• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Lost Sheep of the Song of Solomon

F

Fledgling

Member
Male
The Song of Solomon/Songs has sometimes been seen as a monogamous love story (by those who reject polygyny), even though it seems clear that the man has "sixty queens and eighty concubines". At the very least, it looks as though he has some special relationship with this particular woman, above the others. This special relationship has bothered me a bit: we are not supposed to have favourites, so far as I understand it.

I had a thought just a bit ago, however. Jesus also seems to give preferential treatment to the one lost sheep, and leaves the 99 for it. Could there be a common link here?

With the story of the 100 sheep, it is written such that any of us could be the one. And we are to also rejoice for the one if we happen to be among the 99. But it's written such that it's clear that we are each considered worthy of being rescued in that way, that the 99 would be left.

What if the woman in Song of Solomon is also meant to be the one out of many, and that the song could apply to any of the women? That none of his wives should feel left out, because it is written to all of them, as though they are each "the one". And that, perhaps, if they find themselves in any given moment as part of the 60 wives or 80 concubines and they witness another woman being the one, another sheep being the one out of 99, then they are to rejoice with that other woman/sheep, and rejoice for the man.

Maybe it's not about a specific woman, but that you are this woman, and each one of us is this woman. Each one of us is the one sheep. And our Groom/Shepherd longs for and rejoices over us as though we are the only one, just as He treats all the others.

One counter argument to this idea is that the woman in Song of Solomon has specific, identifying attributes being described (skin colour, nationality - "Shulammite"). This makes me hesitate a little, though it doesn't destroy the idea entirely, in my opinion.
 
Fledgling said:
The Song of Solomon/Songs has sometimes been seen as a monogamous love story (by those who reject polygyny), even though it seems clear that the man has "sixty queens and eighty concubines". At the very least, it looks as though he has some special relationship with this particular woman, above the others. This special relationship has bothered me a bit: we are not supposed to have favourites, so far as I understand it.

I had a thought just a bit ago, however. Jesus also seems to give preferential treatment to the one lost sheep, and leaves the 99 for it. Could there be a common link here?

With the story of the 100 sheep, it is written such that any of us could be the one. And we are to also rejoice for the one if we happen to be among the 99. But it's written such that it's clear that we are each considered worthy of being rescued in that way, that the 99 would be left.

What if the woman in Song of Solomon is also meant to be the one out of many, and that the song could apply to any of the women? That none of his wives should feel left out, because it is written to all of them, as though they are each "the one". And that, perhaps, if they find themselves in any given moment as part of the 60 wives or 80 concubines and they witness another woman being the one, another sheep being the one out of 99, then they are to rejoice with that other woman/sheep, and rejoice for the man.

Maybe it's not about a specific woman, but that you are this woman, and each one of us is this woman. Each one of us is the one sheep. And our Groom/Shepherd longs for and rejoices over us as though we are the only one, just as He treats all the others.

One counter argument to this idea is that the woman in Song of Solomon has specific, identifying attributes being described (skin colour, nationality - "Shulammite"). This makes me hesitate a little, though it doesn't destroy the idea entirely, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I believe that there is a difference between love, and affinity. We should love them all. Just as we love all our children. But there will be more affinity for one over the other.
 
Fledgling said:
The Song of Solomon/Songs has sometimes been seen as a monogamous love story (by those who reject polygyny), even though it seems clear that the man has "sixty queens and eighty concubines". At the very least, it looks as though he has some special relationship with this particular woman, above the others. This special relationship has bothered me a bit: we are not supposed to have favourites, so far as I understand it.

I had a thought just a bit ago, however. Jesus also seems to give preferential treatment to the one lost sheep, and leaves the 99 for it. Could there be a common link here?

With the story of the 100 sheep, it is written such that any of us could be the one. And we are to also rejoice for the one if we happen to be among the 99. But it's written such that it's clear that we are each considered worthy of being rescued in that way, that the 99 would be left.

What if the woman in Song of Solomon is also meant to be the one out of many, and that the song could apply to any of the women? That none of his wives should feel left out, because it is written to all of them, as though they are each "the one". And that, perhaps, if they find themselves in any given moment as part of the 60 wives or 80 concubines and they witness another woman being the one, another sheep being the one out of 99, then they are to rejoice with that other woman/sheep, and rejoice for the man.

Maybe it's not about a specific woman, but that you are this woman, and each one of us is this woman. Each one of us is the one sheep. And our Groom/Shepherd longs for and rejoices over us as though we are the only one, just as He treats all the others.

One counter argument to this idea is that the woman in Song of Solomon has specific, identifying attributes being described (skin colour, nationality - "Shulammite"). This makes me hesitate a little, though it doesn't destroy the idea entirely, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Good thoughts. I like them. As with many interpretive applications, there’s always a limit to which they can be taken, but I like the comparisons you make.
 
Fledgling said:
The Song of Solomon/Songs has sometimes been seen as a monogamous love story (by those who reject polygyny), even though it seems clear that the man has "sixty queens and eighty concubines". At the very least, it looks as though he has some special relationship with this particular woman, above the others. This special relationship has bothered me a bit: we are not supposed to have favourites, so far as I understand it.
Click to expand...
Its funny when I read how He treats her unique and special I just interpreted that as wisdom on how to treat each Wife when your alone and its their special time with you? Thats exactly how they want to feel and within your own covenant with her its true? But interesting none the less.
 
I think we all need to be aware of our own feelings and the feeling of those around us as well. Even if we hae an affinity for one person, we should be aware and not allow ourselves to unfair or unbalanced in our actions.
 
Mojo said:
Which is every woman’s nightmare.
Click to expand...
I was listening to an interview with Alison Armstrong the other day. She talked about how women want to please their man and are CONSTANTLY observing his reactions to things. We think his care of us is somewhat dependant on him being pleased with us. Ironically, a woman pleasing a man (the way she thinks) doesn’t even show up on his top first TWELVE things she needs to have for him to ve interested in committing to her.
So it is basically wasted effort on her part. He would much rather her be impressed with him, or admire him, or like being around him.

I watched my husband get frustrated pulling a tee shirt off a hanger that had catch areas on the top to hold the clothes, so I only hung his clothes on smooth hangers. Does it matter? I guess not really. It is best to invest your effort in the emotional or relational "currency" that "spends" in their love language.
But, yes. Women mostly want to feel "safe" and loved.
Another tidbit from the interview is that men only use the word "safe" in the context of literal threats to their family...like a fire, accident, intruder, etc. while women use the word to describe how they feel.
Women also said there is no number of women that could make them feel as safe as one man. So, don't wipe out your superpower by making your woman feel threatened and you've pretty much got it made.

Link to the interview for anyone interested.

 
Joleneakamama said:
Another tidbit from the interview is that men only use the word "safe" in the context of literal threats to their family...like a fire, accident, intruder, etc. while women use the word to describe how they feel.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, but it makes sense when you think about it. Women need to be able to act instantly on their feels in protection of their cubs, while men need to be more logically oriented when governing the family and community.

And yes, men want peace from their women.
Something harder to come by when adding wives to the family.
 
steve said:
Women need to be able to act instantly on their feels in protection of their cubs, while men need to be more logically oriented when governing the family and community.
Click to expand...
just wondering why do we say stuff like this about mothers? is it true that men wouldn't act instantly to protect their children, or wouldn't know how?
 
YoreyC said:
just wondering why do we say stuff like this about mothers? is it true that men wouldn't act instantly to protect their children, or wouldn't know how?
Click to expand...
When children are at their most helpless state they are almost 100% in the care of their mother in a traditional family.
The father is presumably out killing food and dragging it home, or plowing the fields, etc.
 
but what about taking care of helpless children has to do with acting instantly on feelings, as you characterize the specialty of women, and not logic, as you characterize the specialty of men?
 
YoreyC said:
but what about taking care of helpless children has to do with acting instantly on feelings, as you characterize the specialty of women, and not logic, as you characterize the specialty of men?
Click to expand...
This is too much of a rabbit trail for this thread.
If you can’t see the point of what I wrote, life will go on.

I will say, though, that there are differences between males and females, and it is by design.
 
Last edited:
Joleneakamama said:
He would much rather her be impressed with him, or admire him, or like being around him.
Click to expand...
Yes, our needs are different.
Wives need to be loved while husbands need to be respected.
33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
 
this isn't me "not seeing your point," this is you having your point politely challenged and misunderstanding how to handle it.
 
YoreyC said:
this isn't me "not seeing your point," this is you having your point politely challenged and misunderstanding how to handle it.
Click to expand...
No misunderstanding here, I just refuse to debate it in this thread.
If it’s so important to you, start a new thread about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top