David Platt Song of Solomon

[@twohornschristacademy]

One of the best teachings I have ever heard thank you

[@ThebossaruChamp]

I feel when he began to speak about sister's wearing appropriate he had a personal tie to that in that he either struggled with it himself or has had it burden his heart on behalf of a friend. I love that he was so passionate and caring about this topic and I appreciate him greatly for bearing his heart.

[@LOOIKWOKCHOON]

i believe, in honoring whatever (1 Kings 15: 5, 1 Chronicles 14: 3) agreement, a wife has with her husband, because, a clean & pure life, CANNOT be filled, with BETRAYAL! i believe, a Christian, AT ALL TIMES (2 Corinthians 5: 17 - IS a new creation, Titus 1: 15), CANNOT sin (KJV: 1 John 3: 3 & 9, 1 John 5: 1), & he/she, CAN see, NO contradiction, with 1 John 1: 8! I do NOT believe, in playing, the BLAMING game, for one own lack of self-control (Galatians 5: 23)!

[@eternallifeevidence9213]

Song of Solomon is to the OT, as Revelation is to the NT. In fact this is the one book to show how much God loves you. To interpret it as a relationship between husband and wife is about as far off as you can go. If one doesn't see the King, the bride groom as Christ and yourself as the bride, then one doesn't see, let alone understand the wealth of spiritual insights contained in such a short book. David not only misses the point but goes on to ridicule God's word. His interpretation is what is to be expected of a worldly man, a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God 1Cor.2:14; How embarrassing for David and those who laughed with him.

[@yeoberry]

You're wrong. You're allegorizing the Word of God and reading into a meaning not in it, thus twisting it. If you really believe the Bible, then learn how to interpret it correctly rather than reading into the meaning you want simply because you have a spirituality that doesn't let you accept the meaning of the Song of Solomon.

[@beckabecks]

I agree. As much as I've been blessed by David Platt and his ministry, I feel as if he misses the mark with the Song of Songs. On the surface it appears to be a poetic commentary of the marriage bed, and before Christ, I'm sure that's how it was interpreted. But now that we have New Testament "glasses", if you will, it is most definitely an allegory for Christ and His Church. To view it as anything other than that is to cheapen the book from its spiritual connotations. I feel as if Platt needs to go back and reread the Puritans and Charles Spurgeon, as they are most definitely Reformed Theology, yet every one of them interpreted Songs through the lens of the Bridegroom and the Bride.

[@eternallifeevidence9213]

I agree. An interesting point I find in the LXX is the word for love is always translated AGAPA and not EROS which is for sexual love. Song of Solomon is always read at Passover, the wedding ceremony, the proposal where Jesus invites us to follow Him. At the Pentecost is when Ruth is read , as Ruth shows when Gentile and Jew unite in the family of Boaz (Christ) the church is born (Obed) and finally at the Feast of Tabernacles is when Esther is read, showing God is in control, do the work your called to do and God will deliver, be the Christian you need to be and fear not men but only God. Song of Songs is like the Revelation of the OT as the book of Revelation is to the NT.

[@yeoberry]

beckabecks That's incorrect.There is no basis to interpret it allegorically as doing so is entirely subjective and opens the door to all kinds of abuse of scripture.

[@beckabecks]

Then you must not believe in types and shadows apparent all over Scripture? You must not believe, for instance, that Boaz is a picture (a type, a shadow) of Christ as our Kinsman Redeemer, that King Solomon is a picture of Christ as the King of Glory, that Adam was a picture of Christ (of which Paul calls Him the "last Adam"), that Moses was a picture of Christ the Deliverer of His people to the Promised Land, that Passover isn't a type, or a shadow of the cross and the Lamb of God, that Abraham sacrificing Isaac wasn't a type or a shadow of God's plan with His one and only Son... Allegory is all over Scripture. Types and shadows of God's plan is how God teaches us through His Word. Song of Solomon, however, is a touchy book because it uses "eros" language and many are not comfortable allegorizing that book. But the type and shadow of Christ as the Bridegroom and His Church as His Bride is quite obvious throughout the New Testament. Revelation even says there will one day be the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. This isn't about carnal desires or looking at Christ in a blasphemous way, but being intimate with Him on a spiritual level. A deep, abiding relationship we share with Him and no other. The only earthly relationship that compares to the intimate devotion Christ commands by the First Great Commandment is the one between a husband and a wife. It is the undying love of Mary of Bethany. The tender love of John the Apostle. We leave our families and cleave to Christ (Luke 14:26). Communion itself with the cup and the bread is a Jewish betrothal ceremony. Christ merely uncovered the shadow - the bread is His body, the wine is His blood. In fact, the Jewish Seder for Passover is rife with shadows and allegory to the cross of Christ - the unbroken bone, the bruised and striped Matzo crackers, the Affikomen wrapped in linen and hid away. Types and shadows are all over the place. Song of Solomon is actually one of the more obvious ones.