Pet food, pornography, and the law

From The Briefing:

One lazy afternoon in 1999, travel writer Bill Bryson discovered a shop that sold pet supplies and pornography.1 It was at the far end of the main street of an unassuming Australian country town called Young.

The front of the shop contained rather mundane supplies of flea powder, fish flakes, and other pet accessories. But at the back of the shop, behind a small wooden gate, there was a whole section devoted to the sale of explicit pornographic material. Bryson was apparently baffled by the existence of such a bizarre establishment. But I think I can explain what it was doing there.

If memory serves me correctly, there was a period during which various local planning laws existed to get rid of the ‘adult’ industry in Australian towns. The lawmakers didn’t ban small stocks of pornography in shops that existed for other purposes (e.g. newsagents2). But they did try to make sure that all such stocks were strictly controlled. No shop was allowed to have pornography comprising more than a certain small percentage of its total stock. Therefore, no dedicated ‘adult’ stores could exist. The laws were designed to create a safe and wholesome town environment by ensuring that the sale of explicit material couldn’t become a business in its own right (remember, at this point the internet was still taking off).3

But what actually happened? Did the laws work as intended? Not quite. Instead, bizarre shops started to spring up, shops like the one Bryson encountered. The shops still had pornography as their real core business, but to get around the planning laws, the stores put up not-very-subtle ‘fronts’. A shop that advertised pet supplies out the front could ‘legitimately’ claim that it was not really an adult store, since its main purpose was something else. And since there were more individual packets of cheap flea powder and fish flakes on the shelves than there were magazines out the back, the stocks of pornography technically came under the legal limit. But everybody knew what the shops were really for. The laws, despite their good intentions, had failed.

This is a clear illustration of a problem that crops up whenever we try to use laws to make things better. These planning laws were good. They were worthy manifestations of our community’s desire to uphold marriage as the proper context for healthy sexual expression, and to limit the harm and exploitation that arises when this context is ignored. I’m glad the lawmakers did what they did. But the legislation couldn’t, by itself, get to the heart of the problem. The laws couldn’t make men love their families more. They couldn’t convince people that being a real ‘adult’ is about care and responsibility, not self-gratification. The letter of the law did nothing to make people love the spirit of the law. It just brought about grudging compliance and tragically comic workarounds that exploited loopholes. A good law doesn’t make people good.

This isn’t just a problem for Australian planning laws. In fact, the problem also crops up when we try to put God’s law at the centre of our lives. In Romans 2:17-24, the apostle Paul has a debate about this very issue. Paul and his debating partner were Jews. This means they were law-people, and glad of it. The God of the entire world had especially revealed himself to Israel through the law of Moses. Jews had a fantastic privilege: they knew God’s will in the law. They knew what was good and right and proper, because the Creator himself had told them all about it. Jews were also equipped to teach other people all about this great revelation of God’s will. But Paul insists that God’s law-revelation has a fundamental problem. It’s not that the law is bad; actually, the law is great. But the problem is that the law won’t change the heart. God’s good law doesn’t make God’s people good. In fact, as Paul goes on to show in Romans 3, the law does something else entirely. In the end, the law makes our sin and hypocrisy crystal clear. It silences every mouth, and holds us accountable to God (Rom 3:19-20). The law doesn’t save us. Instead, it shows up our failure, and points to something greater: the forgiveness and transformation that we find in Jesus Christ, through the word of the gospel and the Spirit of God.

A heart that relies on the law to find salvation before God is a bit like that store at the end of the main street in Young. It might look respectable and well-ordered. It might seem quite attractive to a casual passer-by. It might have a plentiful stock of law-compliant good deeds on the shelves. And yet there are those sealed sections, the bits at the back. At one level, these sealed sections might seem small or insignificant compared to the much more obvious good deeds that can be pointed to as examples of that heart’s own inherent goodness. But in fact, it is these back sections that truly show up the heart’s real orientation. And if we admit it, there’s a bit of that hypocrisy in all of us, isn’t there?

Simply knowing God’s character and will, even his character and will as expressed in the pages of the Bible itself, will not solve our biggest problem. If we want actual forgiveness, salvation, and transformation, we need something far more radical and powerful than God’s law. We need God himself to forgive us. We need the cross of Christ. And we need God to change our hearts, imperfectly now, and soon our whole heart, soul, and strength perfectly on that last day.

1 Bill Bryson, Down Under, Black Swan, London, 2001, pp. 109-110.

2 Newsstands to American readers.

3 I’m relying on my memory of news reports. I’ve tried hard, but haven’t been able to track down the laws that were in effect twelve years ago.

Comments at The Briefing.
3rd September, 2011 | Category: Ethics, Faith, Justification, Ministry, Paul, Sanctification, Sexuality, The Briefing |

Women Preaching to Mixed Adult Congregations: A detailed reading of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in reply to John Stott’s position

The issue of women preaching to mixed adult congregations is one that has caused a lot of consternation in ‘evangelical circles’ in recent times. There is a common argument that women should preach to mixed adult congregations that proceeds along the following lines:

  1. Different scholars and respected authorities disagree on the interpretation of the relevant Bible passages (especially 1 Timothy 2:8-15)
  2. Therefore the Bible is unclear on the issue
  3. However, there are a lot of women preaching to mixed adult congregations. Not many people are bothered by this, the outside world thinks it’s a good idea, and we should be egalitarian.
  4. In the absence of any clear biblical mandate, we should go with what works.
  5. Therefore, women should preach to mixed adult congregations

John Stott can be cited as a very well-respected scholar who has added to the different ‘interpretations’ of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. I want to argue that, despite the many great things that Stott has contributed to evangelical scholarship and understanding, his explanation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not in line with what the text actually says. I suspect this is true of a lot of ‘interpretations’ of this and other passages; and therefore that the Bible is a lot clearer than many people want to make out.

Before I begin, I’d better state my background. I have experienced much excellent and edifying gospel ministry from women. I became a Christian through a woman Scripture teacher, I am constantly amazed at the godly example and Scriptural insight of both my wife and my mother, and I have worked alongside and learned from many fabulous full-time Christian workers who are women. Their Christian ministry and biblical modelling and encouragement has been a tremendous help to me. Therefore, I don’t actually see a need for women to preach to mixed adult congregations, because there’s so much of a need for them to be getting on with other, equally important, gospel ministries, including preaching to women. So what appears to me to be the ‘plain meaning’ of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 doesn’t bother me all that much and I don’t feel the need to look for alternative interpretations. Please be aware of my background as you read this; and I also urge you to be aware of the background and motivations of any other writer who writes on this (and any other) biblical issue.

John Stott’s position on 1 Timothy 2:8-15

This is a summary of Stott’s argument in: Stott, John R. W. The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: IVP, 1996.

On pages 73-78, Stott argues for the mediating position (between literalism and liberalism) of ‘cultural transposition’. This means that one must distinguish between essential, changeless revelation and changeable, cultural expression. Then one must ‘transpose’ the changeless revelation into our own cultural expression.

On page 78 he states (non-controversially) that both verse 8 and verses 9-10 contain easily distinguishable elements of essential revelation and cultural expression.

Then, on page 79, he states (more controversially!) that we should apply the same principle to verses 11-15:

  • ‘Submission’ is unchangeable revelation (cf 1 Cor 11:2ff),
    • expressed in that culture by ‘silence’
  • ‘Not exercising authority’ is unchangeable revelation,
    • expressed in that culture by ‘not teaching’

Page 79: ‘Some readers will doubtless respond that there is no indication of this distinction in the text itself. For verses 11 and 12 contain just two prohibitions (teaching and having authority) and two commands (silence and submission). This is true. But the same could be said about verses 8 and 9. There is nothing in the text of verse 8 which requires us to distinguish between the commands to lift up holy hands and to be rid of anger and argument. Nor is there anything in the text of verse 9 which requires us to distinguish between the commands to women to dress modestly and to avoid hair – plaiting and jewellery. Yet a Christian mind, schooled in the perspectives and presuppositions of the New Testament, knows that its ethical commands and their cultural expressions are not equally normative and must therefore be distinguished.’

Page 80: ‘May not the requirement of silence, like the requirement of veils, have been a first – century cultural symbol of masculine headship, which is not necessarily appropriate today? For silence is not an essential ingredient of submission; submission is expressed in different ways in different cultures. Similarly women teaching men does not necessarily symbolize taking authority over them.’ Examples of women teaching men, according to Stott, include prophesying (1 Cor 11:5, Acts 2:17 , 21:9) and Priscilla teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26 ).

On pages 80-81 he explains (quite persuasively) that the theological explanation from the creation narrative relates directly to the issue of submission.

On page 81 Stott states the conclusion for our time: ‘If then a woman teaches others, including men, under the authority of Scripture (not claiming any authority of her own), in a meek and quiet spirit (not throwing her weight about), and as a member of a pastoral team whose leader is a man (as a contemporary cultural symbol of masculine headship), would it not be legitimate for her to exercise such a ministry, and be commissioned (ordained) to do so, because she would not be infringing the biblical principle of masculine headship?’

A criticism of John Stott’s position

Stott’s argument is:

  1. We need to distinguish ethical commands and changeable cultural expression
  2. There is no indication in the text how we might make such a distinction
  3. Therefore we have to use common sense and general Bible knowledge to do this
  4. Then we can work out how to make the ethical commands work in our own cultural expression

I will tackle point 2 first (exegetically, i.e. from the text itself) and then point 3 (theologically, i.e. from general biblical principles)

Exegesis (from the text)

I have drawn a detailed structure and syntactical diagram of the text, below.

From this analysis, there are very good reasons in verses 8 and verses 9-10 to distinguish between changeless commands and particular cultural expressions. Namely,

  • the commands themselves are infinitival objects of the main verb: ‘I wish … men to pray … women to adorn.’,
  • while the ‘cultural expressions’ are dependent participial or prepositional phrases that follow the command: ‘raising devout hands’, ‘without anger or disputing’ (which appears to have been a particular problem for that time, as it is in our time!), ‘not by braided hair …’.
  • Those expressions which Paul sees as transcending culture are either placed before the command for emphasis (e.g. ‘in appropriate apparel’) or preceded by a universalising statement (‘as is fitting for women who profess piety, through good works’).

None of these arguments applies to verses 11-12! The infinitives (which in verses 8-10 were top-level commands) are

  • ‘to teach’ (prohibited), and
  • ‘to give orders to’ (prohibited) – i.e. exercise authority in the context of word-based teaching,
  • ‘to be in quietness’.

Theology (from general biblical principles)

  • Stott claims that ‘silence’ and ‘not teaching’ was simply a cultural expression of man-woman order just like the wearing of a veil in 1 Corinthians 11.
    • Yet theologically, those who believe in Sola Scriptura (including Stott himself, in his book I Believe in Preaching) believe that teaching is more than a cultural symbol; it is an activity right at the heart of Christian fellowship; a proper extension of the authority of the God who speaks and brings creation into being, the God who speaks and brings the dead to life in salvation.
    • Teaching God’s word implicitly carries authority with it.
    • This is strengthened by the Old Testament context of verses 12-15 (Genesis 3). The issue is God’s word and teaching; the woman is ‘deceived’ into doubting, distorting and contradicting God’s word.
  • Clearly, there are ways of speaking and edifying others in a non-authoritative way.
    • Prophesying is an activity that involves the whole congregation weighing what is said (1 Corinthians 11-14).
    • Priscilla privately exegeted the gospel (Acts 18:26), the word ‘teach’ is not used, and it was not public.
  • But this is not ‘teaching’, and it is never called such.

How should we apply this passage?

Women are not to teach adult males, in the sense of preaching the word of God and exhorting the congregation. This is not a cultural expression of biblical reality, it is biblical reality.

‘Teaching’ does not become something else when a cultural ‘symbol’, like a male congregational leadership structure, is added. Such symbols, rather, are more appropriate when other speaking activities are taking place in the congregation (1 Corinthians 11), such as sharing wise observations about life, reporting aspects of congregational life, etc. It is highly questionable whether a male congregational leadership structure is a ‘symbol’ like a veil anyway, since it is not visible at the time when teaching is taking place.

Detailed structure of the text

This is based on the basic syntactical structure of the Greek clauses and phrases.

Overview

  • 8-10 Paul’s 2 wishes
    • 8 For men: pray (in a certain manner)
    • 9-10 For women: adorn (in a certain manner)
  • 11 A command for women
    • Learn (in a certain manner)
  • 12 Paul’s 2 prohibitions (+ alternative) for women
    • To teach
    • To give orders to a man
    • (Alternative: to be in quietness)
  • 13-15 Explanation: from creation and salvation.

Details

Syntax-based English translation Grammar and Comment
So I wish Top - level indicative: Paul’s desire
[for] the men in every place to pray Paul’s Desire #1: infinitive
raising devout hands Manner of prayer #1: participle
without anger or disputing Manner of prayer #2: prepositional phrase
Likewise
[for] women
in appropriate apparel Content of adornment: prepositional phrase
with modesty and good judgment Manner of adornment: prepositional phrase
to adorn themselves Paul’s Desire #2: infinitive
not
by braided hair and gold or pearls or costly clothes Prohibited means of adornment: prepositional phrase
but
(as is fitting for women who profess piety) (Explanatory comment: relative clause)
through good works Commanded means of adornment: prepositional phrase
[As for] a woman,
in quietness Manner of learning #1: prepositional phrase
Let her learn Top - level imperative: command
in all subordination Manner of learning #2: prepositional phrase
But to teach Prohibition #1: infinitive
a woman (object in dative)
I do not permit Top level indicative: prohibition
Nor
to give orders to a man Prohibition #2: infinitive
But
[rather] to be in quietness Alternative to prohibition: infinitive
For Adam was first formed, then Eve Explanation: a series of indicatives
and
Adam was not deceived
but the woman became deceived in transgression
But she will be saved through [the] childbearing,
If they remain in faith and love and holiness with good judgment.
1st January, 2005 | Category: 1 Timothy, Church, Ministry, Sexuality |

Desire: reconnected (Song of Songs 7-8)

A Sermon on Song of Songs 7-8

Lionel Windsor, 18 July 2004

Desire … disconnected

We seem to live in a world where sexual desire is everywhere, but means almost nothing. Turn on the TV, and you’ll soon find sexual desire in the ads, in the movies, on the sitcoms. Take a drive, and there it is displayed on the billboards. Open a newspaper, and you’ll find it everywhere; the driving force of so many scandals, sensations and sleaze.

Sexual desire, it seems, can achieve anything. It can sell ice cream and cars. It can spice up a news item. It can keep millions of moviegoers entertained for hours. Sexual desire seems to have a life of its own: strong, powerful, evocative, captivating. And yet, sexual desire is so often disconnected from anything meaningful or worthwhile.

You know the story: two career-oriented individuals meet. They date. They feel desire. They share a bed. They share an apartment. They call themselves ‘partners’, like a business transaction. After a while they get sick of each other. Their partnership is dissolved. Their careers both move on. If it’s a sitcom, they laugh and stay friends. If it’s real life, each of their hearts becomes a little bit more scarred and bitter.

Desire is everywhere, but so often it’s not connected, not anchored, not secure or firm or meaningful beyond temporary convenience.

Of course that shouldn’t be surprising to you if you know anything about the story of the Bible. Right back in the beginning, when God made the heavens and earth, and all the living creatures, God’s crowning glory of his creation was humanity, man and woman, who were both naked and felt no shame, made to serve God together as one flesh. Sexual desire is right there at the beginning of the Bible, fundamental to who we are as God’s special creatures: a mutual loving and giving and receiving.

Desire … distorted

Yet that desire was very soon twisted.

When the man and woman turned their backs on God, and failed to believe him or obey him, they were cursed in their own relationships too

In Genesis 3:16, God curses the woman, and says

‘your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’

Desire, disconnected from God’s purposes, became a cruel power play. Unsatisfying, yet still so appallingly real. As the Bible’s story continues, we soon see desire become the empty transaction of prostitution, the chilling weapon of rape, the cheap thrill of multiple partners. And in so many marriages even today, desire is little more than a bargaining chip.

Desire … restored (the ideal)

But the Bible is the story of how God acted to restore the relationship between himself, humanity and the whole created order. Initially he did it through the nation of Israel. The one nation God chose to restore the world. And there is a great climax in the biblical story when the nation Israel finally came of age. David, and then Solomon, come to the throne. And we see in Solomon a picture of what the ideal relationship between God and his people should look like: God’s king ruling over his people in his land. Worshipping God in his temple. Blessed by God with wealth and prosperity. Bringing wisdom and wealth to all the nations. Not perfect, by any means, but still a wonderful picture. What better time was there than the glorious reign of king Solomon to sing about God’s ideal for sexual desire? Because when God’s people are restored there is also the hope of restoring that thing that is so fundamental to being human: The love between a man and a woman.

And so we have the greatest Song of all, dedicated to Solomon. Song of Songs, the ideal for sexual desire. It is an ideal, of course. This a song, not a medical journal, or a list of rules, or even a story with a plotline. It is a song that celebrates an ideal. That means none of us will perfectly live up to it. In fact, it may be impossible for you to reach it at all, given your past or present life situation. It may be a source of pain if you are single, divorced or unhappily married. But this ideal is still important to grasp and understand, as an anchor that enables us to orient our lives to God’s plan, or even to help others orient their lives towards it. As Hebrews 13:4 says: marriage should be honoured by all.

Today we’ll be looking at the last two chapters of the song, 7 and 8. We will find there how sexual desire is both celebrated as an ideal, and connected with the things that give it meaning.

Desire … restored (Chapter 7)

Desire nurtured (7:1-8)

Please look with me at chapter 7, verse 1:

Here the man is speaking to his beloved:

1 How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman’s hands. 2 Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. 3 Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. 4 Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus.  5 Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel. Your hair is like royal tapestry; the king is held captive by its tresses.  6 How beautiful you are and how pleasing, O love, with your delights!  7 Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.  8 I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.” May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,  9 and your mouth like the best wine.

Some of the language sounds very strange to us. Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon? Husbands, don’t try this at home, OK? But you have to understand how an ancient Israelite’s mind worked. For them, the greatest thing in the world was the promised land, the land that God gave to Israel and blessed with abundance, especially in Solomon’s reign. A land overflowing with wheat and wine and fruit. The jewels and tapestries of royal prosperity. For them, the promised land was heaven on earth. And so the man describes the girl as a slice of heaven¸ in the language of his time. We might speak of sunshine and starlight. They spoke of pools and mountains and towers.

Do you notice how purposeful and deliberate the man is in describing his beloved? Not cold and calculating. But not weak and aimless either. So often our own culture treats love as something that just happens to you, something you fall into, or that strikes you without warning. An arrow fired by Cupid when you’re not looking. Now love at first sight happens, and it can be great,  but if you leave it there, the desire usually doesn’t last. Cupid, in case you didn’t know, is a pagan Greek idol, he’s not an angel of God.

Desire has to be worked at, maintained, lovingly and purposefully nurtured. That is what the man is doing in these verses. His eyes move over his beloved’s feet, legs, navel, waist, breasts, neck, eyes, nose, head, hair, mouth.

Maybe your reaction to this part of the Bible is to think: That’s all very well, but the desire has disappeared from my marriage. I’ve fallen out of love, just like I once fell in love. Well maybe, just maybe, it’s because you’re passively waiting around for desire to happen to you again. If you sit there and wait, desire for your spouse is very unlikely to just happen. It needs time and effort and loving care, it may need you to do something. Love is active, not passive. It’s an action, not just a feeling. You may need to spend more time with your spouse, praising their positive characteristics and thanking God for their beauty.

Of course, that’s why pornography is so disastrous, isn’t it? It takes the active desire that belongs to your spouse or future spouse, and makes it passive. It disconnects desire from reality. And connects it to something unreal and unattainable. Pornography steals love from where it belongs. Statistics show that pornography has stolen the love of millions of Australians. Don’t let it steal yours. But foster and nurture your desire for your spouse.

Desire enjoyed (7:9-13)

In verses 9-10, the girl rejoices in her lover’s desire and responds:

9 May the wine go straight to my lover, flowing gently over lips and teeth. 10 I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.

See how active she is, too? She invites him to come with her into the countryside

Verse 11:

11 Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside, let us spend the night in the villages. 12 Let us go early to the vineyards to see if the vines have budded, if their blossoms have opened, and if the pomegranates are in bloom– there I will give you my love.  13 The mandrakes send out their fragrance, and at our door is every delicacy, both new and old, that I have stored up for you, my lover.

These verses, I think, show how natural and good their desire is. It is connected to the creation, to life and growth. And so connected to God’s good original purposes in creation. It’s almost a restoration of the situation of Adam and Eve. Remember, when the man and woman originally sinned against God, they were thrown out of the garden, and the woman’s desire for her husband was cursed, disconnected. Yet in these verses we see that desire restored and placed back in the garden. Natural, good, meaningful and purposeful; connected again to creation. Remember, this is an ideal, not a rule.

Desire … connected (Chapter 8)

And yet … something is still missing. The girl yearns for more; she is still not satisfied. She says, ‘if only’…

When love so desires? (8:1-4)

Please read with me from chapter 8, verse 1:

1 If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother’s breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me.  2 I would lead you and bring you to my mother’s house– she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.  3 His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me.  4 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

The girl realizes that it’s not enough just to have this desire. The desire must be awakened appropriately. The desire has to be further connected to the reality of her life. The girl has a family, a mother, she has a whole life, already rich with relationships. And she wants her lover to be completely connected into her life. Not just an appendage, a thrill, a disconnected compartment of her experience. ‘Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires,’ she says.

When does love desire to be awoken? When is the appropriate time? The following verses go towards answering it:

Desire needs to be connected to total commitment (8:6-7)

Let’s read from verse 6

6 Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. 7 Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away. If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it  would be utterly scorned.

She doesn’t simply want to be an object of his desire. She wants to be a seal over his heart, incorporated into his very existence, unable to be removed. Why? Because she knows the strength of love, and she realizes that there must be a strong commitment, to match the strength of their desire. Love / desire here is described as utterly powerful like death, all-consuming like fire, infinitely valuable like vast wealth. Such a strong force cannot be treated lightly. It must not be aroused or awakened without the security of a commitment.

A few years ago, my brother-in-law’s friend bought a Subaru WRX. A beautiful car, world Rally Blue, gold-trimmed hubcaps, able to go from 0 to 100 kilometres per hour in 5 seconds. It cost him about $80,000. But the power of the car had to be matched by its safety and security features:High quality airbags for high-speed crashes, a password-encrypted engine cut-off switch to guard against car-jacking, GPS Satellite tracking so that police can track the car from outer space if it’s stolen. You don’t buy a superb car like that and then forget about safety and security, do you? You’d be an idiot.

How much more powerful, and valuable, is sexual desire. Our world so often treats sex like an old pushbike, something you can lend to friends, use to go for cheap thrill rides. But the Bible says that love is so valuable that if you were to give all the wealth you owned for it, it would be utterly scorned. It’s as powerful as death. It needs the security and connectedness of lifelong commitment.

That’s why a well-nurtured, valued, lifelong marriage is what connects sexual desire to reality. It makes sexual desire the smooth-running engine room of life-long relationships, rather than the destroyer of lives, or a burnt-out stolen vehicle in the ditch.

But there’s more.

Desire is not just about private commitment. The girl does not just want to be a private seal on the man’s heart, she wants to be a public seal on his arm, a ring on his finger; displayed to the world.

And we see in this chapter that desire is also connected to social reality. The girl has a mother who loves her and gave her birth. In verses 8-9 she has older brothers, who wanted to protect her beauty and purity when she was growing up. And so in verse 5 she dreams of coming home from the desert, leaning on her lover, having her friends and family wondering and rejoicing at her relationship.

That’s why marriage is a public ceremony. Not just an excuse for a big party, but a public affirmation, a connection of your private life with public reality. Friends, family.

There is a myth going around, that most people believe. The myth that sex is only the activity of two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom. Nothing more. Just a completely private matter, totally disconnected from anything else. Have you heard that myth? That is so wrong. Your private love life will have a profound public effect on everybody around you. If you’re not faithful and committed in your love life, how can you be expected to be faithful and committed in any other part of your life? It’s why the private lives of politicians do actually matter. It’s why your own private life matters. Not just to God, but to all of us. It’s why you can’t isolate what you do or think or say in private, and pretend it won’t make any difference to anybody else.

And so, in verses 13 and 14, we see the ideal for sexual desire. A man and a woman, continuing their relationship, fulfilled and yet constantly ebbing and flowing in love. Connected with friends, connected with creation, connected in commitment with one another.

13 You who dwell in the gardens with friends in attendance, let me hear your voice!  14 Come away, my lover, and be like a gazelle or like a young stag on the spice-laden mountains.

You can almost hear the song fade-out into the sunset.

Peace greater than Solomon (8:10-12)

I said at the start that Solomon was a picture of God’s ideal king. But do you notice in verse 10-12 that Solomon, in fact, totally failed? Let’s read them, and see the contrast:

10 I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment. 11 Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon; he let out his vineyard to tenants. Each was to bring for its fruit a thousand shekels of silver. 12 But my own vineyard is mine to give; the thousand shekels are for you, O Solomon, and two hundred are for those who tend its fruit.

Solomon himself fell tragically short of God’s ideal in the area of love and desire. His desire was so disconnected from God’s purposes, that he had a harem of a thousand. He entered into marriage simply to cement political alliances and make commercial treaties. That’s nothing more than political, state-endorsed prostitution. It eventually led his heart away from God, and, even more, led to the slow but sure destruction of his kingdom, and his people and even the promised land.

You know, in Hebrew, you say Solomon ‘shelomo’. The girl says that shelomo can keep his harem and his money. In verse 10, she has found shalom, contentment, peace, wholeness, in her husband.

Jesus was the true descendent of shelomo. Who brings true peace, true shalom. Forgiving our sins, restoring our relationship with God, reconnecting our lives. Perfectly at the last day, and even, in part, in our lives now.

So what will you, a follower of Jesus, do with his word here? Maybe you need to ask God for forgiveness through Jesus. Forgiveness for treating your God-given desire with contempt. Disconnecting it from your life. Using it in a way it was never intended. Hurting others, defying God’s good purposes

Maybe you need to work at living the restored life God has given you in Christ. Reconnect your desire to the reality of God’s purposes.

Perhaps you need to foster and nurture desire in your marriage, actively loving your spouse, purposefully and deliberately matching your desire with your relationship. Maybe you need to ask for help in this area.

On the other hand, maybe you need to stop using your desire in disconnected ways that harm relationships, and seek to help those you have hurt.

Maybe you just need to be thankful for what God has given you.

Or perhaps you are someone who cannot realize this ideal in your life, because of singleness, or divorce, or sickness, either temporary or permanent. If that’s you, remember that the Song of Songs is a song about this world, and this creation, which is still incomplete and marred by sin. Ultimately what matters is a relationship with Jesus Christ, and that will bring true peace, no matter what your circumstances. Ephesians 5 speaks to everybody, no matter what their situation, when it says,

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her  26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,  27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

If you belong to Christ, then you have true, everlasting peace, connection and fulfilment; and commitment from the one who will never let you down.

18th July, 2004 | Category: Biblical theology, Creation, Sexuality, Song of Songs |