Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 3:16
Then came there two women, [that were] harlots, unto the king, and stood before him.
16 28. Solomon’s judgement between the two harlots, and the effect produced thereby (Not in Chronicles)
16. Then came, &c.] We need not, any more than with in the New Test., consider ‘then’ as indicating immediate succession in order of time upon what has gone before.
harlots ] The Chaldee paraphrase explains in the sense of , but Josephus calls them ( Ant. viii. 2, 2) .
and stood before him ] The Eastern monarchs sat often to give judgement at the gate of the city and so were accessible to all applicants. So sat the elders of the city by the Mosaic ordinance (Deu 21:19). Compare also Rth 4:11; 2Sa 19:8; Pro 22:22, in which last instance, the words ‘in the gate’ mean ‘when he is before the tribunal, where his cause is heard.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
1Ki 3:16-28
Then came there two women.
The true mother
I. That sin produces suffering. The two women who came for judgment to Solomon were harlots; and the offsprings of their impurity were the means by which they were afflicted. The sin of unchastity is one of the most grievous of offences, because it is the one whose results are the most debasing and the most far-reaching. Of this sin, as of all others, it is eternally true, that the wages of sin is death.
II. That in the most degraded natures some noble trait remains. Some relic of a vanished Eden lingers in the worst of us, although the slime of the serpent may be over it still. These women, though sinners, loved their children. There is hope then for the worst of offenders, inasmuch as in every human soul there are dormant spiritual symphonies, which, when the dark night of sin is over, shall, at the dawning of a brighter day, be wakened by the touch of sympathy, like Memnons statue, into music and into life.
III. That where the ignorant can see only cruelty and disorder, the wise and faithful can recognise beneficence and order. The king, calling for a sword, ordered the living child to be divided. A cruel decree, superficial thinkers would say; but it was only a test after all, devised by true wisdom, in order the more readily to reveal the true mother. When men are so hasty in impugning the action of the Deity, and in imputing cruelty or unconcern to God at any period of public or private calamity, it would be well for them to bethink them of their own ignorance. So to us, who see but here in part through a glass darkly, the operations of God in grace and in nature must present many difficulties and apparent anomalies.
IV. That not by outward professions, but by the sentiments of the heart, must each of us be judged. Both these women professed equally to love the living child; but it was seen speedily in the hour of trial as to which of the two had real feelings of maternal affection in her heart. It is what we are, and not what we have pretended to be, that will avail us in the hour of death and in the day of judgment.
V. That often, when God gives to us a living talent, as a living child was given to each of these women, we, lazily slumbering away our time, fail to be thankful for it, or to utilise it as we ought. By negligence on our own part,–as in the case of the woman who overlaid her child,–or by the craftiness of other agencies, be it those of world, flesh, or devil, taking advantage of our own supineness,–as in the case of the woman whose child was stolen while she slept,–we lose our gift from God, our living grace, and find, when we awake from our slumbers, only a dead image of a departed spiritual beauty, which no shedding of our hearts best blood can again quicken into life. (R. Young, M. A.)
The mother
Musicians strike a key or note which they call a natural, sometimes. It was for this note that Solomon was listening–the note of nature. The soldiers naked sword gleamed close to the babys naked flesh, and, like a tuning-fork, it struck its note before it struck its blow. Its note was differently read by two different auditors. Two womens hearts took up the key. The one followed it with a murmur of contentment, willing that its work of blood should be accomplished. The other caught it with a cry of horror, as if it struck a discord in her soul. The sword was the baton of harmony to jealousy, but of horror to motherhood and love. There was nothing unnatural to the vixen heart in the decree to cut the babe in half. But the voice of motherhood found vent in a shriek which preferred anything to that, and accepted bereavement and injustice rather than that innocence be harmed.
1. And this is the first instinct on which the relationship reposes. Instinct is a shorter and surer way to right conclusion than reason. It reaches it by a passionate leap, rather than by a patient process. Inference, sequence, deduction, calculation, hypothesis; these are the cumbersome machinery of what calls itself philosophy; and they almost always lead to a separate result in each separate mind which uses them, when they lead to any result at all; so that the only certain issue of their use is confusion worse confounded. With instinct it is all postulate, and all that complicates the logic of love, or encumbers the swift process of its flight, must be conceded, or it will be taken for granted. With the love that springs out of any relationship this will be more or less the rule; but with maternal love it is pre-eminently so.
2. If the mother-instinct pervaded all humanity, there would be no intricate question created out of the vivisection stir, on which science, falsely so called, is condescending to dispute. It would be taken for granted that it was base and brutal; and that higher reason, to whose platform instinct often vaults by its own innate buoyancy, would declare that true science has resources too vast to be compelled to criminality to reach discovery; that the intelligence that would grope its way through cruelty to daylight misses its path, and takes a false name; and that men who pretend to find instruction in the infliction of agony on what is dumb and defenceless, instead of being a little lower than the angels, are a great deal lower than the beasts they butcher. But if the very principle of motherhood is instinctive and unreasoning, its developments are not unfrequently capricious and unreasonable. Maternal love is often diluted by maternal cares. Necessities increase with each renewal of the relationship; but the means of meeting them too often diminish. The natural selection of the mothers heart is towards the weakest and most helpless; and the survival of the fittest in the breast which is maternal, is asserted by feebleness rather than by strength. The mother loves that best to which she can give most.
3. It comes within the mothers province to lead the child into the fragrant orbit of religious influence, and to guide its feet when young amidst those scenes which shall colour its whole life, giving ballast to its youth, strength to its prime, and light at eventide to illumine its old age. Then if you would not burlesque that religion and repel the child, gild it with the sunshine with which its Author fills it. Let it be a garden of flowers, not an Egyptian brickfield of toil. The patience and the ingenuity of motherhood are boundless, and in no sweeter mission can they be embarked than in leading the children to the Saviour. Show them His sweet example. The wisest and the truest mothers axe the Hannahs who give their children to the Lord. (A. Mursell.)
Evil of divisions
Now, by the same law that it would have been wicked in Solomon to have divided the child, is it wicked in us to divide our affections. Divisions at all times are bad. Whether they harass a church, which should be of one mind and one body; or a family, which should be united and strong in fellowship and love; we may rest assured, that evil consequences must arise, most injurious to individual members. And as for a house, we are told, if it be divided against itself it cannot stand. The Jew and the Gentile were two distinct persons, but Christianity made them one people. By the universality of the Gospel, all nations were united; by embracing the same faith they became one; a distinct people, having an appointed priesthood, with the great Author of our religion as their Head. They became indeed a church–one body, with one spirit–a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly ministered, according to Christs ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. (E. Thompson, D. D.)
Administration of justice difficult
James the First is said to have tried his hand as a judge, but to have been so much perplexed when he had heard both sides that lie abandoned the trade in despair, saying, I could get on very well hearing one side only, but when both sides have to be heard, by my soul, I know not which is right.
Judgment obtained by appeal to the principle of affection
Among the heathens we read of similar decisions. We read of an emperor having discovered a woman to be the mother of a certain young man, whom she refused to acknowledge as her son, by commanding her to marry him; but rather than this, she confessed the truth. Another instance we read, is that of the King of Thrace, being appointed to decide between three young men, who each professed to be the son of a deceased king, and claimed the crown in consequence; but Ariopharnes found out the real son, by commanding each to shoot an arrow into the body of the dead king; two of them did this without any hesitation; the third refused, and was therefore judged to be the real son. In both cases an appeal was made to the principle of affection; and the truth was discovered, as in the case of the mother of the living child. (E. Thompson, D. D.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. Then came there two women-harlots] The word zonoth, which we here, and in some other places, improperly translate harlots, is by the Chaldee (the best judge in this case) rendered pundekayan, tavern-keepers. (See on Jos 2:1). If these had been harlots, it is not likely they would have dared to appear before Solomon; and if they had been common women, it is not likely they would have had children; nor is it likely that such persons would have been permitted under the reign of David. Though there is no mention of their husbands, it is probable they might have been at this time in other parts, following their necessary occupations; and the settling the present business could not have been delayed till their return; the appeal to justice must be made immediately.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Harlots, or, victuallers; for the Hebrew word signifies both. See Poole “Jos 2:1“. And possibly they might be both; this by their open profession, and the other by their secret practice: not that they were common harlots; for neither would Solomon have tolerated such; nor durst such have presented themselves before so wise and just a ruler; nor did such use either to bring forth children, or to have such a tender care of and affection to them as these express. Yet that they were unmarried persons, and so guilty of fornication, seems most probable, both because there is no mention of any husbands, whose office it was, if there were any such, to contest for their wives; and because they lived a solitary life in one house.
Unto the king: haply they had presented their cause to the inferior courts, who could not determine; and therefore now they bring it to the king, as the supreme magistrate, and famous for his wisdom.
Stood there before him, desiring and expecting his sentence in the case.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. Then came there twowomenEastern monarchs, who generally administer justice inperson, at least in all cases of difficulty, often appeal to theprinciples of human nature when they are at a loss otherwise to finda clue to the truth or see clearly their way through a mass ofconflicting testimony. The modern history of the East abounds withanecdotes of judicial cases, in which the decision given was theresult of an experiment similar to this of Solomon upon the naturalfeelings of the contending parties.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then came there two women [that] were harlots unto the king,…. The same day, as Abarbinel thinks, the night before which the Lord had appeared to Solomon; this came to pass through the providence of God, that there should be immediately an instance and proof of the wisdom and understanding the Lord had given to Solomon; these women, according to the Targum, were victuallers or inn keepers; and so Ben Gersom thinks they were sellers of food, as Rahab; though he observes it is possible they might, prostitute themselves: this may be said in their favour, that common prostitutes do not usually bear children, or, when they do, take no care of them, have no affection for them, and much less are fond of them, as these seem to be; but, on the other hand, no mention being made of their husbands, and living together in one house, and alone, and being impudent, brawling, and litigious, give great suspicion of the truth of the character they bear in our version and others:
and stood before him; to lay their case before him, and each plead their own cause; it may be, it had been tried in another court before, and could not be determined, and so was brought to the king; and, if so, the wisdom of Solomon was the more conspicuous, in deciding it in the manner he did.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Solomon’s Judicial Wisdom. – As a proof that the Lord had bestowed upon Solomon unusual judicial wisdom, there is appended a decision of his in a very difficult case, in which Solomon had shown extraordinary intelligence. Two harlots living together in one house had each given birth to a child, and one of them had “overlaid” her child in the night while asleep ( , because she had lain upon it), and had then placed her dead child in the other one’s bosom and taken her living child away. When the other woman looked the next morning at the child lying in her bosom, she saw that it was not her own but the other woman’s child, whereas the latter maintained the opposite. As they eventually referred the matter in dispute to the king, and each one declared that the living child was her own, the king ordered a sword to be brought, and the living child to be cut in two, and a half given to each. Then the mother of the living child, “because her bowels yearned upon her son,” i.e., her maternal love was excited, cried out, “Give her (the other) the living child, but do not slay it;” whereas the latter said, “It shall be neither mine nor thine, cut it in pieces.”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Wisdom of Solomon. | B. C. 1014. |
16 Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him. 17 And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. 18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house. 19 And this woman’s child died in the night; because she overlaid it. 20 And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. 21 And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear. 22 And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son. And this said, No; but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king. 23 Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living. 24 And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. 25 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. 26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. 27 Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof. 28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.
An instance is here given of Solomon’s wisdom, to show that the grant lately made him had a real effect upon him. The proof is fetched, not from the mysteries of state and the policies of the council-board, though there no doubt he excelled, but from the trial and determination of a cause between party and party, which princes, though they devolve them upon their judges, must not think it below them to take cognizance of. Observe,
I. The case opened, not by lawyers, but by the parties themselves, though they were women, which made it the easier to such a piercing eye as Solomon had to discern between right and wrong by their own showing. These two women were harlots, kept a public house, and their children, some think, were born of fornication, because here is no mention of their husbands. It is probable the cause had been heard in the inferior courts, before it was brought before Solomon, and had been found special, the judges being unable to determine it, that Solomon’s wisdom in deciding it at last might be the more taken notice of. These two women, who lived in a house together, were each of them delivered of a son within three days of one another, 1Ki 3:17; 1Ki 3:18. They were so poor that they had no servant or nurse to be with them, so slighted, because harlots, that they had no friend or relation to accompany them. One of them overlaid her child, and, in the night, exchanged it with the other (1Ki 3:19; 1Ki 3:20), who was soon aware of the cheat put upon her, and appealed to public justice to be righted, v. 21. See, 1. What anxiety is caused by little children, how uncertain their lives are, and to how many dangers they are continually exposed. The age of infancy is the valley of the shadow of death; and the lamp of life, when first lighted, is easily blown out. It is a wonder of mercy that so few perish in the perils of nursing. 2. How much better it was in those times with children born in fornication than commonly it is now. harlots then loved their children, nursed them, and were loth to part with them; whereas now they are often sent to a distance, abandoned, or killed. But thus is was foretold that in the last days perilous times should come, when people should be without natural affection, 2Ti 3:1; 2Ti 3:3.
II. The difficulty of the case. The question was, Who was the mother of this living child, which was brought into court, to be finally adjudged either to the one or to the other? Both mothers were vehement in their claim, and showed a deep concern about it. Both were peremptory in their asseverations: “It is mine,” says one. “Nay, it is mine,” says the other. Neither will own the dead child, though it would be cheaper to bury that than to maintain the other: but it is the living one they strive for. The living child is therefore the parent’s joy because it is their hope; and may not the dead children be so? See Jer. xxxi. 17. Now the difficulty of the case was that there was no evidence on either side. The neighbours, though it is probable that some of them were present at the birth and circumcision of the children, yet had not taken so much notice of them as to be able to distinguish them. To put the parties to the rack would have been barbarous; not she who had justice on her side, but she who was most hardy, would have had the judgment in her favour. Little stress is to be laid on extorted evidence. Judges and juries have need of wisdom to find out truth when it thus lies hid.
III. The determination of it. Solomon, having patiently heard what both sides had to say, sums up the evidence, v. 23. And now the whole court is in expectation what course Solomon’s wisdom will take to find out the truth. One knows not what to say to it; another, perhaps, would determine it by lot. Solomon calls for a sword, and gives orders to divide the living child between the two contenders. Now, 1. This seemed a ridiculous decision of the case, and a brutal cutting of the knot which he could not untie. “Is this,” think the sages of the law, “the wisdom of Solomon?” little dreaming what he aimed at in it. The hearts of kings, such kings, are unsearchable, Prov. xxv. 3. There was a law concerning the dividing of a living ox and a dead one. (Exod. xxi. 35), but that did not reach this case. But, 2. It proved an effectual discovery of the truth. Some think that Solomon did himself discern it, before he made this experiment, by the countenances of the women and their way of speaking: but by this he gave satisfaction to all the company, and silenced the pretender. To find out the true mother, he could not try which the child loved best, and must therefore try which loved the child best; both pretended to a motherly affection, but their sincerity will be tried when the child is in danger. (1.) She that knew the child was not her own, but in contending for it stood upon a point of honour, was well content to have it divided. She that had overlaid her own child cared not what became of this, so that the true mother might not have it: Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. By this it appeared that she knew her own title to be bad, and feared Solomon would find it so, though she little suspected she was betraying herself, but thought Solomon in good earnest. If she had been the true mother she would not have forfeited her interest in the child by agreeing so readily to this bloody decision. But, (2.) She that knew the child was her own, rather than the child should be butchered, gives it up to her adversary. How feelingly does she cry out, O, my lord! give her the living child, v. 26. “Let me see it hers, rather than not see it at all.” By this tenderness towards the child it appeared that she was not the careless mother that had overlaid the dead child, but was the true mother of the living one, that could not endure to see its death, having compassion on the son of her womb. “The case is plain,” says Solomon; “what need of witnesses? Give her the living child; for you all see, by this undissembled compassion, she is the mother of it.” Let parents show their love to their children by taking care of them, especially by taking care of their souls, and, with a holy violence, snatching them as brands out of the burning. Those are most likely to have the comfort of children that do their duty to them. Satan pretends to the heart of man, but by this it appears that he is only a pretender, that he would be content to divide with God, whereas the rightful sovereign of the heart will have all or none.
IV. We are told what a great reputation Solomon got among his people by this and other instances of his wisdom, which would have a great influence upon the ease of his government: They feared the king (v. 28), highly reverenced him, durst not in any thing oppose him, and were afraid of doing an unjust thing; for they knew, if ever it came before him, he would certainly discover it, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, that is, that wisdom with which God had promised to endue him. This made his face to shine, Eccl. viii. 1. This strengthened him, Eccl. vii. 19. This was better to him than weapons of war, Eccl. ix. 18. For this he was both feared and loved.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Wisdom Demonstrated, Verses 16-28
Proof of Solomon’s divinely-given shrewdness and insight soon appeared in his judgment. It was a very simple case, the truth of which might have been apparent, but it is the manner. of the young king’s bringing it out that marks his wisdom. The environment in which the problem arose and its disreputable characters enter into the resolution of the problem. Here are two immoral women whose unsavory profession is not conducive of a good environment for rearing children. Understandably with the harlots children were not desirable, and ordinarily they would have been happy to be free of them. King Solomon was undoubtedly mindful of this.
Here then appear the women before the king to decide a knotty question, the answer to which was well know by both women, but in which the two told conflicting accounts. The plaintiff told of giving birth to a child three days before her companion in harlotry, who lived in the same house with her, also bore a child. It appears that it was the very night of birth of the second child that the mother had carelessly laid upon it and smothered it to death. Stealthily, however, she had slipped out the dead baby and exchanged it for the three-day old baby without waking the mother. The mother of the living baby discovered a dead baby in her bed when she awoke to let it nurse. Then when morning light was sufficient she found that the dead baby was not her child at all and that her companion had exchanged babies with her.
The defendant argued just as vehemently that the living baby was hers indeed and that the dead baby belonged to the plaintiff. Their argument appears to have become heated in the very presence of the king, and there was no agreement whatsoever between them. On what evidence could the king decide the real mother of the baby. Here is where the shrewd wisdom God had given him could be demonstrably applied.
A sword was called for, and King Solomon proposed to sever the living baby and give half to each woman. Would he have slain the baby? Likely not, for had both women agreed to this settlement it would have proved neither fit to keep the child, which might have been given to a third patty who would have nourished it. But the plaintiff woman’s heart yearned for her baby, and she could not bear to have it slain. Rather than have it killed she would relinquish her claim to it and allow the other woman to have it. However, the other woman proved that the child meant little to her anyway. Rather than give up the baby to the rightful mother, whom she must have resented, she was willing that neither of them have it. At once wise Solomon had proved two points; the plaintiff was the rightful mother, and she was also capable of loving and nourishing her child. He commanded that the baby be given to the mother who loved it.
The episode illustrated the evil of prostitution to the nation of Israel also. The law of Moses which prohibited the practice of harlotry (De 23:17, 18) was not being enforced, although the women may have been non-Israelites. One could hope the woman ceased her nefarious practice and reared her child properly, though nothing more is known of them. The incident was narrated around the land and the shrewd wisdom of the new king remarked, so that people understood the king was not one who could be easily deluded or deceived. Those who might have opposed him thought better of it after this, and gave him due respect (1Ti 4:12).
Learn these lessons from these chapters: 1) God is willing to give His people the things needed for their service to Him; 2) God will add many blessings in one’s life if he is faithful to Him; 3) one is ever due thanks to God for the wonderful promises He has given and His deeds of love toward him; 4) real parental love will always yearn for its children, whatever the circumstances; 5) sexual sin is apt to destroy real love.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
1Ki. 3:16. HarlotsThe Rabbins derive from , to feed, nourish; and the Targumist translates the word here, and in Jos. 2:1, by , pundekon, hostesses, tavern-keepers.
1Ki. 3:20. Laid her dead child in my bosomIn order to escape the suspicion and charge of having killed her own child.
1Ki. 3:26. Her bowels yearned upon her son: , a Hebrew phrase for the seat of feeling, hence here the tender mother love (Keil); for her motherly heart burned for her son (Luther).
1Ki. 3:27. Saw that the wisdom of God was in himNot that there was anything supernatural in Solomons method of settling this dispute, but that it proved this youthful king had penetrating discernment and acquaintance with the workings of the human heart.
HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 3:16-28
THE JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON
The gifts of God are not permitted to remain long unused. He who bestows them finds ample opportunity for their employment. A case is speedily brought before Solomon which brings into exercise the faculty of wisdom with which he was supernaturally endowed; and his startling decision made a profound impression on the people, and added greatly to his reputation. The pattern-instance, as recorded in these verses, is, in all its features, thoroughly Oriental. Examples are recorded in ancient history of similar judicial penetration.(See Kitto, Dr. A. Clarke, Lange). But the sagacity displayed by Solomon in the instance before us was most wonderful, and evinced to all that, though young in years, he was fully competent to fulfil the duties of the lofty position to which he was raised.
I. The judgment of Solomon was exercised on a case of peculiar difficulty.
1. It was too difficult for ordinary tribunals to settle. The case had, doubtless, been brought before a court where it was customary to hear and decide upon ordinary disputes and offences; but this was altogether beyond the capacity of the judge to settle. The final appeal must, therefore, be made to the king, and his judgment be irrevocable. There are questions sometimes brought before our law courts so involved and contradictory that the penetration of the ablest judge fails to detect the real transgressor, and the power of justice is for the time paralyzed. But the great Omniscient cannot be deceived; and the day is coming when He will reveal the secrets of all hearts, and redress the wrongs of the universe.
2. The disputants were of questionable character. There came two women that were harlotspersons of abandoned character. The word is also rendered victuallers or hostesses. Perhaps they were both, though they could not be common harlots, for such would hardly have ventured into the presence of the king. One sin injures the whole character, and there are some sins which cast suspicion on the veracity of the transgressor, however solemn his asseverations. The value of testimony hinges on rectitude of personal character. The greatest difficulties of our law judges arise from the unreliable nature of the evidence they have to sift.
3. The testimonies were evenly balanced (1Ki. 3:22-23). The stout affirmation of the one mother was met by the flat denial of the other. Their testimonies were of equal crediti.e., of none at all. As there was no evidence, it seemed impossible to arrive at any decision, and the whole court seemed held in suspense, and unable to tell which to believe. But Solomon was equal to the occasion, and had made up his mind how to solve the difficulty.
II. The judgment of Solomon was successful by an appeal to maternal affection.
1. This appeal was sudden. Every opportunity had been given to each woman to state her case. The king had patiently listened, and shown every disposition to administer equal justice. There was nothing more to say but what would be a repetition of what had been already said. A painful pause had come in the progress of the trial, when, as if moved by a sudden inspiration, the king speaks. The actions which have had the most important bearing on the destinies of individuals have often been the result of a spontaneous impulse. When truth is quickly apprehended it is wisest to act promptly.
2. This appeal was apparently severe. And the king said, bring me a sword (1Ki. 3:24) Doubtless some of the wiser hearers smiled upon each other, and thought in themselves, What! will the young king cut these knotty causes in pieces? Will he divide justice with edged tools? Will he smite at hazard before conviction? There was a law concerning the dividing of a living ox and a dead one (Exo. 21:35); but that did not reach his case. The heart of kings is unsearchable (Pro. 25:3). That sword which had served for execution, shall now serve for trial. Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. Oh! divine oracle of justice, commanding that which it would not have done, that it might find out that which could not be discovered? Neither God nor his deputies may be so taken at their words, as if they always intended their commands for action, and not sometimes for probation.Bp. Hall.
3. This appeal revealed a deep practical insight into human nature. The mothers heart was touched, and, without the aid of argument and cross-examination, the great discovery was made. The yearning affection of the true mother for the child whose life was thus threatened stood out in prominent contrast to the cold, callous attitude of her adversary. The case is strikingly put by Bishop Hall:This sword hath already pierced the breast of the true mother, and divided her heart with fear and grief at so killing a sentence: there needs no other rack to discover nature, and now she thinkswoe is me, that came for justice, and am answered with cruelty! Divide ye the living child! Alas! what hath that poor infant offended, that it survives, and is sued for? How much less miserable had I been that my child had been smothered in my sleep, than mangled before mine eyes! If a dead carcase could have satisfied me, I need not to have complained! What a woeful condition am I fallen into, who am accused to be the death of my supposed child already, and now shall be the death of my own! If there were no loss of my child, yet how can I endure this torment of my own bowels? And while she thinks thus, she sues to that suspected mercy of her just judgeOh, my Lord, give her the living child, and slay him not! as thinking, if he live, he shall but change a mother; if he die, his mother loseth a son: while he lives, it shall be my comfort that I have a son, though I may not call him so; dying, he perisheth to both. Contrarily, her envious competitor, as holding herself well satisfied that her neighbour should be as childless as herself, can say, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. Well might Solomon and every hearer conclude, that either she was no mother, or a monster, that could be content with the murder of her child; and that, if she could have been the true mother, and yet have desired the blood of her infant, she had been as worthy to have been stripped of her child for so foul unnaturalness, as the other had been worthy to enjoy him for her honest compassion. Not more justly than wisely, therefore, doth Solomon trace the true mother by the footsteps of love and pity; and adjudgeth the child to those bowels that had yearned at his danger.
III. The judgment of Solomon won the respect and confidence of the people (1Ki. 3:28). The justice of the sentence made a deep impression upon the whole people. They saw that he judged impartially; that they could not impose on him; and they were afraid to do those things which might bring them before his judgment seat. They acknowledged the Divine source of his marvellous endowment. They saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment. What was done to the other woman we are not told; justice certainly required that she should be punished for her lies and fraud. Wisdom strengtheneth the wise: it is better than weapons of war (Ecc. 7:19; Ecc. 9:18). Good men reverence, and bad men stand in awe of, the wise.
LESSONS:
1. To do justice is one of the most important duties of the sovereign.
2. Divine help is needed and should be sought in order wisely to discriminate between right and wrong.
3. The Divine justice is unerring, and all its decisions irrevocable.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
1Ki. 3:16-28. Sin infallibly exposed.
1. Notwithstanding the secrecy of its indulgence.
2. Notwithstanding the subtlety and ability of its defenders.
3. Notwithstanding the deceptive contradictions of its evidence.
Every part of the incident is characteristic. The two mothers, degraded as was their condition, came, as the Eastern stories so constantly tell of the humblest classes, to demand justice from the king. He patiently listens; the people stand by, wondering what the child-like sovereign will determine. The mother of the living child tells her tale with all the plaintiveness and particularity of truth, and describes how, as she looked at him again and again, behold it was not my son which I did bear. The king determines, by throwing himself upon the instincts of nature, to cut asunder the sophistry of argument. The living child was to be divided, and the one half given to one, the other half to the other. The true mother betrays her affection: O, my Lord, give her the living babe (the word is peculiar), and in no wise slay it. The king repeats, word for word, the cry of the mother, as if questioning its meaning. Give her the living babe, and in no wise slay it? then bursts forth into his own conviction: She is the mother.Stanley.
Solomons wise judgment.
1. The question in dispute (1Ki. 3:16-22).
2. The decision (1Ki. 3:23-28).Lisco.
1Ki. 3:17-22. Such sin brings together, but it unites only for a short time, for it produces discord, wrangling, and controversy. Abiding peace dwells only in the house where the God of peace binds hearts together. He who takes from the heart of a mother her child, or estranges or deprives her, will not escape the righteous tribunal of the judge to whom the mother calls and appeals. Litigation is generally associated with envy, falsehood, and unrighteousness; hence the Lord says, Be ready, &c. (Mat. 5:25; Luk. 12:58).Lange.
1Ki. 3:19. The perils of infant life.
1. Arising from the ignorance and inexperience of those on whom it is dependent.
2. From its own fragile and defenceless condition.
3. From the consequences of others sins.
4. Are avoided only by the mercy and protecting care of heaven.
1Ki. 3:25-27. Even in morality it is thus also; truth as it is one, so it loves entireness; falsehood, division. Satan, that hath no right to the heart, would be content with a piece of it; God, that made it all, will have either the whole or none. The erroneous church strives with the true for the living child of saving doctrine; each claims it for her own; heresy, conscious of her own injustice, would be content to go away with a leg or an arm of sound principles, as hoping to make up the rest with her own mixtures; truth cannot abide to part with a joint, and will rather endure to lose all by violence than a piece through willing connivancy.Bishop Hall.
1Ki. 3:26. If an immoral woman be merciful for the son of her body, and cannot forget her little child, how much more should every Christian mother be ready to offer, when necessary, the heaviest sacrifice to deliver her child from moral ruin. If in the hearts of sinners the love of father and mother be so strong, how strong must the fatherly love of God be (Isa. 49:15)! Envy hardens all human feeling, and makes one hard and heartless.
1Ki. 3:27-28. When a child, apparently given over to death, is restored to its parents by Divine providence, so much the more must their chief solicitude be to educate and bring it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Not power and force; not great pomp, and pride, and tyranny; but wisdom and righteousness give to the government authority, and call forth genuine fear and the voluntary obedience of the people. If it were given to a Solomon to bring to disgrace lying and misrepresentation by judicial wisdom and knowledge of the human heart, and to deliver a righteous judgment, how much less shall liars and hypocrites stand up under the tribunal of Him who could say, A greater than Solomon is here! who, without needing witnesses and judicial examination, will bring to light what is hidden in darkness (1Co. 4:5), and before whose judgment seat we must all appear (2Co. 5:10)?Lange.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B. THE DEMONSTRATION OF HIS Wisdom 3:1628
TRANSLATION
(16) Then two women, harlots, came unto the king, and stood before him. (17) And the one woman said, O my lord the king, I and this woman were sleeping in one house; and I brought forth a child with her in the house. (18) And it came to pass on the third day after I brought forth a child, this woman brought forth a child also, and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house besides the two of us in the house. (19) And the son of this woman died in the night when she laid on top of him. (20) And she arose in the middle of the night, and took my son from beside me while your handmaiden slept, and she laid him in her breast, and her dead son she laid in my breast. (21) When I arose in the morning to nurse my son, behold he was dead. But I considered him closely in the morning, and behold he was not my son to whom I had given birth. (22) And the other woman said, No! But the living one is my son, and your son is the dead one. But the first woman kept saying, No! But your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one. So did they speak before the king. (23) Then the king said, This woman is saying, This is my son that is alive, and your son is the dead one, and this other woman keeps saying, No! But your son is the dead one, and my son the living one. (24) And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought the sword before the king. (25) And the king said, Divide the living child into two, and give half to the one woman, and half to the other. (26) Then the mother of the living son said unto the king, since her emotions were stirred because of her son, and she said, O my lord, give to her the living child, for you must not surely slay him. But the other woman kept saying, Let it neither be mine or yours. Divide it! (27) Then the king answered and said, Give the living child to her, and do not slay him. She is his mother. (28) And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had made, and they feared the king; for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to give judgment.
COMMENTS
In this section the author has included an actual case from the judicial files of Judah which illustrates how Solomons wisdom was quickly demonstrated to the nation. The case was a child custody suit involving two women who were harlots (1Ki. 3:16). These women are not to be thought of as professional prostitutes, but as women who had borne children out of wedlock. Because of their shame they lived together and alone (1Ki. 3:17). The plaintiff was first allowed to present her side of the story which was as follows: Within three days of one another the two of us were delivered of a child. Emphasis is laid on the fact that no third party was present at the time of the births (1Ki. 3:18), hence there was no possibility of independent testimony in the dispute. The defendant, while sleeping one night, rolled over on her child and smothered it (1Ki. 3:19). During the night she discovered that her baby was dead, and so she swapped her lifeless baby for my living baby (1Ki. 3:20). I awakened early to nurse my infant only to discover the babe at my bosom was dead. In broad daylight, however, I discovered that the dead child was not mine at all (1Ki. 3:21).
The defendant in this case naturally disputed the contention of the plaintiff, tenaciously maintaining that the living child was really her own. Back and forth the women argued with one another making their claims and counter claims (1Ki. 3:22). Finally king Solomon was ready to make a decision. First he summarized the problem as it has been presented to him (1Ki. 3:23). Then he ordered that a sword be brought to him (1Ki. 3:24) and that the child be divided and half given to each woman (1Ki. 3:25). The real mother, the plaintiff as it turned out, was emotionally stirred by the decision which in effect would leave her son dead. The Hebrew reads literally, her bowels were in a ferment. The ancients regarded the lower digestive tract as the center and seat of emotions. In desperation she cried out to the king to spare the child and give it to her rival. She preferred to lose her suit and suffer the agony of handing over the child to her rival rather than allow it to be killed. The defendant, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to allow the execution of the child to take place. She really had no love for the infant, and her main object all along had been to deprive her companion of the fruit of her womb (1Ki. 3:26). Jealousy dries up the milk of human kindness! It was now perfectly apparent who was the real mother, and so the king ordered that the plaintiff be given custody of the disputed child (1Ki. 3:27). The people of Israel were impressed and even awed[140] by this demonstration of the kings sagacity and they rightly concluded that the wisdom of God was in this young king (1Ki. 3:28).
[140] The Hebrew word signifies both respect and awe as well as fear. Perhaps the people as a whole respected Solomon, while evil-doers feared him because of his wisdom.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(16) Then came there.The celebrated judgment of Solomon, given here as a specimen of his wisdom, is simply an instance of intuitive sagacity, cutting the Gordian knot of hopeless difficulty by the appear to maternal instinctan appeal which might, of course, fail, but which was, under the exceptional circumstances, the only appeal possible. It is in the knowledge how to risk failure rather than be reduced to impotence, and how to go straight to the heart of a difficulty when the slow, regular approaches of science are impossible, that we recognise what men call a touch of genius, and what Scripture here calls the wisdom of God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SOLOMON’S JUDICIAL SAGACITY, 1Ki 3:16-28.
16. Then came there two women This seems to have been the first judicial decision of the new king, and it established in all Israel (1Ki 3:28) his reputation as a wise ruler and judge. It is added here, immediately after the history of his journey to Gibeon, as an illustration of the wisdom which he asked and received from God. “A monarch’s sagacity in the administration of justice,” says Kitto, “was calculated to make the most marked impression upon the popular mind, and likely to be most generally talked about through the land. This quality also came more home to the personal concerns of his subjects than any other, and was for that reason alone the more carefully regarded. The administration of justice was in all ancient monarchies, as it is now in the East, a most important part of the royal duties and functions; and there is no quality more highly prized than that keen discernment in the royal judge which detects the clew of real evidence amidst conflicting testimony, or that ready tact which devises a test of truth, where the evidence affords not even the clew to any grounds of decision.” And so this incident throws light upon the manners of those times. Even harlots, (for true criticism will not allow the Chaldee rendering of the word by innkeepers,) persons of abandoned character, were permitted to appear in the royal presence and plead their own causes.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Solomon’s New God-given Wisdom Is Revealed In His Judgment Concerning Two Prostitutes Who Claimed The Same Baby ( 1Ki 3:16-28 ).
Solomon’s new God-given wisdom was soon to be tested out when two women came before him, each claiming that of two new-born babies, one dead and one living, the living was hers. The way in which he solved the case was seen as evidence by all that here truly was one who enjoyed the wisdom of God and could thus dispense His justice. This was a further seal on the fact that he was YHWH’s chosen king.
Sadly this was an example of what was a common experience throughout the world, and similar stories about swapped babies are known from elsewhere. The suggestion that they must all have one source is laughable. Such a situation must often have happened where the circumstances allowed it. In the case of the closest parallel, an Indian version, both the mothers were wives of one husband. The narrative style here, with its vivid direct speech expected at a hearing (compare 2Sa 14:4-20), is typical of Samuel and Kings.
It was common practise for Mesopotamian kings to have unusual examples of their judgments recorded so that they could present them before their deity for His approval and commendation. This would appear to be one such example in Israel, in which case it would underline the fact that it was genuine.
Analysis.
a
b And the one woman said, “Oh, my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house, and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. And it came about on the third day after I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also, and we were together. There was no stranger with us in the house, only we two in the house” (1Ki 3:17-18).
c “And this woman’s child died in the night, because she lay on it. And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while your handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom” (1Ki 3:19-20).
d “And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead, but when I had looked at it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, whom I had borne” (1Ki 3:21).
e And the other woman said, “No, but the living is my son, and the dead is your son.” And this one said, “No, but the dead is your son, and the living is my son” (1Ki 3:22 a).
f Thus they spoke before the king (1Ki 3:22 b).
e Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son who lives, and your son is the dead, and the other says, ‘No, but your son is the dead, and my son is the living’ ” (1Ki 3:23).
d And the king said, “Fetch 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” (1Ki 3:24-25).
c Then the woman whose the living child was spoke to the king, for her heart yearned over her son, and she said, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and on no condition slay it.” But the other said, “It shall be neither mine nor yours, divide it” (1Ki 3:26).
b Then the king answered and said, “Give her the living child, and on no condition slay it. She is its mother” (1Ki 3:27).
a And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged, and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do justice (1Ki 3:28).
Note that in ‘a’ the two women came before Solomon for his judgment, and in the parallel all wondered at the judgment given. In ‘b’ the true mother claimed the baby as her own, and in the parallel she was to be given the baby. In ‘c’ the problem of two claimants to the baby, the true mother and the false mother, was laid before Solomon, and in the parallel the true mother was prepared to relinquish her child rather than see him killed, while the false mother was perfectly willing for him to be killed. In ‘d’ the true mother looked at the dead baby and recognised that it was not her son, and in the parallel Solomon ‘decided’ to kill her living son so that both would be dead. In ‘e’ the two women wrangled, and in the parallel Solomon summed up their wrangling. Centrally in ‘f’ the presentation of the case was concluded and awaited Solomon’s decision.
1Ki 3:16
‘ Then there came two women who were prostitutes to the king, and stood before him.’
We have in this incident evidence of the way in which, like many ancient kings, there was provision for common people to approach Solomon in order to obtain his verdict on their case (compare 2Sa 14:3 onwards where the same was true for David; see also 2Ki 8:3-6), possibly on one specific day of the moon period. It was even the practise of many Pharaohs. The fact that the women were prostitutes and lived on their own together explains why the incident could happen. They were not surrounded by loving families who would have prevented any possibility of the babies being mixed up. They may, in fact, have been innkeepers (the same Hebrew word is used for both innkeepers and prostitutes, who in fact often doubled up) who would often also be prostitutes as well (in a similar way perhaps to Rahab in Joshua 2). That would explain the reference in 1Ki 3:18 to no strangers being present in the house at the time. The story rings true at every point.
Prostitution was frowned on for native Israelites, but it was nevertheless tolerated, presumably as an unpreventable evil. Compare Gen 38:15. Fathers were forbidden to make their daughters into prostitutes (Lev 19:29) lest the land become ‘full of wickedness’, but there was no actual specific ban on women choosing that way of life for themselves (Deu 23:17 refers to cult prostitutes which were forbidden), although its unsavouriness was made clear both by the above statement, and from the fact that the children thus produced were banned from the house of YHWH for ‘ten generations’ (Deu 23:2). No son of Aaron could marry a prostitute (Lev 21:7; Lev 21:14) and if their daughters became prostitutes they were to be ‘burned with fire’ because they had profaned themselves (Lev 21:10). A prostitute’s gifts were not to be accepted by the Tabernacle (Deu 23:18). However, many women who were left husbandless and without close family support probably often had little alternative.
1Ki 3:17-19
‘ And the one woman said, “Oh, my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house, and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. And it came about on the third day after I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also, and we were together. There was no stranger with us in the house, only we two in the house. And this woman’s child died in the night, because she lay on it.”
The first woman gave the details of the case, which were that they both lived together as prostitutes in one house, with no other company, and that they had both had a child within days of each other. But the second woman’s child had died because the woman was careless and lay on it during the night while she was sleeping. The reference to no stranger being in the house at the time may suggest that they were innkeepers (see on 1Ki 3:16).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Solomon’s Great Wisdom Demonstrated to Israel 1Ki 3:16-28 gives us the story of Solomon’s great wisdom as he judged two harlots. Note the proposed outline of the story of two harlots:
1. The Situation Presented (1Ki 3:16-22)
2. The Solution Proposed (1Ki 3:23-25)
3. The Sacrifice (1Ki 3:26-28)
1Ki 3:26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.
1Ki 3:26
Isa 49:15, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.”
Pro 22:11, “He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend.”
1Ki 3:26 “O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it” – Comments – Only a mother could have this kind of compassion and sacrificial love. The real mother said to give the child to the other lady. Why? Genuine love does not seek its own way. Note:
Pro 10:12, “Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.”
1Co 13:5, “Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own , is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;”
Greed says:
Pro 21:26, “He coveteth greedily all the day long: but the righteous giveth and spareth not.”
Thus,
Pro 22:12, “The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.”
1Ki 3:28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.
1Ki 3:28
Pro 8:15, “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.”
Pro 20:8, “A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes.”
Pro 20:26, “A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.”
Pro 20:28, “Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Solomon’s wise Decision
v. 16. Then came there two women that were harlots unto the king, and stood before him, v. 17. And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house.
v. 18. And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered that this woman was delivered also, v. 19. And this woman’s child died in the night, because she overlaid it, v. 20. And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. v. 21. And when I arose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead. v. 22. And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son; v. 23. Then said the king, v. 24. And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. v. 25. And the king said, v. 26. Then spake the woman whose the living child was to the king, for her bowels, v. 27. Then the king answered and said, Give her, v. 28. And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
IN this section we see how remarkably the gracious promise of Gibeon (1Ki 3:12) was fulfilled. The “understanding to discern judgment” has been richly bestowed. And this, no doubt, is the reason why the story is related here. (Theodoret). It is just possible, as Thenius maintains, that the narrative was handed down to a succeeding age by tradition, and was not incorporated into any of the documents from which our historian compiled his narrative; but this argues nothing against its authenticity or its inspiration. It is, as Bhr observes, a thoroughly Oriental story.
1Ki 3:16
Then came there two women that were harlots [The Jewish writers here, as in the case of Rahab (Jos 2:1), would understand “hostess,” “innkeeper” (, not , as Bhr, which=, , “inn”). In support of which it is alleged that prostitutes never have children, or if they have are not solicitous about them. The meaning “hostess,” however (as if from , to feed), is not to be entertained for a moment, but we may readily admit that these children, though born out of wedlock, were not necessarily the offspring of professed harlots, though the fact that their mothers dwelt together and alone (1Ki 3:17) is certainly suspicious; and see Gesen. s.v. . Grotius, from Deu 23:17, concludes that they must have been foreigners. But it is equally probable that the law was constantly violated] unto the king [as supreme judge] and stood before him.
1Ki 3:17
And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house.
1Ki 3:18
And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house. [Emphasis is laid on this fact, as showing the possibility of the fraud and the impossibility of producing proof. Hebrew women have always required but little assistance in childbearing. That which is written in Exo 1:19 is true to this day.
1Ki 3:19
And this woman’s child died in the night; because she overlaid it.
1Ki 3:20
And she arose at midnight [rather, in the middle, i.e; dead of the night. The sleeper could not know it was midnight], and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my besom.
1Ki 3:21
And when I rose in the morning [while it was still dusk] to give my child suck, behold it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning [i.e; in broad daylight; Vulg. clara luce] behold [this second “behold” marks a second discovery] it was not my son which I did bear.
1Ki 3:22
And the other woman said, Nay, but the living is my son and the dead is thy son. And this said, No, but the dead is thy son and the living is my son. [It is somewhat difficult to account for the pertinacious claim to the child, preferred even before the king by the pretended mother. The most probable explanation is, that having taken the child in the first instance on the spur of the moment, in order to avoid the reproach of having killed her offspring by her clumsiness and neglect, she found it difficult to draw back from her false positionwhich indeed she could not do without owning herself both child stealer and liarand so she put on a bold face and maintained the imposture even before the monarch himself. That she did not really care for the child is evident from 1Ki 3:26.] Thus they spake [Heb. “And they spake,” i.e; affirmed and contradicted] before the king.
1Ki 3:23
Then [promptly, without hesitation] said the king, The one saith [Heb. “this is saying,” i.e; keeps saying] This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead; and the other saith, Nay, but thy son is the dead and my son is the living.
1Ki 3:24
And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a [Heb. the; the sword, i.e; of the executioner, or the sword for which he asked] sword before the king.
1Ki 3:25
And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other [Heb. one].
1Ki 3:26
Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels [thought by most of the ancients to be the seat of the affections, probably because of the sensations which strong emotions excite there. Cf. in the New Testament
1Ki 3:27
Then the king answered and said [He simply echoes the exact words of the mother. This is clear from the fact that the word natus, “the one born,” here and in 1Ki 3:26 rendered “child,” is a very unusual one], Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it [The LXX; which reads “Give the child to her who said, Give it to her,” etc; obscures the evidently designed repetition] she is the mother thereof [Heb. she, his mother].
1Ki 3:28
And an Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged, and they feared the king [i.e; were impressed and awed by his almost supernatural penetration. Bhr refers to Luk 4:36; Luk 8:25], for they saw that the wisdom of God [for which he asked (Luk 8:9) and which God gave
; before him the two harlots and the helpless childcarries our thoughts to a day of storm and cloud, a day of darkness and dread, when the “Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of His glory,” with “the holy angels” around Him and “all nations” before Him (St. Mat 25:31). Let us see in this first judgment, then, an outline of the last. Observe:
I. THE JUDGE. It is
(1) the Son of David. We do not read of David’s judgments. This a duty which he was apparently remiss in discharging (2Sa 15:1-37.) He devolved the duty of judging and punishing upon his son (1Ki 2:1-10). Even so, the “Eternal Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.” Because He is the Son of David, i.e; the Son of Man, our Lord will judge the sons of men. The Judge is, therefore, one who knows us, one who feels for us. It is
(2) the wisest of men. “He was wiser than all men” (1Ki 4:31). The wisdom of God was in him to do judgment (1Ki 3:28). But the Judge of men and angels not only has, but is the Wisdom of God (Pro 9:1-18; 1Co 1:24). The Supreme, the Essential Wisdom will sit upon the great white throne. His judgments, therefore, must be “just and true.” Now consider
II. THE JUDGED. They were
(1) of two classes. There was the innocent babe and the impure women. And of the latter one was true, the other false; one right, the other wrong. There will be two classes, and only two, in the judgment to come: sheep and goats, wheat and tares, good fish and bad, the righteous and the sinner.
(2) Both were harlots. “Whoremongers and adulterers GOD will judge.” Men cannot, or do not. Our pleasant vices are often undetected; or, if known, are not reprobated. But see 1Co 5:11; 1Co 6:9-19; Gal 5:19-21.
III. THE JUDGMENT. Thereby
(1) a sin was brought to light. No eye saw that midnight theft. They two were alone. But the deed is now dragged to the light of day. And the Lord “will bring to light the hidden things of darkness.” What was “whispered in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.”
(2) A wrong was redressed. The pretended mother probably held the child when they came before the king. The true mother carried it in her arms when they left the judgement seat. Restitution, i.e; was enforced. And the judgement seat of Christ shall accomplish the restitution of all things. There every wrong shall have its remedy. Now the “foundations of the earth are out of course.” Might stands for right. Possession is nine points of the law. But in that day “suum cuique.” It is related of one of the Wesleys that on paying an account which was a gross imposition, he wrote upon the bill, “To be readjusted in that day.”
(3) Character was revealed. The true mother and the pretended alike proclaim themselves. A word from each decides the question, and reveals their inmost thoughts. So shall it be at the end of the world. “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.” “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” The Son of Man shall “make manifest the counsels of the heart.”
IV. THE REWARD AND PUNISHMENT. To the one the tribunal brought justification, joy, peace. To the other, condemnation, shame, contempt. But notice especially
(1) the difference it made in their emotions and
(2) the difference in their reputations.
(1) The joy of the mother who had received her child again may be better imagined than described. The same may be said of the vexation, confusion, remorse, of the pretender when her villainy was made manifest. And in these emotions we may see a faint image of the unspeakable joy of the saved: of the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the lost.
(2) The true mother would have the sympathy of bystanders, the congratulations of her friends, etc.; the other would be pointed at with scorn and reproach. Here, too, we have a picture, albeit an imperfect one, of the issues of the day of judgment. To the saint, the “Come ye blessed” of the Judge will lead to “pleasures forevermore;” to the sinner, “Depart ye cursed” will be the beginning of “shame and everlasting contempt.”
1Ki 3:26
Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.
“The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” The judgment of Solomon is a striking commentary on this passage; indeed, it is possible that the writer had this incident in his mind when he penned these words. For assuredly the word of Solomon, “Divide,” etc; was sharper than the sword they had just brought him in wounding the mother’s heart (Cf. Luk 2:35); while not more surely would the king’s sword, had it not been stayed, have pierced to the “dividing asunder of the joints and marrow” of the child, than did the king’s word distinguish between the true and the false, revealing both the tenderness and yearning love of the real mother, and also the thoughts and intents and workings of heart of the pretender. It is probably, in part at least, because of their revelation of character that they are recorded here. Let us now, therefore, consider the character and motives of the pseudo mother, as disclosed to us in her words and conduct. And first, let us ask, what can have led to this cruel and unnatural speech? Here is a woman who has recently become a mother, and who claims to be the mother of the child, having no pity on a helpless babe. At one moment, she strenuously contends before the king for its possession, and at the next she connives at, and indeed clamours for, its murder. She has surreptitiously taken it from one who would have guarded and cherished it; she loudly protests that it is hers; she is so anxious to have it that she will plead for it before the royal tribunal, and yet, when it is gravely proposed to cut the hapless child in two, she is loud in her approval of the plan. How can we account for such strange inconsistency? The usual explanation is that she was impelled to do and say what she did by spite, by jealousy. And, without doubt, there was an element of spite in her conduct. If she was to be denied the child, she was resolved that none else should have it. She would never submit to the humiliation of leaving the judgement seat with the character of an impostor, while that other one carried off the babe in her arms in triumph. But while the feeling of “dog in the manger” explains much, it does not explain all. It does not account, for example, for her having cumbered herself with the care of the child in the first instance; and it hardly explains her proceeding to the extremity of judicial murder. Nor even if we combine with spite the desire to flatter the youthful king, do we find a sufficient explanation of her inconsistency. No doubt she thought it would be a compliment to her prince readily to acquiesce in his proposal. It is not the first time or the last that men have readily assented to wrong-doing because a crowned head suggested it. We see in her cry, “Divide it,” a cringing, fawning desire to ingratiate herself into Solomon’s favour, or if not that, at least to play the courtier; but we do not see in this desire alone a sufficient explanation of this clamour for the life of a puling and innocent babe. No, if we are to get at the very root of her strange and shameful conduct, we must first ask another question, viz; What led her to steal this child from its mother’s arms and to claim it for her own? What induced her when she woke in the night and found her own child dead, to creep in the darkness to her companion’s couch and take a changeling for her son. For this was surely a strange thing to do. We could more readily understand her rejoicing in the death of her own child of shame than this eager desire to burden herself with a bastard that she had not borne.
Now, it is quite possible that there were special circumstances connected with this case, which, if we knew them, would offer a complete and certain explanation of her conduct. For example, to pass by other possibilities, hers may have been such case as Tamar’s (Gen 38:1-30.) But as we do not and cannot know what these peculiar circumstances were, if there were any, we can only collect her motives, as best we may, from the record of facts which we possess.
It is clear, then, that she was not actuated by love for the child. It is unlikely that a woman such as she was could have love for a child such as this was; while it is inconceivable that if she really loved it, she would have consented to and counselled its death. Nor can it have been the pride and joy of having a man child to call her son (1Jn 16:21). For the child was not hers, and no one knew this better than herself. No doubt the Jewish mother had special reasons for desiring offspring and for cherishing her children, but this was the child of stranger.
What then were her motives? Were they not these? First, the fear of reproach, and secondly, jealousy of her more fortunate companion. Fear of reproach; for no woman, in any age of the world, or under any circumstances, can fail to be mortified and humbled and ashamed at having occasioned, by her maladroitness, the death of her child. She knew what the tongues of the neighbours would say: she could see them, perhaps, even mocking her as a murderess. For they could not know that the death was accidental and some of them, she feared, might think, if they did not say, that there had been foul play on her part. These thoughts, as they rushed through her mind in the black and dark night, would be accentuated and made well nigh intolerable by the thought that her companion had been more careful or more fortunate. What may have passed between these two women we cannot say. For aught we know, each may have boasted of her child, or the one may have disparaged the child of the other. There must almost have been something of the kindand it may have been something extremely simpleto account for this act of child stealing.
It is quite possible, of course, that this woman, had she been interrogated after the fraud was detected, would have found it difficult to say what led her to play this false part. For we may rest assured she did not argue about it, did not stop to parley with herself or to weigh the consequences. She acted on a blind, hasty, unreasoning impulse. But all the same it is not difficult for us to see that these must have been among the springs of her conduct. And when the fatal move was once made, the rest of her sin is easily explained. There was then nothing for her to do but to brazen it out. It was impossible for her to stop, without proclaiming herself both liar and thief. As she had lied to her companion, so she must lie to the neighbours, and as she had lied to the neighbours, so she must lie even before the king. There was no help for it. Vestigia nulla retrorsum! She must go on to the bitter end.
But it is easy to see how terribly trying and painful her position would at last become. The constant fear of detection, or the fear lest she should betray herself, must have made it almost insupportable. Any moment something might ooze out which would reveal the deceit and cover her with infamy. Bitterly must she have regretted that she had ever embarked on this course of fraud; eagerly must she have cast about for any chance of escape.
And so when the king proposed to cut the Gordian knot; when he proposed, that is, to extricate her from the toils which she had woven round herself, is there any wonder that she caught eagerly at the first chance that offered, and that without a moment’s reflection as to the morality of the remedy, and without the least perception of the snare that was spread for her. All she thought was that it promised an honourable retreat from ground which was every moment becoming more insecure; that it opened to her, in her despair and dread of detection, a door of escape. It is this accounts for the cry, “Divide it.” The murder would cover her multitude of lies, the blood of the innocent would efface the traces of her guilt.
The lessons taught by this history must be very briefly indicated. Among them are these:
1. Impurity almost inevitably leads to deceit. The root of all the mischief here was the unchastity. The sin against the body makes other sins comparatively easy. “It is only the first step that costs.” And what a step is that!
2. Moral cowardice may lead to murder. The fear which prompted the hasty resolve to possess herself of the living child, led this miserable woman to stealing, lying, persistent falseness, and to murder, in thought and will. Facilis descensus Averni, etc.
3. Falsehood leads to falsehood. The proverb says, “If we tell one lie we must tell twenty more to bury it.” “One lie must be thatched with another or it will soon rain through.”
“O what a tangled web we weave
When once we venture to deceive.”
4. Jealousy dries up the milk of human kindness. It is “cruel as the grave.”
“Fiercer than famine, war, or spotted pestilence;
Baneful as death, and horrible as hell.”
It led this woman to act like a fiend; to desire the butchery of an innocent babe.
5. Sin overreaches itself. The pretender was caught in her own toils. She had no sooner said, “Divide it,” than she saw she was undone. She had proclaimed her own falseness. “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.”
6. When the sinner is most secure, then sudden destruction comes upon him. This woman had never breathed freely till Solomon said, “Divide it.” That seemed such a certain deliverance that she echoed the cry. Now she began to feel safe. The next moment she was disgraced, condemned, ruined. Cf. Mat 24:50; Mat 25:44; 1Th 5:8, etc.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Ki 3:16-28. Then came there two women, &c. See Jos 2:1 respecting the word zonoth rendered harlots. Solomon knew at once, that the only sign whereby to discover the true mother, would be her affection and compassionate tenderness for her child; and therefore, in order to distinguish between the two, his business was to make trial of this. And if we suppose, that when he commanded the child to be divided he spake with a sedate countenance and seeming earnestness, as the true mother’s petition to the king makes it apparent that he did, then we may suppose further, not only that the two women, but all the people present, with horror and admiration expected the execution of the thing; but when the whole ended in so just a decision, quite contrary to what they looked for, it raised joy in every breast, and gave a more advantageous commendation to the judge. It may not be improper, upon this occasion, to cite an instance or two from prophane history, of a singular address, though much inferior to this, in discovering such secrets as seemed to be past finding out. Suetonius, in his life of Claudius, chap. 15: tells us, that the emperor discovered a woman to be the mother of a young man, whom she would not own for her son, by commanding her to be married to him: the horror of committing incest obliged her to declare the truth. In like manner, Diodorus Siculus relates, that Ariopharnes, king of the Thracians, being appointed to arbitrate between three men, who all pretended to be sons of the king of the Cimmerians, and claimed the succession, found out the true son and heir, by ordering them to shoot each man his arrow into the dead king’s body; which one of them refusing to do, he was deemed the lawful claimant. See Patrick and Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(16) Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him. (17) And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. (18) And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house. (19) And this woman’s child died in the night; because she overlaid it. (20) And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. (21) And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear. (22) And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son. And this said, No; but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king. (23) Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living. (24) And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. (25) And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. (26) Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. (27) Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.
Here was an opportunity very speedily afforded, after the Lord’s pouring out an understanding heart upon Solomon, for the exercise of it. No doubt, it became a very nice point, as there were no eye wit nesses to determine whose representation was true. Solomon showed his penetration by the proposed division of the living child. Not that the king would really have put it to the experiment; but it was to decide by calling forth the tender feeling of the real mother. The pretended mother, in a moment, plainly proved that she could never be the mother of a child, to consent to the slaughter of it for division. I would only desire the Reader to remark, the melancholy circumstance which those wretched women called harlots have, in a multitude of instances, shown by the willful murder of their base children. In order to hide their disgrace from men, they bid defiance to God: and in what nature shudders at, the murdering of their own poor, unconscious babes, have sought relief from their shame of uncleanness. Alas! what a state our nature is sunk to! There is another instruction we ought to gather from this view of the subject, namely, that while we behold this harlot with bowels yearning over her child for the salvation of the body; how ought it to teach every true parent to feel for the salvation of the soul? Oh! how lost to all bowels of compassion must those wretched parents be, who can look on and see the sword of God’s offended justice uplifted, and ready to fall on their children, by reason of sin; and yet send forth no cry, offer up no prayer; nay, remain themselves and their children unconscious also, that without an interest in Jesus, who, like another Solomon, may stop the sword from its office, they must perish forever! Oh! precious Jesus! how is it possible for me to read this instance of the sword ready to devour, and not call to mind how the Lord Jehovah commanded the sword to awake and smite thee, who art fellow to the Lord of Hosts, that the Lord might lay his hand upon the little ones? Surely when thou wast smitten we escaped, and by thy stripes we were healed. Zec 13:7 ; Isa 53 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Ki 3:16 Then came there two women, [that were] harlots, unto the king, and stood before him.
Ver. 16. Then came there two women that were harlots. ] Or rather hostesses; for harlots would not have been so hardy as to have appeared in their colours before Solomon, who was yet in his prime, and zealous for God’s law. If, therefore, these were harlots, they were privy harlots; for there were then no stews or brothel houses allowed, as are now at Rome, and other places in Italy, for a commonwealth, say Papists, and for the avoiding of greater evils, adultery, incest, &c. But what saith Augustine? Cursed be that remedy of sin that is itself a sin. God will not have such a gain to be recompensed with such a loss.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
a Discerning Judgment
1Ki 3:16-28
The incident gave convincing proof of the gift of wisdom. This is the most esteemed endowment of an Eastern potentate, who is called upon to arbitrate in cases that defy the labored processes of law and precedent. How could so difficult a case be decided? There were no witnesses on either side. But Solomon appealed to the instincts of a mothers love. The proposal to divide the child at once revealed the mother, who would rather expose herself to a life of anguish than see her child suffer or its life extinguished.
Bishop Hall, commenting on this incident, says, Truth demands entireness; falsehood is satisfied with less. Satan, who has no right to the heart, is content with a piece of it; God, who made the heart, will have either all or none.
But surely there is a still deeper lesson. When we truly belong to Christ, sharing His nature and having fellowship in His Kingdom, we shall live in quick sympathy with everything that touches His honor. The child of God instinctively winces whenever his Fathers character is challenged, or a foul suggestion is made to his own soul. This is evidence of sonship.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
two women: Lev 19:29, Deu 23:17, Jos 2:1
harlots: The word zanoth, rendered harlots, is here translated by the Targumist, the best judge in this case, pundekon, “tavern-keepers.” See note on Jos 2:1, and see note on Jdg 11:1. Had these women been harlots, it is not likely that they would have dared to appear before Solomon; nor is it likely that such persons would have been permitted in the reign of David. Their husbands might at this time have been following their necessary occupations in distant parts.
stood: Exo 18:13, Exo 18:16, Num 27:2
Reciprocal: Exo 18:26 – the hard causes Deu 17:8 – arise 2Sa 15:2 – came 2Ch 32:4 – find Job 9:33 – that might Job 29:16 – the cause
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ki 3:16. Two women that were harlots Or, victuallers; for the Hebrew word signifies both. Yet that they were unmarried persons seems probable, both because there is no mention of any husbands, whose office it was, if there were any such, to contest for their wives; and because they lived a solitary life in one house. Unto the king Probably they had presented their cause to the inferior courts, and as they could not determine it, they now bring it to the king as the supreme magistrate, and famous for wisdom. And stood there before him Desiring and expecting his sentence in the case.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3:16 Then came there two women, [that were] harlots, unto the king, and {k} stood before him.
(k) By this example it appears that God kept his promise to Solomon in granting him wisdom.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God’s provision of Wisdom 3:16-28
This incident demonstrates that God did indeed give Solomon the unusual wisdom He had promised (1Ki 3:28). [Note: Wiseman, pp. 85-86, wrote a short note on the wisdom that is in view here.] The writer did not specify when during Solomon’s reign this event took place, but probably it occurred shortly after God appeared to the king at Gibeon (1Ki 3:4-15).
"The chronology of the reign of Solomon does not pose nearly the difficulty as does that of David. With the exception of the narrative passages, which appear as usual to be inserted topically, the order found in both 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles reflects the general flow of events. It does seem, however, that Solomon’s alliance with Siamun of Egypt (1Ki 3:1) did not come to pass until after he had begun negotiations with the Tyrians to help on the temple. This in turn presupposes Solomon’s having sought and been granted wisdom, for Hiram takes note of that fact (1Ki 5:7)." [Note: Merrill, p. 290.]
Solomon demonstrated insight into basic human nature, here maternal instincts. This insight enabled him to understand why people behave as they do and how they will respond. This was a gift from God and is an aspect of wisdom.
"The fact that the two mothers were prostitutes is important in this story . . . because it shows how the wise king would act on behalf of the very lowest of his subjects . . ." [Note: DeVries, p. 61.]
This incident resulted in the Israelites having great respect for their king (v. 31). Solomon became a blessing to the people because he related properly to Yahweh.
Wisdom in Israel and the ancient Near East was not synonymous with knowledge or education. It involved the ability to live life in a skillful way, so at the end, one’s life would amount to something worthwhile. To the Israelites this was possible only if a person knew and responded appropriately to (i.e., feared) Yahweh. [Note: See James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction.]