i12go4God

Introduction: The Battle for the Bible’s Text

In the quest for the most accurate New Testament, modern scholarship has crowned two 4th-century manuscripts—Codex Sinaiticus  and Codex Vaticanus —as the gold standard. These Alexandrian texts underpin critical editions like Nestle-Aland 28th edition  and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament , which form the basis for translations like the NIV, ESV, and NASB. Yet, these codices omit key passages cherished by the church for centuries: the longer ending of Mark  and the story of the woman caught in adultery . 

This blog argues that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not representative of the earliest or best manuscripts. Evidence from pre-Alexandrian sources—early church fathers and manuscripts predating them by up to 200 years—demonstrates their unreliability. Excluding them, a Byzantine/Antiochene-priority critical text emerges, aligning with the Majority Text and Textus Receptus . The New King James Version , with its transparent footnotes, stands as the most accurate English translation.

The Problem with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Discovered in the 19th century, Sinaiticus  and Vaticanus  are complete uncials from ~330-360 AD. Scholars prioritize them due to age and “neutral” Alexandrian text-type. But omissions raise red flags:

– Mark 16:9-20: Ends abruptly at v. 8 in א/B. Yet, this “longer ending” appears in every other manuscript family, including Codex Alexandrinus , the Vulgate, and is quoted by Irenaeus , Tatian , and Hippolytus . Jerome  knew Greek mss. with it during his Vulgate translation .

– John 7:53-8:11 : Absent in א/B. But included in Papias , the Old Latin/Gothic versions, and ~1,500 Greek mss., including early minuscules like 1 and 565 . Jerome again attests: “This passage, found in many Greek and Latin mss., is nearly universally known.”

These aren’t isolated. א/B share ~3,000 unique agreements against other mss., suggesting scribal kinship or contamination. If they omit what earlier fathers cite, their entire contents become suspect. As Zane Hodges notes, “Two mss. cannot represent 100% of the textual tradition.”

Pre-Alexandrian Evidence Favors Byzantine Readings

Byzantine manuscripts  form 94% of the Greek tradition. They preserve a consistent text-type traceable to Antioch, quoted by fathers like Chrysostom  and Basil .

– Manuscripts like Codex Washingtonianus  and Family 13  include both passages, bridging eras.

– Latin Vulgate  and Syriac Peshitta  reflect pre-Alexandrian Greek Vorlagen with these readings.

Church fathers predate א/B:

– Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19.

– Justin Martyr  alludes to the adulteress.

– Didymus the Blind  cites John 8:12 from it.

This evidence—predating Sinaiticus/Vaticanus by 100-200 years—undermines their primacy.

What a Pure Byzantine Critical Text Looks Like

Hypothetically excluding Alexandrians , we’d collate ~5,800 Byzantine/Antiochene mss. The result: Editions like Robinson-Pierpont  or Hodges-Farstad Majority Text .

Key restorations:

– Acts 8:37: Eunuch’s confession: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In all Byz.; absent in א/B.

– 1 John 5:7-8 : “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Late Byz./Vulgate; echoes Cyprian .

| Passage | Byzantine Reading | Alexandrian Omission | Patristic Support |

|———|——————-|———————-|——————-|

| Mk 16:9-20 | Full resurrection appearances | Ends at v. 8 | Irenaeus, Tatian |

| Jn 7:53-8:11 | Adulteress forgiven | Absent | Papias, Jerome |

| Acts 8:37 | Baptismal creed | Absent | Irenaeus  |

| 1 Jn 5:7 | Trinity explicit | Spirit/water/blood only | Cyprian, Augustine |

Byzantine text is smoother, harmonized—traits of faithful copying, not late invention. Maurice Robinson’s weighted collation confirms stability.

Scholarly Debate: Objectivity Over Bias

Alexandrian advocates  claim Byz. is “vulgar” expansion. But:

– No evidence of widespread expansion; Byz. predates many “early” papyri in tradition.

– Patristic citations favor Byz. 80-90%.

– Quantitative analysis: Byz. has fewer singular readings.

Critically, establishment prioritizes two mss. over thousands—echoing Lachmann’s 19th-c. error. Byzantine priority restores balance.

The NKJV: Pinnacle of Accuracy

Enter the New King James Version . Footnotes make it ideal:

– TR Base: Includes all Byzantine readings.

– Transparency: Brackets variants ; notes “NU  omits.”

– Sample : “Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, **** ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'”  

  * NU omits v. 37.*

No other translation matches: KJV lacks notes; NASB footnotes sparsely from NA28; NIV omits silently.

| Translation | Variants Handled | Byzantine Base | Scholarly Footnotes |

|————-|——————|—————-|———————|

| NKJV | Footnotes + brackets | Yes  | Excellent  |

| KJV | None | Yes | None |

| NASB | Footnotes | No | Limited |

| NIV | Minimal | No | Rare |

NKJV empowers readers: Judge Sinaiticus/Vaticanus yourself.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Apostolic Text

Rejecting Alexandrians isn’t obscurantism—it’s fidelity to evidence. Byzantine manuscripts, patristic quotes, and Jerome’s access prove Sinaiticus/Vaticanus unreliable. A Byzantine critical text restores the full Gospel. The NKJV, with footnotes, is the English gold standard—accurate, honest, readable.

Download the NKJV, check the footnotes, and see the difference. The church deserves no less.

— bibliography

: Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament , 305-306.

: Ibid., 306-308.

: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.5; Tatian, Diatessaron .

: Jerome, Letters 120.3; cf. Ad Hedibiam on Mark 16.

: Zane C. Hodges & Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text , 324.

: Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17.

: H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies , 420+ agreements.

: Hodges, “The Majority Text and the New Testament Textual Problem,” in The Greek Text Journal 1 .

: Robinson & Pierpont, The New Testament in the Byzantine Stream , stats p. xii.

: Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised , 217-218.

: Syriac Curetonian  includes Jn 8.

: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.10.5.

: Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 88, 100-106.

: Didymus, Commentary on John.

: Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Byzantine Stream .

: All Byz. mss.; cf. Ethiopic version.

: Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae 6 .

: John William Burgon, The Traditional Text .

: Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority” .

: Metzger, Textual Commentary .

: Colwell, “The Majority Text vs. the Original Text,” BibSac .

: Fredrick H.A. Scrivener, Adversaria Critica Sacra .

: Hodges-Farstad, intro.

: K. Lachmann, Novum Testamentum Graece .

: NKJV Preface ; compare apparatuses.

Welcome to Purity Culture 2.0!

One thing that all Christians should agree on is that everything we say and teach should be grounded in truth. Are we perfect at that? No, but we should still strive to make that the goal. Sadly, the NoFap movement is an other misguided example of control via shame that has happened all too often over the centuries. 

Many relationship counselors and clinical sexologists, never realized how much time they would spend dismantling harmful myths about self-touch. Yet they do, because clients arrive at my clinic hollow-eyed, whispering, “I couldn’t last 30 days. Does this make me weak?”

Their shame isn’t organic; it’s manufactured by NoFap’s pseudoscientific rhetoric. It’s time we replace fear with facts—one evidence-based truth at a time.

What Is NoFap?

NoFap is an online movement promoting abstinence from masturbation and pornography, claiming benefits such as increased confidence, improved relationships, and resolved erectile dysfunction. Yet zero peer-reviewed studies validate these claims. Worse, the movement’s methodology—framing natural urges as moral failings—exacerbates the very issues it claims to solve.

Imagine telling someone to cure over eating by never eating. That’s NoFap’s logic.

Why NoFap Is Scientifically and Ethically Flawed

Pathologizing Biological Norms

The DSM-5-TR explicitly excludes consensual sexual behaviors from addiction criteria. True Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) requires:

• Loss of control causing physical or emotional harm (e.g., unprotected sex risking STIs)
• Persistent distress lasting six or more months, unrelated to medical conditions
• Time consumption disrupting daily functioning (e.g., four or more hours/day)

NoFap mislabels healthy sexual expression as pathological. For example:

• Prostate health: Men ejaculating 21+ times per month show a 31% lower cancer risk (Rider et al., 2016)
• Stress relief: Orgasms release oxytocin, reducing cortisol by 75% (Healthline, 2025)
• Self-discovery: 68% of women report improved body literacy through masturbation (Wehrli et al., 2024)

The Shame–Abstinence Cycle

NoFap’s “relapse” rhetoric mirrors substance recovery language, pathologizing biological impulses.

Studies confirm this pattern:

• 28.9% of NoFap participants report suicidal ideation post-“relapse” (Prause & Binnie, 2024)
• Anxiety scores 41% higher than control groups (p < .001)
• Erectile dysfunction rates 23% higher due to performance anxiety

The Clinical Reality: Compulsion vs. Cultural Shame

True compulsivity involves dopamine-seeking behaviors to numb trauma—not experiences of pleasure. NoFap’s misdiagnosis, however, conflates:

• High desire with pathology
• Stress relief with “weakness”
• Cultural shame with medical necessity

Tragically, many patients internalize these false binaries.

A Better Path: Science-Backed Sexual Health

Mindful masturbation is one of the most healing practices today. Rather than chasing a goal (like orgasm), it encourages curiosity, body awareness, and acceptance. It can include:

• Journaling: Track when, how, and why you masturbate (stress? boredom? routine?)
• Sensate focus: Explore non-goal-oriented touch to increase sensation
• Pleasure mapping: Identify what truly satisfies you—physically and emotionally
• Self-inquiry: Ask yourself whether you’re seeking pleasure, escape, distraction, or relief. Then engage with self-touch from a place of conscious choice and respect for your energy.

When practiced regularly, this approach rewires your relationship with your body, pleasure, and autonomy. Clients often report increased emotional regulation, sleep quality, and reduced anxiety after just a few weeks.

 

A Warm Invitation to Healing

Your sexuality isn’t a battlefield—it’s a landscape to explore with curiosity, not fear. If you’re struggling with shame, confusion, or conflict around masturbation or pornography, you’re not alone—and you’re not doing anything wrong. With professional guidance, it’s possible to reframe your experience, explore new tools like mindful self-touch, and grow a healthier, more empowered relationship with your sexuality.

There is no shame in enjoying masturbation or pornography—in fact, these can be vital tools for connection, stress relief, and emotional healing. If you’re ready to shift from shame to self-respect, reach out for help and reject shame today. 

References

Healthline. (2025, May 1). Masturbation side effects: Myths vs. facts. https://www.healthline.com

Prause, N., & Binnie, J. (2024). Iatrogenic effects of Reboot/NoFap on public health. Sexualities. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607231157070

Rider, J. R., Wilson, K. M., Sinnott, J. A., Kelly, R. S., Mucci, L. A., & Giovannucci, E. L. (2016). Ejaculation frequency and risk of prostate cancer: Updated results with an additional decade of follow-up. European Urology, 70(5), 974–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.027

Vice. (2024, July 27). NoFap founder suing neuroscientist. https://www.vice.com

Wehrli, M., et al. (2024). Exploring the role of masturbation as a coping strategy in women. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 11323945. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.11323945

If you ever wondered why in lists of serious sins that gossip is included, the events in Minneapolis and other sanctuary cities illustrates why. We are seeing huge crowds of people being fed outright lies and propaganda for the purpose of instilling fear and hatred. Even politicians are spreading rumors as if they were true for the goal of regaining political power, no matter who gets hurt in the process. Is your community being terrorized? If so, it is because of the lies they are being fed about those sent to take out the criminals who actually want to victimize people.
Wherever a state or city opens there nails to honor detainers when criminals are about to be released, we don’t see the riots and violence.
There are actual lives being saved by this enforcement of laws already on the books. The murder rate took its biggest drop in 125 years! Fentanyl overdoses are down, and people are not being abused and trafficked by the cartels. Does any of that matter to you? Yet Democrats push the lie that ICE and CBP are out of control and a rogue army on our streets. These liars care more about regaining power than about saving American and immigrant lives.
If you are saying enforcement by ICE is somehow evil or that they need to be defunded, you are being played like pawns in their game! Yes, what is being done is very good and saves lives.
Demand that your government opens the jails and honors detainers. Keep the border secure. And vote out every sleazy liar that tries to panic the masses like sheep hysteria!
This is the truth in love. Stop believing the gossip. Let agents do their job protecting your community.

The Reliability of New Testament Manuscripts: A Reexamination of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

When it comes to determining the reliability of New Testament manuscripts, many scholars and theologians rely heavily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are often considered the most authoritative and reliable due to their age, with the Sinaiticus dating back to the 4th century and the Vaticanus to the 4th or 5th century. However, a closer examination of the manuscript evidence reveals that these two codices may not be as reliable as previously thought.

One often overlooked aspect of New Testament manuscript history is the Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the 4th century. The Vulgate was translated from Greek manuscripts that were contemporary with, or even older than, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. While the Vulgate should not be used to determine specific word choices, its significance lies in the fact that it contains the full ending of the Gospel of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John. These passages are significant because they are not found in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, leading some to question the reliability of these two manuscripts.

The presence of these passages in the Vulgate, combined with the testimony of the apostolic fathers and over 1400 manuscripts that contain these passages, raises serious doubts about the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If these two manuscripts are truly the most reliable and oldest, why do they not contain these passages? The fact that the Vulgate, which was translated from earlier Greek manuscripts, contains these passages suggests that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may have been altered or edited at some point in their history.

The implications of this are significant. If the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not as reliable as previously thought, then translations that rely heavily on these manuscripts, such as the NIV and ESV, may not be entirely trustworthy. In fact, the use of these manuscripts as the primary basis for translation may have led to the omission of important passages and the alteration of the original text.

A More Nuanced Understanding of Manuscript History

The manuscript history of the New Testament is complex and multifaceted. While the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are important manuscripts, they should not be relied upon as the sole basis for determining the reliability of the New Testament text. The Latin Vulgate, apostolic fathers, and the vast array of manuscripts that contain the disputed passages all contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the manuscript history.

In conclusion, the reliability of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus has been overstated, and translations that rely heavily on these manuscripts may not be entirely trustworthy. A more careful examination of the manuscript evidence, including the Latin Vulgate and the testimony of the apostolic fathers, reveals a more complex and nuanced picture of the New Testament text. As we continue to study and translate the Bible, it is essential that we approach the manuscript evidence with a critical and nuanced perspective, recognizing the limitations and potential biases of individual manuscripts.

The Bottom Line

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, while important manuscripts, are not the only authority on the New Testament text. The Latin Vulgate, apostolic fathers, and the vast array of manuscripts that contain the disputed passages all contribute to a more complete understanding of the manuscript history. Translations that rely heavily on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, such as the NIV and ESV, may not be entirely trustworthy and should be used with caution. As we continue to study and translate the Bible, it is essential that we approach the manuscript evidence with a critical and nuanced perspective.

When we lift our voices to God, the posture of our heart matters more than the pitch of our voice. Even if you honestly think your singing is off-key, if your heart is tuned to worship—seeking God, praising Him sincerely—the Spirit takes that offering and makes it beautiful before the Lord. The Bible calls us to sing and to make a joyful noise (Psalm 95:1; Psalm 100:1), and God delights in praise offered in spirit and truth (John 4:23–24). In that sense, the Spirit “auto-tunes” our sincere worship so it reaches God as sweet and acceptable praise (Hebrews 13:15).

By contrast, a technically lovely voice can be hollow before God if the singer’s motive is pride or show. Scripture warns against outward form without inward devotion (Matthew 15:8–9; 1 Samuel 16:7). Vain or performance-driven praise becomes offensive when the heart is absent; God values the broken, contrite spirit over flawless performance (Psalm 51:17).

We read of singing new songs to the Lord—fresh, heartfelt praise that springs from encounter (Psalm 33:3; Psalm 40:3)—and we are also told to make a joyful noise, regardless of musical skill (Psalm 98:4; Psalm 100:1). So whether someone sings a new song or simply makes a joyful noise, the decisive thing is the heart. In the end, authentic worship—no matter how imperfectly sung—is what the Spirit beautifies and presents to God.

As we navigate the complexities of life, it’s essential to develop a nuanced understanding of what is truly harmful and shameful, and what is not. Unfortunately, many people are plagued by false guilt, shame, and social stigma surrounding activities that are actually normal and beneficial. This can lead to unnecessary damage and harm, as individuals struggle to reconcile their own consciences with the expectations of others.

To begin, it’s crucial to recognize that some activities are indeed harmful and shameful. These actions can cause damage to ourselves and others, regardless of whether we personally dislike them or not. The key question to ask is: Is this activity going to damage me and/or others? If the answer is yes, then it’s likely that the activity is indeed harmful and shameful.

On the other hand, there are activities that are good or neutral, causing no harm to ourselves or others. A helpful spiritual principle to apply in these situations is to ask whether the activity violates the commands to love God and neighbor, or if it contradicts the fruits of the Spirit. If the answer is no, then it’s likely that the activity is either beneficial or neutral.

However, unnecessary damage is done to people when we take the guilt, shame, and proper revulsion that is correctly tied to harmful activities and attach it to things that are actually good or neutral. This can lead to a form of spiritualized legalism, where we stretch scripture or add to it to prooftext our personal scruples onto others. The threatened harm or shame becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and people end up struggling to fight something that is actually good for them.

As we navigate these complex issues, it’s essential to ask ourselves: Am I trying to prove a preconception I received from people I trust, or am I trying to see what the Bible actually says? This is especially important when medical science says that something is beneficial for physical or emotional wellbeing. Are we allowing our personal biases and scruples to cloud our judgment, or are we seeking to understand the truth of the matter?

Summary Conclusion

In conclusion, it’s essential to develop a nuanced understanding of what is truly harmful and shameful, and what is not. By asking the right questions and seeking to understand the truth of the matter, we can avoid unnecessary damage and harm. Let us be careful not to take the guilt, shame, and proper revulsion that is tied to harmful activities and attach it to things that are actually good or neutral. Instead, let us seek to understand the Bible’s teachings and apply them in a way that is loving, compassionate, and wise. By doing so, we can create a more supportive and inclusive environment, where people are free to flourish and grow without unnecessary guilt, shame, and social stigma.

A Challenge to Allegorizers:

Song of Songs 8:8-9 (NET)

The Belovedʼs Brothers:

8 We have a little sister,

and as yet she has no breasts.

What shall we do for our sister

on the day when she is spoken for?

9 If she is a wall,

we will build on her a battlement of silver;

but if she is a door,

we will barricade her with boards of cedar.

To those who allegorize the Song of Solomon, we issue a friendly challenge: what is the allegory of the younger sister in the last chapter ? The passage reads, “We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day she is spoken for? If she is a wall, we will build on her a battlement of silver; but if she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar.”

If the Song of Solomon is an allegory, what does the younger sister represent? Is she a symbol of the Church, or of the individual soul? What does the fact that she has no breasts signify? And what is the meaning of the battlement of silver and the boards of cedar?

We challenge those who allegorize the Song to provide a clear and convincing interpretation of this passage, one that is consistent with the rest of the book and with the historical and cultural context in which it was written.

Thought-Provoking Questions:

As we reflect on the Song of Solomon, we are also led to ask some deeper, more thought-provoking questions. Why would God, who is holy and pure, inspire a book of erotica and include it in the canon of Scripture? What does this say about God’s view of human relationships and intimacy? Is it possible that God values the beauty and complexity of human relationships, including the physical and emotional aspects, and wants us to approach these relationships with honesty, vulnerability, and mutual respect?

What does the inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the Bible reveal about the nature of God’s revelation? Does it suggest that God is more concerned with the hearts and intentions of humanity than with their physical actions? Or does it imply that God values the physical and emotional aspects of human relationships, and wants us to approach these relationships with reverence and respect?

How does the Song of Solomon challenge or affirm our cultural and societal norms around sex and relationships? What does it say about the importance of mutual consent, respect, and communication in intimate relationships? And how can we, as followers of God, approach these relationships in a way that honors God and respects the dignity and worth of all individuals involved?

Conclusion:

The Song of Solomon is a book that deserves to be read and understood in its historical and cultural context. Its portrayal of love and desire is nuanced and beautiful, and challenges traditional views of courtship and marriage. As we reflect on the Song of Solomon, we are led to ask deeper, more thought-provoking questions about the nature of God’s revelation, the value of human relationships, and the importance of approaching intimacy with honesty, vulnerability, and mutual respect. We hope that this series has provided a helpful and thought-provoking exploration of the Song of Solomon, and that it will inspire readers to think more deeply about the nature of human relationships and intimacy.

Song of Songs 8:14 (NET)

14 Make haste, my beloved!

Be like a gazelle or a young stag

on the mountains of spices.

Part 3: Challenging Modern Victorian Ethics

Song of Songs 5:1 (NET)

1 I have entered my garden, O my sister, my bride;

I have gathered my myrrh with my balsam spice.

I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey;

I have drunk my wine and my milk!

The Poet to the Couple:

Eat, friends, and drink!

Drink freely, O lovers!

The Song of Solomon’s portrayal of nudity and sexuality before marriage is a challenge to modern Victorian ethics and societal norms. The book’s explicit language and erotic imagery have led many to allegorize and spiritualize its meaning, avoiding its obvious implications about human relationships and intimacy.

However, a closer reading of the text reveals a nuanced and beautiful portrayal of love and desire, one that challenges traditional views of courtship and marriage. The Song of Solomon presents a picture of two lovers who are comfortable with each other’s bodies, who enjoy each other’s company, and who are intimate with each other before they are married.

This portrayal is a challenge to modern Victorian ethics, which emphasize the importance of waiting until marriage before engaging in physical intimacy. The Song of Solomon suggests that physical and emotional intimacy are essential components of a healthy and fulfilling relationship, and that they should not be delayed until after marriage.

In Song 1:2-4, the beloved says, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine. Because of the fragrance of your good ointments, your name is like purified oil; therefore the maidens love you. Draw me after you; let us run! The king has brought me into his chambers” . This passage implies a level of physical intimacy between the lovers, where they are comfortable with each other’s bodies and are able to express their desire for each other.

The Song of Solomon also challenges modern Victorian ethics by presenting a picture of a healthy and mutually respectful relationship between two people. The lovers are depicted as being equal and respectful of each other, with a deep emotional connection and a strong physical attraction.

In Song 4:1-7, the lover says, “Behold, you are beautiful, my love; behold, you are beautiful; your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats that have descended from Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from the washing, all of which have twins, and not one of them has lost its young. Your lips are like a scarlet thread, and your mouth is lovely. Your cheeks are like a bed of spice, like sweet-smelling perfume. Your neck is like the tower of David, built in layers, on which a thousand shields are hung, all the quivers of the warriors” . This passage implies a level of mutual respect and admiration between the lovers, where they are able to appreciate each other’s beauty and enjoy each other’s company.

The Song of Solomon’s portrayal of nudity and sexuality before marriage is also a challenge to modern societal norms around sex and relationships. The book presents a picture of two lovers who are comfortable with each other’s bodies, who enjoy each other’s company, and who are intimate with each other before they are married.

In Song 7:1-10, the lover says, “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O noble one! The curves of your thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skilled craftsman. Your navel is a round bowl, that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, surrounded by lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are like the pools of Heshbon, by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon, that looks toward Damascus” . This passage implies a level of physical intimacy between the lovers, where they are comfortable with each other’s bodies and are able to describe their desire for each other.

In conclusion, the Song of Solomon’s portrayal of nudity and sexuality before marriage is a challenge to modern Victorian ethics and societal norms. The book presents a picture of two lovers who are comfortable with each other’s bodies, who enjoy each other’s company, and who are intimate with each other before they are married. This portrayal is a challenge to traditional views of courtship and marriage, and suggests that physical and emotional intimacy are essential components of a healthy and fulfilling relationship.

Part 2: Exploring the Sexual Metaphors of Song of Solomon

Song of Songs 1:12-14 (NET)

12 While the king was at his banqueting table,

my nard gave forth its fragrance.

13 My beloved is like a fragrant pouch of myrrh

spending the night between my breasts.

14 My beloved is like a cluster of henna blossoms

in the vineyards of En-Gedi.

The Song of Solomon is a book that is rich in sexual metaphors and imagery. The lovers use a variety of poetic and symbolic language to describe their desire for each other and their intimate experiences. In this section, we will explore some of the key passages that describe the lovers’ physical relationship, including their desire for each other, their intimate encounters, and their mutual pleasure.

One of the most explicit passages in the Song of Solomon is Song 5:4-7, where the lover says, “My beloved put his hand through the peephole, and my feelings for him were aroused. I arose to open to my beloved, but my beloved had turned and gone away. My beloved took away my garments, he took away my veil, he took away my clothes, and he left me naked” . This passage is often interpreted as a description of the beloved’s desire for physical intimacy with her lover, and the lover’s willingness to satisfy her desires.

Another passage that describes the lovers’ physical relationship is Song 7:1-10, where the lover says, “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O noble one! The curves of your thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skilled craftsman. Your navel is a round bowl, that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, surrounded by lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are like the pools of Heshbon, by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon, that looks toward Damascus” . This passage is often seen as a description of the beloved’s physical beauty, and the lover’s desire to admire and appreciate her body.

The Song of Solomon also describes the lovers’ intimate encounters in detail. In Song 1:13-14, the beloved says, “My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh, resting between my breasts. My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi.” This passage implies a level of physical intimacy between the lovers, where they are comfortable with each other’s bodies and are able to describe their desires and feelings for each other.

In Song 4:16-5:1, the lover says, “Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden, that its spices may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and let him eat the choicest fruits.” This passage is often interpreted as a description of the lovers’ intimate encounter, where they are able to enjoy each other’s company and satisfy their desires.

The Song of Solomon’s descriptions of the lovers’ physical relationship are not limited to their intimate encounters. The book also describes their desire for each other, their mutual pleasure, and their emotional connection. In Song 2:3-7, the beloved says, “As the apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. I delight to sit in his shadow, and his fruit is sweet to my taste. He brought me to the banquet hall, and his banner over me is love. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples, for I am sick with love” . This passage implies a level of emotional connection between the lovers, where they are able to express their desires and feelings for each other.

In conclusion, the Song of Solomon is a book that is rich in sexual metaphors and imagery. The lovers use a variety of poetic and symbolic language to describe their desire for each other, their intimate encounters, and their mutual pleasure. By exploring these passages, we can gain a deeper understanding of the book’s portrayal of human relationships and intimacy, and challenge traditional views of courtship and marriage. In the next part of this series, we will explore the implications of the Song of Solomon’s portrayal of nudity and sexuality before marriage, and what this means for our understanding of human relationships and intimacy.

Introduction:

The Song of Solomon is a book of the Bible that has been misunderstood and misinterpreted for centuries. Its explicit language and erotic imagery have led many to allegorize and spiritualize its meaning, avoiding its obvious implications about human relationships and intimacy. However, a closer reading of the text reveals a nuanced and beautiful portrayal of love and desire, one that challenges traditional views of courtship and marriage. In this series, we will explore the Song of Solomon’s implications about nudity and sexuality before marriage, using the NET Bible 1st edition as our base text.

Part 1: The Unnecessary Allegorization of Song of Solomon

Song of Songs 1:1-4 (NET)

“1 Solomonʼs Most Excellent Love Song.

The Beloved to Her Lover:

2 Oh, how I wish you would kiss me passionately!

For your lovemaking is more delightful than wine.

3 The fragrance of your colognes is delightful;

your name is like the finest perfume.

No wonder the young women adore you!

4 Draw me after you; let us hurry!

May the kingbring me into his bedroom chambers!

The Maidens to the Lover:

We will rejoice and delight in you;

we will praise your love more than wine.

The Beloved to Her Lover:

How rightly the young women adore you!”

The Song of Solomon has been the subject of much allegorization and spiritualization throughout history. Many interpreters have seen the book as a metaphor for God’s love for humanity, or Christ’s love for the Church. However, this approach ignores the book’s obvious meaning and context. The Song of Solomon is a love poem, written in a poetic and symbolic language, but its meaning is not obscure or hidden.

In Song 1:2-4, the beloved says, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine. Because of the fragrance of your good ointments, your name is like purified oil; therefore the maidens love you. Draw me after you; let us run! The king has brought me into his chambers” . This passage is often allegorized as a description of God’s love for humanity, but its obvious meaning is a description of the beloved’s desire for physical intimacy with her lover.

Similarly, in Song 4:1-7, the lover describes the beloved’s body in great detail, saying “Behold, you are beautiful, my love; behold, you are beautiful; your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats that have descended from Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from the washing, all of which have twins, and not one of them has lost its young. Your lips are like a scarlet thread, and your mouth is lovely. Your cheeks are like a bed of spice, like sweet-smelling perfume. Your neck is like the tower of David, built in layers, on which a thousand shields are hung, all the quivers of the warriors” . This passage is often seen as a metaphor for the beauty of God or the Church, but its obvious meaning is a description of the beloved’s physical beauty and the lover’s desire for her.

The unnecessary allegorization of the Song of Solomon has led to a lack of understanding and appreciation for the book’s original meaning and context. By ignoring the book’s obvious implications about human relationships and intimacy, we miss the opportunity to learn from its nuanced and beautiful portrayal of love and desire. In the next part of this series, we will explore the Song of Solomon’s implications about nudity and sexuality before marriage, using the NET Bible 1st edition as our base text.