1 Kings 3:16-28

Solomon’s New God-given Wisdom Is Revealed In His Judgment Concerning Two Prostitutes Who Claimed The Same Baby (1 Kings 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 2 Samuel 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 Then there came two women who were prostitutes to the king, and stood before him (1 Kings 3:16).

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” (1 Kings 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” (1 Kings 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” (1 Kings 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” (1 Kings 3:22 a).

f Thus they spoke before the king (1 Kings 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’ ” (1 Kings 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” (1 Kings 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” (1 Kings 3:26).

b Then the king answered and said, “Give her the living child, and on no condition slay it. She is its mother” (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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.

1 Kings 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 2 Samuel 14:3 onwards where the same was true for David; see also 2 Kings 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 2:0). That would explain the reference in 1 Kings 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 Genesis 38:15. Fathers were forbidden to make their daughters into prostitutes (Leviticus 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 (Deuteronomy 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’ (Deuteronomy 23:2). No son of Aaron could marry a prostitute (Leviticus 21:7; Leviticus 21:14) and if their daughters became prostitutes they were to be ‘burned with fire’ because they had profaned themselves (Leviticus 21:10). A prostitute’s gifts were not to be accepted by the Tabernacle (Deuteronomy 23:18). However, many women who were left husbandless and without close family support probably often had little alternative.

1 Kings 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 1 Kings 3:16).