MacArthur on the ‘raping of the Song of Solomon’
In recent months there has been quite a stir within evangelicalism concerning the topic of sex. I have personally been uncomfortable primarily on two levels:
- The emphasis upon sex has become so strong that it has begun to sound like our message. The danger here is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is regrettably assumed, neglected or forgotten. When many evangelicals begin to ride the waves of media popularity and are given a platform to speak, they sound more and more like sex coaches than ministers of a message. Somewhere along the way that which is of first importance gets shelved.
- Most of the way in which these pastors handle the text is just flat out troubling. Often times we are given a reading of a verse or a section and then the pastor launches off into sexual advice and counsel. And when there is something that is legitimately debated among Bible teachers the issue is not dealt with responsibly (in my view) but rather quickly. The text then, which has not been adequately unpacked within its context, is then made prescriptive for the Christian.
I have other concerns but these are probably the top two. Driscoll’s Peasant Princess series is very popular among many of my friends, and in particular the young married folks OBC (our home church). As a result I am interested in what John MacArthur is planning to work through over the next few days.
But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon’s poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined.
Thus we are told that the Shulammite’s poetic language invoking the delights of an apple tree (Song 2:3) is a metaphor for oral sex. The comfort and delight of a simple embrace (2:6) is not what it seems to be at all. Apparently it’s impossible to describe what that verse really means without mentioning certain unmentionable body parts.
We’re assured moreover that the shocking hidden meanings of these texts aren’t merely descriptive; they are prescriptive. The secret gnosis of Solomon’s Song portray obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife’s own desire or conscience. I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, “Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you’re being dirty, he’s pretty happy.”
Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.”
That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way.
Here is a link ot the rest of the article.
updated links:
From MacArthur:
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part One)
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part Two)
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part Three)
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part Four-conclusion)
- Link provided by MacArthur of the language in the Scotland sermons
From Challies
Irish Calvinist
Possibly Related posts:
- John MacArthur defines self-respecting Calvinism as Premillennial
- Major Discount on MacArthur Commentary Set
- John MacArthur Q&A
- John MacArthur on Sermon Application
- Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Mark Driscoll and a Frat Party
22 Responses to “MacArthur on the ‘raping of the Song of Solomon’”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
Erik,
I was going to comment on FB but this seemed the more appropriate medium. What is your opinion on the Peasant Princess? Not only is it popular with the young marrieds at OBC but has been recommended by leadership there. Robin and I have watched the first in the series and although it is provocative which is typical Driscoll, it is very encouraging. I am not on one side of this or the other. I do respect your opinion though.
I think my two main concerns are listed above. I have others but these are the big ones. I like what one of my friends who watched it said when his wife said, “I don’t remember ever hearing anyone exposit Song of Songs.” He answered, after watching a video of Driscoll, “You still haven’t.” In other words, it contained more insertion into the text than extraction from it.
erik.
I will say this about the Peasant Princes…at times I did wonder where Christ was…It seemed that what Driscoll usually focused on was gone…he rarely pointed to the focus of all Scripture, which was odd…
With that said…I have recommended the series to those who have questions about Christians and sexual intimacy. I also find it quite odd that MacArthur uses the term “unmentionable” when speaking about the male body. It seems that because he is uncomfortable with it, so should everyone else.
I will also say that I went to one of the Mars Hill services myself with my wife. It was interesting because at their services they gave full disclosure of what was coming up, what sermons will be on the more “sexual” side, and also had a place for children to go during the service that were teenagers and younger.
I will also say that I went to one of the “red sessions” at Mars Hill and found it to be far more tame than I expected.
With all this said, I will also say that I am with you that sexual talks shouldn’t be what defines us, Jesus should be. But, on the other side, the Christian has been known for never speaking about sex…both are wrong. These should never define us, but exemplifying Christ should be.
Hey Erik … it’s been a while since I visited your site. Have been keeping track via RSS though. I hope all’s well and the church plant is seeing God’s hand blessing.
Curious question that may well be easily answered by a first year seminary student … but since I’m not one, I’d love to know:
RE the point about exposition. How can one really do the sort of verse-by-verse “unpacking” that one might expect to do with, say, Romans? It would seem that, as literature, it’s more about broader themes that should be explored vs. detailed line-by-line analysis … but then, I really don’t know.
I realize this isn’t a preaching blog per se, but how do approach books like Job, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon? For some reason Psalms doesn’t seem to give me the same fits (maybe because smaller, more self-contained units?) as a preacher. But I’ve tended to avoid preaching these other books for the very reason that your friend alluded to in his conversation with his wife on Driscoll’s preaching.
As one who believes in the power and necessity of expositional preaching, how then, do you approach Song of Solomon?
I haven’t watched the Driscoll series in question, so take my comment as “off the cuff”. In fact I’ve heard alot about Driscoll but haven’t taken the time to listen to his stuff. It just seems to me that S-E-X is distracting people from the real issue as usual.
It’s the most noticeable, most oil filled, ready to blow zit on the pimply face of a nation wide pulpit full of pastors and authors who read too much into scripture. If MacAuthor pops this one, so what? The rest are less noticeable and probably won’t draw the attention. Use this one to make the teenager realize it’s got an acne problem and fix it. Don’t waste it on one big *POP*. It will probably be fun to watch, but instant gratification is not what we Christians should strive for is it?
Point 2 is more of my interest and I am concerned that it will get lost in MacArthurs critique if he puts his focus on “potty talk” or “this isn’t fitting for the pulpit” type stuff. What’s fitting for the pulpit in my opinion is expository preaching and that’s where I think the focus should be at.
The other issue is in naming names. Sometimes I think naming names from the pulpit is okay (i.e. “Brothers and Sisters please just don’t watch Joel Osteen.” is fine with me!) but in this case, where clearly a very orthodox brother is being dealt with, I think naming names like “Driscoll” may be just plain distracting and unwise.
Whatever you think of Internet Monk he had a great post on this exact topic in October of last year: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/whats-a-conservative-reading-of-song-of-solomon
I watched the Peasant Princess series, and didn’t think it was Driscoll’s best work, but it was faithful to the scripture…
Most of the more graphic teaching came in direct response to SMS questions from his audience, and I think that it is right for a preacher to frankly answer the questions of his congregation.
I looked for MacArthur’s teaching on SoS here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/scripture
At least nobody can accuse Driscoll of being a coward.
Matthew: how do you preach a book like this? Well you should understand what type of literary genre it is (poetry–specifically Hebrew poetry). So you would approach it differently than Romans. And then you would work hard to bring out the author’s intended meaning and make appropriate application.
There are some issues that folks have legitimate disagreement over (from an interpretation standpoint). So you have to at least do your reading, interact with various views, make sure your view or understanding is biblically tenable and then preach it with conviction.
It is a dangerous precedent to set when we make things mandatory for Christians (ie commands) that are a) not in the text in the first place, b) not commanded in the text.
It is good and right to make observations and applications about passages, but when we are saying ‘this is what God wants you to do’ we had better be convinced that this is what God is saying.
Dwayne, I agree. I think the issue is not to go after someone’s supposed cultural overexposure or whatever. Instead talk about preaching the text. Is what the guy saying in the passage or not. This is objective, the other stuff is, by and large, subjective.
Kevin, I think I get your point but I am also grossed out. Zit talk, specifically ‘large whitehead popping’ zit talk has traditionally been out of bounds here.
Seth, pendulum. right? over react one way to the other. Never a good thing. I think the basis for your recommendation is an interesting point.
Would you say that the emphasis upon sex seems to be biblically proportionate?
erik.
(for everyone else…know that erik and I are friends and I don’t believe that he is out of balance or a ‘critic’ per se in this discussion. erik and I have had many discussions on many topics over the phone and email and we get along quite well)
Anyways…
Pendulum…right. We don’t want to overcorrect…which seems to be human nature…doesn’t make it right.
What is weird with all this stuff, is that if we are talking about Driscoll, which Mac clearly is, his emphasis isn’t sex. I think we both know that…which is why I find it weird that people are saying all he does is speak about it (not saying this is you in any way).
What happened is the fact that some mainstream shows caught on and asked about it…Driscoll then took the opportunity to speak on Jesus because of it. That is what I liked about it.
So, I don’t think the emphasis has been put there by Driscoll’s aim, but others. That is what I see anyways…all one has to do is podcast him and see that the Peasant Princess is over and it was only a 10 week series. His series on 1 Peter is much longer…but that gets no where in the discussion with guys like MacArthur…
So, when you ask me:
Would you say that the emphasis upon sex seems to be biblically proportionate?
Driscoll’s emphasis seems to be fine (although he seems to enjoy the attention and the opportunity to speak on this important topic, as have I enjoyed to see people respond to this)…his critics (again…not erik) seems to be way out of balance.
thoughts?
Hey all,
I would just like to comment on what I have seen and heard of Driscoll and many others and not particularly on the sex issue. I have heard Driscoll speak and as I agree that he should not be singled out necessarily, as it is a much larger problem, I am struck by two things from many brothers and sisters: 1) the lack of reverence for God’s holiness 2) worldliness. This whole grunge church movement (my term), reeks to me of worldliness, imaturity (developmental, intellectual, and spiritual), and a serious lack of fear of the Lord. We are called to be holy. We are to strive for Christlikeness. Do you really think we will joke and swagger in the presence of the glorified Christ? So many Christians look, act, and talk just like unbelievers. I know that this is what concerns people like MacArthur. It concerns me too. It is one thing to be an immature Christian who struggles with worldliness in a fundamental way (all of us struggle with it to one degree or another), but to just stay there and wallow in it and not see a need to pursue holiness, is not a good thing. Maybe the grunge church is an okay place to get saved, but eventually, you will need meat to grow. I pray that Christians will recover true biblical fear of the Lord and be less concerned with how cool they seem. I challenge my young brothers. Honestly. I say honestly assess yourself and what you love. Do you and the things you love honor Christ? If not, throw them far away from you and pursue righteousness and holiness through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Please know that I do say these things in love and for true concern for Christ and His Name.
I was wondering what Seth’s take on the Princess series would be, and I found him over here. I agree with point 1 to an extent. This wasn’t the best exposition of Song of Solomon one could ask for. I don’t think it aimed to be, however. I think he made it a series on marriage and sex based on the teaching of Song of Solomon.
Great link to internetmonk too, Josh. That was helpful. Again I think the expository aspect of the series wasn’t as good as it could have been, but he did show he had studied up on it. I agree with some of those concerns.
However as Seth points out, this really is not Driscoll’s emphasis at all and that’s what MacArthur’s post is built on. It assumes that Driscoll is the ringleader in the emphasis on sex. A commenter over at Challies’ post today made a great observation. He had listened to the series with his wife, and about half way through MacArthur’s post he thought, how can this be a Driscoll-hating post? The issues being brought up don’t apply to Driscoll’s series, then he read the rest of the post.
I feel that some have cherry picked Driscoll’s series looking for anything that sounds bad, and they rip it from the context to display to everyone as proof that Driscoll’s series was horrible. And then most don’t actually listen to what Driscoll even said.
I found his series very helpful from an advice perspective on marriage. I feel saddened that so many are quick to jump on the bandwagon and make Driscoll look bad because he is a threat to their constituents. That’s what it seems to be from my perspective. I agree discussion on some of these matters is important, but then again it often just fuels endless watchblogging and excitement about our hero putitng the other guy down.
Sorry to ramble, but I wanted to share a few thoughts if I could.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Timothy…
I don’t get your comment. Sorry. Grunge church? Move on to meat? I have to be honest…your comment seems more prideful than humble…
But, I don’t know you, just saying what it looks from a guy with tats, wears hit hat backwards and loves theology and most of all is defined by Jesus.
Erik,
A couple of things since having listened through a few episodes of “Peasant Princess”:
1.) He takes the reference to En Gedi in a way that can be constituted as any kind of format for rest and relaxation, like a jacuzzi…or nachos…yes nachos. Upon further inspection I observed that the text says that this oasis (En Gedi) is the partner, a person.
2.) That reference to oral sex was attributed to a “favorite commentary”. OK…why don’t you lay that out for us then? It was a perfect opportunity to exposit the text, but he didn’t.
3.) He makes an argument tha because the woman in Song of Solomon was likely flawed physically, that a man’s wife should be his standard of beauty (i.e. if your wife’s tall..you’re into tall!). I thought this was pathetically superficial. It just sounds silly that the standard is set so arbitrarily.
4.) Embarrassingly, after hearing 3.5 of these lessons, ia actually looked at the text and saw how little he reference. I told my wife I would rather have heard all of this from a secular speaker.
Oh well. There’s 4 hours I’ll never get back.
Bob,
It wasn’t expository…at all. And if Driscoll wants to give a talk about sex and use the SOng of Solomon, he can do it on Saturday morning.
Preach the Word.
Nuff said.
[...] Raymond riffs on MacArthur (and comments on Driscoll's series on Song of [...]
I agree the fudge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inry2qZwlrs
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2009/04/beer-babes-baseball.html
which is the radio show FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH
talks about MacArthur and his article and sermon
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/
Fudge,
Thanks for saving me 4 hours. Honestly, I didn’t want to explore it further, now I don’t have to!
Erik,
Part 2 of MacArthur’s article is good, looking at a specific passage (4.12-16) and walking through the text. This isn’t a personal attack against another pastor, but an attack on a pastor’s misrepresntation of the text and should be answered strongly. With the clout Driscoll has it would take a man with similar standing to answer his hermanuetics.
Toby
Tim Challies wrote on Mac/Driscoll and ref’d my quick post and its thoughts. The comments seem to be…spiraling a bit. In reading MacArthur’s other posts it seems that his aim is clearly on Driscoll and he is clearly upset. The quotes that Mac lists, even if they were ‘cherry picked’ are unnecessary at best and blasphemous at worst. There is no need to talk like that about the Lord Jesus Christ. All Christians in general, but preachers in particular have a clear responsibility with respect to what we say and the ‘end’ of it:
10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4.10-11)
Regarding allegorizing the passage:
For example: “Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places.” “Now I’m gay, or highly troubled, or both.” “As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of Song of Solomon.”
and
Now what happens is some say “Well, we do believe in the book [of Song of Solomon], and we will teach it, but we’re gonna teach it allegorically.” And there’s a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They’ll say, “Well the allegorical interpretation, it’s not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it’s about us and Jesus.” Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don’t know what I’m gonna do. I mean it’s gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I’m talking about. You’re like, “No, I’m not doing that. You know I’m not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that.” [Laughter from crowd]
I don’t know why this is even a debate.
Seth,
Maybe you are right. I am surely prideful and I could probably guarantee that you know more and have walked with the Lord longer than I. But what I am getting at is this – ask yourself: why did you get those tats? Why do you wear your hat backwards? (AND I by no means intend to single you out) I am asking all believers to examine themselves and their motives. I do not pretend to know your motives and I do not judge them. However, I can’t help but think that the more we look, talk, and act like the world, the more we are in our hearts, of the world. I say this as I have thrown away my old cd’s and record albums, as I continue to narrow the list of movies I will watch, or subject my wife to, etc. You might think, “legalist.” I apply this standard to myself and not to you. I know brothers who are much more mature than I, who watch things I would never watch. And you might be one of them. You might wear your hat backwards or get tattoos for the glory of God. All I say to all my brothers and sisters is, examine yourself. Don’t settle: for God has called us not for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.
[...] like what Erik Raymond had to say on this issue a couple of weeks [...]