EXPOSITION
IN this section we see how remarkably the gracious promise of Gibeon (1 Kings 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. Ἐπιδεῖξαί τὴν τοῦ βασιλεως ἐβουλήθη σοφίαν (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 Bähr observes, a thoroughly Oriental story.
Then came there two women that were harlots [The Jewish writers here, as in the case of Rahab (Joshua 2:1), would understand "hostess," "innkeeper" (פונדקיתא, not פונדקן, as Bähr, which=, πανδοκεῖον, "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 זוּן, 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 (1 Kings 3:17) is certainly suspicious; and see Gesen. s.v. זָנָה. Grotius, from Deuteronomy 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.
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.
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 Exodus 1:19 is true to this day.
And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it.
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.
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.
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 position—which indeed she could not do without owning herself both child stealer and liar—and 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 1 Kings 3:26.] Thus they spake [Heb. "And they spake," i.e; affirmed and contradicted] before the king.
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.
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.
And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other [Heb. one].
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. τὰ σπλάγχνα in the New Testament
Then the king answered and said [He simply echoes the exact words of the mother. This is clear from the fact that the word יָלוּד—natus, "the one born," here and in 1 Kings 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].
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. Bähr refers to Luke 4:36; Luke 8:25], for they saw that the wisdom of God [for which he asked (Luke 8:9) and which God gave
; before him the two harlots and the helpless child—carries 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. Matthew 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 (2 Samuel 15:1-10.) He devolved the duty of judging and punishing upon his son (1 Kings 2:1-11). 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" (1 Kings 4:31). The wisdom of God was in him to do judgment (1 Kings 3:28). But the Judge of men and angels not only has, but is the Wisdom of God (Proverbs 9:1-20; 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-46; Galatians 5:19-48.
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."
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. Luke 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 (Genesis 38:1.) 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 kind—and it may have been something extremely simple—to 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. Matthew 24:50; Mat 25:44; 1 Thessalonians 5:8, etc.