Today’s Scripture Reading (October
26, 2019): Song of Songs 6
L. M. Montgomery, in her classic
book “Anne of Green Gables,” comments that “I read in a book once that a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet, but I've never been able to believe it.
I don't believe a rose WOULD be as nice if it was called a thistle or a skunk
cabbage” (Capitals hers). Of course, the book that contains the comment she is
referring to is William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” And it might be that
both Shakespeare and Montgomery are correct. From Shakespeare’s point of view,
it is the flower that is fragrant and not the name. We understand the word rose
only because that is the name that we have connected to the flower. If I told
you that the flower that we know of us a “rose” was really called a “red cup”
(let’s stay away from skunk cabbage), it would not change the fragrance of the
flower.
But we think in a specific
language. For me, I think in English. It is English concepts that I understand,
and so Anne is also right. Even if you have never smelled a skunk cabbage, you
would not be expecting something that smelled pretty with a name like that
because you know that “skunk” is the English name for an animal that has the
potential to smell very bad. The building blocks that we use to think start
with a language, and continues with our cultural understanding.
And that includes the idea of
names. It wasn’t that long ago that a woman would take the man’s name without
even considering not doing so. It was a connection that in our language and
culture was proper. But, not everyone feels that way. I have some friends who
happen to be brothers, and each member of the family has a different family
name. The family originated from a place of war and making it hard to identify
siblings was an essential consideration in the naming of the brothers, and the
reason why none of them share a family name. And under those circumstances, the
wife does not take the husband's name.
Today, as I counsel couples
preparing for marriage, the post-marriage name is more of a conversation that
needs to be had than it might have been in the past. Many women still choose to
change their name and take the name of their new husbands. Some want to marry
but to also keep their own names and identity. One couple decided at the end of
our conversation that the man would take the woman’s name.
This is the only place in the “Song
of Songs” where the bride is called “the Shulammite.” And in using this name,
the bride is being identified with Solomon. Shulammite is the feminine form of
Solomon, much like Donna is the female form of Don or Donald in English. Here
she is identifying herself with her husband by taking his name. The use of
“Shulammite” indicates the strong unity that existed between the couple.
Just as a further note, it is crucial
to understand that the “He,” “She,” and “Friends” listed at the beginning of
each section in the Song of Songs is actually entirely arbitrary. Sometimes the
speaker is obvious. But sometimes it is a stretch. And maybe sometimes, we get
it wrong. The NIV places the words at the tail end of this verse into the mouth
of Solomon, but it might be that it was meant to be that the voice of “the
Shulammite” that is heard here. The context is hard to understand, but it makes
sense that, as the friend's clamor for her to return, she would respond in
great humility, wondering why they would want to look at her. After all, all
that she is, in her mind, is summed up in her relationship with the king. The
Shulammite is nothing without Solomon. We might not always understand that
sentiment in our culture, but it would have been very appropriate in the
culture of the Shulammite.
Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 7
No comments:
Post a Comment