Can the Bible be God's Word?
You are reading Can the Bible be God's Word? by Steve McRoberts
Prev Next Contents

Chapter 22: Song of Solomon

Song:1:1: The song of songs, which is Solomon's.
Song:1:2: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
This book of the Bible is called by various names: "The Song of Solomon", "The Song of Songs", and "Canticles".  In any case, whoever wrote it claimed that it was a song of Solomon's.  We are then led to conclude that the "I" of the song is Solomon.
Solomon starts his song by requesting some unidentified male to kiss him with his mouth, because his love is "better than wine" (which isn't saying much since "Solomon" told us wine was "vanity" in his previous book.)
So, the "song of songs" appears to be a homosexual ditty.
We are told that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Evidently, after having so many, he got bored with women, and started desiring men for a change of pace.
Song:1:3: Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
Evidently, the main thing which attracted Solomon and the virgins to this man was the smell of his perfume. I think that's a rather stupid basis for love. What if this man were to change his perfume?
Song:1:9: I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots.
If someone told me that I looked like a horse, I wouldn't consider it a flattering comparison.
Song:1:10: Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.
Again, this is a flimsy basis for love; what if he were to pawn his gold chains and jewels?  Elsewhere in the Bible, women are instructed not to wear gold:
1Tm:2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
So, evidently the Bible teaches that only men should wear such things.
Song:3:6: Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?
Song:3:7: Behold his bed, which is Solomon's; threescore valiant men are about it, of the valiant of Israel.
Solomon wanted this man in his bed because he had applied "all powders of the merchant" to himself. Fundamentalist Christian sects which don't allow women to wear makeup, should allow men to wear makeup according to this.  But it seems that wise king Solomon had fallen in love with a fašade. What was the personality of this man who was hiding behind all these perfumes and cosmetics?  That would seem more important than his artificially-enhanced outward appearance.
Elsewhere in the Bible, we are told that god frowns on men who lie with men (Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Song:7:7: This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.
Song:7:8: I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
Solomon switched his attentions from his homosexual lover to a Shulamite woman.  Solomon wanted to grab this woman whose breasts reminded him of clusters of grapes. 
I can understand Solomon's desire.  I've read similar things in "trashy novels".  I'm not sure why they voted this particular book in as part of the "Word of God".  Maybe if "Valley of the Dolls" had been in print back then, they would've voted it in as well.
Elsewhere in the Bible, though, we are told that it is good for a man not to touch a woman:
1Cor:7:1: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
How could we ever reconcile the Song of Solomon with such an absurd statement?
Song:8:8: We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?
Song:8:9: If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.
Song:8:10: I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour.
I guess the modern-day obsession with sex, and the male obsession with breasts are not so modern after all.  A lack of opulent breasts would have to be made up for with a dowry of silver.
Some Christians contend that this book is not at all what it appears to be (a poetic description of the lusts of Solomon).  They contend that it is symbolic of the love between Christ and the Church.  It doesn't seem to bother them that neither of these concepts were known to Solomon or anyone else for centuries after the book was written.  It doesn't seem to bother them that neither Christ nor the Church has breasts which the other one grabs, or that neither Christ nor the Church buys powder from merchants or wears perfume.  It doesn't seem to bother them that everyone reading the Song of Solomon for all those centuries would've taken it as a book in praise of feeding one's carnal desires: The Joy of Sex of its time.
The "spiritual interpretation" blissfully ignores all of the pieces that don't fit its interpretation.  This earns it our blue-ribbon award for epitomizing the "It doesn't mean what it says" school of Biblical interpretation.

Prev Next Contents
This site is concerned with: bible,ethics,atheism,fundamentalism,truth,can the bible be god's word,cure for fundatmentalism