Who is the Rose of Sharon/ The Lily of the Valley? Worship Song ConfusioN!

Hi guys,

So I was just worshiping with my girlfriend and had to abruptly stop because of a song lyric.

I am a little confused it would help if someone could explain these two songs for me:

He is Yahweh
Who is moving on the waters
Who is holding up the moon
Who is peeling back the darkness
With the burning light of noon
Who is standing on the mountains
Who is on the earth below
Who is bigger than the heavens and the lover of my soul (Chorus)

(Chorus) Creator God, He is Yahweh
The Great I Am, He is Yahweh
The Lord of All, He is Yahweh
Rose of Sharon, He is Yahweh
The Righteous Son, He is Yahweh
The Three-in-one, He is Yahweh

Who is He that makes me happy
Who is He that gives me peace
Who is He that brings me comfort
And turns the bitter into sweet
Who is stirring up my passion
Who is rising up in me
Who is filling up my hunger, with everything I need. (Chorus)

You are holy and eternal
And forever You will reign
Every knee will bow before You
Every tongue will confess Your name
All the angels give You glory
As they stand before Your throne
and here on Earth we gather
To declare Your name alone. (Chorus)

So God ISNT the Rose of Sharon right? Or can he be?
Cuz in Song of Solomon 2 the bride says I AM the rose of Sharon? SO i feel like I cant sing that part of the song cuz its not true.

Also the song

The Lily of the Valley

I have found a friend in Jesus, He’s everything to me,
He’s the fairest of ten thousand to my soul;
The Lily of the Valley, in Him alone I see
All I need to cleanse and make me fully whole.
In sorrow He’s my comfort, in trouble He’s my stay;
He tells me every care on Him to roll.

Refrain:
He’s the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star,
He’s the fairest of ten thousand to my soul.

He all my grief has taken, and all my sorrows borne;
In temptation He’s my strong and mighty tow’r;
I have all for Him forsaken, and all my idols torn
From my heart and now He keeps me by His pow’r.
Though all the world forsake me, and Satan tempt me sore,
Through Jesus I shall safely reach the goal.
He will never, never leave me, nor yet forsake me here,
While I live by faith and do His blessed will;
A wall of fire about me, I’ve nothing now to fear,
From His manna He my hungry soul shall fill.
Then sweeping up to glory to see His blessed face,
Where rivers of delight shall ever roll.

SO GOd isnt the lily of the Valley is He if He is please explain!

He's definitely the Bright and Morning star. Lily seems to be more applicable to those of His affection. Hosea 14 & SOS 2.

From the dead, the seed is brought to life. Once in blossom, how beautiful it is. A lily among the thorns. Not unlike regeneration. Oh how such flowers love the Son.

Hi EvangelTam,

I understand how there can be confusion in regard to this. For me, terms like "the lily of the valley" and "the rose of Sharon" are mere descriptions of adoration.

There used to be an old song called "You are my Sunshine." Everyone knows that the songwriter or singer is directing the song to a particular person (spouse, child, etc...). However, I have also heard people describe the Lord as their "sunshine." Thus, such personification of a flower...or other object...is simply used as a type or simile.

The Song of Solomon is difficult for many people to understand. To some, it is a mere love story between Solomon and the Shulamite woman. To others, it is a pure spiritual allegory with absolutely no human connection. Still to others, it is a literal song of romantic relationship between Solomon and the Shulamite that also serves as an anecdotal allegory of a spiritual romance between Christ and the Church.

In Song of Solomon 2:1, many versions indicate that it is the "Beloved" who is speaking and calling herself "the lily of the valley" and "the rose of Sharon." The "beloved" would, of course, represent the Church (or Bride of Christ) in such an allegorical interpretation. In other words, the woman is calling herself those things; and, in the very next verse, the "Lover" agrees (Song of Solomon 2:2). Yet the word "beloved" is also used by the Father to describe Jesus as well (Matthew 3:17).

There is no reason why a particular term can't be used as a adoring description for both the Lord or His Bride too. After all, Jesus describes Himself as "the bright and morning star" (Revelation 22:16). The same term, however, is also used to describe Lucifer (Isaiah 14). It is the intent of the heart is what gives the description weight.

In a similar way, I sometimes tell my wife that she is the "love of my life." However, I can use that same term to describe the Lord as well.

At Times Square Church in New York City, they used to sing a song that said:

Oh yes! You are the Lily of the Valley!
Oh yes! You are the Lily of the Valley!
Oh yes! You are the Lily of the Valley!
And I love you so!
And I love you so!

It was a beautiful song of worship. I enjoyed it so much that I purchased a CD that contained the song. I think that it adequately personifies the love that we can feel to describe the beauty of the holiness of the Lord!

There are plenty of other similes and instances of personification in the Scriptures. We read of the Lord being described with "wings" or having "eyes" that "roam" about the Earth. He is also described as a "king," "high priest" and a "bridegroom" which are words used to describe humans as well. I think can be applied to both the Groom or a Bride.

Anyway, this is my perspective on the matter. I know some people who become very upset at hearing such a description used to describe Christ...and even call it "non-Biblical." However, I wouldn't go so far when such words are merely a description of the adoration that flows from a heart that is in love with the Lord.

Hi Jesus-is-God,

Thanks for the info. I understand that the wording for the "morning star" term appears in the KJV as "Lucifer." However, there are quite a few versions -- including some taken from the Textus Receptus -- that translate the Hebrew word "heylel" (H1966 in Strong's) with either "morning star" or "day star" reference. The NASB happens to be one of them.

I would have to look further into the reasons why some translators preferred to translate the term as "Lucifer" while others translate it the name itself into the "morning" or "day" star.

Still, the point is that the use of a term that is applied to Christ is also applied elsewhere. Even outside of this Biblical account of Lucifer, the same "morning star" or "day star" term was used in Greek mythology for the god "Phosphorus."

In the sense of a song of worship, it is a simile used in adoration. There are many words found in songs of worship that invoke terms typically used in reference to earthly kings. New Testament believers were told by Peter to "honor the king" (I Peter 2:17). It is a term that applies to the earthly as a temporary type but to our Lord as eternal.

So, in reference to the original poster's question, I don't think that it is wrong to describe the Lord as the "lily of the valley."

For instance, we can call the Lord the "star of David," the "star out of Jacob" or the "light of the world." We know that the Lord is not a physical "star" (like the Sun in our Solar System, or one of the trillions of others stars in the sky that are observed via telescopes...or even a mere physical "light"). Yet, that same descriptive word ("star" or "light") is used in the New Testament to describe believers (Philippians 2:15).

I do understand that the original term for "lily of the valley" was a descriptor of the Shulamite in the Song of Solomon. At the same time, I don't have a problem with describing the Lord in a similar manner of adoration.

The Lord bless you!

Hi Sister,

You could paste הילל into a Hebrew to English translator, that Origen translated as "Lucifer" or light-bearer. He meant well, in this case.

הילל is only used once in the whole of the O.T..
הלל is the word that it's derived from - H1984.
Notice the only difference is that " י ".

Could it be possible that H1984 would have been closer to the meaning? One that "boasteth" or "praised himself" [this King of Babylon] or "the shining one" [as Origen used the root word H1984 as well and came up with Latin, "Lucifer" = Light bearer]? Boasteth or Praiseth from H1984 would also make much more sense in context of the verses that follows 14:13,14 - For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

All it took was one י to totally change the meaning, enough for translators to quarrel over it for this long. Is it at all possible that somewhere, since 754 b.c. or so, that someone stuck a י where it didn't belong, if H1966 is only found used once in the O.T. but the root word being H1984 is used 166 times and the word that most traslators referred back to when translating Is 14:12?

Thanks again for the input. It has been quite a while since I studied this in depth. I understand that there is much debate over the proper English translation of this particular Hebrew term.

I think that the more literal Hebrew to English translations tend to designate the word as a purely literatim translation, whereas some of the Hebrew to Greek (to Latin) to English will render the term as the Latin name "Lucifer."

This is demonstrated in the Dead Sea Scrolls too, as the term is translated directly into English as a term ("day star") rather than a name.

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#14:12

Regardless of any of this, I do believe that this term (whether "day star," "morning star" or "Lucifer") is referring to Satan. Also, I think that KingJimmy (and/or someone else) mentioned some things about this in the past. Perhaps they can add something to the discussion.

I do believe that Jesus is the true "bright and morning star" and that Satan (or Lucifer) is a fallen impostor who masquerades as an "angel of Light" and, of course, is destined to receive his eternal destruction. And, of course, the term "morning star" has been used to refer to false gods (like the ancient Greek mythological god Phosphorus), but our Lord is the true "bright and morning star."

The Lord bless you, sister.

:-)

BTW, I hope that we didn't meander too far off topic or from the questions and intent of the original poster. I simply wanted to point out that, sometimes, multiple terms can apply to more than one thing. I can refer to the Lord as the beautiful "rose of Sharon" or fragrant "lily of the valley" while still understanding that it was a romantic descriptive of the Shulamite woman.

After all, my wife is both my beautiful bride...and the beautiful Bride of Christ. The same term ("bride") is referring to something both earthly and spiritual. This is why I don't mind singing such adoration to Jesus the "lily of the valley."

[quote Jesus-Is-God] Why do some use a "w" instead of "v"?
Strong's and the others have "v".

As a child I read many classics from pre- 19th century European, mostly English, novels. The w's were pronounced as a 'v'.

So I got this off the net.

W (play /ˈdʌbəljuː/, /ˈdʌbəjuː/, /ˈdʌbəjə/, or /ˈdʌbjə/; named double-u, plural double-ues)[1][2] is the 23rd letter in the basic modern Latin alphabet.

In other Germanic languages, including German, its pronunciation is similar or identical to that of English V.[3] In Spanish, it is double ve or uve double,[4][note 1] and in French double vé, both literally "double vee".

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W