Orientation to Wisdom of Solomon
(avg. read time: 7–14 mins.)
The text of the Apocrypha that I find to be the most fascinating is the Wisdom of Solomon. In my Intertestamental class all the way back at Wayland Baptist, this was the book I wrote a paper about. Scholars tend to date this work to the first century on either side of the turn of the eras (usually somewhere within roughly fifty years on either side). Whether it was written well before any of the NT works and was in some way influential on their articulation (as I think) or whether it was roughly contemporaneous with the early NT texts and is more indicative of a similar theological-ethical environment with the NT, it has many resonances with the NT that I will by no means exhaustively chart here. Conversely, there are several ways in which it shows how it emerges from a context shaped by the OT.
Despite the title (though it is also known as the Book of Wisdom), there is no explicit internal attribution of this text to Solomon, even if one can make reasonable inferences to that effect. This is in contrast to Proverbs, a book it otherwise has many connections with (especially in chs. 7–9). It also contrasts with Proverbs in that it is not a book of proverbs. But it is certainly about wisdom, both in terms of the virtue and of the figure who can be referred in the capitalized form as Wisdom. The book contains eschatologically informed exhortations to listen to Wisdom by embodying wisdom, an extensive praise of Wisdom (whether a personified attribute of God or a hypostasis that is in some way an extension of God’s identity as such), and a reflection on the history of the world and Israel in particular through the lens of understanding God’s activity through Wisdom.
Overview of Wisdom of Solomon
The book begins with an exhortation to the rulers to be upright and not to put God to the test. Otherwise, wisdom will not enter them. And because Wisdom is linked with God’s Spirit, we are told that nothing escapes God’s notice, that all will be subject to judgment, both for condemnation and vindication (1:4–15). Those who act in the proscribed ways will not invite wisdom but death. And indeed, it is said that God did not create death, but created all things so that they might live. As such, righteousness that avoids the way of death is said to be “immortal” (1:15).
The following section (1:16–2:20) then explicates how unrighteousness invites death. The ungodly are said to summon death and regard him as a friend by their vain lives, which are in turn driven by their view that life is vain, so that there is nothing for it but to live in licentiousness, hedonism, and oppression of the righteous. After all, the righteous seek to reproach and accuse them, so they might as well silence them. Indeed, their persecution of the righteous is meant to put to the test the claim that God is the righteous one’s Father (2:12–20).
Of course, their reasoning is wrong, for they did not know or understand God’s purposes for humans as created for incorruption and as image-bearers of his eternity. While the unrighteous will join the devil who brought death into the world (2:24), the righteous are in the hand of God and will be vindicated for their faithfulness unto death (3:1–9). The barren woman and the eunuch who are righteous are also said to be blessed (3:13–14), in contrast to the unrighteous who are doomed to destruction if they continue in their ways, whatever their present situation in life may be. These ones can waste long life while the righteous may fulfill God’s designs for them in short life (4).
Chapter 5 in particular highlights the final judgment that is coming and how it will vindicate and exalt the righteous while destroying the condemned wicked. It also contains a description of the Lord acting as the Divine Warrior in that judgment (5:17–23). Chapter 6 thus concludes this portion of the book with a renewed call to the rulers to seek wisdom/Wisdom. While eschatological concerns are interwoven throughout these first six chapters, the relation of these two chapters in particular shows the eschatological orientation of ethical teaching in the Wisdom of Solomon.
Chapters 7–9 are the most extensive doxological portrayal of the figure of Wisdom herself in Second Temple Jewish literature. As I noted earlier, it is not entirely clear if the text is presenting Wisdom as a personified attribute of God or a hypostasis of God, but the latter is certainly possible. Nevertheless, to speak of Wisdom in the way the text does is ultimately to speak of God.
This is further demonstrated by the transition from ch. 10 to chs. 11–19. While the first chapter highlights Wisdom by name in the history of creation and the patriarchs, the subsequent chapters speak of God’s action without any sharp differentiation. What is interesting about this history, besides this framework of looking at Wisdom’s role in its formation and direction, is that it goes all the way back to creation. It is also peculiar in that it is broken up by a series of digressions in the middle –which focus especially on the critique of idolatry and the contrasts of the idols with God—so that the summary proper belongs to 10:1–11:16 and chs. 16–19. Not many names are noted, in order to maintain generic categories, but the descriptions of characters and events make quite clear what stories the author is referring to, including Cain and Abel (10:3), the flood (10:4), the tower of Babel (10:5), Abraham (10:5), Lot (10:6–8), Jacob (10:9–12), Joseph (10:13–14), and Moses (10:15–21). The rest of the summary in its various parts concern the events in Egypt and the wilderness wandering, which we need not dwell on at length here. But it is interesting that appeal is once again made to the foundational events, rather than to a continued series that leads up to the present time. Creation, exodus, and the points in between are the focus of Wisdom of Solomon, especially because they are useful for the author’s extensive critique of idolatry.
Resonances with the OT and NT
As I said before, the resonances of Wisdom of Solomon with both the OT and the NT are numerous, even beyond what I can reasonably address in an orientation like this. Perhaps the most significant of these resonances is how it provides precedent for Trinitarian theology in the NT in how it describes Wisdom (1:4–7; 6:12–20, 22; 7–9; 10:1–11:1; 14:5). I have noted this in connection to John’s Prologue here (also see here), Col 1:15–20 here, and Heb 1:3 here. As I have noted, the links of the vocabulary of the Hebrews text with Wisdom of Solomon are particularly significant. The ascription of creative, sustaining, revelatory, and salvific power to Wisdom likewise fits with these texts and others in reference to Christ. But it is not only Christology as such that Wisdom theology in Wisdom of Solomon helps to illuminate. It also helps to illuminate how the NT—by both comparison and contrast—articulates the theology of Christ in relation to the theology of the Father and the Spirit. Thus, we see Wisdom described as indwelling people (1:4–7; 7:23, 27; cf. 12:1), Wisdom and the Spirit being related (1:6–7; 7:7, 22–23, 25; 9:17; cf. 12:1), the righteous who are illuminated by Wisdom being described as God’s children (2:16; 5:5; 11:10; 14:3; 18:13), Wisdom being described as radiating God’s glory (6:12; 7:25–26; 8:10; 9:10–11), Wisdom being related with God’s Torah and God’s Word (6:18; 7:22; 8:5–6; 9:1–4, 9, 10; 18:4, 15–16), and Wisdom’s exclusive revelatory relationship with God (8:4; 8:21–9:13; 9:17). The way that talk of Wisdom’s involvement in history casually shades into articulating God’s involvement in history in chs. 10 and 11, and in this section as a whole, shows the peculiar relationship of identification (so that, for example, Wisdom can be described as the cloud and fire that led Israel out of Egypt [10:17; cf. 18:3]). Throughout these texts, we see dynamics of how Wisdom is identified with God while also being distinguished, not so much as a separate being, but as one who is not the totality of God.
More indirectly, the aforementioned link of Wisdom with Torah and the linkage of Wisdom with God—especially in terms of her revelation of God—illuminates another link of the declaration that wisdom begins with the sincere desire for instruction and love of Wisdom (particularly in 6:17–20). That is, this declaration resonates with how the beginning of gaining wisdom is said to be the fear of God in the OT (Job 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prov 1:7; 2:6–7; 9:10; 15:33). It is also reminiscent of how Jesus tells his disciples that those who love him keep his commandments (John 14:15, 21; 15:10; cf. 1 John 5:2–3; 2 John 4–6).
Another important resonance is how the Wisdom of Solomon articulates the expectation of immortality. This is presented as the proper goal of humans who were made in God’s image, being created for incorruption and to bear the image of God’s eternity (2:23). Indeed, God created all things to exist, and so righteousness that fulfills God’s will is immortal and promotes immortality (1:13–15; 3:1–9; 4:1–2; 5:15; 6:18–20; 7:15–24, 26, 28 [cf. 8:3]; 8:7, 13, 17; 11:24–12:2; 15:3). That is why kinship with Wisdom is said to be immortality (8:17 [cf. 6:19]). By contrast, unrighteousness invites death by its rebellion against the God who gives life (1:16–2:20). Death is an alien element of creation, being introduced by the devil in his rebellion (2:24). This comports with the ubiquitous association of life and righteousness/wisdom/faithfulness in the Bible. While the language of immortality as such is not that frequent in the NT (1 Cor 15:53–54; 1 Tim 6:16 [see here for more]), the similar notion of everlasting life is quite pervasive, and it has similar associations with immortality as the outcome of union with Wisdom/God in Wisdom of Solomon.
Of course, with how Wisdom of Solomon uses the language of immortality and associated concepts, questions have been raised about the exact nature of the eschatological expectations articulated therein. Given elements of Platonic or broader Greek philosophical influence, is the Wisdom of Solomon an example of a Jewish source that supports an expectation other than resurrection of the dead in the eschaton? The majority view among scholars has been that this is so. I am of the minority view that there is hope for resurrection in this book.
On the one hand, there is a definite philosophical influence that takes this text beyond any declaration in the OT in 8:19–20 when the author implies the preexistence of his soul. The negative description of the body that the corruptible body presses down the soul and the earthly tent weighs down the mind in 9:15 may sound like descriptors from philosophers like Pythagoras and Plato, but this is not nearly as negative as describing the body as a tomb from which the soul is ultimately released. Given the eschatological outlook of the book, it is arguably better to see this as a reflection on the limitations of the body in the present age (and of the present age more generally).
On the other hand, while the explicit language of resurrection is not used in Wisdom of Solomon, there are plenty of signals of resurrection hope. One, the hope for immortality declared in 3:4 is, as indicated by the context of 3:1–9, a hope for those already dead, meaning that this hope is not fulfilled once they die. The question then becomes what is needed to fulfill such a hope that there would be a delay. Two, there is arguably an indirect influence of Dan 12:1–3 on 3:7–8. The association of shining here—with a verb (ἀναλάμπω) that is similar to what appears in the Greek versions of Daniel (ἐκλάμπω)—with the reign of the saints comports with the angelic imagery of resurrection in Daniel. Indeed, righteousness is linked with exaltation more broadly in Wisdom of Solomon (4:2; 5:15–16; 6:17–20; 10:10; 19:22). This is further supported by the author evoking judgment imagery (3:7–8; Isa 5:24; Joel 2:5; Obad 18; Mal 4:1) to describe the risen believers as judging and governing the nations in subjection to God (cf. Dan 7:22; 12:3; T. Dan 5:12–13). Third, as such, both in 3:7–9 and 5:15–16, their immortality is linked with receiving the kingdom in which God reigns (i.e., the kingdom of God, as in 10:10, a rare use of the specific term prior to the NT). As with many other texts we have seen, the hope for everlasting life is linked with the kingdom, and so this is reasonably inferred as a hope for resurrection, given that immortality is not immediately received at death. Fourth, the text also makes several references to final judgment—both in reference to the hope of the righteous and otherwise—which we have seen many times over is closely linked with resurrection (1:6–11; 3:18; 4:20–5:23). Indeed, the point of 3:4–8 in context of the preceding 2:12–20 and of 5:15–16 in the context of 4:20–5:23 is ultimately about the vindication of the righteous dead, which we have seen elsewhere in the OT and Second Temple Jewish texts is to be accomplished with resurrection. Finally, resurrection imagery is used to describe God’s action in 16:13 as God is said to have the power of life and death, being the one who leads down to the gates of Hades and who will lead up. This is reminiscent of what we have seen in Deut 32:39 and 1 Sam 2:6. In fact, all of these themes have appeared many times in our analyses of resurrection in other texts of the OT and NT (as well as Second Temple Jewish texts outside of the canon).
The opening warning to not put God to the test (1:2–3) fits with broader biblical teaching. This was a failing of Israel at multiple points (Exod 17:2, 7; Num 14:22; Deut 6:16; Pss 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14; Mal 3:15). This teaching is again reinforced in the NT (Matt 4:7 // Luke 4:12; Acts 5:9; 15:10; 1 Cor 10:9, 13; Heb 3:7–11).
Other resonances are connected with matters I have addressed in multiple series. One of these concerns the testing of the righteous and the perseverance of the suffering faithful (2:12–20; 3:5–6; 4:10–15), on which see here. Another is addressed in my series on summaries of Israel’s history in the OT, NT, and other Jewish literature (see here, and see here for the entry including Wisdom of Solomon). The frequent references to grace, mercy, and repentance (3:9; 4:15; 5:3; 6:6; 9:1; 11:9, 23; 12:10, 19, 22; 15:1; 16:10) fit with references in both the OT and NT that I have noted in many places, such as my Christmas posts on Luke.
The critique of idolatry in chs. 13–15 is a more elaborate form of something we see in both Testaments. After all, this critique has its foundation in a theology shaped by the OT (cf. Ps 135; Isa 44:9–20; Jer 10). While idolatry, as such, is not as prominent in the NT, we see the critiques being carried over there as well (Acts 17:23–31; Rom 1:18–32; Rev 9:20–21). It is also a theme that we will see in many other Second Temple texts.
Some more minor resonances are also noteworthy. One, I have noted the levels of significance in the language of visitation in Luke, and we see that language here in 2:20; 3:7; and 14:11. Two, the reference to the righteous ones as both “holy ones/saints” and “elect” resonates with both Testaments (3:9; 4:15; 18:1–2, 5, 9). Three, the blessings of the barren and the eunuch (3:13–15; 4:1) are reminiscent of Isa 54 and 56. Four, the description of the armor of God in 5:17–23 is roughly similar to the descriptions in Isa 59:17–20 and Eph 6:10–18, while the description of creation’s involvement in and response to God’s judgment is reminiscent of many texts, including those noted in this series (cf. 16:5–11, 15–29; 19:6–12, 18–21). Finally, the notion of the temple being a copy of the holy tabernacle prepared from the beginning in 9:8 is suggestive not only of the resemblances between Israel’s temple and tabernacle, but also of the link between the temple as an extension of the holy sanctuary that was the model for the tabernacle (Exod 25:9, 40; Heb 8; Rev 7:15; 11:19; 14:15, 17; 15). For more on this, see here and here.