Song of Songs is not about Man Becoming God - TOMES

[UntoHim]

***For the sake of time, this is not displayed in original form.

Song of Songs is not about ‘Man becoming God’
Nigel Tomes

“Just as King Solomon became a country man to court a country girl in order to make her his queen, his duplication, God in Christ became a man to court man in order to make man God...This is the fulfillment of God becoming a man that man might become God...the high peak of the divine revelation.”—Witness Lee1

The Song of Songs is a poem expressing the romantic love between a young man (depicted as a shepherd) and a young woman (a shepherdess) in ancient Israel. It’s a song about human heterosexual love in the context of marriage. On this point Bible expositors generally agree. Most interpreters also concur that the Song depicts real historical figures rather than purely fictional characters.2 Beyond this a wide spectrum of views emerges. Witness Lee’s interpretation represents one extreme on this spectrum; he expounds the Song ‘spiritually’ as an allegory, ignoring its human-ethical implications. An underlying human story is posited,3 “This book is a poem of the history of love in an excellent marriage. It is a romance of the highest standard...Song of Songs is a history of the wise King Solomon, the writer of this book, with the Shulammite, a girl of the countryside,” W. Lee writes. However, he does not expound upon the passionate romance between the man and woman, nor is4 he interested in drawing lessons about love, courtship and marriage. Witness Lee focuses exclusively on an5 allegorical-typological interpretation5 at the “spiritual level;” he interprets at least 300 details of the Song metaphorically, item by item, combining them in a series of vignettes. His interpretation is a masterpiece in allegorical exposition. Witness Lee tells us, that the “excellent marriage” of Solomon and the Shulammite girl, projects a6 “vivid portrait...of the bridal love between Christ as the bridegroom and His lovers as His bride... unveiling the progressive experience of an individual believer’s loving fellowship with Christ in four stages.” Progress through these four stages,7 results in “our becoming divine,” making us “duplications of God,” he alleges. Hence, in Witness Lee’s view, in its “deeper intrinsic significance,” Song of Songs’ major theme is deification, i.e., that “God became a man so that man might become God.”8

Witness Lee reasons as follows:9 “In Song of Songs the seeker passes through a process to become the Shulammite, the duplication of Solomon...The lover's name, Shulammite...in Song of Songs 6:13, indicat[es] that at this point she has become Solomon's duplication and counterpart, the same as Solomon in life, nature, and image...This signifies that the lover of Christ becomes the same as He is in life, nature, and image to match Him for their marriage...Just as King Solomon became a country man to court a country girl in order to make her his queen, his duplication, God in Christ became a man to court man in order to make man God in life, nature, expression, and function but not in the Godhead, to be Christ's bride. The Bible reveals that God became a man to court us and that now He wants us to court Him by our becoming divine...The Shulammite is a figure of us...The many lovers of Christ eventually will become duplications of God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead. This is the fulfillment of God becoming a man that man might become God, which is the high peak of the divine revelation.” Stated succinctly, is his view Song of Songs’ deeper message is about “man becoming God.” It’s about “divinization”--our “being deified,” “becoming divine,” to be “duplications of God.”10

W. Lee’s exposition of Song of Songs relies on a series of deductions which ought to be examined.
1. The leading male character—the shepherd boy—portrays King Solomon, the romantic story’s hero
2. King Solomon & his “country girl” depict “a romance of the highest standard” & “an excellent marriage.”
3. King Solomon, the leading man, typifies Christ coming to court man “to make man God.”
4. The female character is called Shulammite (the feminine form of Solomon) implying she becomes Solomon's duplication, the same as Solomon in life, nature, image and function.
5. The Shulammite typifies Christ’s believers becoming divine; “God in Christ became a man to court man in order to make man God.” Now He “wants us to court Him by our becoming divine.”
6. Hence Song of Songs is an allegory about deification--God becoming man that man might become God.

This paper examines W. Lee’s claim that the Song of Songs’ theme is deification. Our focus is on the Song of Songs. We don’t ask whether the “divine romance” is the Bible’s grand narrative. One might agree that the “divine romance” is Scripture’s grand narrative, yet reject W. Lee’s specific claims about the Song of Songs. We focus here on this particular book. Plus we offer a preliminary evaluation of LSM’s deification doctrine.

King Solomon, the Song’s romantic Hero
Witness Lee asserts that King Solomon is the poem’s leading male character, the story’s romantic hero. He11 says, “Song of Songs is a history of the wise King Solomon...with the Shulammite, a girl of the countryside ...Solomon and the Shulammite were not a match.... [Yet] Solomon fell in love with a country girl, and the two of them were joined together.” W. Lee develops a “Cinderella back-story” based on this theme. He writes,12 “Song of Songs is a romance between a great king and a country girl. However, these two do not match each other... They do not match. It must have been difficult for Solomon, the top king on the whole earth, to court a common country girl. If he had come to visit her in all his kingly glory, she would have been afraid of him. Therefore, the king became a ‘country man’ in order to go to her village to court her, to gain her love. On the one hand, he made himself the same as the country girl; on the other hand, he made the country girl a queen.” This Cinderella story inspired Howard Higashi (of Long Beach, CA; 1937-98) to compose a lilting song13 which begins, “How could a country girl like me/ Become Your match, Your bride to be?” In LSM’s local churches this ‘divine romance’ is the Song’s accepted interpretation. Nevertheless, this back-story to Song of Songs, which forms the basis of LSM’s doctrine of deification, remains a creative piece of fiction. None of it derives directly from the Song of Songs; the Bible contains no record of King Solomon becoming a ‘country man’ and visiting the Shulammite’s village to court her, to gain her as his queen. We do not know whether Solomon came as a king or disguised as a simple country man. The latter option might seem attractive, but that doesn’t guarantee its veracity. We don’t even know whether Solomon visited the girl’s village; he could have made a general “casting call for a beauty contest,” like the Persian king Ahasuerus (Esther 2:2-4). Scripture provides no information about how King Solomon and the Shulammite girl met; W. Lee’s ‘back story’ is pure speculation.

LSM’s Lesson Book provides a sanitized version of Song of Songs, based on W. Lee’s back-story.
It says:14 “In Ephraim, Baal-haman, Solomon had a vineyard [8:11] which he gave to a family of the people of Ephraim to take care of. Their father had evidently already died. Their mother had at least 2 sons and 2 daughters; the 2 daughters were the Shulamite & her younger sister (1:6; 8:8). When she was at home, the Shulamite's older brothers abused her, forcing her to give up her own vineyard to take care of theirs, & also compelling her to shepherd their sheep, so that her face became blackened by extended exposure to the sun. One day a handsome young man in shepherd's garb came from far away, paying particular attention to the young woman and making friends with her. Then the Shulamite said, ‘Do not look upon me, because I am black, because the sun has scorched me. My mother's sons were angry with me; they made me keeper of the vineyards; but my own vineyard I’ve not kept. Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture your flock’ (1:6-7). The shepherd responded by calling her ‘fairest among women’ (1:8). After a while, they fell in love. One day, the shepherd bid her farewell, promising to return soon to marry her. But after he left, there was no news from him. Although the other people around her told her that she had been tricked by the shepherd, she refused to listen, firmly believing that their engagement was irrevocable. After waiting for a long time without his return, she longed for him so much that she felt sick, sometimes imagining that she saw him. Then one day she noticed clouds of dust flying up along one of the mountain roads of Ephraim, as if many carriages were approaching. Soon a messenger arrived, informing her that the king was on his way to marry her. At first, the Shulamite did not know what to say, but as soon as she caught sight of the king, she recognized him as her beloved shepherd, so she cried out triumphantly, ‘I am my beloved's, and his desire is for me’ (7:10).”

LSM’s Lesson Book uses details from the Song of Songs to augment W. Lee’s Cinderella back-story. Yet this back story depicting Solomon as the romantic hero is not substantiated by Scripture; it remains pure fantasy.

How can Solomon, a flagrant Polygamist, be the Song’s Hero?
Identifying King Solomon as the Song of Songs’ romantic hero raises significant difficulties. The greatest challenge is reconciling the literary Solomon of Song of Songs (3:7-11; 8:11-12) with the historical King Solomon. How can LSM’s notion of Solomon as the Song’s romantic hero be harmonized with Scripture’s historical record of Solomon as a blatant polygamist? Polygamy was not prohibited among Israel’s general population. However, Israel’s monarchs were explicitly warned “not to amass wives to themselves” (Deut. 17:17). A number of Israel’s monarchs violated this precept; none more than Solomon. In addition, despite the absence of an explicit general prohibition on multiple wives, the tenor of Scripture’s OT narrative is clear. As Rabbi Joseph Telushkin observes,15 “Although the Torah law permitted polygamy, Torah narrative opposed it. Virtually every polygamous relationship described in the Bible is miserably unhappy.” Plus the New Testament requirement that elders and deacons be the “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2, 12) shows that leaders—both in Israel and the Church—should not be polygamists. In violation of the Law’s explicit prohibition of polygamy by Israel’s monarchs (Deut. 17:17), 1 Kings records that “King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, & Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said...’You shall not enter into marriage with them...’ [Yet] Solomon clung to these in love. He had 700 wives...& 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart...” (1 Kings 11:1-4) Clearly Solomon violated God’s law. He was a promiscuous polygamist, with 1,000 consorts, a harem of historic proportions.

Here then is a paradox17—how can Solomon’s polygamous and promiscuous lifestyle be reconciled with the monogamous romance between Solomon & the Shulammite girl depicted in Song of Songs? Stated differently, which of Solomon’s 1,000 women is the Shulummite girl? Moreover, how could Solomon, a promiscuous polygamist, be the hero in “a romance of the highest standard”16 (as W. Lee terms it)? In what sense was Solomon’s courting the country girl to be his 60th or 600th wife a “high standard romance”? Why is the Shulummite’s union with Solomon, which involved sharing him with 1,000 other partners, described as an “excellent marriage” (as W. Lee calls it)? Could she really say, “I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine” (Song 6:3)? Or should she say, “...my beloved is 0.1% mine (the other 99.9% he belongs to other wives and concubines)”? Such issues lead Dr. G. Lloyd Carr to ask18 “why someone as notoriously lascivious as Solomon should appear in an account of pure holy love or even of pure sexual love between a man and a woman.”

Proposals to Resolve the Paradox
Commentators propose a variety of solutions to these vexing issues. Their proposals include:
1. The Song describes Solomon’s first marriage; later he became a polygamist. He is the Song’s hero.
2. The Song describes one of Solomon’s many marriages; his polygamy is excused or ignored. He’s the hero.
3. The Song describes one of Solomon’s many marriages. He’s not the Song’s hero; the girl is the heroine.
4. The Song does not depict Solomon’s marriage. The shepherd boy marries the girl. Solomon is a literary foil.
5. The Song does not depict Solomon’s marriage; he is a romantic rival. The girl marries the shepherd boy.
6. The Song doesn’t depict Solomon’s actual marriage. It’s literary fiction depicting “what might have been.”

We note that in most of these scenarios King Solomon is not the Song’s romantic hero. If Scripture’s censure of polygamy indicates divine disapproval then Solomon is discredited as the Song’s romantic hero (#3). If the Song relates to his first marriage (#1), Solomon’s subsequent polygamy ruins his hero’s status, since he “two-timed” on his first wife 1,000 times! Under the last three options (#4-#6) Solomon’s actual marriage is not described in the Song and he is not the hero. It follows that, if Solomon is not the Song’s hero, then he cannot function as a type of Christ, the ‘hero of the divine-human romance.’ Let us briefly examine these options.

Solomon’s First Marriage?19
Song of Songs refers to King Solomon’s marriage (3:11) which is usually understood to be his union with the Shulammite girl. This verse says, “Go out, O daughters of Zion, and look upon King Solomon, with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding...” (3:11) Evidently Solomon is already King at the time of this wedding, which explains why he is crowned by his mother—his father, David had died, and Solomon succeeded him as King. But is this wedding in Song of Songs Solomon’s first marriage (option #1 above)? If so, it’s not recorded elsewhere in Scripture. The establishing of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kings 2:46) is followed immediately by the statement “Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh, King of Egypt.” (1 Kings 3:1). In OT history this is Solomon’s first recorded marriage. Yet Pharaoh’s daughter, with her politically-motivated marriage, could not be the country girl (an Israeli Shulammite) who married for love. Moreover the Song acknowledges the existence of multiple queens and concubines. It says, “There are 60 queens and 80 concubines. And virgins without number. My dove, my perfect one, is but one... The daughters saw her, and they called her blessed; the queens & the concubines, they also praised her” (Song 6:8-9). This suggests that Solomon had 140 female consorts (60 queens & 80 concubines) at the time of the wedding in Song of Songs. Solomon’s harem was not yet full (700 wives & 300 concubines), but neither was it empty. Evidently he already had a polygamous lifestyle. The biblical evidence weighs against option #1. Let’s consider options #4.

Solomon as a Literary Foil
Dr. Othmar Keel points out,21 “The traditional notion that the life-setting of the Song was Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh was no longer tenable for the simple reason that nowhere in the book is Solomon directly addressed. He is mentioned only in the third person.” Solomon “is never designated as one of the speakers. Nor do the anonymous speakers address Solomon directly,”22 writes Professor Richard S. Hess. These commentators conclude that, although the poem mentions Solomon multiple times (1:5; 3:7, 9, 11, 8:11-12), “he generally remains as a distant, even idealized figure.”23 Plus the woman’s use of “king” (1:4, 12) to describe her male counterpart is likely honorific,24 “references to ‘king’ like the crowns worn up to the present day by Jewish brides and grooms on their weddings, represent the images that the male and female possess in the eyes of one another.” Hence a number of expositors—e.g. Kaiser and Bruce, Hess, & Segal--conclude that Song of Songs describes the romance of a shepherdess and a simple shepherd, someone other than Solomon. Dr. C. J. Collins interprets Solomon “as a somewhat distant figure whom the woman brings into her dreams as her idealization of the young man she loves.”25 The reference to Solomon’s wedding (3:11) is viewed as26 “an imaginative transformation of the beloved into a Solomon figure.” In this interpretation Solomon’s role in the Song’s is that of a literary foil—a contrasting figure or a point of reference; he is not the leading male character. S. E. Wirt believes this solves the paradox; he observes that, “Once it is recognized that the Song...does not concern him [Solomon] but a mere shepherd and a country girl who view themselves as royal figures, the puzzle as to the meaning of the book is solved.”27 If the leading man in Song of Songs is not Solomon, but a simple shepherd, the interpreters’ dilemma is solved. In that case, the leading male is not Solomon the promiscuous polygamist, nor any King in David’s line, and hence he is not an obvious candidate to typify Christ. However, other expositors do identify Solomon as the Song’s leading male. In that case, the issue remains--is he the hero?

Solomon as the Antagonist, the Romantic Rival
Some expositors go further; claiming not only is Solomon not the Song’s hero, they cast him as a romantic rival. In this view the young woman and the shepherd boy are two simple country folk in love; meanwhile King Solomon seeks to win the woman’s consent to join his harem. The woman resists Solomon’s attempts to win her through flattery, possessions & position. She returns home to marry her true love, the shepherd boy.28 In this “love triangle” scenario, Solomon is the antagonist. John Phillips adopts this 3-character view, interpreting it as a type; he says,29 “The shepherd is a picture of Christ...The Shulamite mirrors the Church or the individual believer...Solomon represents the prince of this world armed with all worldly pomp, power, and magnificence.” In this view, rather than being the hero, Solomon typifies Satan, the “prince of this world”! Of course that’s the polar opposite of W. Lee’s claim that Solomon typifies Christ. Most expositors, however, reject this 3-character view since it’s impossible to distinguish between Solomon and the shepherd in the Song’s dialogue.

Solomon’s Polygamy Excused
Another option (#2) is to ignore or excuse Solomon’s polygamy, in order to maintain his status as the Song’s romantic hero, the “Prince Charming” who marries the Shumammite girl. Witness Lee adopts this approach. The Song mentions multiple queens and concubines. It says, “There are 60 queens & 80 concubines. And virgins without number...The queens & the concubines, they also praised her” (6:8-9). Regarding these lines W. Lee says,31 “(Solomon, typifying Christ in a positive sense) is loved by many different believers, some as queens, some as concubines, and some as virgins (all in the positive sense in poetry)...”. He asserts that Solomon’s numerous queens, concubines and virgins all typify Christ’s many believers. All three categories, he claims, have a “positive sense.” This must be the only place in Scripture where (according to W. Lee) the believers are symbolized by concubines (mistresses)! Here W. Lee diverges from most Bible expositors.

“There was the need for a man with hundreds of wives so...God would have...a type”—W. Lee
Solomon—a “wonderful type of Christ—the type of a man with hundreds of wives”—W. Lee
Witness Lee acknowledges that,32 “Solomon did not follow God's regulation about having only one wife, and many readers of the Bible would condemn him for this.” Yet, despite Scripture’s explicit prohibition on polygamy by Israel’s monarchs (Deut. 17:17), he is reluctant to condemn him, since, “Solomon is a type of Christ.” Instead of censuring Solomon’s polygamy, W. Lee condones it, saying,33 “If God had no need of a king to symbolize Christ in this way, Solomon would not have been created. The Bible clearly reveals that God's intention is that a man have only one wife, yet Solomon had hundreds of wives...We should understand this not ethically but typically. Ethically, Solomon should not have had many wives. Typically speaking, however, there was the need for a man with hundreds of wives so that God would have a particular type of the church composed of many believers from many nations. Solomon with his wives is a type of Christ with His corporate wife, a wife composed of believers from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.” Witness Lee asserts that, in Solomon’s case, typology trumps ethics, metaphor trumps morality; typology requires a King with 700 wives, plus 300 concubines, even though Scripture condemns such flagrant polygamy! As a result, he declares that in Solomon, the promiscuous polygamist,34 “we have a strange and wonderful type of Christ—the type of a man with hundreds of wives...This symbol is a matter not of ethics but of typology. With respect to typology, there was the need for Solomon and his many wives. For this reason, God created Solomon and appointed him to be the king above all the kings. God even created the princesses...from Egypt and other nations to be Solomon's wives. God did all this so that in the Bible there would be this particular type of the church composed of the believers to be the corporate wife of Christ.” Thus Witness Lee makes the outrageous claim that in Solomon “we have a...wonderful type of Christ—the type of a man with hundreds of wives.” He absolves promiscuous Solomon (and his 1,000 female consorts) of all responsibility for their polygamy; all are justified in order to provide an Old Testament type! We ask—isn’t Witness Lee excusing the inexcusable? He also argues that “God created Solomon and...God even created the princesses...to be Solomon's wives” because “in typology, there was the need for Solomon and his many wives.” Isn’t this is a perverse application of God’s sovereignty? Does not W. Lee’s argument portray God as morally compromised, responsible for violating His own precepts?

Probably only in the 19th-century, Mormon “Church of the Latter Day Saints (LDS),” established by the polygamist leader, Joseph Smith Jr.,35 can such an exposition be found! Recognizing the destructive effect that Solomon’s negative example has had historically and continues to have in present day36 North America—e.g. the exploitation of underage girls coerced into polygamous marriage—we reject as repugnant Witness Lee’s assertion that “There was the need for a man with hundreds of wives so...God would have...a type.”

The Shulammite Girl is the Heroine
Since King Solomon, the promiscuous polygamist, fails as an exemplar for an “excellent marriage,” expositors suggest that the Shulammite girl is the Song of Songs’ real heroine. (Option #3 above) Douglas Sean O’Donnell, states,37 “the protagonist in this poem is a young bride.” Over a century ago the respected OT scholar Franz “Delitzsch [1813-90] proposed that the Song of Songs was...a drama depicting King Solomon falling in love with a Shulammite girl...Solomon takes her to his harem in Jerusalem, where he was purified in his affection from a sensual lust to pure love...The maiden from a remote part of Galilee is a stranger among the daughters of Jerusalem. Though she was a humble maiden, she was the heroine of the story.”38 Dr. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. also concludes that,39 “The Shulamite maiden...was the means by which Solomon learned...about true marital love ...[Through her Solomon] was the recipient of God’s normative pattern for love, sex and marriage.”
Dr. J. Paul Tanner interprets the Song along the same lines; he says41 “In light of the mention of the numerous queens and concubines in 6:9,” Solomon and the Shulammite stand in stark contrast in terms of sexual purity and marital fidelity, “All her life, she had kept herself a virgin for the man whom she would marry (4:12-15). Even her brothers carefully watched over her to ensure this was so (8:9). She was prepared to be a loyal and faithful wife, but Solomon ultimately had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). No wonder she, not he, delivers the moral lesson of the book. He [Solomon] was totally unqualified to speak on the issue of godly dedicated love. He knew the physical side of it, but apparently he did not know the love she cherished.” Tanner appeals to the Song’s conclusion (ch. 8), saying,42 “the bride appears as the ‘lesson-bearer’ and heroine of the book (which suggests that Solomon had the greater problem).” More precisely, the ‘lesson’ is conveyed via a vineyard metaphor,43 “In 8:11-12 the vineyard motif becomes prominent. [The Shulammite declares] ‘Solomon had a vineyard at Baal-hamon; he entrusted the vineyard to caretakers; each one was to bring 1,000 pieces of silver for its fruit. My very own vineyard is at my disposal...’ Apparently the vineyards in chapter 1 were actually the property of Solomon...Yet in this acknowledgment...there is a careful play on the vineyard motif. Solomon had his earthly vineyard, but metaphorically she had her vineyard, namely, her own person and sexual love, which had been carefully guarded throughout her life. Neither Solomon nor anyone else could ‘own’ this, for it was hers alone to give to the one she so desired.” The Shulammite’s,44 “life had been one of moral purity, retaining her virginity for the exclusive satisfaction of the one who would become her husband. She was prepared to be exclusively his. [Solomon], however, had a great obstacle to overcome. He needed to recognize the detrimental effect his [polygamous and promiscuous] lifestyle imposed on...their relationship.” Dr. C. John Collins concurs, noting Solomon,45 “is described as wealthy; here [in 8:11] he has vineyards earning 1,000 pieces of silver each. The woman’s ‘vineyard’ (8:12) probably refers to her sexuality. It is hers alone, given to the one whom she chooses and not used for her gain, and thus is in contrast with Solomon’s vineyard.”

These authors view the Song as ending on a note critical of Solomon womanizing lifestyle; as a wealthy, powerful and prestigious monarch, Solomon could recruit any woman he chose for his harem. The chaste Shulammite stands in stark contrast to promiscuous Solomon.46 “It is this note critical of Solomon for which the readers must be prepared if we are to understand what we read in [Song of Songs]...Old King Solomon was a lascivious old king,” says Dr. Calvin Seerveld. This interpretation has the merit of recognizing Scripture’s condemnation of King Solomon’s polygamy (Deut. 17:17; 1 Kings 11:1-4).

Solomon is the Song of Songs’ Antihero
Dr. Tanner & others conclude the Song’s main point is sexual purity and marital fidelity. This message is not modelled by promiscuous King Solomon, but by the Shulammite shepherdess; she is the Song’s heroine. “Solomon was a man of many lovers, and the Song of Songs is a record of one of the relationships that stood out above all others. A fiery love developed between Solomon and the unnamed Shulammite woman...Their background was remarkably diverse. He grew up in the kingly courts of Jerusalem, while she was accustomed to labor in the vineyards beneath the blistering sun. He had known many women...whereas she had been kept a virgin under the careful scrutiny of her brothers. Solomon could offer her a life in the royal courts, but she had something much greater to offer him. She could teach him about a godly love based on commitment, a love that needed to be mutually exclusive to experience its highest attainment. Such love was costly (8:7). It was more than money could buy, more than even Solomon was capable of. So, she becomes the heroine of the book, and she (rather than Solomon) renders the moral homily [lesson] in the book's conclusion,”47 explains Dr. Tanner.

On the human level, “The Song rejects the love-sex model of ‘Solomon,’ a model which disconnects emotional and physical love and which involves a multiplicity of relationships,”48 says Rabbi Benjamin J. Segal. Similarly, D. W. deVilliers argues that,49 “Solomon is not a hero in the poem, but rather can be identified as an anti-hero, since he perverts sex and love by abusing power and money. In terms of the moral function of the poem...his example should not be followed.” On the positive side, this poem commends the divinely-established pattern of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. “The Song of Songs hearkens back to God's prototypical design in the Garden of Eden of one man and one woman, in marriage, a relationship God designed to be mutually exclusive ...”51 observes Dr. Tanner. This conclusion might seem too “low, earthly and unspiritual” to those who hanker after “deep, spiritual and ethereal” interpretations of Scripture. Nevertheless, this interpretation “presents a...relevant and urgent message for today,”52 to believers both inside and outside the “Lord’s Recovery.”

Song of Songs’ Solomon a Type of Christ?
Witness Lee makes Solomon the Song’s hero; actually he is the antihero. He claims that Solomon functions as a type of Christ in Song of Songs. He even asserts that Solomon had “hundreds of wives so that God would have a particular type of the church composed of many believers from many nations.”53 He also alleges Solomon’s courtship of the Shulummite girl typifies God’s courtship of mankind, saying,54 “Just as King Solomon became a country man to court a country girl in order to make her his queen, his duplication, God in Christ became a man to court man in order to make man God.” (But note again that Scripture has no record of this ‘back story’ of King Solomon becoming a country man to court a country girl.) Their romance also typifies Christ and the church; W. Lee writes,55 “Solomon typifies...Christ, and the Shulammite, the queen of Solomon, typifies the church...The entire book of Song of Songs portrays how the Shulammite experienced and enjoyed Solomon, typifying the church's experience and enjoyment of the resurrected Christ.” Moreover Solomon’s union with the Shulummite allegedly typifies the New Jerusalem. “By the end of [Song of Songs] Chapter 6 the lover...has become Solomon’s duplication...This couple’s becoming one indicates the New Jerusalem. In the New Jerusalem the redeeming God (signified by Solomon) and all His redeemed (signified by the Shulammite) become one,”56 W. Lee says. These are striking claims, allegedly based on Song of Songs, but are they valid?

Scholars explain that, when properly applied, “typology recognizes the validity of the Old Testament account in its own right, but then finds in that account a clear, parallel link with some event or teaching in the New Testament which the Old Testament account foreshadowed’.”57 So we should ask--Is there a link from the Song of Songs’ Solomon to the New Testament? Certainly Solomon typifies Christ; Jesus compared himself to Solomon; he told the Jews, “The queen of the south will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something more than Solomon is here.” (Matt. 12:42, RcV.) We note that it is in the realm of wisdom that Solomon prefigures Christ. The Queen of Sheba came to investigate Solomon’s wisdom; in this aspect—as a wise king—Solomon is a type of Christ. In Scripture the Queen of Sheba did not have a love affair nor marry King Solomon; accounts of their romantic relationship belong to myth and fable, not history or Scripture. Dr. Tanner writes58 “In fact Solomon is used as a type of Christ elsewhere (2 Sam. 7:12-17; 23:1-7; Psa. 72; cf. Matt. 12:42)...The question, however, is not whether typical interpretation is valid [in general] but whether the Song [of Songs] should be so interpreted.” The issue is not whether Solomon typifies Christ; clearly he is. The crucial question is whether King Solomon’s romance, as portrayed in the Song of Songs, is a type of Christ.

Two facts tell against the Song’s Solomon being a type of Christ. First,59 “The Song of Songs itself gives no indication that it should be interpreted allegorically,” says R. K. Harrison. “The Song gives no indication that it should be read in any but a straightforward way.”61 Second, “The New Testament has no trace of an allegorical interpretation of the Song [of Songs],” writes Othmar Keel.62 In fact there are no quotations or allusions to the Song of Songs in the New Testament. Hence the New Testament does not employ this book in the way that W. Lee (& other allegorizers) do. As Dr. Tanner states, "A fundamental objection...is that when the male-female relationship is employed allegorically [by Scripture] it is clearly indicated as such, whereas in Song of Songs there is no hint of an allegorical approach.”63 When Paul expounds on marriage in terms of Christ and the church he cites the OT precedent of Adam and Eve (Eph. 5:31). This link is explicit in Scripture; there is no such link in the case of Solomon and the Shulummite. As W. Lee himself observed,64 “In the Old Testament, many persons, events, and objects are types, but it is not up to us to decide whether or not they are types. We have to find out the clear evidence from the New Testament. If there is no mention in the New Testament of the object, the events, or the person as a type, then we should not rashly surmise that they are a type.” The New Testament never presents Solomon’s marriage(s) as a type, hence “we should not rashly surmise that they are a type” (to quote W. Lee). “Nor is there any indication from the New Testament that the Song of Songs is to be interpreted or applied Christologically. Thus to interpret the Song of Songs by the typical view is to do so at the interpreter's suggestion, not that of Scripture itself,”65 says Dr. Tanner. This echoes a common critique of allegory, that “one claims to have discovered a deeper meaning in the text—a meaning that is only there because one has first inserted it.”66 In W. Lee’s case the doctrine of deification is being inserted; he says “The first ‘crystal’ in this book [Song of Songs] is...[that] God created us...with the intention that we could become Him in life and nature but not in the Godhead.”67 The Song of Songs, he claims, is about “man becoming God.”

Shulammite--Solomon’s duplication, same in life, nature, expression, function & image—W. Lee
W. Lee contends that the Shulammite girl becomes “Solomon’s duplication, counterpart, the same as Solomon in life, nature, expression and function.”68 He says, “By the end of [Song of Songs] Chapter 6 the lover...has become Solomon’s duplication. She is now called Shulammite (the feminine form of Solomon—S. S. 6:13), for she has become the same as Solomon in life, nature, and image to match him for their marriage.”69 This is the single point upon which W. Lee hangs his whole thesis—his deification doctrine in the Song of Songs—the observation that the girl is called Shulammite (the feminine form of Solomon). There’s only one verse in which this term occurs---Song of Songs 6:13. It reads, “Return, return, O Shulammite, return, return, that we may look upon you. Why should you look upon the Shulammite, as upon a dance before two armies?” Rabbi Benjamin Segal observes that,71 “The connection of the Shulammite to Solomon has long been noted. H. H. Rowley seeing this as the feminine form of Solomon’s name cited already in 1939 another 39 commentators who adopted that view.” Most scholars agree Shulammite is the feminine form of Solomon; it could be rendered ‘Solomoness.’ Based upon their related names, Witness Lee asserts that the girl has become “Solomon’s duplication...the same as Solomon in life, nature, expression and function.” Then, appealing to typology, he states72 that “Shulammite is the feminine form of Solomon, indicating that now the overcomers have become the same as Christ...In these four things—life, nature, expression, and function—we become the same as God and Christ, but not in Their Godhead.” Thus Witness Lee links Song of Songs with deification—“man becoming God.” But can this single verse (Song 6:13) support the “weight” of LSM’s deification doctrine?
They are not the same (homo); they are different (hetero)

First let’s observe that aligning of the couple’s names upon marriage is common in many societies. At the marriage of “John Smith” and “Jane Doe,” she may take the married name “Jane Smith,” and the couple are introduced as “Mr. & Mrs. Smith.” Does this correspondence in their names indicate that they are duplicates, being “the same in life, nature, expression and function”? No, it does not. Yet W. Lee asserts that Solomon and his spouse are the “same”—same life, same nature, same expression & same function. Let’s state the obvious—what’s depicted in Song of Songs is a heterosexual marriage, the union of a man and woman; in crucial aspects they are not the same (homo); they are different (hetero). In producing and bearing children, they do not have the “same function.” Plus they are not anatomically the same in “image and expression.” This principle was established in Scripture’s first marriage. In forming Eve, God made Adam ‘a helper fit for him’ or ‘matching him’ (Gen. 2:18). As Dr. T. D. Alexander observes, the expression ‘fit for him,’ “is not the same as ‘like him’: a wife is not her husband’s clone but complements him.”73 Phyllis Trible states that “Song of Songs echoes Eden where female and male are born in mutuality and love. They are naked without shame; they are equal without duplication.”74 Eve was not Adam’s exact duplicate or clone; she was not the same as Adam in everything except his ‘headship.’ Likewise human believers do not ‘become God’ in everything ‘except His Godhead.’

Contrasts Exceed Similarities
In Song of Songs the lovers describe each other’s attributes. Some are similar. The man likens his beloved’s eyes to doves and pools (5:12). Likewise she compares his eyes to doves (4:1) and the “pools of Heshbon” (7:4). But many other traits are contrasting. She says “My beloved is dazzling white, yet ruddy” (5:10), while she is “black, but lovely” (1:6). So, he’s white and she’s black; this almost sounds like an inter-racial marriage! The locks of his hair are “black as a raven” (5:11); her locks are “like purple” (7:5). His head is “the finest gold” (5:10); her head is “like Carmel” (7:5). His belly is “polished ivory” (5:14); her belly “like a heap of wheat” (7:2). Regardless of these metaphors’ exact meaning, there’s little doubt that they differ. Plus the contrasts in their attributes exceed the similarities. Taken as a whole, these significant differences refute Witness Lee’s assertion that the Shulummite is Solomon’s duplication, that she’s “the same in the same as Solomon in life, nature, expression and function.” Via such statements the biblical text of Song of Songs has been forced to fit the mold of his doctrine of deification. We conclude that a single verse in the Song of Songs (6:13) cannot bear the weight of Witness Lee’s deification doctrine; Song of Songs is not about man becoming God.

LSM’s Dubious Doctrine of Deification75
If LSM’s deification doctrine cannot be established from Song of Songs, can it be validated from other Scriptures? W. Lee appeals to 2 Peter 1:4 which says believers are "partakers of the divine nature." But scholars reject the notion that deification is implied here. Dr. James M. Starr writes,76 “2 Peter is not speaking in 1:4 of apotheosis in the sense of becoming a part of God’s essence or ceasing to be human, but of partaking of specific divine attributes seen perfectly in Christ.” Professor Richard J. Bauckham, says,77 “It is not very likely that participation in God’s own essence is intended.” In his exposition Thomas R. Schreiner writes,78 “Peter is not saying that human beings will actually become divine or that they will share in the divine nature in every respect. Believers will share in the divine nature in that they will be morally perfected; they will share in the moral excellence that belongs to God. Believers will ‘participate’ in the divine nature, but they will not become gods…James Starr concludes…that sharing in the divine nature does not mean ‘deified’. Instead Peter maintained that believers will share in the moral qualities of Christ.” Dr. Starr directly addresses the question--Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification? He answers negatively—it “does not mean ‘deified’.” When read in its context, “’sharers in divine nature’ should be read as a theological shorthand for a constellation of ideas: knowledge of Christ producing escape from passion [lust] and decay [corruption] to divine moral excellence & divine immortality, both of which are in the process of being realized already now,” Dr. J. M. Starr concludes.79

Witness Lee cites to the Apostle John’s writing to justify his doctrine of deification. He says,81 “1 John 3:2 says, ‘Beloved, now we are children of God...We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him.’ This verse clearly reveals that we will be like God....John 1:12-13 says that we were born, regenerated, by God with His life. As God's children we are ‘baby gods,’ having God's life and nature but not His Godhead...God wants those who can say, ‘...I am God in life and in nature but not in His Godhead.’...The New Testament reveals that we, the believers in Christ, have God’s life and nature and that we are becoming God in life and in nature but will never have His Godhead.” We note that W. Lee extrapolates from what Scripture says—that we are children of God, born of God—to what the Bible does not say—that we are “baby gods,”82 who can declare ‘I am God…”

It is ironic that Witness Lee uses John’s writings to argue that believers become God, since John makes a clear distinction between the two—between the believers who are God’s “children” and Jesus, who is both God and the “Son of God.” As Colin G. Kruse points out,83 “When the evangelist [John] describes those who believe as ‘children’ of God, he uses the word ‘child’ (teknon). He reserves the word ‘Son’ (huios) for Jesus himself. In this way [John] maintains a distinction between Jesus as the ‘Son’ of God and the believers as ‘children’ of God.” Kruse and other expositors maintain that John makes a conscious distinction between God and man, between Jesus, the Son of God, and the believers as God’s children. W. Lee ignores and even blurs this distinction.

Witness Lee’s Rhetorical Skill
Employing skills honed through decades of public speaking, W. Lee argues rhetorically,84 “We may be able to say that we ‘become like God’ in life and nature, but do we have the boldness to say that we ‘become God’ in life and nature? We...have been born of God, and we are the sons of God. Have you not been born of man? Then are you not man? ...In the same way, since we are born of God...are we not God? You are whatever you have been born of. If you have been born of Chinese, you are Chinese. If you have been born of Caucasians, you are Caucasian. Since we are born of God, we may say and even we should say that we are God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.” Witness Lee knew how to incite a congregation. After messages like this, hordes of young people spilled into the streets of Anaheim, CA., declaring “I am God! I am God!” They wakened residents and disturbed neighbors. However, it is doubtful that anyone was convinced that these trainees were being deified! Certainly this (so called) “high peak of the divine revelation” provided a new slogan, a mantra that would be mindlessly repeated, innumerable times by LSM-adherents in the ensuing years. The question remains whether this mantra added anything of significance to the Recovery’s teaching.

Conclusions
Reviewing recent commentaries R. S. Clarke observes, “There are at least five kinds of commentary on the Song being published today. The least common is...the allegorical interpretation on the Song.”85 W. Lee’s exposition falls in this category. They are scarce because this approach yields arbitrary, subjective and often contradictory interpretations. Do the “80 concubines” (6:8) represent 80 heresies86 (Epiphanius), a category of believers (W. Lee), or simply some of King Solomon’s 300 concubines? Most churches today reject allegorical interpretation. LSM’s Local Churches are an exception. They follow the Plymouth Brethren’s87 “extensive use of typology, analogy, and allegory in the interpretation of the Old Testament…Typology [that] provided ‘a happy hunting ground’ for adherents of narrow doctrines which could not be supported from the New Testament.” Such “typology is...a dangerous exercise.”88 W. Lee begins with an extra-biblical ‘back story’ that 89“King Solomon became a country man to court a country girl in order to make her his queen...” Yet Scripture provides no basis for this “Cinderella scenario;” it is pure fiction. He portrays Solomon as the Song’s romantic hero. However, Solomon’s heroic status is negated by his promiscuous polygamy, which Scripture explicitly condemns (Deut. 17:17). W. Lee accommodates Solomon’s womanizing, alleging that91 “there was the need for Solomon and his many wives. For this reason, God created Solomon. God even created the princesses...to be Solomon's wives.” Thus God is presented as morally compromised, complicit in the violation of His own precepts against polygamy! Via such contrived exegesis Solomon is depicted as the Song’s romantic hero and a type of Christ gaining his bride. The fact that Solomon’s bride is the Shulammite forms the sole basis for LSM’s deification doctrine in Song of Songs. Deification is a doctrine which 92“could not be supported from the New Testament,” so Witness Lee resorted to the “happy hunting ground” of Song of Songs, to make his case. As John MacArthur states,93 “The Song has suffered strained interpretations over the centuries by those who use the ‘allegorical’ method…A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality.”

In contrast to LSM’s allegorical approach, most recent expositions view the Song as a love poem “celebrating human love and sexuality. It is then recognised that since Scripture elsewhere draws the analogy between human marriage and...Christ and the church, the Song may...illuminate those passages. But it is not, itself, about the divine-human relationship,”94 writes R. S. Clarke. Viewed this way, the Song’s “literal meaning is at the level of human relationships, [yet] ‘the Song in addition to its literal meaning also yields legitimate theological and ethical significance that illustrates truths taught explicitly elsewhere in the biblical texts.'95 These are important caveats--the Song does not teach theological truths, but it illustrates truths found elsewhere in the Bible. This means believers can still sing, “He brought me into his banqueting house, and his banner over me is love” (2:4) to the Lord. That’s using the Song to illustrate a New Testament truth (Luke 14:16; 15:23). However, attempts to use the Song of Songs to establish ‘truths’ not clearly taught in Scripture are illegitimate. For example, Song of Songs does not demonstrate four stages in the believer’s progressive experience of Christ; that is eisegesis—Witness Lee’s teaching imposed on the biblical text. Therefore recent vaunted claims by LSM-adherents that they (in contrast to all other believers) are in the “fourth stage”96 are vacuous, bolstering their Laodicean pride and sectarianism. Applied to the current issue, we conclude that deification--‘Man becoming God--is not a “theological truth taught explicitly elsewhere in the biblical texts.” Contrary to Witness Lee’s claims, ‘man becoming God’ is not taught either by Peter (2 Pet. 1:4), or by John or by any other New Testament writer. Even he concedes that this ‘truth’ was developed later--“The high truth of God becoming a man that man might become God,” he writes, “was discovered by the church fathers in the second century.”97 This statement admits that the notion of man being deified did not originate in the first-century apostles’ teaching later canonized as the New Testament; rather it was a subsequent theological innovation. Like other allegorizers, Witness Lee “claims to have discovered a deeper meaning in the [Song of Songs]—a meaning that is only there because [he] has first inserted it.”98 We conclude that LSM’s extra-biblical deification doctrine cannot be legitimized by an allegorical-typological interpretation of the Song of Songs. Witness Lee’s attempt to do so is “grasping at straws.” Such forced interpretations cause skeptics to conclude that “All things are possible to those who allegorize—and what they come up with is usually heretical.”99

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA.
May 2014.


Notes: As always the views expressed here are those of the author alone. They should not be attributed to the believers, elders or churches with whom he is associated. Thanks are extended to those who commented on earlier drafts.
1. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT (Msgs. 415-436), Ch. 14, Sect. 4, emphasis added. The quote in context reads: “Just as King Solomon became a country man to court a country girl in order to make her his queen, his duplication, God in Christ became a man to court man in order to make man God in life, nature, expression, & function but not in the Godhead, to be Christ's bride (Matt. 9:15; Rev. 19:7; cf. Psa. 45:1-3, 9, 13-14). The Bible reveals that God became a man to court us and that now He wants us to court Him by our becoming divine for His expression through our personal, affectionate, private, and spiritual relationship with Him (S. S. 1:1-8; 2 Cor. 2:10; Exo. 33:11; Rom. 8:4, 6; 1 Cor. 2:15). The Shulammite is a figure of us as the reproduction of Christ, who is the embodiment of God. Thus, the many lovers of Christ eventually will become duplications of God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead. This is the fulfillment of God becoming a man that man might become God, which is the high peak of the divine revelation. The corporate overcomer, the Shulammite, who is the duplication of Solomon, is a figure of the New Jerusalem.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT (Msgs. 415-436), Ch. 14, Sect. 4] W. Lee’s statement that “God...became a man...in order to make man God in life, nature, expression, & function but not in the Godhead” (with a variety of permutations) has been repeated hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times in LSM’s Local Church movement. In what follows we take as given (understood) the qualification—“in life and nature, but not in the Godhead.” Unfortunately LSM’s expositions seldom went beyond repeating this statement to answer the question—“What does this really mean?”
2. Thomas Constable’s notes state that “Another interpretive issue is whether the main characters were real people or composite figures, types of lovers rather than specific individuals. The book presents them as real people, and even most of those who view them as types admit that the characters "seem to take on distinct personalities as we get to know them." (Exum, p. 8.) It has seemed to many interpreters, including me, that the book presents the Shulammite and Solomon as real people.” [Dr. Constable's Notes on the Song of Solomon, (2014 ed.) p. 3]
3. W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 11, Sect. 2
4. The sole exception (that I have found) is W. Lee’s statement (an aside, made in the context of expounding on the “divine romance” as the Bible’s overarching theme). There W. Lee says “Song of Songs is the finest romance. It speaks of two people who fall in love. Although I do not like to use this term, ‘fall in love,’ I cannot deny the fact...In Song of Songs...we see the genuine marriage life. What is the secret of such a romance? The secret is that the wife must take her husband not only as her life and her living, but as her person.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Romans, Ch. 1, Sect. 2] Note that the context in which W. Lee made this comment is his expounding on the “divine romance,” when introducing the Life-Study of Romans. It was not part of a detailed exposition of the Song of Songs.
5. We will not discuss here the history of allegorizing (in general), nor the problems associated with this approach. The interested reader is referred to the author’s piece, “Against LSM’s Allegorizing...” The following note briefly addresses the history of allegorical interpretations of Solomon’s Song of Songs.
6. W. Lee stands in a long line of allegorical-typological interpretations of the Song of Songs. That line begins with Jewish literature. Regarding Song of Songs’ interpretation in Judaism, Solomon Freehof writes: “As revealed in numerous talmudic passages, in the Targum & in the Midrash, Song of Songs is interpreted as referring to God's love for Israel. This interpretation... soon became official [in Judaism]...Anyone quoting verses from the Song of Songs giving them the literal meaning was declared a heretic who had forfeited his portion in Paradise. This symbolic interpretation of the book was, with some re-interpretation, carried over into Christianity & there, too, it became official.”—Solomon B. Freehof [Jewish Quarterly Review, 1949] The Jewish Targum interprets Song of Songs as a picture of the history of Israel beginning with the Exodus to Messiah’s coming. Anchoring Song of Songs with the Exodus may explain why the Song of Songs is read at the yearly Feast of Passover. [J. Paul Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, p. 27] Origen, the ‘Prince of Allegorizers’ expounded the Song extensively. After him, “Jerome (331-420), who produced the Latin Vulgate, praised Origen and embraced most of his views. As a result, Jerome was instrumental in introducing the allegorical interpretation into the Western churches. Bernard of Clairvaux (1909-1153) preached 86 sermons on the Song of Songs, covering only the first two Chapters. He was given to obsessive allegorical interpretation in an attempt to purge it of any suggestion of "carnal lust." Many others throughout church history approached the book allegorically, including John Wesley, Matthew Henry, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil, and H. A. Ironside [plus Watchman Nee & Witness Lee]. The allegorical approach looks for a deeper symbolism behind the story. It becomes irrelevant whether the Song of Songs narrative is based upon an actual historical account. This allegorical approach was the dominant view through 20 centuries of Church history. The “king’s chambers” (1:4) means those whom Christ has brought into His Church. The woman’s breasts (4:5) are the Old & New Covenants; the “hill of frankincense” (4:6) the height to which those believers who crucify fleshly desires are brought. [J. Paul Tanner, “The History of Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, p. 27] A. B. Simpson & J. Hudson Taylor also interpreted it allegorically. Regarding Hudson Taylor, Dr. G. Wright Doyle writes, “Taylor used both allegory & typology in interpreting and expounding the Scriptures. His exposition of The Song of Songs furnishes the best example of his allegorical exegesis, & is thoroughly in line with the most common treatments of this Old Testament book, from the 3rd century to the 19th century. For him, such an allegorical reading found support from clear Old & New Testament references to Yahweh/Christ as the husband or bridegroom of his people, but Taylor also found spiritual meaning in many details of the Song of Songs... The ‘incarnate Word is the true key to the written Word,’ he said at the outset of his book on the Songs of Songs, which he considered to be a picture of the relationship between the risen Christ and the true disciple in this age.” [Dr. G. Wright Doyle, Bible in Hudson Taylor’s Life & Mission, Part I Dr. Doyle’s Review of Christopher E.M. Wigram, The Bible & Mission in Faith Perspective: J. Hudson Taylor & the Early China Inland Mission. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2007. www.Global China Center.com]
7. W. Lee defines “the four stages of spiritual experience in this book [Song of Songs as]: [1] the stage of pursuit, [2] the stage of the cross, [3] the stage of ascension, and [4] the stage of living in the Holy of Holies.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 20, Sect. 2] Elsewhere he describes the “fourth stage” as “to live in the sanctuary with the veil dealt with all the time that we may be one with the Triune God, who is our sanctuary, to have the top enjoyment in the Divine Trinity.” [W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of Song of Songs, Ch. 12, Sect. 3] Note that W. Lee relates the “4th stage “ to the rapture, saying, when “we will live within the veil, in the Holy of Holies, which is just God Himself. This is the highest stage in the experience of the lover of Christ as presented in Song of Songs. When we reach such a stage, we will have nothing to do but to wait and hope for rapture.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 17, Sect. 1, emphasis added] He also writes, “Progress begins with...Christ's lovers' being drawn to pursue Him for satisfaction, [and] continues through the following stages of (1) their being called to be delivered from the self through the oneness with the cross, (2) their being called to live in ascension as the new creation in resurrection, (3) their being called more strongly to live within the veil through the cross after resurrection, & (4) their sharing in the work of the Lord, & ends with the last stage of their hoping to be raptured.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 19, Sect. 2]
8. Song of Songs 1:1 note 1, RcV. This extended note begins, “Song of Songs is a history of love in an excellent marriage, a story of love between the wise King Solomon, the writer of this book, and the Shulummite (6:13), a girl from the country-side. As such this book is a marvellous and vivid portrait in poetic form of the bridal love between Christ as the bridegroom and His lovers as His bride...unveiling the progressive experience of an individual believer’s loving fellowship with Christ in four stages.” The four successive stages, W. Lee defines as follows: “The first [stage] is the attracting and pursuing stage. The second is the stage of experiencing the cross, dealing with our “I,” with our self. The third stage is to live in the heavenlies to be God's new creation in resurrection. The last [fourth] stage is to live in the sanctuary with the veil dealt with all the time that we may be one with the Triune God, who is our sanctuary, to have the top enjoyment in the Divine Trinity.” [W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of Song of Songs, Ch. 12, Sect. 3]
9. Despite the obvious fact that this doctrine derives from Athanasius & Orthodox ‘church fathers,’ W. Lee claims that he derived this insight directly from Scripture. He says, “I have not been influenced by any teaching about deification, but I have learned from my study of the Bible that God does intend to make the believers God.” Yet, we note that this statement immediately follows a quote from Athanasius! W. Lee says, “Athanasius referred to deification when at the council of Nicea in A.D. 325 he said, ‘He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God.’ I have not been influenced by any teaching about deification, but I have learned from my study of the Bible that God does intend to make the believers God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead.” [Life-Study of 1 & 2 Samuel, Ch. 25, Sect. 2]
10. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT (Msgs. 415-436), Ch. 14, Sect. 4, emphasis added. W. Lee uses these phrases involving—deify, divinize, duplications of God--interchangeably. For e.g. he states that “In our spiritual breathing by the exercise of our spirit, we enjoy, receive, and absorb the divine substance with the divine essence, the divine element, and the divine expression. This will cause us to be deified... The New Jerusalem is a composition of God's chosen, redeemed, regenerated, sanctified, transformed, & glorified people who have been deified. On God's side, the Triune God has been incarnated to be a man; on our side, we are being deified...” [W. Lee, Life-study of Job, Ch. 22, Sect. 2, p. 122, emphasis added]. He says, “We are becoming sons of God with divinity, being ‘divinized’ in our humanity through the metabolic process of transformation...”[W. Lee, Crystallization-Study Outlines—Building of God, Ch. 1, Sect. 12, emphasis added] Plus “The more we grow in life...the more we are designated the sons of God to be deified...” [W. Lee, Crystallization-Study Outlines—Building of God, Ch. 1, Sect. 12, emphasis added] “The God whom we are pursuing is making us His duplication; for God to make us His duplication means that He makes us His dwelling place, His Holy of Holies—Rev. 21:16. The lovers of Christ eventually become duplications of God in life and nature but not in the Godhead; this is the fulfillment of God becoming man that man might become God—the high peak of the divine revelation.” [W. Lee, Crystallization-Study Outlines—Building of God, Ch. 1, Sect. 3] “The Shulammite is a figure of us as the reproduction of Christ, who is the embodiment of God. Thus, the many lovers of Christ eventually will become duplications of God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead. This is the fulfillment of God becoming a man that man might become God, which is the high peak of the divine revelation.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 415-436), Ch. 14, Sect. 4, emphasis added]
11. W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 11, Sect. 2
12. W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of Song of Songs, Ch. 9, Sect. 1, see also note 1 to Song of Songs 1:1, RcV.
13. The Song’s lyrics read: “How could a country girl like me/ Become Your match, Your bride to be?/ You’re holy and You are divine/ But I’m fallen and human.” Chorus #1 [The man] reads: “This divine romance/ Is My heart’s deep plan/ I became a lowly man/ To court My country girl.” [Howard Higashi, Long Beach Song Tapes, 1980s] In one of those rare episodes of creativity, the “Long Beach Song Tapes” were widely distributed among Local Churches in the 1980s. That episode came to an abrupt end when LSM’s “One Publication” edict was issued. In a bizarre spectacle Howard Higashi and Dick Taylor, elders of the Church in Long Beach, CA., responded by publicly apologizing for the distribution & sale of the Long Beach Song Tapes.
14. LSM, Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God, Ch. 13, Sect. 5. It is a “sanitized” version of Song of Songs, in that it omits all mention of physical iterations between the Shulammite girl & her “beloved” shepherd. One difficulty worth noting concerns the statement, “Their mother had at least 2 sons and 2 daughters; the 2 daughters were the Shulamite and her younger sister (1:6; 8:8). However, in Song of Songs 6:9 the leading man says the Shulammite is “My dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the only one of her mother” (6:9) Does he mean “only child,” “only daughter,” or something else?
15. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy (p. 178) quoted by Bobbie Wolgemuth (ed.) NCV Mom's Bible: God's Wisdom for Mothers, p. 68. The ESV Study Bible notes also observe that “polygamy is horribly dehumanizing for women, for it does not treat them as equal in value to their husbands, and therefore it does not recognize that they share fully in the high status of being created ‘in the image of God’ (Gen. 1:27) and of being worthy of honor as ‘heirs with you of the grace of life’ (1 Pet. 3:7).” [“Polygamy,” ESV Study Bible Notes] The Bible establishes the God-ordained norm of monogamy--one husband, one wife--in the Genesis account of Eve’s formation. Dr. T. Desmond Alexander states that “It is...important to observe that God creates only one Eve for Adam, not several Eves or another Adam. This points to heterosexual monogamy as the divine pattern for marriage that God established at creation.” [T. Desmond Alexander, ESV Study Bible note on Gen. 2:23-24, emphasis added]
16. Recall that W. Lee states, “This book [Song of Songs] is a poem of the history of love in an excellent marriage. It is a romance of the highest standard. The entire Bible is a romance, a love story, of God ‘falling in love’ with man. Song of Songs is a history of the wise King Solomon, the writer of this book, with the Shulammite, a girl of the countryside.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 11, Sect. 2, emphasis added]
17. One source which recognizes the paradox notes that, “Solomon is called king several times in the Song [of Songs] -- which has led to endless confusion as to its dating, authorship and subject matter. This is largely because the romance in the Song itself seems taken out of context. Solomon's romantic interests are never mentioned in the royal chronicles [i.e. OT history books]. His implied right to Abishag the Shulamite (technically his father's concubine), his political marriage to Pharaoh's daughter, his reception of the Queen of Sheba, & his royal harem (according to one source, the third largest in recorded history) are all mentioned -- but never his attachment in true Love to any of these women. Shulamith [--mite], overtly, seems to fits nowhere into Solomon's regal sexuality.” [Song of Songs Revealed, Ch. 6]
18. G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries) p. 109. Dr. Carr (Ph. D., Boston University) is professor of biblical & theological studies & chairman of the division of humanities at Gordon College in Massachusetts.
19. This view is represented by I. A. Mott, Wisdom & Poetry, Study Guide VI., for example
20. [blank]
21. Othmar Keel, Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, p. 11. From 1958-1964 Othmar Keel studied Hebrew, history of religion, theology, exegesis in Zurich, Rome & Fribourg, Switzerland; 1964-1967. In 1967 he received his doctorate in theology in Fribourg, Switzerland.
22. Richard S. Hess, Song of Songs (Baker Commentary on the OT) 2005. Richard S. Hess (Ph.D., Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Denver Seminary, Denver CO.
23. C. John Collins, Introduction to Song of Solomon, ESV Study Bible (Crossway) p. 1211.
24. Richard S. Hess, Song of Songs, p. 124.
25. C. John Collins, Introduction to Song of Solomon, ESV Study Bible, p. 1213.
26. C. John Collins, Introduction to Song of Solomon, ESV Study Bible, p. 1213. Along these lines, Douglas Sean O’Donnell says “After the word ‘wedding’ is used in 3:11 (as the wedding day of Solomon is used as a foil), the word ‘bride’ is used of the young woman 6 times in the next 17 verses.” (Douglas Sean O’Donnell, Earth Is Crammed with Heaven: Four Guideposts to Reading & Teaching the Song of Songs, Themelios, Vol. 37, Issue. 1, April 2012, emphasis added). O’Donnell also suggests that “Solomon wrote this Song...in his old age...as an act of contrition. In...view of his idolatrous, polygamous relationships that led his heart away from the Lord and away from sexual purity and marital intimacy, [Solomon] sets himself up as the foil in this Song. Thus, he writes this greatest of his songs in a distant ‘self-deprecating tone’ to say..., ‘Listen, on this matter of marriage, do as I say, not as I did."...He says, ‘Don't emulate my love life. Emulate theirs-this imaginary (or real?) couple. Emulate their simple, monogamous, faithful, passionate love for each other’." (Douglas Sean O’Donnell, Earth Is Crammed with Heaven: Four Guideposts to Reading & Teaching the Song of Songs, Themelios, Vol. 37, Issue. 1, April 2012, emphasis added) But note that neither the Song, nor Scripture, indicate that Solomon wrote this ‘in his old age as an act of contrition.’
27. Sherwood Eliot Wirt writes “Once it is recognized that the Song was written not by but to Solomon, and that it does not concern him but a mere shepherd and a country girl who view themselves as royal figures, the puzzle as to the meaning of the book is solved. The extravagant language is that of love poetry and is not to be taken literally when it refers to Solomon and to royalty.” [Sherwood Eliot Wirt, "Some New Thoughts about the Song of Solomon.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), vol. 33, #4 (1990) pp. 433-436.]
28. C. John Collins, Introduction to Song of Solomon, ESV Study Bible, p. 1214.
29. John Phillips, Exploring the Song of Solomon, p. 9
30. [blank]
31. W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 17, Sect. 3. We note that Watchman Nee makes a similar point. He says, “[Song of Songs 6] v. 8 says, ‘There are 60 queens, and 80 concubines, and virgins without number.’ All these people are related to Solomon. In the world, this may be evil, but spiritually, this presents a beautiful picture to those who understand spiritual types. Our Lord is gaining the whole church with all the believers. Corporately speaking, the Lamb has only one wife. But individually speaking, He has many lovers. Some are like queens, some are like concubines, while others are like virgins...Solomon typifies Christ taking individual believers.” (Watchman Nee, Song of Songs, Ch. 4, Sect. 12) However, the fact that W. Nee endorses this interpretation does not make it biblical.
32. W. Lee, Life-Study of Psalms, Ch. 21, Sect. 2. W. Lee also points out the first incident of polygamy in Scripture. He says, Lamech “was a powerful person. Having two wives, he practiced polygamy (Gen. 4:19). Thus, polygamy began in the city of Enoch in the land of Nod, which means ‘wandering.’ Lamech practiced polygamy in order to fulfill his lusts. Polygamy is a violation of the natural law ordained by God for man's existence. Marriage is necessary for human existence. However, marriage must be limited according to the principle of one wife for one husband.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Ch. 24, Sect. 5]
33. W. Lee, Life-Study of Psalms, Ch. 21, Sect. 2, emphasis added. Note that W. Lee is expounding Psalm 45 which he links with Song of Songs. W. Lee’s point concerning Solomon’s many wives applies equally to Song of Songs, since he interprets both as describing King Solomon. Psalm 45 is entitled “...a song of love” (heading, RcV) The RcV notes concerning this says, “The Hebrew word [‘love’] is feminine, indicating that the love here is that between a male and a female. According to Song of Songs 1:14-15, Christ is our Beloved and we are His love.” [W. Lee, Psalm 45 (heading) note *** RcV.] W. Lee also writes “Psalm 45 is a praise to Christ the King, who is typified by Solomon.” [W. Lee, Psalm 45:1, note 1, RcV.] Hence according to W. Lee, Christ is typified by Solomon in both Psalm 45 and Song of Songs. We address W. Lee’s analysis of Psalm 45 in another article. In the present context, we note that other expositors take Psalm 45 as applicable to any king in David’s line, and hence not necessarily to Solomon in particular. For e.g. C. John Collins states that “This [Psalm 45] is a hymn celebrating a royal wedding; as the title says, it is a ‘love song.’ It is impossible to be sure for which king in David’s line the song was first composed, but it does not matter; after 2 Sam. 7:11-16, the line of David was the appointed channel through which God would bless his people and carry out his mission to the whole world. The psalm has sometimes been taken as directly messianic, because Heb. 1:8-9 cites Psalm 45:6-7, applying the verses to Christ.” [C. John Collins, ESV Study Bible note on Psalm 45]
34. W. Lee, Life-Study of Psalms, Ch. 21, Sect. 4
35. The Mormon Scriptures approve Joseph Smith Jr.’s polygamy, saying “Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph [Smith Jr. ]; for I will justify him;...saith the Lord your God. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.” [The Doctrine & Covenants, Section 132, “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843...”] One Mormon history recounts that, “The story of Joseph Smith's documented marriages after wedding Emma [his first wife] in 1827 opens in April 1841 [in Nauvoo, Illinois] and ends some thirty-seven wives later with his marriage to Fanny Young in November 1843.” The Mormon doctrine approving plural wives [polygamy] was officially announced by Orson Pratt & Brigham Young, Joseph Smith Jr.'s successor, at the Mormon Tabernacle, in Utah on August 28, 1852. It remained in effect until 1890. Some Mormon splinter groups continue to practice polygamy (“multiple wives”).
36. Historically the “destructive effects” of polygamy are evidenced in the lives of Mormon leaders like Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, etc. More generally, Lowell C. Bennion and others examined the incidence of polygamy among Mormons in 1880. They found that on the average, perhaps 20 to 25% of adults married polygamously. (Lowell Bennion, "The Incidence of Mormon Polygamy in 1880: Dixie versus Davis State," Journal of Mormon History, vol. 11 (1984) pp. 27–42). Smith & Kunz (1976) found that 28% of the males in their sample of 19th century Utah Mormons had more than one wife. (James Smith & Phillip Kunz, “Polygyny & Fertility in 19th-century America.” Population Studies, vol. 30 (1976) pp. 465-480.) William Volf concludes that it was males “in the Mormon Church hierarchy...who were also the primary benefactors of the practice of polygamy.” (William Volf, “Mormon Polygamy in the 19th-century...” 1999) In 2011, 55-year-old Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter day Saints (FLDS), (who reportedly had 70 or 80 ‘wives’) was sentenced by a Texas, US court to life in prison plus 20 years, to be served consecutively for the sexual assault of two of his child-brides, 12- & 15-year-old girls. Winston Blackmore is the ‘bishop’ of a Canadian branch of the FLDS Church, a polygamist community centered in Bountiful, BC. In Jan. 2009 Blackmore & another leader were charged by the RCMP with polygamy (charges were thrown out on technical grounds.) As of June 30, 2010, Blackmore had married 25 times & had a total of 121 children. The polygamous marriage of Utah Mormons has also been the subject of a ‘Reality TV’ series, Sister Wives, featured on TLC.
37. Douglas Sean O’Donnell, Earth Is Crammed with Heaven: Four Guideposts to Reading & Teaching the Song of Songs, Themelios, Vol. 37, Issue. 1, April 2012
38. J. Paul Tanner, “...Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, p. 34, emphasis added
39. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., F. F. Bruce (eds.) Hard Sayings of the Bible, p. 298. Dr. Kaiser, a well-known OT scholar, was the Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament & former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, MA. He retired June 30, 2006.
40. [blank]
41. J. Paul Tanner, “The Message of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April-June 1997, p. 159. Dr. Tanner has a ThM (Master of Theology) degree with honors from Dallas Theological Seminary, TX., majoring in Hebrew and Old Testament studies. In 1990 he was awarded the PhD degree in Middle Eastern Studies with a concentration in Hebrew literature & culture from the University of Texas.
42. J. Paul Tanner, “...Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, p. 39
43. J. Paul Tanner, “The Message of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April-June 1997, p. 144
44. J. Paul Tanner, “The Message of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April-June 1997, p. 161
45. C. John Collins, ESV Study Bible, footnotes on Song of Solomon. C. John Collins is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary. He has a PhD in Biblical Hebrew linguistics from the School of Archaeology & Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, UK
46. Calvin Seerveld, The Greatest Song: In Critique of Solomon, (1963/67) p. 63, emphasis added. Dr. Earned a PhD at the Free University (VU) in Amsterdam. He is Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, Canada.
47. J. Paul Tanner, “The Message of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April-June 1997, pp. 160-1
48. Benjamin J. Segal, Song of Songs: A Woman in Love, p. 156. Rabbi Benjamin J. Segal is an author & lecturer, living in Jerusalem, past president both of Melitz, the Centers for Jewish & Zionist Education, & the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies. His books include The Song of Songs: A Woman in Love
49. D. W. deVilliers, "Not for Sale! Solomon & Sexual Perversion in the Song of Songs” Old Testament Essays, Vol. 3 (#3) (1990) pp. 317-324.
50. [blank]
51. J. Paul Tanner, “The Message of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April-June 1997, pp. 160-1
52. J. Paul Tanner, “The Message of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April-June 1997, p. 161
53. W. Lee, Life-Study of Psalms, Ch. 21, Sect. 2
54. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT (Msgs. 415-436), Ch. 14, Sect. 4
55. W. Lee, 3 Aspects of the Church: Book 1, Meaning of the Church, Ch. 9, Sect. 1
56. W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 18, Sect. 1
57. J. Paul Tanner, “...Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, pp. 31-2 (quoting G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon, p. 24)
58. J. Paul Tanner, “...Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, pp. 32-3
59. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 1053.
60. [blank]
61. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology
62. Othmar Keel, Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, p. 8
63. J. Paul Tanner, “...Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, p. 30
64. W. Lee, On Knowing the Bible, Ch. 4, Sect. 5
65. J. Paul Tanner, “...Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Jan.-Mar. 1997, pp. 32-3
66. Othmar Keel, Song of Songs: Continental Commentary, p. 7
67. W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of Song of Songs, Ch. 1, Sect. 1, emphasis added
68. W. Lee, Song of Songs 6:13 note 1, RcV.
69. W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 18, Sect. 1
70. [blank]
71. H. H. Rowley, "The Meaning of the Shulamite" in American Journal of Semitic Languages & Literature, vol. 56, pp. 84-91. Cited by Benjamin J. Segal, Song of Songs: A Woman in Love, p. 151
72. W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of Song of Songs, Ch. 12, Sect. 3
73. T. Desmond Alexander, ESV Study Bible note on Gen. 2:18. Dr. Alexander is Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Union Theological College, Belfast, N. Ireland, UK.
74. Phyllis Trible quoted by Richard M. Davidson, “Theology of Sexuality in the Song of Songs: Return to Eden,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1989, Vol. 27, No. 1, p. 5, emphasis added
75. This topic deserves to addressed in more detail. What follows should be considered as preliminary observations.
76. James Starr, Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification? p. 85, emphasis added
77. Richard J. Bauckham, Commentary on 1-2 Peter, Jude. Prof Richard Bauckham was, until 2007, Professor of NT Studies in the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK. He has since retired and is senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, UK.
78. Thomas R. Schreiner, First, Second Peter, Jude pp. 294-5, emphasis added. Dr. Schreiner is professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.
79. James Starr, Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification? p. 84, emphasis original. He also says, “A constellation of ideas is identified in 2 Peter 1:1—11 that informs the meaning of ‘sharers in divine nature.’ By faith a person gains knowledge of Christ, which grants to the Christ-believer two distinct but inseparable divine attributes: the moral excellence of Christ, exhibited with progressive clarity by the Christian, and...the immortality of Christ, with an escape from the decay caused by desire. The parousia [Christ’s return] consummates the Christ-believer’s share in both aspects of divine nature.” (James M. Starr, Sharers in Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4 in Its Hellenistic Context. Abstract) Dr. Starr teaches at Johannelund in Uppsala, Sweden.
80. [blank]
81. W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Samuel, Ch. 25, Sect. 2, pp. 166-167. Along the same lines W. Lee says “We have seen that Athanasius said, ‘He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God.’ This means that as God's children we are ‘baby gods,’ having the life & nature of God but not the Godhead.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Samuel, Ch. 28, Sect. 3]
82. On the theme of ‘baby gods,” W. Lee says, “If a cat begets kittens, those kittens are baby cats. In the same way, God begot us to make us the sons of God. To make us the sons of God is to make us ‘baby gods,’ having God’s life and nature but not His Godhead. In life, in nature, and in expression we are the same as He is, because we are born of Him. Thus, we are not only the children of God, we are not only the sons of God, we are not only the heirs of God, but we are also the ‘baby gods’.” [W. Lee, Issue of the Dispensing of the Processed Trinity & the Transmitting of the Transcending Christ, Chapter 2, pp. 25-26, emphasis added]
83. Colin G. Kruse, Gospel according to John: An Introduction & Commentary, p. 67, Marianne M. Thompson makes the same point, see Marianne Meye Thompson, God of the Gospel of John, p. 70
84. W. Lee, Move of God in Man, Message 2, pp. 20-21, emphasis added.
85. R. S. Clarke, “Song of Songs: A Brief Guide to Some Secondary Literature,” ECCLESIA REFORMANDA Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 170-1
86. See Epiphanius, Panarion LXXX.9, the great fourth-century compendium, where the 80 heresies (including Donatism) are said to correspond to the eighty concubines of Solomon. ‎[Mark J. Edwards, Saint Optatus (Bishop of Mileve), p. 9]
87. Roger N. Shuff, Searching for the true Church: Brethren & Evangelicals in Mid-20th Century England, (2005) p. 72
88. The phrase is from G.E. Wright, God Who Acts, SBT, 8 (1952), p. 66. It is quoted by Bernard W. Anderson who writes: “Typology is regarded, even by those who stress the unity of the Bible, as a ‘dangerous exercise.’ When employed to show the Christo-centric unity of the Bible, it may— and often does—impose an artificial unity upon Scripture and frequently results in an over-interpretation of the Old Testament.” [Bernard W. Anderson, Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah, Ch. 12 of B. Anderson & W. Harrelson, eds., Israel's Prophetic Heritage, 1962. pp. 178-9, emphasis added]
89. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT (Msgs. 415-436), Ch. 14, Sect. 4
90. [blank]
91. W. Lee, Life-Study of Psalms, Ch. 21, Sect. 4
92. Roger N. Shuff (cited above), refers to the Plymouth Brethren’s “extensive use of typology, analogy, and allegory in the interpretation of the Old Testament…Typology [that] provided ‘a happy hunting ground’ for adherents of narrow doctrines’ which could not be supported from the New Testament.” [Roger N. Shuff, Searching for the true Church: Brethren & Evangelicals in Mid-20th Century England, (2005) p. 72, emphasis indicates portion quoted in the main text.] LSM’s Local Church follows the Brethren in this regard.
93. John MacArthur Study Bible
94. R. S. Clarke, “Song of Songs: Brief Guide to Some Secondary Literature,” ECCLESIA REFORMANDA Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 172, emphasis added.
95. Daniel Estes, "Song of Songs" in Ecclesiastes & the Song of Songs (IVP, 2010) p. 299 quoted by R. S. Clarke, “Song of Songs: Brief Guide to Some Secondary Literature,” ECCLESIA REFORMANDA Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 178, emphasis added. In context the quote says, “the literal meaning is at the level of human relationships, [yet] ‘the Song in addition to its literal meaning also yields legitimate theological and ethical significance that illustrates truths taught explicitly elsewhere in the biblical texts,” quoted by R. S Clark, who then explains, “that is, the Song itself does not teach such theological or ethical truths, but it illustrates those found elsewhere.” R. S. Clarke, “Song of Songs: Brief Guide to Some Secondary Literature,” ECCLESIA REFORMANDA Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 178, emphasis added
96. The assertion that they’ve arrived at the “4th stage” means LSM-adherents are fully mature & “have nothing to do but to wait...for rapture”! W. Lee defines “the four stages of spiritual experience in this book [Song of Songs as]: [1] the stage of pursuit, [2] the stage of the cross, [3] the stage of ascension, and [4] the stage of living in the Holy of Holies.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 20, Sect. 2] Elsewhere he describes the “fourth stage” as “to live in the sanctuary with the veil dealt with all the time that we may be one with the Triune God, who is our sanctuary, to have the top enjoyment in the Divine Trinity.” [W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of Song of Songs, Ch. 12, Sect. 3] Note that W. Lee relates the “4th stage “ to the rapture, saying, when “we will live within the veil, in the Holy of Holies, which is just God Himself. This is the highest stage in the experience of the lover of Christ as presented in Song of Songs. When we reach such a stage, we will have nothing to do but to wait and hope for rapture.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs, Ch. 17, Sect. 1, emphasis added] In Experience of Life, W. Lee also presents 4 stages, which he defines: “According to our experience, the first four stages may be designated as follows: the first stage may be called the salvation stage; the second, the revival stage; the third, the stage of the cross; and the fourth, the stage of spiritual warfare. But according to our relationship with Christ, these four stages should be designated in this way: the first stage; in Christ; the second, abiding in Christ; the third, Christ abiding in us; and the fourth, Christ fully grown in us. The experiences of these four stages are based on our relationship with Christ.” [W. Lee, Experience of Life, Ch. 0, Sect. 1] Again the “4th stage” is related to rapture: W. Lee says, “When the life of a Christian reaches this [fourth] stage, every part of his being comes to maturity. He is waiting to be raptured to enter into glory with Christ.” [W. Lee, Experience of Life, Ch. 19, Sect. 4, emphasis added] Clearly W. Lee relates these two sets of “four stages,” especially the “fourth stage.” It is also common knowledge that the teaching of “four stages in the experience of life” produced ‘spiritual elitism’ among Local Church believers in the Far East (e.g. Taiwan) —“I’m in the 4th stage. What stage are you in?”
97. W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, & Esther, Ch. 26, Sect. 1
98. Othmar Keel, Song of Songs: Continental Commentary, p. 7
99. Warren W. Wiersbe, “Song of Solomon,” Bible Exposition Commentary/Wisdom & Poetry, p. 542

[UntoHim]

Witness Lee asserts that, in Solomon’s case, typology trumps ethics, metaphor trumps morality; typology requires a King with 700 wives, plus 300 concubines, even though Scripture condemns such flagrant polygamy! As a result, he declares that in Solomon, the promiscuous polygamist, “we have a strange and wonderful type of Christ—the type of a man with hundreds of wives...This symbol is a matter not of ethics but of typology

Very keen observation by Nigel. "Typology trumps ethics, metaphor trumps morality". This is a very common theme in the ministry of Witness Lee - Ethics, morality, behavioral standards, etc all get left on the back burner, and usually at great cost to the Church's testimony of Christ before other believers and unbelievers alike. It is this kind of mentality that evil and corrupt men, even so-called "men of God", use to justify all manner of sinful behavior. The reasoning goes something like "Well even King David had a little skip up there with Bathsheba, and look, God even let David marry her!".

But God will not be mocked. Even though we are now in "the age of grace", God still expects his people to present a testimony before the world. In fact, since the testimony is to be shining stronger, brighter and clearer, the standard and the stakes are much higher. Luke 12:48 comes to mind "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."

I think we can site a recent example in the downfall of the mega-church pastor Bob Coy. A lot was given to this man, including to be an ethical and moral example to the flock. Thankfully, Coy and some of the church leaders he surrounded himself with did put some kind of safeguards in place, so that if any of the leaders fell into sin (even the founder) he would be exposed and removed. What if such safeguards had been put in place in the Local Church movement from the beginnings? I believe, if they had been in place, we would not be here on this forum today. But let's face it, it was very near impossible (really impossible) for anyone around Witness Lee to even propose, much less implement any such safeguards. One cannot propose such a thing to "the acting god", for such a one is really nothing more, and nothing less than a type of Christ as the leader and head of God's people.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Very keen observation by Nigel. "Typology trumps ethics, metaphor trumps morality". This is a very common theme in the ministry of Witness Lee - Ethics, morality, behavioral standards, etc all get left on the back burner, and usually at great cost to the Church's testimony of Christ before other believers and unbelievers alike. It is this kind of mentality that evil and corrupt men, even so-called "men of God", use to justify all manner of sinful behavior. The reasoning goes something like "Well even King David had a little skip up there with Bathsheba, and look, God even let David marry her!".

Tellingly, "typology trumps ethics" was only used where it is convenient in the LSM oeuvre. Elsewhere ethics and morality over-rode typology. I am thinking specifically of Lee's teachings on Psalms: there, the writers' affirmations of obedience to God's commands were dismissed perfunctorily by him. "They sinned", he said, and therefore their Godly aspirations weren't "God-breathed scripture" and profitable for teaching, but instead the fallen ruminations of mortal men. Lee liked to have things both ways, and would apply a rule only so far as it was convenient to his exposition. Elsewhere the same interpretive rule would be ignored or even overturned.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee liked to have things both ways, and would apply a rule only so far as it was convenient to his exposition. Elsewhere the same interpretive rule would be ignored or even overturned.

Same can be said for the blendeds. Certain ones cling to the doctrine and teachings of deputy authority and delegated authority, but don't want brothers and sisters to function as prophets whenever the Lord leads them to. As we read in thge Old Testament, the role of the prophets often were in contradiction to the kings.
As an anaology to have it both ways would be as if Saul not having Samuel or David not having Nathan. It is convenient and expedient not to have a balancing word from the role of the prophet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nigel.Tomes

“King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, & Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said...’You shall not enter into marriage with them...’ [Yet] Solomon clung to these in love. He had 700 wives...& 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart...” (1 Kings 11:1-4) Clearly Solomon violated God’s law. He was a promiscuous polygamist, with 1,000 consorts, a harem of historic proportions.

How can a man have 700 wives and 300 more in his harem? Did Solomon really marry all 700 of them? If Solomon had an elaborate wedding every other week (no small feat even for a king), giving each wife a two week honeymoon, it would take close to 28 years to accomplish this task. Did he actually sleep with every one of his wives? Just try to visualize the ramifications of such an earthly endeavor. And what about all those other girls at his disposal (300 of them)?

This is just simply mind boggling. I realize Solomon got a few more smarts than I do, but I can't even remember the names of 700 women, let alone love them and marry them. Do Bible writers ever exaggerate? Anybody know how many kids Solomon had?

-- overwhelmed in ohio

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Terry

Same can be said for the blendeds. Certain ones cling to the doctrine and teachings of deputy authority and delegated authority, but don't want brothers and sisters to function as prophets whenever the Lord leads them to. As we read in thge Old Testament, the role of the prophets often were in contradiction to the kings.
As an anaology to have it both ways would be as if Saul not having Samuel or David not having Nathan. It is convenient and expedient not to have a balancing word from the role of the prophet.

I am quite certain that over the years the Lord has sent a number of "Nathans" to both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. We cannot know this directly from Nee or Lee since they have both passed on....but maybe we can "follow the breadcrumbs" and retrace back to certain events. And I am not talking about outside Christian apologists, movement detractors and the like, I am talking about a Nathan being raised up from within the group, just as it was with the case of Nathan and David.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am quite certain that over the years the Lord has sent a number of "Nathans" to both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. We cannot know this directly from Nee or Lee since they have both passed on....but maybe we can "follow the breadcrumbs" and retrace back to certain events. And I am not talking about outside Christian apologists, movement detractors and the like, I am talking about a Nathan being raised up from within the group, just as it was with the case of Nathan and David.

Absolutely!

John Ingalls' account Speaking The Truth In Love is evidence that he was a "Nathan" sent by God to Witness Lee, and in many ways, the most qualified one in all the Recovery to be such a "Nathan."

Besides Ingalls, there were also many others.

For many years, Titus Chu convinced his many followers that he alone was such a prophet in the Recovery, and not a man-pleasing sycophant to WL like all the others, but the record of history has proven to us otherwise.

[zeek]

I don't know why anyone would challenge Witness Lee's assumptions. I mean after all doesn't every man who ever got married want a wife who is a duplication of himself as Lee says Solomon wanted his wife to be and Christ wants his church to be? No possible question arises about that proposition. How did I keep my seat through such absurdities? Shame on me. Aaron might know if the idea that a wife is a duplication is characteristically Asian. Whatever. I dare say even a Tea Party Republican might find it offensive. One has to be pretty numb to be a sister in the Local Church and sit through this sort of inanity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know why anyone would challenge Witness Lee's assumptions. I mean after all doesn't every man who ever got married want a wife who is a duplication of himself as Lee says Solomon wanted his wife to be and Christ wants his church to be? No possible question arises about that proposition. How did I keep my seat through such absurdities? Shame on me. Aaron might know if the idea that a wife is a duplication is characteristically Asian. Whatever. I dare say even a Tea Party Republican might find it offensive. One has to be pretty numb to be a sister in the Local Church and sit through this sort of inanity.

Strange things happen when you give control of your life to a man.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Strange things happen when you give control of your life to a man.

My Local Church experience fueled my skepticism. Having accepted so much canard, how could I ever trust my own judgment again?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Strange things happen when you give control of your life to a man.

I think every man on earth ought to give control of his life to another man. The difficulty lies in finding one who is qualified to be your ruler. To date, I have only found one man who has deserved that right to be another man's ruler.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

One has to be pretty numb to be a sister in the Local Church and sit through this sort of inanity.

Since you threw it out there, I'll have to lay my neck and state my observations and observations of others. That being wives of elders and deacons conspicuously absent during prophesying meetings if not the entire Lord's Day meetings. Hypothetically, is it it because sisters see through the charade? Having spent decades in the local churches, they see the change from Antioch to Jersusalem; the change from a local church to a ministry church. A change that no longer meets the need of the locality.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know why anyone would challenge Witness Lee's assumptions.

Not to mention his lies to "the Recovery";

"The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but its content was edited afterward by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of that book includes personal testimonies from over thirty brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I have spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here. I hope that you brothers who have come to attend this conference will not mention it anymore. It does not deserve any more mentioning."

Message given 4/18/90 from The Mysteries of God's New Testament Economy page 11.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

My Local Church experience fueled my skepticism.

I habored skepticism since 1978 whenever I heard the term rebellion. Of course within the teaching of submitting to your elders; I believed since no one seems to agree with me, I must be wrong.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am quite certain that over the years the Lord has sent a number of "Nathans" to both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. We cannot know this directly from Nee or Lee since they have both passed on....but maybe we can "follow the breadcrumbs" and retrace back to certain events.

Based on Herald Hsu's testimony, he seems to indicate Theodore Austin Sparks was a type of Nathan. Specifically on the ground teaching.
With Sparks and with other brothers since, history has proven whenever a brother has attempted to provide a balancing word to Witness Lee, steps were taken to keep these brothers separated.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

... history has proven whenever a brother has attempted to provide a balancing word to Witness Lee, steps were taken to keep these brothers separated.

"Steps were taken"...

"Brother so-and-so started wondering out loud, why Solomon's infidelities were a type Christ, and David's infidelities were not... steps were taken..."

Or, "How come Samuel could hack Agag to bits but the psalmist wasn't supposed to ask God for triumph over his foes?"

"Steps were taken..."