Deeper Commentary
1Ki 3:1 Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took
Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had
made an end of building his own house, and the house of Yahweh, and the
wall of Jerusalem all around-
The opening account of Solomon's reign is negative about him.
We know he will go on to have a vast harem of 1000 women; and in such a
harem, the first wife is of huge influence. And that first wife is
presented as being none other than a Gentile, and the daughter of Pharaoh,
Israel's historical and idolatrous enemy. We note that the temple Solomon
built was very similar to Egyptian temples, especially with the emphasis
upon gold plating of everything [remembering that the king of Israel was
not supposed to love gold, Dt. 17:18]. And his wife's palace was next to
it. The first wife in African culture [and Egypt was African] usually
chose the husband's subsequent wives- and she chose Gentiles. And Solomon
went along with all this. It was a spiritually disastrous relationship.
Solomon had a system of forced labour, and had 12 administrative districts
[not following the 12 tribes] with 12 officers who each provided the
king's food one month / year (1 Kings 4:7-20). All this was exactly how
Egypt was organized under Amenhotep III and is surely the influence of
having Pharaoh's daughter for his leading wife. It has been noted
that "She is mentioned more than any other wife. She is mentioned more
than seven times among his foreign wives (1 Kings 3:1; 9:16,24; 7:8; 11:1;
2 Chron. 8:11; 1 Chron. 4:18). She is the only one that Solomon built a
house for (1 Kings 9:24). She is the only one identified with her father,
Pharaoh. The rest of the foreign wives are mentioned as Edomites,
Ammonites" etc.
Remember that in Ecclesiastes he says that he just had an obsession with all manner of building projects. God's temple was just one of them. Building God's house is therefore mentioned together with all the other building projects.
Solomon's son Rehoboam was the son of Naamah from Ammon (1 Kings 14:31),
with LXX adding "the daughter of Ana the son of Nahash". Possibly "Ana" is
Hanun- who had been a bitter enemy of David. Solomon's marriage to his
daughter may have been from a perverse teenage desire to rebel against his
father, or to make peace with Ammon. Possibly the making of affinity with
Pharaoh was similar. But it shows Solomon involved with women who were the
historical enemies of God's people. Yet Bathsheba his mother, according to
the Song of Solomon, crowned him with a crown on the day of his
"espousal". Everything militated against Solomon being spiritual; his
father projected unreal expectations onto him, requiring him to be the
Messiah. And it seems his mother encouraged him in marrying a Gentile. His
request for wisdom, when David had told him to murder Joab and Shimei
according to "his wisdom", is therefore so pleasing to God. It's as if
Solomon wanted to really know what God thought about it all. Yet he
slumped back into following mere parental expectation.
Solomon's failure with Gentile women therefore began right at the
start of his reign. "Made affinity" doesn't have to mean this was because
of an alliance, but the phrase can just mean 'became son in law to'. It is
the word used in Ezra 9:14 of how such "affinity" with Gentiles provoked
God's wrath. Rehoboam's mother was from Ammon, so the Egyptian wife was
not his only Gentile woman. However we note that there are no Egyptian
gods listed amongst those whom Solomon later worshipped. Perhaps Solomon
justified this marriage by a legalistic reading of the verses which
condemned marriage with Canaanite women; and Solomon may have argued that
Egyptians weren't Canaanites (Ex. 34:16; Dt. 7:3). The fact he only
allowed her to live in the city of David for a time could mean that he
realized there was something wrong in having a Gentile wife living in
David's city. We get the impression that he gingerly committed this sin;
but soon became used to it, and went on to marry hundreds of such women.
Or the hint could be that after he had built his own house, which took 13
years, he then parted company with her. The Song of Solomon could be about
his relationship with this Egyptian woman, and it ends in an
unsatisfactory way with the couple splitting up.
1Ki 3:2 At that time the people sacrificed in the high places, because
there was no house built for the name of Yahweh-
This surely reflects Solomon’s perspective- for God
Himself didn’t need a built house in which sacrifice could be offered. The
temple became such an obsession with Solomon that he came to think that no
really acceptable worship could occur outside of the idea which he had so
developed in his own mind. It’s rather like thinking that one must
have a physical church building in which to be an ecclesia of the living
God- who doesn’t dwell in buildings made with hands.
"Only"
the people sacrificed in high places... and Solomon loved the Lord...
only he sacrificed... in high places" (1 Kings 3:2,3),
highlights the contradiction between Solomon's love for God and his
willingness to sacrifice in the "high places" which God detested - for the
Law clearly spelt out that sacrifice could only be offered in the
tabernacle, at the place where Yahweh's Name was placed (Dt. 12:5-8;
14:23-25).
1Ki 3:3 Solomon loved Yahweh, walking in the statutes of David his father:
only he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places-
The Divine assessment of Solomon's spirituality makes no reference to his obedience to God's commands; rather "Solomon loved Yahweh (in that he) walked in the statutes of David his father"- rather than God's statutes. This perfectly explains why Solomon blandly disobeyed God's word in the very ways his father David did. Again, there are unpleasant similarities with our own position. Weaknesses which our forefathers and community have accepted without comment for generations are tolerated without a quibble; there are other issues, equally contrary to Divine principles, over which we create great complaint- simply because this is what parentally and communally we have been taught to react against. Yet the Gospel should be making us a new creation, standing independently of tradition and background conditioning. Knowing others who are doing the same should be the basis of our fellowship, rather than just belonging to the same community with the same background.
LXX "And Solomon loved the Lord, so as to walk in the ordinances of David his father". This suggests that Solomon's desire was firstly to walk in the path of his father, and his love of Yahweh was only in order to achieve that. It should have been the other way around, loving his father's way in order to love God. David idolized Solomon and projected unreal spiritual expectations onto him; and Solomon does the same to the image of David. This kind of club of mutual admiration, even between persons now dead, is unhealthy. It is by nature a closed system without God in it.
"Only he sacrificed..." suggests that from the start, Solomon's spirituality was deficient. He followed his father David, but... there was a "but" to that. He also did what God's law forbad, worshipping on the hills, with their association with idol shrines. And we will later learn that it is on the hills / high places around Jerusalem that Solomon will build temples to other gods when he turns away from Yahweh. The point is being made that right from the start, he had begun the slide to that point. This is the repeated style of the record- to describe Solomon's external greatness with little footnotes, as it were, bringing out his fundamental spiritual weakness. Sometimes, as here, this is done explicitly; other times, implicitly. Thus the description of so much gold and silver being amassed and used by Solomon is an implicit contrast with Dt. 17:17, which commands the king of Israel not to hoard gold and silver. Solomon's own wisdom contrasted gold against wisdom (Prov. 3:14; 8:10,19; 16:16). But he sought to have both. Likewise Dt. 17 forbad the king of Israel to multiply horses and wives, but Solomon is recorded as amassing both. There is no explicit comment on this, but we are supposed to read the implicit contrast with the Dt. 17 passage. And so when we come to the condemnation of Solomon for his apostasy in 1 Kings 11, this is not in fact out of step with the overall presentation of Solomon throughout 1 Kings.
1Ki 3:4 The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great
high place.
Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place"
(1 Chron. 16:39; 1 Kings 3:4), and so it is another example of correlation
within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil
with which to anoint Solomon (1 Kings 1:39). Solomon had replaced Abiathar
with Zadok as chief priest, so perhaps his worship to Gibeon rather than
Jerusalem [where Abiathar had officiated] was a nod towards Zadok.
Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar-
This was clearly out of step with what David had earlier been taught
after his sin with Bathsheba; that God did not want thousands of
sacrifices, but rather broken, contrite hearts (Ps. 40:6-8). And Solomon
repeats David's failure in this, by again offering such huge numbers of
sacrifices. Which, like the temple, God didn't want. Solomon
failed to understand that his parents, especially his father, had been
saved by grace rather than sacrifice. He had not taken to hear his
father's Psalm 51.
1Ki 3:5 In Gibeon Yahweh appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God
said, Ask what I shall give you-
This is the first and one of the few times that God has ever
asked man what he wants. Godly men usually asked or enquired of God on their initiative, as
David did (s.w. 1 Sam. 22:10; 23:4; 2 Sam. 5:19). But Solomon had
apparently merely offered ritual sacrifices, and had not engaged with God
in personal relationship. Now he is encouraged to do so.
I have argued that Ecclesiastes is Solomon's self reflection, a kind of autobiography. It is also a rejection and
renunciation of his faith, because he wrote it at the end of his life, when
his heart had been turned aside from God (1 Kings 11:3). I suggest it is
this dream which is the reference of Ecc. 5:3: "For as a dream comes with a
multitude of cares, so a fool’s speech with a multitude of words".
If we enquire what reference a "dream" may have to Solomon's
historical life, we naturally think of this dream at the start of his life
when he was offered whatever he wanted, and he chose wisdom. Several times
in Ecclesiastes he appears to regret that choice, as he considers there to
be no ultimate advantage to wisdom or going God's way because death ends it
all, and God, Solomon thinks, cannot resurrect the dead to judgment (Ecc.
3:22). And so in Ecc. 5:3 Solomon seems to be saying that that dream was
simply self induced, an outcome of his "multitude of cares", and the
"multitude of words" of wisdom he had written in response to it was but "a
fool's speech". Like many who have had the direct involvement of God in
their lives in youth, he came to rationalize it as nothing at all Divine,
considering his dream had just been some Freudian reflection of his own
internal "cares". And this kind of rationalizing of the Divine over time is
absolutely true to observed experience in those who turn away from God.
1Ki 3:6 Solomon said, You have shown to Your servant David my father great
grace, according as he walked before You in truth, righteousness and in
uprightness of heart with You. You have kept for him this great grace,
that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day-
Thus the eternity of God's truth is paralleled with the eternity of His
righteousness (as in Ps. 119:142,160). David walked / lived "in truth and
righteousness" (s.w. 1 Kings 3:6; Ps. 15:2), because this was how God is.
The Messianic seed of David was to have this characteristic, ruling on
David's throne in truth and righteousness (s.w. Is. 16:5).
But Solomon has it all the wrong way around in saying that Yahweh had
showed grace to David because he had walked before Yahweh in truth.
Solomon totally misunderstood grace. It is a pure gift from God, and not
at all granted in response to our righteous walk. David himself
had seen Solomon's kingship as God’s greatest grace to him (1 Kings 1:48).
Sadly, both David and Solomon failed to perceive that God's forgiveness of
Solomon's parents for their sin was God's greatest mercy to them. Instead
the liked to think that Solomon's kingship was the greatest mercy shown to
David.
These words are doubtless an allusion to the mercy
God showed David in his relationship with Solomon's mother,
Bathsheba. But Solomon makes no mention of David's great faith in
God's grace, and his subsequent appreciation that
animal sacrifices were meaningless. These were David's real strong
points, but Solomon is obsessed with David's public life of obedience
("according as he walked"). He evidently saw his
father as the epitome of spiritual good, faultless in
God's sight. "Mercy" and "truth" both occur in 1 Kings
3:6, and they often refer to the promises.
Solomon seems to have seen the promises to David as a reward for David's
good life, rather than an expression of God's unwarranted grace.
David's reaction was "Who am I...?" to
receive such an honour. Solomon's feeling
was that David deserved them because of his righteousness. So
here is a feature of many parent : child relationships
in the Lord. The children love and respect their parents
spiritually, but often for the wrong reasons; they
actually misunderstand their forefathers' spirituality. This
is why their understanding of parental and community expectation is
often wrong in the first place.
1Ki 3:7 Now, Yahweh my God-
See on :10.
You have made Your servant king instead of
David my father. I am but a little child. I don’t know how to go out or
come in-
Solomon was not that young. David had exaggerated Solomon's
youth when he called him "young and tender" just before his death (1
Chron. 22:5; 29:1). Solomon views himself as his father had done. And he
does the same in his false view of himself as the promised Messianic seed
of 2 Sam. 7. David's perceptions of his son set that son up for spiritual
failure. The only way for Solomon to break out of this would have been for
him to see himself as himself, and as God saw him. But he took the easier
and more natural path, of living out his father's expectation of him. And
it was to his own destruction. Solomon's claim to be "but a little child"
needing help is in sharp contrast to the ruthless, murdering, immoral
Solomon we have just read of in 1 Kings 2. Yet despite his false humility,
God seizes upon the positive- in that Solomon asks for wisdom. And James
likewise alludes to this in urging us all to ask for wisdom.
David considered Solomon a "wise man" (1 Kings 2:6,9). By asking for wisdom, Solomon was hereby recognizing that he did not in fact have the wisdom which his father claimed he had. This baby step movement to reject paternal expectation of him was strongly and enthusiastically welcomed by God.
To 'go out and come in' means 'to lead'. It is used of David at the start of his career (1 Sam. 18:13,16); and again we have the impression that David is asking for this ability in order to mimic his father, whose expectations he clearly wanted to live out. But when he matured beyond that stage of life, Solomon was revealed as personally empty in spiritual terms.
This is alluded to in Mt. 18:3,4; become a child so you can rule the Kingdom; Christ was the greatest child as he will be the greatest ruler. This sets Solomon up as our example in this aspect. Notice how Sarah’s unspiritual comments “cast out the bondwoman…” and “my Lord being old…”are interpreted positively in the NT.
Ecclesiastes is in many ways Solomon's self-examination; and it was accurate. He indicates that the temple had actually made him stumble, and that his numerous sacrifices had been the sacrifices of a fool, rather than the wise man he had appeared to be (Ecc. 5:1); and surely he was casting a sideways glance at himself when he spoke of the wise child (cp. Solomon initially, 1 Kings 3:7) being greater than the old and foolish king who would no longer be admonished (Ecc. 4:13; even though Solomon had advisers, 1 Kings 12:6). Yet he chose to do absolutely nothing about this; once again, his accurate spiritual knowledge had no real practical influence upon him.
So very often does Solomon speak of "David my father", and
that God had made him king "instead of David my father"
(e.g. 1 Kings 3:7).
Thus he asks Hiram to deal with him just as he had done with David his
father (1 Kings 5:2-7; and cp. 1 Kings 5:1 with 2 Sam. 5:11). The number
of times these phrases occur in the records is
so large that we simply have to recognize
that God is pointing something out to us about the
relationship between Solomon and David (1 Kings 2:24,26,32,44;
3:6,7,14; 5:3,5; 6:12; 8:15,17,18,20,24,25,26; 9:4; 11:33; 2 Chron. 1:8,9;
2:3,7,14; 6:4,7,8,10,15,16; 7:17). Solomon was raised a believer, and he
lived out parental expectation; but in later life, he himself was revealed
as having no real faith at all, and he turned away from Yahweh to
idolatry. So often in his prayers to God does Solomon make reference
to David; for example: "Thou hast showed unto thy
servant David my father great mercy, according
as he walked before thee
in truth, and in righteousness, and in
uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this
great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit upon his throne" (1
Kings 3:6).
1Ki 3:8 Your servant is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen,
a great people, that can’t be numbered nor counted for multitude-
Solomon assumes that the promises to Abraham of an innumerable seed
had been fulfilled in his kingdom, just as he assumes the promises to
David of the seed were fulfilled in him. He has no perspective of the
future Kingdom of God, nor does he factor in the conditional nature of
those promises.
And so Solomon 'had the truth', he knew so deeply the true
principles of Yahweh worship and the promises which formed the
basis of the covenant. But like us, he scarcely
considered the enormity of the gap between the theory he knew and the
practice of it in his own heart and living. We too have a tendency to
build up masses of Biblical and spiritual knowledge, and to let the mere
acquisition of it stop us from practicing it. He flouted the explicit
commandments not to get horses from Egypt, not to marry Gentile
women, and not to multiply silver and gold (Dt. 17:17,18
cp. 1 Kings 10:21-29). At the end of his
days, he recognized that although he had loved the
theory of wisdom, the image of a spiritual life, the wisdom of
God had never really impacted his soul: "I said, I will be wise (referring
back to his request for wisdom in 1 Kings 3); but it was far from me"
(Ecc. 7:23). His request for wisdom had only been so that he could do the
job of leading Israel, living out the parental expectation of his
father, whom he admits in Proverbs 4 had taught him to ask for wisdom. In
Prov. 19:12 he speaks as if his own wisdom was like the dew coming down-
as if he felt that the mere possession of wisdom made him the Messiah
figure which his father had so hoped for him to be in Ps. 72:6). And he
says as much in Prov. 29:3: “Whoso loveth wisdom [exactly what Solomon was
commended for doing] rejoiceth his father”. He saw his wisdom and
knowledge as some sort of a reward in themselves: “the prudent are crowned
with knowledge” (Prov. 14:18). This is of course true in a sense, as all
the Proverbs are. But Solomon surely had the idea that he, who was so
renowned for his knowledge, was somehow thereby rewarded by having it.
This assumption by Solomon was likely behind each of the many references
he makes to the value of wisdom and the blessedness of the man who has it.
It is rather like feeling that ‘we have the truth’ because somehow our
correct understanding of doctrines is a reward for our righteousness, and
mere possession of doctrinal truth means that we are acceptable to God.
1Ki 3:9 Give Your servant therefore an understanding heart to judge Your
people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to judge
this Your great people?-
I suggest on Ps. 119:169 that David asked for the word of promise that
he would become king to be fulfilled; and in that context he asked for
"wisdom / understanding" in how to rule Israel. And this was likewise the
prayer of Solomon when he became king; but his motives were less than pure
because he was consciously seeking to imitate his father in this request.
Solomon in Proverbs presents wisdom as of great personal benefit, indeed it is "for yourself"; and folly likewise is to your loss. But this presents a somewhat selfish view of wisdom. Solomon had been granted wisdom not for himself, but because he wanted to know how best to rule God's great people. But once he has the wisdom, he becomes exalted by it, and concludes that wisdom is essentially for the personal benefit of those who have it, "you are wise for yourself" (Prov. 9:12). Whatever truths are revealed to us are so that we might use them to the glory of God with others, and not to merely keep them for our own personal benefit.
Solomon's desire to know good and evil is one of several connections back to Adam and Eve in Eden. For he too was given 'dominion' over all in God's land / eretz. God's response to giving Solomon this knowledge is to tell him that 'length of days' is still conditional. Just as the tree of life was not available to Adam and Eve after they had eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Again and again, we are invited to see Solomon at his finest, in all his glory, always presented as having something hollow and false to him. It is a challenge to self examination in every man.
Solomon had been set up for failure by his father. David had commanded him to show "wisdom" in slaying Shimei and Joab (1 Kings 2:5,9). This was not true wisdom, and those murders were unnecessary and reflected David's total lack of appreciation of grace. The fact Solomon asks God for His wisdom is therefore commendable, and that is why God was so thrilled with this request. It was an attempt to break out of having been set up for failure by the wrong expectations of his parents.
1Ki 3:10 The speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing-
David had wrongly told Solomon to 'do according to his
wisdom' and slay Shimei and Joab. I have discussed previously how wrong
this was, and how wrong Solomon was in the way he did it. Likewise in the
way he treated his brother Adonijah. His request for wisdom, implying he
didn't then have it, was therefore so pleasing to God. Despite having been
set up for spiritual failure by his father, Solomon was genuinely asking
for wisdom in order to know how best to lead God's people. God comments
that Solomon had "asked for yourself understanding to discern justice".
"For yourself" is the point. He was wanting to individuate from the
expectations of his father and be independent before God. But he fell away
from this, continued living out his father's expectations, and then was
revealed for having no personal faith.
See on :11. We may wonder why adonai is here used for
"Lord", and elohim in :11, rather than Yahweh. It could well be
that this reflects the fact that Solomon was not really in covenant
relationship with Yahweh, from His viewpoint.
Although Solomon certainly speaks of "Yahweh my God" in :7, it could
be that this was mere language he had picked up from David. For his
subsequent life shows him to have been a man who acted as if he were
outside of covenant relationship with Yahweh. But that is not to say that
his choice was not deeply pleasing to Yahweh, and He wanted to work
further with Solomon to bring him to Himself.
1Ki 3:11 God said to him, Because you have asked this thing, and have not
asked for yourself long life, neither have asked riches for yourself, nor
have asked the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself
understanding to discern justice-
God may be alluding to how David had asked long life and been given
it (Ps. 21:8). This allusion was seeking to show Solomon that he was not
to merely live out the image of his father David, but to think
independently and forge his own relationship with God. Likewise Solomon
had not taken literally the invitation of Ps. 2:8 to Messiah to "ask of Me
(s.w. :5) and I will give you the Gentiles". Instead he had asked for
wisdom.
1Ki 3:12 therefore I have done according to your word. Behold, I have
already given you a wise and an understanding heart; so that there has
been none like you before you, neither after you shall any arise like you-
Solomon asked God for a wise heart- but he was told that God had already
given him this. The process of educating Solomon in wisdom
would have started long before; but it was released, as it were, by
Solomon’s specific prayer.
1Ki 3:13 I have also given you that which you have not asked-
We are not merely reading history here. God's word is living and
engages with us in all generations. We too are given exceeding abundantly
above all we ask (Eph. 3:20 alludes here)- if we put first the wisdom of
achieving God's glory .
Both riches
and honour, so that there shall not be any among the kings like you, all
your days-
It was Solomon who was the king and wore the ultimate crown in his
society. And he implies that his fantastic riches were a result of his
wisdom, and that his pattern should be followed by others. But he fails to
remember that his desire for wisdom was recognized by God in that He gave
Solomon riches. Those riches were a gift from God, by grace, and not
acquired or generated by his own application of wisdom. He therefore
misused his possession of wisdom and experience of grace to justify
himself, and present himself as a self made man; when he was not that at
all.
1Ki 3:14 If you will walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My
commandments as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days-
1Ki 3:15 Solomon awoke; and behold, it was a dream-
We wonder why this detail is added, when it seems obvious. Perhaps
later in the nihilism of Ecclesiastes he would come to think that he had
merely had a dream about wisdom. For he reasons as if his wisdom is purely
of himself, and acts and reasons as if he has had no relationship with
Yahweh. Or maybe it is to highlight the fulfilment of Ps. 127:2: "He gives
to His beloved (Jedidiah) in sleep".
Then he came to
Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and offered
up burnt offerings, offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his
servants-
Solomon had just offered before the sanctuary in Gibeon, and now he
does so at Jerusalem, perhaps to indicate that he considered both shrines
equally valid.
1Ki 3:16 Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king, and stood
before him-
The "then..." suggests that now we have an example of
Solomon's wisdom and ability to discern when judging God's people.
The whole situation spoke of the kind of shameless prostitution which the
Mosaic Law demanded should be punished by death. And yet
prostitutes at the time typically worked in the idol shrines, rather than
as it were randomly on the street corner. There was thereby even more
legal need for them to be put to death. We note the unusual emphasis upon
"in the house", mentioned four times in :18,19, as if this were a specific
house, "the" house. Quite possibly an idol "house" is in view rather than
a brothel.
But the way of Divine
wisdom in this case was not to automatically apply Divine law in
condemning sinners. Instead, by cutting to the conscience within those
women, and appealing to it, they were led to at least the possibility of
repentance, transformation, salvation. Solomon’s wisdom was given him in
order to know how to guide God’s great people. The way of wisdom is
therefore sometimes not to press a point when someone’s in the wrong. We
see this in all levels of relationships. There are weak points in
relationships, fissure lines, which when pressed or brought under tension
will cause earthquakes and destruction. It’s best not to press on them;
and yet if they are ignored, then the quality of relationship suffers and
descends into interacting only over ‘safe’ matters. So what are we to do?
By not raising the obvious issue- you’re whores and must be put to death-
Solomon showed grace, but he showed it in such a way that those women
surely couldn’t have felt the same again; rather like the woman taken in
adultery. The very fact she was not condemned by the One who could condemn
her- meant that she went away indeed vowing to “sin no more”.
1Ki 3:17 The one woman said, Oh my lord, I and this woman live in one
house. I gave birth with her in the house-
1Ki 3:18 It happened the third day after I gave birth, that this woman
gave birth also. We were together. There was no stranger with us in the
house, just us two in the house-
Neither woman had assistance in giving birth. No family were present-
they were prostitutes, the very lowest of Hebrew society, cut off from
their extended families. See on :16. Presumably the first
woman is claiming that she recognized her baby because it was three days
older than the other woman's baby. The claim is that the incident occurred
on the third day after the first woman gave birth- i.e. the night that the
second woman gave birth. Would a woman who has just given birth just go to
sleep straight after childbirth and not pay attention to her immediately
needy first born? They apparently both say the same. There is immediately
a lack of credibility in the stories.
1Ki 3:19 This woman’s child died in the night, because she
lay on it-
"This woman..." enables us to play Bible television with the record,
and imagine it all happening right before our eyes. See on :22.
The question arises as to how she knew the cause of death if she was
herself asleep.
1Ki 3:20 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-
The story lacks credibility, although they both apparently repeated
it. If the other woman was awake at midnight and saw the guilty woman
arising, then why did she allow her to swap over the babies? But the way
of wisdom and justice (see on :28) is not to always point out the glaring
inconsistencies within the narrative or beliefs of others. But to act on a
higher level. We see this kind of thing so often in the way the Lord
responded to questions. Likewise the statement of :19 that
the other woman's child died "because she lay on it" is an assumption,
seeing the claimant also claims she was asleep at the time. Despite
it being night and the woman supposedly being asleep, she claims precise
knowledge of the other woman's movements: "she arose at midnight and took
my son from my side… and laid him at her breast… and her son who died she
laid at my breast". They both say the same- the story is just not
credible. "There was no one else (literally “no stranger”) except the two
of us in the house” is a strange claim to make whilst on the other hand
claiming to having been fast asleep. How did she know there was no other
party involved? The whole story is an obvious contradiction that any legal
team or judge would pick upon. These women present as none too smart, they
are both lying about what happened, although indeed the child of one of
them did die. And they were lying to the king, the highest court of
appeal. They could have been slain for false witness, apart from being
prostitutes. But Solomon "executed justice" (:28) and not the women, as
legally he was supposed to do. Solomon's wisdom and justice involved not
picking on the obvious errors in others' narrative, and 'absolute truth
claim' groups need to learn that lesson. Prostitutes were renowned for
being liars; this was part of what it was to be labelled a prostitute. The
account presents them as true to type; Solomon can have no idea what
actually has gone on. But his wisdom is in showing grace rather than
trying to establish some agreed version of actual events. And that is to
be seen in how we judge with grace. The total inversion of human
conceptions of justice, integrity and logic is the essence of God's grace.
And we likewise show this when we forgive and in other ways reflect our
experience of His grace.
1Ki 3:21 When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, it was
dead; but when I had looked at it in the morning, behold, it was not my
son, whom I bore-
The first "morning" would be the twilight of dawn, but then when the
sun arose she realized it was not her son. As noted on :20, the story line
of both women has internal contradictions. But the way of wisdom and
justice was not to point these out. For the argument
is unrealistic- that she needed the light of day to recognize whether it
was her baby or not. The fact they both seem to have said the same makes
it clear that whatever had really happened, they were both lying.
1Ki 3:22 The other woman said, No; but the living is my son, and the dead
is your son. The other said, No; but the dead is your son, and the living
is my son. Thus they spoke before the king-
The repetition of the phrase "the other" invites us to first listen
and look at one woman making her case, and then swivel our attention to
the other. See on :19.
1Ki 3:23 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
one, and my son is the living one’-
As noted on :20,21, there were internal contradictions in their
stories which a judge would typically have picked up on and explored
further, in order to elicit whose story was more credible. The women come
over as simple, and it would not have been hard through a series of
questions to get closer to the truth. But the way of wisdom and justice
(:28) is not like this nor does it treat people in that forensic manner.
And it was this which so impressed the observing audience.
All this was the primary fulfilment of Palm 72, David's prayer for
Solomon, that he would judge the poorest of the people with wisdom and
justice. And yet justice is not served in a technical sense. And that is
the true wisdom in all this. It's rather like Paul's argument in Romans,
that sinners must die, we are all sinners- but yet with utter integrity
and justice, we are counted as righteous as Jesus, our advocate for the
defence turns out to be our judge... God's view of "justice" is therefore
presented as not being ours. This is what Paul marvels at- that His
integrity in counting us righteous, when we are sinners, is a mystery. To
be accepted with gratitude, even though it is inexplicable within human
paradigms of integrity, logic and justice.
1Ki 3:24 The king said, Get me a sword. They brought a sword before the
king-
The phrase for bringing a sword is that used of the punishment for
breaking the covenant (Lev. 26:26,36). Solomon was aware that his parents'
first child had died as a result of judgment upon their immorality, and
that God had earlier summoned a sword upon David's family because of it.
It is as if he is saying that judgment was appropriate upon these
prostitutes. But the way of true wisdom and justice was not to do so. And
he had learned that by observing how God's sword of judgment had now been
withdrawn from his own family, by grace.
1Ki 3:25 The king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to
the one, and half to the other-
This was not Solomon's intention, as he stresses "in no way kill it"
(:27). It was done to elicit the psychological reaction of the women, and
this was to be the basis of discerning truth. Likewise truth is arrived at
in ways other than forensic examination of evidence and argumentation.
This is the way of the Spirit and true wisdom.
1Ki 3:26 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 in no way kill it! But the other said, It shall be
neither mine nor yours. Divide it-
The instinctive gut reaction of the true mother said it all and
showed her for who she was.
It may be that when the one said "Let (the baby) be neither mine nor
yours, but divide it", this is the Spirit's
description of her inner attitude, rather than the literal words she
spoke. But her inner thoughts were counted as her words (careful
re-reading and reflection make this seem most likely here).
"Heart" is literally 'womb', giving us the impression of deep connection
between the woman and the child. The woman who agreed "Divide it" was
acting in a psychologically credible way; she had lost her child, and
wanted the other woman to also lose her. That is surely why she was
willing for the king to kill the child.
1Ki 3:27 Then the king answered, Give her the living child, and in no way
kill it. She is its mother-
Solomon repeats verbatim the words of the real mother in :26,
thereby identifying with her- even though her story was palpably untrue on
some points. Having determined who the real mother was, Solomon could have
had the other woman executed for false witness and kidnapping a child. But
he doesn't. And the very fact he bothers personally judging between two
low life women reflects his primary fulfilment of Psalm 72 describing how
the Messianic king will bother judging even the lowest; all are
significant to Him. The law's requirement that he whore be put to death is shown to be
inappropriate as we imagine the poor infant in the presence of these low
life women. To save its life but then execute its mother would have been
wrong. True wisdom and justice (:28) saw far beyond this letter of the
law. And this is the pattern for us today.
1Ki 3:28 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-
But as noted on :16, that "justice" was not the judgment which the
law required for prostitutes. "The
wisdom of God was in the midst of him" (1 Kings 3:28 AVmg) looks ahead to
the description of the Lord Jesus in Col. 2:3. On one hand Solomon was a
type of Christ, but in reality it was rather that he had been potentially
empowered to be the Messianic seed, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus
fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon a failed,
marred reflection of Him.
Previous Chapter
