomon has the man
describing her beauty, specifically her breasts, then saying “Until
the day breaks, and the shadows flee away, I will get me up to the
86
mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of incense.” (4:5, 6). He is not talking
about a midnight hiking trip into the mountains! He is going up to
the “mountain” and the “hill” of her pubic area!
This woman is a “garden enclosed,” but she will open to her
lover. She invites him into his garden – her body – to eat her fruits,
and drink the water of her love (4:12-16). The Interpreter’s Bible says
this: “In Oriental imagery the wife is described in terms of a
fountain, and sexual enjoyment in terms of drinking water.” This
same symbolism is used in Prov. 5:15-20: “Drink water from your
own cistern…Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of
your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts
satisfy (margin: “water”) you at all times; and be ravished always with
her love.” Eating and drinking are euphemisms for sexual activity as
are the “hind and doe,” images that repeatedly appear in Song of
Solomon.
After inviting him into her garden, the man responds as he says,
“I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my
myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have
drunk my wine with my milk,” (5:1). He has enjoyed all the delights
of her body. God evidently sees sex as a pleasant appetite to be
filled, not as something dirty and disgusting to be endured only
when it is necessary!
A marriage poem from Sumeria uses this same imagery, as the
bride speaks to the groom, enticing him with an erotic description
of her charms:
“My god, sweet is the drink of the wine-maid,
Like her drink, sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Like her lips sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Sweet is her mixed drink, her drink.” (The Anchor Bible)
In such lines as these, the references to oral lovemaking cannot
be missed. In both this Sumerian poem and in the Song of Solomon,
the delights of sexual love most obviously involve enjoying the
entirety of the partner’s body, and “eating” and “drinking” sexual
enjoyment until each lover is full. Objections to oral sex are imposed
upon people in spite of the Bible’s teaching. Such objections do not
come from the Bible.
Another scene depicts the male lover in this Song, as feeding
among the lilies (2:16,17); “My beloved is mine and I am his: he feedeth
among the lilies. Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my
beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart upon the mountain of Bether.”
87
The roe and the hart were known for their beauty and
sensuality. The reference in this case to the all night “feeding”
among the lilies, is an erotic reference to love making. From ancient
times, in many cultures the lily or lotus has been used as a symbol
for sexual activity. The term “lotus licking,” is just another way of
saying cunnilingus. Lilies are used in reference to the mons veneris.
The Anchor Bible says that feeding among the lilies on the “mountain
of Bether,” refers to the “mountain of division,” referring
transparently to the divided vulva. Because women perfumed the
“mountain” of their “division,” or vulva, Moffatt’s Translation
translates this line this way: “Play like a roe or hart on my perfumed
slopes.” References to the male lover “feeding among the dark lilies”
located at the “divided mountain,” virtually demand that we
understand this to be a reference to oral sex. And such a reference,
in this context, means God recommends such delightful activity for
the enjoyment of His children. We suspect these references are
among those phrases that Adam Clarke felt should not even be
explained by a doctor using medical language! In other words, even
if God Himself refers to oral sexual activity, we should not read it that
way, should not approve of it, and should never teach it to others.
This means that, even if God said it, it is wrong!
In another scene, (2:3,4), the man is likened to an apple tree,
beneath which the woman sits with great delight. “As the apple tree
among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down
under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
He brought me to the banqueting table, and his banner over me was love.”
The meaning of these phrases may be a general reference to love
making, but they can also clearly be taken as a reference to fellatio,
as she sits “under his shade” or between his legs, and pleasures him
with her mouth. The Anchor Bible says “one could hardly miss the
sexual sense of the metaphor.” The “meal” these lovers are eating
in the “banqueting house” is not physical food, but sexual love.
And “the banner of love” he spreads over her, is not a tapestry he
hung on the wall!
Having compared the man to an apple tree, the Song now says
the woman is a palm tree, which the man intends to climb! (7:6-9).
“How beautiful and how delightful you are my love, with all your charms!
Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I
said, I will go climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks: O may
88
your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath
like apples.”
This man is going to delight himself in the sight and feel of his
lover’s breasts. As one would pick the fruit from the branches he
sees her breasts as the fruit he will pick: they will be as clusters of
the vine, ready to pick and eat. When she asks him to “sustain me
with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick,” (2:5),
she is asking him to delight in her body.
The Song refers to a woman’s breasts as “clusters of grapes”
hanging down, sweet to taste, delightful to behold and delightful to
touch. He mentioned one woman who had breasts like “towers”
and expressed concern that his little sister’s breasts had not yet
developed, (7:8; 8:8-10). The woman says “A bundle of myrrh is my
well beloved to me; he shall lie all night between my breasts.” (1:13).
God is obviously not embarrassed by a woman’s breasts. He
created woman’s breasts as much to be sexual objects as for nursing
children. For a man to delight in a woman’s breasts is pure and
natural. And the desire to “eat” the nipples as he would eat grapes
is not only normal, it is recognized by God as part of the very reason
He made women’s breasts as He did, and made them a delight to men.
In other words, the reason men like women’s breasts is because God
made women’s breasts for men to enjoy.
There are more such references to sexual love making, and the
pure delight of a man and woman looking at each other’s naked
bodies, and describing them in the most explicit fashion. Such
forthright sexuality in the Bible has been a real stumbling block for
humans. This book has been the source of more controversy than
any other Biblical book – only because of its sexual language. The
Song refers to the human body, sexual organs, and love making in
all its forms, as beautiful, wholesome and erotically satisfying. The
body is not something that must be covered. It is not “nasty” to
talk about the human body nor to delight in its naked, sexual
beauty. Rejoicing in sexual activity is not something only
“perverts” do. Enjoying the act of sex for the pure pleasure of it is
good, healthy, and blessed by God. This book stands forever as
God’s personal commendation of human sexuality as something
good and delightful for His children. What is “perverted” is the
opposite attitude, that sees human nakedness and sexual activity as
inherently “unclean” or “unholy,” and something that all truly
spiritual people avoid talking about or thinking about.
89
Consider this scene: “Come back, come back O Shulammite; come
back that we might gaze at you! Why should you gaze at the Shulammite,
as at the dance of Mahanaim,” (6:13).
In 7:1-6, the girl is wearing nothing but shoes, for the boy’s
description of her whole body moves from feet to head. Admiring
her “navel” refers to her vulva, according to Interpreter’s Bible. In
the context, the girl is dancing, (thus the shoes) and the people call
to her to “come back” or as we would say “encore!” so they can
continue to look at her naked body. As the girl dances the “dance of
Mahanaim,” she is evidently either totally naked, or covered only by
a sheer, see-through garment, for the lover sees her whole body,
and describes it in detail, (7:1-9). Not only he, but also a number of
onlookers watch this nude dance, and he teases them by asking
“why are you looking at the Shulammite while she dances?” He knows
that they look for the same reason he looks. This girl is
exceptionally beautiful and her figure is “lovely.” They are looking
with great admiration upon this naked girl. As she finishes her
dance they beg her to return so that they can continue to look at
her. The Interpreter’s Bible commentary says this was some special
dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary
says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture
through which the details of her body and breasts could be seen,
“according to the mode of dancing in the East.” (Journey From Eden, p.
49). Such nude dances as these were common place in that culture.
Adam Clark thinks she wore “transparent garments,” which would
allow her body to be viewed. The girl was dancing in such fashion
that her breasts were visible and described as a perfectly matching
pair, “two young roes that are twins.” As she danced, her breasts
bounced like young roes jumping on the hill. This girl had breasts
like “towers” – large, firm breasts – and this was a major factor that
caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).
God designed the male body and the female body specifically and
intentionally to be sexually attractive to each other. There is such an
openness in this book in describing the body and the act of love
making, and such a delight in the whole process that we humans
surely should take thought about the legitimacy of our attitudes
toward these things. If God speaks this way about nakedness and
sexuality why is it wrong for us to do so? If God sees all this as
beautiful, clean, desirable and even “holy,” how can we view it as
dirty and needing to be kept in the closet?
90
This erotic poem also represents the girl as being equally
unabashed about enjoying the sight of her naked lover. No
blushing rose here! In 5:11-15, the woman describes with obvious
delight, the man’s naked body from head to toe, including
euphemistic references to his penis (“belly”). Strong’s #4578 says
mayaw refers to “the abdomen…by extension the stomach, the
uterus ( or of men, the seat of generation…)” or as one translator
wrote, “His rod is arrogant ivory,” indicating that she marvels at
his erect penis. She likes to look at his body, he likes to look at her
body, and as the preceding paragraphs show, others like to look at
both of them too. Appreciation of the beauty and sexuality of the
human body is recognized here. Men and women looking at each
others bodies and loving the sight, is approved of in these
Scriptures.
Studying the Holy Spirit inspired language of this book forces
us to reconsider the validity of all our presumptions, opinions and
convictions about anything sexual. We can see from the foregoing
study that there is nothing about the body and its sexual organs, or
using those organs for their created purpose, that is dirty enough or
“unseemly” enough for God to hesitate to write a book about if for
all the world to read and understand. If The Perfectly Holy God
Who created our bodies and sexual apparatus and made us such
that our most powerful passion is sexual passion, sees sex as we
read about it in this book, then we must admit that this attitude is
the right attitude. God’s attitude toward sex is the perfect attitude
toward sex. If God brings sex out of the closet for all the world to
see, then we must resist every urge to stuff it back in there.
Nothing in all the Bible suggests to us that we should not talk
about sex with one another, even using the real words for all the
parts of the body. We have created euphemisms for sexual love and
sexual organs because we have a sense of shame and impropriety
about these things and just can’t bring ourselves to talk about them
without “covering” our language. Thus instead of saying penis we
say pecker, rod, dick, tool, etc. When we must refer to a woman’s
vulva, we say pussy, cunt, pet, door, etc. etc. If we refer to
masturbation we have to say things like spank the dog, beat the
meat, pump the handle, etc. Why? Since the Creator of all things
sexual does not show embarrassment about sex, why do we?
Our attitudes have not been derived from the Bible. We
assume the Bible avoids sex and treats it as basically dirty. The truth
91
is that the Bible regards sex highly and counts it as one of the
greatest blessings humans can enjoy. If not for our jaundiced views
of sex and the human body we would be free to fully and openly
enjoy sex. If we were not ashamed of our bodies we would not feel
compelled to hide from the view of all others. All of our foolish
opinions about these issues come from church leaders who cannot
trust people to read their Bibles and draw correct impressions from
it about sexual matters. They have taken the practical position that
God did not sufficiently reveal to humans all the rules and
regulations we need in order to truly control sex. We believe we
must be more sensitive and secretive about sex than God is. We
think we know better than to use the same “crude” language of sex
that God used here.
The modern church has tried its best to help God out since
apparently, in many minds, He did not do an adequate job of
defining decency. Modern religious people are offended at the
suggestion that God would actually inspire such a book as Song of
Solomon. Yet the fact remains that this book is part of the inspired,
eternal Word. Any suggestion that its language and sexual
references are crude, unacceptable for decent society, vulgar, etc, is
an accusation against God’s Personal Holiness, Purity and
Righteousness. On the other hand, if we can accept that this book is
inspired by God Himself and that its sexual content is not
shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to God’s character,
then we are in a position to be able to understand God’s true
attitude toward sex. God made sex. God made sex enjoyable. God
made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look at. God also
created men and women such that we experience automatic sexual
reaction to the naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it
is all in harmony with His essentially Holy nature. There is no dirt
connected with sex or human nakedness. All dirt exists in human
minds.
We do not defend vulgarity or disregard for public morals. We
do however, defend Biblical morality, and the Biblical manner of
referring to and thinking about sex. Our deeply rooted, underlying
assumption that sex is basically dirty, is the reason we cannot see sex
as Scripture actually presents it. If we can get over this one hump
we are well on the way to developing a healthy, Biblical view of
sex. May that day hasten for as many individuals as are able to look
at God’s Word objectively and escape their sexual prisons.
92