I just don't see it. It seems that some Christians are really reaching for this one. Now, you know that I agree that much of the Bible is cryptic -- intentionally so. But this one seems like people are trying really hard to Christify everything. While a large percentage of the OT is dedicated to setting up the Christ, I don't think that all of it does.
I like Buzz, but his take on Revelation just has me thumping my head 'gainst the heel of my hand.
He jumps into the cauldron of the detail regarding every word - in order to get it to fit history. But once you hop
outside a chronological/historical perspective and take the overview of Gods activity generally, things become a darn sight clearer.
In my view at least. Buzz
reaches w.r.t. Revelation. The same kind of wood-for-trees thing can be applied here.
-
While I understand the point you are making, it is anecdotal. When Christ or Paul or whatever saint spoke about God's love for His Bride, never is the context sexual in any way. I would think that you would agree that the Song of Songs is mostly about love and lovers, but is not also sensual and sexual in nature?
Do you find (as I do) that you only really see "by faith alone" in Christ words
once having been illuminated regarding the mechanics by the apostle Paul?
That is to say: Paul and Christ come from quite different angles - if taken in isolation - but they are totally complimentary if taken together. That neither took
this sexual angle doesn't mean they are divorced from it. Doesn't Pauls language drip of union from the pores? Of course it does.
That union, which "no eye has seen and cannot comprehend" is somewhat (as best a God can manage) explained here. Sexually does it, in but one of the way it can be explained, best.
-
In my mind it is evidence that sex for Jews and Christians, or anyone for that matter, was not intended to be an "icky" thing, which atheists often indict against Judeo-Christian ethics. It should also be a release for overly puritanical Christians who all but repress their God-given sexuality. In my mind it is glorifying what God had given to the sexes -- the enjoyment of sex, the closeness it is supposed to foster, and the fulfillment of that design.
No argument there. But can I counter-suggest that the Bible is not primarily a cultural document on sex? Sure, it comments against the current/everculturethateverlived - that sees sex as a commodity or a powertrip or a drug or a ....what it has everbeen illicitly used for.
But more that that. This book elevates human sex to be as God intended it to be: an expression of total love and union between two personhoods. And he did so to illustrate as best as can be, the total love and union that will exist between two
other personhoods. Namely the ( and jaywills oft described) union between God and man.
Of which I am myself convinced.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.