where we're going to be preaching today about letting God's kingdom come into our marriages. In Rodney's series on the song of Hannah, we have been seeing the disaster that flowed from polygamy and how God's roles in marriage were twisted there. Song of Solomon presents God's ideal of monogamy and how he, by his grace, blesses that. I'm going to read from Song of Solomon 8 and verses 6 and 7. Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave. Its flames are flames of fire, a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly despised. We thank you, Father, for your word. And as we dig into this masterful, beautiful book, I pray that you would help us to understand it, help me to faithfully preach it. And may we continue as we worship to have the thoughts and intouch of our heart acceptable in your sight. It's in Christ's name we pray. Amen. Well, song of Solomon is yet another book that abounds in controversies, uh, controversies about the subject matter, the author, the structure, who is the beloved, the speakers, even the nature of the love that is described here. Is it platonic love? Is it spiritual love? Is it sexual love? What is it? Uh, Burkoff outlined eight different views of the song of Solomon and other recent commentators is that, Oh no, there are 19 different exclusionary views of this book. And given that many interpretations of this book, it may seem arrogant for me to be so dogmatic, but hey, I can't help it. I believe a hundred percent my view is the correct one, right? But as always, I give you guys liberty to be Boereans, right? And test the scriptures, see if the, I've made a case for the presentation I'm going to be giving today. I think it's a case that is very encouraging and a case that is transformational for marriages. Now, I've given you quite an extended outline so that I won't have to go through every detail and you'll have stuff to do further studies at home. But let me quickly, before we get into some of the nitty gritty, present a brief overview of what my view is. I believe that this is primarily a book on romance, marriage, and sexual love being a delightful and intoxicating gift from God, and only secondarily is it an image of the relationship between Christ and His church. You won't find any crude or vulgar language in this book like you find in some expositions. You will not find any pornographic expressions like you see in some of the ridiculous commentaries that are out there. Sex is not portrayed as an idol, nor is it shunned as an evil thing. Indeed, as the couple experiences and expresses their ecstasy with one another, God speaks His total approval in the one place where His voice comes out of nowhere. I believe it comes from heaven. Many commentaries agree. It's in chapter 5, verse 1b, which our translation has unfortunately mislabeled. But that is the very heart and center of this book, God's Blessing Upon Marital Love. This is the only place in the Bible where God gives such detailed and practical guidance on this important topic. If we did not have this book presenting this picture, this manual, as it were, for marriage, we would not have the details that are needed. And commentaries that hold to my basic viewpoint show detailed ways in which this book takes us back to the Garden of Eden with its imagery of being naked and unashamed. Now, there have been numerous studies that have shown how Genesis 1 and 2, and especially chapter 2, is interplayed in this book. There's an interplay of those two chapters with Song of Solomon so strongly that several commentaries have said that Song of Solomon is actually about a second Adam and Eve and a second Garden of Eden. I don't agree. That's going too far because we're going to see there is sin that is introduced into this book as well. But the Garden of Eden imagery is so pervasive, I won't even bother to highlight all of the places in the book, but I'm going to give you a kind of a high level view. All of this book, with the exception of their brief memories of the past, which, by the way, their memories go before chapter one, seems to occur in the springtime. There are several references to the springtime in this book, when the trees are blossoming and fragrant, New life is breaking forth in the fields all the way through. You especially see it in chapter 7. Scenes are very explicitly said to be within a garden location in chapters 4, 6, and 8. You hear the birds of paradise in 2.12. You hear the gentle bleeding of the sheep and goats in 1.8, 4, 1 through 2. Perfumes, spices, swirling aromas of flowers and shrubs and trees. are described so vividly that if you've got an imagination, you can almost imagine smelling the garden fragrances there. It mentions saffron and myrrh and nard and cinnamon and henna and frankincense and aloes. It mentions the luscious taste of apples, raisins, grapes, figs, pomegranates, honey, and other garden delicacies that are presented before our senses. And in the midst of this garden imagery, a husband and a wife stand in awe of each other's beauty. both the arousing clothed beauty of sandals, robes, necklaces, and gowns, and the unclothed beauty of their naked bodies as they admire each other. As Westminster professor James T. Dennison words it, all these rich sensations occur in the experience of two persons, a man and a woman. A man and a woman sensuously tasting, seeing, smelling, hearing, feeling love. Was it not so in the beginning? Love which tasted very good, love which felt very good, love which ear and eye and nose sensed was supremely, superlatively very good. Did not God himself make it so? Did not God himself make this love very good? And this book answers with a resounding yes, yes. This is a book of God's affirming of the holiness of sex and the fact that it reflects God's goodness and love for us in some way. It beautifies what sin has made horribly ugly in our culture. And the modern views of sex are indeed ugly. Now, the one difference with the original Garden of Eden is that this book obviously shows sin at work to disrupt the marriage union and to ruin the beauty of paradise. It is a post-fall union of husband and wife, sinners who need God's grace, and there are many indicators that they are both believers. For example, he calls her, in the same verse, not just his bride, but also his sister. Two things, bride and sister. If she is spiritually his sister, she is a believer. He speaks of her as pure, and it's a religious term for pure. There are many indications she is believer. So in addition to five very beautiful descriptions of marital union, paradise-like descriptions, there are two descriptions via nightmare sequences of what it looks like for couples to take each other for granted. and what it looks like for marriage to grow stale and humdrum. Those nightmares describe rather well the frustrations and the loneliness and the exasperation that probably every one of us have heard other people, never your marriage, right? It's always other people's marriages have experienced. But by putting them into two parallel nightmares within the overall chiasm, The author does not spoil the beauty of the seven-day marriage ceremony because those two nightmares are quickly resolved as the bride wakes up and is relieved, oh, it's just a nightmare, and seeking her husband's embrace, she finds comfort in real sexual union with her husband. But those two dreams are powerful ways of communicating how sin can negatively impact marriage and what to do about it. Very, very practical instructions there. So in addition to sin being added to paradise, this book also shows how God's grace fixes what sin destroys and enables paradise to be restored into the marriage Over and over again if we will work at it. It's not just automatic It is grace and law the two need to work together. So Denison states Solomon and Ishmael might taste love and marriage outside the Garden of Eden Now, outside the garden, love and marriage are affected by tension, alienation, isolation, even manipulation. And yet, precisely that condition is the reason Solomon's love song is in the Bible. After the garden, from this side of the fall, men and women need a revelation of what love ought to be, of what it once was, of how God made it, of how that first marriage remains a model even after the fall. That model is now realized only through the eschatological marriage, the marriage of Solomon's lord and the Shulamites' antitype. Christ Jesus has a bride. In that mystical union, the garden returns. The sensuous is restored. The springtime love is made new. The new order invades the old. The eternal penetrates the temporal. Only this redemptive historical approach allows the believer to fully comprehend Solomon's sublime song. Only the eschatological perspective, the Christ-centered approach, makes sense of the Song of Solomon. And I wish that James Dennison had written more, perhaps a commentary on the Song of Solomon, because his approach reflects not the horrible exegesis of the allegorical approach, but it reflects the kind of approach that Ephesians 6 talks about, where literal marriages are imaging God's grace through the Lord Jesus Christ, and it tightly links the Song of Solomon to Psalm 45 and Psalm 72, both Psalms which are really important for understanding the book of Song of Songs. So it is my conviction that Song of Songs is definitely God's instruction on how grace can enable us to have joy and meaning and even ecstasy restored to tired, and broken marriages. And I'll later recommend a commentary to you that gives far more detailed exegesis than I'm going to give this morning. That commentary is going to give exegesis of sections I think would be inappropriate for me to preach on in an assembly that has children in it. We want to be discreet and yet I want this to be a Passage helps you to really get a good feel for the Song of Solomon as a whole book it's an incredibly once I discovered what the The outline of this book was the built-in outline Wow, it all fell together and I I could see how this was an incredibly transformational book for marriage. I love it but of course Not all Christians take this view of the Song of Songs. So before we can appreciate what it does teach, I have to show what it does not teach. The first faulty view of this book is that Song of Solomon is purely an allegory. This view claims that nothing in this book relates to your marriages or to your romance or to your sexual relations and that every detail has spiritual meaning that transcends the physical. The problem is no one who uses this approach has been able to give us any objective, infallible, biblical rules of interpreting this so-called allegory, and so you can't find any two commentaries on the allegorical approach that come out at the same end. They can't agree. Even on the macro level, there are so many different interpretations. Roman Catholics often use Song of Songs as an allegory of Jesus and Mary having mutual admiration for each other's spiritual virtues and how their graces are poured out in the church. It is really weird. For example, they base the statement in chapter 4, verse 7, you are altogether beautiful, my darling, and there is no blemish in you, as proof that Mary does not have a sin nature. It is worse than weird. It is absolutely blasphemous to apply the Shulamite to Mary. Chapter four does not describe Mary. Okay, I think that's clear. On the other hand, some Roman Catholics and actually some modern charismatics taught that this is an allegory of how each individual believer is being drawn into a mystical marriage with the Lord Jesus where we are purified of all self-love and we are dissolved into God's love in an ecstatic experience that they speak of as the beatific vision. Now, if you want the technical word for this, it's bridal mysticism. And this has unfortunately become very, very popular in evangelical circles, especially through the influence of organizations like IHOP, not International House of Pancakes, International House of Prayer has been teaching on this. And some of those expositors say, hey, since every one of us individually is married to Jesus, then we men need to think of ourselves as females married to Jesus. Hopefully already you're thinking, there is something really, really weird with this view, because I am not authorized by the Bible to think of myself as a woman, okay? Indeed, some of the descriptions of their ecstatic and even orgasmic relationships with Jesus are demonic to the core. But certainly the sexual orientation shift that is required in order to actually hold to bridal mysticism is absurd, it is perverse, it is heretical. So if you've run across this, and I know some of you have mentioned that you've read stuff like this, treat it as heresy. This should be off your radar. Now, other Roman Catholics took it as an allegory of each believer being united to Jesus when they partake of the Lord's table of the Eucharist. And so they have a Eucharistic interpretation. On the other hand, Luther said, hey, it has nothing to do with marriage. It is an allegory of Solomon and the civil state and why it's good to have a strong state. So this is the beautiful relationship that the state had when Solomon was ruling over it. There are some modern interpretations that say, no, this is Hezekiah. trying to woo the 10 northern tribes into Judah so that they can have one united kingdom. Anyway, you can see, even on the macro level, the allegorical approach, there's no rules of interpretation from the Bible that would give you a unified approach. Now admittedly, most evangelicals who embrace this view see it as an allegory of Jesus united to the church. Now, on the surface, that seems harmless enough until you get into the details. where no two commentaries seem to be able to agree, and it's in those details that you see there is no anchor. There's no objective rules of interpretation. So, just as one example—I won't bore you with a lot of the details—as one example, are the two breasts of the bride the Old and New Testaments, as some people say? from which we get nourishment, or the church from which we feed, or love for God and neighbor, or the blood and the water, or the Lord's Supper and baptism, or the outer and inner man. I've got commentaries on my shelves that I really ought to throw away that give these and many other bizarre interpretations of what the two breasts on this woman are. They are not metaphors of anything. They're literal breasts, and yes, they were practical because they enraptured the husband, okay? So it's a straightforward interpretation. No allegorization needed. One commentary says that the 80 concubines of chapter 6 verse 8 are 80 heresies that will eventually plague the church. So things really do get wild and woolly when you get into the allegorical interpretation, and the reason is clear. Their hermeneutics are not coming from Scripture. They're imposed upon the Scripture. Scripture gives to us a very straightforward, grammatical, historical interpretation, and that's what I'll be giving to you today. My third argument against this viewpoint is that in every biblical allegory there is something written into the text itself that clearly shows it to be an allegory. So, for example, Isaiah 5 verse 7 says, the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He explains that allegory. It's not really an allegory, but that's what these people say it is. But he explains it. There is absolutely nothing in the Song of Solomon that would explain this as an allegory. And then lastly, there's nowhere in the New Testament where it quotes this book and says, hey, this is an allegory that we need to interpret that way. So for these and several other reasons, I've not been able to embrace this approach, even though I will grant you there are men and women whom I highly respect who do hold to this view. What they do get right, what they do get right is that they see Christ in the book. The second faulty view does not see Christ in this book. This is the opposite extreme. It is the view that this book says nothing about Christ in the church and is only about marital love. In fact, that's become an incredibly common view among evangelicals today. But that contradicts Luke 24, which says that Jesus taught about Himself from all, without any exception, all the writings of the Old Testament. Okay? There must be something in the book that points to Jesus. And on my interpretation, there is. A literal marriage between Solomon and his bride reminds us that all marriage should image our relationship with Jesus Christ in some way, the church as a whole. Grace must transform everything. It's only by our union with Jesus that our marriages can be transformed, and grace must transform everything in life, including sex. And those who refuse to apply grace to sex don't understand that grace reverses the effects of the fall, as the hymn, Joy to the World, words it, far as the curse is found. Now, I don't have time this morning, nor would you have the patience for me to do away with all 19 views on the Song of Solomon. I didn't even list them in your outline. I think most of them are worthless, and I really do think it a waste of money. I regret having bought the commentaries. But among the worthwhile books that do say that this book is about marriage and romance and sexual love, there are still quite a number of differences of view that mess up on major portions of this book, and as a result, obscure the meaning and obscure the application. So please bear with me as I dispose of those, and I'll try to make practical applications as we go through them. The next evangelical view in your outline is correct about this being about a literal marriage, but it's faulty in thinking that the book is an anthology of independent poems written by many authors and not one single song with a storyline. Rodney disposed of this view a few months ago. Take a look at the very first verse of the book. The song, singular, of songs, which is Solomon's. Song of songs is a Hebrew construction, much like holy of holies, vanity of vanities, lord of lords, that means basically that this singular song is the best of all songs. It's the song above all other songs. It's a Hebrew way of expressing their superlative. But by calling the whole book a singular song, the author is indicating it is a unified song. It's not simply a collection of independent songs. Well, that immediately rules out quite a number of interpretations, actually, that I've missed out on a great deal. The very fact that no two scholars who hold to this theory can come up with the exact number of songs, I think, testifies to its unity. There are some who say there are seven songs. Some say eight. Some, like Golder, says there's 14 songs. Tremper Longman says there are 23 independent songs. And when you read those commentaries, you begin to realize, oh, yeah, even they admit they have a hard time figuring out where does one song One builds on the other. And the more you dig into the Hebrew structure of the book, the more you realize it shows incredible unity of thematic and literary design. Here's the point, that could only be pulled off by one author. Recent scholars have produced page after page of the interlocking structures of this book. I've just reproduced one for you. If you look on your outlines on page three, you'll see one that was pulled out by Alden. In his commentary, he shows how 14 phrases in the first half are perfectly paralleled with, in a chiastic fashion, with the exact same phrases, 14 phrases in the second half. Now, others have gone into much more detail than that, but I think even that simplified chart all by itself shows the nonsense of saying that this is an anthology of unrelated poems. How did unrelated poems happen to have so many identical phrases in exactly the right places? I don't have time to show it, but that chart also rules out the love triangle theory that says that Solomon is a bad guy in this book who's trying to woo a woman away from her poor shepherd that she was betrothed to, and we'll look at that in a bit. I think that chart is very, very helpful in ruling out quite a number of faulty interpretations. But as in every other book of the Bible, you're getting used to this. I try to figure out the structure first because structure is so important to interpretation. Other commentaries have shown an overarching chiastic structure that actually overlays this one of phrases. And Davidson, he's a Seventh-day Adventist, but wow, he has done absolutely amazing work and showing not only the beautiful symmetry of the macro structure, but down to the little tiny details of the verses. And I'd have to give you a 20-page outline if I were to even moderately give you some of his conclusions. But at the end of it, he came to this conclusion, and I quote, the astoundingly intricate symmetry between each of the matching pairs in the literary structural outline seems to rule out the possibility of a redactor imposing an artificial structure upon a miscellaneous collection of love bones. So whatever other difficulties that may be in the book, I think it is crystal clear this was written by a single author with a unified thematic and literary design. But who is the author? Here's where we get into huge controversy. Who is the author? The ancient Jews in the early church all said, no problem, it was Solomon. That's the way the New King James translates it here. It says, the song of songs which is Solomon's. Now that is by far the most natural way to interpret the Hebrew, but you're gonna find if you start reading very much along these lines that evangelicals follow the liberals now and doing everything they can to explain away Solomonic authorship. And so they paraphrase this, the Song of Songs, which is dedicated to Solomon, or which is about Solomon. Here's the problem. The same commentaries don't translate that phrase that way in other places when it attributes a passage to David or to somebody else. Here's their main hang-up. They were embarrassed that a divine book on marital love could have been written by a pervert like Solomon who messed up on his marriages so so badly. Now I hope to show in a bit that Solomon was actually monogamously and very faithfully married to his first wife for somewhere between 7 and 13 years and that this book was about that first marriage. It was not about the second marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh even though if it was about that he was monogamously and faithfully married to the daughter of Pharaoh for 16 or 17 years as well. And he married her after his first wife died. It was only at the age of 50 that he started adding numerous other wives, and I'll get to the reason for that later. But the early Solomon was a faithful man. He was faithful until about the age of 50. But even if you don't believe that this is his first marriage, I don't know how it's possible to deny authorship to Solomon. Solomon's name is mentioned again in verse 5, three times in chapter 3, twice in chapter 8. In fact, the Shulamite woman speaks to him, you, O Solomon, and her name is the feminine counterpart to Solomon. Sort of like saying, Mrs. Solomon. Solomon's name is Shalomah. Her name is just the feminine of exactly that name. Three times the Shulamite calls the one that she loves the king. So I don't know how it's possible to get around Solomonic authorship without claiming, as some commentators do, that the writer is pretending to be Solomon. I've got big issues with any writer of scripture pretending to be something he is not. Now on their theory, I'll just skip over some of this stuff. There is a fifth faulty view that objects by saying that the loved one is called a shepherd and that Solomon was not a shepherd. That's actually not true. David his father was a shepherd and he taught him shepherding right from an early time and in Ecclesiastes 2-7 Solomon said that he had huge The scripture indicates he was a naturalist, and he was a gardener who got his fingers dirty. He was out there doing things. But on their theory, there is a love triangle with the Shulamite maid being betrothed to a poor country shepherd whom she loves, and Solomon is a bad guy who's trying to woo her away from the shepherd she loves so that he can add her to his huge harem of women. So Solomon's the lustful bad guy, and this book shows how true love wins out over Solomon's sinful lust. Now the reason I'm even addressing this is because there are quite a number of evangelical commentaries, even I've read a couple of Reformed commentaries that take that viewpoint, and it is so confusing when you start reading that that it's hard to get much benefit from the book. Many recent scholars have rightly criticized this view and have shown how artificial that interpretation is throughout the book. And what it does is it necessitates sudden breaks in the dialogue that you would never have guessed were there if you were just following the structure or the grammar. So it's the theory that's driving their interpretation, not the grammar, not the structure. So let me give you some examples of how artificial this is. Starting to read at chapter 1, verse 2. They say verse 2 is not being said to the king, it's being said to the peasant shepherd. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine. Because of the fragrance of your good ointments, your name is ointment poured forth. Therefore, the virgins love you. Draw me away." Then the chorus says, we will run after you, and the you is masculine singular. Then the Shulamite says, the king has brought me into his chambers. They claim this is either a kidnapping or at least an attempt to woo her away from her beloved. It's such a sudden yanking of this verse out of context. But weirdly, the chorus does not agree with their interpretation. It says, we will be glad and rejoice in you, feminine singular, we will remember your, masculine singular, love more than wine. So the chorus claims that both the woman's and the king's love is good. The Shulamite then agrees that the man that they're talking about is indeed lovable. Rightly do they love you, singular masculine. Now does it make sense that the lowly shepherd is loved by all the virgins, the same virgins that are mentioned all throughout this book? No. He'd be unknown by them, and as Carr points out, it is forced for the male being talked about to alternate so rapidly between Solomon and the shepherd. Now I will grant, if that was the only problem, then you could maybe buy into this theory, but I want you to turn to chapter 3. as an example that is, as far as I'm concerned, utterly bizarre, at least on the interpretations, explanations of the Love Triangle that I have read. This theory has to either say that chapter 3, verses 6 through 11 is a poem that somehow got out of place, it does not belong here in chapter 3, that's Murphy's view, or the more common view is that the Shulamite and the man are pretending to be King Solomon, that they are play-acting at their wedding. But it is beyond weird to have your beloved shepherd pretend to be her would-be kidnapper or pretend to be the one who has tried to woo her away from him. So try to put yourself emotionally into the place of the young man or the young woman. Would that be attractive? Would it be erotic? Not at all. It would be the opposite. It would sicken you. Would not that supposed peasant shepherd be extremely jealous? Of course he would. He would probably want to have nothing whatsoever to do with Solomon. And yet they either say that this paragraph doesn't belong here or that the good couple is play-acting as if the shepherd is Solomon. It is neither psychologically likely nor morally pure. But if you hold that the king, shepherd, and the beloved are all the same person, they're Solomon, then this passage fits the flow of the book perfectly. And I want you to look at chapter 3, 6 through 11. So the Shulamite says about her groom on the wedding night, fumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the merchant's fragrant powders. Behold, it is Solomon's couch. Does that seem like pretending? I don't think so. Behold, it is Solomon's couch, with sixty valiant men around it, of the valiant of Israel. They all hold swords. Being expert in war, every man has his sword on his side. Because of fear in the night, of the wood of Lebanon, Solomon the king made himself a palanquin. He made its pillars of silver, daughters of Jerusalem. Go forth, O daughters of Zion, and see King Solomon with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding, the day of the gladness of his heart." It makes no sense that this is describing somebody who is not Solomon. But if it is describing Solomon on his wedding night, as I believe, then you are to say that chapter 4 is also Solomon, and that Solomon is saying there to his bride, behold you are fair my love, behold you are fair, and then giving descriptions of adoration over her inner and outer beauty, and then getting all hot inviting the husband to consummate the marriage. Chapter 5 verse 1 has the husband sexually possessing her, consummating the marriage. And the last phrase of chapter 5 verse 1 has God saying to the couple as they engage in the marriage act, eat O friends, drink, yes drink deeply O beloved ones. So God is praising and approving of this act of love. Sadly people have their opinions of Solomon's so poisoned by the few years of backsliding at the end of his life that they import that here and it is inconceivable to them that God would ever call Solomon and the Shulamite, O beloved ones. That's exactly what God called Solomon in 2 Samuel 12 verse 24. love Solomon, and the next verse has God through the prophet Nathan calling Solomon Jedidiah, which means beloved of Yehoah. Anyway, the love triangle theory completely messes up the structure of the book, the grammatical flow of the book, and the logic of the book's progression. And furthermore, if Solomon was a wicked would have been equally guilty of unfaithfulness by wooing both men at the same time, which she clearly does. She woos the king, she woos the shepherd. Well, they're both the same person in my view. In 1.4, chapter 1, verse 4, she rejoices that the king has brought her into his inner chambers. That means his bedchambers. Shame on her if she is betrothed to another person. What confusing language on the love triangle theory, because even there that would be immoral. She's not yet married to that person. But what beautiful language if there is only one lover, Solomon, and one loved one, the Shulamite. Let me just give you one more argument. If you take the time to look up who is speaking the parallel phrases in the phraseology chiasm chart on page three, I think you'll see that making the shepherd and completely destroys the intentional parallels that are found there too. So on many levels, I believe this has to be a good marriage between two good people. It is a God-approved marriage. But an even more troubling viewpoint has been put forth by numerous evangelical scholars in the last few years, and that is that Solomon is the beloved, but the Shulamite is only one of a thousand wives and concubines. and that he is seeking to set her mind at ease with that situation as he makes love to her. Now this viewpoint claims that the book endorses polygamy and even mentions Solomon's harem. And because this viewpoint is so common in evangelical circles, I do want to spend a bit more time refuting it. I think it can be resoundingly refuted from numerous angles, and I'll just highlight the main ones. First of all, the date of this book does not allow for polygamy because this book had to have been written very early in Solomon's reign and be describing scenes before his reign when he was the heir apparent where David had already promised he's the king. Now some people claim it was written by Hezekiah but that's absolutely impossible. For example there are verses that mention both Terza way up north and Jerusalem being in the same country. Well that means this had to have been written before Solomon died because with Rehoboam's first year the country split apart and Terza is a totally different country. And that's just one of many different indicators of an early reign. More importantly, constant comparisons of the Shulamite and the Beloved to the most beautiful buildings in the land, and the most beautiful geographical sites in the land, makes the total silence about the Temple a deafening silence, almost necessitating. This had to have been written prior to the Temple having been built. significant when 19 of the most beautiful buildings and geographical sites are used by both the Beloved and the Shulamite to describe each other, what they look like. And so this has led many scholars to place the writing of this before the 10th year of Solomon's reign at a minimum, or even before the 4th year when the Temple began. It is inconceivable that far less significant comparisons would dominate when the most beautiful thing in all of Israel, in fact it was declared by the ancients to be one of the wonders of the world, would not factor into their beauty at all. And so that's just one of many arguments that place us very, very early, and I'll skip over some of the others. If you study all of the tiny details of Solomon's early life, you begin to realize that Solomon had been married a minimum of seven years to the wife of his youth and to her alone. And a couple of scholars think it may have been closer to 13 years. There's actually a recent pretty decent article in Answers in Genesis that argues for 13 years. So how do they arrive at this conclusion? It's pretty simple logic. First, let me read 1 Kings 14.21. This tells us Rehoboam's age when he first came to the throne. 1 Kings 14.21. And Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was 41 years old when he became king. He reigned 17 years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. His mother's name was Naamah and Ammonitess. Now, if Rehoboam was 41 years old when he came to the throne, and if his dad's reign was exactly 40 years, which everybody agrees it was, then simple math tells us that Rehoboam was born one year before Solomon came to the throne, and that means he was conceived nine months earlier, so he must have been married at least two years before David died and before Solomon came to the throne. But 1 Kings 4 makes it clear he actually had to have been married earlier than that. Let me explain the next point. People are all over the map on how old Solomon was when he married Pharaoh's daughter. Usher guesses, it was 21. Floyd Nolan Jones says 24. That recent AGI article convincingly says 33, that's what I believe. And Falstich says 50. You might wonder, how could they? Well, it's because we're not told exactly when he was born. There are hints, so we can't nail down with super precision the date of his birth. I won't be dogmatic on that, but there is one fact that completely rules out the first two dates and stretches Solomon's marriage at least a few years earlier. 1 Kings 4, 11 and 15 says that Solomon had two governor shortly after he came to the throne and he appears to have done so before the temple was started in the next chapter, in 1 Kings chapter 5. Well that in turn means that he married off his daughters before he was married to the daughter of Pharaoh. So even assuming that these daughters were born before Rehoboam, which I assume, in fact I think it's an absolute necessity, On Usher's unlikely guesstimate of his age, which didn't factor these daughters in and actually gave David 14 years in Jerusalem before Solomon was born, Solomon married off one of his daughters at the age of six. That is not possible. Absolutely not possible. It's not a slam-dunk argument because we don't know for certain but I think there's plenty of evidence in this book that his first wife was Naama. Now, one very legitimate objection that people have raised is that the law of God forbade people from marrying Ammonites, and Naama is an Ammonitess, and so they claim that there are still ethical problems with attributing this story to Solomon. Well that's only true if an Ammonitess was an unbeliever. In our Life of David series we saw that Nahash, the king of Ammon, was soundly converted to the true faith and he came into covenant with David. And David mentions that in 2 Samuel 10. So at least outwardly his nation became a confessing country. and it wasn't just Nahash that was converted. God also converted his wife, his daughter Abigail, his two sons Hanun and Shobi. So when Nahash died, David's father married Nahash's widow, an Ammonitess, and adopted her daughter Abigail. So David's stepmother and being Ammonites. And while Hanun faked conversion and later turned on Israel, his brother Shobi was genuinely converted and helped David even into his old age, 2 Samuel 17 27. And so David's whole family was in close friendships with converted Ammonites and the nation was converted and in covenant, well not converted, but was in covenant with God for at least a few years. So it is therefore no surprise that one of those converted Ammonites would have married Solomon. point of the symbolism of this book, I think it portrays a beautiful picture of Christ's inclusion of Gentiles within his pride, the church. But the key point is that the first marriage occurred humble before the Lord and totally faithful. But even if you were to assume that this was his second wife, you would still be driven to the conclusion that Solomon was still a monogamous man with her up to 17 years, and only in 1 Kings 11 did he start adding wives and concubines, the text says, in addition to the daughter of Pharaoh. So Pharaoh's daughter preceded those wives, those wives were added in addition to. So that means that Solomon was a monogamous for up to his 50th birthday. Total monogamous, married to only one woman at a time. Now 1 Kings 11.4 indicates he was quite old, so it may have been even beyond 50, but I'm trying to be conservative here. So I'm convinced he became a polygamist only after God raised up against him, and rather than repenting, he tried to address those dangers as a backslidden person would with political alliances via marriage. But in any case, the rest of the points that I'm just going to skip right over right now prove, I think, beyond any shadow of a doubt, Solomon was a monogamist for up to 30 years and perhaps even more. Now let's look at some internal evidence in this book that Song of Solomon illustrates the monogamous one-flesh relationship commanded in Genesis 2. Not 1,000 shall become one, but the two shall become one. If you look at chapter 6, verse 8, this is where the accusation of polygamy comes from. So it says here, there are 60 queens and 80 concubines and virgins without number. Proof positive, they say, that she is being added to the harem. But my question is, do these queens, concubines, and virgins belong to Solomon, or do they belong to the guests who came to this seven-day wedding ceremony? I believe it's the latter, and that this text itself absolutely mandates that it be the latter. There are a number of reasons for that. First of all, while a bachelor king could have many wives, he could legally only have one queen. to be queens from other countries who have been guests at the seven-day wedding. It is definitional. Just look up. for Solomon to have had 60 queens. You can only have one queen at a time. So Carr points out in his commentary, but it doesn't say Solomon has, or I have 60 queens and 80 concubines. It simply says they're there. They're at this grand wedding ceremony. Second, if you look up that word for queens in the dictionary, you'll see that it's not the usual word for queen. This is a word that only and always, without any exception in all of Hebrew literature, only and always refers to foreign queens. whether the Northern Kingdom or the Southern Kingdom. Carr points out that there's only one place in the Bible where this is used, another place, and it's used of Esther as well as Vashti. Well, that's Ahasuerus' queens, and even he could only have one queen at a time, right? Even in pagans, you never see multiple queens, you see one queen. So, this is one of several hints that dignitaries, kings, and queens from up to 60 countries and did this grand wedding, and it explains why this peasant girl was so intimidated by her own lack of sophistication. She felt totally out of place in the palace. In any case, Carr's commentary says, the word is never used of wives of Judean or Israelite kings. Third, Solomon is making her feel secure and comfortable in his love. She would hardly feel secure comfortable if his fleeting words were hey honey don't worry about it the 60 wives I have and the 80 concubines and all of these females they're nothing compared to you you're great you're cool no she would not have been comforted by that at all she'd be thinking don't remind me that I'm not your only love right now that is not a comfort at all so what is the comfort well the next verse Solomon gives four reasons why she should not be intimidated by all of these women at the seven-day wedding. He says, My dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the only one of her mother, the favorite of the one who bore her. The daughters saw her and called her blessed, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. The first of four reasons that he gives wife. First he calls her my dove. Doves were known to mate with only one bird and to be faithful to that bird for life. By calling her a dove he is clearly saying she is his only mate for life. It was a well-known symbol in the ancient world for monogamy. In this book he calls her his dove, she calls him her dove. It was a symbol of steadfast loyalty to one mate. The second phrase that he gives is that she is his one besides her. She completes him. She is a perfect fit for him. This speaks of monogamy. It absolutely cannot speak of polygamy and it is definitely a comfort to her that she is perfect for him. The third phrase that she is the one and only to her being his only wife as you could get. As Hawker interprets these three phrases, though there be among men the great ones of the earth, those who have concubines and wives without number, yet my beloved is but one and the only one of my love, and so fair, so lovely, so undefiled. Or as Matthew Poole expresses it, you are the only beloved of my soul, my only spouse, in comparison of whom I despise all others. The next phrase reinforces this when it says that she was the only one of her mother, or more literally, the only one to her mother. And we know from chapter 8, he had at least two brothers and at least one additional sister. So commentaries point out she was not an only child. And so the New King James has mistranslated this here. More literally, she's the only one to her mother. What in the world does he mean by that? Well, when I go over the background of this story, I'm going to point out that Solomon gave her poor mother a dowry and pointed It was a promise made to her mother. The next phrase, the favorite of the one who bore her has a word barar that never means favorite. I'm astonished it was translated as favorite here. The dictionary gives one definition. It is pure. It's a religious term. He thought of the queens and concubines of other countries as tainted by sin and he saw her as pure before God. So what he's doing here is he's saying just forget about that. I want you to whom I don't care at all. She needs to have security in the fact that God sees her as pure and he sees her as pure. And the last reason he gives as to why she should not be intimidated is everyone at the banquet was oohing and awing over her beauty and they were all praising her. He says the daughters saw her and called her blessed. The queens and the concubines and they praised her. He's basically saying, hey, everybody sees you as special. So far from being a blemish in this book, chapter 6 verses 8 and 9 is one of many references married to one wife for life, but he broke this pledge of monogamy approximately 30 years after this wedding when he at that point started adding wives to his second wife does not negate the fact that he was committed to monogamy here and God by inspiration is definitely teaching monogamy. Solomon was indeed the perfect symbol of Christ and the church, but there are many indications throughout the book that it is Solomon's concubines and wives. They inconsistently admit that other parts of the book clearly are advocating monogamy and even put monogamy upon Solomon's lips. It's very inconsistent. see this is clearly committed to monogamy. The whole book is spoiled as far as I'm concerned. In chapter 8 verse 6 we find that the Shulamite is the only signet ring on Solomon's heart and on his arm. According to Jeremiah 22 verse 24, signet rings were normally never taken off, but more to the point People only had one signet ring. And the reason is obvious. If you had like 20 signet rings and you lost one of them, your enemies could use your signet ring. You're committed to whatever they signed with your signature, right? So they always only had one signet ring. So this is a strong description of her being his only wife. She is the only signet ring on his heart and arm. The same verse gives us the reason why she can be as one and only, that love is as strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave. always has godly jealousy as its counterpart. You don't have true love if there's not true jealousy. So let me give an example. God is love, right? Is God jealous? Yes, absolutely he is. Exodus 34, 14 says, For you shall worship no other God, for the Lord whose name is Jealous is a jealous God. If the love that defines this book has and absolutely no other competitors will be tolerated. True jealousy would never tolerate polygamy. And in fact, nothing but death did separate Solomon from his first love, Naaman. By the way, men, this is why you ought to flee pornography with all your might. Jealousy is a very godly emotion that your wives are going to have against you when you do that. Jealousy. Same verse describes true love as having flames of fire a most vehement flame, which literally is translated by many versions as a flame of Yahweh. This is the only place where God's name occurs in the book, chapter 8, verse 6. So if the love of this book reflects the love of God for the church, it is by definition a monogamous love, not a polygamous love. You can never call polygamy the flame of Yahweh. The next verse says, many waters cannot quench love, nor can the floods drown it. That's what makes this so different from the lust of polygamy. True love stands the test of time. It cannot be extinguished. It cannot be substituted. Verse 7 also says if a man would give for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly despised. This indicates true love cannot be purchased for any amount of money. And next, her name Shulamite is the feminine of Solomon and is the Hebrew way of expressing her to be Mrs. Solomon or his other half so to speak. That too is a strong statement against polygamy. There's only one Shulamite or one Mrs. And then finally, I counted 29 times that the possessive my is used in connection with the beloved, and it's used by both the bride and the groom. For example, I am my beloved's and my beloved's is mine. There was an exclusive ownership of each other. As 1 Corinthians 7 says, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband. And then verse 4 goes on to say, the wife does not have authority over her own body. have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Did you husbands realize your wives have authority over your body? They have authority. And the boldness of the bride in the Song of Solomon to claim Solomon's body as her own is remarkable. She takes the initiative. She talks far more than he does. Though her sexual desires wane more easily than his, you her to his body as well. Through and through this book is a book that calls us to be faithfully and totally committed to each other. As Wayne Mack worded it, marriage is a total commitment and a total sharing of the total person with another person until death. Let me give you quickly the background of this beautiful, beautiful story. It's a kind of Cinderella love story and I'm not going to give you every verse that I've got in parentheses here, it'll be up on the web. But Naama was from an Ammonite family who had to the true faith sometime after Nahash, king of Ammon, had converted and become close, close friends with David. The faith spread rather widely in Ammon as it did in other countries like Moab. From chapter 8, and we saw this in our Life of David series, from chapter 8 we learned that the family had immigrated to the hill country of Ephraim about 50 miles north of Jerusalem. However, by the time Solomon knew them, the father had apparently died and the family now consisted of only the mother who is a kind of Cinderella figure and at least one sister who is unnamed but mentioned twice. This family had found a job in one of Solomon's vineyards and she was so skilled that she was managing the whole vineyard and was doing so on behalf of her family them. I didn't have the time this week to figure out which of the two it was. But the family and Solomon both made money off of the vineyard. We aren't told why the brothers were angry with her. Some have assumed that they were stepbrothers. That's only a guess. But in 1 verse 6, she's rather embarrassed early on the first day of the wedding ceremonies at how suntanned she had become, and she sheepishly tells Solomon, do not look upon me, because I am dark, because the sun has tanned me. My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but my own vineyard I have not kept. She sees all of these fair-skinned queens and concubines and all of their riches out there, and she feels so intimidated. She is just a working girl that he's pulled off of a vineyard somewhere, and she feels out of place. But that statement of hers also indicates that She had a tremendous work ethic, something that Solomon very much appreciated. Women must treat their position as wives and mothers, as a job that they do their absolute level best at. They must have a work ethic, do all of their work as unto the Lord. Laziness should never characterize mums and wives, nor dads and husbands. Naama certainly was industrious. Apparently she pruned the vines, set traps for the little foxes, He was used to being outdoors, unlike the pompous queens and concubines that were at the same banquet and had fair skin. One day, Solomon noticed Na'ama's industry, just like his great-great-grandfather Boaz noticed the industry of Ruth working in the field. Back then, she was managing the entire vineyard for the family and doing so well at managing it that she brought Solomon 1,000 shekels of that Solomon had asked her to manage more than that one vineyard, but I can't be certain of that. It says she was made keeper of the vineyards, plural, and because of her diligence and godliness she at some point captured Solomon's heart. In chapter 8 verse 6 Solomon reminisces about her having first fallen in love with him under the apple tree right near her mother's house. He finally asks her to marry him, but her insecurity at being a peasant and him is seen all through the book. She probably wondered if she was up to the job of being a king's wife. This seems like a huge galling, but he points out how she has managed the vineyard, how she's related to her family, and he says, yes, you are the one for me. And he wants to marry her. Now, as I mentioned earlier, Solomon promised her mother that she would be his only bride, and I'm sure her mother and family were well off as a result of the bride price. So Solomon sends a wedding procession to escort his new bride in chapter one, her preparing for the banquet on day one of the wedding ceremonies. Now in your outlines I have copied a phrase outline, page three from Alden. I've also made a chart on page five that shows the whole book has developed like a chiasm with two inclusios, that's another Hebrew writing technique, and that's an amalgam of research from several commentaries. But the second outline on page four I think linear progression of the storyline through this book. It helps to make sense of the bits and pieces. Rodney had shown in one of his sermons that there is an undeniable forward progression through this book. The question is, when does the progression start? Glickman and some others started at courtship and that's a respectable, it's a very understandable position for one approach to this book. because chapters 1 through 2 have so much sexually charged words and actions. What he does to get around it is he just says, well this is what they're hoping for, this is what they're looking forward to, but they don't actually engage in these actions. But several commentators have pointed out that this is that day. There was indeed sexual activity. Let me give you some examples of things in the Hebrew culture which would have been utterly inappropriate for their courtships. Chapter 1 verse 2, let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. In 1.4 the Shulamite is brought into the king's bedchambers, his inner chambers. That would have been utterly is virtually inviting the king to lie between her breasts just as the perfumed sachet has been lying between her breasts all day. In 116 they're on Solomon's couch or bed. Look up the meaning of that word. There is another Hebrew word in that section for fondling and a sexual union clearly happens in chapter 2 verses 4 through 7 where desire, and his left hand is under her head, his right hand is embracing her, which many commentaries have shown as a clear picture of him lying on top of her. That is not courtship. That is marriage. Much later in the book, he reminisces about courtship that had happened before chapter 1, and it is without kisses, hugs, or any of this stuff. It was standard Hebrew courtship. Chapters 1 through 2 are not standard Hebrew courtship. century practices into the text and it's not there. So Dillow's exegesis I think is much more on the mark. He shows that chapter 1 had to have been started on the day of the wedding where she's in the palace preparing for the first banquet and verse first eight verses is at the banquet in verses 9 through 14 sexual unions is found in chapter 2 verses 4 through 7 with an immediate charge to singles not to imitate any of this stuff and not to awaken sexual love before it's time. Now unfortunately, Dillow assumes that the rest of the book happens over the next few years, but it's an assumption. It's much more natural to see the later unions as occurring on every night of the seven-day wedding ceremony. So you'll notice in my outline on page four that I've taken advantage of the studies of another person who points out that like many royal weddings, this wedding was a seven-day celebration with sexual union at the end of each day. The eighth day is later, whether it's a day later or much later, I haven't been able to figure out, but it's later and it records a visit to her relatives in the country and day eight ends differently. union. You know exactly that's where they're going when you read those last few verses. That's where they're headed. The book ends with Solomon whispering to her that while others are listening to her voice right now, he wants to hear it too. And she playfully uses a code word that she had used earlier in the book to suggest that he chase her romantically, that he chase her sexually. In other words, she wants him to initiate. And so it hints that the cycle of love will continue to go on for years to come. It's a beautiful, open-ended conclusion to the book. I believe this storyline is my biggest contribution to the Song of Solomon studies. It simplifies the story, it removes the need for awkward interpretations, it reconciles it with chiastic structure, and it turns the whole story into a beautiful and divinely sanctioned love story. The potential for love to grow jaded, yes, everybody talks about that, but that's narrated in two nightmare sequences husband's love and what she does about it within that nightmare. Those sections are the perfect examples of teaching lessons for those whose marriages have gotten jaded. By the way, if you want some detailed exegesis on this, I don't agree with everything and for sure I do not agree with his outline, but Joseph C. Dillow's book, Solomon on Sex, The Biblical Guide to Married Life, I think is a very, very helpful book. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to teach the kind of stuff that he draws out of this book here. I'd love to teach a class on it sometime, but in the meantime I just want to end by quickly highlighting a few central themes in this book. First central theme is that sexual love is mutual with either party initiating. The woman and the man both initiate lovemaking, and both are very active in lovemaking. And interestingly, the woman talks far more than the man. 81 verses for the woman compared to 49 verses for the man. And no, I'm not going to joke about that. The poem begins with a woman speaking, closes with the woman speaking. And I'm not going to joke about that either, even though it's probably OK with God for the woman to have the first and the last word so long as the man is leading, right? Davidson points out that her descriptions of her husband's body... Both are just as passionately in love with each other, even though there are two hints in the book that her passion can very much more easily slip if she is not on guard against that. But this book does not in any way demean a woman. It just recognizes there are differences in how each one approaches sexuality, big differences that newlyweds must not be blind to. I think I've already adequately dealt with the next theme, that this is monogamous. But one of the things you see throughout the book is that marital love is enhanced by a number of things. It's enhanced by atmosphere, aesthetics, tastefulness, playfulness of the partners, colorful accents, perfume, things worn and not worn, and variety. For example, chapter 4 verse 9 says, you have ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse. You have ravished my heart with one look of your of your necklace. Now that a necklace would accentuate the aesthetics of that moment, makes perfect sense, as does the perfume in the next verse. And I'm not going to get into those points, but marital love should be creatively worked at to bring new life and joy to the marriage. And atmosphere, aesthetics, your attitudes are a big part of that. Actually, the relational wisdom 360 that we looked at yesterday is a big part of it. Several authors have shown how marital love is not hampered by biblical concepts of headship and submission. Rather, it is hugely enhanced in this book. She invites, he possesses. He invites, and she suggests that he pursue. Many metaphors of her submission, and she finds supreme I sat in his shadow." Now we know what kind of delight, if you read the context. With great delight I sat in his shadow, and to sit in his shadow means to be under his leadership and protection. And her submission brought her sexual delight. It's when we fight against the God-given roles that God has given for males and females that we lose the glories of Edenic lovemaking. In 8.5, she leans on her beloved, another symbol of dependence, and what happens? She finds great delight in doing so. This is what grace enables. This is what sin tension and anxiety when they are alienated from each other, there is wholeness when they are united. You especially see this in the terrifying nightmare dream sequences that in the shape of the chiasm, they are parallel to each other, where she thinks she has lost her husband's love, only to awake with relief that it was a nightmare and to experience the comfort of his love all over again. But even in the other Another theme that is obvious is that marital love involves using the right side of your brain. Now for left brain people like me this means work. Wow! This was a rebuke to me. I mean studying for this sermon was a huge rebuke to me because I'm not a very creative guy. And Daniel Wallace in a totally unrelated book said this, the Holy Spirit does not just work on the left brain, he also works on the right brain. He sparks our imagination, causes arts today? Where are the hymn writers? Where are the novelists, painters, playwrights? And I would add, where are the men and women who are willing to work at the creative side of our sexual relations? Or are we stuck in the same humdrum rhythms that have worked for 30 years? One of the most obvious themes in this book is that sexuality within marriage is pleasurable by God's design, is good by God's design, and is beautiful in God's eyes. When God looked on his creation at the end of day six, what did he say? Previously he said it is not good for man to be alone, but at the end of day six, when they're together, he declared it all very good. And just as Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed in Genesis 2, the same is true in this song although interestingly he understands the psychology she's initially very insecure about her looks and that's something that we can be expecting but the Solomon makes her totally secure and I think it is impossible to miss the pleasure each finds in the other's conversation presence and body it is compared to every imaginable sight smell and taste that is pleasurable the joy of marital love is compared to blossoms and the fruit of the apple tree to the fragrance smells of the vineyards, costly perfume of myrrh and frankincense, the scent of Lebanon, the beds of spices, but the ecstasy, the ecstasy they both experience as they caress and touch each other makes them almost sick with desire in seven places in this book. And she speaks of being lovesick, as being like distractedly crazy, going crazy, almost a distraction. She wants him so much. He says he is overwhelmed in his heart, ravished in his heart by one glance of her eyes. So this is a mysterious and powerful reaction of body and soul that Proverbs 30 verse 19 says is beyond our understanding. He talks about things we cannot understand. And one is the way of a young man with a maid. But God created it and said it was very good. But lastly, this is also a book that warns single people romantic love before its time. And in context it is saying to avoid all of the things that led them, that led the couple irresistibly into having sex. Those things include kissing passionately. That is sexual foreplay. It includes touching parts of the body and hugging. The book as a whole outlines many things that can awaken the power of sexual love before it's time and if you're single that's not appropriate. Paul worded the same truth this way in 1st Corinthians 7 verse 1. He said it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Now he's not prohibiting any and all touch. The Bible's okay with some like the fires of Eros, the vehement flame that Song of Solomon talks about. The primary meaning of that word touch is any touch that causes burning to take place, the flame of Song of Solomon, or to light a fire, or to kindle a fire. So he's talking about touch that arouses sexual desires. The derivative meanings of that word touch in the dictionary are to have close physical contact, to cling to, to touch intimately, or to have sexual contact. The point is any touch that starts arousing sexual desire should be stopped immediately if you are not yet married to that person. That is not legalism. That is obedience to 1 Corinthians 7 verse 1. That is obedience to the Song of Solomon which charges the maidens, charges the singles to not awaken this powerful passion of marital love before its time. That kind of touch is reserved for poor play within marriage. Now we'll have to end there, but if you read the Song of Solomon with my linear story outline as a guide, I think it really will open up to you. And as it does, may God bless you. Amen. Father, I thank you for your word. And I thank you that your word touches upon absolutely every area of our lives. We've seen it touches upon mathematics. We've seen that it touches upon geometry and so many things that other people don't even think about. But Father, we're grateful that you give us such detailed instruction on how to improve this aspect of our married life. Help us, Father, to benefit from it. And may you be glorified in Jesus' name.