In yesterday's passage of Scripture we found Solomon asking the Lord for the wisdom to lead the nation and to judge cases fairly. Today we find him judging a case where there were no witnesses and where it's just one woman's word against another woman's word. The wisdom the Lord granted Solomon is going to come into play here because from a human standpoint it's impossible to be able to tell which woman is being truthful. The Lord puts a very effective strategy into Solomon's mind and by using this strategy he is able to judge the case rightly.
Our text today begins like this: "Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him." (1 Kings 3:16) These two women appear before his throne to have a child custody case heard. At first I wondered why the author felt it necessary to let us know these women are "prostitutes" because I wasn't sure what bearing their manner of life has on the dispute that's being brought to the king. But the more I thought about it, I believe this information tells us something important about Solomon's character and about his fairness in hearing and judging legal cases. He does not discriminate against women and he does not discriminate against people whose mode of living is not morally upright. His subjects are granted equal opportunity to come into his judgment hall for justice. This would not be so in many other nations of his time.
"One of them said, 'Pardon me, my lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.'" (1 Kings 3:17-18) Some scholars argue that the Hebrew word that is translated as "prostitutes" can also be translated "innkeepers". I do not feel that's the case with these two ladies. If they were innkeepers then they wouldn't be all alone in a house together. If they were innkeepers they should be making enough money to have at least one servant to help them deliver their children or to hire a midwife. But they are alone in a house with no servants and no money with which to hire a midwife. There are no husbands or live-in boyfriends on the premises either, which lends further credence to the theory that these women are prostitutes and that their babies were fathered months earlier by men who visited their house of prostitution. When the first woman had her baby, the other woman helped with her delivery. When the second woman had her baby three days later, the first woman helped her deliver it. No one but these two women has laid eyes on the infants and therefore no one can give testimony as to which baby belongs to which woman. That's why they've brought their dispute to the king because one child is now dead and they are arguing over who is the mother of the living child.
The first woman continues laying out her case before the king. "During the night this woman's son died because she lay on him. Then she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. The next morning, I got up to nurse my son---and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn't the son I had borne.'" (1 Kings 3:19-21) Why would a woman switch a dead child for a living child? I can think of several reasons, the first being that it was of the utmost importance in ancient times to have a son and it was a matter of pride and prestige to be the parent of a male child. A second possible theory is that, assuming she knows the identity of he father, she might hope to gain some financial support from him if he accepts the child as his son. A third theory is that her guilt and her grief are so great that she can't bear them. Because she can't accept the loss of her son, she intends to block out the incident altogether by convincing herself and everyone else that the living child is her son.
As soon as the first woman finishes presenting her case, an argument ensues with each woman claiming maternity of the living child. "The other woman said, 'No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.' But the first one insisted, 'No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.' And so they argued before the king. The king said, 'This one says, 'My son is alive and your son is dead,' while that one says, 'No! Your son is dead and my son is alive.'" (1 Kings 3:22-23) Who can discern the truth of such a dispute? The babies were born only three days apart and would be similar in size and weight. If the younger baby were born bigger than the older baby, even a medical doctor or midwife of Solomon's time would likely not be able to tell which one belonged to the woman who gave birth first. No DNA tests were available then either. So all Solomon has is one woman's word against another woman's word. There is no third party to back up either of their statements. But because the Lord granted him the wisdom he asked for, he devises a strategy that's guaranteed to reveal the identity of the mother of the living child.
"Then the king said, 'Bring me a sword.' So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: 'Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.'" (1 Kings 3:24-25) Of course Solomon doesn't intend to harm the child but the women don't know this. They don't know Solomon personally and cutting a child in two this way is something I can easily imagine a pagan king of ancient times doing, either for his own amusement or out of irritation that two female prostitutes dared to come into his court or because he lacks compassion and thinks this is a legitimate solution to the problem. Solomon makes his stunning pronouncement and waits for what he expects to happen to happen: the woman whose son is alive would rather give the child to the other woman than see a hair on his head harmed.
"The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, 'Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don't kill him!' But the other said, 'Neither you nor I shall have him. Cut him in two!' Then the king gave his ruling: 'Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.' When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice." (1 Kings 3:26-28)
The first woman was telling the truth. Her son was born three days before the other woman's son. The other woman's son died in the night and the other woman swapped the babies out. Earlier in today's study I brought up several possible reasons to explain why the second woman swapped the babies. Whatever her motivation might have been, she displays a callous disregard for the life of the other woman's son. She'd rather see the child killed than give him back to his mother. I can't say whether that's because if she can't have him she doesn't want anyone to have him or whether she's afraid to admit to the crime of swapping the babies and then lying about it under oath before the king. I don't know what her penalty would have been if she'd admitted to swapping the babies and lying about it but I doubt Solomon would have had her put to death. She has committed some crimes here but is not guilty of a capital crime. A child is dead but its death was accidental. In our times it is not recommended to co-sleep with infants this young due to the risk of accidental suffocation. But in times past, though the risk was probably understood, co-sleeping was often unavoidable due to the lack of central heating (the baby could not stay warm enough in a separate sleeping area) or due to the lack of space (poor people had only a tent or very tiny home where there was only one area available for everyone to sleep).
Solomon solves a case that would have been unsolvable for a king who has not asked for and received wisdom from the one true God who knows all things. A king of another nation might actually have cut the child in two. Or a king of another nation might have ordered the two women tortured until one confessed to swapping the babies out, but that's not a foolproof method because if one woman were physically or psychologically unable to take the pain as long as the other, she might have confessed to a crime she didn't commit. There was really no way, medically or legally, to decide this case rightly without the Lord's help. Solomon has the Lord's help and makes the correct ruling. His fame---and the fame of the Lord who granted him such wisdom---spreads far and wide.
No comments:
Post a Comment