Difficulties with the man Solomon
Difficulties with the man Solomon
I can quite happily align myself with a belief system that has a God parting the Red Sea so that His people could flee from the Egyptians. In this naturalistic 21st Century I have no problem being a "fool for Christ" in this sense. Other than making 2 plus 2 equal 5, He can do anything He wants. And parting the Red Sea is not in the category of making 2 plus 2 equal 5.
But folks, I have a real problem with this man Solomon, and in particular:
- why a man who had a thousand women should have anything at all to say about wisdom, let alone be the one to dominate the wisdom literature in the OT.
Was this not simply legalized promiscuity, and sexual greed on a Fidel Castro scale? What elevates him above Mohammed in his "appetites"?
Were not 999 women deprived to 999 other men (not matter how poor those men were)? Would all of these women have really struggled to find other men because of war casualties?
He would surely have caught something off one of them - how would he have avoided infecting the next one, and then the next one?
How did he "service" them all?
How did he prevent inter-marital jealousy?
- what does he have to say to me about "romance" (Song of Solomon)?
- how can we honour him by suggesting he is a "type of Christ" simply by his varied attempts to woo the country girl? How can we even speak his name in the same sentence as the One who never looked upon a woman to lust after her?
In essence, why should the writings of a man who was used to the whole world revolving around himself be treated as wisdom?
On my bookshelf I have "1000 Gipfel der Alpen". I have as much chance of climbing all those (700 +300) mountains in my lifetime (not that I wish to) as Solomon did of keeping all those women happy (or even one of them).
If someone could point me to an article or lecture that might help me get past this man I would be very grateful.
PS has anyone else ever had these thoughts about Solomon too? Perhaps they could only come from a man(?)
Soory for my aggressive tone. It`s not towards any of you!
But folks, I have a real problem with this man Solomon, and in particular:
- why a man who had a thousand women should have anything at all to say about wisdom, let alone be the one to dominate the wisdom literature in the OT.
Was this not simply legalized promiscuity, and sexual greed on a Fidel Castro scale? What elevates him above Mohammed in his "appetites"?
Were not 999 women deprived to 999 other men (not matter how poor those men were)? Would all of these women have really struggled to find other men because of war casualties?
He would surely have caught something off one of them - how would he have avoided infecting the next one, and then the next one?
How did he "service" them all?
How did he prevent inter-marital jealousy?
- what does he have to say to me about "romance" (Song of Solomon)?
- how can we honour him by suggesting he is a "type of Christ" simply by his varied attempts to woo the country girl? How can we even speak his name in the same sentence as the One who never looked upon a woman to lust after her?
In essence, why should the writings of a man who was used to the whole world revolving around himself be treated as wisdom?
On my bookshelf I have "1000 Gipfel der Alpen". I have as much chance of climbing all those (700 +300) mountains in my lifetime (not that I wish to) as Solomon did of keeping all those women happy (or even one of them).
If someone could point me to an article or lecture that might help me get past this man I would be very grateful.
PS has anyone else ever had these thoughts about Solomon too? Perhaps they could only come from a man(?)
Soory for my aggressive tone. It`s not towards any of you!
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
I doubt if anyone is likely to step up an defend Solomon's character or career in its entirety. He may have done more evil than good, so far as the record reveals. He is a type of Christ, as are others (e.g., Adam, Isaac) quite independently of his behavior or character. To say someone is a "type" of Christ is not to compare that person's merits with those of Christ. It is more a matter of parallels between that person's position or role, and that of Christ. Thus, Adam is said to be a type of Christ—because of their respective roles as reads of humanity—despite the fact that the two men are almost always contrasted, rather than compared, in their personal character and accomplishments. Isaac accomplished nothing of note in his life, but he was the "seed of Abraham" and the "child of promise"—providing a parallel, in that feature alone, with Christ. So also, Solomon was far from Christlike. In fact, Jesus is described as "one greater than Solomon." However, Solomon was David's ruling heir, who built the temple of God on earth. It is in these respects, primarily, that he is seen as a type of Christ.
Your principal complaint about the man seems to be his excessive polygamy. In this respect, he seems to have violated the law's standard for kings—that they must not "multiply wives." Polygamy is not the best situation for wives (at least not these days—there were times where women would rather share husbands than be destitute widows, though that factor probably did not apply with any of Solomon's wives). Polygamy goes very much against our Western sympathies, but insofar as it was practiced at all by others (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David), Solomon's excesses would seem to be of degree, rather than of kind.
Your principal complaint about the man seems to be his excessive polygamy. In this respect, he seems to have violated the law's standard for kings—that they must not "multiply wives." Polygamy is not the best situation for wives (at least not these days—there were times where women would rather share husbands than be destitute widows, though that factor probably did not apply with any of Solomon's wives). Polygamy goes very much against our Western sympathies, but insofar as it was practiced at all by others (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David), Solomon's excesses would seem to be of degree, rather than of kind.
- RICHinCHRIST
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
It's interesting that Solomon did end up writing a good portion of Scripture. Perhaps this would be proof that God may use someone for His purposes despite their moral character. Solomon (at birth) had a very prominent future ahead of him. He was a type of Christ even from birth, due to the prophecies uttered in 1 Chronicles 17. This wouldn't have changed despite how he lived his life personally. Even though his blunders were disappointing, his prominence as king in David's place was special, especially since he built God's temple (a great 'type' of Jesus being the temple Himself, but also making us His temple).
It may seem weird that Solomon would have anything to say about wisdom. But I think there is an old proverb (source unknown to me): "The wise learn from the mistakes of others, but fools learn from their own." I'm not sure of the chronology of when the Proverbs were written (Steve, perhaps you can give some insight...), but perhaps they were written after Solomon had made many of his mistakes. He would then be writing as one who personally felt remorse for his actions. I think Solomon came back to the Lord at the end of his life (although others disagree). But even if he did completely fall away, I suppose it's possible that he wrote the proverbs before his demise. My point is, though, that his moral character wouldn't necessarily make his writings of wisdom defunct.
It may seem weird that Solomon would have anything to say about wisdom. But I think there is an old proverb (source unknown to me): "The wise learn from the mistakes of others, but fools learn from their own." I'm not sure of the chronology of when the Proverbs were written (Steve, perhaps you can give some insight...), but perhaps they were written after Solomon had made many of his mistakes. He would then be writing as one who personally felt remorse for his actions. I think Solomon came back to the Lord at the end of his life (although others disagree). But even if he did completely fall away, I suppose it's possible that he wrote the proverbs before his demise. My point is, though, that his moral character wouldn't necessarily make his writings of wisdom defunct.
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
Thank you both.
RichinChrist, you sure are insightful for a young lad!
If Solomon turned from his ways, would there not have been a record of it? It would have been a significant event, and would have required considerable practical alterations to his life, especially to the existence of his concubine.
And if he didn`t, then we might have the bizarrely ironic situation of one of the OT`s most prolific contributors going to perdition.
RichinChrist, you sure are insightful for a young lad!
If Solomon turned from his ways, would there not have been a record of it? It would have been a significant event, and would have required considerable practical alterations to his life, especially to the existence of his concubine.
And if he didn`t, then we might have the bizarrely ironic situation of one of the OT`s most prolific contributors going to perdition.
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
Many see Ecclesiastes as Solomon's testimony of having backslidden and having returned to God in his old age (e.g., Eccl.12:1, 11-12).
- RICHinCHRIST
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
I think this is probably true. It would be difficult to interpret certain parts of Ecclesiastes if they weren't written from the perspective of Solomon 'looking back on his backsliding'.steve wrote:Many see Ecclesiastes as Solomon's testimony of having backslidden and having returned to God in his old age (e.g., Eccl.12:1, 11-12).
I re-read 1 Kings 4 after wondering about this thread.
I'm not sure if 1 Kings 4 is just an overall summation of Solomon's entire reign, or if it's just a description of his reign before his heart turned away from the Lord (1 Kings 11:3). I tend to think it's the former, due to verses 21 and 25, which speak of Solomon's oversight of Israel "all the days of his life" (1 Kings 4:21, 1 Kings 4:25). If that's the case, then we wouldn't know necessarily when he composed all the proverbs, since he wrote three thousand throughout his entire reign. However, I tend to lean toward the idea that Solomon wrote the proverbs before his heart turned away from God, especially due to some of the exhortations about sexual purity in proverbs 5 & 7. It would seem he might have more confidence in his exhortations if he had written those prior to his covetous behavior with his hundreds of foreign wives. It's also possible, though, that he wrote those proverbs from personal experience and was writing to his son to not make the same mistakes he had made. Either or... whichever the case may be, we can trust that God gave this wisdom to Solomon and his writings are authentic.
It does seem to teach us about the deceptiveness of sin. If Solomon wrote those proverbs prior to his backsliding, how sad that he degenerated from such a place of honor in God's esteem! If anyone had been given much, it was Solomon (he had all the wisdom God could give). Of him, it would be expected the more. To whom much is given, much is required. This speaks to me of the necessity to abide in Christ, for if Solomon could fall with his amount of wisdom, then anyone can.
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
Regardless of whether or not, he genuinely repented, I still need enlightening as to how his words of advice found their way into the Bible in the first place. I`m going to listen to Steve`s The Canon of Scripture" now and see if that helps.
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
What are we really talking about here?
Proverbs is a collection of wisdom sayings. Some of them were probably constructed by Solomon, others collected by him. But who cares who the author of a wisdom statement is? What matters is whether it is wise or not. The human author of proverbs is just not a big deal to me.
Ecclesiastes is preservation of an unholy pursuit (trying to find meaning without God). God inspired this and saw to its preservation not b/c it was a holy pursuit, but because it is a so common unholy pursuit. Solomon is the perfect author for such a work b/c he had access to all that 'this world' had to offer. If a decent normal joe had written it, one could argue he just didn't have enough of the world at his disposal.
So you're really left only with Song of Solomon. The canonicity of this book confuses a lot of people. But once again, whether it is a description of true sexual love OR a symbol of Christ's love for the church (or both), the author doesn't matter nearly as much as the content.
If you're going to argue against Solomon being an author, why not Moses, David & Paul (all responsible for murders)? All the human authors were sinners. As Steve said earlier, we're dealing with degree, not kind. We have to grow comfortable with the fact that God uses broken vessels, but in the case of Solomon, I think the books he's responsible for aren't 'author' driven works at all.
Proverbs is a collection of wisdom sayings. Some of them were probably constructed by Solomon, others collected by him. But who cares who the author of a wisdom statement is? What matters is whether it is wise or not. The human author of proverbs is just not a big deal to me.
Ecclesiastes is preservation of an unholy pursuit (trying to find meaning without God). God inspired this and saw to its preservation not b/c it was a holy pursuit, but because it is a so common unholy pursuit. Solomon is the perfect author for such a work b/c he had access to all that 'this world' had to offer. If a decent normal joe had written it, one could argue he just didn't have enough of the world at his disposal.
So you're really left only with Song of Solomon. The canonicity of this book confuses a lot of people. But once again, whether it is a description of true sexual love OR a symbol of Christ's love for the church (or both), the author doesn't matter nearly as much as the content.
If you're going to argue against Solomon being an author, why not Moses, David & Paul (all responsible for murders)? All the human authors were sinners. As Steve said earlier, we're dealing with degree, not kind. We have to grow comfortable with the fact that God uses broken vessels, but in the case of Solomon, I think the books he's responsible for aren't 'author' driven works at all.
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
Matt,
I totally agree with you about Solomon`s suitability to write Ecclesiastes.
I`ll listen to Jimmy Swaggart telling me, "don`t do it like I did it" but I would struggle to listen to him lecturing me about faithfulness in marriage.. It doesn`t mean I won`t listen to the same message from someone else. I don`t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
David and Moses were not systematic murderers. Solomon was systematically self-indulgent over the vast majority of his life. There`s a difference in my opinion.
Sure, I read Proverbs. But I have to make the effort to put it out of my mind who is credited with them.
If Solomon merely collected the Proverb sayings and passed them on then that`s another matter.
I totally agree with you about Solomon`s suitability to write Ecclesiastes.
I care. But maybe I`m just odd, as you seem to be hinting at.But who cares who the author of a wisdom statement is?
I`ll listen to Jimmy Swaggart telling me, "don`t do it like I did it" but I would struggle to listen to him lecturing me about faithfulness in marriage.. It doesn`t mean I won`t listen to the same message from someone else. I don`t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
David and Moses were not systematic murderers. Solomon was systematically self-indulgent over the vast majority of his life. There`s a difference in my opinion.
Sure, I read Proverbs. But I have to make the effort to put it out of my mind who is credited with them.
If Solomon merely collected the Proverb sayings and passed them on then that`s another matter.
Re: Difficulties with the man Solomon
I don't know you to be odd
I can understand taking issue with Solomon being among the biblical authors. I was just expressing that I don't take issue with it. God blessed Solomon with a gift for wise sayings and the resources to collect many others. This says nothing about his practice. We need not have Solomon live wisely for us to ponder these wise sayings. His lack of personal integrity would only present a problem to me if I were trying to be a follower of Solomon and not a follower of Jesus.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)