“The idea of the Church as Bride of Christ originates with that effeminate guy, St. Paul.” First off, you need to watch how you refer to an apostle of Christ, friend. Secondly, God uses feminine language to describe HIMSELF throughout the bible. While he is our Father, he is also referred to as someone who conceives, gives birth to, and nurses Israel at his breast (Numbers 11), as a mother eagle teaching her young to fly (Deuteronomy 32), as the “God who gave you birth” (also Deuteronomy 32), as a woman crying out while giving birth (Isaiah 42), a mother comforting her child (Isaiah 66), as the one whose womb gives birth to ice and frost (Job 38), etc.

The idea that it’s some kind of weakening or destruction of the strength of the message of the gospel to be associated with women or femininity is an insult and an affront to the God who said, “Let us make man in our image,” and then made them MALE AND FEMALE in order to fulfill that intention.

The BEST book I’ve seen on the Song of Solomon is SONG OF SONGS, a Reformed Expository Commentary, by Iaian Duguid. He sees the SONG as both an allegory of Christ and His church, and as a love manual. Published in 2016, hardbound only, just 182 pages, it’s an engaging read, and my copy is heavily marked up and highlighted.

A couple of observations re your very accurate historical comments: The philosophy that for nearly two millennia destroyed the Song for most readers is called Gnosticism. Its origin is Greek philosophy (Plato et al), and it teaches that spirit is good and flesh is evil–as you observed. Augustine, Jerome (contemporaries from c. A. D. 400), along with Thomas Aquinas introduced these into Christianity, perverting God’s gift of married sex. Many evangelical Protestant writers (besides a myriad of Catholics) have followed their lead in writing their own deadening commentaries on the SONG, including the well-known “Prince of Preachers” Charles Spurgeon. I was taught in Bible College in the 1950s that it was only an allegory; famous commentator Matthew Henry said that when you read the Song of Solomon forget that you have a body. And so it goes.

The SONG is both.

So I’ll wrap up with an extrapolation on Paul. He wrote that Christ washes his bride “with the washing of water of the Word (of God). It’s only a short step to the human husband inviting his bride naked into the shower, then getting frisky with the soap and wash cloth!

Eric

That’s lovely. Thanks for sharing.

J, I’m interested in your wondering how the guys feel about songs like that. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking the past several months about human marriage as an analogy for the relationship between Christ and His church. As a man, I can readily connect with Jesus as my master, lord, warrior, father, brother, friend. But I got stopped at “bride”. That got me rethinking Ephesians 5. When men are told to love their wives as Christ loves the church, it’s usually watered down to a simple “love your wife sacrificially” injunction. But what does that look like in my life and my marriage?

I found inspiration in Song of Solomon, and other scriptures. By analyzing the role of the bride, I began to make a list of what “submit” consists of. Even the physical act of intercourse has analogies that are worth considering. I think the Song of Solomon shows ecstasy in making love, with the kind of abandon that we should experience with Christ.

And this exploration convinced me that when a husband and wife relate to each other, even in the throes of sexual abandon, we are, if you will, enacting a sacred drama that shows the depth of God’s love for us, and the love we should have for Him in return. And it makes me takes my role as the “christ” in this drama much more seriously and spurs me on to be a more Christ-like husband to my wife.

J,
I think his reference to the effeminate Paul was sarcasm.

I disagree. Yes, I think there’s been some feminization of Christianity, which I thought the book WHY MEN HATE GOING TO CHURCH? did a pretty good job of discussing. One of the things mentioned, with which I agree, is our affinity for “love songs to Jesus.” I’ve often wondered how my all male family (hubby, two sons) feel singing lyrics like “You’re so beautiful, Jesus” or “I long for your embrace.”

At the same time, the notion of the Church being God’s bride did not at all originate with St. Paul (and I have no idea why you would think he’s effeminate). Isaiah 62:5 says, “Then God will rejoice over you as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride”; Hosea 2:15 says, “‘When that day comes,” says the Lord, ‘you will call me “my husband” instead of “my master.”‘”; and Jeremiah 3:31 says, “‘This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,’ says the Lord.” You can see even more examples here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/israel-married-to-jehovah.html. It’s throughout Scripture; as such, it’s a valid way of viewing our relationship with God. Indeed, I believe that marital intimacy reflects the level of intimacy God wants us to have with Him someday.

Yet I do agree that the language in Song of Songs seems far more husband-wife than Christ-people. Which is why I think you can draw some allegorical inferences, but it’s not really the point of the book. It’s about married love.