Defending the ‘Book of Wisdom’
Why Protestants are quick to judge? (Not Catholic/Orthodox)
The Inspiration of ‘Wisdom’
The reasons that Protestants use to reject the book of Solomon’s wisdom seems shallow and based on an unfair criteria. Some argue that Wisdom is not a prophetic book; thus, it is not inspired by God. Such a judgement only appeals to Protestant bias, instead of actually affirming a good cause for its rejection. I mean if this certain judgement based on the prophetic criteria were true, then we should reject books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. The book of Wisdom might retain prophetic value, so it might fit with their bias criteria; however, they form other criterion that books from even the Protestant canon fail to pass. To be genuine, I am not forming a case for Catholic or Orthodox canons, but simply observing the usefulness of Wisdom. In this article, I will demonstrate the double standards of Protestants, the acceptance of Wisdom in church history, and the factual elements that Wisdom shows.
The Salvation Accusation
One of the most common arguments made against the ‘Book of Wisdom’ is the means of salvation that Wisdom apparently claims. Wisdom asserts the claim that men are saved by wisdom, “And thus the paths of those on earth were set right, and people were taught what pleases you, and were saved by wisdom” (Wisdom 9:18). Then they try to argue that salvation is by the means of faith, which is a gift from God. The issue with their argument is that they are presupposing a false dichotomy, because they won’t admit that ‘Wisdom’ is inspired literature according to their bias. Though salvation is by the means of faith, that doesn’t exclude the influence of wisdom. Faith in God is an expression of His sacred wisdom, it is not an expression of human or false wisdom as they assume. In the same chapter, Wisdom (i.e. the author) acknowledges that if there were a perfect man, he wouldn’t be respected if he lacked God’s wisdom within himself. “For even if a man was perfect among the sons of men, yet if the wisdom that comes from You isn’t in him, then he shall be held with no respect” (Wisdom 9:6). In other words, the wisdom that the author is mentioning isn’t of human origin, but of divine origin. He claims that the will of God can only be known by humans if God’s Spirit and Wisdom is gifted to us. “All we can do is make guesses about things on earth; we must struggle to learn about things that are close to us. Who, then, can ever hope to understand heavenly things? No one has ever learned Your will, unless You first gave him Wisdom, and sent Your Holy Spirit down to him” (Wisdom 9:16, 17). And the apostle Paul asserts the exact same principle in his letter to Ephesus, “I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better” (Ephesians 1:17). This statement made by Wisdom is biblical and coherent with my spiritual philosophy and experience since as believers we are governed by the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5).
So salvation is by the means of given faith, but also of given wisdom from God. In actuality, human wisdom doesn’t exist yet true wisdom is an attribute from God. The author was aware that all true wisdom came from God; he didn’t credit such wisdom to the powers of our mind. However, I don’t think the author was aware of salvation in the sense Christians have always fathomed it. It seems likely that the author meant salvation (i.e. deliverance) in this life from destructive men and their devices, instead of having salvation concerning the afterlife. The author is humbly aware that humans are only wise by the grace of God, but Protestants typically misunderstand the passage to somehow imply human wisdom, which to be fair is prejudice wrapped with nonsense. I mean they should read the text with exegetical lens rather than downright condemning a certain passage. If Wisdom does present errors, I am willing to admit it in the same way other books of the Bible contain errors. Therefore, concerning the matter of soteriology, Wisdom doesn’t contradict with the biblical affirmation of faith by grace.
Sophiolatry Accusation (the worship of Wisdom)
This is another disturbing point made against the canonical book of Wisdom. When I leaned a bit more to Protestant tradition, this argument seemed to convince me that perhaps Wisdom wasn’t an accurate or good book to read. After all, the notion of worship applied to someone or something apart from God seemed appalling to me as a serious Christian; however, what I didn’t realize is that Wisdom is essentially God (or His essence). So technically, if one worships Wisdom, they are in actuality worshiping God. God is not only (a) person(s) but also the very essence or ontology of ‘good’. Even Jesus refers Himself as the Way (Wisdom), the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). Even Paul refers Jesus as the Wisdom of God where he plainly says, “But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24). The apostle Paul (or maybe his friend Apollos) and Wisdom (again the author) share the exact same view concerning the divine representation of God.
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3).
“For she [Wisdom] is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty, and the image of his goodness” (Wisdom 7:26).
In light of the evidence and sapient logic presented, there seems to be no issue with the worship or praise of Wisdom since this could arguably be Jesus or God’s essence. Neither of them are created entities and God’s essence and His person-hood are inseparable in actuality. This accusation is simply another poor excuse to reject the Book of Wisdom.
The Cosmological Argument
This one accusation seems plausible to anyone who could care less about the literature of Solomon’s wisdom; on the contrary, this argument could be reconciled with the Genesis account in the same way how Fundamentalists try to reconcile apparent or obvious contradictions in the Bible. They often cite from Wisdom, “For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter…” (Wisdom 11:17). Then they cite the Genesis account as follows: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:1, 2). However, the biblical text affirms that the world was at one point formless, and at another point void. The same verse is implying that the Spirit moved across the waters when it previously said that the earth was void. It is best to assume that the Genesis account is not in chronological order as a means to avoid textual confusion. Though these texts still seem to contradict, this can be explained away philosophically. The world/earth came from formless matter, and formless matter came from nothing. The issue presented here is simply of God’s timing, not different narratives telling an irreconcilable story of creation. The cosmological argument intending opposition towards Wisdom simply doesn’t work; the story or origin of creation isn’t significant knowledge as knowing God’s nature and knowing the divine goals for humans. This argument is by far the most unconvincing out of the others formulated against Wisdom’s inspiration.
The Jewish and Christian Criteria
The very argument formulated against Wisdom as inspired literature is by using the Jews as reliable arbiters for biblical inspiration. While this may seem convincing at first, it also fails in defense of the New Testament and perhaps one of the Protestant books. Also, the Jews rejected the deutro-canonical books on shallow grounds instead of justified reasons. And not all of the Jewish communities rejected these books; for instance, the Essences held to these books as noteworthy to be read as part of their canon. As for the Pharisees, they rejected Wisdom on the grounds of Greek involvement (i.e. rhetoric, language, philosophy), the late date of the text, and mostly because it was used by early Christians.
As I present the data, none of these reasons or excuses prove to be substantial except shallow or arbitrary. The timing excuse has no relation to divine inspiration, and the language excuse also has no relation to divine inspiration. If Protestants base their judgement on the Jew’s poor criteria, then they are guilty of bias or arbitrary thought. And the last excuse was simply prejudice toward Christian usage, or the notion of Jesus being found in the Scriptures. In fact, the Gospels allude to the book of Wisdom in Matthew 16:18 (Wisdom 16:13), in Matthew 27:39-43 (Wisdom 2:17–20), and in Mark 4:11 (Wisdom 2:22). This is the main reason why they rejected Wisdom since Christians used it to affirm that Jesus was mentioned in the text as prophecy (Wisdom 2:12–20). Our early spiritual ancestors embraced the book of Wisdom as inspired by God such as: St. Clement of Rome, St. Augustine, and even canonized or approved by the council of Carthage and the Muratorian fragment. Even to this day, the book of Wisdom is canonized by Catholic and Orthodox streams. Therefore, because some Jews only offer shallow reasons for its rejection, they are not reliable arbiters for our biblical canon.
The “It is Written” Objection
This is an argument that Protestants use to judge the extra-biblical canonical books, because the Bible never says for any of them, “It is written”. This argument is of poor quality and doubled-mindedness since even if texts like Enoch or Wisdom were quoted, they would still disregard it. I mean books like Joshua, Chronicles, Kings, Ecclesiastes, and even Esther are never quoted with the phrase “it is written,” so this criteria itself would disqualify many books that Protestants assert as inspired. The truth of the matter is that this argument (or criteria) is simply an appeal to bias convenience for their view. Neither Orthodox nor Catholics assert this criteria because it disregards many books in all of their canons as well as Protestants. If Paul or any of the apostles meant for this to be the criteria, then they should have at least mentioned it at least once. They should have stated it plainly without anyone (mainly Protestants) trying to guess or presuppose any standard for canonicity. At least these two ancient streams don’t appeal to ambiguous and insufficient means to identify the biblical canon. But as for appealing to the Bible as a means to identify such a canon, there is no legitimate and plausible way besides relying on tradition. And Protestants, like the other two streams, defend their canon which was based on tradition (not scripture).
“Their Offspring is Cursed”
Another Protestant seemed to use Wisdom 3:13 to disqualify the inspiration of ‘Solomon’s Wisdom’. Someone might attempt to argue that the offspring aren’t affected by their parents’ sins and that the offspring are unjustly imputed of guilt. The biblical text states:
“But the ungodly shall be punished according to their own imaginations, which have neglected the righteous, and forsaken the Lord. For who so despises wisdom and nurture, he is miserable, and their hope is vain, their labors unfruitful, and their works unprofitable: Their wives are foolish, and their children wicked: Their offspring is cursed. Wherefore blessed is the barren that is undefiled, which hath not known the sinful bed: she shall have fruit in the visitation of souls” (Wisdom 3:10–13).
The point of this passage is to demonstrate that their offspring are not only affected by their parents’ sins, but they also retain their example. They aren’t imputed of guilt due to their parents; they are cursed by their own sins. But we should be aware that our own sins offer detriment to those around us. The author of Wisdom is discerning the two categories: the righteous elect and the cursed wicked. He assumes that the wicked’s example through their lineage are continuous and contagious; he asserts that a wicked man’s spouse are foolish and his offspring are wicked in verse 12. This is simply a typical assumption that children as well as the wife under a wicked husband (even in such an environment) are more inclined to be wicked than righteous. Nevertheless, such a claim to their offspring poses no threat to truth or biblical doctrine.
Earthly Tent and Preexistence of Souls?
“For a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthy tent burdens the thoughtful mind” (Wisdom 9:15).
The opponents of Wisdom presume that the body influences evil upon the soul, so the soul becomes sinful according to their assumption of the text. Except this extra-biblical text makes no such assertion. I mean even with Paul’s epistles (e.g. Romans), people of their stream assume the body imprisons the soul with sin. This is a shallow argument and too presumptuous for the text. The author implies that the soul is burdened with the needs and weaknesses of the body; the mind becomes concerned about its physical needs (since it lives inside a body). This is a philosophical dualism of body and soul, which is an accurate description of our reality (instead of materialism or idealism).
“Now, I was a well-favored child, and I came by a noble nature; or rather, being noble, I attained an unblemished body” (Wisdom 8:19, 20).
Admittedly, this is a very hard verse to reconcile. It might teach the preexistence of souls but such a verse could be mistranslated. Since the translation is uncertain, we cannot deduce whether this teaches the soul’s preternal (i.e. without beginning) nature. However, such an anthropology isn’t supported in light of chapter 7 (verse 1–6). So the idea of preternal souls seems unlikely or uncertain in chapter 8. It could be that he (the author) was well-respected as a child due to his lineage being of honor than shame. In the ancient Israelite culture, shame and honor were societal markers, which were known to be emphasized concerning one’s family or community origin. As for the next verse, he could be saying that because he came from a righteous or well-respected lineage, his genetics or bodily functions were blessed by God. Though it is true that God can bless someone’s lifespan or health, this isn’t always the case. Even Jesus reveals that the blind man was born blind not because of his sins or his parents’ sins, but for the display of God’s healing power to mankind (John 9:2, 3). It may seem to teach the preternal nature of the soul, but such a notion isn’t evident when contrasted with my own explanation of his intents.
Final Assessment
I have heard bizarre arguments and accusations against the Book of Wisdom. Someone has stated that Wisdom is simply a copy of Proverbs, while another has judged Wisdom for lacking prophetic inspiration. While Protestant critics will attempt to destroy the book of Wisdom, their efforts might prove to be pointless in the end. This book doesn’t affirm anything mainly heretical, nor does it affirm any Catholic doctrines (e.g. purgatory, infallible papacy, sacramental works). The Book of Wisdom cannot be a copy of Proverbs since it only has 19 chapters while Proverbs has 31 chapters, and it isn’t a book of short sayings, but a theological and historical approach towards Wisdom’s nature and involvement in ancient Israel. This book was dated to be in the 1st or 2nd Century before Christ. Also, I do not affirm its inerrancy as well as any other biblical book. There is no genuine way to prove inerrancy in Wisdom or any other biblical literature. In the end of day, Protestants only misrepresent or wrongly fathom the text of Wisdom. Therefore, I do consider Wisdom to be an inspired text and canonical if need be. Would I consider it more canonical than Revelation? More likely.
