John Pople - Class 1: The Mysterious Song

Automatically transcribed. Accuracy is good but not perfect, and words are sometimes wrong. Trust the audio over the text.

1. 0:00

   This is day one of the 2019 Palm Springs Bible School, our second period teacher's brother John Popel. His general subject is the King who fell. Today's topic is the Mysterious Song. Good morning. And what a pleasure to be here with you. A pleasure in many different levels. A pleasure, most of all, I think, to explore the Bible. This genuinely does excite me to present these ideas. So I'm excited to get started and share what I see in the Song of Solomon with you, because it'll be quite different and a little bit challenging, but I think you will be the judges as to whether this makes sense or whether it does not. I'm excited for that. I'm excited for the fellowship and just sitting and chatting together. I'm excited even just to explore this local area.

2. 0:43

   It looks lovely with the pools right here in the place and also the opportunities to explore around. As Jeff has said, some of the hikes, I like to hike, are closed due to rain wash out. And Jeff alluded to this, but didn't say it explicitly. Some of the hikes are also closed or restricted for other reasons. There's, particularly at this time of year, there are bands of marauding cacti, which scamper around the desert. They don't move when you look at them, you'll notice that. But they do tend to huddle and lurk in the shadier parts of the hike and spring out and strike the unsuspecting. So, exercise due caution. Let's make a start.

3. 1:27

   This, we're going to look at the Song of Solomon, no surprises there. And part of the reason is, I've always found that a very mysterious book. I think it is the most mysterious book in the Bible, perhaps second to Revelation, but certainly the most mysterious book of the entire Old Testament. And I've never been fully comfortable with what I've required myself to think as I read through it.

4. 1:49

   I'm not fazed by the sexuality of the language that doesn't bother me at all. I grew up in the 1980s, and that's certainly late enough that all of that was open season, as it were. But I never quite really felt that I grasped the book. So, I decided to start over, just clean my mind.

5. 2:07

   I'm a scientist by profession. So, the idea is, okay, let's just take this as a physics problem. If I have the other 65 books of the Bible as my scientific database by which to unlock this mystery, and I ignore everything else I've ever seen or heard, and come to the Song fresh, then what am I going to end up believing? And I'm going to show you in the next five days what that is, and you'll be the judge of whether or not that makes sense.

6. 2:32

   So, you may already have a clear idea of what you think the Song is saying. If so, please just indulge me. Just set it to one side, just for one week, and see where we go. What's our objectives then? First of all, to build an exposition using the text. Not to arrive at the text with a preformed idea of what it's going to tell us, but say we're on a desert island, we've never read this book before in our lives, we're fully familiar with the other 65, this one is brand new, just arrived, it's part of the Word of God, what is it saying? So, using the text, and we're going to do that on the main three center days, the engine room of our study, on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, because it turns out that actually using the text of the song, just listening to the song itself, it really does, like other parts of the Bible, explain itself.

7. 3:22

   A famous phrase from Yogi Berra, you can see a lot by looking. And this guy was famous, as you know, for expressions such as these. That's Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. On Friday, we're really going to celebrate, indeed revel, in what we've seen, in the sense that I hope what we'll be celebrating together is a coherent understanding of the song, as a book of the Bible, but also seeing how that once the song is explained in the way it explains itself, it becomes the missing jigsaw puzzle piece in some other patterns that are bigger than any one Bible book. So, bigger Bible patterns where a lot of books, or a few, several books, play a role. The Song of Solomon is going to slot right in and say, okay, now the jigsaw puzzle's complete, and we've got a new lesson and a new pattern to celebrate.

8. 4:11

   And that's kind of really the proof that we've maybe found something which is valuable and accurate. Brother Shane was saying, it's the role of the priest, and that we are priests in that sense, to understand the Word of God and be capable to explain it to other people. So, we're going to be very tight to that regimen during this week. So, that's Friday. I hope you're still here for that, and God willing that that's allowed. And then, so what we're going to do today is explain maybe why existing hypotheses fall short of really explaining what the Song is about, and don't really account, actually don't make sense when we read the text openly and honestly. So, if anything is a tiny bit negative, it's only going to be today, and I have no desire to tear down rather than build up, but when you're trying to build a house, you need to clear the land that you want to build on, right?

9. 5:02

   So, let's take the Song of Songs as a plot of land, and we want to build a solid exposition upon it. We do need to maybe clear the ground today to make sure that it's nice and fresh for exposition construction beginning tomorrow, okay? That's what we're going to do. If nothing else, I can promise you what you are hearing is five concentrated years of study. For five years, not five consecutive years, but for five years, I read nothing but the Song of Solomon, and the only other Bible books I would read are those to which the Song directed me, okay?

10. 5:33

    So, there's absolutely five years of study, these years in particular, when I was engaged in this work. So, it's a big study. It's not just something I dreamt up on a car ride last Thursday because I, you know, had some talks to give. So, that's that much I can guarantee. I do default to using professors of Hebrew who are not even necessarily religious in order to translate the work. I'm not going to do any sort of amateurish, I look this word up in Strong's and therefore I think. I think that can easily derail us when we try and be experts where we're not.

11. 6:11

    So, from taking Hebrew to English, which is the process of translation, this bunch of meaningless squiggles apparently means I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine. For that, I will default entirely to those who know what they're talking about, professors of Hebrew at UC Berkeley, at Stanford University and other universities around the world. I will default to them entirely when it comes to translating the Hebrew into the English. Not that the English translations in different Bibles vary that much, but there are a few differences which are relevant. However, once we have an English translation we can trust, we then need to perform the process called exposition to take English into meaning, spiritual meaning. When it comes to this area, that's where I'm going to work and I'm going to invite you to work with me. And so, if these guys try and wander into this kitchen, I shall be shooing them out, right? Because that's not where they're expert and do I think myself an expert here? For better or worse, yes I do. I think we, you know, we spend our lives trying to understand the Bible, so hopefully we know what we're doing. So, these guys rule over here, I will not interfere with their work and they will not be allowed to interfere with my work over here. So, that's how it's going to break down. Let's just familiarize ourselves with the big picture framework facts. There are some certain facts in the song that allow us to just get started.

12. 7:38

    There is clearly a male character and a female character. The male character is referred to as a king of Jerusalem and he is also referred to with the name Solomon. Some believe that metaphorical, some absolute. We'll have a explore that. And there is clearly a female character. She describes herself as dark-skinned. She is evidently Lebanese, as we will see, and she is generally referred to as the bride. So, I tend to call her the Lebanese bride for simple factual reasons. There are support characters, particularly plural groups, the daughters of Jerusalem and the watchmen of Jerusalem. You'll notice I've said the daughters of Jerusalem, male. Why did I say that? What I mean by that is the daughters of Jerusalem, at all points, the grammar associated with them and the verbs that conjugate with them are male, not female. Okay, just to make it extra confusing, just in case the song wasn't confusing enough. And so, I think what we're looking at here is male grammar is used when there are males involved. Female grammar is used for females, but when there's a mix of males and females, the grammar is always male. Okay, so I think we're looking at the citizens of Jerusalem, both male and female, which is why there's male grammar and male conjugations used, but they're labeled daughters, which is appropriate to see them in the feminine sense because the king should be their spouse.

13. 9:01

    The king should actually be affianced and be married to his citizens of Jerusalem, and that's why they're presented in that language. Okay, the setting is obvious, that's in Jerusalem. Some settings are rural, some settings are more urban. The theme, again, quite easy to see, is the passionate relationship between the two of them, and there is some plot line. It's a little thin on plot line, but we do actually see some plot line. The king leads the bride at the beginning or in the first half of the song, and the song is very clearly in two halves. We'll exposit that more clearly tomorrow. Mutually, they adore each other, so much is clear. This is not a complex relationship. It is absolutely unadulterated love from the one to the other and reflected from the other to the one.

14. 9:46

    They are married. They are sexually consummated, as the Hebrew insists upon, but we do have some very curious developments. The watchmen of Jerusalem are violently opposed to the bride, and they physically beat her, whether that's metaphor or not, that's what's in the text, and the daughters of Jerusalem also stand in opposition to the bride, as we'll see in a rather catty conversation that they have, and by the end of the song, in the second, in fact, entirely in the second half, the bride leads the king, not the king leads the bride. So that's the reflection, the anti-symmetry of the start that we see. These are just facts. That's what we're dealing with right there. There are also prevalent symbols throughout the poetry, because it's poetry, we expect there to be symbols, and these are lilies, myrrh, doves, and taken together, I think they're synonymous, vineyards and gardens. So above all that, we'll need to have to see if we're going to be able to translate these symbols and gain spiritual learning from them.

15. 10:48

    Those are the facts. That's what we've got to deal with. That's actually a very small database of facts. It all fits on one slide, but that's what we're going to be working with. So then, here we go. The mysterious song. What do we see? We open up the Song of Solomon, and immediately, we're smacked in the face, really, with this very intense language. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes.

16. 11:17

    Your name is like perfume poured out. Now, I don't know how you react to that, but I react to that by going, surely this is chapter four. I've missed quite a bit. Like, who is he? For that matter, who's she? How did they meet? Why are they in love? How did that happen? And what's going on?

17. 11:37

    Well, I think that's deliberate. The author, and ultimately, we believe the author is God, of course. The author is very intelligent here. That's how you present and create an atmosphere of breathless passion. Make the reader feel, oh, I'm behind already, and I'm running just to keep up with what's going on. This text is just barreling along so fast, you're lost before it's even started.

18. 12:00

    And I think that's intentional. And that's a very clever thing to do. There's something else they've done which will appeal to your senses, which is very interesting and very insightful. We'll say that there are, humans have five senses. That's actually scientifically untrue, but let's, you know, this is poetry, so we'll forgive them. Of the five senses that we generally acknowledge, we have sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste. You'll be familiar with those. I've listed them in that order because that's the order of range scale over which they work. What do I mean by that? I mean, I can see things 10 miles away. In given circumstances, I could see something 100 miles away. Unusual, but that can arise. You've been there yourself. I can hear things, depending on how loud they are, up to what? One mile away, maybe? It was a big bang. I could hear things maybe a mile away.

19. 12:51

    I can smell things, what? 50 feet away? 30 feet away? Jeff says he can detect barbecue at six miles, and I believe it. But that's unusual. Okay? I can smell things multiple feet away. Touch, by definition, I can't touch anything until I'm literally zero distance away. That's what touch means. And taste is even closer than that. I can't taste anything until it's actually passed the anatomical barrier of my body and gone inside me, and then I can taste it. So those are the different length scales over which they work. As a result, the vast majority of my life and your life is sight, because that's the longest range. And the second most common sense I experience is hearing. So it's, my entire life is basically sight and hearing and a little bit of the others. Okay? That's how it works. So what has the author done here? This is clever. Look at the senses that are appealed to.

20. 13:52

    Taste, in a kiss, a kiss, and wine. Three times the least common sense, the closest sense. Touch, again, obviously involved in kisses. Smell, fragrance, perfume, perfume, and just one, your name, hearing. Sight? No sight at all. Not in those verses. So the author has very cunningly said, I'm just going to communicate to you entirely in the senses that are right here. You're like, I'm uncomfortable, go away, right? But that's right where the author wants you to be, right in the thick of the action, very intelligently done. So we see this is cleverly designed to begin so hurriedly and leave you left behind with details you feel you need to catch up, and it emphasizes proximity.

21. 14:38

    You're drawn into the intimacy of the relationship by means of the senses to which the author appeals. So this is clever stuff. This is deep stuff. This is well written. We kind of knew that anyway, but it's great to see how that is actually true. That doesn't interpret much of the storyline, but it shows us the sense in which and the care with which the song is written.

22. 15:01

    Theories to explain the song are manifold. The most common that we would encounter in our community would be what's called the allegorical model, of which there are two forms. For the Jewish rabbis, that would be the relationship between God and Israel, and a Christian adaptation of that is the relationship of Jesus Christ with the ecclesia or the church, so the rabbinical and messianic versions of an allegorical model. That's what I was taught growing up. That's what I tried to force myself to see every time I read the song, but I ran into difficulties, and I think in the end, insoluble difficulties with adopting this model. For example, as one of the Hebraeus says, well, there's nothing in the song that actually provokes you to go that way. I refuse to believe that you could read that text of the Song of Solomon on a desert island, having not been pre-programmed by some Christian community and say, oh, look, this is Jesus. I don't think you'd say that. I don't think we'd see that. And I'll show you more rational evidence in a minute. In fact, the approach this week is going to be very unscientific. If I say something and claim something, my evidence will be on the screen, so you can see whether or not you'd like to agree with me from what I put up on here. There are some positives to the messianic model. For example, the setting is of Solomon's reign. Clearly, the name Solomon is throughout the song. So, the son of David is on the throne. Well, that's interesting because the son of David is Solomon, but in a different sense, the son of

23. 16:32

    David is also Jesus. So, that's a good match for a messianic model. It's a time of peace. Solomon's name itself is drawn from the word shalom, meaning peace. So, it's a time of peace, and the kingdom, of course, will be a time of great peace. So, that's a good match too. And Israel is globally dominant at the time of Solomon, over a limited globe, so to speak, and Israel, of course, is globally dominant, very much so, at the time of the kingdom. So, what we find is actually the setting, the setting is good. It's the characters is where it all falls apart. We also have, and well-known, perhaps, this little match here, that the king knocks at the door of the bride. The king, listen, my beloved is knocking. Open to me, my sister, my darling. And later in Revelation, Jesus will say, behold, I stand at the door and knock. And sometimes much is made over the fact that that's a similar cameo. It's really one singular relation that works. But then, I say to myself, well, really? Someone is knocking at a door in the Song of Solomon's, and Jesus knocks on the door here, so that proves this is Jesus. But is that good enough? What about this passage?

24. 17:46

    Peter knocks at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came, and failed to let him in. Peter, I often wonder why people name their children Rhoda. Rhoda is the biblical airhead. Well, why would people do that? And Peter keeps on knocking. My point is here, if this is enough to say it must be Jesus, because he's knocking at the door, does that make Peter Jesus? Or maybe I should say the Song of Solomon is actually about Peter, right? Because someone knocks on the door, and Peter knocks on the door. So it's not really enough on its own, is it, to build a whole case upon. Nevertheless, that comparison is there, and this much, these are the positives for that model. But my experience in reading the Song of Solomon, and I invite you to do that, you could do that for yourself today, it takes about 20 minutes just to read the whole thing, was one of what I call cognitive dissonance. My understanding of Jesus' relationship with his bride, with his ecclesia, with his church, was not seemingly the same as what I was reading about, which was some sort of breathless teenage infatuation that was going on in the Song. You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride, you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes. Is that the depth of relationship between Jesus and the believers? Just a glance. This is Hollywood. This is literally love at first sight. You read it first in the Song of Solomon. I don't see that Jesus has that shallow, that surface relationship, that he's totally sold the moment he sees. Our relationship surely is so much deeper, so much

25. 19:23

    more profound, and so much more God-based than what you're going to read in the Song. Furthermore, he leads her in the first half of the Song, and yet exclusively she leads him in the second half of the Song. So how can that possibly model between Jesus and his followers? Jesus leads at all times, and we follow. Well, we either follow or fail to follow, but either way we don't lead at all times. In fact, one of the commentators mentioned, equality can hardly have been intended as a model for God's relationship to Israel. And this is one of the investigating the rabbinical form. He said, how can this be God and Israel if they take turns leading each other? Which is a fair point. The idea that it's Jesus, or it's a messianic model, is argued from silence. And I throw this out as a challenge. No verses state or realistically imply the Song is messianic. And I put that out to you. If you think there's one verse that says, this is Jesus, bring it to me this week. Because I don't think you can find one that is realistically implying that Song is messianic. We know that many scriptures in the Old Testament are messianic. Vast number. But let's have a look at the ones that we know are messianic.

26. 20:37

    He was pierced for our transgressions, and by his wounds we are healed. There is no one in the history of humanity whose wounds were useful for healing the sins of others except Jesus of Nazareth. That much is clear. So this, without naming Jesus, is clearly speaking about Jesus, and we understand that. Psalm 22, a band of evil men has encircled me. They have pierced my hands and my feet. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

27. 21:10

    Doesn't say who it is, but it's a perfect match to what happens in Matthew 27, so we know confidently this is talking about the Lord's anointed. This is Jesus Christ. This is how we understand messianic scriptures. What I'm saying is the burden of proof that rests on the song to be messianic cannot be met in the way that it is met for Isaiah, it is met for the Psalms, and it is met for so many others of the Old Testament scriptures. This is a big one for me.

28. 21:40

    In the entire Song of Solomon, as you probably know, there is no mention of God. None of the people talk about God, which means the male doesn't talk about God. Let's imagine the female is us, and we're having a particularly hopeless time, and we're not talking about God, but surely if the male is Jesus, he's going to talk about God. He's going to praise God. Jesus speaks of his father constantly, you know that from the Gospels, but no one in the song ever refers to him.

29. 22:10

    In fact, if you're a nerd, as I am, so quick nerd alert, spoiler alert, you could even work out how often he should mention him, right? You could go through, for example, the Gospel of John, and see how long does Jesus have to talk before he mentions his father. You can count it in a number of words, yeah? You go through the whole Gospel, so you make sure you have some sort of statistically reliable thing, and you go back to the song and say, well, how much does the male character talk?

30. 22:35

    This much. So how many times by now, if it were Jesus, should he have mentioned God? The answer is about 20. The male character should have mentioned God about 20 times throughout the song, and you're laughing at my nerdiness, aren't you? I thought you might, yeah. That's right. I have a little spreadsheet. Be great, I'll show you.

31. 22:56

    So he should have mentioned God about 20 times, but not at all, and for me, this is reason enough. The Song of Songs is massive and important and beautiful and powerful, and it's part of the Bible, but it's not talking about Jesus. This is not the character who is in the song. It is not Jesus.

32. 23:15

    The complete absence of the mention of God is a key part for that. In fact, we could turn it around and say, let's listen to Jesus just for a second. Most of you in this room have probably got married, and in fact, many of you might be old enough to have had children who have also got married. So you've seen wedding invitations issued. Not only have you seen them, you've probably issued, hands up if you've ever issued a wedding invitation, either on behalf of yourself, on behalf of a son or a daughter, generally done for the daughters, isn't it? Yeah, a large number. Here's the opening line of Jesus' wedding invite. I'm saying this was different to yours.

33. 23:52

    Hallelujah, for our Lord God Almighty reigns. Hands up everyone who used that as the opening line. Yeah, see? We're good, but we're not that good, are we? There's only one man who's spiritual enough to make that the opening line of his wedding invite. Hallelujah, our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad. It's a wedding. We all say that. And give God glory, for the wedding of the Lamb has come. The bride is ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, is given her to wear, and fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God's holy people. That is three explicit mentions of the Father just in the wedding invite. You can't tell me that that song is about that wedding and God doesn't warrant a mention. That doesn't sit well with me. It just doesn't work.

34. 24:41

    The wedding union of Christ and the bride is real, but it's not the Song of Songs. You'll find it in Revelation, you'll find it hinted at in several other places, but you won't find it, I put it to you, in the Song, for this reason and for several others. Solomon also is not an acceptable type of Christ.

35. 25:01

    His position is son of David, king on Israel's throne, time of peace, Israel globally dominant, nothing wrong with the setting. It's the man who's the problem. Now you might say, well, hang on, that's a bit mean because there's no mortal who is an acceptable type of Christ. Well, valid, but there is a watershed difference between one type and the other type. There is a type of man or woman who is faithful, and yet they sin. They will sin because we all sin. And there is a type of man who dedicates his life to sin. And if you want to know what the Bible thinks or how the Bible discriminates between one type and the other, it's the legacy that the Bible gives them.

36. 25:46

    Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God. So it became a lifestyle for him to not be devoted to God, and we know his wives actually caused him to worship other gods that are no gods, that don't even exist, and they'll be listed and we'll see them. Solomon was a spiritually weak man whose faith failed. That's not a type of Jesus, is it? Right? That isn't going to work. In fact, so much so that that is his legacy. 500 years later, Nehemiah says, and remember, I'll miss the context, and remember, whatever you do, don't turn out like Solomon. Remember what he did? Don't do it. Well, even without explaining what all that's about, that shows you. When someone's saying that about you, as they may about me, 500 years later, that's not a good guy. Yes, Abraham sinned, David sinned, Moses sinned, but they're all acceptable types of Christ. Abraham went into Egypt and sinned when he lied about Sarah. But what was Abraham's legacy? What was the title given to him? The father of the faithful and the friend of God. The friend of God. Moses sinned when he struck the rock and almost took God's glory for himself in the provision of water. What was his legacy? What was his label? A servant and the friend of God. Moses and Abraham actually had the identical tagline there. And David sinned in the case of Uriah the Hittite. And what was his lasting legacy? Man after God's own heart. So clearly, these are ones who say, yes, these, humans sin, but these are acceptable, these are acceptable types of Christ because their life is

37. 27:31

    devoted to God and it's marred by the occasional sin. That's very different from a man whose legacy, 500 years later, is a man who devoted his life to sin. I'm comfortable that King Manasseh will be in the kingdom of God. What a great heist, you know? 55 years of constant sin and a well-timed deathbed confession and boom, right? But that's not his legacy. No one's going to say Manasseh was a good type of Christ. Solomon is fundamentally inappropriate to represent Jesus. And we know the male character in the song who never talks about God is called Solomon. That is not a representation of Jesus of Nazareth.

38. 28:14

    So how do we solve that? Well, one solution, a rather strange solution that none of the academics countenance was to say, well, let's split the male character into the song and pretend there's, or try and imagine there's two of them. And if someone says anything bad, we'll just say that's the one guy, that's the king, that's the materialistic king, who really is Solomon. And then if there's anything useful said there, well, we'll say that's Jesus. We'll represent him as a shepherd.

39. 28:40

    And the female can still be spiritual Israel, caught between the materialistic king and the spiritual shepherd. So they put a shepherd into the text. So there's a king and a shepherd in there. Shepherd theory, it tends to be called for obvious reasons. Does that work? By no means. First of all, as with messianic theory entirely, it's argued from silence. Find me the verse that says there's a shepherd in the text. You have already finished, well done. You work fast. Took me five years.

40. 29:14

    It's not there. There is no explicit mention of a shepherd. There's one verse we're going to look at, or any second man. There's no mention there's two guys in there. In fact, if there is two guys, there's no dialogue. These two guys, these alleged two guys never meet. There's only talk of a man in love with a woman and that woman in love with that man. And there's no comparative statements, right? If the bride is really caught between one man that she's destined to marry and one man she wants to marry, there should be some sense of agonizing between the two. Think of the secular tale of Romeo and Juliet, right? Juliet is contracted to be married to Count Paris, but is actually in love with Romeo, Montague, who's from a warring household family that she's not permitted to love. And so there's this long series of agonizing statements of like, oh, I need to be over here, but I'd love to be over here.

41. 30:07

    There's none of that in the song. The bride in the song is not agonizing between two men, as she would be if caught between two. In fact, the requirements for shepherd theory are often stated as the king has abducted the girl against her will, for which there is no evidence. The girl only loves the shepherd, not the king, for which there is no evidence. There is no mention of the girl ever being reluctant.

42. 30:31

    And the shepherd sneaks past the temple guards to talk with her, which is great apart from no mention of a shepherd, no mention of talking with her and no mention of sneaking past temple guards. Other than that, it's pretty solid. It doesn't have anything behind it. So I suggest to you, this is an error that's been created to try and make a theory work, which clearly isn't going to function. Why then does anyone propose the idea of shepherd theory? Well, there is this one verse. Tell me whom you love, where you pasture your flock. Now, who's going to pasture a flock except a shepherd? Fair? Tell me you whom I love, where you pasture your flock, and where you rest your sheep at midday. Why should I be like a veiled woman? This is a euphemism for a prostitute, as you probably know. Why should I appear like a prostitute beside the flocks of your friends? It's a bizarre sentence in any event, right? It's going to be difficult to solve. But I suggest to you, we really need to have a look at this verb here. So I repair to the Hebraic experts, and this is the verb ra'ah, to pasture. And this verb has a strong sexual connotation. Sorry if that's awkward, but that's the case. And so the Hebraists point out where else it's used in the Bible, and that becomes clear. It's used in this verse here.

43. 31:49

    A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth. And you might say, well, hang on, I don't see any obvious verb ra'ah in there. It's actually been rendered here as a noun. It's that word companion. So I could read this as, a man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but one who pastures prostitutes squanders his wealth. It's the same identical word that appears here, okay? And it also appears later in the song. My beloved is mine, and I am his. He browses among the lilies. That's that same sexual word there, okay? So these are all the identical Hebrew verb ra'ah. So what she's asking is not, where do you keep your flock, but where do you pasture? That is to say, where can we go to be intimate together, right? Which makes sense in the context of a love song, right? This is a love song. Why is she asking, oh, where'd you keep your sheep? Hi, I love you, you're beautiful. Where do you have your train set? No, that's not relevant, is it? She's not asking where livestock are. She's asking where they may go together so he may pasture. And that now makes sense. Tell me, you whom I love, where can we go to be intimate together? Because if I meet you on the streets, I'm going to look like a prostitute, yeah? If I pick you up on the streets, so tell me what hidden place we can go and meet so that I don't have to look like a veiled woman in front of your friends. That now makes complete sense in the context and is justified

44. 33:32

    by the use of the verb involved. So it wasn't talking about keeping real sheep anyway, and that's where shepherd theory was born and where it should not have been born with a better reading. So as far as shepherd theory goes, we take that away and we're left still trying to say, well, perhaps this is Christ in the church. But the problem so far, none of the required facts exist, which is a huge problem.

45. 33:58

    The male character never mentions God, which is enough for me to reject it. And the man who is called Solomon has a legacy of abandoning God. Not that he has one sin amongst the godly life, he has a legacy, which is abandoning God. These three things do not work. They are fundamental destructive errors for reading the song in that manner. It's also relevant, and this is going to be critical for understanding, that the Hebrew insists that the couple are in fact sexually consummated.

46. 34:33

    They are married, so that's fine, and they are sexually consummated. The Hebrew word dodim occurs 32 times throughout the song, and that refers to acts of lovemaking. It is diluted, say the Hebraists, if you translate it using this generic term love, as in I love you, which could mean any of a thousand things. I love, yeah, I love cricket, I love food. That's a very broad term.

47. 34:56

    Dodim is not so broad a term. It is restricted to a physical act of love, and we'll show evidence for that. And astonishingly, the Song of Songs is less than one percent of the Bible, by volume, right, in terms of all the books of the Bible. And yet, as far as the word dodim for sexual love goes, it has more than half of all biblical references just in that tiny book. So 32 out of, I think it's a total of 50-something references in the whole Bible occur in this tiny, tiny section. Let's look at biblical evidence of other uses of the verb dodim. Come, let's drink deeply of love till morning. Well, that's ambiguous.

48. 35:39

    It could be anything. It could be we love to sit down and watch the cricket together. It could be. Let's enjoy ourselves with love. Sure, England are winning. That's great.

49. 35:48

    My husband is not at home. There's the giveaway. This is the type of love we can only enjoy if my husband's out of town. So it's a clear indicator that we're doing a lot more than just watching the cricket here. Okay? Or God describes metaphorically His bride, Israel, you grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, and when I looked at you and saw, you were old enough for this type of love. There's only one type of love that you actually have to pass through puberty in order to enjoy, and that clearly is a physical form of love.

50. 36:21

    Or again, then the Babylonians came to Jerusalem to the bed of love, this type of love, and in their lust they defiled her. That can only be one type of love. So this is the, this is dodim. This is the love which is throughout the Song of Songs. So it's a sexually consummated relationship. Given these uses of dodim, writes one of the professors, we can be quite certain that the word also refers to sexual love in the song, because that is the Bible-wide usage of that term. So I like the fact it's based on, on scripture as well as their own linguistic professionalism.

51. 36:57

    I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride. This is the key verse where it all kicks off. Halfway through the book, in fact, exactly halfway through the book, we'll come back to the importance of that in a minute. I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride. I have gathered my myrrh with my spice.

52. 37:13

    Eat, friends, and drink. Drink your fill of love. This is the point where they meet and consummate at the start, as we have it, of chapter five. And the professor goes on to explain, while the Hebrew perfect verb, it's in perfect tense, is able to express a variety of temporal and aspectual nuances, its most typical role, especially in the Song, is to denote a narrative past. That is to say, that sexual consummation has occurred. So we're quite clear on that. That's just something that we need to nail down. Why do we care?

53. 37:43

    We're not just having some voyeuristic interest in their relationship. Why do we care? We care because if we're saying, oh, but surely it's Jesus in the church, okay, well then if this relationship is consummated, it can't be before the kingdom, can it? Because Jesus isn't married. The marriage of Jesus is at his return, the wedding supper of the Lamb. We all know about that, okay?

54. 38:04

    So if the Song depicts Christ in the church, it can only be in the kingdom age when the consummation has taken place. Okay, fine. We've already got some serious problems with this, but we at least know it can't be prior to the kingdom. But this, the watchman found me, that's the bride, as they made their rounds in the city. They beat me, they bruised me, they took away my cloak, those watchmen of the walls. In the kingdom, question for you, keep you engaged, in the kingdom, who are the watchmen of Jerusalem? In the kingdom. Resurrected saints. In what condition? Immortal. So, okay, so the watchmen are immortal resurrected saints, great. In the kingdom, who is the bride of Christ? Saints, resurrected immortal saints. Read those verses again. So there's a bunch of resurrected immortal saints trying to beat the living tar out of another bunch of resurrected immortal saints. Never mind the morality problems, that's a bit pointless, isn't it? Trying to beat up an immortal person. Take a long time to actually kill them, don't you think? So we've got sinless immortals appointed by Christ are beating up a bunch of sinless immortals. That's not possible, is it? That's just nonsense. So therefore, if the song depicts Christ in the church, the song cannot be during the kingdom. Oh dear, because the previous slide just proves it can't be before the kingdom. So it cannot be before the kingdom because of the sexual consummation and it cannot be during the kingdom because of the violence in Jerusalem.

55. 39:51

    Hmm, we're running out of options here. We're down to approximately zero and there's more. Look, it's Solomon's carriage escorted by 60 bodyguards, 60 warriors, the noblest of Israel, each with his sword at his side prepared for the terrors of the night. Let's read that again according to the messianic model. Look, it is Jesus's carriage escorted by 60 bodyguards, you know, the noblest of Israel, each with his sword at the side prepared for the terrors of the night.

56. 40:20

    What's the problem with that? There shouldn't be any terrors of the night in millennial Jerusalem. One other problem, you're absolutely right. Jesus doesn't need bodyguards, right? And the bodyguards are mortal. Oh, that's hilarious. That's a bit useless, isn't it? An immortal, having mortal bodyguards. There are no terrors in the night in millennial Jerusalem and Jesus doesn't need bodyguards either during the kingdom, after the kingdom, before the kingdom, or at any time at all. Twelve legions of angels may be on standby, but he's not going to call them. If the song depicts Christ in the church, the song cannot be during the kingdom. Can't be before the kingdom, can't be during the kingdom, or at any time for Jesus having bodyguards. So this is really destroyed. One last, she seals him.

57. 41:07

    That's when a farmer puts a brand on his cattle. Sounds brutal, and it's not brutal because it does exist in biblical language. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. Now, realize who seals who. The owner of the cattle brands the cattle. It's the cattle who wears the brand. And in case that sounds derogatory, I don't mean that derogatory because we hope to wear the seal.

58. 41:33

    We hope to wear the seal of God, right? The owner places the seal on the owned. The angels put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of God. We hope to have that seal so that God will look at us and say, that's one of mine, she's one of mine, he's one of mine. Great. They were told, the angels of destruction were told not to harm the grass, the green plants, but only the people who don't have the seal of God on their foreheads. So this seal is vital, it's important. We want to wear the seal of God. But God is the one who puts the seal on because he's in charge and we're the sealed. In the song, she's in charge and he's the one who's sealed. God owns his disciples and therefore, and quite truthfully, she owns him and she does own him. And how? But it's not Christ therefore, is it? The church doesn't own Jesus and brand Jesus and say, you're ours, you're our little pocket God that we carry around and bring out in time of trouble. This is the wrong way around. There are other arguments, but, you know, perhaps at some point, you just have to stop and let it go. I think we've seen enough to see the messianic model does not work. So why do they even exist? If they're so bad, and I put it to you, they are very bad. I put it to you, it's embarrassing if we're going out teaching people that the song is Christ and the church. If they're that bad, why do they even exist? Historically, we can answer that. They existed because the rule was sexuality is itself a sin, and if there's a book

59. 43:13

    about it, it must be allegorical. Let's see what was written 700 years ago. Only a metaphor of God or Christ could purify the sexual content. 700 years ago, a rabbi wrote this, if the song's words had their literal meaning, there would be nothing in the world so literally profane as they, and there would have been nothing more damaging to Israel than the day the Song of Songs was given to them, for its literal meaning stirs up desire, above all sexual desire, than which nothing is more blameworthy.

60. 43:47

    Sexuality is necessarily a sin, says the rabbi 700 years ago. 600 years later, i.e. last century, have we really come on very far? The quotes are more reasonable. A Christadelphian work. There exists nothing in the song that can be classed as indelicate when the spiritual meaning is discerned. It's the same message in slightly more sensible language.

61. 44:14

    It says, ultimately, you can't read this literally because it's just dirty. Brothers and sisters, the Song of Songs is not dirty. It is the Word of God. It is clean in any form. It is edifying in any form, and we don't have to create some allegory of it in order to clean it from its erstwhile dirtiness.

62. 44:38

    We're not going to do that. It's a beautiful thing in itself. We will be seeing spiritual lessons, don't worry. Just by taking a literal reading, I like to say it this way, rooting the song on earth does not stop it reaching to heaven. We will still see deep spiritual messages in the text itself.

63. 44:55

    For what it's worth, just so you know, Christadelphians inherited the allegorical model from mainstream Christianity anyway. This was never our idea. I don't sound like we're making excuses, but it was never a Christadelphian creation. The early, early Christadelphians worked, as you probably know, a great deal in fundamental doctrine, understandably so, and a great deal in prophecy, for those who love prophecy. But they didn't work in the wisdom books. So we've actually inherited the mainstream Christianity's interpretations of the wisdom books. And I'm not saying mainstream Christianity has everything wrong. It doesn't. But it's a pretty dubious provenance from which to arise. So our take on the Song of Songs comes straight from mainstream Christianity and should be challenged, because it doesn't work. That's my point this week. Why believe it? Here's another good reason. There's a photograph of my Bible. Get your Bibles out. See if you've got the same thing. Do you see what I see? Yeah. That's why. Because I'm reading this completely obscure, and I'm like, what on earth does this mean? I look at the top of the page, oh, got it. Okay, good. It's Christ's love to the church.

64. 45:58

    I'll start looking for that. Pretty hard to find, but at least I know what it means, because it says so. And the thing is, this is a King James Version. I was brought up on the King James Bible. I imagine most of us were. The King James Version, allegedly, is not a study Bible.

65. 46:13

    When you have a study Bible, you're on guard. You're like, people put all sorts of ideas in this. I'll test them, you know, test them whether these things be so. But the King James isn't a study Bible. So, you just, you know, you just read it. Well, it says so in the Bible, it's Christ's love to the church. But that's not the inspired text, as you know, on reflection.

66. 46:28

    Can anyone see that? Does anyone have that still to this day? You do? You have a few nodding heads. Yeah. Okay. So, that's why it's there. I don't think there's some conspiracy theory. I don't believe in that. I think it's an accidental exposition that the publishing house doesn't realise you're actually expositing when you do that. There's nothing in here to make that true. So, that's exposition and it's wrong exposition and it's written right there in the Bible I've had since I was five years old. It's not helpful. So, last slide. Here then is what I want to suggest to you.

67. 47:00

    I haven't justified this at all. This is what we're going to do in the next three days. I'm going to suggest to you that what this book is actually saying is it's showing you Solomon celebrating his passionate love with a foreign bride. So, the spiritual lessons here is the lethal danger of otherwise perfect love, i.e. perfect love but without God. There's no abuse between them. There's no manipulation between them. There's no power struggle between them intentionally. They truly 100% love each other but there's no God. And perhaps you're seeing the relevance to the 21st century, right? It's a big argument now launched by the Beatles. All you need is love and what they mean is as long as you have an emotional and true and genuine and diligent and non-destructive commitment to another human being and they reflect that, that is perfection. If only God had warned us with a book of the Bible showing why that doesn't work. He has. He did. We're reading it.

68. 47:58

    And that's why it's so relevant for today. It's the counter or the caveat at least to all you need is love. The biblical history already knows there is a king called Solomon who falls head over heels with lots of women and abandons his guard. Be nice to see an expansion of that to see the dangers and how they arise. The Song of Songs, we know that there's a king called Solomon seven times that he's head over heels and in love and there's no mention of God. It's a clue, isn't it? Can't argue it's not a clue. This is the way we need to go. I'm going to suggest to you that is the summary.

69. 48:28

    I will justify that in the week. Solomon's deadly new path chasing beautiful women for the sake of the enjoyment of the love that he finds and he abandons God in so doing. It makes sense of why there's a hostility between the bride without it being her fault with the daughters of Jerusalem. She's taking their place. He's supposed to be married to the citizens and to the religion of Jerusalem. Instead, it's Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians and Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites and others such. And it explains why the watchman of Jerusalem would try and eliminate her. That's their job. In fact, their life is on the line if they don't.

70. 49:03

    If there's a mortal threat to the citizens of Jerusalem, it's their job to repel that mortal threat. And they see her as that mortal threat correctly. Again, she is not at fault. Solomon is at fault. He has a partner who doesn't know God, but he's too cowardly or too selfish or too self-indulged to bother to tell her about his God. He prefers her body and he enjoys it. That's where we're going to pick up tomorrow with the siren song of Lebanon. Thanks, Geoff.

71. 49:32

    Let's keep going.