Comments on: Is Jesus the rose of Sharon? I hope not. http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/is-jesus-the-rose-of-sharon-i-hope-not/ Putting the good book to good use Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:57:00 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Rick Duoos http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/is-jesus-the-rose-of-sharon-i-hope-not/#comment-363 Rick Duoos Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:37:57 +0000 http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/?p=84#comment-363 I have a big problem with Jesus being called "the rose of Sharon." Jesus is the groom, not the bride. I believe the problem started with someone not being able to face the fact that the Song of Solomon is about sex in marriage. The problem continues because someone wrote it down and there are too many leaders who rely on their commentaries instead of on the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture. Let's toss the commentaries and lexicons into the garbage where they belong and stick with sola scriptura. Also, there is no where in the Bible that Eve is called Adam's help meet. She is "an helpe, meet for him." according to the 1611 version. In old English, "r's" and "h's" were not pronounced. She is a helper, suitable for him. I have a big problem with Jesus being called “the rose of Sharon.” Jesus is the groom, not the bride. I believe the problem started with someone not being able to face the fact that the Song of Solomon is about sex in marriage. The problem continues because someone wrote it down and there are too many leaders who rely on their commentaries instead of on the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture. Let’s toss the commentaries and lexicons into the garbage where they belong and stick with sola scriptura. Also, there is no where in the Bible that Eve is called Adam’s help meet. She is “an helpe, meet for him.” according to the 1611 version. In old English, “r’s” and “h’s” were not pronounced. She is a helper, suitable for him.

]]> By: kbonikowsky http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/is-jesus-the-rose-of-sharon-i-hope-not/#comment-278 kbonikowsky Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:53:41 +0000 http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/?p=84#comment-278 A great article explaining a little better Chesterton and Lewis' assertion about God and sex. http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000400.cfm A great article explaining a little better Chesterton and Lewis’ assertion about God and sex.

http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000400.cfm

]]> By: ckman http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/is-jesus-the-rose-of-sharon-i-hope-not/#comment-277 ckman Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:18:46 +0000 http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/?p=84#comment-277 No doubt the crocus is feminine. To say that a woman is a lily is to recognize beauty in the world. If flesh is "sexy," what is the source of desire? What is the source of beauty? The New Testament's answer is that the source of life is the Word or Christ. God became flesh via a woman; the body is good, women are beautiful, because Christ is the source and sustainer of all flesh. In so far as what is meant by the lily of the valley and the rose of Sharon is beauty, Christ is the flower in that he is the source of the beauty of all flesh. Fleshly beauty is not an end in itself. As you say, it is God, ultimately, who is lovely (neither Chesterton nor Lewis nor the Bible ever used the word sexy, a very un-sexy word). No doubt the crocus is feminine. To say that a woman is a lily is to recognize beauty in the world. If flesh is “sexy,” what is the source of desire? What is the source of beauty? The New Testament’s answer is that the source of life is the Word or Christ. God became flesh via a woman; the body is good, women are beautiful, because Christ is the source and sustainer of all flesh. In so far as what is meant by the lily of the valley and the rose of Sharon is beauty, Christ is the flower in that he is the source of the beauty of all flesh. Fleshly beauty is not an end in itself. As you say, it is God, ultimately, who is lovely (neither Chesterton nor Lewis nor the Bible ever used the word sexy, a very un-sexy word).

]]>