I've puzzled over this story since I first heard it in Sunday School.  I'll wait to see what others have to say.

It is entirely possible that this is not a literal story from the life of Solomon but is rather a parable that speaks to the self sacrificial nature of a mothers love and perhaps also to the bitterness and jealousy that grief can sometimes generate.

Hi Beloved,

What lengths would a parent go to in order to prevent harm from coming to their child?

First, sympathy.  Who in their right mind would want to be a part of that story?  Pain and grief all around.

Cut the baby in half.  Problem solved.  

How is the King going to come out on the short end of the stick here?  

They are two prostitutes who do you think actually cares about them or their bastard children?  Quite frankly I'm amazed this got as far as the king and some junior noble didn't make them all disappear rather than humiliate the King by bringing two squabbling prostitutes before him.

She is grieving, not necessarily evil.  In her grief she is not making decisions that take into account the well-being of others (certainly not the living child's).  It isn't like she has a support system she can lean upon.  Likely the child was the only family she had that was willing to be near her and now she has lost that.

Not necessarily wise, certainly loving.  Willing to give up her child just so that it might live.  Willing to allow it to grow up thinking that a woman not its mother is its mother.  The life of the child is the primary concern.

I note that the King doesn't mention anything about their profession.  As far as he is concerned they are simply two mothers in a conflict about a living child and a dead one.

He gives them, at the very least, the dignity of listening to their cases and testing the depths of the love for the living child they each profess.  The one with the greatest love wins the right to raise a child.

What about the other woman?  What does she get?

Grace and peace to you.

John

The story itself is not very believable.  I think somehow somebody heard an old folk tale and attributed it to King Solomon, trying to show his wisdom.  Personally, on reading the scriptures, I don't think Solomon was particularly wise.  Rather I see him as ruthless, power hungry, driven - without compassion.  Look what he did to his half-brother Adjoniah.  Consider the fact that he had 1000 wives and/or concubines.  And the fact that despite the fact that he built up a powerful nation after inheriting his position, he made no provision for its continuance and shortly after his death his kingdom was split and never again regained its prominence.   No - not wise.

So, consider the unlikely chance that two prostitutes actually present themselves before his throne with a personal quarrel, that has nothing to do with him or with trade and commerce or expansion of his empire.   He honestly puts his mind to settling this dispute.  And he orders the baby to be split in two.  No matter - it's of little concern of his.  Wouldn't it be better to consider some evidence?   How old is the baby?  Which woman does it respond to?   What about family traits?  I know they didn't have DNA testing to rely upon, but which woman does the baby look like?  What witnesses are there?  Contrary to some people's opinion, not all babies look alike.  Surely there are some people who know which mother had the long, skinny baby? or the one with the full head of hair?  or the birthmark?    What about the midwife - she may remember which mother she attended to give birth to this particular baby.    I think there are various ways of trying to determine parenthood without the risk of killing the baby.

As for the two women - how much do they value the child?   We don't even know if it is a boy or a girl.  In this society many babies (especially girls) were exposed to die, or raised neglected and unwanted.    Perhaps the real mother would be relieved to be spared the burden of raising a child.  And the other woman - why does she want it?  Babies aren't interchangable.  Why isn't she grieving her own child's death, rather than immediately claiming another? 

The story doesn't hold water for me.

thanks to all for your analysis of the story.  I am commenting it so I keep seeing responses.  

Very entirely possible, as is with many stories and parables in the bible.

This is actually one of my favourite stories.

It's a fabulous example of thinking outside the box.

i don't believe for a minute that King Solomon ever intended to cut the baby in half.

It was a bluff. It was an ingenious, spontaneous, off-the-cuff bit of thinking on Solomon's part. He figured the bluff would flush out the true mother.

(Otherwise, he would have had to listen to both of them arguing back and forth forever. After all, he couldn't do a DNA test to determine the true mother.)

And yes, we have modern examples of distraught women who kidnap other children to replace their child who tragically died. That part of the story doesn't strike me as something that would never happen.)

Your thoughts are more along my line of thinking too, GO.

At the beginning of the story it says that both women had sons.

Perhaps her loss, and guilt of how the loss took place, sent her to a place of denial, and in her denial and emotional duress, she chose to pretend it hadn't happened. And for it not to have happened she needed a live baby, and so took one. Maybe she was not in a place to grieve as she couldn't mentally accept the loss in the first place. So she took another baby to be hers.

<

I liked your responses to the questions, Rev. John.

this women is left with leaky breasts, truth to be realized, empty arms, a baby to bury, and the opportunity now to grieve.

I always thought it was a good story.  Of course today they would have taken the child away from both mothers, placed him in a foster home and waited for the DNA testing. I'm not sure it was ever the intention of Solomon to actually use the sword, but rather an innovative way to seek, "what is the truth"? For me it says there are many paths or ways to seek truth that can lead to opening our eyes, and in this instance, others eventually saw the wisdom in it also.

Whether it really happened or not is neither here nor there for me. For one the truth revealed was not so pleasant, for the other it was sheer joy.

Same for me, waterfall.

What makes some people believe that King Solomon was bluffing? One of the women in the story obviously thought he wasn't bluffing and the one who was calling his bluff maybe she didn't care one way or another. If king Henry the VIII tried the same thing would we have called him wise? You think we were talking about a fish here. I don't see the wisdom in it.

I agree.  There is no indication in this story that Solomon was bluffing.  He was a violent, cruel and ruthless dictator.  He had killed, or ordered to be killed.  He had 1000 wives; he no doubt had children of his own who he wouldn't even recognize from his one night stand with their mother.  This baby's life would have meant nothing to him. 

Sort of reminds me of judgement day. Who lives, who dies, who recieves grace from the king. Or am I off base with that?

Thinking back to Church School and the stories like this one that are told as truth. No wonder young teens and young adults, who don't get the opportunity of this kind of discussion, are leery about the bible.

I'm doubtful that this approach would really work very well when people are fighting over a baby, but it works every time when students are fighting over pencils.  I'm sure I've used this strategy at least a dozen times over the years and the kids are always amazed that I can tell who really owns the pencil.

Two prostitutes having babies- likely no result of a loving relationship. The question is, what relationship do those mothers develop with the baby? It seems, they both accept their existence and care for them. Mother #1 looses her son- and the fact that she steals the other as a replacement tells that her relationship with her baby was a possessive one- she likely knew the other prostitute and now can't stand that "she has what I don't". So it's logical that she doesn't care if the baby gets cut in half. Woman #1 is poorer than woman #2, she needed the baby's love, the confirmation of "having a son", a conditional love to increase her self worth.
Woman #2, even though in the same status as #1, must have a sturdier self worth, being able to love unconditionally.

As for the king- if her really had that many wives as seeler says, my hunch is, they got to go before him, because he was the father of both kids.

mrs.anteater - I don't say that Solomon had 1000 wives and/or concubines - the Bible says so.  In this story we seem to be considering the Bible as literally true.  Solomon was wise.  Two women came before him with a dispute over a baby.  Solomon displayed his wisdom in his decision.   If I'm asked to consider this as though it was factual, I think I also have to consider it factual that he had 1000 women. 

Enter the logistics.   365 nights in a year.  1000 women.  How often would he spend time with any one of them?   I would think there would have been a lot of one night stands and then off to the harem.  And a real possibility that many children were born that he was completely unaware of. 

Possibly these two women, described as prostitutes, were among his concubines and that he had fathered their children.  That might account for the fact that they apparently looked so much alike that no one was called to testify that this baby did indeed belong to this woman, and the chubby, round faced dead baby belonged to the other woman.   If they were half-brothers, they may have looked alike.

I still don't see this story attesting to wisdom.

I don't know why . . . but I've never thought of Solomon as possibly being the father as these two children.

But I see several have mentioned it in above posts.  Interesting!

But, just like it doesn't matter to me whether the story is literal or true, it doesn't matter to me whether he is the father or not.  That's one thing about biblical stories - they throw a lot of details in (as in 1000 wives) and leave out a lot of what I think would be more important for me to know.  I guess this allows for those who read the stories to interpret and dream as they desire.