|
|
Chapter Fifteen:
THE REAL AUTHOR OF
MARRIAGE
|
|
|
A. The Inspiration of the Song of Songs
We believe the canon of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures was inspired as a whole. One verse, one section, one
book does not make total sense save in the light not only of its immediate context, but of the rest of the Bible.
Israel, once "weaned from the breast", should have understood this principle (Isaiah 28:9-14). God's
written revelation is understood by adding "precept (tsav) to precept", "line (kav)
to line", "here a little, there a little".1 Israel, however, refused to obey and therefore did not understand God's words. God thus said
He would speak to Israel through "stammering lips and another tongue [other than Hebrew]" -- that is,
in translation -- so that "the word
of the LORD", so constructed, would be a snare to them. Translation has been as much a means for God to send
strong delusion on Israel and the world as it has been a means for Him to reveal truth to them (cf. 2 Thessalonians
2:11-12).
The miracle is not that so many Bible translations are so good, but that so many are not more misleading than they
are! Every translator and exegete (including this one) comes to the Bible with limitations in knowledge and perception. If he also comes to the Scripture without the desire to obey
God, his knowledge of the original languages will only aid him in clouding his thinking and that of those who rely
on his translations (cf. Matthew 15:14).
Many of the Bible's internal links depend on how
the Bible says what it says. Heretofore,
exegetes have had to infer this "missing dimension" from the words alone -- something only the "wise"
(those who obey God's commandments: Psalms 111:10) have any hope of doing in any case (Daniel 12:10). This "missing
dimension" may now be "spelled out", for those with ears to hear: in the case of the Hebrew Bible,
thanks to Haïk-Vantoura's rediscovery of the musical meaning of the te`amim.2
If Haïk-Vantoura's thesis remains controversial in some quarters, it is partly because few have followed correctly
the logic of her decipherment.3
But also, Haïk-Vantoura's work refutes many scholarly presuppositions regarding ancient music and the origin
of our Hebrew text. Finally, her work leads to conclusions which defy many long-entrenched human traditions.4 It is no surprise that many have rejected the
how with the what; thanks to the how,
the Bible's witness against them has been redoubled!
Yet the crucial test of the rediscovered music's authenticity is its ability to make a given verbal text make sense,
both in its immediate context and in the context of the rest of the Bible. We believe the melody of the Song of
Songs does just that to the words it supports. Further study, we believe, will only show greater depths in the
relationship between music and words.
B. What God Intended in Marriage
Clearly, the Song of Songs is a spiritual work. It deals with human marital love, but in the context of the spiritual
life. It is not the only biblical text which compares marital love with the love between God and His chosen people,
but it is the primary one. Its spiritual
side has been ignored (or reinterpreted arbitrarily) for so long precisely because it was found in the original
melody rather than the words. The melody, restored, ties together the threads of physical, companionable and erotic
love that weave (at times unseen) through the words of the Song. The music reflects, in combination with the words,
not only Solomon's wisdom, but God's.
What does all this mean in the end? The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures agree: marriage
is a physical relationship, but a Divine institution. Rabbinic Judaism (or
so it seems to this author) has tended to remember the former more clearly; Gentile Christianity, the latter. In
an age when marriage itself is being questioned, redefined, challenged, the true biblical perspective on the subject
must be understood.
God intended marriage to be monogamous, lifelong, between virgins -- and by definition, between male and female.
Ideally, it was to be between two people who both partook of the Tree of Life. While children naturally arise out
of marriage (Genesis 1:28), marriage first of all is the "one flesh" relationship between the sexes which
God offered Adam and Eve in Eden, and of which He was to be a part.
In the Song of Songs, we see that relationship illustrated by the example of Solomon and Shulamith. We see a great equality between the sexes there -- but also a difference in roles (generally with the male leading,
the female responding). Solomon (especially in the first half of the book) takes most of the initiative in courtship
and lovemaking. To counterbalance this, Shulamith does most of the speaking -- and she takes increasing romantic
initiative in the last chapters of the book. Here again is evidence of an overall chiasmic structure in the poetry
of the Song.
We see something very similar in the Garden of Eden. True, Adam was created first. God gave Adam the primary responsibility
of "breadwinning" and of taking care of the Garden, as well as of naming the animals (and the woman).
God commanded Adam concerning the trees of the Garden before Eve was created; Adam apparently passed on the command
to Eve (yet Eve notes, in Genesis 3:1-3, that this was God's command). The couple, when married, are described as "the man and his wife", implying
a hierarchy. Yet their relationship as
"one flesh" had the innocence and balance
of a proper brother-sister relationship (cf. Genesis 2:23-25), just as Solomon describes Shulamith as "my
sister, my bride".
Later, Eve was seduced by the Serpent into taking the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (in its effects,
the Tree of Death). Adam followed her lead and ate of the fruit also. The melos of this chapter indicates that God came to meet them as a man, on their own level. His open
reaction to their disobedience shows He had deliberately chosen not to foresee their actions (Genesis 3:8-9, 11-12).
Adam, at first embarrassed, sought to justify himself and blame Eve (verses 10, 12); Eve was humiliated by her
simplicity and deception (verse 13); and the Serpent was left completely speechless (verse 14).5
Then, as it were drawing Himself up to His full height and authority (the melos rising to the occasion), God held the Serpent (Satan) and Adam responsible, in that order. His chastisement of Eve has a less strident
and ornamental tone than that directed at Satan and Adam. (One senses God merely states -- and not without compassion -- the necessary consequences of
her actions.) If Eve was deceived, Adam was not; he knew better (cf. 1 Timothy 3:14). God rebuked Adam for following
Eve's example contrary to God's direct command to him.6 All this proves that the authority of the man under God in marriage is part of the created
order, not a punishment imposed on women in verse 16 because of Eve's sin.7
Cut off from the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve could no longer hope to have the Love God intended them to share. The
verbal text of the Song of Songs (as we have said) limits itself to physical and "fraternal" love. Only
through the unseen agency of the Holy Spirit (expressed by the melody of the Song, which conveys the spirituality
behind the words) were Solomon and Shulamith able to enjoy married love as God intended it in Eden.
C. The Mystery of Marriage and Human Sexuality
From the biblical perspective, even language reflects the reality of sexuality as God created it. "Man"
not only means the human male, but humanity in general, males and females alike. This is as true in Hebrew as in
English and many other languages. Is this mere sexist prejudice? No. It reflects a profound mystery
which we ignore at our peril.
The Hebrew text of Genesis interweaves the following words in a complex way: adam ("man", "Adam" or "Humankind", male and female alike), ha'adam ("the man" or, again, "Humankind",
this time implying male leadership more directly), ish
("man, individual"), iSha ("woman,
wife, mate"), and haVa ("Eve"). It also gives different contextual treatments to "image" (tselem) and "likeness" (demut), whether God's or man's (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-3; 9:5-6).
The original melos of Genesis 1:26-28
suggests that "in God's image" refers to man's relationship and potential
with God and vice-regency under Him, while "after God's likeness" is related to man's attributes as a reflection of God's (and divided between male and female).8 Note that Adam's son Seth was "after [his father's] image", but "in [his father's]
likeness" -- he had a similar mind, but the same masculine attributes (Genesis 5:3). Certainly the death penalty
for murder was not imposed after the Flood because man looks like God; this is not what being "in the image of God" means (Genesis 9:5-6).
Thus "image" and "likeness" in Genesis 2:26-27 are not
synonyms (the opinions of Hebraists such as Keil and Delitsch notwithstanding).
They refer to different (if related) aspects of being human. While male and female share equally in God's "image", they share differently in God's "likeness" (which includes, but is not limited to, our human appearance).
This fact of creation is meant to teach us something about God, and about ourselves.
In fact, God is not sexual as we are. Sexuality is part of the created realm, not of the Uncreated. God's personality
combines "masculine" traits (such as strength and activity) with "feminine" ones (such as sensitivity
and restraint). When "the angel of the LORD" manifests Himself bodily, however, He does so in the form
of a man. More to the point, He always reveals His Person in masculine linguistic terms. Does He do this merely
to emphasize His authority as Creator and Ruler?
Not at all! The greatest truth of the
Bible -- indeed, the greatest truth any sentient being can know -- is that illustrated by a Godly marriage: God is reproducing Himself, through humanity! He Whom
the New Testament calls God the Father
will one day have sons and daughters that share His Divine Nature and everything that goes with it. Obviously, this has not happened yet -- but God's still-mortal
children await that day eagerly (cf. 1 John 3:1-3).
Yet these as-yet-unborn, spiritual children, as the kehal ha'Elohim, are also presently the Body of Christ. This same kahal is corporately the espoused Bride of Christ, as well as the Mother of all true Christians
(cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16-17; Ephesians 5:22-33; Galatians 4:26; Revelation 12:17) and even of Christ Himself (Revelation
12:1-5). This is a wonderful mystery -- one so deep that even the Song of Songs, apart
from the rest of Scripture, cannot do full justice to its implications!
In this light, can we see why the LORD's jealousy burned so brightly against the worship of Baal and Astarte by
Israel? There is no goddess, no Lady on the Divine plane -- only the Lord (in the person of Jesus Christ). Yet
the Lord will one day exalt a Lady to His Divine plane: the kehal ha'Elohim, the people He has chosen for Himself. That Lady will one day become "a helper fitting
for Him", as Eve was to Adam (cf. Genesis 2:18). In their joining as "one spirit", the Divine Lovers
will complete God's plan (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16-17; Eph. 5:31-32).
Can we begin to see the deeper reasons
why the Torah deals so strictly with adultery, fornication, homosexual acts (specifically between men), incest
and bestiality? Can we grasp why the New Testament denies entrance into the Kingdom of God to those who refuse
to repent of such things? Human sexuality was meant to illustrate God's plan of salvation to mortal man. It can
only do so in the heterosexual relationship of marriage, where both partners can fulfill their typical roles.
Can we see at last why the Song of Songs is included in Holy Scripture? God's presence in something -- His name, the Sabbath, a building, a relationship -- makes
it holy. Perversions of marital love are called "sin" because they profane a holy relationship (cf. Malachi
3:15) which is typical of an even greater relationship to come. The Song of Songs illustrates the type as it was
meant to be, that we might seek the antitype all the more.
D. The Witness of Nature
Quite aside from its deeper, spiritual implications, the Song of Songs is a celebration of marriage for its own
sake. Like the Bible in general, it is a multi-layered work. Since its outermost "layer" is human sexuality
(described in graphic, if delightfully poetic terms), it is no surprise that even our physical bodies bear witness
to the Song's deeper message.
Human males have a relatively low sperm count compared to most mammals (which are more or less promiscuous). It
is just high enough (and varies just enough, when "absence makes the heart grow fonder") to encourage
monogamy and fidelity while promoting the quest for novelty. Conversely, female sexual response is not limited
to a period of estrus; women can receive their men whenever the mood strikes them. Finally, our sexual organs most
naturally fit together (and stimulate each other the most) when the couple is "face-to-face" -- an embrace
designed to encourage mutual love.
Compare human sexuality to that of our closest "relatives" (as the evolutionist would view them). Every
primate society differs from every other and from human society in general (which fact finds a simpler explanation
in special creation than in evolution); yet some common traits may be observed. Among most primates, females come
into "heat" and generally do not have orgasms; males mount them from the rear. The bonobo or pygmy chimp
is exceptional in these and other matters -- but among bonobos, sex as such substitutes for love as the great social
lubricant. Some humans, and some human societies, have always tried to act like bonobos -- but every society that
has tried the "bonobo solution" to human relations has either been kept from greatness, or has fallen
from the greatness it had once attained.
But there are other things inherent to human nature that point to God's design for humanity. Men and women physically
and psychologically complement each other as a whole. Where one sex (generally) is weak, the other is strong. Psychologically
speaking, men are "hard but brittle"; women are "soft but tough". As a general rule, women
live longer and have greater long-term endurance; men can live more active lives and bear more stress in the short
term.9 Moreover, men and women in
all societies and at all times think and feel differently about themselves and the world. Barring descent into
real perversion, cultural norms can only nuance
these innate tendencies, however much feminists and other social revisionists wish it were otherwise.
Given these differences, if men and women are to be happily married and raise happy families, they must have love for one another. Competition between the
sexes will only hurt both sides -- and especially the woman (cf. Genesis 3:16). Many see and lament the effects of this competition, but not the cause: the choice of our first parents in the Garden of
Eden.
God never intended a "war between the sexes" -- let alone the familial dysfunctions people have suffered
throughout history. In the Song of Songs, peace and harmony reign between Man and Woman -- qualities which are
the most striking characteristics of the Song's original melody, at once so lyrical and so tonally functional!
D. "Things Into Which Angels Long to Look"
The role of human marriage and reproduction in the fulfillment of God's plan is one of the "things into which
angels long to look" (1 Peter 1:12). Indeed, the ultimate mystery which marriage portrays is related to yet
another mystery: that of the creation and purpose of the angels, and the rebellion of one-third of them against
God and His ways.
The interconnection between these two mysteries is so profound that it should properly be the subject of another
book.10 Yet it is summarized with
the greatest of brevity in the Bible itself: through the symbolism of the Ark of the Covenant, which represents
the Throne of God (Exodus 25:10-22; cf. Hebrews 9). What can we learn from even the most cursory glance at that
symbolism, in the light of what the rest of the Bible says?
The three "weightier matters" of the Torah are justice; mercy; and faith, or walking
humbly with God (Micah 5:8; Matthew 23:23). "If thou, O LORD, shouldst
mark iniquities (according to justice),
Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness (mercy)
with thee, that thou mayest be feared (by those who have faith)" (Psalms 130:3-4, KJV). All these are manifestations of God's love for His own, and
also of love for God and love for neighbor (the two "Great Commandments" of the Torah).11
These three principles are neatly symbolized by the Ark as follows:
o Justice
(with righteousness, the "place" or foundation of God's Throne: Psalms 97:2) is symbolized by what the
body of the Ark contains: the two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments.
o Mercy is symbolized by the mercy seat covering the Ark, and thus the Ten Commandments
(cf. James 2:8-13).
o Faith is symbolized by the two covering
cherubim who bow before God and each other with their faces toward the mercy seat.
Now the covering cherubim -- presumably, Michael and Gabriel12 -- apparently represent faith
in action, as resting upon justice and mercy. How do
they act?
o Their wings do not form a canopy over God's glory as most modern artists think. Rather, the cherubim support Him with their wings13
(literally as well as symbolically, that is, with prayer and praise).
o They stretch out their wings together to do this, with their heads bowed toward God and each other. In other
words, they cooperate through mutual humility
(cf. 1 Peter 5:5-7; Ephesians 5:21).
o They submit to God's direction, for
God "sits enthroned upon [not merely
between] the cherubim" (Psalms 99:1,
RSV and some other versions).
The Ark symbolizes by implication one more principle:
o The invisible God symbolizes love, for God Himself is love (1 John 4:8, 16). But all the other principles (as noted above) are
likewise motivated by love: that is, not only God's love for His creation, but the love of created beings for God
above all and their neighbors as themselves.
The Ark of the Covenant thus portrays the seven
basic principles of God's way of life -- the principles by which God rules
and by which the righteous angels (led by the covering cherubim) are governed under Him. What lies at the heart
of the angels' submission to God's government in faith lies also at the very heart of the Gospel itself: the mystery
of justice covered by mercy through the suffering and death of the Messiah (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12). Just as the cherubim
of gold symbolically look down at the mercy seat without peering through it, so the literal cherubim and the rest
of the righteous angels look at the mystery of the Gospel without perceiving its depths.
Why should this mystery concern angels? One reason has to do with the Seventh Commandment: "You shall not
commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14). Angels cannot marry or reproduce -- but humans do, in this life only. These
facts are closely tied to the purpose for which humanity was created -- and in particular, to the resurrection
of righteous humans as Sons of God (Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40).
In this light, consider something else. Animals and plants (most of them) are sexual. Among mated pairs in the
animal kingdom, many raise their offspring to maturity, and some are even monogamous -- but of all created beings,
only humans marry. That is, only among
humans is the relationship between a mated pair to be a spiritual relationship -- and in God's plan, a holy relationship. The spirit of adultery is the spirit
of violation of this relationship -- and it earns the penalty of death, which Christ took upon Himself on our behalf
(Matthew 5:27-30; Romans 6:23). Why is all this true of humans and not of animals? Because God is reproducing Himself
through humanity -- and humans are made in the image and after the likeness of God.
Angels can only look on these things with awe
-- not with understanding! They are immortal
and asexual; they can neither die nor reproduce. Each was created as a separate being; an angel cannot become "one
flesh" with another as can a man and a woman. Still less can angels become "one spirit" with the
LORD as can a human with the Holy Spirit -- that is, in the resurrection, and to a certain extent even now (cf.
1 Corinthians 6:12-19; John 17:11, 20-24).
Some have speculated that the rebellion of one of the original covering cherubs -- Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version, Hêlel in the original Hebrew (Isaiah 14:12-15; cf. Ezekiel 28:11-17; Daniel 8:10; Revelation 12:3-12)
-- involved jealousy over what God planned
to do with humanity. In any case, since the Sabbath is part of the foundation of justice to which the covering
cherubim submit, the Ark of the Covenant represents the means of redemption of creation after Lucifer's rebellion
(cf. Genesis 1:2, which shows the earthly results of that rebellion). This redemption (which began with the narrative
of Genesis 1:3-2:3) involves "all things in heaven and earth" (Colossians 1:20) -- and also, the creation,
temptation, redemption and glorification of humanity (Romans 8:18-25, 28-30).
So if the Two Men in Song 1:1 and 5:1 represent two angels, who else could they be but the very covering cherubim
portrayed by the Ark of the Covenant? But if this be so, what a
profound interest they show in just one and a half verses of melos! For just as the angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10), so the
angels must rejoice over every Godly marriage -- and especially the joyous wedding and honeymoon that should begin
it! For the joy God intended in these things prefigures the even greater joy that shall be which the Divine Loved
One returns to wed His own Dear One (cf. Revelation 19:6-10).
With that, the message of the Song of Songs is at last revealed fully. How marvelous that the interplay between
music and words should lead us to that message in the "last days", three thousand years after the Song
was written!
|
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES
1. Kav refers not only to the line of text itself, but to its recitation. The word has this meaning
in Psalms 19:5 (Hebrew versification). This recitation includes the original melody, which we discuss here.
2. In the case of the New Testament,
how the Greek says what it says is defined by the three vocal accents of the Greek text, likewise long-enigmatic
and ignored. I hope to discuss their significance and meaning elsewhere.
3. To the extent any of Haïk-Vantoura's
reviewers has followed her logic correctly, to that extent he or she has supported Haïk-Vantoura's conclusions.
4. It is not for nothing that Clement
of Alexandria wrote of those (even in his own day) who would alter the authoritative
tradition of "accents" and "[vowel-]points" to justify
their own doctrinal likings!
5. Or as someone else has put it:
"Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the Serpent; and the Serpent was left without a leg to stand on!"
6. God rebukes Satan and Adam with
the same "saw-toothed" melodic line; the melody of His rebuke of Eve is much gentler, even in contour.
I hope to detail the implications of the music of the early chapters of Genesis in a work to be called The Song of Creation.
7. Nevertheless, "And your
desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule
(maschal) over you" is connected
with the curse of overfertility and pain in childbearing. We would say that the man would "have his way with"
the woman, bringing the inevitable results of the woman's desire for him. Feminism senses this, and seeks to free
women from the "tyranny of reproduction" -- yet without addressing the ultimate cause!
8. These attributes are related
not only to the physical human form, but to physical human capabilities. Man is, in effect, a clay
model of what God is -- and of what man can become.
9. A heavy flowerpot (representing
Man) will bear a greater load than a fine china vase (representing Woman). But the vase is more likely to survive
a fall from the shelf to the carpet!
10. I hope to treat this interconnection
and much else in a book about the symbolism of the Ark of the Covenant.
11. "On these two commandments,"
said Jesus, "depend all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:34-40).
12.
Michael (mikha'el, "who is like God?") and Gabriel (from gavrî'el, "strong warrior for God") are the only other angels specifically named in the Bible.
Michael is also called "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13, 21; cf. 12:1) and "the archangel"
or chief angel (Jude 9). Gabriel stands "in the presence of God" (Luke 1:19), and was sent as a herald
to Daniel, Zechariah the high priest and father of John the Baptist, and Mary the mother of Jesus. (He was not sent to Mohammed, Islamic tradition notwithstanding
-- for the Qu'ran evades or denies the
veracity of Gabriel's earlier messages!)
13. Exodus 25:18-22, 37:7-9 and
Numbers 7:89 give an account of "two cherubim of solid gold upon the slab of gold of the kaporet [mercy seat] facing each other with wings outstretched above, so as to constitute a basis
or throne on which the glory of Yahweh [yehaVeh]
appeared, and from whence he spoke" (The New BDBG Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon, p. 550b, reference keruv,
"cherub").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Updated December 27, 2011
|
|
|
