xjwsforChrist

Why was the Song of Solomon included in the Bible?

It is a live song, dear LQ ( peace to you, dear brother!)... between Christ and his Bride. I particularly love Chapter 5. Let know if you see why.

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

It is a song of love, a celebration of life. It teaches us that faith does not mean renouncing passion, to the contrary, faith calls us to harness that emotion in a good, loving and appropriate way. Love your partner as the Father loves the church (which means all of us)!

Sorry, I meant to post "love" song, dear LQ (peace to you!). Thank YOU for your comments, dear GL (peace to you, as well!), but it really isn't about the Father or physical passion/partners, but as I shared, about Christ and the love shared between him and his Bride. Perhaps you can see what I mean from the following:

First, from Revelation 3:20:

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

Now, from Song of Solomon 5:) Chapter 5, verses 1 through

He

"I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride;
I have gathered my myrrh with my spice.
I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey;
I have drunk my wine and my milk.

Eat, friends, and drink;
drink your fill of love."

She

"I slept but my heart was awake.
Listen! My beloved is knocking:

He

“Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew,
my hair with the dampness of the night.”

She

"I have taken off my robe—
must I put it on again?
I have washed my feet—
must I soil them again?
My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.
I arose to open for my beloved,
and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with flowing myrrh,
on the handles of the bolt.
I opened for my beloved,
but my beloved had left; he was gone.
My heart sank at his departure.
I looked for him but did not find him."
I called him but he did not answer."

Now, consider:

He knocked, the one "she" was longing for. But when he did, it was at an "inconvenient" time for HER. Her lover had arrived... but she didn't want to get out of bed and receive him. She had already removed her robe and washed her feet. She was ready to sleep. And so, she pondered what to do. She did love him, but not ENOUGH... to get up, even dirty her feet... and receive him. And so, while SHE delayed opening to his knock... HE... moved on. So that by the time she DID get up and answer... she couldn't find him. Even when she called for him, he didn't answer. Why?

Let me ask you this, dear one:

How many times in your life have you been in bed, maybe just fallen asleep... or perhaps have been asleep for a bit... and yet, heard a knock [at your door]? Or the [door]bell ring? Heard it clearly. Do you get up and check to see who's there? Or... do you ignore it because (1) "know" you didn't REALLY "hear" a knock/ring but "must have been" dreaming, and so
know" that "no one" is really there, or (2) believe you heard a knock/ring... but are "too tired/got into bed/it's too cold/who cares/whoever is knocking at MY door at this time of the night better'd run because they've really disturbed me", etc.?

Or, perhaps you have gotten up BEFORE... because you KNOW you heard a knock/ring... but found "no one" there, and so you're "not falling for that THIS time," etc.?

What, though, if your getting up and answering, checking to see if "anyone" IS there, is not about whether someone IS... but about YOUR listening... and obeying? About your FAITH... such that you DO listen... and obey?

What if the action to be taken as to Revelation 3:20 is LITERAL (i.e., meaning, actually getting up and OPENING the door when you hear the knock/bell so as to DEMONSTRATE your faith... that he IS knocking)... so that in DOING so, you LITERALLY... SYMBOLIZE... your faith in him... AND in what he SAID... showing that you LISTEN... and DO "just so?"

LIKE the Father, Christ... is a SPIRIT. The HOLY Spirit. And his KNOCK would be done by him AS a spirit. Yes? Versus as flesh with its blood? Yet, how can one "respond" to the knock of a spirit? Would it not be by getting out of bed... and OPENING THE DOOR, once one HEARS the knock/bell? Even if one cannot "see" spirit, one CAN open one's door, yes?

I will offer that I used to hear such "knocking" and/or "bell" often. I've only heard such maybe twice in close to 2 decades now, though. Because I learned to get up... and answer. Literally. Open the door (and invite my dear Lord in), after which I would partake with him. I no longer need to do so, though, because I've learned from him that in my doing so, I have demonstrated my faith... that it is him "knocking."

Yes, yes, I know: you open the door and no one's there. But again, my dear Lord is a spirit. And in following HIM, one must walk... and open doors... by FAITH. NOT... by sight.

Just something for you to consider. I hope they help. I do understand if they may be difficult to grasp. I would offer, though, that there IS One who can help those who are wishing... thirsting... TO see... and get the sense of it. If such ones truly desire it.

Again, peace to you... and to your household!

Your servant and a slave of Christ, whose INVISIBLE PRESENCE, is sufficient for those who belong to him... and walk by faith, not sight...while awaiting his return ,

Shellamar

Thanks for the replies.

I ask this because Song of Solomon was in the WT lesson this past weekend with the application being to love in a marriage (mostly). This particular book is so out of place in the Bible so as to make one wonder why it was there in the first place. It hit me that this could very well be describing Christ (the shepherd), his bride (the Shulammite girl) and false religion (the king who pursues and woos the girl). So, I started this topic here to get thoughts of others here on this without saying what I was thinking.

A discussion of the WT lesson was started on another forum I visit, and I asked about this thought above. One responder, a studious person who I have a great deal of respect for, brought out a comment from the NAC commentary. I think it's worth talking about here.

Here's the comment from the NAC:


Thoughts?

Peace to you Leaving!


Well, as you know, I was at this talk on Sunday, lol.

Now, I haven't read this book in a long time, and don't recall what all is written, other than what they repeated in their talk on Sunday. I assume they follow the same script in each congregation so... recall when they asked the question, why did the Shumalite maiden love the Shepherd?


My Lord said to me, "Because he loved HER." Then He reminded me that WE love, because He loved us FIRST. He gave His life for US. (I know Paul says that about God - that God loved us first and his Son - because I later looked it up. But the same is true of Christ. Of course)

Again, I had not read the book in a long time, and did not remember what was written (still don't, though I may go read it now). But I knew that at least that part (the answer to that question) related to Christ. Because He gave me the answer right then and there.



Because of that, I have no doubt whatsoever about what you shared, Shelby, that the book is about Christ and His Bride, and so I read that and was just, "Yes!"


Peace to you,
your sister and servant, and fellow slave of Christ,
tammy

Oh, I don't doubt it's about Christ. Not at all. Even WT has related this book to Christ and the bride, including having a song in the songbook at one time with that relation:


Of course, this song was taken out of the newest song book.

I must suppress a sigh here, dear LQ (peace to you, luv!), because that that is EXACTLY what it is describing... as to CHRIST and those of HIS Body.

Why CALL her a "bride"? Why use the terms "chaste" and "virgin" and "adultereresses"... "harlots"... "fornicators", etc., in ANY of the metaphors? Because most don't understand the TRUTH. Which truth can be found in these words:

"THIS means everlasting life, their KNOWING you, the True God... AND [knowing] the One whom you sent forth."

Sadly, it is interpretations such as the WTBTS' "taking in knowledge of" that totally mislead as to the TRUE meaning of this verse. Because they mistransliterate the Greek word "knowing" (ginōskō). The definitions of that word are:



However, there is one more definition, the TRUE definition in this case, which they ALL miss:



This Jewish idiom is based on the word "yada," as in a man knowing a woman sexually. And THAT is the true translation of my dear Lord's words, that it is knowing (yada) Christ, and JAH through Christ... in the MOST INTIMATE way (and what is more intimate than a sexual union)... that brings everlasting life. How so? Because, it is when a man is JOINED to a woman that the TWO... become ONE. Yes? And it is no different with regard to Christ... and... his BRIDE.

They are not joined in FLESH (so that no "sin" occurs, because NO SEED... or LIFE... is spilled!); they are joined IN SPIRIT. So that, just as when a man and a woman join in the flesh to become ONE... they... Christ and his Bride... join in SPIRIT... and become one... SPIRIT.

Spirits are very sexual beings; however, they are not PHYSICAL beings. Their unions are not of the FLESH... but of the SPIRIT (i.e., the MIND and HEART). But it is still a UNION. And still brings both parties "pleasure," even greater pleasure than the joining of the flesh. Because the pleasure of the joining of the flesh is limited: in strength, intensity, and duration. Joining of the SPIRIT, however, does not end... or wane. And is more powerful than any other "feeling" two can have between them.

When a man joins with a woman in the flesh it is said that he "knows" her - he knows/has known her... physically speaking. With Christ, it is the EXACT same thing, except it is beyond the flesh. Actually, that it is ABOVE the flesh is more appropriate. And when a man "knows" a woman... and she him... in the "Biblical sense" we all know it means physically. Sexually. That his/her innermost "parts" are known by the other.

It is the same with Christ and his Bride, except there is not just knowledge of the vessel (physical body), but as to what's IN the vessel - what is held within it (in the heart, etc.). So that there is nothing UNknown BETWEEN them.



This is true: it is not spirit to flesh, as with JAH and Mary. It is spirit... to SPIRIT. The flesh is of no use at all and so has no hold on or desire to Christ. It is the SPIRIT that appeals to him, if that spirit is "beautiful."

We can hardly imagine Christ describing his love for the church in the terms of Song 7:7-8.

If we are unclean, perhaps not. But all things are CLEAN... to a clean people. Above all else, the love of Christ... for his BRIDE... and HER love for HIM... is clean. There is nothing profane about it. It is lawFUL, and so there is no fornication or adultery connected to it. No "sin." It is sanctioned by God Himself, He who brings the Bride TO Christ (John 4:4) as He brought Eve to Adham.

And what did He bring her to Adham FOR? What did He tell them to DO? "Be FRUITFUL and MULTIPLY." How, though, would they have done that? And what did Adham say when his bride was brought to him?

"This is, at last, bone of MY bone, flesh of MY flesh."

And it is the exact same thing as to Christ and HIS Bride, as Paul wrote:

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Ephesians 5:30, 31

A man and woman did not BECOME one flesh... unless JOINING of the flesh... intercourse... took place. It is the same with Christ and HIS Body: they do not become one SPIRIT... unless JOINING... or intercourse... of SPIRIT... takes place.



Au contrare. No reason to promise that bride... as a VIRGIN, chaste or otherwise... if that were the case. No reason for the alluding to "harlots" and "adulteries," and "fornication," and "brides," and "promised", and lips, mouths, breasts... "seed"... "womb", "woman", etc., if that were the case.

The writer of that opinion does not know my Lord, though, either technically... or literally... "sexually"... or spiritually. And so the opinion is all that it could ever be: speaking... WITHOUT "knowing" (in every sense of the word).

True, a man can know a woman without having sex with her. But his doing so does not take him to the ultimate intimacy with her. And he can have intimacy with her without truly knowing her. But the knowing, in the sense of John 17:3 is at to BOTH: FULLY knowing (yada), in EVERY sense of the word. Knowing SO intimately, that one not only knows the others' mind, but also their body. And vice versa.

A woman... bride... certainly "knows", in the "Biblical" sense... a man whose breath, blood... and seed... she welcomingly receives into HER body. And that is exactly what one is doing... when one RECEIVES holy spirit, the breath, blood... and seed... of God, through Christ.

The Song of Solomon is a love song, dear, dear LQ. Of the love of a shepherd for his virgin girl, she who is not necessarily delicate and prone to vapors and such... and she for him... although she can sometimes "forget" that she loves him, or forget the requirements of that love (i.e., answering his knock), because of her own "issues" (too tired, don't want to dirty her just washed feet, etc.).

I offer to you, read the book again. Only this time, before you do... ask... for our dear Lord to open your ears, and perhaps grant you a bit of the Father's holy spirit, as "eyesalve"... and then let HIM read it to you. Then... just LISTEN... to HIS voice... as he does.

As always, peace to you... and to your dear household.

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

Shelby, thank you. Beautiful explanations.

One thing... the "king" in the Song represents whom? Does he represents false religion / Babylon the Great, one who would try to woo the bride-to-be away from her lover? Someone in power who would go to the greatest lengths to get this one woman, whom he calls "flawless" (Song of Solomon 6:9 NWT), the only one whom he really wants, even though he has "60 queens and 80 concubines"?

The "king," would be a "ruler," dear LQ (peace to you, dear brother!). The Mother of the Harlot is no ruler. True, she says, "I sit a queen," but she is an adulteress (as to the king, who dismisses her) and thus a liar.

There is one, however, who IS a "ruler," whose aim is to lure the Bride away. To "deceive" her, in the same way he deceived another woman. Genesis 3:13. Who would go to GREAT lengths to get THIS one woman, the Bride of Christ. Who first went after the BrideGROOM, but when did work turned his attention to the Bride. Luke 4:3-15; Revelation 12:3-6; 15-17

So, we shouldn't be surprised that he has "agents," INCLUDING the Mother of the Harlots. Matthew 24:23-26; Revelation 17:2, 15-17

I hope this helps, dear one.

Peace to you and to your household!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

Ahhhhhh!!!!! Yes, yes, yes.

Smile...

Peace to you, dear LQ... and forgive me, because I didn't actually answer your question. This "song" is included in the Bible... because it was part of what the early Jews considered "scripture" and so was included even before the NT. What I received from our dear Lord about it, though, explains more, if not astounds (it did me!). He said that this "song" was actually a part of the "Psalms." Now, if that is the case, then it is actually "scripture." Luke 24:44; John 5:39 40

But wait, didn't SOLOMON write this "song"? HUGE smile here because, well, not exactly What I received from our dear Lord about that... well, see for yourself:

He said:

"The man, Shah'a'JAH'min (whom we know as "Solomon") was often heard singing this song, child. So much so, that it was thought that he wrote it. But... it was a song I gave to, was composed by, and sung, most of the man Shah'a'JAH'min's youth TO him... by his father, the beloved servant... D'JaH'VeH'd."

Okay... OMG!! I did NOT know THAT, not at ALL!!

He then said that it was actually "a Psalm," and pne NOT separate from the others, but that because of its "intimacy" it depicts, the scribes, who had NO clue as to its true meaning, give the credit for it to Solomon, because... and check THIS out: (1) he was often heard SINGING (parts of) it and (2) he was a KNOWN womaninzer, and so the it made more sense to THEM to credit HIM with it... than David, who actually composed it! Or worse, to him (my dear Lord), who gave it to David! No, THEY simply considered it just a "love song" of Solomon's for some NEW "virgin" who had caught his eye (remember, Solomon had over 700 wives and concubines!). It was later that it was considered as intimating our dear Lord and HIS bride (although some STILL can't make the connection as they can't move themselves past the flesh... and "pornea"... to the SPIRIT, and what it's truly saying in THAT regard).

Since is WAS a Psalm (of David), however, it is, therefore, part of what our dear Lord... and the ancient Jews... considered "scripture."

As our dear Lord, of [the] Scriptures:

"These are the very ones that bear witness... to/about ME." John 5:39

This "song," dear one, absolutely bears witness to/about our dear Lord. Absolutely. To/about his LOVE... for his BRIDE, the NEW Jerusalem. And "she" for him.

I hope that helps, dear one. And trust me, I was just as blown away by this particular "Revelation," as perhaps you are... but I knew in the very moment that my dear Lord began revealing it to me, that it was truth. He does not lie. Ever.

Peace to you and to your dear household!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

I must say, WOW! This is awesome.

A song sung by Solomon passed down to him by his father David which was given TO HIM by our Lord as part of ( supposed to be) The Psalms.

Thank you for sharing this wonderful truth. It is truly beautiful.

Love and peace to you all, your sister and fellow servant of our Lord JAHeshua MischaJah, Kim

Yes Kim, I agree.
Peace,
Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"