A certain Skeptic writing on Wisdom seems a lot like someone named Clinton writing on sexual restraint. But the theme: If Solomon was so wise, why did he do so many dumb things?

I've seen other critics repeat this point as well, and actually, no one doubts that Solomon was "a man of excesses" and in many ways a jerk -- as no one doubts that even our wisest sages in history had their vices. Wisdom is no preventative against stupidity; all it means is that we are more capable of seeing that what we did was stupid. Our Skeptic's screed against Solomon seems to be more against an ideal construct of Solomon than it is against the historical Solomon, and as such, is mostly a waste of time.

There are only a few questions worth addressing here:

• This obnoxious yarn might make acceptable TV entertainment, but to include it in the book that is supposed to provide mankind with the keys to eternal life and set an example for us to follow is ludicrous in the extreme. One might rather choose to emulate Mahatma Gandhi (whose wisdom, of course, didn't come close to Solomon's) than this immature, egotistical, decadent man to whom God granted supreme wisdom. The comparison is interesting, since Gandhi himself has often been charged with indiscretions. Our writer had best research that idea before committing to Gandhi completely as a model; I'd sure check it out. Otherwise this is just the old complaint of Ingersoll revamped: It is apparently the judgment that an "inspired" work ought to be like some sort of health tonic that makes us feel warm inside -- as opposed to being what the Bible is, a truth-mirror that makes us recognize our own lostness.

• Our writer next looks at the case of the disputed baby, which we'll quote here:

  Then the king said, The one says, This is my son that lives, and your son is dead: and the other says, No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living. And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. Then the woman whose the living child was spoke to the king, for her heart yearned over her son, and she said, Oh, my sovereign, give her the living child, and in no wise kill it. But the other said, It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise kill it: she is the mother of it. And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of Elohim was in him, to do justice (1 Kings 3:23-28, BB).

  Sol came up with a fairly good solution here, we think, but our writer disagrees:

  So a woman who had the chance to get a living child to replace the one she had lost-- exactly what she had come to Solomon for-- was turning it down. She now wanted to see the baby hacked in half! Does this sound like a probable reaction any woman would have made in a situation like this?

  Of course it does. Selfishness, envy and jealousy drive us to all manner of extremes. History gives ample testimony to our stupidity; does our writer dispute this?

  And what would Solomon have done if the second mother had also relinquished claim to the baby?

  It can sound very smart to offer a "what if" like this, but it's mostly air bubbles. So what if both women had said, "No, you take it"? Well, then, why are they disputing in the first place? If there was love and friendship in this shared household to the degree supposed (and not merely the practical necessity of two people leaning on one another for survival), why didn't they do the Rodney King thing and get along before wind got to Solomon? If they were so friendly, why is there suspicion (or the action) of trying to pull a switcheroo with a dead baby? (Actually, the writer leaves out a very important issue: These two women were harlots (3:16) -- not necessarily reputable, caring persons to begin with!)

  Let's just admit for the sake of argument that Solomon's judgment in this case was clever. Did the cleverness of it warrant the awe-stricken public reaction attributed to it? "And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of Elohim was in him, to do justice." I guess we are supposed to believe that an ordinary man, acting without divine guidance, could not have devised this plan. All the judgment indicates, however, is that Solomon understood something about maternal instincts. A man has to have divine help to know that?

  It is just as easy for this writer to make this 20/20 hindsight comment as it is for the beer-soaked, overweight armchair jockey to watch the Blue Angels from his seat on the Pensacola beach and say, "I could do that!" One might point out that in the ancient world, there wasn't a lot of time for sensitivity and there weren't any colleges doing psychological research. I know of few "ordinary men" who have the wit to manage their lives efficiently, much less solve complex moral problems in a level-headed manner. History shows that we can't do this sort of thing well -- again, does our writer dispute this? The evidence is hard against her, and against the humanist coterie with similar notions.

• Finally:

  Last, but certainly not least, is the biblical denunciation of Solomon's allegiance to God. In his old age, Solomon turned to idolatry as a result of the influence of his wives (1 Kings 11:4). There are several noteworthy comments to make about this event. Isn't it strange to believe that the wisest man on earth could not turn any of his wives from idolatry to worship of the one true god, Yahweh Elohim of Israel? Isn't it strange that a man who, on at least two occasions (1 Kings 3:5-14; 9:2-9), was personally visited by Yahweh would turn to idolatry? Even without the visits, the wisest man on earth wouldn't know not to practice idolatry? What on earth is so wise about worshipping a stick of wood or a hunk of stone that one has graven himself? Isn't it strange that a man who was promised and received great wealth would turn from the source of that wealth? Isn't it strange that the wisest man ever born could not manage to satisfy God? And if the wisest man ever born couldn't please God, what chance do we people of ordinary intelligence have to please him?

  Well, there's nothing strange about any of this at all -- it's just proof that we need grace, not power, or wisdom, or riches. It's no stranger than the fact that schools blessed with all the money and technology they need don't do any better on that basis alone. But that's a lesson the Skeptical humanists with unlimited confidence in mankind don't want to hear, now isn't it?

  ---

  Go Home!