FREE WORLDVIEW MAG FREE WORLDVIEW RALLIES
Mike Bickle's gigolo Jesus
PAGE: 1 2 NEXT>

Historic Interpretation of S of S
Posted On: 04/30/08 08:15:20 PM Age 56, NEW ZEALAND
The first thing that needs to be recognized is that it is the SPIRITUAL interpretation of the Song of Songs which has been the almost universal interpretation in the church until very recently. When the writer says, "Bickle's spiritual interpretation is a repudiation of the basic concept of the Reformation, namely Sola Scriptura," he is talking nonsense. The Reformers, who fought for Sola Scriptura had a view of the Song that was spiritual, not physical. Why? Because the Song is POETRY (Hello?). Spurgeon preached uncounted sermons from the Song, and not one of them was about anything other than Christ's relationship with His people. Spurgeon said of this book, "This is the book the believer takes with him to Heaven!" The idea that it was some kind of marriage manual never entered his head, and nor would it with any sensible Bible-reader. Why? Because to apply the Song of Songs to a physical relationship between two humans requires a lot more interpretive twisting and turning than it does when applied spiritually. Solomon, a man with 1000 wives and concubines, a model for marriage? Hardly! Were the strange similes used here really acceptable terms of affection between couples in Solomon's day? Would God really give us a manual for physical intimacy between as-yet unmarried couples? The list goes on. Yes, Bickle may err because his interpretation is not governed by the rest of scripture, and what it says about our relationship to Christ, but Bickle's error does not license us to treat the Word of God in a shallow and unspiritual way. - Mac
Click here to reply to this post

  1. Expert view concerning Song of Solomon
    Posted On: 05/01/08 12:08:25 PMAge 48, MN
    Glickman was a former OT prof at Dallas Seminary and wrote an excellent book defending the literalist point of view for S o S. Here’s a review of it from Westminster Theological Journal: S. Craig Glickman: A Song for Lovers. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1976. For the majority of Christians the most cryptic and exegetically elusive book of the Old Testament is the Song of Solomon. Just as many moan in anguish when confronted with Revelation, so Solomon’s Song elicits no less audible a groan of despair. A clear and accurate understanding of Revelation would be beneficial in increasing what we already know about eschatology. But a clear and accurate understanding of the Song would provide a biblical perspective on romance, courtship, dating, and marriage where precious little such understanding exists. In fact the one book of Scripture exclusively devoted to romantic and erotic love is the Song of Solomon. If for no other reason, the sexually promiscuous temper of our times should provide the necessary motivation for a determined effort to mine the wealth of wisdom in Solomon’s canticle to love. Like Hezekiah showing off the temple treasures, A Song for Lovers takes the reader through the vaults of Solomon’s wisdom, displaying the riches of what God says about romantic love. And, unlike Hezekiah’s, Solomon’s treasures are meant to be taken away.
    Click here to reply to this post

    1. Glickman
      Posted On: 05/01/08 06:16:57 PMAge 56, NEW ZEALAND
      I have a certain section of my library reserved for examples of the weird and heretical, among which resides a copy of Glickman's little book. It perfectly exemplifies the tacky, almost pornographic result of trying to jerk the Song of Solomon out of it's Biblical context, and turn it into a behaviour manual for dating couples. (I erroneously referred to it above as a Marriage Manual, but remember, the S of S closes BEFORE there is any marriage ceremony). I hadn't looked at it for years, but your comment made me get it down and open it. Now, I am no prude, and I enjoy a wonderful marriage, but after just a couple of pages of Glickman's peeping-Tom interpretation I closed it again in embarrassment. I would be interested to know if there are any prominent promulgators of the fleshly view who are not Dispensationalists (as are Glickman, Fruchtenbaum, and others who promote it), because the connection between a Dispensational hermeneutic and the need to keep the Song on a physical level is not difficult to see. - Mac
      Click here to reply to this post

      1. Too hot for marriage but OK for God?
        Posted On: 05/02/08 06:28:47 AMAge 48, MN
        Whatever else, Glickman was an actual scholar at one significant seminary and the review I posted was from a reputed theological journal written for those understand Hebrew. Glickman examines the language used in the S o S - describing what the Hebrew words mean. If you find these words applied to physical marriage cause you to "close the book in embarrassment," it surprises me that you feel no such embarrassment in applying the same sexually graphic Hebrew descriptions to God. It is also surprising that, while you take issue with Glickman, you find little to criticize when a non-scholar claims this Hebrew passage as the basis for a very pointed Christology - because he feels that is what the Hebrew words mean by revelation. Lastly, even Bickle's close friends in this movement, such as Jack Deere, have abandoned him over this point because even they see that it is wrong and that it is damaging. Supporting Bickle and his Bridal Paradigm is what should cause us to be embarrassed and those who feed this movement with their youth have forgotten how to blush.
        Click here to reply to this post

        1. Hot? Not!
          Posted On: 05/03/08 04:32:17 AMAge 56, NEW ZEALAND
          Dear MN - My only interest in this matter is the defense of what can be shown to be the majority understanding of the Song, not only in the Church age, but even in Christ's own earthly lifetime and before. I am not taking this man Bickle's word for anything, as I am not an American, and have little knowledge of the man. Certainly, I agree that anyone who tries to construct a Christology from S of S should be regarded with great suspicion. As for Glickman, he was a scholar, yes, but so are any number of questionable individuals. Moreover, he taught at a seminary which makes it's boast in textual literalism, by which it imagines to hold up the Dispensational scheme. Your "Too Hot" argument loses all it's force if you just once attempt to read the Song as millions have before us. Is Glickman's assertion that Solomon was telling the world how he french-kissed his fiance "Hot" as you say? Yes it is, and how one would reconcile such "revelation" with II Tim.2:22 in a teen Bible-class, I'm not sure. But if we see that the same text speaks of the joy Christ has in the praise & worship of His people, it is a beautiful and uplifting thing. As a help, can I suggest Psalm 45? Do you find Christ in there? Most of us would say, Yes. Then to read this Psalm in conjunction with S of S is very enlightening. - Mac
          Click here to reply to this post

          1. We agree in our "great suspicion"
            Posted On: 05/03/08 11:57:45 AMAge 48, MN
            Mac, I am glad that you clearly state, “anyone who tries to construct a Christology from S of S should be regarded with great suspicion.” That is the point of my article. Beyond that, I read Psalm 45 and find something similar but still much different that SoS. If applied in a corporate manner it is much like God’s view of Israel as the bride. If applied individually, the message changes. Claiming that “I” am the bride of Christ is not the same as “we” are the bride of Christ. In any case, we use the Psalms as prayers and supplications to God. Many of them are exactly that, the records of the prayers of God’s saints. Attempt to do the same with the graphic sexuality of SoS and the prayers are immediately different. This difference is clear in the example you provided. In Psalm 45 we have verses 15-16 as the most explicit reference to sexuality, “They will enter into the King's palace. In place of your fathers will be your sons.” This is a far cry from SoS. In any case you can read SoS for your enjoyment based upon any hermeneutic you choose – including allegorical. When you claim that a specific allegorical interpretation is the true meaning of the passage (as Bickle does) you need to be able to support your case with more than, “because I feel it is true. Because of my spiritual experiences.” Mormons base their belief on a burning in their bosom, we base ours on the fact that a man was raised form the dead in cold sober history – not in an allegory. I am sure that we can agree about that. K Jentoft
            Click here to reply to this post

  2. No Spiritual Interpretation
    Posted On: 05/01/08 12:05:00 PMAge 48, MN
    According to a friend of mine, "The best argument against the Song of Songs being an allegory of the relationship of Christ to the church is the simplest: it is never referenced by any New Testament author to make that point or strike that analogy. Not once in all the marriage passages in the church do you have the book cited for this. You’d think if that was the point of the book the Holy Spirit would have alerted at least one NT writer to say so. So much for “sola Scriptura” on that! I also wonder how, with respect to this argument that Solomon doesn’t give us a good model for literal marriage (all his wives and concubines) that Solomon does give us a good analogy for Jesus ?!"
    Click here to reply to this post



JESUS IS NEVER ABSENT FROM THE CHRISTIAN
Posted On: 04/29/08 06:24:38 PM Age 64, OH
Maybe you attack this man with too much zeal. You are also saying the scriptures say something they DO NOT SAY just to show this man wrong. You say, "Jesus is absent and will be absent until he returns again." What about in Matthew 28:18Then Jesus came to them and said, ---- And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."-- Are you saying that Jesus was lying when he told them this. Jesus lives in my heart and is NEVER ABSENT from me or any other follower of His. Look in the new testament and see that Paul calls the Holy Spirit, "the Holy Spirit of Jesus" more than once. The Holy Spirit is The Lord Jesus Christ and is always with those who have given their life to Him. Jesus is not absent from this earth now or at any other time. Jesus is the 1st and the Last. Jesus has no beginning and no end. Lou
Click here to reply to this post

  1. Jesus is seated at the right hand of God
    Posted On: 04/29/08 09:09:30 PMAge 48, MN
    Lou, I am not saying that Jesus is not with us through the Holy Spirit. This is true and the Holy Spirit's job is to testify to the Jesus who came in the flesh. This is the “tool” that God gave us to discern spirits in 1 John 4:1. The Holy Spirit isn't given to give us new "revelations" of Jesus that have not already been given or that are somehow lacking before the end times can come. The Jesus that Bickle is teaching is not the Jesus that has been revealed in scripture. He "discovers" a sensual Jesus for the individual in the Song of Solomon and claims that this Jesus is with us to experience spiritually now. I am sure that Mr. Bickle experiences his "Jesus," but what he experiences isn't the Holy Spirit testifying to the Jesus we already know and that the apostles taught and communicated to us as we find in 1 John 4. The apostles did not have to warn us not to think about kissing Him. They did not teach us to find him in the Song of Solomon nor did they use the Song of Solomon as a guide to teach spiritual passion to the Laodicea (who had lost their first love) – Bickle does this and claims his teaching is critical for the end times Christian. Bunk! This is not taught in the Bible and Bickle’s teaching on the Bridal Paradigm is not scriptural. The most quoted OT verse in the New Testament is Psalm 110 which tells us where Jesus is bodily now. "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool." This explained to the Jews why their messiah Jesus left and that He will return to reign and fulfill the remaining promises to Israel. K Jentoft
    Click here to reply to this post

    1. THE HOLY SPIRIT OF JESUS
      Posted On: 04/30/08 12:01:05 PMAge 64, OH
      Because Jesus is no longer with us in the flesh does NOT make Him absent. Jesus in the flesh was fully God as to His Godhood but was fully Man as to His Manhood. because of this Jesus in the flesh was a little power than the angels as God had put human limitations on Himself by becoming a Man. As a result Jesus The Man was not omnipresent and so when Jesus sent His Holy Spirit it was BETTER for us. For now Jesus can be with us all in His Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit of Jesus is fully God and is sovereign and does not have to follow the rules of any man or any group of men. His Holy Spirit talks to us and walks with us and leads us into ALL truth. The Holy Spirit of Jesus does not follow any rules of any book but it was through Him that the Holy Scriptures were written. He has ALL authority and teaches as he pleases. Lou
      Click here to reply to this post

IHOP
Posted On: 04/29/08 04:46:47 PM Age 37, IN
My husband and I have sat under some of the teaching of Mike Bickle and only recently have our eyes been opened to the truth. All you have to do is look at the model of marriage throughout the bible, there is to be NO intimacy before marriage, period! This ministry encourages spiritual fornication and 'unbridaled' lust for intimacy with God. Also, Jesus himself instructs us on how to pray with the Lord's prayer which begins with us praying to our Lord in Heaven, not who lives in me. There is no 'true' secret, new way to pray. Why do we need to 'practice His presence' if God already is everywhere? I know that the experiences are pretty powerful but there is no doubt that they are rooted in new age philosophy. See for yourselves, do a search on contemplative prayer.
Click here to reply to this post



Give Mr. Bickle a call? Why?
Posted On: 04/29/08 03:38:04 PM Age 43, IL
In the arena of public ideas and expository teaching, the ideas of a man can be discussed debated and even criticized without having to first personally call on him and ask "Did you really say this?" With the printed word, Mr. Bickles own websites, audio recordings, published conference outlines the public can and should discuss the ramifications of certain ideas and especially those that related to our Christology. One mistake that is made by so many Christians is that if it makes them feel more spiritual, if it engages their emotions, or somehow was effective in changing their lives then it must be "truth". But many nonchristians, pagans, new agers, emergents, environmentalists, atheist etc use the exact same reasons for why they do what they do and believe what they believe. The Bible needs to be taken as a whole. I would never look to the Song of Solomon for my doctrine concerning Christ and my relationship to him. It is spelled out so very clearly in so many other books of the Bible, why would anyone try so hard to squeeze out so much "profound" meaning from just this one book? Something is not quite right about that.
Click here to reply to this post

Good argument to get back to the KJV
Posted On: 04/29/08 03:32:56 PM Age 52, ID
You know, as I read this article and all the confusion over interpretation and meaning of words, I thought how lucky I am that I stick to my AV King James Bible. The one that was bleed for. In Bible Beleiving churches everyone reads the bible on their own and we don't need "spiritual intrepatation" other then what the inerrant, perfect word of God says. It says what it says in English. By sticking to one version we won't add to or take away from the Word of God based on translation or spiritual interpretation. Simple.
Click here to reply to this post

  1. God wrote in Hebrew, not KJ English
    Posted On: 04/30/08 06:36:34 AMAge 48, MN
    I appreciate the KJ translation but God chose to write the 10 commandments in Hebrew on two stones. His prophets wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If we did not have scholars that translarted their words we would not know what God has said. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates a certain group of translators were "inspired" or more inspired than anouther group. I am glad for newer translations that use the oldest and most reliable manuscripts as the basis for their work. Many people no longer understand KJ English and would need translators as well as certain words and expressions have disappeared or changed in popular meaning in the past few hundred years. I like the NASB but other literal translations have value. What is important to know is that God and His certain spokesmen spoke to us in other languages and it is important that we have good translations to understand what He has said.
    Click here to reply to this post



For further reference
Posted On: 04/29/08 02:47:05 PM Age 46, CANADA
An excellent article on bridal mysticism (with particular reference to Ted Haggard) titled "Falling From Grace", by Tal Brooke and Jonathan Rice, appeared in the Winter 2007 issue of the SCP (Spiritual Counterfeits Project) Newsletter.
Click here to reply to this post

individual vs. corporate
Posted On: 04/29/08 12:56:44 PM Age 48, MN
The main issue is not a “corporate” view of the bride but Bickle’s claim that Song of Solomon teaches us to relate to Jesus as an “individual bride.” He states, “The Spiritual Interpretation: 3 Common Approaches. First, is the relationship between Jesus and the individual believer. This approach gives spiritual principles that aid us in our progression of holy passion. This is the way we approach this study.” This is wrong. The fact that Spurgeon, the puritans or others looked at verses in Song of Solomon as illustrating Christ’s relationship with the church does not endorse Bickle’s imaginary interpretation. Spurgeon did not find their Christology in that book, unlike Bickle. This book was not central to the message of Spurgeon or the puritans. I don’t dispute that Jesus is the coming bridegroom that all Christians long for. I claim that of Solomon was not written to be a teaching aid for individuals to build passion for Jesus Christ. Bickle is wrong and errs to use it in this fashion because by doing so he is teaching a different Jesus. K Jentoft
Click here to reply to this post

  1. re: individual vs. corporate
    Posted On: 04/29/08 02:31:09 PMAge 20, NV
    Well, certainly the Bride is corporate, but it is not some entity ("she") separate from us; we ARE the collective Bride. We are the individual members of His Body, the Bride. This is what Paul is conveying in Eph 5:25-32, and in verse 30 specifically ties the collective ("Church") to the individual ("we"). Spurgeon did relate this on an individual level when he said: "Let the love of husband be never so pure and fervent, it is but a faint picture of the flame that burns in the heart of Jesus. Passing all human union is that mystical cleaving unto the Church, for which Christ did leave his Father, and become one flesh with her. If this be the union which subsists between our souls and the person of our Lord, how deep and broad is the channel of our communion. ... Seek thy Lord, for he is near; embrace him, for he is thy Brother. Hold him fast, for he is thine Husband; and press him to thine heart, for he is of thine own flesh." ( From http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/bol1865.htm ) Note, he specifically takes the collective into the individual. Spurgeon wasn't infallible, of course, but I'm merely pointing out that this idea really isn't that novel. None of these old writers would ever endorse thinking of Jesus sexually, but human marriage was indeed formed to be typographical of the spiritual union between Christ and the Church, which by necessity involves each member of the Body individually (1 Cor 12:27).
    Click here to reply to this post



Much Needed Biblical Correction
Posted On: 04/29/08 10:45:33 AM Age 33, SC
I don't believe that Mike Bickle intends to teach "another Jesus" nor do I believe that he would honestly seek to mislead anyone away from the truths of Scripture. I believe Bickle's heart is in the right place but I do believe that Bickle and many others often need biblical correction. We all do at times. I don't know one person who's theology is 100% perfect as if they claim to be Arminian, Calvinist will say they are wrong. If they claim Calvinism, Arminians will say they are wrong. If they hold to the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, cessasionist will say they are wrong. If they are dispensational, covenant theologians will say they are wrong. If they hold to the pre-tribulation rapture view, post-tribs (and everyone in-between) will say they are wrong. We all need the correction of the Word.
Click here to reply to this post

I am SO GLAD
Posted On: 04/29/08 10:15:07 AM Age 50, ISRAEL
I am so GLAD that someone else sees Bickle and his off teaching, and the whole "Kansas City Prophets" read "profits" what is really going on. Also, it's like Chuck Pierce and Bickle and all the way up the line to Bob Jones are everywhere you look, they claim they are the "leaders" of this new prayer & worship movement. Now they are linking in with Lou Engle "The Call" and bringing it to Israeli youth through Sukkat Hillel May 8-11 for the One Thing Jerusalem Conference.(www.jerusalempraise.com) It's hard to put your finger on the real problem with this group, but Jentof has done a good job. There is a seducing spirit in this youth movement. You think, hmmmm, something is not right here; yet the youth are flocking to them and how can it be not good???
Click here to reply to this post



Not quite accurate
Posted On: 04/29/08 09:36:30 AM Age 20, NV
While we should NEVER think of the Lord sexually, the concept of the Song being a description of Christ and the Church is not modern. Believe it or not, most of the Puritans interpreted the Song that way, as did Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and many others (including, apparently, the ancient Jews, who viewed the Song as being about their coming Messiah). If you don't believe me, just read some of these: 1. http://www.spurgeon.org/index/r_so.htm 2. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/spurgeon/morneve.xiv.i.html (see Song of Solomon) 3. http://www.puritansermons.com/Durham/durindx.htm 4. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc3.Song.i.html And that's just a few examples. So while you may diagree with this view, brother, it is entirely inappropriate to paint it as being evil. We need to keep the context right: that Jesus is our holy God, but also the Bridegroom of our souls (NOT SEXUALLY; that's typographical imagery in the Song).
Click here to reply to this post

Read More Feedback

Post Feedback
We would like to post your feedback, but please keep your feedback short and clean. All feedback will be reviewed before it is posted. We encourage healthy debating but will not accept feedback with personal attacks. Commenting on a person's public statements, actions and writings is not considered a personal attack. Please limit your feedback to less than 750 words. Comments written in ALL CAPS will not be posted.

All fields are required. Your age and state will be posted on the site, but your personal information will NOT. If you would like your name to be posted with your feedback, you must include it in your feedback text.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address:
City:
State: OR Country:
Age:
Feedback Title:
Your Feedback
(no HTML):
Save my information for next time.



Notice: By entering your email address, you agree to join the
Worldview Weekend email alert system.



Worldview Weekend
Family Reunion
Branson, Missouri
April 23, 24, 25, 2010
Worldview Weekend
Training Institute
Memphis/Collierville, TN
April 9th & 10th, 2010