On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 4: Portrait of the Wicked

The Wisdom of Solomon is timeless. Its portrayal of the wicked is probably much more relevant today than when it was written.

In our last presentation of this commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, we already began to introduce the second chapter of the work, and discussed aspects of its opening verses, as they provide a conclusion to ideas which were introduced in chapter 1, as well as an introduction to what is described throughout this chapter. I had also presented and briefly discussed this second chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon in Part 45 of my commentary on the Gospel of John, which was titled Gods and Emperors. That is because this chapter, as a whole, may be seen as a Messianic prophecy, and this first half draws a portrait of the wicked which also very well describes the attitudes and behavior of the men who had opposed Christ during the time of His ministry, and also mentions some of the same sentiments or practices of the wicked for which Christ had rebuked them. Then the later half of this chapter draws a portrait of a just man whom the wicked would persecute for his righteousness, and that also very well describes Christ Himself. Being wrapped in passages which discuss death and resurrection at the beginning of the chapter, and professing that God created man to be immortal at the end of the chapter, it is manifest that the whole of this chapter is indeed a Messianic prophecy.

On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 3: The Remedy for Sin and Death

In the first two presentations of this commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon we hope to have refuted many of the criticisms of the work, which set out to prove by its language and vocabulary that it was not written until the first century before Christ, or according to some claims, even later. Those same critics usually repeat the unfounded claim that it must have been written by some Alexandrian Jew. However as we discuss the actual content of the work, we hope to make it evident that such claims are also false.

One avenue of investigation in our answering the critics of Wisdom was left open where earlier we had described a source which claimed that fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In an article found at an internet ministry this claim was made and a book was cited, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by one Gleason Archer, which was first published in 1974. We ordered a used copy of that book, which we expected to be the same 1985 edition of the work as was quoted by the article in question, but it was not. Instead we received a “revised and expanded” 1994 printing. This newer printing does not mention the Wisdom of Solomon, and we surmise that the article was citing an appendix to the book, because the pagination is different, which is a catalog of books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We may further pursue this, but Wisdom is not listed in the 1994 version of the catalog.

The Unpardonable Sin

While the Dindu Apocalypse has apparently subsided, at least for a time, with each new wave of negro aggression it seems that a greater number of White Christians become aware of the fact that the differences which we have with negros are certainly more than skin deep. However the spineless and effeminate capitulation of so many liberal politicians and cuckolded law enforcement officials is ultimately only going to further embolden the beasts, and it is inevitable that a complete breakdown of the rule of law will become manifest in many places in America and in the other nations of Christendom. That is the true objective of the Antifa and Black Lives Matter movements, to wear down the resolve of Christians, to destroy the constructs of Christian governance, and to plunge us all into anarchy, a process which has always resulted in tyranny. This is one aspect of world history that sadly, far too few White people understand: that the rule of law in the modern world is a product of Christendom, and those who hate Christ have always wanted to see it destroyed and replaced with laws of their own. If they are successful, the result will inevitably lead to a new tyranny of the Left, and the long-sought victory of global Communism. Any kindness which they are shown, they perceive as weakness, and it opens up new avenues for them to exploit. The controlled media and global corporations are on their side, all of the liberal and progressive politicians are on their side, and all of them have actively helped them advance this agenda. The Coronavirus lockdowns and recent riots over the death of a career criminal are only the newest phases in an age-old war against Christendom. The timing of these events was not a coincidence.

But this is not new to us. We have not reached these conclusions recently. We have known and have been writing about these things for over twenty years. Of course, as we often point out, Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet and others wrote about them sooner. Even if we do not always know what form it will assume, when the next attack is launched against our Christian society we certainly do know who is behind it, and we know who is on the side of our enemies. Where the Satanic war against the Camp of the Saints is prophesied in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, for us there are no allies and there are no neutral parties. All the nations are gathered, and one is either a sheep or a goat. There is no third choice.

However for the last twenty years, many supposed Identity Christians have claimed that we are mean-spirited, or worse, because of our position towards the non-Adamic so-called races. This is in spite of the fact that we were told that the Good Shepherd distinguishes the sheep and the goats on sight, and separates them in that same manner. So to this day, very often it seems that we are still only a divisive minority even within Christian Identity. But we are confident that they who despise us need to repent, that in spite of their supposed knowledge they still share in the sins of the world. So until other Identity Christians agree with us on these important issues, and profess that agreement, we will always be divisive, we will always choose to quarrel, and purposely so.

On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 2, the Introduction of Wisdom

In the opening presentation of our commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, we provided and refuted many of the popular academic opinions of the work and the frequently-repeated criticisms concerning the nature of its text, by which the provenance and veracity of the work have long been challenged. So although we have already provided commentary on the opening verse of the text, which we also hope to continue here, we realized that some of the newer material discussing the Wisdom of Solomon had further-developed criticisms which must also be addressed. So before continuing, we shall do that here.

In the introduction to its own presentation of the Wisdom of Solomon, the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) claims under the subtitle “Character of the Greek” that “There is widespread recognition that the [Wisdom of Solomon] was composed in Greek… The book is an example of a protreptic work (προτρεπτικὸς λόγος), an exhortation to adopt a particular philosophy, and it deploys literary genres familiar from Hellenistic rhetorical texts including the diatribe… the ‘problem’ genre… and the comparison (σύγκρισις…) Correspondingly… the book is written in a good Greek style and shows none of the characteristics of translation Greek.”

Yet it is commonly exhibited that the Book of Proverbs is also “an example of a protreptic work… an exhortation to adopt a particular philosophy”, and further, that the literary diatribe is a common feature of the writings of the Hebrew prophets. Some examples of Classical Greek literature have been recognized as having the attributes of the genre more recently identified as the Problem Play, such as the 5th century work of Euripides titled Alcestis, as are other early works, as well as the Book of Job which is found in the Bible, which we can certainly esteem to date to as early as the 12th or 13th centuries BC, however it definitely predates the Classical Greek period. Lastly, the σύγκρισις, or synkrisis, is a literary form of comparison, and it has been identified as a feature of both the gospel of John and some of the epistles of Paul, especially in the epistle to the Hebrews. But forms of the so-called σύγκρισις are also found in the Hebrew Old Testament. So none of these features of grammar are exclusive to Hellenistic writings, and these charges against the Wisdom of Solomon are meaningless because these things do not prove it to be a product of the Hellenistic period.

On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 1: Addressing the Critics

Here we are going to examine an apocryphal book of Scripture which I have often cited in my commentaries on various books of the New Testament, and especially in the recently-completed commentary On the Gospel of John. This book I have always accepted as being canonical in spite of the fact that evidence of its great antiquity is very scant, and no original Hebrew version of the work is known to have existed. But rather than judging the book according to the words and deeds of the world, I have chosen to judge it based on its contents.

This book is the Wisdom of Solomon, which I will often identify simply as Wisdom here. It was accepted as canon in the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, but it was rejected and relegated to apocryphal status by Protestants, who certainly seem to have followed the Jews in this regard. The Wisdom of Solomon was included alongside the other books of Wisdom of the Old Testament in the 4th century Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B) and in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus (A), but it is not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

At least one source, an online denominational ministry, has published an article on the Scrolls which claims that fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were found among the scrolls, citing A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by one Gleason Archer, which was first published in 1974. But I have not yet been able to verify this claim, since it is not supported by the first edition of Archer’s work. In the author’s Appendix 4 there is an Inventory of Biblical Manuscripts from the Dead Sea Caves, as he titled it, which has no reference to Wisdom. But the book was revised and updated in 1996, and I have not yet been able to access that edition, as this information is new to me. [I have already ordered a copy of the book.]

Identifying the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

In Genesis chapter 2, there are two trees mentioned which Yahweh did not plant into the ground, but which were “in the midst” of the garden. These trees are actually distinguished from literal trees, where we read in verse 9: “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” So we have all the other trees which had been purposely planted “into the ground”, but these two particular trees are merely present, and not planted in that same manner.

Perhaps the first clue to identifying these trees is found in Ezekiel chapter 31, where we see nations of men described as trees and the Word of Yahweh says “3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. 4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. 5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. 6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. 7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. 8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.”

So races and nations of men are described as trees, and in this particular allegory, as trees of different sorts. However we must be cautious in the interpretation of this verse. It is not telling us that the Assyrians had existed in the time which Genesis chapter 2 describes, simply because it refers to the “garden of God”. Wesley Swift actually made that mistake. The Assyrians are the descendants of Asshur, who is first mentioned as a son of Shem in Genesis chapter 10. Rather, Ezekiel is describing the Adamic portion of the world in the time of the Assyrians, in his own time, as the “garden of God”. At the time in which Ezekiel was writing, the Assyrians had been the most powerful nation in that world, and therefore they are described as the greatest of the trees, while the other nations are lesser trees.

Christian Identity: What Difference Does it Make?

It is no mistake that 2000 years ago, Christianity spread and was accepted by tribes of White Europeans as they encountered it. It is no mistake that for the last 1500 years Europe has been predominantly Christian. Christianity had spread not only to both Greece and Rome, but also to Britain and other points in Europe as early as the middle of the first century. Tribes in Gaul were converting to Christianity in the second century. By the third century, if not sooner, Germanic tribes of the Goths and Alans had accepted Christianity. All of this was long before the official acceptance of Christianity began with Constantine the Great, the Edict of Toleration and the Council of Nicaea.

To mock Christianity today is to mock a hundred generations of our ancestors. People who mock Christianity think they know something better about our past than their own ancestors, the people who actually lived in those times many centuries ago. The truth is that the people who mock Christianity know little-to-nothing about the world of the past and the circumstances under which their ancestors ultimately accepted Christianity.

There are many incongruities in the perception of the people who mock Christianity today. On one hand they claim that it is a “cuck” religion, and on the other they complain that their ancestors were forced into Christianity by Christians. So they admit that their own ancestors were weaker than the “cucks” they despise. On one hand they claim that Christianity is an effeminate religion, and a Jewish religion, but then they complain that their ancestors were forced into it by Christians. So they admit that their ancestors were weaker than effeminates and Jews. All the while, they proclaim the “might is right” mantra of their own neo-paganism, while professing that their weak ancestors, forced to subject to Christianity, were somehow treated unfairly! Those who mock Christianity are simply too stupid to realize all of these cognitive disconnects, and there are many more that we won’t get into here. We already presented them here a few years ago, in two podcasts titled White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance.