One of my favorite hymns is ‘Iesu, Iesu, rwyt ti’n ddigon’ (Jesus, Jesus, all sufficient) which has the rousing chorus in the second verse:
‘Rose of Sharon, ROSE OF SHARON!’ (you end up singing with gusto)
I have always felt this was a lovely way of talking about Jesus. As a rose is the most beautiful flower and very precious. Also, the analogy comes from the Song of Solomon which in itself is a lovely picture of the love and intimacy between the church and Christ.
However, there is a problem.
A big problem.
Song of Solomon chapter 2 is the only place in the entire Bible that this phrase turns up and it is like this:
I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys.
He
2 As a lily among brambles,
so is my love among the young women.
It seems to me that the rose of Sharon is the girl, who represents the church.
This is a problem.
No where in the Bible does Jesus get described as the ‘rose of Sharon’ and no one knows where that tradition started. The only thing we do know is that there is a great Welsh Hymn with that line in.
So, what should we do with the hymn?
-Still use it, as it is a powerful part of Welsh History
-Use it, but change that one line to something Biblical
-Dump it.
Since I discovered this, I’d always just sung it knowing that the line referred to the church and not Jesus…but then it doesn’t fit with the rest of the hymn. And I’ve had members of the congregation come up to me after singing it and saying, “Great song, love that line, ‘Rose of Sharon’ and how it speaks of Jesus.” And the thing is, apart from this one discrepancy, it is a great song. Difficult one.
It’s got to be a lyric change mate!
At least the author’s since passed into glory, so you’ll get no beef from him!
However, I wouldn’t want to be the one to tell the welsh evangelical old guard though! Some hymns are considered sacrosanct by the traditional chapel blue-rinse warriors – so watch out if you do have the guts to change it.
But what would you replace it with?
Subject of another post maybe?
I had it changed to “Precious Jesus, Precious Jesus”…as you well know mr thomas as you were there.
Don’t see the problem with changing lyrics in songs.
Definatley don’t carry on singing it with the incorrect/confusing line….why would you?
When I was at Uni we used to sing Owen Hurter’s The Jesus Song which makes the same blunder. Oops.
I always thought that the song ‘Above all Powers’ by Baloche & LeBlanc (popularised by Michael W. Smith) was hinting at the same idea with their line ‘like a rose trampled on the ground’, but I’ve just read the story behind the lyrics to that song & I don’t think they were thinking of that!
Whatever they were thinking of it seemed to make them cry a lot.
I voted dump it. Why change old songs when you can write new ones?
I guess there are a few issues here, all basically turning on our reading of Song of Solomon. I’m no expert on the book, so please excuse my ignorance if I’m about to talk absolute rubbish (it wouldn’t be the first time), BUT…
1. We assume that Song of Solomon IS all about Jesus and his church, (in a far more dynamic and specific reading than the overarching recognition that all marriage/sex is meant as a picture of the Jesus/church/bridegroom/bride/marriage/consumation imagery) – which in fairness, does seem to be the position of the hymnwriter.
2. Running with the above, how strictly do we have to enforce a gender-specific interpretation of the Song of Solomon texts? eg. does the male figure ALWAYS have to equal ‘Jesus’ and the female figure, ‘the church’? It’s not as though God always uses male imagery to describe Himself elsewhere in Scripture (Matt 23:37, Is 66:13, et al). Is it possible that a less rigid hermeneutical formula for the text opens up a different perspective on the book as a whole? eg. where human sexuality in GENERAL is seen for what it is (or at least for what it was created to be), and where male and female TOGETHER reflect the image of God (cf. Gen 1:27), and His love for His bride?
…That way, it may just be POSSIBLE that there’s nothing wrong with that line at all…?!
OK, now I sound like a crazy liberal. And I’ve probably just slayed a million hermeneutical cows. As I say, I don’t know the book well at all. Forgive me if I talk in ignorance. Perhaps the stoning of the heretic will get the conversation flowing…!
If as an old-school traditionalist i might be permitted to add my two cents.
Older commentators – eg James Durham or Matthew Henry – would take Chapter 2:1&2 to be Solomon/Christ speaking, and the Shulamite/Church to begin speaking in verse 3.
Even more modern dudes like Olyott prefer this reading.
Obviously William Williams didn’t have the (dis)advantage of an NIV study Bible to tell him who was speaking at what points in the text.
I reckon we all need to show grace to the learned folks of the past, accept that even if it is wrong it’s still a beautiful way to speak of Christ, and leave the words alone.
Otherwise you’ll have to stop all those Welsh choirs singing ‘He’s the Lily of the Valleys’.
I hope I’m not showing disrespect to the older hymns. Indeed, in our church we are seeking to re-introduce many hymns, and I also use ‘Christian Hymns’ as part of my devotion.
However, to say ‘even if it is wrong it’s still a beautiful way to speak of Christ’ seems a strange concept as I believe in absolute truth and seem to remember Jesus saying that we should worship him in Spirit and Truth.
It would be interesting to see your reaction if Matt Redman had used the phrase first.
I see your point JT. And it is true i’m no huge Matt Redman fan although i do often use various modern songs for personal devotions (Just not his songs!!). My traditionalist point was not so much regarding a stance on music / song styles, so much as that i’m an AV reader who tends to read older commentators more than the modern ones.
My point was that surely hymn and song writers have a degree of liberty in their expression. And that even if the phrase didn’t originally refer to Christ(Me and William Williams think it did), it would still be a fitting and beautiful description of Him.
While hymns and songs must express truth, they do so in a poetic way. For example Graham Kendrick refers in a reasonably famous song to ‘hands that flung stars into space, to cruel nails surrendered’. Christ’s hands never literally flung stars into space, but the line is valid as a poetic expression of a deep theological truth, ie, the Christ of the cross is also the creator of the world. And so even if the Rose of Sharon originally refered to the church / the shulamite / the most beautiful girl you’ve ever seen (how is Mrs JT?) or whatever reading of the text you think is intended, surely if the phrase makes you consider Christ to be glorious and beautiful and unique then it has some valid use.
On the other hand, if you can’t sing it without thinking that the line is false, and so it distracts you from thinking of Christ, you’re better not singing it at all.
I love William Williams, went to school in Llandovery and have sung his songs since I was knee high to a grass hopper. So this isn’t really about protecting his integrity or disrespecting the man.
In fact I’m bored of asking whether ‘this line is right or not.’ It’s not the issue. Rather it’s whether or not we are happy to change a lyric here or there to be helpful to our churches, ourselves and Christ (if indeed the lyric is not absolute truth Jon).
I honestly can’t see why we can’t ‘recraft’ some lyrics to make them more appropriate say to the sermon or to current affairs. But that’s just me I suppose. Silly, ‘old school’, Pantycelyn singing, Matthew Henry loving me
It seems obvious that in the eighteenth century the general understanding of the Song of Solomon meant that people saw the phrase Rose of Sharon as referring to Christ – it is found in other hymns and in numerous commentaries. Whereas some modern translations (and I am all for good new translations of the Bible) the lines are drawn very specifically as to who speaks where in this wonderful book, it’s not always easy to be sure. If we feel unhappy about singing this, then let’s look for a new line, but it’s hard to find a phrase with such rich beauty. On the other hand when I give the hymn out, I tend to introduce it, mentioning the modern understanding of the name, but saying tha Williams was trying to convey the unsurpassed beauty of Christ. People seem to be happy and helped to sing with that understanding of the line. When I write new hymns however I do avoid using Rose of Sharon to describe my Lord.
I enjoyed hearing all your views. This is mine. The church is referred to as the body of Christ, not just the bride. The bride and groom refers to His coming and our great union with Him for all eternity. As the Body of Christ, you can’t separate the body and the head, which is Christ. We are one body together with one head. Jesus prayed before His death on the cross that we would be one in them. Our body is the temple of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit if we truly have received Him having been adopted into His family. We’re also referred to as sheep and He is our Shepherd. There are different ways to describe the relationship between Jesus and the “church”. In our personal relationships we have terms of endearment for those we love. If I think of the Rose of Sharon as something so perfect and beautiful that out of a deep love for Jesus, I choose to call my Savior the Rose of Sharon, would that be any different than out of love’s overflow, calling my husband, “Sweetheart!” Love is expressed in so many ways! Should we be held back in our expression of Him because that’s not what we read exactly in Solomon Chapter 2? It’s all a matter of perspective. The writer of the song does not say, “In Solomon chapter 2, You, Jesus, are the Rose of Sharon.” If He had, it would be questionable. However, he just simply described Him that way out of the overflow of love in his heart for His King and Savior – as a descriptive term. It seems to me a more personal choice than bible error.
I think it’s a complement to call anyone beautiful, or “Rose of Sharon”. Its appropriate to keep these lyrics if the singer feel that way about Jesus.
I may call my girlfriend honey, and she may call me honey back… Neither of us is analyzing if we resemble literal ‘honey’ in any way. It is an expression of love, an allegory and is safe lyricism.
Well, all I really want to do is make a quilt. I searched for “Rose of Sharon” and found you all. I like it. I think I will make this quilt and let it remind me to be found as a faithful part of the bride when Jesus returns.