Q&A on Solomon’s SONG OF SONGS

This article mines the Song of Songs and related resources for insights by addressing myriad key questions concerning this unique book of the Bible. Whenever the answer is uncertain, the best possible ones are supplied.

What is the Song of Songs?

The Song of Songs is a poetic book of the Hebraic Scriptures — aka the Old Testament — that involves the lyrics to a love song in eight chapters. It follows the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes; and precedes the prophetic books, which begin with Isaiah.

The Song of Songs is relatively short at eight chapters in poetic form, which can be cursorily read in 15-20 minutes. It’s available online here for you to read or reference.

The fact that there are multiple speaking parts, including choruses of people, suggest that it was acted out as a musical, possibly as part of a wedding festival. Keep in mind that poetry, songs and stories were entertainment in ancient times, just as concerts, movies and shows are to us today.

Who wrote the Song of Songs?

The very first verse plainly states: “Solomon’s Song of Songs” with the literal Hebrew reading “The Song of Songs that [is] of Solomon,” thus it was written by Solomon. This corresponds to the fact that Solomon “spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five” (1 Kings 4:32).

This incidentally explains why the book is often listed in some translations as the Song of Solomon, as it is in the King James Version and New King James Version.

When was it written?

Since the cities noted in the song involve both northern and southern Israel, the events of the story and the time of composition indicate any time during Solomon’s reign from 971-931 BC, which was before the kingdom was divided into Israel (north) and Judah (south) after Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 11:41-12:33).

Why is it called the “Song of Songs”?

Of the 1005 songs that Solomon wrote this was obviously his greatest song, his ‘magnum opus,’ and no doubt his longest. Thus he dubbed it accordingly, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). It literally means the “best of songs.” Similar wording can be observed in other biblical phrases like Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and Holy of Holies. You could say it was Solomon’s “greatest hit” or “triple-platinum record.”

Is it an anthology of love poems?

The reality that the Song of Songs is Solomon’s greatest song and that it’s “God-breathed,” as is all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), rules out the theory of modern scholars that it is simply an ancient collection of secular love poems from Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece. This “anthology” interpretation is also invalidated by the glaring literary unity of the song, as observed by repeated phrases and ideas, such as “the daughters of Jerusalem/Zion” (1:5, 2:7, 3:5, 3:10-11, 5:8, 5:16 & 8:4).

The fact that this book of the Bible is an epic love song explains the challenge of discerning a coherent story. The nature of song lyrics & poetry is to convey emotions and spur intrigue, images, ideas and morals above a point-by-point saga. As art, the Song of Song inspires people one way or another and is written in such a way to leave room for interpretation. A good modern example would be the popular song Stairway to Heaven. Has anyone yet been able to conclusively figure out what this classic song is about or what it means? Ask ten different people and you’ll get ten different answers. That’s part of the appeal of art appreciation — putting the pieces of the puzzle together, finding the meaning(s), gleaning from it and allowing it to enhance your life one way or another.

That’s what the Song of Songs is all about with the obvious distinction that it’s not just human art, but Holy Spirit-inspired Scripture.

Why has it been considered “controversial” by some?

Because it’s a love song filled with overtly romantic statements between two lovers, including references to potential sex or actual sex (e.g. Song of Songs 7:6-9), as well as other passionate proclamations (e.g. 2:3-6).

Those who have questioned the book’s inclusion in the biblical canon obviously felt that human romance/sexuality is an inappropriate topic for Holy Scripture. Yet isn’t romantic love and everything that goes with it a significant part of life on the Earth? Wouldn’t the very Creator of men & women and sex have something helpful to say on such an important topic in God’s instruction manual for humankind?

We have to remember in these days of gross sexual immorality that sex itself is not evil; it’s sexual immorality that is evil. The LORD created sex while the devil — “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4) — perverts it.

How was the Song of Songs determined to be part of the canon of Scripture?

From the earliest times the book formed a part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture and read annually at Passover.

However, due to its supposedly controversial content, the Song of Songs place in the Hebraic canon was still debated as late as 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia where it was affirmed by Jewish rabbis, including Akiva.

Should this book be taken at face value as a love story or as an allegory?

Since the LORD’s relationship with Israel is depicted as a marriage (Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 2:2, Ezekiel 23 & Hosea 2:2) and the Church is the “bride of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2 & Revelation 19:7-9), the Song of Songs could be taken in an allegorical sense of God’s Love for Israel or Christ’s love for his Church. I’ve heard a couple of effective sermons by Mike Bickle that interpreted the book this way.

However, the traditional idea from hymnology that Christ is the “rose of Sharon” or “lily of the valleys” based on Song of Songs 2:1 is erroneous since the woman in the story is speaking, not the man. Meanwhile there are issues that arise when interpreting the book in a strictly allegorical sense; for instance, the image of Christ resting between the breasts of the Church based on 1:13. The motivation for this allegorical interpretation seems rooted in embarrassment over the overt sexual references.

As such, the Song of Songs should first and foremost be taken as an amazing love story between a biological man and biological woman with numerous lessons on romantic love and marriage. We’ll look at these myriad insights momentarily.

Where do the events of the song take place?

The love story combines rural and urban locations. Jerusalem is the city where Solomon’s palace was located while the rural areas would be the hill country north of Jerusalem where Solomon’s vineyards, herds and flocks were located, not to mention where the maiden hailed from in Shunem (6:13).

How long do the events entail?

Assuming it’s a chronological account without gaps, the story occurs over the course of a year and some weeks/months, but no more than two years. This is based on the first spring being mentioned in Song of Songs 2:11-13 and the second spring near the end of the book in 7:12.

Who is the woman in the story?

Since she is referred to as a Shulammite in Song of Songs 6:13, she was a maiden from Shunem, which was/is a village located 3 miles north of Jezreel in southern Galilee, roughly 55 miles north of Jerusalem. (Shulem and Shunem are synonymous, by the way, as observed by 1 Kings 1:3, 2 Kings 4:8 and Joshua 19:18). This precludes the theory that she was Pharaoh’s daughter, one of Solomon’s early wives, as detailed in 1 Kings 3:1.

While Shunem is is about 30 miles south of the border of Lebanon, it’s squarely in Israel. I point this out because I’ve heard one or two commentators refer to the maiden as Lebanese, likely because the land of Lebanon is mentioned seven times in the song (e.g. 4:8). No, the text plainly calls her a “Shulammite” (6:13), aka an Israelite from the village of Shunem, which — again — is just 55 miles north of the capitol city.

Since she was a Shulammite, some favor the idea that she was Abishag (ab-ee-SHAG), the virgin who was enlisted to take care of the elderly King David and keep him warm in bed, but had no sexual relations with him (1 Kings 1:1-4, 15). The fact that the Bible describes Abishag as “very beautiful” in 1 Kings 1:4 corresponds to the description of the maiden in Song of Songs as flawless and the “most beautiful of women” (1:8 , 4:7 & 6:1). However, the fact that Solomon neglected to call her Abishag in the Song of Songs and failed to mention how she cared for his elderly father — and this was, in fact, how he met her — makes this theory questionable.

I’ve read one or two commentaries where the author refers to the maiden by the name Shulamith, obviously based on the fact that she’s called a Shulammite in 6:13. This is odd since the term identifies where she’s from, not her personal name. It’d be like calling me Mecca because I hail from Mecca, Ohio.

This leaves us with the woman simply being an unnamed maiden from Shunem whose family was possibly employed by King Solomon in the hill country north of Jerusalem wherein he had vineyards, as wells as herds and flocks (Song of Songs 8:11 & Ecclesiastes 2:4-7). Another possibility is that her family simply owned vineyards/animals near Solomon’s fields.

A further consideration is that the Shulammite woman is simply a character in a fictional love story that Solomon was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, sort of like an ancient-epic spiritual version of John Cougar Mellencamp’s ditty about Jack & Diane.

Who is the man in the love story?

Solomon is the knee-jerk answer since the king is referred to numerous times in the book (1:1, 1:5, 3:7, 3:9, 3:11, 8:11 & 8:12), but there’s also a shepherd lover who may or may not be one-and-the-same as Solomon. It depends on what interpretation one embraces, which brings up the question…

What are the main interpretations of the love story?

There are several interpretations because it’s not always clear who’s speaking in any given verse or verses. Most versions of the Bible add headings to identify who is speaking, obviously to help readers understand the story, but these headings are not a part of the original text; they were added by the translators of the version in question. This explains why the King James Version doesn’t include headings.

Here are the five chief interpretations:

Interpretation #1: A historical account of Solomon and his first love, his first wife

According to this position, Solomon meets the woman from Shunem when he’s visiting his vineyards north of Jerusalem and is profoundly smitten by her. She is Solomon’s first true love and becomes his first wife. In his older, more experienced years Solomon advocated one wife in Ecclesiastes 9:9, and I’m sure — assuming this interpretation is the correct one — that he intended for this nubile woman from Shunem to be his one-and-only. But, as noted earlier, the events in the Song of Songs only cover a year and some weeks/months; Solomon went on to marry hundreds of foreign women for political reasons, as he did with Pharaoh’s daughter, which the LORD had instructed his people not to do (1 Kings 3:1, 11:1-4, Deuteronomy 17:17 & Exodus 34:15-16). In other words, Solomon sinned by marrying these myriad foreign wives; not only did they take his attention away from his first love (the Shulammite maiden), even worse, they led him astray from pure devotion to the LORD and into idolatry.

So, this view of the Song of Songs depicts Solomon’s relationship with his first love before he transgressed by marrying multiple foreign women, which brought about his downfall. If this reading is true, obviously God thinks this relationship in its short context is a fitting example from which to learn about romance, love and marriage despite Solomon’s ensuing moral failure in years to come.

Let me offer a real-life example to defend this position (even though I personally don’t favor it): I worked with a guy for several years three decades ago who was the best possible worker you could imagine. He was exceptional, but went on to work for another company in the same basic position. As the years progressed, he grew weary of his occupation and started to engage in unethical practices even though he still “got the job done.” For instance, he’d be on the clock while not present at work. I’d have no problem citing this man as a prime example of the ideal worker when he was younger, but not in his later years. The same principle applies to the Solomon depicted in the Song of Songs vs. the polygamous, idolatrous Solomon of 1 Kings 11:1-4 or the disillusioned Solomon of Ecclesiastes.

For those who object to Solomon being the sole male lover in the Song of Songs on the grounds that the King of Israel would be too busy with royal duties and would not have time for lowly activities like shepherding flocks (1:7), we know from other passages that King Solomon had vineyards in the hill country north of Jerusalem, as wells as herds and flocks (Song of Songs 8:11 & Ecclesiastes 2:4-7). Would he not get “out” and personally check on them from time to time? In regards to shepherding flocks, isn’t it possible that his father, David, informed him about how instrumental shepherding sheep was to becoming an effective, noble leader of God’s people (2 Samuel 7:8).

Thus young Solomon would theoretically get away from the hubbub of political big city life and spend a few nights here and there in retreat, overseeing his herds and flocks. This would cultivate intimacy with the LORD, especially at night under the quiet starry panorama, as well as keep him in touch with the common people of Israel. I’m in fulltime ministry and I regularly take the time to go primitive camping or hiking, gazing at the stars at night seeking the LORD.

For those interested, the basic outline for this interpretation is as follows (based on John MacArthur’s take):

I. The Wooing: “Leaving” (1:2-3:5)

A. The Couple’s Reminiscences (1:2-2:7)

B. The Couple’s Expression of Mutual Love (2:8-3:5)

II. The Marriage Ceremony: “Cleaving” (3:6-5:1)

A. The Regal Bridegroom (3:6-11)

B. The Wedding and Consummation (4:1-5:1a)

C. The LORD’s Approval (5:1b)

III. The Marital Covenant: “Weaving” (5:2-8:14)

A. The Initial Disagreement (5:2-6:3)

B. The Mending (6:4-8:4)

C. Developing in Grace (8:5-14)

Here’s another outline for this reading, a simpler variation by Don Anderson:

I. Courtship (1:1-2:17)

II. Commitment (3:1-5:1)

III. Challenge (5:2-6:13)

IV. Communion (7:1-8:14)

Interpretation #2: A historical account of Solomon when he already had 60 wives and 80 concubines

This position is the same as above except that King Solomon already has 60 wives and 80 concubines by the time he meets the Shulammite maiden. Here’s the passage that supports this reading wherein the man is speaking:

⁸Sixty queens there may be,

and eighty concubines,

and virgins beyond number;

⁹but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,

the only daughter of her mother,

the favorite of the one who bore her.

The young women saw her and called her blessed;

the queens and concubines praised her.

Song of Songs 6:8-9

The obvious problem with this interpretation is that the Shulammite maiden is clearly head-over-heals in love with her beloved, but would she be this excited if she knew she had to share him with no less than 140 women, not to mention the likelihood of hundreds more in the years to come? (As noted earlier, Solomon’s harem eventually grew to 700 wives and 300 concubines according to 1 Kings 11:3).

Then there’s additional problem of the Shulammite’s repeated statement that “My beloved is mine” (2:16 & 6:3). If Solomon had 60 other wives at this time (to say nothing of the 80 concubines) he’d also be the possession of these myriad other spouses, which of course makes such a statement wholly untrue.

Do the math, if Solomon acquired 700 wives during his 40-year reign, which is 480 months (or 2080 weeks), that means there’d be on average a wedding festival at the palace about every 3 weeks! Keep in mind that these wedding feasts would last days, even up to a week or more (see Jesus’ Parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22:1-14). Imagine being Solomon’s wife and having to celebrate your husband marrying a new spouse that regularly! Even if you were his ‘favorite’ — his “queen of queens”— you definitely couldn’t call him “yours.” He’d be “yours” only in an extremely fractional sense.

In light of these glaring issues, the male protagonist in the story is likely just describing his Shulammite lover as “one in a million” when distinguishing her from “sixty queens,” “eighty concubines” and “virgins beyond number.” He basically says as much in 2:2 with his words “Like a lily among thorns is my darling among the young women.” This corresponds to his earlier exaggerated statement that there was “no flaw” in her (4:7); and is also supported by the fact that Solomon doesn’t include any language in his song about ownership or relationship with these “sixty queens,” “eighty concubines” and “virgins beyond number.” Furthermore, the numerical progression from sixty to eighty to “beyond number” points to poetic hyperbole rather than literalism.

Interpretation #3: Solomon wrote the epic song as a largely fictional love story involving a monogamous version of his self

In this reading the love story is fictional, a work of art, albeit spiced with elements from Solomon’s real-life experiences, much as modern writers and composers create stories/lyrics with bits taken from real life, including characters. As these writers have a message to convey with their art, so did Solomon, albeit he was inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21 & 2 Timothy 3:16).

For those who have an issue with Solomon using an idealized version of himself as the male protagonist in the story, artists do this all the time in their works. For instance, M. Night Shyamalan cast himself as an author in his movie Lady in the Water whose writings would be the seed to changing the world (while I didn’t have a problem with this, some critics understandably knocked Shyamalan for being pretentious). Another example is William Shatner. When asked how he approached the iconic character of Captain Kirk on Star Trek, he said he simply played himself, just a more heroic version. Likewise, Solomon is playing himself in this epic love song, just an idealized version.

No one knows the exact date that Solomon wrote the Song of Songs in the 10^th century BC but, assuming he wrote it in his later years and assuming this interpretation is valid, he would’ve regretted his moral failures concerning his vast harem & idolatries and so wrote this magnum opus to, in effect, right those wrongs by offering a positive message to the public concerning romantic love & marriage and everything that goes with it.

Think about it like this, have you ever shared a story from your past, but downplayed your flaws and transgressions? Most of us have. Even the Bible itself does this concerning King David: When 1 Chronicles 20:1-3 details the era in David’s reign involving his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband (detailed in 2 Samuel 11:1–12:23), it omits these transgressions altogether, choosing instead to focus on David’s victories over the Ammonites. Why? Because the historical books of Samuel & Kings focused on telling the good, the bad and the ugly of Israel, which informed the Hebrews how they ended up in exile; Chronicles, by contrast, was originally written to the Jews returning to the Promised Land after 70 years of exile who needed to know if they still fit into God’s plan. In other words, they didn’t need to know the sordid details of their national history at that particular time. They needed encouraged about their national identity and history, not ashamed and deflated.

Interpretation #4: A commoner becomes “king for the day” at his wedding feast

In this interpretation the male is not really Solomon, but rather a commoner who is entertained for a week, along with his bride, as “king and queen” during their wedding feast. In short, the two lovers are engaging in fantasy, using imagery of royalty to reflect their affection for one another.

The reasoning behind this interpretation is twofold: Solomon would’ve been too busy with his national duties to have time for a pastoral romance, not to mention the man in the love story is depicted as a shepherd in 1:7 and it’s difficult to imagine the king of Israel spending his time tending sheep. This perspective also resolves the conundrum of God using Solomon — who notoriously had 700 wives and 300 concubines during his reign (1 Kings 11:3) — as the key character in a biblical book conveying truths on ideal love and marriage.

The problem with this interpretation is that it’s just too vague and fails to explain the distinct references to King Solomon, his carriage, his 60 warrior escorts, Jerusalem and so forth.

Interpretation #5: A love triangle involving Solomon, the Shulammite and her beloved shepherd

In this reading there are three characters in the love story wherein King Solomon falls in love with the beautiful Shulammite maiden upon meeting her while visiting his vineyards north of Jerusalem. He whisks her away to his palace in the big city hoping to win her heart so that she’ll be his queen of queens, but she only has eyes for a young shepherd from her own community to whom she has been promised. She proves herself faithful to him and so Solomon eventually releases her to marry the shepherd with his sanction and that of her family.

While this narrative requires the reader to disregard most of the typical headings added to the text by well-meaning translators (and therefore are not God-breathed Scripture) and read-in-between-the-lines, it resolves several problematic points:

The issue of the king of Israel being depicted as a lowly shepherd (1:7, 2:16 & 6:2-3) by insisting that there are two male protagonists — King Solomon and a young shepherd.
The issue of the LORD dubiously using Solomon for biblical lessons on romantic love and marriage.
The issue of the “daughters of Jerusalem” requiring a description of the man the Shulammite maiden loves (5:9-6:3), which makes no sense if the man is King Solomon since they’d already be well familiar with the top celebrity of Israel.
The issue of the guardsmen of the city not seeming to know that the Shulammite lass is their boss’ desired woman or vice versa (3:1-4 & 5:2-7). It’s true that the first sequence might be a dream and the second one definitely is a nightmare wherein the watchmen beat her up and steal her cloak, but would King Solomon likely write in his greatest song such a fantasy tale of gross insubordination against the king of Israel? In other words, the more fitting interpretation is that the lover she was searching for was not King Solomon, the boss of the watchmen, but rather some nondescript shepherd from the sticks.

My corresponding book provides an outline for this “three-character view” or “shepherd hypothesis,” which you’ll need in order to grasp this interpretation when reading this epic love song since you’ll have to disregard the typical headings added by translators in most Bibles.

Who are the peripheral characters in the story?

While Solomon and the Shulammite maiden are the dominant characters in the story, and perhaps her Shepherd lover (if the “shepherd hypothesis” is valid), there are some minor characters with speaking parts as follows:

The daughters of Jerusalem (1:4, 1:11, 5:9 & 6:1).
The citizens of the city (3:6-11).
The male protagonist’s friends (6:13).
A relative (8:5).
The Shulammite maiden’s brothers (8:8-9).
The LORD is presumably speaking the words “Eat, friends, and drink; drink your fill of love” in 5:1 since it’s highly unlikely that ‘friends’ were eavesdropping on the couple’s lovemaking.

Again, the headings supplied in many English Bibles, which delineate the character(s) speaking (and whom they’re speaking to), are not included in the original Hebrew text. This explains why the KJV omits such headings. These headings are educated guesses by the translators of the version in question. Most of the above characters and corresponding citation links are from the NKJV. The NIV simply refers to all of the peripheral characters as “friends” without specifying their identity further.

Why is God not mentioned in the Song of Songs?

Because the LORD doesn’t have to be mentioned in a love song. God isn’t directly referenced in the book of Esther either. Yet this doesn’t mean the Creator is utterly absent from these biblical books as “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and the Almighty works in the lives of His people to fulfill Divine will, as it is written: “for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (Philippians 2:13). Martin Luther put it like this: “God himself will milk the cows through him whose vocation that is. He who engages in the lowliness of his work performs God’s work.”

Thus in Esther we see the LORD working through the titular woman, Mordecai and ordinary people to deliver the Hebrews exiled in Persia from a satanic plot of genocide. On a more pleasant note in the Song of Songs, God is involved behind the scenes in the loving relationship of the Shulammite maiden and the shepherd lover (regardless of whether or not the shepherd is a nondescript young Hebrew or the King of Israel). How do we know this beyond the Song of Songs being a part of the Hebraic Scriptures? Because the events take place in Israel at the height of its united kingdom after the righteous reign of David, “a man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22). As such, both the Shulammite maiden and the shepherd would’ve sought the LORD about something as important as a lifelong mate and God arranged their meeting behind the scenes (we’ll look at this notion further in the section on arranged marriages).

This offers a lesson for believers: Not every work of art we create or every story we tell or every service we provide has to explicitly mention the Lord in order to effectively bless people. Often the subtle approach is the route to take rather than smashing people over the head with overt Christian verbiage.

What are some key insights readers can get from the Song of Songs?

Here are twelve to chew on…

Romantic love & the corresponding marriage/sex are pure and beautiful, not evil or embarrassing

There’s this false idea that God is anti-sex, but the LORD created both the sex organs and the pleasure of sexual intimacy, not to mention romantic attraction. Romance and eventual consummation are God’s gifts to be enjoyed within the context of a committed relationship. The devil didn’t create any of this, he just perverts it. God is pro-sex, but anti-sexual immorality.

When the couple finally consummate their marriage the LORD says “Eat, friends, and drink; drink your fill of love” in 5:1, which is basically the Creator’s seal of approval. (Again, it’s highly unlikely that ‘friends’ are speaking this line since they’d be eavesdropping on the couple’s private lovemaking; the LORD, by contrast, is omnipresent and sees all). God was basically saying to them: “Drink up, my children, and enjoy; lovemaking is my gift to you.” The Creator desires for spouses to delight in each other.

Sensual stimulation and simple encouragement is enhanced through sincere words of adoration

Learning to focus on your mate’s attributes and creatively praising him/her will enhance your relationship and marriage. This is something that should continue as the decades pass and your spouse is no longer in his/her physical prime.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a time and place for constructive criticism (Proverbs 9:8-9), which is a form of tough love.

True love heightens self-image and therefore confidence

This goes hand-and-hand with the previous. Like the lovers in the song, speak grandly of your mate, as if she’s the most amazing woman on Earth (6:8-9) and he can leap over mountains (5:10-16). Needless to say, this will have a positive effect on his/her self-image and will enhance your relationship and intimacy. Anyone who constantly puts down their spouse — whether privately or publicly — will spoil or even utterly destroy the relationship.

Speaking of which, Patti Roberts told the tragic story of her first lovemaking experience with her husband in her book Ashes to Gold: As he was lying on the bed and she removed her remaining garments he cluelessly observed, “You know, you look fatter with your clothes off.” She was naturally devastated and experienced this sinking feeling that, while they would have sex that night, they would not be lovers. It’s a miracle the marriage lasted ten years.

In Solomon’s song, by contrast, we observe the lovers freely communicating during their lovemaking in a mutually encouraging manner (4:1-5:1). They speak unreservedly to each other, which of course doesn’t mean you have to speak during sex. Yet it shows that we shouldn’t allow awkwardness or prudishness to inhibit our verbal communion during lovemaking.

The love-at-first-sight phenomenon

This phenomenon could more accurately be described as wholesale-attraction-at-first-sight, which can ideally develop into deep love and a long-lasting relationship. We observe this with the Shepherd’s observation about the Shulammite maiden:

You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;

With one glance of your eyes

With one jewel of your necklace

Song of Songs 4:9

This isn’t to say that all marriages begin with the love-at-first-sight phenomenon. For instance, my mother said she found my dad “egotistical” when she first met him and therefore wasn’t attracted to him. My father, however, said he was crazy about my mom the second he laid eyes on her. As he pursued her he eventually won her over and they were together till death did them part. The love-at-first sight phenomenon was obviously one-sided in this case, but it was still key to bringing the two together, without which I wouldn’t be here writing this.

Do not arouse love prematurely

Over and over the Shulammite maiden says “Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires” (e.g. 8:4). In other words, don’t be so quick to jump into an intimate romantic relationship. Patiently wait until you’re mature enough to wisely discern the worthy soul your heart truly loves and can be committed to for life. Solomon elsewhere wrote “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). The time for a man and woman to enjoy sexual union is marriage, which occurs after they’ve found the worthy one who has genuinely awakened their love.

In short, love must wait for the right soulmate to come along. Don’t rush getting married for the sake of getting married. Don’t be more enchanted with the idea of a wedding and marriage than the person you’re marrying. Anyone who does so is setting themselves up for great heartbreak.

This truth is especially apropos in our modern LIEberal-influenced culture where teens are pressured by peers and entertainment media to have sex as early as possible and as often as possible (and, sometimes, as perverse as possible), which — needless to say — is a recipe for all kinds of unnecessary troubles.

Eros love is defined

The Bible reveals that there are four types of love in the human experience. Whereas the great love passage, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, defines agape love, aka practical love, the Song of Songs has a verse that expounds on eros (ee-ROSS) love:

⁶Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
⁷Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot sweep it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of one’s house for love,
it would be utterly scorned.

Song of Songs 8:6-7

Four qualities of eros love are noted:

It is as strong and unyielding as death and the grave. In other words, love seals two souls together even as the grave seals the dead.
It is like a blazing fire within the person.
Figuratively speaking, it’s such a mighty inferno that not even rivers of water can quench it.
No amount of money can purchase it; it is priceless and can only be given away. Remember the classic song Can’t Buy Me Love?

Beware of the “little foxes” that can slowly destroy eros love and the corresponding relationship

This can be observed in 2:15. Both partners must be on guard against little things that can build-up over time and eventually hinder or even ruin one’s relationship with God and his/her spouse. This could be any number of “little” things — sloth, lust/favoritism for others, lust/favoritism for other things, doubt, a thankless spirit, bitterness, frustration, hatred, porn, materialism, etc.

Keep weeds like this out of your garden, so to speak, and continue to cultivate faith and relationship with God, which naturally has a positive impact on your marriage, especially as the years and decades proceed. See this video and this one for further insights.

**Arranged marriages are not the ideal**

Back then arranged marriages were customary in biblical regions and they were organized by the families of the bridegroom and bride in question. Sometimes they were the result of political alliances, such as Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 3:1). The obvious problem with such arrangements is that the individual is not choosing his/her spouse and so there’s a good chance that he/she won’t find him/her a fitting or desirable mate-for-life. This is a potential recipe for unhappiness and dissatisfaction, to say the least.

I’m not saying that arranged marriages can’t work. The best scenario in an arranged marriage is that the two spouses develop love for each other. But shouldn’t the beginning step for a happy marriage be that the man or woman is attracted to the spouse and enjoys spending time with him/her and vice versa? I’m not talking about mere physical lust here, but rather all-around physical/mental/spiritual allure. For instance, I may find Lady Gaga physically attractive, but — if I were single — I wouldn’t even want to go on a date with her let alone entertain the idea of marrying her. Why? Because I don’t find her inwardly appealing and we’re on different planets ideologically.

Another defense for arranged marriages is that one’s father & mother are the best possible people to choose a life-partner for you. Yet I know (and you know) many fathers and mothers who are the last persons on Earth to entrust such an important decision. Personally, I wouldn’t want anyone else choosing my wife for me, except God. Speaking of which…

Ideally, all Christian marriages should be arranged marriages in the sense that the man and woman have diligently sought their Creator on whom to marry and the Spirit leads them to their future spouse. In essence, God arranges the marriage. A good example of this in the Bible is when the LORD orchestrated the marriage of Isaac & Rebekah in Genesis 24.

However, that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about marriages being contractually arranged by families or leaders of nations wherein romantic desire isn’t a factor in the negotiation (which, again, isn’t to say that such feelings can’t come later). In these kinds of marriages neither the young woman nor the man pursued each other prior to the arrangement and, often, didn’t even know what the other looked like, particularly in cultures were the woman wore a veil.

Yet this is not what we observe in the Song of Songs, which is God’s biblical model for romantic love and marriage. The two lovers — who will go on to wed and consummate — are clearly head-over-heels in love with each other. For instance, observe how aggressively the Shulammite woman pursues her shepherd lover in 3:1-4. Even if this sequence is a dream (which I don’t believe it is) it reveals her great longing for “the one [her] heart loves.” Likewise, the man describes the Shulammite in terms of being intoxicated by her all-encompassing beauty and love (4:10).

This kind of intense all-around attraction forms the basis for a lasting marriage. We call it the “honeymoon stage.” Sure, this stage doesn’t last forever, but it’s the foundation upon which a lasting marriage is set.

For anyone who argues that the relationship of the Shulammite and her shepherd was orchestrated by their families and is therefore an arranged marriage: (1) The two were already well familiar with each other, (2) they totally adored each other and (3) they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together as a couple, all of which indicates that their committed relationship wasn’t an “arranged marriage” in the sense that we’re talking here.

Since the topic of wearing veils was breached above, this is a good place to point out that the Shulammite maiden didn’t wear a veil when out amidst the flocks in the Shunem region, which can be observed in 1:7. This explains how the shepherd lover knew her beauty so explicitly. When she asks “Why should I be like a veiled woman beside the flocks of your friends?” it indicates that prostitutes wearing veils wandered from flock to flock looking for shepherds interested in their services (e.g. Genesis 38:15). As a young woman looking for the one man she dearly loved, she didn’t want to be mistaken for a loose woman.

Monogamy is the way to go, not polygamy

The Song of Songs supports the idea that God’s best for marriage is monogamy, as clearly detailed in the beginning (Matthew 19:4-6). While the LORD allowed Hebrew men to marry multiple wives for a couple reasons, polygamy is not God’s ideal. Polygamous marriages chronicled in Scripture suffered contention with the inevitable rivalry of the wives (e.g. 1 Samuel 1:1-8).

Solomon’s accumulated wives were his undoing (1 Kings 11:1-4). While Solomon was certainly wise in his early reign (1 Kings 4:29) and he officially advocated monogamy as the ideal (Proverbs 5:18, Ecclesiastes 9:9 & Song of Songs), he foolishly ignored God’s scriptural instructions by taking multiple foreign wives (Deuteronomy 17:17 & Exodus 34:15-16).

In the New Covenant the Scriptures instruct that leaders in the Church should have but one spouse (1 Timothy 3:2, 3:12 & Titus 1:6), which was to be an example to the believers under them (1 Timothy 4:12 & 1 Peter 5:3). So, while the New Testament doesn’t outright forbid polygamy, it definitely encourages God’s ideal as originally stated in Genesis — one husband, one wife, till death do them part.

But why did the LORD allow polygamy in the Old Testament? A couple reasons come to mind: The world at the time generally consisted of patriarchal societies where females relied on their fathers, brothers and husbands for provision & protection. Thus marriage, even if it was polygamous, protected women from a life of poverty, prostitution or slavery.

Polygamy also facilitated God’s Genesis directive to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28, 9:1 & 9:7) seeing as how husbands could impregnate other wives while one was pregnant/giving birth. This allowed men to have several children per year, as opposed to just one, and this was conducive to the increase & spread of humanity on Earth.

**Take care of your appearance (even after you’ve won your bride or husband)**

The shepherd’s description of his Shulammite maiden (6:8-9) and her descriptions of him (5:10-16) show that they were careful to look, smell and sound their best for their partner. While this is easy to do during the honeymoon stage of a relationship — which these two were in at the time — it’s important to strive to look/smell/sound your best for your partner as the decades progress. I include “sound” because the maiden describes the mouth of her lover as “sweetness itself” (5:16). Was she describing his literal maw or the sweet, encouraging words that proceeded from it? I believe the latter.

Of course everyone is going to be disheveled & sweaty after doing serious yard work or what have you but, even then, a relatively solid body and a healthy attitude go a long way in keeping one attractive whatever his/her age or body type. The Shulammite says of her lover: “His arms are rods of gold set with topaz. His body is like polished ivory decorated with lapis lazuli” (5:14). Men, don’t give up on the battle of the bulge. I realize it’s tough to keep fit today, especially if you have a sit-down job, but few woman want an unsightly slob, even if you’re in your 50s-60s!

Please don’t take this as insensitive to those struggling with weight issues. If a person or couple is okay with being heavy, what’s that to me? It’s none of my business. I’m just throwing in bit o’ humor while encouraging us to look our best for our spouses, whatever our age or body type. Amen?

Procreation is not the main purpose of sex

While procreation is certainly important, it’s not the main purpose of sex in light of the fact that its never mentioned as the reason for the couple’s physical relationship in the Creator’s one book on romance, sex and marriage in the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16). In short, the LORD sanctioned and blessed their romance & sexual intimacy in and of itself.

Your mate needs you as a best friend, not just a physical lover

The Shulamite maiden plainly speaks of her lover as her beloved and her friend (5:16). She certainly wants him for sexual intimacy — and overtly so (7:12-14) (note the reference to mandrakes, an ancient aphrodisiac) — but she also desires her husband to be a brother to her (8:1-4). In other words, she wants them to be playmates. She feels so comfortable with her committed lover that she can be imaginative & playful — spinning tales — and knows that he will not laugh at her. Wives want their man to open his heart to them, to not just be a caring physical lover — as good as that may be — but a playful sibling and a communicative, imaginative, honest best friend. Take heed because truer words have never been spoken.

This is just a sampling of the great insights about romantic love & marriage contained in the Song of Songs. I’ll leave you to discover more for yourself.

What is the interpretation you favor?

I prefer the three-character version — Interpretation #5 — because it’s the best explanation for the lowly young shepherd in the story, who seems to be a different character from the formidable king of Israel. For instance, this interpretation explains why the ladies of the Jerusalem court required a description of him, which obviously wouldn’t be the case if he were King Solomon. Furthermore, it resolves the issue of God using polygamous Solomon as the key character in a biblical story involving lessons on love and marriage.

Song of Songs 8:5b-7 is key in validating this interpretation. These verses in the culminating chapter convey the conclusion of the love story and point to the purpose for which it was created by Solomon under the moving of the Holy Spirit. The female protagonist is addressing her beloved as the one she had met under the apple tree many months prior, the one who had initially awakened her love, whereupon she appeals to be placed as a seal on a cord about his neck (a mark of ownership) and as a signet ring on his arm, to be his spouse forever. In the interim Solomon had met her in the field and was so ‘wowed’ he naturally wanted to add her to his growing harem and so whisks her off to Jerusalem to dazzle her and win her heart. She declines despite the great pressure, including the women of the court who insisted that she now “had it made.” Yet she could not forget or forsake her shepherd lover to whom she was pledged, the one her heart loved.

Thus King Solomon, a so-called “lady’s man,” learns a valuable lesson about true love, i.e. committed love between a man and a woman, which is the way the Creator originally intended it (Genesis 2:24 & Matthew 19:4-6). Solomon’s Song of Songs — his “greatest hit” — is thus a lesson to all those who have heard the song, seen the performance or read the poem ever since!

For those who argue that it takes too much imagination to read the Song of Songs this way — in other words, they view it as a narrative forced into the text — every interpretation of this poetic book requires the reader to figure out what character or characters are speaking and to whom. Remember, the headings you’ll find in most versions of the Bible are not in the original text and were placed there by translators for readers’ convenience. In short, it’s up to us to make educated guesses about who is speaking and to whom, not to mention what’s taking place in the setting in question.

A Proposed Synopsis of the Love Triangle Interpretation

While visiting areas north of Jerusalem and viewing his vineyards, King Solomon is enraptured by an exceptional maiden from Shulem, aka Shunem. The damsel is brought into the king’s royal tents where she soliloquizes about her beloved shepherd (1:2-3), beseeching him to come to her rescue (1:4). She counters the disdain of the women of Solomon’s court (1:6) imploring her shepherd lover to reveal where she might find him (1:7). The ladies respond in irony (1:8) while the king enters conveying his praise to win her heart, but fails (1:9-11).

Dismissed from Solomon’s presence at the table, the Shulammite dialogues with her shepherd lover (1:12-2:6). She then addresses the court women and charges them not to arouse love until it so desires, citing her beloved shepherd as a praiseworthy example (2:7-14). She also conveys her brothers’ hindrances (2:15) and how she waited for her lover to come back in the evening, as well as eventually finding him (2:16-3:5).

Solomon’s procession returns from Shunem back to Jerusalem (3:6). His goal is to impress the Shulammite maiden with his royal glory amidst the splendor of the city & palace (3:1-11). But he is not successful as the shepherd lover has followed her there and arranged a meeting (4:1-5) wherein she reveals that she is anxious to leave the flashy environment and go back to her pastoral abode up north (4:6) to which the shepherd commends her faithfulness (4:7-16).

The maiden dialogues with the ladies of the court, informing them of a dream she had about her beloved (5:2-8) as well as describing his attributes to them when pressed (5:9-16). Several of the court women then inquire about the whereabouts of her lover to which she answers (6:1-3).

Still determined to win her heart, Solomon continues one last time with his flatteries and gaudy attractions to persuade her (6:4-7:9). He promises to make her his queen of queens with all the privileges thereof, but she declines his proposal due to her love for another and being promised to him (7:10-8:4).

Finally convinced, the king dismisses her and she returns to her abode up north with her beloved shepherd (8:5-14). They stop at the tree where they initially met and renew their vows to one another (8:5-7). Returning home, her brothers reward her for her honorable conduct, according to their promise (8:8-9).

This is based on Dake’s reading and is just one variation of the three-character interpretation. It’s not set-in-stone so feel free to tweak it if you so feel led.

Additional lessons if the love triangle theory is valid

Not all women are materialistic and can be seduced by wealth, social status and charming flatteries.
Some women are faithful to the one their heart loves above the lure of wealth and status.
Some women understand and value the truths of Proverbs 15:17 & Proverbs 17:1.
Just because a woman is extraordinarily beautiful, it doesn’t automatically mean she will allow it to spoil her by making her conceited.

Closing Words

Although I favor the three-character interpretation for the reasons stated, I know respectable people, even scholars, who embrace the Solomon’s-first-wife view or the Solomon-already-with-a-harem-of-140-women reading. Meanwhile the fictional love story account shouldn’t be ruled out. By contrast, the “king for a day” perspective doesn’t have much credibility.

I supplied these five main interpretations of this epic love song for you to consider in your studies because it helps to appraise all of them before drawing a plausible conclusion. Whatever perspective is true, we can all agree that the Song of Songs is an amazing, beautiful and unique book of the Bible with several relevant lessons on romance & marriage from which to glean. You don’t even have to be cognizant of a rigid interpretation in order to appreciate it and receive from it.

Lastly, this article is not intended to be a substitute for reading the Song of Songs and being blessed by the genius and beauty of the song itself; it’s just an educational supplement.

This article is available in book form with loads of additional material!

The print book is available here for only $7.26 (171 pages)
The Kindle eBook is available here for just 99¢!

Both links allow you to LOOK INSIDE the book.

Related Topics:

What IS Marriage? (and Related Topics)

Why LOYALTY (Faithfulness) Is Important

What’s the Secret of a SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGE?

Beauty, Objectification and Lust

Does the Bible Support MONOGAMY or POLYGAMY?

While the LORD allowed Hebrew men to marry multiple wives for a couple reasons, polygamy is not God’s best for marriage, as clearly detailed in the beginning (Matthew 19:4-6). Polygamous marriages chronicled in Scripture suffered contention with the inevitable rivalry of the wives (e.g. 1 Samuel 1:1-8).

Meanwhile Solomon’s myriad wives were his undoing (1 Kings 11:1-4). While Solomon was certainly wise in his early reign (1 Kings 4:29) and he advocated monogamy as the ideal (Ecclesiastes 9:9 & Song of Songs), he foolishly ignored God’s scriptural instructions by taking multiple foreign wives (Deuteronomy 17:17 & Exodus 34:15-16).

In the New Covenant, the Scriptures instruct that leaders in the Church should have but one spouse (1 Timothy 3:2, 3:12 & Titus 1:6), which was to be an example to the believers under them (1 Timothy 4:12 & 1 Peter 5:3). So, while the New Testament doesn’t outright forbid polygamy, it definitely encourages God’s ideal as originally stated in Genesis – one husband, one wife, till death do them part.

Related Topics:

What IS Marriage? (and Related Topics)

Beauty, Objectification and Lust

Why You Shouldn’t Put Men or Women in a Box (Marriages too)

Q&A on Sex, Romance and Marriage

Q&A on Solomon’s SONG OF SONGS

Women of the Bible / Women in Ministry

What’s the Diff Between MILK and SOLID FOOD (“Meat”)?

Both the Old Testament and New Testament say that “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3 & Matthew 4:4). This suggests that God’s word is spiritual food for people. The way you partake of this spiritual food is by exposing yourself to it, “chewing” on it – that is, meditating on it – and then “swallowing” it by living it (if it’s a practical truth) or living in light of it (if it’s a revelational or positional truth).*

* You can learn more about the differences of these kinds of truth here.

Interestingly, the New Testament differentiates spiritual food into two forms – milk and solid food – as observed here:

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. ²I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. ³You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? ⁴For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

1 Corinthians 3:1-4

Just like infants in the natural, immature or young believers need to be fed the “milk” of God’s word before they can handle the “solid food” or “meat.” Let me give an example from my own life: When I was a young believer in my early 20s I was growing in the Lord on a daily basis, but I was mostly drinking the “milk” of God’s word while trying out some “solid food” here and there. On one occasion I had a book by an anointed minister that addressed the topic of demons & exorcism and it was just too heavy for me at the time. So I put it on back burner, so to speak, until I could handle such things.

Does the Bible specifically delineate what the difference between “milk” and “solid food” is? Yes, it does:

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. ¹²In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! ¹³Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. ¹⁴But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

¹Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, a and of faith in God, ²instruction about cleansing rites, b the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Hebrews 5:11-14 & 6:1-2

The six basic doctrines of Christianity detailed in verses 1-2 are called “elementary” and are said to be the “foundation” of the believer, which suggests that these six doctrines are “milk.” The “solid food” or “meat” would be any doctrine that can be built on this basic foundation and would take the believer deeper into knowing the LORD and being effective in God’s service, like discerning the difference between flesh & spirit and walking free of sin by living according to the spirit, functioning in the forms of prayer on a regular basis, legalism vs. libertinism, spiritual warfare, demonology / angelology and so on. For a detailed examination of the six basic doctrines go here.

Notice how verse 14 shows that mature believers are able to distinguish good and evil, which means that they understand the differences between the fruit of the spirit and the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-23). Furthermore, it’s implied that they are able to live free of the flesh by daily walking in the spirit.

Immature believers, by contrast, are still struggling with flesh issues, which can be observed in the first passage showcased above, 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, wherein Paul calls the believers in Corinth “infants” who could only handle “milk,” not “solid food.” What evidence does he offer of this? He says that the Corinthian believers were still “worldly” – that is, walking according to the flesh – because their assemblies were characterized by constant jealousies and quarrels, not to mention juvenile sectarianism (verses 3-4). While every assembly in the worldwide Church will experience jealousies, quarrels and sectarianism due to the influx of immature believers, it’s clear that the elders in Corinth were functioning like this, which is why Paul corrected them.

Of course even mature believers miss it now and then, which is explained in 1 John 1:8-9, but there’s a difference between a believer living out of his/her flesh on a regular basis – like the Corinthians were doing – and a believer who has learned to walk in the spirit on a 24/7 basis. The former are stuck in Stage Two of spiritual growth whereas the latter are in Stage Four or, at least, Stage Three. You can learn more about the stages of spiritual growth here.

To close, the six basic doctrines in their simplest form would be “milk” for the believer whereas everything else lain on top of this foundation would be “solid food” or “meat.”

Hermeneutics — Proper Bible Interpretation

BEREAN SPIRIT — What Is It? How Do You Cultivate It?

What’s the Difference Between TEACHING and PREACHING?

What Did Paul Mean by ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?

Speaking of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, Paul made this statement by the Holy Spirit:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

What Scriptures was Paul referring to? Since the book of James and three of Paul’s earlier epistles (the two Thessalonian letters and Galatians) were the only New Testament Scriptures at this point in time,* it would be a reference to the Old Testament Scriptures since they clearly spoke of the sufferings, death & resurrection of Christ, e.g. Psalm 16:8-11, Psalm 22 & Isaiah 53. Also see Luke 24:25-27 and Acts 2:25-31.

Paul made another interesting reference to the existing Scriptures of that time earlier in the same epistle, in 1 Corinthians 4:6, which you can read about here.

* For a listing of the chronological order of the New Testament books go here.

What Are the Sources of TRUTH (Reality)?

Hermeneutics—Proper Bible Interpretation

BEREAN SPIRIT — What Is It? How Do You Cultivate It?

Who Wrote the New Testament Books? Who Authorized them as Scripture Canon?

Why Did God Allow Thousands of Years to Pass and for False Religions to Emerge Before Revealing the Truth?

What Are the SOURCES OF TRUTH (Reality)?

Christ said that “the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). The Greek word for ‘truth’ is alétheia (ah-LAY-thee-ah), which means “the way it really is,” aka reality. Since the devil is “the father of lies” and is temporarily the “god of this world” (John 8:44 & 2 Corinthians 4:4), it’s going to take truth to set us free in a world where lies abound. Naturally the more truth we appropriate the freer we’ll be.

But what are our sources of truth? In the passage above (John 8:31-32) Christ said that his word was a source of truth and, by extension, the Holy Scriptures in general, which is substantiated by passages like 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 4:6. The Messiah said God’s word is truth (John 17:17), which could be described as chronicled (written) truth; yett the Lord also said HE was truth (John 14:6), which is living truth.

As such, believers can receive truth from the written word of God as well as via the living word of God thru the spirit of truth within us (John 16:13). This reveals that we need to:

Become students of the WRITTEN word while…
Cultivating a relationship with the LIVING word (John 1:1-4).

Being a student of the written word involves 1. reading & studying of the Scriptures (1 John 2:27) balanced out by 2. receiving from the “ministry of the Word” (Acts 6:1-4) thru anointed fivefold ministers. In both cases, striving to rightly divide the Scriptures is paramount (2 Timothy 2:15).

For insights on receiving from both the written Word and the living Word, see this 19-minute video:

Of course another source of truth is God’s creation, that is, the Earth & Universe and all living things (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:19-20). By unbiasedly studying the creation we acquire truth, which is the basis of the genuine sciences, as opposed to the faulty pseudo-science advocated by LIEberals (I’m talking about the ones who claim with a straight face that there are scores of genders and that biological men can legitimately compete in female sports by simply “identifying” as a woman). Through the study of the Earth & Universe and all living things we learn the truths of geography, geology, astronomy, biology, physiology, zoology, entomology and so on.

Was There a TALKING SNAKE in Genesis 3?

Unbelievers, and especially militant atheists, are known to ask this question for the purpose of mocking the Bible’s depiction of events in the Garden of Eden just before the fall of humanity.

The scenario takes place in Genesis 3, but the creature wasn’t a snake in the sense that we understand the reptile. It was a beautiful, intelligent, non-creepy creature called a “serpent,” which obviously had legs of some sort (verses 1 & 14). Only after it was divinely cursed did it became the creepy creature we know as the snake.

After Satan’s plunge from Heaven he possessed a serpent-with-legs for the purpose of tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden and, through Eve, seduced Adam into outright rebellion against the Almighty. Here’s the account:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

²The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

⁶When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. ⁷Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

⁸Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

Genesis 3:1-8

While Satan could have manifested himself in the physical realm like the “sons of God” later did (Genesis 6:1-4*) he obviously wanted to present his temptation to Eve as a harmless creature in order to be successful. This corresponds to something the New Testament says about him: “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). So he possessed a serpent but, as noted, this reptile was hardly the slithering serpentine creatures with which we’re familiar.

* See this article for details.

This reptile had legs and it did not have the negative connotation that snakes have had ever since (Genesis 3:14). Remember, after God created the Universe and all living things the entire creation was called “very good” and this would include the serpent (Genesis 1:31). So this was a striking, shining animal. It was as threatening to Eve as the GEICO gecko would be to us.

As far as the issue of this beautiful, intelligent creature being able to communicate with Eve goes, Adam & Eve were clearly used to communicating with animals in the Garden of Eden before the fall of creation because Eve wasn’t shocked when the serpent spoke to her. She reacted as if communing with such an animal was a normal thing. If this sounds strange to you, keep in mind that most of us communicate with animals every day.

For instance, my cats let me know when they want something to eat, when they want affection, when they want let outdoors and when they want in the house; they even give thanks! They may not speak English, but they certainly talk verbally and bodily; and I understand them. I also communicate with them: I indicate when they’re welcome on my lap or when they’re not welcome, e.g. “Get!” And they understand me on their primitive level. Here are a couple of pics of me with my cat Joelebah Duma:

Now imagine how heightened such communion would be before sin entered the physical realm and the corresponding curse on creation; this was when the world was perfect and everything was “very good,” as noted earlier. Now add to this the fact that the serpent was said to be the smartest of the animals God made (Genesis 3:1). The serpent is called “crafty” or “clever,” which is translated from the Hebrew word arum (aw-ROOM), meaning prudent, shrewd or sensible.

None of this means that the serpent communed with Eve in the language Adam & Eve spoke, nor with a human voice. The serpent simply utilized whatever vocal capabilities it had and Eve understood the meaning; and vice versa.

As you can see, this scenario wasn’t as absurd as unbelieving mockers would have you believe.

For details on this topic see this article.

REDEMPTION — God’s Plan of Liberation for Humanity & Creation

Why Is This World So Messed Up?

The Basics of Christianity

BEAUTY, Objectification and Lust

The Bible plainly acknowledges the beauty or handsomeness of certain people on several occasions. For instance, the following verses reveal that Sarai (aka Sarah), Rebekah, Rachel and Esther were women of exceptional beauty:

When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman.

Genesis 12:14

Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milkah, who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor. ¹⁶The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever slept with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.

Genesis 24:15-16

When the men of that place asked him about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” because he was afraid to say, “She is my wife.” He thought, “The men of this place might kill me on account of Rebekah, because she is beautiful.”

Genesis 26:7

Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful.

Genesis 29:17

Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This young woman, who was also known as Esther, had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.

Esther 2:7

And here are a few passages that reveal how Joseph, Saul and David were exceptionally good-looking men:

So Potiphar left everything he had in Joseph’s care; with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate.

Now Joseph was well-built and handsome, ⁷and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!”

Genesis 39:6-7

Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else.

1 Samuel 9:2

So he sent for him [David] and had him brought in. He was glowing with health and had a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the LORD said, “Rise and anoint him; this is the one.”

1 Samuel 16:12

Appreciating Beauty vs. Objectifying a Person

The Bible offers an interesting lesson on objectification in this account of king Xerxes of Persia and his queen, Vashti:

On the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in high spirits from wine, he commanded the seven eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Karkas— ¹¹to bring before him Queen Vashti, wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at. ¹²But when the attendants delivered the king’s command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then the king became furious and burned with anger.

Esther 1:10-12

Basically, Xerxes wanted to “show off” his wife to all the partying elites at his banquet because she was extraordinarily beautiful, but Vashti was so repulsed by the idea of being objectified by her husband’s drunken guests she was willing to risk her queen-ship and be deposed, which is what happened. (This of course paved the way for Esther, a secret Hebrew, to become queen of Persia — Esther 2:17).

To disobey a direct order from the king in that culture was unthinkable, but Vashti obviously couldn’t betray her own dignity — i.e. violate her conscience — to be ogled by a bunch of drunken men, especially considering the possibility that she was to appear before them wearing only her crown, which is what some Hebrew historians maintain. This account is contrasted by Salome’s willingness to dance at King Herod’s banquet but, then, she didn’t do it nude and she & her mother had an ulterior motive (Mark 6:17-28).

What can we get from Vashti’s impressive refusal to give-in to her husband’s ignoble request at great cost? While it’s nice to be sincerely noticed or complimented now and then, being objectified is a different story. It reduces the person to a piece of meat and the Bible emphasizes that this is a worldly perspective rather than spiritual (2 Corinthians 5:16).

‘What About “Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder”?’

Obviously there is such a thing as exceptional good-looks, but beauty is also subjective. For instance, an Aborigine living in the bush might likely find a beauty contest winner in the USA or Europe unappealing and understandably so. What makes his idea of beauty less valid than a judge at a beauty contest in Western Civilization? Every person is like that Aborigine: The only beauty that matters to the individual is what he or she finds beautiful, not what some judge at a beauty contest or magazine editor insists is beautiful. Hence, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So beauty is both subjective and objective. It is subjective in that people are unique individuals who don’t find the same things attractive; they each have their own opinions and preferences on what is beautiful or handsome. However, beauty is also objective in that some people are simply better looking than others, as noted in the scriptures cited above.

Are there examples of subjective beauty in the Bible? Yes. The male protagonist in the Song of Songs refers to his beloved like so:

Like a lily among thorns

is my darling among the young women.

Song of Songs 2:2

You are altogether beautiful, my darling;

there is no flaw in you.

Song of Songs 4:7

⁸Sixty queens there may be,

and eighty concubines,

and virgins beyond number;

⁹but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,

Song of Songs 6:8-9

He speaks of his beloved’s beauty as if she blows away all other women on Earth, even to the point of having “no flaw” and being his “perfect one.” Is this factually true or merely his subjective perspective looking through the lens of passionate romantic love? Obviously the latter since even the most beautiful women in this fallen world have flaws.

The woman in the story speaks of her man in a similar idealized fashion, e.g. Song of Songs 5:10-16.

While both ‘lover’ and ‘beloved’ in the Song of Songs may have been exceptional in one way or another, neither were the most attractive, flawless male or female on Earth. As such, these verses reflect the idea of subjective beauty.

‘What About Inner Beauty?’

What good is outer beauty without inner beauty to balance it out? If anything, inner beauty is more important and very much so. After all, what benefit would it be to marry a gorgeous Hollywood starlet or stud who has a roaming eye and the marriage lasts a short time due to inevitable unfaithfulness?

This explains why Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, encouraged female believers to not focus on “outward adornment” and all that goes with it, but rather on the true attractiveness of “your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (1 Peter 1:3-4). He wasn’t saying female believers can’t wear attractive clothing, just that their focus should be on the true beauty that stems from a spiritual heart. This is what attracted me to Carol, my wife, when I first met her. Of course I found her physically attractive, but she didn’t dress like a courtesan and didn’t need to. It was her gentle, quiet, godly spirit that shined like the midday sun and captured my attention. Here’s a photo of us on our wedding day in 1995:

By “gentle” and “quiet” I don’t mean Carol was a shy pushover, I mean she wasn’t an obnoxious loudmouth, like odious LIEberals and their opinionated falsities & slander. There’s a pleasantness to a gentle, quiet spirit that doesn’t constantly bloviate and isn’t rash with jumping to conclusions. At the same time Carol has no qualms about wisely holding me accountable to the Word of God; and I do the same with her, which is a form of tough love. This kind of love doesn’t fail to correct others when necessary.

But the Scriptures don’t just encourage women to be gentle and quiet as each are positive attributes for both men and women. Paul said to all the believers at Philippi: “Let your gentleness be evident to all” (Philippians 4:5). Meanwhile James said “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19). And the book of Proverbs says “The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint, and whoever has understanding is even-tempered” (Proverbs 17:27).

In other words, the Scriptures exhort both men and women to not be loathsome loudmouths. Yet this doesn’t mean there isn’t a time & place for righteous reprimand and Holy Ghost-inspired preaching.

Appreciating Beauty vs. Lusting

Since the Bible clearly acknowledges physical beauty or handsomeness in human beings and God created this beauty, there’s a place for appreciating it, whether being awed by it or simply admiring it. There’s nothing wrong with this. As it is written, “To the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15).

However, the Bible condemns lust for anyone outside the covenant of holy matrimony, which is preoccupation in thought or deed with sexual desire and has to do with the aforementioned objectification. Even for your wife or husband, your desire for her/him should be greater than one-dimensional lust or the marriage won’t likely last. Christ said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). This explains why righteous Job made an agreement with his eyes to not look at a woman lustfully (Job 31:1).

But what is the dividing line between appreciating beauty and sexual lust? Here’s a parable to illustrate the difference: You’re walking down the sidewalk and come across a bed of flowers wherein you naturally relish their colorful beauty and fragrance; you may stop for a moment, but you continue on your way because you have a schedule and other things to do. Besides, the flowers aren’t yours. Then someone else walks down the sidewalk and sees the same beautiful bed of flowers, but he dives into it wildly pulling them out by the roots so he can take them home with him. I think it’s obvious which one of these is reasonable, acceptable behavior and which is not.

If that’s not clear enough, here’s a more blunt way to distinguish falling into lust: If your thoughts about a person inspire you to run to a secluded room to masturbate, it’s obviously lust. The answer to this kind of problem is learning to control your thoughts, as well as learning to walk in the spirit. God said to Cain: “sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7). This is a matter between the individual and the LORD.

All men and women are unique with different strengths/weaknesses and each one is going to have to determine in their relationship with God what the dividing line is between appreciating beauty and lust. It’s a part of “working out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12).

Let me close with this relevant story filled with insights:

Several years ago I was part of a men’s group that would read Christian books on male-oriented issues and regularly meet for discussion and fellowship. In one of the books the author went to extreme lengths to protect himself from his lust problem. For instance, before reading a newspaper or magazine he’d cut out any ads or pictures that featured a fetching female, especially scantily-clad ones like underwear or bathing suit ads. In addition, if he were out in public he’d never look at a comely female for more than a passing glance (approximately 0.187 seconds) and would refuse to view TV shows or movies that showed women in alluring apparel. Etcetera. These were rules that this man came up with in order to walk free of lust and serve the Lord with a clear conscience. There’s nothing wrong with these rules if a man has issues with lust, usually due to an exceptional sex drive. Such a man observes such rules for the sake of personal holiness, which is pure religion in God’s eyes (James 1:27). These rules are akin to the alcoholic who must stay away from any environment that includes alcoholic beverages in order to walk in victory. But not all men have such a weakness to lust, nor do all people struggle with alcohol like the severe alcoholic.

To be expected, this subject provoked a lively discussion at the group. A couple of the men, both married, admitted that they needed to go to such extremes to walk free of lust, while some others felt the rules were so radical that it was the next thing to requiring women to wear robes and veils in public, like in some Islamic countries.

This was the perfect occasion for us to practice Paul’s instructions in Romans 14: The men who felt it necessary to adhere to these rigid rules should not look down on those who didn’t and vice versa. As Paul instructed, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand… Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:4-5).

Such rules are fine if you require them to keep a clean conscience before God, but be careful that religious pride doesn’t seep-in and you start judging and condemning other genuine believers who don’t require these rules. Otherwise you’ll be infected by legalism, which is a path of spiritual darkness and death even though it wraps itself in the garnishment of respectable religiosity.

Carol & I attended one assembly where the pastor had a history of alcohol-related problems before he came to the Lord and, consequently, was hell-bent against anything having to do with alcohol. Not only was drinking a sip of alcohol a sin — to him — it was also a sin to dine at an establishment that served alcohol, like Red Lobster. In fact, it was wrong to shop at a store that sold alcohol, like Walmart! Do you see the problem here? Because he had a weakness toward alcohol he developed an extreme view on the subject and tried to impose his personal rules of holiness on everyone else, including the vast majority who had no need of such radical rules.

This article is also available as a chapter in…

The print book is available here for only $7.26 (171 pages)
The Kindle eBook is available here for just 99¢!

Both links allow you to LOOK INSIDE the book.

What’s the Diff Between SIMILE, METAPHOR, ANALOGY, CONTRAST?

In the Bible you’ll observe examples of similes, metaphors, analogies and contrasts. Let’s look at each of these to distinguish them:

Similes

A simile (SIM-uh-lee) is a comparison of one thing with another of a different kind using the words “as” or “like.” In this verse, for instance, you’ll observe three similes:

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.”

Matthew 10:16

Three similes can also be observed in this passage:

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. ³His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. ⁴The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

Matthew 28:2-4

Metaphors

A metaphor is also a comparison, but directly states it, leaving out the words “like” or “as.” Here are several examples:

The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.

Psalm 23:1

For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless.

Psalm 84:11

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

John 14:6

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”

¹⁴“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. ¹⁵Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. ¹⁶In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”

Matthew 5:13-16

Analogies

An analogy is also a comparison for explanation or argumentation, but is more lengthy and complicated than similes and metaphors, not to mention an analogy will utilize similes and metaphors. Christ’s parables, for instance, are types of analogies. The Parable of the Weeds (Tares) is a good example:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. ²⁶When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

²⁷“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

²⁸“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

²⁹“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. ³⁰Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”…

³⁶Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

³⁷He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. ³⁸The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, ³⁹and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

⁴⁰“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. ⁴¹The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. ⁴²They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

This parable is an analogy. The first part employs similes while the second part uses both metaphors and similes.

Contrasts

Also look for contrasts in the Bible, which are the opposite of comparisons (similes and metaphors), but likewise make insightful points. Consider, for example, the Lord’s Parable of the Persistent Widow:

Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. ²He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. ³And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

⁴“For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, ⁵yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’ ”

⁶And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. ⁷And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? ⁸I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

Luke 18:1-8

In this tale the LORD is not being compared to an uncaring, unjust judge, as casual readers have mistaken; rather this is an example of contrast: If even a heartless, unjust judge will listen to a persistent person of low stature how much more so our caring, just Heavenly Father?

Human FREEWILL and God’s SOVEREIGNTY

In one of my articles I made the point: Could God make a stone so big He couldn’t lift it? The answer is, yes, the human will. Someone responded by insisting that this rejects God’s sovereignty. No, it doesn’t. Allow me to explain…

The LORD is Almighty and indeed reigns supreme (Psalm 103:19, 93:1, Isaiah 37:16, Exodus 19:5 & Zechariah 6:5), but within God’s Sovereignty he allows humans (and angels) freedom of moral will. As such, although God could force us to make righteous choices, he instead grants us moral volition. This means he won’t make us to do what’s wise or right even though he has the power to do so.

Think about it in terms of something as mundane as choosing your clothes for the day. Does the LORD force you to wear a certain shirt or pair of pants? Obviously not, although He certainly could. In short, you choose what you’re going to wear. That’s freewill.

Here are a few examples of moral freewill from both the Old Testament and the New Testament:

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

Deuteronomy 30:19

Although the LORD encouraged the Israelites to choose life he couldn’t make them do it. Why? Because they had freewill.

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — ¹³ children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

John 1:12-13

People choose to receive Christ because they believe; they’re not forced to do so. It’s freewill.

Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the One who sent me. ¹⁷Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”

John 7:16-17

People obviously have the choice to discern and carry out God’s will or not. No one is forced to damnation and no one is forced to eternal life (2 Peter 3:9).

However, freewill does not mean unaccountable. God’s sovereignty can be observed in the fact that everyone will stand before the Almighty and give an account of their lives, which includes answering for their impenitent choices, thoughts & actions – believers at the Judgment Seat of Christ and the unsaved at the Great White Throne Judgment (1 Corinthians 4:5, Romans 14:10-12 & Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). If the LORD didn’t reign supreme then we wouldn’t have to answer to our Creator. Even archangels and satan have to give account to the Almighty (Job 1:6 & 2:1).

Now, think about it, God wouldn’t hold us accountable to our actions if, in fact, we didn’t have freewill. If we had no choice in the matter and were forced to do this or that, how can we be held accountable for our actions? In other words, the very fact that we’re accountable to the LORD proves freewill.

Why does the Creator allow freedom of moral will? Obviously because God desires people (and angels) to serve & love their Maker because they want to rather than because they’re programmed to do so, like robots.

But, if the LORD is sovereign and reigns supreme, why is this world so messed up? Why is the devil currently “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4)? Doesn’t God care? These questions and more are answered in this article.

What’s the Diff Between ARMINIANISM and CALVINISM?

What Scripture Passages Disprove CALVINISM?

The Fall of Man (Humanity) and Slavery to Satan

REDEMPTION — God’s Plan of Liberation for Humanity & Creation

RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS

Q&A on Solomon’s SONG OF SONGS

What is the Song of Songs?

Who wrote the Song of Songs?

When was it written?

Why is it called the “Song of Songs”?

Is it an anthology of love poems?

Why has it been considered “controversial” by some?

How was the Song of Songs determined to be part of the canon of Scripture?

Should this book be taken at face value as a love story or as an allegory?

Where do the events of the song take place?

How long do the events entail?

Who is the woman in the story?

Who is the man in the love story?

What are the main interpretations of the love story?

Interpretation #1: A historical account of Solomon and his first love, his first wife

Interpretation #2: A historical account of Solomon when he already had 60 wives and 80 concubines

Interpretation #3: Solomon wrote the epic song as a largely fictional love story involving a monogamous version of his self

Interpretation #4: A commoner becomes “king for the day” at his wedding feast

Interpretation #5: A love triangle involving Solomon, the Shulammite and her beloved shepherd

Who are the peripheral characters in the story?

Why is God not mentioned in the Song of Songs?

What are some key insights readers can get from the Song of Songs?

Romantic love & the corresponding marriage/sex are pure and beautiful, not evil or embarrassing

Sensual stimulation and simple encouragement is enhanced through sincere words of adoration

True love heightens self-image and therefore confidence

The love-at-first-sight phenomenon

Do not arouse love prematurely

Eros love is defined

Beware of the “little foxes” that can slowly destroy eros love and the corresponding relationship

Arranged marriages are not the ideal

Monogamy is the way to go, not polygamy

Take care of your appearance (even after you’ve won your bride or husband)

Procreation is not the main purpose of sex

Your mate needs you as a best friend, not just a physical lover

What is the interpretation you favor?

A Proposed Synopsis of the Love Triangle Interpretation

Additional lessons if the love triangle theory is valid

Closing Words

This article is available in book form with loads of additional material!

Does the Bible Support MONOGAMY or POLYGAMY?

What’s the Diff Between MILK and SOLID FOOD (“Meat”)?

What Did Paul Mean by ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?

What Are the SOURCES OF TRUTH (Reality)?

Related Topics:

Was There a TALKING SNAKE in Genesis 3?

BEAUTY, Objectification and Lust

Appreciating Beauty vs. Objectifying a Person

‘What About “Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder”?’

‘What About Inner Beauty?’

Appreciating Beauty vs. Lusting

This article is also available as a chapter in…

Related Topics:

What’s the Diff Between SIMILE, METAPHOR, ANALOGY, CONTRAST?

Similes

Metaphors

Analogies

Contrasts

Related Topics:

Human FREEWILL and God’s SOVEREIGNTY

Menu:

**Arranged marriages are not the ideal**

**Take care of your appearance (even after you’ve won your bride or husband)**