|
The Ravished Heart
Sermon by Andrew Plocher September 2, 2007, Presbyterian Church of Chestnut Hill Song of Solomon 4:1-13, 5:1 1 Corinthians 13:1-13
As I begin, I think it only fair to point out that “Jewish authorities included the Song of Songs in the small class of scriptures that are so difficult to interpret that they should only by read by those over forty years of age, lest passion and youth overwhelm wisdom.” Well, I may be quite young, but I will try not to be so overwhelmed by passion that wisdom escapes me this morning. Let us pray… Lord, may the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts and minds be acceptable in your sight, our Rock and our Redeemer. The Song of Solomon has gone by several different names over the years. You may have heard it referred to as the Song of Songs or Canticle of Canticles, all are names drawn from the first verse of the first chapter, “The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s.”Scholars agree that the Song of Songs probably dates to around the first century after Jesus’ lifetime, though it may contain material that is much older. From its inception, Song of Songs has been revered and controversial. It is so revered, that the earliest known scholar to comment on the Song of Songs, Rabbi Akiva, remarked, "No one in Israel disputes that the Song of Songs is a divine book. All the world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies." It seems odd that such an erotic and sexual body of poems would be considered the ‘holy of holies,’ and even today we find it generally avoided when we talk about faith. It is found only twice within our lectionary readings, that’s twice in the course of three years of scripture: only two readings of the ‘holy of holies.’ Yet when it is most often read, at weddings, we can find a clue to understanding why it is so profound. It is about love. The problem of love is as old as humanity. Those who don't have it want it, and those who have it complain about it. Is love just a function of sexual desire? Is it something spiritual that transcends the body? Or is it somehow caught in between body and soul? In modern thought, the philosopher DesCartes often gets the credit (or blame) for separating the human being into a rational soul and a machine-like animal body. But the difficulty goes back to the earliest recorded stories, from the Biblical Garden of Eden to the myths of the Greeks. Plato in his Symposium and Phaedrus created powerful visions of the origin of love, as something that exists on both earthly and heavenly planes. In his view, true eros begins in love of the body, but it ends in a philosophical attraction to the transcendent essence. So-called "Platonic love" has become the phrase for relationships that avoid bodily entanglements.” Song of Songs gives us a series of pictures of the relationship between a man and a woman—the joy, struggle, entanglements, and complexity. Why is love so complex? Do we generally, in today’s world, treat the concept of love the same way as the people in Song of Songs? As this sacred, beautiful, and mysterious thing? How do we explain love today? What words do we use? We’ll tell somebody that we love them and in the same breath, we’ll talk about how much we love a new car, or a certain pair of pants. I mean, I love my girlfriend, and I also love tacos? This morning we delve into a book about the complexity of love, about fawns and gazelles, streams and spices: metaphors for the depths of relationship and intimacy. And we, the lovers of persons and pizzas are asked to look at love through the lens of these lovers. As history has progressed, so have interpretations of the lovers in the Song of Songs. To begin with, some scholars attempted to interpret the Song of Songs as a drama, in which the male character was identified with Solomon, and the female lead was thought to be the mysterious Shulamite mentioned in 7:1 (and nowhere else in the Bible). An alternative theory was also introduced, in which a humble shepherd and King Solomon vied for the favors of a country maid, but few found this convincing. Other efforts have been made to connect the Song of Songs to modern Arabic wedding poems found among Syrians and Palestinians, but this too proved to be hard to demonstrate. Recent interpretations have sought to link the Song of Songs to ancient Egyptian love songs. Many contemporary scholars incline to a literal interpretation of the text as a dialogue between lovers, and they assume that it is to be taken at face value as a straightforward series of erotic love poems. The church fathers, the scholars of all things pertaining to God, adopted a different perspective: an allegorical model. This model was begun by Jewish scholars to describe the love in Song of Songs as the relationship, and love, between God and the people of Israel. For Christian scholars, the love of God for Israel signified the more universal and intimate love of Christ for his church, and also the love of Jesus for each individual soul. The third-century Christian scholar Origen wrote three commentaries on the Song of Songs in Greek, the most important of which was in 10 volumes, totaling about 20,000 lines. He saw the entire poem as an expression of the love of God for the church and the perfect human soul. The prologue to Origen's commentary has an extensive discussion of the difference between spiritual and carnal love. Another important early Christian authority, Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), argued that the goal of the Song of Songs is the union of the soul with God. This is to be attained by detaching the senses from matter, by knowledge of God, and by contemplation: monasticism. Yet to truly understand the God and church relationship, before we put the allegory and philosophy on top of the prose, we must understand what the poems mean. What are the relationships really about? Is this about sex, about ardor and lust? Or is the poetry about absolute love? Song of Songs was originally written in the Hebrew language, which has at least three different words for our English word “love”. The first word we find is the word ‘raya.’ Raya would be translated literally, as ‘friend,’ or a ‘companion’—somebody you hang out with. “You’re beautiful from head to toe, my raya, beautiful beyond compare, absolutely flawless.” (4:7) Another Hebrew word we find for love is ‘ahava.’ Ahava is the love of the will. Now, this is way more profound than fleeting romantic feelings. This is much more than temporary urges. Ahava is making a decision to join your life to the life of another. This is the emotion that leads to commitment. “Many waters cannot quench ahava; rivers cannot wash it away. If one were to give all he wealth of his house for ahava, it would be utterly scorned.” (8:7) There’s a third Hebrew word for love that we find in Song of Songs. It’s the word ‘dod.’ Dod is translated in English, literally, as to ‘carouse,’ to ‘rock,’ or to ‘fondle.’ Dod is the physical, sexual element to a relationship. “May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your dod is better than wine.” (1:2) It might help to look at these terms as though they are three flames. We have our raya flame. We have our ahava flame. And, we have our dod flame. One flame burning all by itself will never be as hot as all the flames burning together. We were created for all the flames to burn as one. True sexuality is vast and mysterious. It involves all of you. You have a body, but you also have a soul and a spirit. And love is two people coming together and giving all of themselves to each other, forever. Understanding this love enables us to understand the love that God wants for us, the way that we were wired and put together by our creator. The erotic poetry in Song of Songs is about a relationship of body, spirit and soul. It is about the connected whole of our being and the heat and power that arise when all three come together: about wholeness, not just ‘Platonic’ love. It is about God’s love for us and about Christ’s love for the church. Allegory works, but only once we can understand the emotional currents, the flames that burn in our hearts and the hearts of the lovers in Song of Songs. So I ask you, how many relationships have you seen where all the flames are burning as one? And, do you think it’s possible to be completely satisfied without having all three flames burning, all three loves united? What does it mean to give yourself to another person? Are you giving everything you’ve got? Love is difficult, and the notion that we can give ourselves completely to another is even more so. Three flames are hard to keep ignited. Yet in the gospel, in the good news, of our Scripture we hear about someone that kept the flames alive and gave himself up completely for another. Jesus Christ gave himself completely for us, became a slave for us, and died for us. It is an act of love, an act that encompasses raya, ahava, and dod, for on the cross Christ extends to us his body, spirit and soul. This flame burns bright in his love, God’s love, for us. It is an example without equal of the love that we aspire to: a love unified in body, spirit and soul, given to one another and to God. For as we hear from Paul, “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things…Love never ends.” So again I ask, this time rhetorically, how many relationships have you seen where all the flames are burning as one? May you honor the way that God created you. May you have a profound sense of respect for the fact that you are a deeply spiritual and mysterious being, and that love is ultimately a profoundly spiritual thing. May you realize that the three flames are meant to burn together. And may you discover the big flame: the love of God. Amen. |