• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

King Solomon a saint?

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,833
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Michał said:
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
Kings David and Solomon recognized Christ in Hades (after John the Baptist went to Hades to preach the coming of Christ) and Christ lifted them (and others) out of Hades on the Resurrection.  The icon of the Resurrection clearly depicts King David, King Solomon and John the Baptist as forerunners to the risen Christ.

When Christ forgave the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery, Christ similarly forgave King Solomon for his sins.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Michał said:
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
Because the Church says so.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
SolEX01 said:
Michał said:
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
Kings David and Solomon recognized Christ in Hades (after John the Baptist went to Hades to preach the coming of Christ) and Christ lifted them (and others) out of Hades on the Resurrection.  The icon of the Resurrection clearly depicts King David, King Solomon and John the Baptist as forerunners to the risen Christ.

When Christ forgave the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery, Christ similarly forgave King Solomon for his sins.
That expalains everything. Thanks.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Michał said:
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
Ecclesiastes, which speaks of the vanity of worldly pursuits and concludes by advising us to love God and follow His commandments, has traditionally been attributed to King Solomon. If true, this may certainly be seen as evidence that he did repent of his sins late in life.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
PeterTheAleut said:
Ecclesiastes, which speaks of the vanity of worldly pursuits and concludes by advising us to love God and follow His commandments, has traditionally been attributed to King Solomon. If true, this may certainly be seen as evidence that he did repent of his sins late in life.
Makes sense. Thank you.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I remember listening to a podcast from Fr. Thomas Hopko on Ancient Faith Radio where he claimed that Solomon should not be considered a saint, since what defined a saint in the Old Testament was faithfulness to the true God, despite other sins one may have committed. Having said that, I think it's obvious that the Church has considered Solomon a saint for a long time. This can be seen by the inclusion of works attributed to him in the Bible. Moreover, as has already been mentioned, he's always depicted beside his father David and St. John the Baptist in icons of the Resurrection. Also, it's normal to see him in other icons in churches throughout Orthodox lands. I think it's also noteworthy that he's is generally revered in Judaism as well.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
The saints are heroes of the faith. I am not sure where an idea that all saints are to be known for blamelessness comes from. Certainly some heroes of the faith model blamelessness for us. Others are martyrs. Others donate their imperial powers to Christ's cause. Others model some other valuable trait. The St. King-Prophets are heroes for what they typify, but also for other reasons. St. David, of course, composed those Psalms that are mysteriously the very prayers of our Lord. St. Solomon was the wisest of men (and the grandest of Hebrew poets and philosophers).
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Ανδρέας said:
I remember listening to a podcast from Fr. Thomas Hopko on Ancient Faith Radio where he claimed that Solomon should not be considered a saint, since what defined a saint in the Old Testament was faithfulness to the true God, despite other sins one may have committed. Having said that, I think it's obvious that the Church has considered Solomon a saint for a long time. This can be seen by the inclusion of works attributed to him in the Bible. Moreover, as has already been mentioned, he's always depicted beside his father David and St. John the Baptist in icons of the Resurrection. Also, it's normal to see him in other icons in churches throughout Orthodox lands. I think it's also noteworthy that he's is generally revered in Judaism as well.
Which podcast episode does Fr. Thomas say this?
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Now that raises a good point -- how could we revere the scriptures attributed to him and not venerate the man himself?
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,505
Reaction score
269
Points
83
Age
41
I started looking for references on this back when the original post was made, but got side tracked. By coincidence I started looking again the other day. To sum up what I've seen so far: St. Augustine believed that Solomon was divinely inspired in thise writings found in Scripture, and had a good beginning, but went off course and apparently never repented. Other Fathers seem more sympathetic. I'll post the quotes once I finish...

EDIT--actually this isn't the thread I was thinking of... there was another thread on Solomon along the same lines a few months ago.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
PeterTheAleut said:
Michał said:
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
Ecclesiastes, which speaks of the vanity of worldly pursuits and concludes by advising us to love God and follow His commandments, has traditionally been attributed to King Solomon. If true, this may certainly be seen as evidence that he did repent of his sins late in life.
This is what the Mormon church teaches, or used to teach anyway. (They also used to discourage reading the 'Song of Solomon' with the idea it is just in the Bible to show us how far a good man can fall.) A problem with this claim is that 'Ecclesiastes' is far from a coherently pious book, much less a book of pious repentance. The philosophy that runs thru 'Ecclesiastes' is quite variable, but it is as often nihilistic and anti-pious ("be not over righteous") as not.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,505
Reaction score
269
Points
83
Age
41
The thread I was thinking of was a bit different than I remember, and only asked about Solomon later. Well anyway, I'll still look, and post in this one about Solomon, and about Manasseh over there...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,57988.0.html
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Ανδρέας said:
I remember listening to a podcast from Fr. Thomas Hopko on Ancient Faith Radio where he claimed that Solomon should not be considered a saint, since what defined a saint in the Old Testament was faithfulness to the true God, despite other sins one may have committed. Having said that, I think it's obvious that the Church has considered Solomon a saint for a long time. This can be seen by the inclusion of works attributed to him in the Bible. Moreover, as has already been mentioned, he's always depicted beside his father David and St. John the Baptist in icons of the Resurrection. Also, it's normal to see him in other icons in churches throughout Orthodox lands. I think it's also noteworthy that he's is generally revered in Judaism as well.
Which podcast episode does Fr. Thomas say this?
I can't remember the title, but it was one of his talks on the Old Testament. I listened to it about four years ago, and what he said about Solomon really surprised me at the time. I'll try to skim through some of his talks when I get a chance, and if I find it I'll post the link.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Ανδρέας said:
minasoliman said:
Ανδρέας said:
I remember listening to a podcast from Fr. Thomas Hopko on Ancient Faith Radio where he claimed that Solomon should not be considered a saint, since what defined a saint in the Old Testament was faithfulness to the true God, despite other sins one may have committed. Having said that, I think it's obvious that the Church has considered Solomon a saint for a long time. This can be seen by the inclusion of works attributed to him in the Bible. Moreover, as has already been mentioned, he's always depicted beside his father David and St. John the Baptist in icons of the Resurrection. Also, it's normal to see him in other icons in churches throughout Orthodox lands. I think it's also noteworthy that he's is generally revered in Judaism as well.
Which podcast episode does Fr. Thomas say this?
I can't remember the title, but it was one of his talks on the Old Testament. I listened to it about four years ago, and what he said about Solomon really surprised me at the time. I'll try to skim through some of his talks when I get a chance, and if I find it I'll post the link.
Ya, no worries.  Just curious.  If you find it great.  If not, no big deal.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
This reminds me -- if anybody would be interested, I still have copies of a project lying around that I had printed up a few years ago.



PM me if you'd like a copy in the mail. I might also come up with a way to host an electronic version online.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
picture doesn't seem to work for me.  Not sure about anyone else.
 

Minnesotan

Archon
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
minasoliman said:
picture doesn't seem to work for me.  Not sure about anyone else.
It works for me, but I'm not quite sure what it is. A comparison between two different translations (or of the LXX and Masoretic), maybe?
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
It's just two texts of translations of Solomon, no commentary.

The left is:

David Max Eichhorn: “In order to convey to the reader
a reasonably-accurate reproduction of the thoughts
and ideas that were on the mind of the original writer,
a translation must meet exacting intellectual as well as
linguistic standards. The meanings of many words are
fraught with implications and nuances; unless the
translator is able to capture them in some measure,
the reader will get an imperfect reproduction of the
original writer‟s message. This challenge to the
translator is quite marked in the Book of Koheles,
which is written in a cryptic Hebrew not typical of the
Bible. This translation is an attempt to mirror the
thoughts of Koheles without doing violence to his
words. The original writer might have disapproved of
the way some of his teachings are being interpreted in
this translation; on the other hand, there is also a good
possibility that he would have dismissed with a scornful
grin the „objective‟ translations that have given him the
appearance of being irrational, sensual, with some
quotable bon mots but a philosophy so confused and
contradictory that some have not merited it serious
consideration.” He extensively studied Talmud,
Midrash, LXX, and related tannaim and amoraim.
And the right is:

Edward Lively, rector of Purleigh, and Regius Professor
of Hebrew at Trinity College, Cambridge, was director of
one of six “companies” of translators commissioned by
King James the First of Great Britain and his
archbishops newly to translate into English all the
Hebrew and Greek Holy Scriptures. The project took
seven years.

His company comprised John Richardson, Laurence
Chaderton, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert
Spaulding, Andrew Bing, and Francis Dillingham, all
fellows of Cambridge University, churchmen, and
foremost scholars of semitic tongues. Together they
also translated the first and second Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, Job, the psalms, the proverbs, and
the Song of Songs.

King James‟s translators worked as “God‟s secretaries”,
crafting the most literal of any translation (according to
the manuscripts and knowledge of their day), and as
painters of the majestic, shaping measured periods
“suitable to be read in churches”; to do so, they created
an English unique for beauty, flexibility, and dignity that
has impacted literature from their to our day.
I edited Rabbi Eichhorn's from a book-length study of his, and normalized the English and punctuation in the King James Version. Passages are presented side-by-side in topical units. The books are a palm-sized perfect square on glossy paper ... Nothing much, but a bookmaking project I had fun with, and there are plenty of copies still sitting around. :)
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Porter ODoran said:
Now that raises a good point -- how could we revere the scriptures attributed to him and not venerate the man himself?
Yes, this always seemed like a logical point to me. However, I wonder if Joshua ben Sirach should also be considered a saint?
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
68
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
Here is one of the exaposteilaria we will be singing next Sunday:
Let us laud Adam and Abel, Seth and Enos, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Moses, Job
and Aaron; Eliezar, Joshua, Barak, Samson, Jephtae, David and Solomon.
I don't know how we can laud someone in Church who is not a Saint (or at least the Old Testament equivalent).
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,404
Reaction score
119
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
I had always thought that the major figures of the Old Testament - the positive ones, anyway, not people like the Pharaohs - were considered saints. I could be wrong.  ???
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,030
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Radical Monogamy
Fr. Hopko

I was reading the Old Testament, many times in my life when I used to be a teacher in the school, trying to find this question. Was there anyone who was really monogamous in the Old Testament? Well, let’s ask about Moses. Moses was married to the daughter of Jethro, Zipporah. But later on in the first chapter of Numbers, he marries a Cushite woman... I always assume that Zipporah was dead, and so he took a second wife. But I don’t know whether Moses had two wives at the same time as [did] David. And then of course, there’s this crazy man Solomon who had like 300 wives and 700 concubines, just totally impossible Solomon. I don’t even know why we ever put a fresco of him in our church, except that he’s a prefiguration of the wisdom that comes in Jesus, who is the Wisdom of God. But there’s one person who I found that I think really was totally monogamous and so was his wife. And that is this great prefiguration of Jesus, perhaps the most important one besides Moses in the Old Testament, and that would be Joseph.

...the Old Testament definitely had concubinage and polygamy, but it still had strong teaching about adultery, but it even said that you could divorce a wife. The wife couldn’t divorce a husband, but the husband could divorce a wife.

Now when they asked Jesus about that, He said it was because of the hardness of your heart. This was allowed in Moses’ law because of the hardness of your heart. It should not be so. From the beginning, it was not so. From the beginning, it was one man and one woman forever. And the one man and the one woman, they symbolized the love of God for the whole of humanity.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/radical_monogamy
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,030
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
See also:

Sex, Lies, and the Old Testament - Part 2

December 15, 2010 Length: 47:51

What are we to make of the moral behavior of many of the heroes of the Old Testament like David, Solomon, Abraham, Lot, and others? Fr. Tom helps us deal with these figures in the proper way and according to God's ultimate plan.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/sex_lies_and_the_old_testament_part_2
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,030
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Porter ODoran said:
The saints are heroes of the faith. I am not sure where an idea that all saints are to be known for blamelessness comes from. Certainly some heroes of the faith model blamelessness for us. Others are martyrs. Others donate their imperial powers to Christ's cause. Others model some other valuable trait. The St. King-Prophets are heroes for what they typify, but also for other reasons... St. Solomon was the wisest of men (and the grandest of Hebrew poets and philosophers).
This is the best answer I see. My guess is that Solomon didn't repent of his paganism, because the Bible doesn't mention it, and because Solomon's immediate progeny were trouble, and the empire divided right after him, leading eventually to the disappearance of the northern tribes. The implication is that Israel went off course towards the end of Solomon's reign and continued to be off course, at least until more saints appeared.

But Solomon was also described as very blessed by God in terms of Wisdom and one whom God let build the Temple. So Solomon is a mixed figure with good (wisdom, Temple-building) and bad (paganism and perhaps harshness) and one need not consider him blameless to consider him a saint.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
rakovsky said:
See also:

Sex, Lies, and the Old Testament - Part 2

December 15, 2010 Length: 47:51

What are we to make of the moral behavior of many of the heroes of the Old Testament like David, Solomon, Abraham, Lot, and others? Fr. Tom helps us deal with these figures in the proper way and according to God's ultimate plan.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/sex_lies_and_the_old_testament_part_2
Thanks for posting these links. However, is it just me or are other people getting "403 Forbidden nginx" or "Disallowed Key Characters" when clicking on almost anything on AFR?
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
I imagine King Solomon was full of wisdom and knowledge.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,404
Reaction score
119
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Ανδρέας said:
rakovsky said:
See also:

Sex, Lies, and the Old Testament - Part 2

December 15, 2010 Length: 47:51

What are we to make of the moral behavior of many of the heroes of the Old Testament like David, Solomon, Abraham, Lot, and others? Fr. Tom helps us deal with these figures in the proper way and according to God's ultimate plan.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/sex_lies_and_the_old_testament_part_2
Thanks for posting these links. However, is it just me or are other people getting "403 Forbidden nginx" or "Disallowed Key Characters" when clicking on almost anything on AFR?
I got that too.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,643
Reaction score
2
Points
38
biro said:
Ανδρέας said:
rakovsky said:
See also:

Sex, Lies, and the Old Testament - Part 2

December 15, 2010 Length: 47:51

What are we to make of the moral behavior of many of the heroes of the Old Testament like David, Solomon, Abraham, Lot, and others? Fr. Tom helps us deal with these figures in the proper way and according to God's ultimate plan.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/sex_lies_and_the_old_testament_part_2
Thanks for posting these links. However, is it just me or are other people getting "403 Forbidden nginx" or "Disallowed Key Characters" when clicking on almost anything on AFR?
I got that too.
It's OK for me. I use Firefox, if that helps ...
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
9
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
I'm pretty sure that King Solomon is recognized as a Saint in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. He converted the Queen of Sheba and she subsequently converted Ethiopia to the Judaic Faith. So he's certainly given due honor for that. Also, I agree with Pta that the book of Ecclesiastes seems to be a cautionary lament about seeking answers in sins and philosophies outside of God.


Selam
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,505
Reaction score
269
Points
83
Age
41
Michał said:
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
I can feel a "vacation" from the forum coming soon (who knows for how long), so I'm just going to post now the things I've looked for and found relating to this thread. Two notes on this though: First, I had not yet looked through Tertullian, Sts. John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Justin Martyr, and John Cassian, and a few other lesser-known writers. Second, there are sometimes differences in the reference addresses among the various sites that have the Church Fathers (New Advent, CCEL, etc.), especially with Letters/Epistles, so if you're going to quote a passage elsewhere please verify it before you do so (don't be lazy like I'm being).

St. Augustine thought that Solomon "made a bad end" and had not repented:

And hence we may understand with what temperance he [David] possessed a number of wives when he was forced to punish himself for transgressing in regard to one woman.  But in his case the immoderate desire did not take up its abode with him, but was only a passing guest.  On this account the unlawful appetite is called even by the accusing prophet, a guest.  For he did not say that he took the poor man's ewe-lamb to make a feast for his king, but for his guest.  In the case of his son Solomon, however, this lust did not come and pass away like a guest, but reigned as a king.  And about him Scripture is not silent, but accuses him of being a lover of strange women; for in the beginning of his reign he was inflamed with a desire for wisdom, but after he had attained it through spiritual love, he lost it through carnal lust. (2 Chro. 1:10-12; 1 Kings 11:1-3)

-- St. Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, 3.21
As regards Solomon, it need only be said that the condemnation of his conduct in the faithful narrative of holy Scripture is much more serious than the childish vehemence of Faustus' attacks.  The Scripture tells us with faithful accuracy both the good that Solomon had at first, and the evil actions by which he lost the good he began with; while Faustus, in his attacks, like a man closing his eyes, or with no eyes at all, seeks no guidance from the light, but is prompted only by violent animosity.  To pious and discerning readers of the sacred Scriptures evidence of the chastity of the holy men who are said to have had several wives is found in this, that Solomon, who by his polygamy gratified his passions, instead of seeking for offspring, is expressly noted as chargeable with being a lover of women.  This, as we are informed by the truth which accepts no man's person, led him down into the abyss of idolatry.

-- St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 22.81
Little need be said of Solomon, who is spoken of in Holy Scripture in terms of the strongest disapproval and condemnation, while nothing is said of his repentance and restoration to the divine favor. Nor can I find in his lamentable fall even a symbolic connection with anything good. Perhaps the strange women he lusted after may be thought to represent the Churches chosen from among the Gentiles. This idea might have been admissible, if the women had left their gods for Solomon's sake to worship his God. But as he for their sakes offended his God and worshipped their gods, it seems impossible to think of any good meaning. Doubtless, something is typified, but it is something bad, as in the case already explained of Lot's wife and daughters. We see in Solomon a notable pre-eminence and a notable fall. Now, this good and evil which we see in him at different periods, first good and then evil, are in our day found together in the Church. What is good in Solomon represents, I think, the good members of the Church; and what was bad in him represents the bad members. Both are in one man, as the bad and the good are in the chaff and grain of one floor, or in the tares and wheat of one field. A closer inquiry into what is said of Solomon in Scripture might disclose, either to me or to others of greater learning and greater worth, some more probable interpretation. But as we are now engaged on a different subject, we must not allow this matter to break the connection of our discourse.

-- St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 22.88
In another place St. Augustine says that Adam and Aaron were also deceived, though apparently including Solomon in their company does not imply that he thought Solomon likewise repented (City of God, 14.11). In all cases, however, the serious consequences of sin are finally corrected by the work of Christ (City of God, 17.8-10).

Yet St. Augustine quotes Solomon many times, said that prophecy and wisdom can be found in his words, that his works were divinely inspired, included the works of Solomon in his canon, and said that what we find in these works cannot contradict anything else in Scripture:

After him Solomon his son reigned over the same whole people, who, as was said before, began to reign while his father was still alive. This man, after good beginnings, made a bad end. For indeed “prosperity, which wears out the minds of the wise,”  hurt him more than that wisdom profited him, which even yet is and shall hereafter be renowned, and was then praised far and wide. He also is found to have prophesied in his books, of which three are received as of canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of some resemblance of style—but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his; yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority—in the one of which, called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most openly prophesied.

-- St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 17.20 (see Letter 102.28-29)
We must fear, lest the divine precepts should be contrary to one another. But no: let us understand that there is the most perfect agreement in them, let us not follow the conceits of certain vain ones,  who in their error think that the two Testaments in the Old and New Books are contrary to each other; that so we should think that there is any contradiction here, because one is in the book of Solomon, and the other in the Gospel. For if any one unskilful in, and a reviler of the divine Scriptures, were to say, "See where the two Testaments contradict each other. The Lord saith, Rebuke him between him and thee alone.' Solomon saith, He that reproveth openly maketh peace.'" Doth not the Lord then know what He hath commanded? Solomon would have the sinners' hard forehead bruised: Christ spareth his shame who blushes for his sins. For in the one place it is written, "He that reproveth openly maketh peace;" but in the other, "Rebuke him between him and thee alone;" not "openly," but apart and secretly. But wouldest thou know, whosoever thou art that thinkest such things, that the two Testaments are not opposed to each other, because the first of these passages is found in the book of Solomon, and the other in the Gospel?

-- St. Augustine, Sermons on the New Testament, 32.8
Like St. Augustine, St. Irenaeus also believed that Solomon was inspired and wise (cf Against Heresies, 4.20.3), but also speaks of the fall of Solomon and says that it serves as an example to us:

While, therefore, he served God without blame, and ministered to His dispensations, then was he glorified: but when he took wives from all nations, and permitted them to set up idols in Israel, the Scripture spake thus concerning him: 'And King Solomon was a lover of women, and he took to himself foreign women; and it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God. And the foreign women turned away his heart after strange gods. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord: he did not walk after the Lord, as did David his father. And the Lord was angry with Solomon; for his heart was not perfect with the Lord, as was the heart of David his father.' (1 Kings 11:1) The Scripture has thus sufficiently reproved him, as the presbyter remarked, in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Lord.

-- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.27.1
St. Cyprian seems to take a similar path, saying that Solomon was inspired by the Holy Spirit (Epistle 54.20; Epistle 62.5; Epistle 64.2; Treatise 7.23; Treatise 8.9; Treatise 11.12), yet also speaks of his fall without going on to say that he thereafter repented:

The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, 'Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.' (John 5:14) Conceive of Him as saying this also to His confessor, 'Lo thou art made a confessor; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.' Solomon also, and Saul, and many others, so long as they walked in the Lord's ways, were able to keep the grace given to them. When the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.

-- St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 6.2
Nor let any one marvel, beloved brethren, that even some of the confessors advance to these lengths, and thence also that some others sin thus wickedly, thus grievously. For neither does confession make a man free from the snares of the devil, nor does it defend a man who is still placed in the world, with a perpetual security from temptations, and dangers, and onsets, and attacks of the world; otherwise we should never see in confessors those subsequent frauds, and fornications, and adulteries, which now with groans and sorrow we witness in some. Whosoever that confessor is, he is not greater, or better, or dearer to God than Solomon, who, although so long as he walked in God's ways, retained that grace which he had received from the Lord, yet after he forsook the Lord's way he lost also then Lord's grace. And therefore it is written, 'Hold fast that which thou hast, lest another take thy crown.' (Rev. 3:11) But assuredly the Lord would not threaten that the crown of righteousness might be taken away, were it not that, when righteousness departs, the crown must also depart.

-- St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1.20
Likewise with St. Jerome (Letter 22.39). Finally, St. Gregory the Theologian considers him "the divine Solomon" (Oration 8.9), but also speaks of his fall from grace, and does not mention a later repentance (Oration 30.2).

Other Fathers spoke of Solomon as being divinely inspired, a prophet, guided by God, filled with wisdom, etc., but without commenting (in the texts I have available to me) on whether he repented or not, including St. Ambrose of Milan (On the Duties of the Clergy, 3.2), St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Defense Before Constantius, 12; Discourses Against the Arians, 1.4 & 2.14), St. Basil the Great  (On the Spirit, 29; Letters 8.8 & 8.12), and St. Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1.9; 1.10; 2.13; 3.11).

On the other hand, I found only one Father who seemed to explicitly believe that Solomon did in fact repent, that being St. Cyril of Jerusalem (quoting Prov. 24:32 in Catechetical Lectures, 2.13)
 

Incognito777

Elder
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SolEX01 said:
Kings David and Solomon recognized Christ in Hades (after John the Baptist went to Hades to preach the coming of Christ) and Christ lifted them (and others) out of Hades on the Resurrection. 
Where does the Bible say that? And even if true, it would not logically follow that someone is a saint because they were lifted out of Hades.

SolEX01 said:
When Christ forgave the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery, Christ similarly forgave King Solomon for his sins.
Again, where does the Bible say that? Where is the evidence that Solomon repented? And where is the evidence that being forgiven makes one a saint? I remind you of the original question posed by the creator of this thread.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,643
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Incognito777 said:
SolEX01 said:
Kings David and Solomon recognized Christ in Hades (after John the Baptist went to Hades to preach the coming of Christ) and Christ lifted them (and others) out of Hades on the Resurrection. 
Where does the Bible say that? And even if true, it would not logically follow that someone is a saint because they were lifted out of Hades.

SolEX01 said:
When Christ forgave the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery, Christ similarly forgave King Solomon for his sins.
Again, where does the Bible say that? Where is the evidence that Solomon repented? And where is the evidence that being forgiven makes one a saint? I remind you of the original question posed by the creator of this thread.
Incognito, sola scriptura does not apply to Orthodoxy.
 

Incognito777

Elder
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
Incognito, sola scriptura does not apply to Orthodoxy.
I did not appeal to Sola Scriptura, but to the evidence (or lack) in this case. There is no evidence for the claims made by the person I was responding to. Just because some man called a Father of the Church declares his personal opinion, does not make it true. Church Fathers don't have the right to invent traditions. If the tradition does not come from Christ and the apostles, I will not accept it.
 

Incognito777

Elder
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Justin said: On the other hand, I found only one Father who seemed to explicitly believe that Solomon did in fact repent, that being St. Cyril of Jerusalem (quoting Prov. 24:32 in Catechetical Lectures, 2.13).

Where is the evidence for St. Cyril's view? He was only a man. Stay with the Scriptural data.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,643
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Incognito777 said:
LBK said:
Incognito, sola scriptura does not apply to Orthodoxy.
I did not appeal to Sola Scriptura, but to the evidence (or lack) in this case. There is no evidence for the claims made by the person I was responding to. Just because some man called a Father of the Church declares his personal opinion, does not make it true. Church Fathers don't have the right to invent traditions. If the tradition does not come from Christ and the apostles, I will not accept it.
Solomon is commemorated liturgically and featured in the Resurrection icon, as well as in icons of himself. His sanctity is proclaimed by the whole Church, not one man's personal opinion.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,505
Reaction score
269
Points
83
Age
41
Incognito777 said:
I did not appeal to Sola Scriptura, but to the evidence (or lack) in this case. There is no evidence for the claims made by the person I was responding to. Just because some man called a Father of the Church declares his personal opinion, does not make it true. Church Fathers don't have the right to invent traditions. If the tradition does not come from Christ and the apostles, I will not accept it.
The idea that the faith once delivered, which came "from Christ and the apostles," must be found in the Bible, and that extra-Biblical sources cannot be used to transmit this, is an anti-Biblical sentiment. It's also sola scriptura, whether you want to admit it or not. A turd by another name is still a turd, and smells the same. But... you reject the Biblical evidence against sola scriptura l, I guess because it contradicts you, so obviously you are going to reject those who came afterwards as well, in whatever matters, and at least you are consistent in that!
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,505
Reaction score
269
Points
83
Age
41
Incognito777 said:
Justin said: On the other hand, I found only one Father who seemed to explicitly believe that Solomon did in fact repent, that being St. Cyril of Jerusalem (quoting Prov. 24:32 in Catechetical Lectures, 2.13).

Where is the evidence for St. Cyril's view? He was only a man. Stay with the Scriptural data.
I don't know if he had any.

But the scriptural data says not to stick only to the scriptural data... so...
 
Top