{"id":36,"date":"2011-02-02T23:39:18","date_gmt":"2011-02-02T23:39:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/corbanblogs.wpengine.com\/ministry\/?p=36"},"modified":"2011-05-05T18:25:00","modified_gmt":"2011-05-05T18:25:00","slug":"bible-as-romance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/2011\/02\/bible-as-romance\/","title":{"rendered":"The Bible as Romance? An Overview of Marital Imagery and Intimacy with God"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>by Dr. Tim L. Anderson, Professor of Bible and Theology<\/em><\/p>\n

The history of God\u2019s people shows their desire to draw close to Him.\u00a0 The wondrous truth of His self-revelation is that the very intimacy sought by humans is at His invitation.\u00a0 Numerous descriptions of this dynamic are given in the Scriptures, from the first (Gen. 3:8; 5:22) to the final people of God (Rev. 21:3, 22-23; 22:3-4).\u00a0 However, nothing in the Bible appears to communicate a closer intimacy with Him than the imagery of marriage.<\/p>\n

The church has struggled not only with interpreting this imagery, but with how it actually applies to the believer\u2019s relationship with God.\u00a0 How are these metaphors to be understood?\u00a0 Do the Bible\u2019s marital images correspond to contemporary Western ones, and does romance provide the basis for correlation between these images?\u00a0 Without answering these questions, the average Christian\u2019s conception of, and quest for, an intimate relationship with God could be burdened with misconceptions and perhaps idolatrous errors.\u00a0 To the point: Do the Bible\u2019s marital images teach some form of romantic intimacy between God and the believer?<\/p>\n

A Brief Survey and the Concept of Romance<\/strong><\/p>\n

A brief survey of the explicit instances of marital imagery shows that they can be grouped into two main categories.\u00a0 The first is the husband\/wife (l [B\/vyai\/hv;ai\/ ajnhvr\/guvnh\/) relationship.\u00a0 The foundation for this imagery is in the Old Testament where God Himself is described as Israel\u2019s husband (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 31:32; Eph. 5:22-33).\u00a0 The second category is the bridegroom\/bride (nt:j:\/hL:K; numfivo\u00a7\/nuvmfh) relationship.\u00a0 In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride.\u00a0 The betrothal imagery anticipates the future marriage ceremony and union (Isa. 62:4-5; Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 17:22; Rev. 19:7-10; 22:17).<\/p>\n

The crucial question is whether these texts and others support a romantic notion of the Christian\u2019s relationship to their God.\u00a0 Romance has many noble aspects, including relational intimacy and self-sacrifice. It is a part of natural human experience, leading to and being a part of the marital relationship.\u00a0 However, in the West it is intricately tied to emotion, and the achievement of a union with another person often exclusively on that basis.\u00a0 Thomas Bergler provides a helpful summary of psychologist H. E. Fisher\u2019s study of romantic love:<\/p>\n

The person who is \u201cin love\u201d thinks obsessively about the beloved.\u00a0 She idealizes that person and ignores his flaws.\u00a0 He may believe that he would be willing to die for her.\u00a0 Lovers experience \u201cextreme energy, hyperactivity, sleeplessness, euphoria, mood swings.\u201d Obstacles or adversity can heighten their passion.\u00a0 Many become emotionally dependent on the relationship and rearrange their life to spend more time with that person.\u00a0 They will neglect other obligations and relationships in order to pursue their beloved.\u00a0 Above all, the lover \u201ccraves emotional union\u201d with the beloved.\u00a0 But all this passion is \u201cinvoluntary and difficult, if not impossible to control.\u201d And it inevitably fades.[1]<\/a> As a result, the romantic lover may tend to value his or her feelings above all else, and thus find it difficult to sustain commitment in place of infatuation.<\/p>\n

An Example of the Romantic Intimacy View<\/strong><\/p>\n

A current example of an attempt to justify a romantic view of the Christian\u2019s intimate relationship with God is found in Frank Viola\u2019s most recent book, From Eternity to Here: Rediscovering the Ageless Purpose of God<\/em>.[2]<\/a> This engaging popular author has created a narrative theology of biblical themes concerning the church.\u00a0 Although he develops marital imagery only in part one of the three sections of his book (the house of God and the body of Christ being the others), it is the first, and it leaves a lasting impression on the reader.\u00a0 His narrative approach to theology draws the reader into it.\u00a0 He admits that his favorite movie genre is romance with an element of mystery.[3]<\/a> It becomes quite clear that he views theology\u2014from \u00a0Genesis to Revelation\u2014through \u00a0that lens.\u00a0 To understand Viola\u2019s perspectives, one must recognize the two sides to his approach: \u00a0how God sees the believer through Scripture\u2019s marital imagery, and how the believer is to conceive of, respond to, and cultivate intimacy with God in light of those images.<\/p>\n

According to Viola, believers must grasp how God sees them through the grand love story of the Bible.\u00a0 From its very beginning, the stories of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Rachel, and even Asenath and Joseph are patterned after the heavenly romance.[4]<\/a> Therefore, the purpose for the Eternal Son becoming human was so that He could \u201cobtain a wife for Himself,\u201d so He could \u201cobtain the passion that burned within His bosom from before time.\u201d[5]<\/a> The terminology Viola uses for God\u2019s love is decidedly romantic.\u00a0 For example, he claims, \u201cThe Lord Jesus is the greatest lover under God\u2019s heaven.\u00a0 No creature can match Him as a passionate romantic.\u201d[6]<\/a> When Jesus prays to His Father, \u201cFather, You love them just as much as You love Me,\u201d it is here and other places in John\u2019s Gospel that we supposedly find the \u201cunstoppable passion of a love sick God.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

What does Viola mean by falling in love?\u00a0 In his section titled, \u201cThe Divine Frustration,\u201d he describes it this way: \u00a0\u201cWhen a man falls in love with a woman, he will walk over cut glass for her. His mind becomes occupied, consumed, and even obsessed with the thought of her.\u00a0 He becomes a driven man, driven to find ways of expressing his affection for his beloved.\u00a0 When the heart has been infected by the passion of human love, there\u2019s simply no cure in sight.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

He compares this scenario to God\u2019s love for His people. Like any lover who is frustrated when his or her advances are shunned, God is truly a frustrated lover. Viola then asserts that Christ sees His bride through the eyes of a lover.\u00a0 There are no faults in His beloved.\u00a0 Viola chides believers to not \u201cmake the mistake of diluting this wonderful reality by calling it \u2018positional truth.\u2019\u00a0 This is toxic thinking clothed in theological rhetoric.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Song of Solomon is another rich source of romantic imagery for Viola.\u00a0 He notes how the king is charmed by his bride\u2019s beauty, and praises her for it.\u00a0 Song of Solomon chapters four and seven go into great detail about parts of her body.\u00a0 Viola applies this aspect to the church.\u00a0 \u201cAs the king vividly describes each portion of his bride\u2019s body, we are given insight into how you and I look in the eyes of our king, the Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d[10]<\/a> He then argues, \u201cOne of the greatest truths that the Song of Solomon presents to us is that the Lord\u2019s love is not only for the whole, His bride, but it\u2019s also for all of her individual parts.\u201d[11]<\/a> Viola also incorporates Ephesians 5:32 in stating, \u201cBehold a mystery:\u00a0 Christ loves His bride corporately.\u00a0 But also He loves the individual parts of her body.\u00a0 In fact, He loves each part just as much as He loves the whole.\u00a0 In case you don\u2019t understand, those individual parts are you and me<\/em>.\u201d[12]<\/a> For Viola, the divine love is equivalent to marital romance.<\/p>\n

What then is the purpose behind his passionate use and development of this romantic marital imagery?\u00a0 Further study reveals that it is not only his obsession that believers grasp and respond to God in an intimately romantic sense, but his assertion that true love is devoid of the torment of fear.\u00a0 He candidly confides, \u201cI ache when I meet Christians who are terrified of God.\u00a0 If you are His child, there is no reason to be afraid of your Lord.\u00a0 The \u2018fear of the Lord\u2019 that Scripture often enjoins is not terror or dread.\u00a0 It is a holy reverence for God and an awe and respect for His power.\u201d\u00a0 However, Viola feels that \u201cmany believers relate to God out of fear and trepidation.\u201d\u00a0 To them, God is a \u201c\u2018Soup Nazi\u2019 in the sky.\u201d[13]<\/a> This perception obviously has been, and will continue to be, a problem among God\u2019s people as they think about achieving any sort of intimacy with Him.\u00a0 However, a romantic conception of God\u2019s love for His people does not reflect biblical balance, and it is not the solution to this fear factor.<\/p>\n

Problems<\/strong><\/p>\n

Where does one start in trying to unravel the inadequacies of this attempt to legitimize the romantic intimacy view of the Bible\u2019s marital imagery?\u00a0 First, the foundational hermeneutical issues need to be addressed in order to understand and evaluate the interpretive framework behind this view.\u00a0 Second, the legitimacy of using a Western cultural concept and language of romance for the Bible\u2019s teaching on the intimate love between God and His people needs to be evaluated.\u00a0 Third, the analogical intent of the Bible\u2019s imagery of marriage needs to be clearly established.\u00a0 Finally, the practical implications of holding a romantic view are essential to one\u2019s mental conception and personal pursuit of intimacy with God and thus cannot be overlooked.<\/p>\n

The Christocentric\/Allegorical\/Spiritual Interpretation of the Marital Images<\/strong><\/p>\n

It should be obvious that authors like Viola have an allegorical or spiritualizing hermeneutical approach.\u00a0Viola states that he uses the \u201cChristocentric interpretation\u201d of Scripture to glean his ideas from both testaments.\u00a0 He claims, \u201cThis is the very interpretation that the New Testament authors used to expound the Old Testament.\u00a0 Scholars in the field of canonical criticism use it today as well.\u201d[14]<\/a> Furthermore, he claims, \u201cA Christian hermeneutic is a Christological hermeneutic.\u00a0Jesus Christ is the<\/em> subject of all<\/em> Scripture.\u201d[15]<\/a> He associates this hermeneutic with sensus plenior<\/em>, which he defines as \u201cthe deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, that is seen to exist in the words of Scripture when they are studied in light of further revelation.\u201d[16]<\/a> Although the sensus plenior<\/em> hermeneutic advocates claim it has parameters and controls, it does overlap considerably with allegorization, at least how Viola uses it.\u00a0Furthermore, seeking a deeper or hidden spiritual meaning as opposed to its original human or carnal meaning has it overlapping considerably with those who use a method seeking the \u201cspiritual sense\u201d.<\/p>\n

This is not a legitimate strategy for gaining clarity in describing the intimacy between God and His people.\u00a0There are numerous problems with it.\u00a0One is that true allegories do not hide their nature as such.\u00a0 Longman notes that Pilgrim\u2019s Progress<\/em>, for example, has clearly identifiable elements of an allegory.\u00a0The main character is a person named Christian, on a journey to the Celestial City.\u00a0 Song of Solomon, for example, has no such identifiable elements or hints that there is another level of meaning.\u00a0There are also no indications that the Lover represents God or Christ and the Beloved represents the Church or the soul of the individual believer.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

A second problem is its overshadowing and even eradication of the biblical author\u2019s intended meaning by the supposed \u201cspiritual\u201d or \u201cChristological\u201d meaning.\u00a0 If the main focus of a given text is another allegorical concept, the literal meaning is not allowed to be expressed clearly or at all.\u00a0 This does not allow God\u2019s own words to be accepted and heeded in their own context.\u00a0 To be sure, it is argued that individual texts of Scripture should be read in light of the context of the whole Bible, and rightly so.\u00a0 Biblical theology would be impossible without such an approach.[18]<\/a> However, progressive revelation demonstrates God\u2019s choice not to reveal everything about a topic all at once, but as He deemed necessary and appropriate.\u00a0 At the same time, any text must be allowed to speak for itself.\u00a0 Otherwise, finite human reasoning and imagination becomes the standard for what a biblical text can or cannot communicate.<\/p>\n

A third problem with the sensus plenior<\/em> hermeneutic is the lack of objective controls.\u00a0 This causes it to be open to abuse.\u00a0 Granted, this doesn\u2019t falsify the presupposition behind the approach that God can communicate more than what the original author understood at the time.\u00a0 However, it does cause one to wonder what the basis is for deciding what the Holy Spirit might be saying through the words of a given text.[19]<\/a> Furthermore, what prevents these authors from allegorizing the sexual intercourse alluded to in Song of Solomon (4:6, 12, 16; 7:8, 12; 8:1-3, 5) and finding some sort of intercourse between Christ and His Bride, the Church?[20]<\/a> Why is this off limits to most like Viola?\u00a0 And if not, why is this a warranted image of intimacy with Christ?[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

Viola\u2019s approach is nearly unbridled.\u00a0 Anything is possible, but what does the text say?\u00a0 His approach is simply a highly allegorical narrative theology of the marriage images in the Bible.<\/p>\n

A crucial question needs to be answered at this point:\u00a0 What is the analogical and thus authorial intent of the Bible\u2019s marital images?\u00a0 In other words, what is the illocutionary force\u2014the communicative effect\u2014they are to have on readers?\u00a0 The focus of the bridegroom\/bride and the husband\/wife analogies in their contexts is clear, with interpretive boundaries that show emphases other than romantic ones.<\/p>\n

The Bridegroom\/Bride<\/strong><\/p>\n

The central focus of the bridegroom\/bride imagery is anticipation, expectation, and preparation.\u00a0 In the Old Testament, the preparation for the future and thus joyful anticipation is seen, but this figure is not used for God and His people directly.\u00a0 For example, in Isaiah 61:10, Zion[22]<\/a> rejoices in God\u2019s provision of salvation and righteousness, because He joyfully adorns them as both, a bridegroom with a turban and a bride with jewels, in preparation for the presentation of the couple to each other at the wedding ceremony.[23]<\/a> Then they will be ready for marriage (cf. 62:5).\u00a0 In several other instances, however, the impurity of the nation of Israel causes the LORD to remove all joy that the bridegroom and bride naturally experience in anticipation of their wedding and replace it with judgment and desolation (Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11; Joel 1:8; 2:16; cf. Rev. 18:23).<\/p>\n

The New Testament more explicitly relates the bridegroom to Christ.\u00a0 John the Baptist refers to Jesus as the bridegroom and to himself as the best man or friend of the bridegroom.\u00a0 John\u2019s anticipation and preparation is rewarded and he is full of joy as he finally hears the bridegroom\u2019s voice (John 3:29).\u00a0 When asked why John\u2019s disciples and the Pharisees fasted and Jesus\u2019 disciples did not, He identifies Himself as the bridegroom.\u00a0 His presence in Israel should be celebrated like a wedding feast, and not with ceremonial fasting.\u00a0 Being a disciple of Jesus should be like attending a wedding feast.[24]<\/a> Nevertheless, Jesus would not always be with them.\u00a0 Later, the bridegroom imagery changes to anticipation and preparation of His arrival after His absence.\u00a0 The Parable of the Ten Virgins is the only other reference to the bridegroom concept in Jesus\u2019 teachings.\u00a0 He compares the delaying of the coming of the Son of Man with that of a bridegroom\u2019s delay (Matt. 25:1-13).\u00a0 Five awaiting virgins were foolishly unprepared and five were prudently prepared (25:2-9).\u00a0 The unprepared did not have a close relationship with the bridegroom, since He did not know them when they wanted to be let in late to the wedding feast (25:10-12).\u00a0 Jesus concludes the story with the succinct warning, \u201cBe on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour\u201d of His\/the Bridegroom\u2019s return (25:13).[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

This same preparatory focus is developed in the John\u2019s description in the book of Revelation of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb and the descent of the New Jerusalem.\u00a0 The focal point of the celebration of the Marriage Supper is that \u201cHis bride has made herself ready\u201d and the clothing given to her will be \u201cfine linen, bright and clean\u201d symbolizing \u201cthe righteous acts of the saints\u201d (Rev. 19:7-8).\u00a0 The New Jerusalem, specifically ascribed as a \u201choly city,\u201d is itself \u201cmade ready as a bride adorned for her husband\u201d (Rev. 21:2).\u00a0 After the wedding, John is shown \u201cthe bride, the wife of the Lamb \u2026 the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God\u201d (Rev. 21:9-10).\u00a0 It is not surprising, then, that the final reference of this image underscores the preparation\/anticipation emphasis.\u00a0 \u201cThe Spirit and the bride say, \u2018Come\u2019\u201d (Rev. 22:17a).<\/p>\n

The Husband\/Wife<\/strong><\/p>\n

The husband\/wife imagery has two central aspects.\u00a0 One is from the marital relationship itself and the other from the roles within that relationship.\u00a0 The marital image itself stresses love and faithfulness, whereas the husband role initiates love and sacrifice for the wife and the wife role is responsive to the husband in trust, respect and submission.\u00a0 At the same time, these two aspects overlap to emphasize the unique union of marriage itself.<\/p>\n

The image of marriage for God and His people in the Old Testament is used strongly in prophetic literature, and its central focus is faithfulness.\u00a0 Even though the LORD Himself describes His relationship to Israel as a marriage, He only does so to communicate that the people have been unfaithful to Him by committing spiritual adultery through idolatry.\u00a0 God promises Israel that in His faithfulness He would cause them to forget the shame that they would suffer in exile because, \u201cyour husband is your Maker, whose name is the LORD of hosts\u201d (Isa. 54:5).\u00a0 He would call them from exile \u201clike a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, even like a wife of one\u2019s youth when she is rejected\u201d (Isa. 54:6).\u00a0 This rejection was symbolized by Him, divorcing them.\u00a0 In Jeremiah 3:8, He gave the northern kingdom a certificate of divorce (tWtyriK]).\u00a0 Later He left Judah (Isa. 54:6-7).\u00a0 This divorce appears to be warranted by Israel\u2019s breaking of her relationship with Him.\u00a0 After the exile they do reunite, so it may be that this divorce imagery actually represented a period of separation (Isa. 54:7-8).<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, this unfaithfulness of God\u2019s wife is graphically depicted not only as adultery, but harlotry or prostitution.\u00a0 There are demonstrations of the \u201cwhoredom\u201d[26]<\/a> or unfaithfulness of God\u2019s people to their marital bond with their God who is prompted to jealousy throughout the Pentateuch[27]<\/a> and historical books[28]<\/a> as well as the prophets[29]<\/a> and even the New Testament.[30]<\/a><\/p>\n

Roles of the Husband and Wife<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Ephesians 5:22-33, the husband and wife imagery used by Paul is essential to certain truths about the nature of Christ\u2019s relationship with the church. Christ is the head of the church and she is to submit to Him. Analogously, the wife is to be submissive to her husband. Christ is not only as head of the church, but her Savior (5:22-24).\u00a0 He, in a sense, earned this special role in the relationship by giving Himself up for her (5:25).\u00a0 While there is obvious love and amazing depth to this analogy, there does not seem to be any emotionally romantic element to the submissive role the church is to assume.\u00a0 On the contrary, the \u201cranking oneself under another\u201d concept behind \u201csubmit\u201d (upotavssw) in this context merely calls the wife and the believer to yield their own rights in the relationship, in loving trust and respect.<\/p>\n

As Christ sacrificially loved the church, husbands by analogy are to consistently love their wives (5:25-29).\u00a0 This love, while intimate, is self-sacrificing.\u00a0 It is a love that recognizes the imperfections in another, but helps the other achieve personal purity before God (5:26-27).\u00a0 To gloss over this love with Western, emotionally centered romanticism is unwarranted and adds something foreign to the text\u2019s concept of love.[31]<\/a><\/p>\n

What do these biblical insights mean for the premise of this article?\u00a0 This summary of scriptural context, and thus the intent of the Bible\u2019s marital imagery, is meant to provide the framework from which to understand the limits of its application.\u00a0 The bridegroom\/bride image is used to communicate the need for God\u2019s people to prepare themselves in expectation for His impending judgment, upon Christ\u2019s imminent return.\u00a0 It has an element of joy for the pure, but it is mostly a portrayal of serious repentant preparation.\u00a0 The husband\/wife imagery has two aspects where the marital image emphasizes love and faithfulness. The husband initiates love and sacrifice, and the wife responds to the husband in trust, respect and submission.\u00a0 At the same time, these two aspects overlap to reveal the unique union of marriage itself.\u00a0 There is no hint of what Western romance often stresses with respect to love.<\/p>\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the outset, it should be recognized that author Viola, and the many other Christians who espouse his ideas, have a sincere desire to draw close to God in Christ. They have grasped that God clearly invites His people to an intimate relationship with Him.\u00a0 They seem to be fully aware that biblical imagery of marriage appears to communicate intimacy with God.\u00a0 Yet they have perhaps unknowingly not only struggled with the truthfulness or accuracy of interpreting this imagery, but with applying it to the believer\u2019s relationship with God.\u00a0 This study argues that these metaphors are to be interpreted literally, or in keeping with the authorial intent, rather than allegorically. Since God is not a literal husband or bridegroom to a literal wife or bride, with all the human aspects, the marital images that describe His relationship with His people provide a powerful analogy that describes this unique relationship and union anthropomorphically.<\/p>\n

Therefore, several problems with approaches like Viola\u2019s have been noted.\u00a0 A Christocentric interpretation of these images reduces to allegorizing or spiritualizing.\u00a0 Again, true allegories do not hide their nature as such. Many of the passages used to support these romantic concepts have no such identifiable elements or hints at another level of meaning.\u00a0 To assume a supposed \u201cspiritual\u201d or \u201cChristological\u201d meaning merely causes an overshadowing and even eradication of the biblical author\u2019s intended meaning.<\/p>\n

Some may ask what harm there is in inserting or overlaying a certain biblical concept into or onto other texts where it is not warranted.\u00a0 Should it really matter as long as it is already taught in the Bible?\u00a0 First, it is not only a serious hermeneutical error to not allow God\u2019s words to be accepted and heeded in their own context, but it brings dishonor to the interpreter and thus to God\u2019s people.\u00a0 Teachers of God\u2019s Word are to be zealous to demonstrate that they are proclaiming an interpretation He would approve of, and would not cause Him to disapprove of them and cause shame (2 Tim. 2:15).<\/p>\n

Second, what is used to overshadow the intended meaning of these marital images is a concept that is mostly foreign to the Bible itself.\u00a0 From the numerous illustrations in Viola\u2019s book, love is equivalent in large part to romance, passion or emotion.\u00a0 This is mixing metaphors.\u00a0 Laying cultural images over biblical ones shrouds believers\u2019 ability to appropriately conceive of God\u2019s love for them and therefore their love for God.\u00a0 It veils the truth of the nature of the relationship itself, which is crucial to any intimate relationship.<\/p>\n

Third, and related, this mixing of metaphors is an illegitimate contextualization[32]<\/a> of the Scripture\u2019s teachings.\u00a0 Rather than translating the biblical truth of the intimate love between God and man in appropriate and corresponding concepts, Viola and others transform this idea into a love foreign to the biblical worldview.\u00a0 Granted, while this culturally captive love may resemble certain aspects of the Bible\u2019s marital imagery (devotion, passion, etc.), those who adopt it as a direct correspondence, do so uncritically.[33]<\/a> To equate love with romance is indeed one of contemporary culture\u2019s many reductionisms.[34]<\/a><\/p>\n

More serious theological reflection is needed with respect to the biblical concepts of love and intimacy with God, to ground them sufficiently in truth, in order for them to be articulated for believers and pursued with legitimate means.[35]<\/a> It is clear that many like Viola are affected by present cultural and past and current theological conceptions of love.\u00a0 Could it be that they are a part of the ebb and flow of post-Enlightenment debates on the impassibility of God?\u00a0 Are they reacting to the same static impassible God that the process theologians abhor?\u00a0 At the same time, do they allow the pendulum to swing so far that God\u2019s love is merely His \u201cpassion\u201d? Author D.A. Carson observes,<\/p>\n

\n

So now God comes to us and says, \u201cI love you.\u201d What does he mean? Does he mean something like this?\u00a0 \u201cYou mean everything to me.\u00a0 I can\u2019t live without you.\u00a0 Your personality, your witty\u00a0conversation, your beauty, your smile\u2014everything about you transfixes me.\u00a0 Heaven would be boring without you.\u00a0 I love you!\u201d\u00a0 That, after all, is pretty close to what some therapeutic approaches to the love of God spell out.\u00a0 We must be pretty wonderful because God loves us.\u00a0 And dear old God is pretty vulnerable, finding himself in a dreadful state unless we say yes.\u00a0 Suddenly serious Christians unite and rightly cry<\/em>, \u201cBring back impassibility!\u201d<\/em>[36]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

These cultural pendulum swings concerning the love of God can only be brought back more to the center through accurate theological reflection on the Scriptures as the \u201cnorming norm.\u201d<\/p>\n

A final caution needs to be given concerning intimacy with God.\u00a0 While the concepts used by Viola and others for the love inherent in the Bible\u2019s marital images do engender a certain kind of intimacy with God, the popular understanding of love and intimacy is often based on passion or emotion and coupled with romance.\u00a0 In other words, romance is often associated with the experiences and emotions of being in love, as well as falling out of love.\u00a0 Thomas Bergler shows psychological research demonstrates that \u201cespecially for younger adolescents, romantic relationships are primarily about the individual\u2019s status, emotional needs, and identity search.\u00a0 The ability to develop genuinely mutual romantic relationships with staying power develops later.\u00a0 For some people, this ability is only just developing during young adulthood.\u00a0 Some never get there.\u201d[37]<\/a> A significant danger of a romantic approach is that love for God can be reduced to emotional infatuation.[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

The church must help its members develop intimacy with God that goes beyond cultural definitions of love, to instead pursue and experience the staying power of a maturity based in accurate interpretation of Scripture.\u00a0 We must, as described in the language of Bergler\u2019s research, \u201cget there.\u201d<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a>Thomas Bergler, \u201cA Pastoral Process for Leading Churches toward Spiritual Maturity,\u201d Unpublished manuscript, 2009, 14-15.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a>Frank Viola. From Eternity to Here: Rediscovering the Ageless Purpose of God<\/em>, (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook), 2009.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a>Viola. From Eternity to Here, <\/em>26.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a>Ibid., 91, 93-94.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a>Ibid., 41.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a>Ibid., 61, 282.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a>Ibid., 74.\u00a0 In referring typologically to the Samaritan woman, Viola exhorts believers that \u201cyou are part of that matchless woman with whom Christ has fallen hopelessly in love.\u00a0 Yes, Jesus Christ, the king of the universe, has fallen irreversibly in love with you.\u201d Ibid., 128.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a>Ibid., 55.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a>Ibid., 59.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a>Ibid., 113.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a>Ibid., 115.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a>Ibid., 115, italics his.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a>Ibid., 74.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a>Ibid., 16.\u00a0 Esp. Brevard Childs, and the narrative theology approach of Hans Frei.\u00a0 Frank Viola, \u201cBeyond Bible Study:\u00a0 Finding Christ in Scripture,\u201d www.ptmin.org\/beyond.pdf<\/a>.\u00a0 2007. Date Accessed: November 6, 2009.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a>Viola, \u201cBeyond Bible Study:\u00a0 Finding Christ in Scripture.\u201d<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a>Viola, \u201cBeyond Bible Study\u201d.\u00a0 See a nearly identical definition by the Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown in his The \u2018Sensus Plenior\u2019 of Sacred Scripture<\/em> (Baltimore: St. Mary\u2019s University, 1955), 92, for which Viola does not credit.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a>Tremper Longman III, \u201cSong of Solomon,\u201d Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible<\/em>, gen. ed. Kevin Vanhoozer, (Grand Rapids:\u00a0 Baker, 2005), 759.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a>Years ago, Bernard Ramm rightly claimed that it is the \u201cprofound similarity of the two Testaments which makes predictive prophecy and typology a possibility.\u201d Protestant Biblical Interpretation<\/em>, Third Revised Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 228.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a>Douglas Moo, \u201cThe Problem of Sensus Plenior<\/em>,\u201d Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon<\/em>, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 202.\u00a0 The more extreme continuity (versus discontinuity) approaches are known for their attempts to justify extended typology.\u00a0 This is not only seen in Seventh Day Adventism, but other continuity positions on a variety of issues from Christological interpretive methods.\u00a0 See Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy:\u00a0 Principles of Prophetic Interpretation<\/em>, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), especially chapters 1-5.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a>To many church fathers who were captive to a neo-Platonic view of sex and thus the Song of Solomon.\u00a0 many of their allegories did not even approach attempting to see any sexual union in Song of Solomon.\u00a0 See for some examples, J. Robert Wright, ed. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon<\/em>, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. IX, general editor, Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), 337-39, 341-2, 359-64.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a>It is quite surprising to find D. A. Carson, on the one hand, rightly argue against seeing sex as \u201can intrinsically soiled or at best morally inferior\u201d activity, and then go on to typologically overextend the Bible\u2019s marital imagery.\u00a0\u00a0 He argues the final consummation of the marriage \u201ccan be thought of as the marriage supper of the Lamb.\u201d\u00a0 His next line of reasoning is oddly stated.\u00a0 \u201cIt is as if the only pleasure and intimacy in this life that comes close to anticipating the pleasure and intimacy of the church and her Lord being perfectly united on the last day is the sexual union of a good marriage.\u201d\u00a0 He offers no real support for this other than how Hosea is a typology of Yahweh and Israel.\u00a0 He then argues in the reverse.\u00a0 \u201cAnd, conversely, that invests each marriage with a kind of typological value that should make thoughtful Christians all the more eager for the Lord\u2019s return, for the coming of the Bridegroom, for the consummation.\u00a0 Hence the spectacular intertwining of the pairs husband\/wife and Christ\/church in Ephesians 5:25-33.\u201d\u00a0 Is the sexual union of marriage really the only good explanation of what it will be like when believers experience their union with Christ at His return?\u00a0 Does the image of the marriage supper imply the pleasure of sexual intercourse?\u00a0 Is that what John was describing in Rev 19?\u00a0 Isn\u2019t the imagery only focusing on the celebration of the wedding and the joyous though ceremonial joining of the couple?\u00a0 D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places<\/em> (Wheaton:\u00a0 Crossway, 2002), 191.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a>It is interesting to note how classic continuity scholars like Edward J. Young assume that the speaker here is \u201cthe Church of God, the elect, the true Israel.\u201d The Book of Isaiah<\/em>, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 3:465.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a>Young assumes that this is \u201chow God envelops the Church in salvation.\u201d Young, The Book of Isaiah<\/em>, 3:466.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a>This is a significant emphasis with this imagery since all of the synoptic Gospels include this discussion (Matt 9:14-15; Mark 2:18-20; Luke 5:33-35).<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a>For Jesus\u2019 expectation of the appropriate response to God\u2019s invitation to be a part of His kingdom, see, see His parable of the son of the king\u2019s wedding feast in Matt 22:1-14.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a>From hn;z; or moicavw, moiceuvw.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a>E.g., Ex 34:11-16; Lev 17:7; 20:4-6; Num 15:38-40; Deut 31:16.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a>E.g., Judg 2:16-17; 8:27, 33.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a>E.g., Isa 1:21-23; 57:3; Jer 2:20, 23-25; 3:1-6; 13:20-27; Ezek 16:15-43a; 23:1-49; Hos 1-3; Mic 1:7.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a>E.g., Matt 12:38-39; 16:1-2, 4; 1 Cor 6:15-17; 2 Cor 11:1-3; Jas 4:4; Rev 2:14, 20-23.\u00a0 Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. has captured the breadth of this truth in his work, Whoredom: God\u2019s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology<\/em> in New Studies in Biblical Theology, D. A. Carson, Series Editor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a>Even though Abbott went to the extreme when he said that \u201cthere is no emotion in self-love,\u201d he does aptly describe it at least in part as leading the husband to \u201cregard her welfare as his own, and to feel all that concerns her as if it concerned himself.\u201d\u00a0 This conjugal love may be based in affections, but is \u201creinforced by reflection, and made firm by the sense of duty\u201d T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians<\/em>, The International Critical Commentary, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, n.d.), 171.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a>Lints defines contextualization as \u201cthe manner in which the expression of a biblical passage is shaped in and by the native conceptuality of a given culture.\u201d\u00a0 Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology<\/em> (Grand Rapids:\u00a0 Eerdmans, 1993), 101.\u00a0 This helps to clarify the shaping process that is taking place here.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a>Carson, Love in Hard Places<\/em>, 11.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a>E.g., truth is equal to public scientific facts vs. private\/personal values; morality is culturally relative, etc.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a>Part of this discussion could be around the issue of whether God\u2019s love is one of His attributes to be categorized and described or how He relates.\u00a0 See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics<\/em> (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 80.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a>D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God<\/em> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 62-63.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a>Thomas Bergler, \u201cA Pastoral Process for Leading Churches toward Spiritual Maturity,\u201d Unpublished manuscript, 2009, 14.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a>Jesus is being reduced to the boyfriend, fianc\u00e9 or husband of Christian women.\u00a0 See Angieszka Tennant, \u201cDating Jesus:\u00a0 When \u2018lover of my soul\u2019 language goes to far,\u201d Christianity Today<\/em> (Dec. 2006), 56.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Dr. Tim L. Anderson, Professor of Bible and Theology The history of God\u2019s people shows their desire to draw close to Him.\u00a0 The wondrous truth of His self-revelation is that the very intimacy sought by humans is at His … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[19,18,20],"class_list":["post-36","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-love","tag-romance","tag-solomon"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5W8wu-A","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.corban.edu\/ministry\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}