I have a hard time pulling out verses from the poetic books. So you get the entire chapter 6. Also, Susanne, Song of Songs = Song of Solomon.
*Companions*
1. Where has your beloved gone,
You beautiful one among women?
Where has your beloved turned his attention?
For we will seek him with you.+
*The Bride*
2. My beloved has gone down to his garden,
To the beds of spice,
To shepherd his sheep in the gardens
And to gather lilies.+
3. I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine,
He who shepherd's his sheep among the lilies.
*The Groom*
4. You are beautiful, my companion,
You are my good pleasure;
You are as beautiful as Jerusalem;
You are as awesome as an army set in array.
5. Turn away your eyes from before me,
For they have ravished me.
Your hair is like flocks of goats
Coming down from Gilead.+
6. Your teeth are as flocks of sheep
That are sheared,
Which came up from the washing.
All of them bear twins,
And none among them is barren.
7. Your lips are like scarlet thread,
And your manner of speech is lovely.
Your cheeks outside your veil
Are like the rind of a pomegranate.
8. There are sixty queens
And eighty concubines,
And maidens without number.+
9. My dove, my perfect one is the only one;
And she is the only one of her mother,
The choice of the one who bore her.
The daughters saw her
And considered her blessed.
The queens and the concubines will also praise her.
10. Who is she who looks forth as the early morning,
Beautiful as the moon,
Choice as the sun,
Awesome as armies set in array?+
*Bride*
11. I went down to the orchard of nut trees
To see the fruits of the valley,
To see if the vineyard had blossomed
And if the pomegranates had put forth blossoms.
There I will give my breasts to you.+
12. My soul did not know it.
It made me as the chariots of Amminadab.
~~~~
Notes:
+6:1 - The daughters of Jerusalem, the companions, now inquire where they can find such a Bridegroom. Those who are wise still seek him.
+6:2 - His garden is the Church.
+6:5 - The Bridegroom warns His Bride against trying to somehow see His Divine Essence, for no one shall see Him and live (Ex 33:20), The angels, even the mighty seraphim, veil the faces before His glory (Is 6:2).
+6:8, 9 - There is little patristic commentary on this passage. The queens appear to represent the souls of those who reign with Christ through their watchfulness and their evangelical way of life. The concubines may give praise to the bride (v. 9), but expend their energy on worldly attachments. Both the queens and concubines approach the King's throne, but only the queens rule with Him. Seeing the Church as mother (v. 9), St. Cyprian of Carthage writes, if one "resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" Despite the multiplication of religious sects, each offering its own brand of revelation, salvation, or enlightenment, there is but one Bride of Christ.
+6:10 - The Bride, the Church, is beautiful as the moon because she is illumined by the Sin of Righteousness (Mal 3:20) and reflects the light of His glory.
+6:11 - Here, the Bride goes down to the orchard when she inspects the fruits that grow there, an act of self-examination. The Church is called to examine her spiritual progress, watching for those who still need assistance in bringing forth virtue (see 2Co 13:5). On the subject of married love, King Solomon wrote concerning one's wife, "Rejoice together with the wife of your youth" (Pr 5:18). The wife gives her body to her husband, and he gives himself to her (1Cor 7:4). This is a powerful picture of our intimacy with God at the Holy Eucharist, for marriage is an icon of the Church (Eph 5:25-28).
Oh yay...notes too! I always find those interesting!
ReplyDeleteMy chapter starts off with a description of me. How fitting and nice!! :)
1 How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
descending from Mount Gilead.
2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn,
coming up from the washing.
Each has its twin;
not one of them is alone.
3 Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon;
your mouth is lovely.
Your temples behind your veil
are like the halves of a pomegranate.
4 Your neck is like the tower of David,
built with elegance [a] ;
on it hang a thousand shields,
all of them shields of warriors.
5 Your two breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.
6 Until the day breaks
and the shadows flee,
I will go to the mountain of myrrh
and to the hill of incense.
7 All beautiful you are, my darling;
there is no flaw in you.
8 Come with me from Lebanon, my bride,
come with me from Lebanon.
Descend from the crest of Amana,
from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon,
from the lions' dens
and the mountain haunts of the leopards.
9 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
10 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon.
12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13 Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates
with choice fruits,
with henna and nard,
14 nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes
and all the finest spices.
15 You are [b] a garden fountain,
a well of flowing water
streaming down from Lebanon.
Beloved
16 Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread abroad.
Let my lover come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits.
See, it's just so beautiful! I like the notes too. Very informational!
ReplyDeleteThough I think, in my chapter, that some people might go, huh? 'beautiful as an army in array'? But, personally, I find the sight of any group of soldiers, all done up in their uniforms (especially dress uniforms), very aesthetically pleasing. And back in the day, the army would have been shinier, with their arms and armor all being made of metal. Hmmm...shiny....
Oh I agree! I love men in uniforms all in rows. :)
ReplyDeleteYep. There's something about a man in uniform. Put a whole bunch of them together, all moving in time? Mmm....
ReplyDeleteIt's the simple pleasures in life.
Umm, why is it that people have to allegorize the Song of Songs? To put it bluntly, I think the sensuality is entirely too detailed and... human for it to be anything else other than what it is: a collection of erotic poems i.e. poems about a sexual relationship between a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteAnd as I have noted elsewhere, these poems contain not one word about children - and not for lack of a serious tone. These are erotic poems which also exhort one to chastity until 'the right time' and talk about commitment and love being stronger than death, and also about the proprietary aspect of the relationship. It's clearly about marital love, in other words - not something that falls short of same.
But to return to the sensuality, it starts off with an image of French kissing. And even if it's 'only metaphorical', I find the idea of French kissing Jesus Christ pretty repulsive and even blasphemous. Oneness, I can see - but this kind of detail is just TMI.
Caraboska,I read something in my OT book the other day that said Jewish people weren't supposed to read this book until they were thirty. :) Too erotic, I guess...hehehe
ReplyDeleteUmm, why is it that people have to allegorize the Song of Songs?
ReplyDeleteAt a guess, maybe it's because otherwise it seems too odd to include a book of erotica in sacred scriptures?
'And as I have noted elsewhere, these poems contain not one word about children - and not for lack of a serious tone.'
Yes, and as I believe I have mentioned elsewhere, they're erotic poems. Children are not erotic. The idea of morning sickness and swelling and weird body-things is not erotic. It does not titilate, it does not arouse or excite. Which is the point of erotic poems/stories/images. So the lack of mention of children in the Song of Songs doesn't really prove (or disprove) anything.
'And even if it's 'only metaphorical', I find the idea of French kissing Jesus Christ pretty repulsive and even blasphemous. Oneness, I can see - but this kind of detail is just TMI.'
Maybe you're being too literal? If it's used in a metaphorical/ allegorical sense, it doesn't mean that anyone is actually going to be 'making out' with God.
Amber, I am sure that you have hit the nail on the head as to why people allegorize the Song of Songs.
ReplyDeleteI think the writer of this book could find a way to make children erotic - he'd have to go just a step further and talk not just about the fruits and flowers and spices and whatnot that are already in the garden at the moment of first contact with said garden, but the ones that will come later. Or have some of the bride's friends blessing them and wishing them many children. Or something like that.
But since we are on the subject, do you think chastity and 'not awakening love until it so desires' is erotic? Keeping the young sister locked away if she is a 'door', building towers on her if she is not? The whole point is that eroticism has its place, and until the right time arrives, that place is... Well, let's say it's a secret that has to remain between us and God.
Or what about this? The Song of Songs repeats in several places the phrase 'I am my lover's, and he is mine'. It might even be erotic to possess someone else. But is it so erotic to be possessed by someone? To always have to reckon with their views and desires? To always have to be accountable to someone else as the owner of one's body? Since when does eros motivate people to do that? It doesn't, and that is the source of probably half the problems in society.
Or how about another tidbit? The Song of Songs says something to the effect of 'Place me like a seal on your heart... Love is stronger than death.' If 'until death us do part' is so erotic, why are so many people champing at the bit to part before then?
And yet another tidbit - did you know a lot of Muslims have a good deal of trouble with the idea that the Tanakh recounts stories of people who are considered prophets in Islam, but who sinned terribly - even in the bedroom (think: David and Bathsheba)? If the Bible can talk about that and no one among Christians has a problem with it, then why would they have trouble with a book that talks about the good and holy use of sexuality?
I think the writer of this book could find a way to make children erotic...Or have some of the bride's friends blessing them and wishing them many children. Or something like that.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't doubt that it would be possible, if we treat this a just an erotic poem, a love poem between two people, then perhaps children aren't mentioned because the author's don't personally find them erotic? I do know people who actually do find pregnancy erotic. The body changes, the swell of the belly, the lactation, they find it all incredibly arousing. They would write love poems and include references to the aspects that attract them. These writers, apparently, did not.
do you think chastity and 'not awakening love until it so desires' is erotic? Keeping the young sister locked away if she is a 'door', building towers on her if she is not?
Some people do, yes. The idea of being the first to touch, the first to discover, the first to arouse. The idea that that person is only and wholly for you, that forever after, when they think of their first time, when they discover what arouses them, you will be the base that they have to compare to? Yes. Some people find chastity erotic.
The Song of Songs repeats in several places the phrase 'I am my lover's, and he is mine'. It might even be erotic to possess someone else. But is it so erotic to be possessed by someone? To always have to reckon with their views and desires? To always have to be accountable to someone else as the owner of one's body?
Yes. Yes it is. The entire BDSM community is based on this. Not all of them live it 24/7, but this thought, belonging to someone else, having them control your movements and decisions, your desires being under their control? Yes, it is erotic. If it wasn't we'd only have doms, and no subs.
Or how about another tidbit?... Love is stronger than death.' If 'until death us do part' is so erotic, why are so many people champing at the bit to part before then?
Some people find the reality far less erotic than the fantasy. Or, they've never found the idea erotic in the first place.
Like I said, concepts of eroticism vary so much from person to person, it's almost impossible to be general about it.
Yes, I did know that about Muslims. It's because they believe that all the prophets never sinned. Whether or not they should believe that, according to the Qur'an, is a discussion I've had with Muslims. Never the less, the majority of them at least do believe it, I have found.
If the Bible can talk about that and no one among Christians has a problem with it, then why would they have trouble with a book that talks about the good and holy use of sexuality?
Perhaps because the stories showing the flaws and sins of the Patriarchs and others serve a purpose that ties in with the theology and the history of Judaism and Christianity, but a book of erotic poems doesn't really seem to, unless it has deeper meaning than that which is apparent on the surface?
I guess some Muslims (particularly Shi'ites) do believe that all the prophets were without sin. But my understanding is that the Sunni view is that only one of them was, namely - Isa al-Masih ibn-Mariam (Jesus Christ, son of Mary).
ReplyDeleteI agree that the OT accounts of the sins of the prophets did have a point of illustrating various things about God's way of doing things, in that they normally record God's reaction to the sins in question, and how the matter ended. And the final verdict is always God's.
To me the Song of Songs sounds like something that godly people could sing at a wedding, and there are little refrains to be sung by 'the crowd'. Probably it isn't used in that way, but that's still the way it sounds. Or for that matter, it may be an account of a real live wedding that took place. Although then again, the didactic content is such that it may be otherwise after all.
I think it's a great book that shows what sexual love should be all about. A great balance to the detailed descriptions in Leviticus of what practices are prohibited - or more precisely, with whom (e.g. someone else's wife or fiancee (adultery), your mother (incest), an MSS (homosexuality) or your pet sheep (bestiality)) - and what the penalties are for violations.
The world would love to leave out the bits about chastity and accountability and 'until death us do part', but the fact of the matter is that this is the Bible - so these matters are not left out. They are presented as the context of the relationship, and we know from elsewhere in the Scriptures that it is the only proper context.
Of course, the argument from silence is not the strongest, but I would say that there is far too much silence at too many moments about the matter of children for us to ignore it, even in the OT, and in the NT, well, we know that Genesis 1:27 can't be viewed as a command if Paul is telling us that one person has one gift, the other has another, and that it's actually preferable to remain single (which would, given Biblical standards for sexuality) preclude having children.
So if it's not a command, then what is it? I've heard a theory that it's a blessing. So the idea would be that having children is something God gives us as one of the possible means of fulfilling our mission of filling the earth and subduing it - but not necessarily the only one. The ultimate mission of the Christian, for example, is to partake in filling the earth with the knowledge and love of God, with obedience to His Word. We don't need to have children or even be married to do that.
I could say more, but I need to rest my weary mind for a bit.
Caraboska, I've enjoyed reading your views here, but I feel like some of this conversation was held elsewhere and it carried over to this post. I was puzzled why children came up in the context of this book. Are you arguing that it's not necessary to have children? Was someone arguing the other way? That children were necessary for salvation? Just curious. :)
ReplyDeleteI guess some Muslims (particularly Shi'ites) do believe that all the prophets were without sin. But my understanding is that the Sunni view is that only one of them was, namely - Isa al-Masih ibn-Mariam (Jesus Christ, son of Mary).
ReplyDeleteFunnily, the majority of my interaction with Muslims has been with Sunni or Salafi Muslims, and I still get the impression that they believe all the prophets were sinless.
It could have been sung at a wedding, I guess. I just don't think it really was. It just gives the feeling, to me, of a private thing. A love poem written to ones beloved. Or a series, back and forth, between two poetically inclined lovers. *shrug* But that's personal opinion.
I think it's a great book that shows what sexual love should be all about.
I too think it's a great book, and lovely, though I don't think that it encompasses all of the aspects of sexual love. But I don't think it was ever meant to. If you view it as a romantic exchange between lovers, then it's only meant to reflect their love, their sexual desires and thoughts. If it's allegorical, then the sexual tones to it are nothing but a guide to lead our minds from what we know to the aspects that are greater than what we know.
Of course, the argument from silence is not the strongest, but I would say that there is far too much silence at too many moments about the matter of children for us to ignore it, even in the OT, and in the NT, well, we know that Genesis 1:27 can't be viewed as a command if Paul is telling us that one person has one gift, the other has another, and that it's actually preferable to remain single (which would, given Biblical standards for sexuality) preclude having children.
I view the command to be fruitful as a command, generally to humanity. However, since fertility is given by God (genetics, etc.), individual couples may not be meant to fulfill the general commandment. But they still (in my opinion) should remain open to the possibility of children, because of the general command to humanity.
St. Paul also thought that the world was going to end any day. He said that the people should remain in whatever state they were in. The married should remain married, the single, single. However, if they felt the need to be married (if they thought that they wouldn't be able to remain free from sexual sin as a single person), then they should marry. That's not a resounding endorsement for singleness as the only way.
The ultimate mission of the Christian, for example, is to partake in filling the earth with the knowledge and love of God, with obedience to His Word. We don't need to have children or even be married to do that.
But for some, having children is a way to do that. To bear and raise godly children, and to spread God's message and Love that way is a good thing. Also, viewing the commandment to be fruitful, as as commandment, means that having children, if we are so blessed, would be obedience to His Word.
Regardless, I agree that one does not need to have children in order to be married in the eyes of God. However, I maintain that a true, Christian marriage must remain open to the possibility of being blessed with children, thus obeying God's command to be fruitful and multiply, and placing that aspect of the marriage (as should be done with all aspects of the marriage) firmly in God's hands and timing.
Susanne,
ReplyDeleteAspects of this conversation were discussed before, over at caraboska's place. :)
Umm...here:
http://caraboska.livejournal.com/6797.html
and:
http://caraboska.livejournal.com/7063.html
Thanks for the links, Amber. I enjoyed reading you two's views on this issue. Interesting thoughts!
ReplyDeleteThis is the whole point: it can't be a command, because given Biblical standards for engagement in baby-producing activities, that would amount to a command to get married, and the NT states very clearly that that is not even just optional - it is even advisable *not* to do it if you are able to live that life in a chaste manner.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that you can view 'and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply' as anything other than a command. Every instance of 'and God said', up to that was God commanding an aspect of the universe into being. If it wasn't a command, what was it? A suggestion? Was God suggesting that the universe should do what He say? No. It was a command to have children (assuming God blessed you with children), so, yes, it was a command to get married, if one is called to it. Not everyone is called to marriage, nor is everyone called to celibacy. Wouldn't that be more in line with St. Paul's assertion that some have one gift, and others another? Some are called to glorify God in the Holy Mystery of Marriage, others in choosing celibacy. Neither path is better than the other, just different. Both lead to God, when followed correctly.
ReplyDeleteI just don't agree with your understanding of the references to marriage and celibacy in the NT. And, while I know it makes no impact on your personal interpretation, the traditional and historical interpretation of the texts disagrees with you as well. So. I am comfortable with my understanding on this point.
I agree that it was a command given to Adam and Eve. And others are free to reproduce as, well, it's a natural thing when most couples have sex without contraception.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think the earth has been replenished so I don't feel it was a command for ME. Therefore, I have no children. :)
I think children are considered blessings from the Lord and most people want them (some want LOTS of them). But certainly not all.
Susanne,
ReplyDeleteAnd given that I see Adam and Eve not as actual, real people, but more as representatives of the entire human race, I view it as a general command to the entire human race. So humanity was commanded to multiply.
Which leaves room for those who are called to celibacy, or who (for one reason or another), simply never have children.
Ah yes...well,I've always been a bit of a rebel. If one is saved by childbearing, I'm doomed. :-S
ReplyDeleteCan you believe how many comments are on this post? Usually I am the ONLY ONE who comments on these birthday Bible verse posts. :)
ReplyDelete'Ah yes...well,I've always been a bit of a rebel. If one is saved by childbearing, I'm doomed. :-S'
ReplyDelete*snort* You and so very many other people. Including every man ever. So there you go. :)
'Can you believe how many comments are on this post? Usually I am the ONLY ONE who comments on these birthday Bible verse posts. :)'
I suspect, much of the time, you're the only one who reads my blog at all. :) I am epically boring...
I think people lurk, but don't post comments. You aren't boring! I read a book yesterday and the main character reminded me of you. She was so quirky and cool...the whole time when I read Ellie, I thought Amber. :) You might read the book and say this is NOTHING like you, but still...she had the personality that I attribute to you from reading your blog.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I *adored* the character!
Traditional Jewish Law views Genesis 1:27 as a commandment - but one that applies only to men. The reasoning behind this is that the law of levirate marriage (which talks about what is to happen when someone dies childless) applies only to men, and not to women.
ReplyDeleteThere is no specific interpretation given of what it means to 'multiply' in the Torah, but there are two traditional interpretations: one that a couple is required to have at least two sons, and the other that they are required to have at least one son and one daughter. So there are those who figure that in order to satisfy both possibilities, you should have at least two sons and one daughter.
This alone should tell us that it is in fact not actually a commandment - since it is clearly not applicable to everyone even if it is a commandment - because there is no qualification in the actual verse (Genesis 1:27). No qualification that it applies only to Adam and not to Eve.
But more importantly, there is no qualification 'unless you are called to celibacy'. If you view it as a commandment, then that would mean that no one (or at least no man) is called to celibacy. But in the New Testament, there is very clear evidence that some people do have such a calling. So we can't view it as a commandment at all in the New Testament context.
The only people who think that are the same ones who want to keep women at home, barefoot and pregnant - and God forbid that one of them find herself in the pulpit at church... It's all part of a package, see. A whole idolatrous package which I want no part of. The cult of motherhood. The cult of male authority. The cult of the 'priesthood', for that matter (never mind that the Bible clearly teaches that all believers are priests in God's sight).
I realize I am stepping on toes here. I admit to finding it really annoying when people insist on listening to tradition when they thereby end up making the Bible say exactly the opposite of what it actually says. and of course - as long as tradition is in the picture, we will never come to any kind of agreement about nearly everything.
But it's actually more than just annoying, because if we read the Bible with tradition and without, we come to completely different conclusions even about such important matters as how people are saved. Let's say I am 110% sure that Roman Catholic tradition would tell me I am serving the devil and on my way to hell because of my views about such things as baptism, communion, confession or priesthood - and maybe others as well. But I think it is already clear what my answer will be.
I am not trying to be mean here. I'm just trying to point out that this disagreement about tradition is not just a matter of opinion - it is a matter of eternal consequence.
Again, I could say more, but I must rest my weary brain...
Caraboska, you are up late so no wonder your brain is weary! :-)
ReplyDeletePaul told the jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
I don't know that adding more to that is the way to salvation. Jesus never told us to have proper views of communion and such was necessary. It was basically "follow me." Now if in our following Him, He reveals our views are wrong, we should change them. Holding onto our views when Jesus says to change is stubborn pride and idolatry. But if He doesn't change them, eh...I think we sometimes major on some things that aren't really all that major in God's eyes.
Of course I could be completely wrong, but that's the way I view it. I think we've added too much when Jesus said HE was "the Way."
I'm off to bed. Good night!
Susanne, This is exactly my point. I we say that some 'ordinance' - some work of human hands - is 'necessary for salvation', then we are adding to the gospel. It is indeed 'Believe on the Lord Jesus. Period.' Although of course for those with warped minds, that could end up being understood as - God forbid - just 'pray the prayer' and then go out and do whatever you d*** well please 'because you're gonna be saved anyway.' It does not mean that and never has (see Romans 6).
ReplyDelete'not actually a commandment - since it is clearly not applicable to everyone even if it is a commandment - because there is...No qualification that it applies only to Adam and not to Eve.'
ReplyDeleteI still don't see why we can make the shift from a list of commandments, phrased the same way, to a...what? If not a commandment, then what is it? If Adam and Eve are viewed as representatives of humanity, and not individuals, then the command can be seen as being given to the larger scope of humans, not each individual person. And I'm not sure how you get that it's not a commandment from the fact that it was not qualified. I could see the argument if there was a qualification, or if it was specifically directed at only Adam, of it not being a general command, but not the reverse.
'there is no qualification 'unless you are called to celibacy'...But in the New Testament, there is very clear evidence that some people do have such a calling...can't view it as a commandment at all in the New Testament context.'
But the qualification does exist in the New Testament. Since, as you point out, it is clear that some are called to celibacy. The New Testament corrects many misunderstandings of the old law, why not this as well?
'The only people who think that are the same ones who want to keep women at home, barefoot and pregnant - and God forbid that one of them find herself in the pulpit at church'
I'm sorry, but, no, you're just wrong, there. I believe this, and I have absolutely no desire to keep women home, barefoot or pregnant. And I don't know anyone in real life, in the three churches that I have studiously attended and ascribed to, that believe that. And since all three of those churches would agree that women are not to be priests, they fit your other bill.
Women are heavily involved in all the churches, holding a multitude of positions, while having jobs, and raising families (of whatever size and composition the Lord has seen fit to give them). I have never once seen someone tell a woman to get back in the kitchen where she belongs in any of those churches. I have, however, seen it in groups where personal interpretation of the Bible (with no regard for the Fathers or Tradition). So it is false and unfair to ascribe the same attitude across the board as it were.
'The cult of motherhood. The cult of male authority. The cult of the 'priesthood''
I hope you see I'm not trying to be mean here, either, but isn't it possible that these are all personal issues/causes that you have that are then translated onto your personal understanding and interpretation of the text?
'if we read the Bible with tradition and without, we come to completely different conclusions even about such important matters as how people are saved.'
Why should we separate the Bible from the Tradition which created it? The Bible does not contain everything about the Church. It was put together by the Church, from a large number of texts. So how can anyone say that their personal interpretation and understanding is superior to that of the Church, which has been there since the beginning? Though I disagree with your assertion that we come to different conclusions about how one is saved. We are saved through the grace of God, by faith in Him. That is how one is saved, without question. Does that require adherence to the laws and tenants of the Church, which Christ established for us, to help keep us on the path? That is where we disagree.
'this disagreement about tradition is not just a matter of opinion - it is a matter of eternal consequence.'
I agree. We are merely opposed as to which understanding is correct.