R U Woke? Part 19


The Writings of Solomon

Sermon by Jim Jester

January 8, 2023

SCRIPTURE READING: Proverbs 8:10-11

Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold; 11 for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her. (Pro. 8:10-11, RSV)


In this sermon we will be covering the writings of Solomon as they have to do with racial intimations. Solomon was known for his wisdom, but it appears he did not always follow his own advice, but rather succumbed to temptation. Perhaps some of his failures led to his great wisdom, while at the same time and in due time, God inspired him in answer to his own prayer.

A bit of historical background:

Solomon’s reign was the “golden age” of Israel. The magnificence and splendor of Solomon's court were unrivaled. He had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, an evidence at once of his pride, his wealth, and his sensuality. The maintenance of his household involved immense expenditure.

Solomon's reign was not only a period of great material prosperity, but was equally remarkable for its intellectual activity. He was the leader of his people also in this uprising amongst them of new intellectual life. He spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.

But that golden age of Jewish [Judean] history passed away. The bright day of Solomon’s glory ended in clouds and darkness. His decline and fall from his high estate is a sad record. Chief among the causes of his decline were his polygamy and his great wealth. As he grew older he spent more of his time among his favorites. The idle king living among these idle women, for 1,000 women, with all their idle and mischievous attendants, filled the palaces and pleasure-houses which he had built, learned first to tolerate and then to imitate their heathenish ways. He did not, indeed, cease to believe in the God of Israel with his mind. He did not cease to offer the usual sacrifices in the temple at the great feasts. But his heart was not right with God; his worship became merely formal; his soul, left empty by the dying out of true religious fervor, sought to be filled with any religious excitement which offered itself. (Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

It was under the direction of Solomon that the temple was built. It took seven and a half years. “After standing for three centuries and a half it was burned to the ground by the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar in B.C. 587–6, having first been stripped of everything of value that could be carried away.” (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible)


A proverb, said Clarke, “was an allegorical saying, where ‘more was meant than met the eye’ — a short saying that stood for a whole discourse.”

Solomon, in his own wisdom, did not separate himself from hundreds of foreign wives and concubines. Consequently, we should not expect any “racism” from him in these proverbs. However, this is not the case. Hear the admonishment from Solomon in these words.

Drink waters out of thine own cistern, And running waters out of thine own well. 16 Should thy springs be dispersed abroad, And streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for thyself alone, And not for strangers with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed; And rejoice in the wife of thy youth. 19 As a loving hind and a pleasant doe, Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; And be thou ravished always with her love. 20 For why shouldest thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, And embrace the bosom of a foreigner? (Pro. 5:15-20, ASV)

This passage has to do with sexual relations. Often, symbolic language is veiled and not always easy to comprehend or interpret; but in this case, it is a no-brainer, for it is quite obvious from the context what the meanings are.

Solomon’s allegory was to use the words: water, cistern, well, springs, streams and fountain to represent the reproduction between a married couple. His advice was to keep this production within its own race, not in the “bosom of a foreigner.” His comparison was in the deer and the doe, which never go to a foreign animal to reproduce. “Your own cistern” means your own kind.

If Solomon did not have in mind race here, then why did he use allegories? Why did he use the terms “strange woman” (or adulteress) and “foreigner?” To water this down to a mere moral teaching is to insist that we be as moral as the deer and doe. But Solomon was not saying that.

In chapter six, Solomon again refers to the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.” (Pro. 6:26) Chapter seven warns against the dangers of the foreigner and the harlot.

Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. 25 Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. 26 For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. 27 Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death. (Pro. 7:24-27)

In all these passages, Solomon has referred to these foreigners that lead to the death of the race. This is not just a moral lesson about a common harlot anywhere in the world. He does not deny her beauty, but he points to her unyielding evil which leads to the “chambers of death.”

Yes, with a harlot, there is the possibility of death by venereal disease, “Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.” (Pro. 7:23) But a worse death, on the larger scale of things, is that spiritual death that comes to the descendants of the illegitimate child of the racial stranger. Those non-Adamic peoples are dead to the Spirit of God and cannot know Him, not being “born from above.”

Could it be that in all the foreign beauty which surrounded him, Solomon came to know its folly and inevitable end? Foreigners, beautiful or otherwise, eventually divert the allegiance of the sons of God to other gods and idolatry. No doubt, Solomon felt the responsibility of keeping the Israelites pure. His words were clear.


The Song of Solomon (Book of Canticles), or Song of Songs (or An Ode of the Odes), is a collection of dialogue based love poems, generally adhering to the theme of awakening love. You might even call it an Opera, because of the different speakers in discourse with each other. Some Bibles have even given these dialogues headings to identify the different speakers, for example: THE SHULAMITE, THE DAUGHTERS OF JERUSALEM, THE BELOVED, etc.

This book is rather mysterious. It may be said to be the enigma of the Old Testament, just as the Apocalypse (Revelation) is of the New Testament. Generally, we should view the purpose of the book as revealing God’s love for his people, but there is no sure way of identifying its purpose, nor is there proof that Solomon himself wrote the book. It is hard to reconcile the pure love depicted in the song with the promiscuity of Solomon in his later life. Some have said the song represents the love of Christ for the church, but again, there is no real proof.

Since nominal judeo-Christianity holds two different theories regarding the purpose of the Canticles: 1) an allegory of God’s love for his people (jews); and, 2) an allegory of Christ’s love for the church; we in Christian Identity do not view these two concepts as independent of each other. Therefore, the two are racially one and the same people: either the geographical nation, a large group of God’s family; or the church, a small local group of God’s family. Thus, we might consider both views valid or neither view valid (with both extremes containing truth). So, we would take the typical view, not discarding the historical and literary basis of the work, and endeavor to justify its position in the Word of God by analogy with other portions of Scripture, in which natural facts and interests are infused with spiritual significance.

Adam Clarke writes about the book quite extensively; whom I greatly respect:

I had for a long time hesitated whether I should say any thing on this book; not because I did not think I understood its chief design and general meaning, for of this I really have no doubt, but because I did not understand it as a spiritual allegory, representing the loves of Christ and his Church. I must own, I see no indubitable ground for this opinion. …The doctrines may be true in themselves (which is indeed more than can be said of those of most of its interpreters), but is it not a very solemn, and indeed awful thing to say, This is the voice of Christ to his Church, This is the voice of the Church to Christ, etc., when there is no proof from God, nor any other portion of his word, that these things are so?

It is much better, therefore, if explained or illustrated at all, to take it in its literal meaning, and explain it in its general sense.

To conclude: I advise all young ministers to avoid preaching on Solomon’s Song. If they take a text out of it, to proclaim salvation to lost sinners, they must borrow their doctrines from other portions of Scripture, where all is plain and pointed. And why then leave such, and go out of their way to find allegorical meanings, taking a whole book by storm, and leaving the word of God to serve tables? (Adam Clarke)

To offer a little balance, the Pulpit Commentary says of the book:

There is no direct allusion to it in the New Testament; but the language of the Psalms, especially such as Psalm 45 and 72, corresponds with it; and the cast of the Apostle Paul’s thoughts is often in harmony with it; while the appeals of our Savior himself to the hearts of the people to recognize their loving relation to God and repent of their unfaithfulness, render it at least possible that the tenderness and persuasive beauty of Canticles was not ignored in the religious teaching of his day. He who was, in his own words, the heavenly Bridegroom, and who spoke, both by his own life and by those of his apostles, of his bride and her desire towards him, and the joy and glory of his nuptials, can scarcely be said to have left this book unnoticed, although he never quoted from it or mentioned it by name.

In this love story between Solomon and the Shulamite, she makes an important statement in the first chapter.

I am black, but comely, Oh ye daughters of Jerusalem, As the tents of Kedar, As the curtains of Solomon. 6 Look not upon me, because I am swarthy, Because the sun hath scorched me. My mother’s sons were incensed against me; They made me keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept. (Son. 1:5-6, ASV)

Black but lovely? No doubt, Solomon’s foreign women were his downfall. But most of Christianity today would have no problem with her being “black.” All of mainstream Christianity today, in the term of the humanist, is fully “woke.” However, being ignorant of the Scriptures, they are not awake to racial reality.

But looking at this verse, perhaps the Shulamite wasn’t really and truly “black” after all, but blackish or dark; and truly the context bears this out. One commentary had this to say:

The word translated “swarthy” (shecharchoreh)is probably a diminutive from shechorah, which itself means “blackish;” so that the meaning is, “that my complexion is dark.” The reference to the sun explains the word still further, as pointing, not to a difference of race, but to mere temporary effects of an outdoor life: “The sun has been playing with my complexion;” or, as the LXX. renders it, “The sun has been gazing at me.”

My own vineyard have I not kept” no doubt refers simply and solely to her complexion, not to her virginity or character. She means — I was compelled by my brothers to go into the vineyards in the heat of the sun, and the consequence was, as you see, I have not been able to preserve the delicacy of my skin; I have been careless of my personal beauty. The sun has done its work. The reference helps us to recognize the historical background of the poem, and leads naturally to the use of the pastoral language which runs through the whole. The king is a shepherd, and his bride a shepherdess. Without straining the spiritual interpretation, we may yet discover in this beautiful candor and simplicity of the bride, the reflection of the soul’s virtues in its joyful realization of Divine favor. (Pulpit Commentary)

Continuing in this chapter at verse seven; the Shulamite asks her Beloved:

Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where thou makest it to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that is veiled beside the flock of thy companions? (Son. 1:7)

The bride is longing for the bridegroom; but she cannot think of him yet in any other light than as a companion of her simple country life. She wishes, “Take me into closer fellowship; let me not remain only one among the many (like the flock).” The formost thought of the bride is separation unto her husband. The person that longs for fellowship with God desires to be carried away from all distractions and restraints, lifted above reserve and doubt into the closest and most loving union. The word “veil” (meaning hidden among the flock) is the veil of modesty and reserve.

The Shulamite’s friends, the daughters of Jerusalem, prod her in verse eight:

If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds’ tents. (Son. 1:8)

The latter part of this verse could be applied as good advice for all Christians — “Go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock.” We, like sheep, should follow the Shepherd, along with the whole flock. This is typical of the church, the Christian assembly. But on this verse, I share this explanation:

That another voice is here introduced there can be no doubt; and as it is not like the voice of the bridegroom himself, which is heard in the next verse, we must suppose it to be the chorus of attendant ladies. Delitzsch suggests very plausibly that they are pleasantly chiding the simplicity of the country maiden, and telling her that, if she cannot understand her position, she had better return to her country life. In that case, “if thou know not” would mean—if thou canst not rise up to thy privilege; the knowledge referred to being general knowledge or wisdom. The delicate irony is well expressed, as in the reference to the kids—“feed thy kids,” like a child as thou art. But there may be no intentional irony in the words; rather a playful and sympathetic response to the beautiful simplicity of the bride—if thou art waiting to be brought to thy beloved, if thou art seeking thy shepherd, thou most lovely woman, then go quietly on thy way, like a shepherdess tending the kids beside the shepherds’ tents; follow the peaceful footsteps of the flock, and in due time the beloved one will appear. This is better than to suppose the ladies presuming to indulge in irony when they must know that Shulamith is the king’s favorite. Besides, the first scene of the poem, which is a kind of introduction, thus ends appropriately with an invitation to peaceful waiting for love. We are prepared for the entrance of the beloved one. The spiritual meaning is simple and clear—those that would be lifted up into the highest enjoyments of religion must not be impatient and doubt that the Lord will reveal himself, but go quietly and patiently on with the work of life, “in the footsteps of the flock,” in fellowship with humble souls, in the paths of peace, in the green pastures and beside the still waters; ready to do anything assigned them, and the time of rejoicing and rapture will come. (The Pulpit Commentary)

Who was this Shulamite girl? From the Cyclopedia:

The Shulamite (or Shulamitess), according to most interpreters, is most prominent of all the characters, being no other than the bride herself. The name after the analogy of Shunammite denotes a woman belonging to a place called Shulem. The only place bearing that name of which we have any knowledge is Shunem, which, as far back as the 4th century was called (Euseb. Onomast. s.v.). On the theory that Shulammite and Shunammite are equivalent, some have supposed that the female in question who was the object of Solomon’s passion was Abishag — the most lovely girl of her day, and at the time of David’s death one of the most prominent persons at the court of Jerusalem. This would be equally appropriate whether Solomon were himself the author of the Song or it were written by another person whose object was to personate him accurately.

Abishag was a beautiful young woman of Shunem, in the tribe of Issachar, who was chosen by the servants of David to be introduced into the royal harem, for the special purpose of ministering to him and cherishing him in his old age, B.C. cir. 1015. She became his wife, but the marriage was never consummated (q.v., I Ki. 1:3-15). (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, Ecclesiastical, Literature)


The purpose of the writer of Ecclesiastes is to demonstrate the thesis: “…vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” (Ecc. 1:2) This book makes a sharp counterpoint to the wisdom of Proverbs: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Pro. 1:7) Proverbs assumes that life is fundamentally logical and consistent, with wise choices producing good results and foolish choices producing bad results. Ecclesiastes argues that this is frequently not the case. There are unexplainable mysteries about life which defy easy solutions. If we are serving God to receive something, we may be disappointed. But the writer does not counsel despair. For all unanswered questions, it is still best to fear God, keep His commands, and enjoy life (q.v., Ecc. 3:12; 12:13). The overall purpose of the “Preacher” is to show that life without reference to God is meaningless.

Ecclesiastes is a curious book that often spurs questions about death, resurrection and the hereafter. However, we can take this book a step farther down the racial “rabbit hole.” It was Solomon’s father, David, who used the terms “sons of God” and “sons of men” in the Psalms. It is likely that Solomon knew of this distinction too. He often spoke strongly against joining with foreign women. Solomon knew the inevitable end of those who mix with the foreigner. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon picks up the very term his father used:

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? 22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him? (Ecc. 3:18-22)

So, is this passage teaching us that there is no afterlife or resurrection, and that we all die like animals and that’s the end of it? I think not. This applies to the “sons of men" (other races), not the “sons of God” (covenant race). These words are clear to those who understand race in the Bible. The sons of men have the same fate as the animals. They all have the same breath and all go to the same place. It is good that the sons of men enjoy themselves, for this life is all that they have. Solomon reflected the words of his father, David, who said there was no salvation for the sons of men. To the sons of men, Solomon said they should enjoy life. To the sons of God, Solomon said for them to honor God and keep his commandments, for he will judge every deed.

We do not know how God tested the sons of men (pre-Adamites), which is implied in verse 18. It could have been long before God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden. The sons of men failed God’s test and were relegated to the same fate as animals. The sons of God through Adam are the object of concern for whom God sent his son, Emanuel (God with us), to redeem us from our fallen state that began in Eden. He has given us salvation, and a future the other races do not have.

Let us take notice of the word “salvation.” Salvation has the meaning of deliverance — to be delivered from something to something else. God delivered the Israelites from Egypt and to the Promised Land. He has provided eternal salvation for His family. Let us ask, from what and to what is God going to deliver us? Paul said in Galatians that Christ, “…Gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world.” (Gal. 1:4) God will deliver us from this age: both with a victorious Christian life, here and now; and after we die, with the resurrection. “This world is not my home, I’m just a travelin’ through…” We are only space travelers, going back to the place from which we came — the place from which Jesus came and to where He ascended.

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, eventhe Son of man. …Jesus answered him [Peter],Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. (Jn. 3:13; 13:36)

This is full salvation for the sons of God. They go back to the place from which they came. Remember, they were “born from above” (not born again)? Jesus’ words assert that we, the sons of God, will ascend to heaven at a later date than Himself. This is the meaning of the term “salvation.” John’s words imply that if a being did not come from heaven, he certainly cannot go there. This explains why none but the sons of God have salvation from this earthly planet. Notice how Paul’s words fit here:

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy [sons of men]: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly [sons of God]. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. (I Cor. 15:47-49)

This fits together very well, and in harmony, with other Scriptures; yet this teaching is far from what is taught by mainstream Christianity.


Making this distinction between sons of men and sons of God provides the only understanding and best comprehension of Solomon’s words. Without it the most ludicrous opinions are found in theological circles (pun intended). For example, in reference to “…as the one dieth, so dieth the other…,” Lange writes: “That is, in external appearance… for he is now disregarding that life which exists for man after death, as he simply wishes to call attention to the transitory character of the earthly existence of our race.” (Lange, John P., Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, p. 70) Lange assumes that Solomon was simply disregarding the life which exists after death. But we believe Solomon meant what he said — there is no life after death for the sons of men, only for the sons of God. Our belief is based on what Solomon said, not on what we might assume. Lange assumes this of Solomon without any Scriptural evidence; and he used the term “our race” in an all-inclusive manner.

Solomon’s words from chapter four onward are quite gloomy and depressing. He finds little good, points to the inequalities of life, and states that, “…a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry…” (Ecc. 8:15) From what we have seen in chapter three, Solomon is speaking of the sons of men. He gives the opposite advice for the sons of God; “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ecc. 12:13)

Conversely, Solomon says to the sons of men:

Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? 17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? (Ecc. 7:16-17)

This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event [death] unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead [not heaven]. (Ecc. 9:3)

These are not instructions for the sons of God; nor are they words from a fool.  Don’t be too righteous? Don’t be too wise? Don’t be too wicked or foolish? Well, the Bible teaches just the opposite for the children of God! We are to be righteous; we are to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” Our hearts are not full of evil. Solomon’s words of futility are for the sons of men, who, for whatever reason known to God, have no life in the hereafter. Quite a difference.

But in contrast, we of Adam, the “sons of God,” have a privileged position: “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.” (Ps. 8:5, etc.) In other words, Adam was not far from the angels in likeness. Now the word “angel” designates a messenger, so it is their job to carry a message to someone. It does not tell us about their personhood or “race.” That we must assume. We can, however, find out more about them by the context in which they appear, and by what they can do as found in the Scriptures. It is obvious that they are extra-terrestrial, or not from this world. Likewise then, Adam, created slightly lower than them, was extra-terrestrial as well! Until God placed him in the Garden of Eden, and then he became terrestrial. So, the sons and daughters of God (Adamites) are truly not of this world but are of heavenly genetics. Is there any other proof for this? God asks Job in chapter 38:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened; or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4, 6-7)

Thus, according to this passage, before the foundation of the earth was established, the “morning stars” (Are these Angels?) sang and all the “sons of God” (Are these the forefathers of future Adamites?) shouted for joy. In this context, all of these beings are extra-terrestrial. We who are born from above are not of this world; furthermore, we are going back from whence we came! Hallelujah!

Solomon’s words of futility, in Ecc. 9:3, reminds us of the book of Jude, which also has words of gloom and darkness regarding certain men:

…Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. (Jude 1:12-13)

Twice dead? Could this be a reference to the “sons of men” who have no salvation in the hereafter? Yes.

For 2,000 years, promoters of Christianity have attempted to apply every word in Scripture to every man, woman and child. No wonder Christianity is so hopelessly confused and helplessly ineffective. The universal view of Scripture has been the breeding ground for humanism and communism. It is in humanism that every evil, sinful and degenerate person can demand equal rights with everyone else. It is in humanism that the jew and every form of half-breed attempts to equate themselves with the righteous “sons of God;” while Christianity (having spawned this corruption) not only sits back with nothing to say, but is about to be swallowed up by it. Only when the sons of God recognize their rightful place with God and have dominion over the earth, as previously ordained, will peace and harmony become reality again.


I have questions for the judeo-Christian universalist. How do you explain the difference between the “sons of men” and the “sons of God?” Can you accept the strong implications of racial differences given in nearly every book of the Bible? Can you, by using Scripture, give me another theory?

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man…” (Ecc. 12:13)

This passage, while being a direct instruction to the covenant family, may also apply to the sons of men to enable them to enjoy a better life. However, it will not merit them eternal life, for salvation is not of works; but rather, it is by covenant. “For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.” (Pro. 8:11)

I have another question for today’s Christians. When will they accept some racial wisdom from Solomon? I know they don’t want  to hear it, but they need to hear it.