Song of Songs: Biblical Porn?
I wish to tell you about a book of the Bible that conservative Christians wish had never been included the Old Testament. But first, indulge me for a few minutes while I give you some background on my upbringing in a puritanical Christian family. My story will make sense later on.
Growing up in a conservative Christian family, faith was woven into the fabric of our family life. Church attendance was mandatory, at minimum, three times a week, not counting family devotionals or independent Bible study. “God-speak” such as quoting Bible verses, prayer at mealtime, and frequently used praise-phrases like, “thank God”, or “God bless”, were as natural as breathing. However, “taking the Lord’s name in vain” such as the exclamation, “Oh my God,” was strongly discouraged. Common swear words were never uttered, even in times of stress or anger. Instead, certain “harmless” euphemisms were employed, most of which were passed down from our grandparents. There was “dad gummit" or “darn it” for God damn it or damn it, and “shoot” for shit. “Heck” was used for hell, as in “what the heck”.
A special language was developed by our parents when it came to human biology and anatomy. Never did words like sex, intercourse, orgasm, breast, penis or vagina ever cross their lips. Heaven forbid. Instead, bizarre code words were employed. Nor were the proper terms for bodily functions in their vocabulary. Looking back, it now seems so strange considering my father was a physician.
Sex and sexuality were taboo topics in our family. As I grew older and entered the awkward stage of puberty, my parents were stone silent on all matters relating to sex and sexuality. In fact, the word “sex” did not exist in the family vocabulary, except to denote the sex (male or female) of pets. So how did I learn about the strange changes taking place in my body, you ask? From my horny (and mostly misinformed) school mates, of course. And, curiously, from sneaking my father’s medical books under the covers. And, as you can imagine, subjects like homosexuality were strictly off limits in family conversation.
I know. The story of my sheltered upbringing may be hard for you to comprehend, but that’s how I and millions of other youngsters were raised and continue to be raised in closed religious societies.
The forbidden Biblical text I elude to is the Old Testament book, Song of Songs, aka Song of Solomon. Like me, you probably don’t remember hearing quotes from the SoS in church or reading from the SoS in Sunday school. Sandwiched between Ecclesiastes and Isaiah, this book continues to be skipped over intentionally by nearly all Christian sects.
So what is the problem? Why, for millennia, is this book quietly ignored by Christians? And why is it definitely off limits to Christian children? Well, for those answers we must go directly to the source and do a bit of reading for ourselves.
But first, some background. According to Biblical scholars, the book contains some of the world’s most beautiful ancient poetry. It was called the Song of Songs for that reason; as in “best of the best.” The song referred to is sung by an unmarried girl as her words reveal her passion as she runs through the back alleys of ancient Jerusalem looking to rendezvous with her male lover. In the most erotic metaphorical terms, the song reveals the fantasy, the intense anticipation, of what these lovers are going to do to each other once they embrace.
From my understanding, the female singer is a commoner, perhaps a pauper that works in the fields because her skin has been darkened by the sun. She describes herself as somewhat unremarkable in appearance. But there is a catch, a serious problem. She has been promised to King Solomon to become his wife, just one more in a harem of 700 or so, yet her true love is a lowly sheep herder across town. It is important to note that by sneaking away in the night she is risking her life to be with her true love, as her brothers are searching for her. (Honor killing a disobedient sister then was the same as is currently practiced in fundamentalist Muslim culture, including Muslim enclaves here in America.)
With salacious metaphors, to this danger our heroine sings fearlessly:
“My mother's sons were angry with me; They made me keeper of the vineyards; but my own vineyard I have not kept.” And adds defiantly, “But my own vineyard is mine to give.”
In case you missed the metaphor, the vineyard alludes to her virginity. And the girl in love has attitude; she is going to make love with whomever she wants, whenever she wants, and is not about to let family or God’s laws stand between her and her lover.
Let’s examine some of the steamier verses of the song. To help your understanding, my comments are in brackets. (You may now wish to go to your room, close your door and pull the shades!)
Song of Songs 1:13
A bundle of myrrh [perfume] is my beloved to me; he shall lie all night between my breasts.
Song of Songs 2:3
In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
[Uh…the metaphor here should be obvious. If not, oh well.]
Song of Songs 4:
5 Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle.
16 Awake, north wind, and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread everywhere. Let my beloved come into his garden and taste its choice fruits.
[Hint: Her lover is not coming in a literal garden!]
Song of Songs 5:4
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of my door, and my insides were moved for him. I rose up to open to my beloved, and my hands dropped with myrrh and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
[Hint: Our central character is not singing of a literal “hole in a door” nor literal “handles of a lock”. And her “insides were moved”…I think you can figure that one out for yourself!]
Song of Songs 7:
In the verses to follow, the girl’s male lover replies. I trust by now you are able to translate the remaining garden metaphors without my help?
3 Your breasts are perfect; they are twin deer feeding among the lilies.
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 clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,
9 and your mouth like the best wine.
Considering Christianity’s prudish history, text such as this, if found outside the Bible, would no doubt be classified as pornographic. It is not hard to imagine why this book was intentionally ignored in two thousand years of Christianity, especially knowing that official Catholic doctrine permitted sexual intercourse only within the sacred bond of marriage. Church fathers insisted sex was intended for procreation, not recreation — certainly never to be performed fully naked and definitely not to to be enjoyed too much by either party. In direct conflict to Church preachments, this song thoroughly glorifies passionate love, promiscuity and sex for pleasure.
Now let’s fast forward to more recent history. America is a nation founded by the guilt-ridden, sexually repressed, prudish Puritans. This tradition has been reincarnated in the voices of today’s ever-popular, ever politically powerful fundamentalist and evangelical sects found in both Protestant and Catholic denominations. As well, the Puritan anti-sex, anti-pleasure tradition is carried on by extreme conservative Mormon, Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, the Brethren and other such religious groups.
The problem with literalism is how these religious prudes deal with the Song of Songs and its erotically-charged message that is diametrically opposed to their ostensibly “objective guide to morality”, the Holy Bible. So before making a post or writing an essay such as this, it is my habit to peruse several apologist’s websites to get the Christian take on such “difficult” scriptures, giving them the benefit of the doubt. For example, I noticed on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website which should have apologetics for all the books in the Bible, the Song of Songs is conveniently overlooked. Much too difficult to tackle, I imagine. I did find, however, other Christian-authored articles and YouTube videos which blow off the book simply as allegory. Here they claim this hot and steamy poetry merely describes Christ’s love for his Church. Right. (Oops, did they forget that Jesus did not exist when this song was written?)
Apparently the allegory excuse is the only way Christian apologists can deal with the sexually charged nature of this book. I must interject here that, according to the folks at Pew Research, 68% of Evangelical Christians believe the Holy Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God, and therefore is to be understood literally. So which is it? Allegory or literal interpretation? Or are these words just an illusion; they may sound sexy, but only to perverts and atheists like me?
Dear reader, I ask you, how in Heaven’s name (pun intended) can the following stanza be merely an innocent expression of a platonic relationship between the Christ and his Church? What mental gymnastics of Biblical proportions (again, pun intended) must these apologists go through to convince themselves of such nonsense? They should be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for the Art of Bullshitting!
“Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.”
Help me, dear Reader, to decipher the allegory hiding within. So the palm is…er…Christ’s Church? And the breasts are…uh…I give up.
So how is it possible Song of Songs made it into the Holy Bible in the first place? My theory is late one night some horny Hebrew scribe got plastered and thought it would be a great joke to sneak a bit of soft porn into the middle of the Bible! Surely he must have been the George Carlin of his day!