/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Sexual love in marriage is ordained by God.

I don't think there is any allegorical interpretation of Solomon's desire for his wife's belly and breasts as Christ's love for the church's… belly… and breasts.

Granted, Christ loves his Church.

the bride is a picture of the church

the bridegroom is a picture of Jesus

Let's refer to the Jewish Encyclopedia. The primarily allegorical interpretation is the original interpretation.

>The oldest known interpretation of the Song (induced by the demand for an ethical and religious element in its content) is allegorical: the Midrash and the Targum represent it as depicting the relations between God and Israel. The allegorical conception of it passed over into the Christian Church, and has been elaborated by a long line of writers from Origen down to the present time, the deeper meaning being assumed to be the relation between God or Jesus and the Church or the individual soul. The literal interpretation of the poem as simply a eulogy of married love had its representatives in early times (Theodore of Mopsuestia, and, to some extent, Abraham ibn Ezra), and, in the renaissance of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was maintained by Grotius, Clericus, and others; but it is only in the last hundred years that this interpretation has practically ousted the allegorical.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13916-song-of-songs-the

>>720368

>I don't think there is any allegorical interpretation of Solomon's desire for his wife's belly and breasts as Christ's love for the church's… belly… and breasts.

It's absolutely allegorical, unless you presume to accuse Scripture and Solomon of writing erotica. Moreover, the patrisic exegesis has almost always been allegorical

Breasts are used to sup the children, which I shouldn't have to go into much detail to explain, and the Belly represents the fullness of the people in the Church.

>Before the sixteenth century tradition gave an allegorical or symbolical meaning to the love of Solomon for the Sulamitess. The view held by the Jewish Synagogue was expressed by Akiba and Aben Ezra; that held by the Church, by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Jerome

>>720368

oh, in fact that view is heretical

"Theodore of Mopsuestia aroused such indignation by declaring the Canticle of Canticles to be a love-song of Solomon's, and his contemptuous treatment of it gave great offense (Mansi, Coll. Conc., IX, 244 sqq; Migne, P.G., LXVI, 699 sqq.). At the Œcumenical Council of Constantinople (553), Theodore's view was rejected as heretic and his own pupil Theodoret, brought forward against him unanimous testimony of the Fathers (Migne, P.G., LXXXI, 62). Theodore's opinion was not revived until the sixteenth century, when the Calvinist Sebastien Castalion (Castalio), and also Johannes Clericus, made use of it. The Anabaptists became partisans of this view; later adherents of the same opinion were Michaelis, Teller, Herder, and Eichhorn. A middle position is taken by the "typical" exposition of the book."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03302a.htm

>>720366

>Bernard de Clairvaux said as in the love of the souls for God and of God for the souls?

Correct

>or of Christ for the Church and the Church for Christ?

Correct

>Or a literal sense of the desire between a couple being pure in the context of monogamous relationship?

Also Correct

All of these interpretations are correct in my eyes.

>>720366

Why cant it merely be sexual love between husband and wife?

Sex is not a bad thing, remove this gnostard meme from your heads.

>>720432

>Why cant it merely be sexual love between husband and wife?

Because nobody ever taught it, neither the Jews before Christ, the Church Herself, or the Church Fathers, and the council sought to exclude anyone who taught that it was literal, and thus carnal.

It's pretty obvious that the literal interpretation is foreign to authentic Christian teaching, seeing as it only re-surfaced post Reformation.

>>720436

…How does this even makes sense? Why does everything have to be allegorical?

And fifth council says nothing about it even, it just anathemizes Theodoret for Nestorianism

>>720438

>Why does everything have to be allegorical?

Where did I say everything has to be allegorical? The Church teaches that things are literal, as an example: the very real existence of Adam and Eve.

>it just anathemizes Theodoret for Nestorianism

JUST for Nestorianism? You realize having a specific view on things affects everything else, right?

>…How does this even makes sense?

I don't know, ask the Holy Spirit.

>>720443

>JUST for Nestorianism? You realize having a specific view on things affects everything else, right?

Have you left your reading comprehension at the school table? I said that it mentions subject of Nestorianism. It doesnt mention song of songs.

>I don't know, ask the Holy Spirit.

Article on newadvent isnt the Holy Spirit.

>>720446

>Have you left your reading comprehension at the school table? I said that it mentions subject of Nestorianism. It doesnt mention song of songs.

"Furthermore he anathematized Theodore and condemned his writings and those of Theodoret and Ibas"

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum05.htm

Writings = Teachings

>We observed that the pupils of Nestorius were trying to bring their heresy into the church of God by means of the heretical Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia and his books as also by the writings of the heretical Theodoret and the disgraceful letter which is alleged to have been sent by Ibas to Mari the Persian.

>Article on newadvent isnt the Holy Spirit.

The Church is the Holy Spirit, and I hope you aren't Orthodox, because you must submit to this council as well, and you have zero excuse to endorse a literal interpretation.

>>720443

>The Church teaches that things are literal, as an example: the very real existence of Adam and Eve.

>Catholic

…I'm calling bishop Barron

>>720448

I am Orthodox and you have provided nothing but some article on NewAdvent. Generic Anathema on Theodoret was about his Nestorian teachings. This is what I read in decrees of the council.

>Writings = Teachings

You do realize that opinions of Origen, who was ALSO anathemised were used by church fathers, including Basil the Great? Was St. Basil a heretic?

And no, I dont even care about the subject, be it one way or another. What I DO care about is screeching about "muh heresy" every time here and there.

>>720432

It is about erotic love in a literal sense, but this used as a vehicle for an allegory, which is the primary intended meaning.

>>720438

The article is a Catholic Encyclopedia article. The authors were experts, and you can't dismiss what's said there out of hand just on account of you being Eastern Orthodox without providing contrary evidence.

Anyway, whatever you are reading of Constantinople II is probably not the complete acts (or rather what remains of the acts). This blog post has more detailed info about the condemnation of Theodore for his opinion about Song of Songs. It even links the Latin source. I tried to check the source, but the Hathitrust website is unusable on mobile devices.

http://catholicbiblestudent.com/2011/01/was-theodore-of-mopsuestia-song-of-songs.html

>>720450

>>720459

Just to quote some of the relevant portions.

>3. It is true that little of Theodore’s views on the Song are extant. All we have are a few fragments from a letter he wrote to a friend on the topic. The letter is cited in the Council documents. You can read it here: Migne, PG 66, 699-700.

>4. It also turns out that the condemnation of Theodore and the Second Council of Constantinople are extremely complex historical events in their own right. Here’s a brief summary of events: The emperor Justinian wants to bring the Monophysites back into the Church. They reject the Nestorians, who often cite Theodore of Mopsuestia. So, Justinian condemns the writings of Theodore in an edict that comes to be known as the condemnation of the Three Chapters in 544. Pope Vigilius defends Theodore. In 553, Justinian calls a Council without the permission or participation of Pope Vigilius who was at odds with the emperor. The Council, held in May-June of 553, upheld the condemnation of the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 225). (Unfortunately, the Council documents are only incompletely preserved and in Latin translation.) Under the pressure of exile, Vigilius published a letter on December 8 which concurred with the condemnation of the Three Chapters, but did not mention the council. This papal pronouncement thus ratified the illegally-called council.

>Pope Vigilius had published before the council a Constitutum which condemned certain positions held by Theodore. After the Council he published the Letter to Eutychius of Constantinople on Dec. 8, 553 (Mansi IX, 424) and another Constitutum on Feb 23, 554 (Mansi IX, 455).

>So, yes, Theodore was condemned for his view on the Song of Songs, but not only for that, also for many other positions he took. That’s about it on Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Song of Songs. If you want to read more about it all, you can check out this short bibliography I’ve put together.

There are links to Migne and Mansi provided in the text you can follow up on if you can read Greek or Latin.

>>720450

No if this book were literal God would be guilty of writing smut. It doesn't work like that, it's an allegorical book and this is the ancient interpretation of it.

>>720481

Why is a man loving his wife's body smut?

I think you have preconceived notions of who God is, and it clouds your perception. Come unto him as a little child.

God made sex. God told Adam and Eve to have sex.

This hatred of heterosexuality makes the homosexuality within the Catholic Church not shocking at all.

>>720481

>smut

Hebrews 13:4

>>720481

…you weren't really brought by storks, you know…

>Book about the fruits of marriage and enjoyment thereof

>Catholics hate it and say it's not literal

Every time

Sex is a good thing from God. It's pleasurable for more reasons than just having kids.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/like-a-rutting-buck/

>May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

>A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

>This isn’t cold sex only to conceive a child, or mere duty sex. It also isn’t a picture of sex “purified” by romantic love. This is sex with great physical passion. The proverb exhorts husbands to rejoice in their wives’ bodies.

>Contrary to the argument that sexual passion is sinful if it isn’t carefully constrained, husbands are exhorted to be intoxicated with passion for their wives.

>Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun

>>720629

It's not just Catholics it's the bible. They basically say sex in marriage is the least sinful way to contain a sin still suggesting even that is somewhat sinful if it's for purposes other than reproduction.

>>720450

>I am Orthodox and you have provided nothing but some article on NewAdvent.

You're in anathema to the Council dude, there is no question about it.

Unless you're willing to call Theodore a Church Father, you will find no patristic support for the literalist interpretation either.

>>720578

And if you defy the Council, the very same council that defeated Nestorianism and defined the hypostatic union, you are in anathema.

>>720629

>Catholics hate it and say it's not literal

Catholics and the Orthodox, and every Church Father, for there IS NO CHURCH FATHER that supports it.

>>720711

>patristic support

>patristic support

How about just use the Holy Ghost and your own brain? Any dummy can plainly see that “church fathers” had various conflicting theologies over a thousand year period.

>>720734

Are you a nestorian? This is the exact same council that proclaimed Jesus Christ is true man and true God. Seriously, if you reject this council, you run into enough complications even Steve Anderson can call you a heretic.

>>720520

>>720522

>>720578

But once again, you have to look at how the Fathers interpreted it. None of them saw it as literal

>>720658

>it's the bible

The Bible says husband and wife should have sex every day and not stop unless they agree for a short time, and then do it again. And not because sex is a sin. Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

>le fathers

The Bible is higher authority than men. As evidenced by our current "leaders" in many denominations, including Catholics.

>>720898

>>720449

>>720578

I'm the same guy btw. I don't know why did this IP changed

>>720898

1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring,

each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

Do not deprive each other

except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

>>720903

You read yours. That is not saying sex is a sin.

Catholics have monomania about sex. It's why they become fags. It's icky, and muh fathers say it is bad. The Bible says "HAVE SEX WITH YOUR WIFE AND ENJOY IT" but because some Catholic man said something, they autistically contort those words to mean "NO, NO, ONLY HAVE SEX FOR KIDS, BECAUSE MUD IDOLATRY"

"MUH VENERATION FOR MARY THOUGH"

Jesus save us from this autism.

>>720908

>I say this as a concession, not as a command

>I wish that all of you were as I am

>It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.

>I say this as a concession, not as a command

AUTISM

You cannot read.

>>720911

Yes, that's impressive. A dictionary. Well done.

>But I speak this by permission

He is expressing his wishes because it is easier for a man to serve God if he doesn't have a wife. But sex is a good thing from God, as is a wife.

Quotations to follow.

>>720924

>Why does paul wish they were like him?

>>720912

>it is easier for a man to serve God if he doesn't have a wife

Because a wife and family become priority.

Pay special attention to I WISH/WOULD/WILL and EVERY MAN HATH HIS PROPER GIFT OF GOD" and Paul's gift from God is to serve Him without the need for a wife. God gave Paul his gift. He was not called'' to have a wife.

Most of us are not Paul. Most of us have a different calling according to what God wills. And God does not say anywhere, nor does anyone under His submission, that sex within marriage is a sin.

>>720924

>spamming this thread

Coffee. And I'm not spamming. Be more appreciative that I want you to be correct rather than to err.

>>720929

>conceited

Nay. I am sure of the Bible, not of myself.

>>720930

>nay

You are pretty cringe worthy from reading your post.

Cannot just be assumed at this point that SOS threads are bait threads? Because this is what happens every single time.

>>720933

>everything is bait if i don't like it

You could always venture to Reddit if you like forced opinions. No arguments at all there. Just hugbox.

I would prefer actual discussions. We used to have those here years ago.

>>720935

I posted a ton of Scripture to support my argument. I first posted a link.

People have yet to come back with anything besides "nuh uh" and quote the same thing I quoted, but say it means something totally different.

>>720937

I can post a fedora next if it would make you feel better. :^)

And I did not spam anything. I listed Scripture that speaks to each other in many different books of many generations. The message is the same.

And a man loving his wife is an allegory to Christ and the church, per Ephesians 5:22-27, but does not change the point blank meaning which is in clear words. To dismiss the literal meaning is deceit or ignorance. The meaning has never changed. When and if you read Ephesians 5:27, consider Ecclesiastes 9:8.

Yes, there is allegory. And as marriage on earth is to be compared to heaven and eternity with Him, so is sex within it. Heaven is paradise. Bliss. Sex in marriage has meaning beyond children. It is a gift.

>>720940

>random

You must not have been here long.

>>720740

So what you’re saying is that I need councils to determine what I already believe?

>>720893

This is absolutely besides the point, the topic at hand is whether a literalist interpretation of the Song of Songs is valid. It is not, and it never has been.

>>720991

If you throw out councils, you need to re-justify what you believe from the ground up. There is a reason why the Anderson clique keeps falling into modalism, if you reject the hypostatic union, which is probably one of the most well-defined theological definitions in the True Religion, you will have people falling for Arianism constantly.

>>720992

>It is not

It is.

>it never has been

It has been.

>>720996

From what Church?

From what Church Father?

From which Jew?

There has never been a Church that has endorsed the literalist SoS outside of Nestorians, and post-Reformation Protestants.

There has been no Jewish teachings about SoS being literal, and there has been no Church Father teachings on SoS being literal either.

>>720999

Bible

>>721000

Where does the Bible say SoS is literal?

Hosea 12:10 affirms that the Holy Spirit will speak through metaphors, so where do you get permission to teach literally?

>I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

>>721001

see >>720921

Not going to repeat that post. I've spoken several times already.

>>721002

You posted something nobody cares about. To a person that didn't even reply to you. Sperg elsewhere.

>>721004

Permission to have martial sex in the Bible HAS NOTHING to do with the literalist interpretation of SoS.

>>721005

So what do Solomon's wife's boobs stand as a metaphor for?

I'm aware of the metaphors of the bride of Christ, never do they mention boobs and gorgeous tummy.

>>721006

>So what do Solomon's wife's boobs stand as a metaphor for?

The Church's teachings, that feed the faithful. You recall that the faithful are called to be "like children" and Christ called His disciples "children", multiple times right?

Additionally, "wife's boobs"…I mean, this HAS NOTHING to do with justifying a literalist interpretation of SoS, try harder.

>>721008

>children

That means innocence, and also whole belief and faith. Are you insinuating that knowing the body parts of your wife and doing lovey dovey things means it's not innocent? Innocence is the absence of sin or guilt. There is nothing guilty or sinful about loving your wife.

>>721011

>That means innocence, and also whole belief and faith.

Now you presume to know what Scripture truly means?

The rest of your post is inane and not worth addressing. The Jews knew from the beginning that SoS was allegorical, the Church always knew that is was allegorical.

I don't know if you're Jew or Christian, but your teaching is new and unfounded.

>>721012

I presume to know what a child is. A child thinks as a child. When I instruct a child as a parent or adult, that child believes me wholly because I am a person of authority. God is our authority, our Father.

>inane

Do tell.

>>721011

I dislike you genuinely, each of your messages are so painful to read I feel like your ego is so inflated its pouring through my screen.

>>721014

>>721007

How many IDs do you have in this thread?

>>721015

Just the one.

>>721013

>I presume to know what a child is. A child thinks as a child. When I instruct a child as a parent or adult, that child believes me wholly because I am a person of authority. God is our authority, our Father.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Who gave you the authority to pronounce what Jesus Christ truly meant?

The topic at hand is whether the SoS is literal, you keep bringing up conjugal rights which has…nothing to do with whether the SoS is meant to be understood as literal! Circular argument upon circular argument.

This is a nice thread

>>720921

Is this board dying? Hopefully

Are you giving us another reason to believe it is dying if you are banned? Honestly, uhhh.

I mean look at this

>The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

This means that they have to have sex if one of them demands it to the other

Not

>should have sex every day and not stop

This is why personal interpretation is bad. You're literally saying that you, minority view 00.001%, have the guidance of the holy spirit to interpret the Bible, and everyone else is wrong. Nobody else has been given the holy spirit but you. That's the only way you can claim a textual interpretation that nobody else has(In this case, your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7)

>>720366

>or of Christ for the Church and the Church for Christ.

>Or a literal sense of the desire between a couple being pure in the context of monogamous relationship?

Read ephesians 5. They're the same topic. Marriage is a type of the relation of christ and the church, which is why christ is often referred to as bridegroom, why the baptismal robe is called a wedding garment, why the eucharist can be termed as a wedding feast, why christ's first miracle was a transfiguration of water to wine at a wedding, and why there are many OT references chastising israel for idolatry calling it a "harlot".

It's not a matter of either/or. Read it as both; doing so is how you can catch a glimpse of what paul is calling a mystery in eph. 5.

as man is made in God's image, reflecting His glory - so marriage is a mirror to that greater family, the three persons of God

and in that intimacy of a couple knowing each other, so we see a shadow of both the the Union of those Three Persons, and a representation of Christ's love for His bride; the church - giving all of Himself for that which He cherishes