At that time two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’āz šə·ta·yim nā·šîm zō·nō·wṯ tā·ḇō·nāh ’el- ham·me·leḵ wat·ta·‘ă·mō·ḏə·nāh lə·p̄ā·nāw
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Solomon Judges Wisely
1 Kings 3:16–28 — Solomon Judges Wisely. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
At that time two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’āz šə·ta·yim nā·šîm zō·nō·wṯ tā·ḇō·nāh ’el- ham·me·leḵ wat·ta·‘ă·mō·ḏə·nāh lə·p̄ā·nāw
One woman said, “Please, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house, and I gave birth while she was in the house.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·’a·ḥaṯ hā·’iš·šāh wat·tō·mer bî ’ă·ḏō·nî haz·zōṯ wə·hā·’iš·šāh ’ă·nî yō·šə·ḇōṯ ’e·ḥāḏ bə·ḇa·yiṯ wā·’ê·lêḏ ‘im·māh bab·bā·yiṯ
On the third day after I gave birth, this woman also had a baby. We were alone, with no one in the house but the two of us.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·hî haš·šə·lî·šî bay·yō·wm lə·liḏ·tî hā·’iš·šāh haz·zōṯ gam- wat·tê·leḏ wa·’ă·naḥ·nū yaḥ·dāw ’it·tā·nū ’ên- zār bab·ba·yiṯ zū·lā·ṯî šə·ta·yim- ’ă·naḥ·nū bab·bā·yiṯ
During the night this woman’s son died because she rolled over on him.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lā·yə·lāh haz·zōṯ hā·’iš·šāh ben- way·yā·māṯ ’ă·šer šā·ḵə·ḇāh ‘ā·lāw
So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I was asleep. She laid him in her bosom and put her dead son at my bosom.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wat·tā·qām bə·ṯō·wḵ hal·lay·lāh wat·tiq·qaḥ ’eṯ- bə·nî mê·’eṣ·lî wa·’ă·mā·ṯə·ḵā yə·šê·nāh wat·taš·kî·ḇê·hū bə·ḥê·qāh wə·’eṯ- hiš·kî·ḇāh ham·mêṯ bə·nāh ḇə·ḥê·qî
The next morning, when I got up to nurse my son, I discovered he was dead. But when I examined him, I realized that he was not the son I had borne.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
bab·bō·qer wā·’ā·qum lə·hê·nîq ’eṯ- bə·nî wə·hin·nêh- mêṯ bab·bō·qer wā·’eṯ·bō·w·nên ’ê·lāw wə·hin·nêh hā·yāh lō- ḇə·nî ’ă·šer yā·lā·ḏə·tî
“No,” said the other woman, “the living one is my son and the dead one is your son.” But the first woman insisted, “No, the dead one is yours and the living one is mine.” So they argued before the king.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō ḵî wat·tō·mer hā·’a·ḥe·reṯ hā·’iš·šāh ha·ḥay bə·nî ham·mêṯ ū·ḇə·nêḵ wə·zōṯ ’ō·me·reṯ lō ḵî ham·mêṯ bə·nêḵ he·ḥāy ū·ḇə·nî wat·tə·ḏab·bê·rə·nāh lip̄·nê ham·me·leḵ
Then the king replied, “This woman says, ‘My son is alive and yours is dead,’ but that woman says, ‘No, your son is dead and mine is alive.’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer zōṯ ’ō·me·reṯ zeh- bə·nî ha·ḥay ū·ḇə·nêḵ ham·mêṯ wə·zōṯ ’ō·me·reṯ lō ḵî bə·nêḵ ham·mêṯ ū·ḇə·nî he·ḥāy
The king continued, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought him a sword,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer qə·ḥū lî- ḥā·reḇ way·yā·ḇi·’ū ha·ḥe·reḇ lip̄·nê ham·me·leḵ
and the king declared, “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer giz·rū ’eṯ- ha·ḥay hay·ye·leḏ liš·nā·yim ū·ṯə·nū ’eṯ- ha·ḥă·ṣî lə·’a·ḥaṯ wə·’eṯ- ha·ḥă·ṣî lə·’e·ḥāṯ
Then the woman whose son was alive spoke to the king because she yearned with compassion for her son. “Please, my lord,” she said, “give her the living baby. Do not kill him!” But the other woman said, “He will be neither mine nor yours. Cut him in two!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·’iš·šāh ’ă·šer- bə·nāh ha·ḥay wat·tō·mer ’el- ham·me·leḵ kî- niḵ·mə·rū ra·ḥă·me·hā ‘al- bə·nāh bî ’ă·ḏō·nî wat·tō·mer tə·nū- lāh ’eṯ- ha·ḥay hay·yā·lūḏ ’al- tə·mî·ṯu·hū wə·hā·mêṯ wə·zōṯ ’ō·me·reṯ yih·yeh lō gam- lî ḡam- lāḵ gə·zō·rū
Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. By no means should you kill him; she is his mother.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer way·ya·‘an tə·nū- ha·ḥay hay·yā·lūḏ lāh ’eṯ- lō ṯə·mî·ṯu·hū wə·hā·mêṯ hî ’im·mōw
When all Israel heard of the judgment the king had given, they stood in awe of him, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ḵāl yiś·rā·’êl way·yiš·mə·‘ū ’eṯ- ham·miš·pāṭ ’ă·šer ham·me·leḵ šā·p̄aṭ way·yir·’ū mip·pə·nê ham·me·leḵ kî rā·’ū kî- ḥā·ḵə·maṯ ’ĕ·lō·hîm bə·qir·bōw la·‘ă·śō·wṯ miš·pāṭ
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens with אָז (’āz), a loose "at that time" which Cambridge explicitly refuses to read as immediate succession upon the dream at Gibeon. Who the women are is the first thing the commentators fight over: Benson and Poole both record the old rendering "victuallers," Gill reports the Targum and Ben Gersom to the same effect, and the Pulpit dismisses the etymology as not to be entertained for a moment while conceding the children may have been born out of wedlock. ⚙ The text's own indifference is worth noticing. It never says whether they were harlots or hostesses, and the justice done does not depend on the answer.
What the Hebrew does establish, with three deliberate words, is that no human court could settle this. The births are הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, three days apart, so Poole notes the children "could not be distinguished by their age." The women were יַחְדָּו, together as one company. And there was אֵין־זָר, no stranger, no outsider, in the house. The Pulpit says emphasis is laid on this fact as showing the possibility of the fraud and the impossibility of producing proof; Cambridge says flatly that the word of one was as good as that of the other; Poole concludes that the testimonies were "of equal credit, i.e. of none at all." ⚙ Three commentators, one verdict: the evidentiary door is shut before the trial begins.
Everything decisive happens where no one can see. לָיְלָה in v. 19, בְּתוֹךְ הַלַּיְלָה in v. 20, and then twice בַּבֹּקֶר in v. 21. K&D reconstruct the sequence tightly: one woman "overlaid" her child while asleep, then placed the dead child in the other's bosom and took the living one. Hebrew makes the crime a grammatical mutation of the accident: שָׁכְבָה, she lay (Qal, v. 19), becomes וַתַּשְׁכִּיבֵהוּ, she caused him to lie (Hifil, v. 20). The same root, once careless and once calculated.
The Pulpit catches the plaintiff's own self-refutation without needing to say so: she calls herself אֲמָתְךָ, your handmaid, asleep, and Gill presses it, "how could she know what she did when she was asleep? this she could not prove, it was only conjecture." ⚙ Her case is strongest exactly where it is least provable. Then comes v. 21, the finest piece of narration in the unit: two occurrences of וְהִנֵּה and two of בַּבֹּקֶר. The Pulpit marks the second "behold" as a second discovery, and reads the second morning as broad daylight, clara luce; Cambridge glosses וָאֶתְבּוֹנֵן as "a careful examination, a looking over and over." ⚙ A woman of no legal standing, in the dark, performs the act of discernment the king will be praised for in v. 28. The verb she uses, bîyn, is from the same family as the discerning heart Solomon asked God for in this very chapter.
By v. 22 the speech collapses into repetition: וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה, a Piel, intensive, iterative. Gill: "several times, over and over again." Poole: "Both peremptorily and vehemently affirmed the same thing, oft repeating the same words." ⚙ The court has run out of language.
The king's first act is not to judge but to recite. In v. 23 he restates both claims in their own participles, אֹמֶרֶת, "this one is saying," with nothing added. Gill reads the move as procedural: "this he repeated to show to all present that no determination could be made by what had been said on each side, and that some other method must be taken." Then v. 24, and the Pulpit notices the article the English loses: they brought the sword, the executioner's sword. Cambridge notes the two verbs differ and would render the command "Fetch me a sword."
Whether the order in v. 25 was ever a real intention is the question the tradition splits on. Poole says he spoke "with seeming sincerity and earnestly, though with a design far above the reach of the two women." Gill agrees the design was to try the affections, but concedes some think Solomon already knew. Benson reports the strongest version of that dissent: Abarbinel held that Solomon had discovered the truth beforehand from the women's faces and manner of speech, and that the sword was staged only "to notify to the company what he before had discovered." Cambridge rejects Josephus's variant, that both children were to be halved, and states the purpose exactly: "He was not wishing to make a fair division of the two children, but, by threatening the living one, to bring to light the maternal feeling." Ellicott is the most honest of all: it is an appeal "which might, of course, fail."
What the sword brings to light in v. 26 is a physical verb. נִכְמְרוּ רַחֲמֶיהָ, her compassions grew hot. Cambridge gives the literal sense of kâmar as "to grow excessively warm" and notes rachamim is the plural of the womb-word; the Pulpit compares τὰ σπλάγχνα in Paul and glosses the Hebrew simply "glowed." She cries בִּי אֲדֹנִי, the same rare particle that opened her case, and Gill records the rendering "on me, my lord": let the guilt and punishment fall on me. Geneva: "she would rather endure the rigor of the law than see her child cruelly slain." The other woman answers with one bare imperative, גְּזֹרוּ. The Pulpit calls this "by far the greatest difficulty in the story" and can only suppose she grasped at any escape from her own position. Cambridge observes she is no longer speaking to the king at all but to the men holding the sword.
The ruling in v. 27 is a quotation. The Pulpit shows it from the vocabulary: the king echoes the mother's exact words, including the unusual הַיָּלוּד, "the born one," a word used only here and in v. 26. Cambridge preserves Dr Bernard's reading of the syntax, that the king repeats her sentence and then appends his own three words, הִיא אִמּוֹ, "she is his mother." ⚙ The verdict is her own speech given back to her with the force of law. Benson: her motherhood is evident "from her natural affection to the child, which she had rather have given away from her than destroyed."
The closing verse uses מִשְׁפָּט twice, first as the noun for the verdict given and last as the object of לַעֲשׂוֹת, to do justice, and שָׁפַט once as the verb between them. ⚙ Justice here is something performed, not merely possessed. Israel's response is וַיִּרְאוּ, from yârêʼ, to fear, a near homophone of rāʼû, "they saw," in the next clause: they feared because they saw. Cambridge explains the fear as awe at a judge from whom there was no escape; the Pulpit compares the crowd's reaction to Christ's authority in Luke 4:36 and Luke 8:25, following Bahr.
On the phrase חָכְמַת אֱלֹהִים the voices divide with unusual precision. Poole allows two readings: either a superlative idiom, "great and eminent wisdom, as the cedars or mountains of God are the highest," or genuinely divine wisdom given by inspiration. Barnes chooses the second, "a wisdom given by God," and adds the sober note that what was displayed was "ready tact and knowledge of human nature." Cambridge says "a superhuman discernment had taken up its home within him." The Hebrew backs Cambridge's preposition: בְּקִרְבּוֹ, qereb, in his inward parts. ⚙ Two of these readings are not compatible, and the text does not adjudicate between them; the honest position is Ellicott's, that what men call a touch of genius, "Scripture here calls the 'wisdom of God.'"
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the text. The chapter has already told us what Solomon asked for: a hearing heart, to discern between good and evil. What this narrative then shows is not a clever man solving a puzzle but a court discovering that truth is not always reachable by evidence. Three days between births, one house, no stranger: by any procedure Israel had, the case is undecidable, and both women know it.
So the king stops seeking proof and creates a situation in which love must act. He does not divide the child; he divides the women, by putting the child in danger and watching what each one is willing to lose. The liar will accept a dead child rather than admit a lie. The mother will accept a lost child rather than a dead one. Love shows itself where it surrenders, and the surrender is what identifies her. Henry saw this precisely: Solomon "could not try which the child loved best, and therefore tried which loved the child best."
⚙ Two cautions against making this a method. First, Ellicott is right that the appeal could have failed, and a maternal instinct is not a reliable instrument; the text calls the outcome the wisdom of God rather than a technique, and the Geneva note on v. 24 says the same thing negatively: "Unless God gives judges understanding, the impudency of the trespasser will overthrow the just cause of the innocent." Second, there is a real ugliness here that the tradition does not paper over. The Pulpit admits the pretender's demand to divide the child is the hardest thing in the story, and Cambridge is dry about her fine feelings. A wisdom that can find the truth does not thereby make people good.
⚙ What the unit finally asserts is narrower and heavier than a moral about mother love: that God gave a king the capacity to do mishpat where human procedure had nothing left, and that Israel's response to seeing it was fear. The pullquote below is a machine line, not Scripture.
The sword was fetched to save a life, and the one who let go of the child was the one who kept it.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The word the BSB renders "Please" in vv. 17 and 26 is בִּי (bîy, H994), and it is rare: the Verifier finds it in only twelve verses in the Hebrew Bible, and in nearly all of them it is joined, as here, to אֲדֹנִי. It is Judah's word when he steps forward to offer himself in place of Benjamin before the ruler of Egypt (Genesis 44:18), and his brothers' word at Genesis 43:20; Moses' word twice in refusing the burning bush (Exodus 4:10, 13); Gideon's (Judges 6:13, 15); Manoah's (Judges 13:8); Joshua's on his face before the LORD (Joshua 7:8); Aaron's when he pleads for Miriam (Numbers 12:11); and Hannah's when she gives up her son at the sanctuary (1 Samuel 1:26). ⚙ The company is consistent: someone with no standing, addressing someone with all the power, about a life. Gill preserves the older rendering "on me, my lord," following Montanus and Abarbinel, which if right makes the word a self-imprecation rather than a courtesy.
Genesis 44:18 · 1 Samuel 1:26 · Exodus 4:10
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H994 bîy, a rare particle occurring in only 12 verses canon-wide (Genesis 44:18, 1 Samuel 1:26 and Exodus 4:10 each also share H113 ʼâdôwn, in 285 vv). A genuine verbal link, not a quotation of one passage by another.
כָּמַר (kâmar, H3648) is one of the rarest verbs in this unit's vocabulary: the Verifier finds it in four verses in the entire Hebrew Bible. Cambridge gives its literal sense as "to grow excessively warm"; the Pulpit renders it "glowed." With רַחֲמִים (racham, H7356, the plural of the womb-word) it appears at Genesis 43:30, where Joseph's compassion grows hot toward his brother and he must leave the room to weep, and at Hosea 11:8, where the same two roots are on God's own lips: his compassions are kindled together over Ephraim whom he will not give up. The fourth occurrence, Lamentations 5:10, uses the verb of skin scorched black with famine heat, with no compassion in view at all. ⚙ That fourth case is a caution: the shared root is a heat word first, and only becomes a mercy word in company with racham. Read carefully, the link is striking rather than sentimental: a woman in a courtroom, a brother turning away to cry, and God refusing to destroy, all described by one verb for something burning inside.
Genesis 43:30 · Hosea 11:8 · Lamentations 5:10
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H3648 kâmar, in only 4 vv canon-wide; Genesis 43:30 additionally shares H7356 racham (in 44 vv), Hosea 11:8 additionally shares H3162 yachad (in 139 vv). Rare-lexeme verbal link; no passage quotes another, and Lamentations 5:10 uses the root in a different semantic field.
The king's order at v. 25 and the pretender's echo at v. 26 both use גָּזַר (gâzar, H1504), "to cut down or off," which the Verifier finds in thirteen verses. It is not the ordinary word for slicing something; it is the word for severance from a community or from life. Psalm 88:5 sets it beside שָׁכַב (shâkab, H7901, the very verb of the overlaying in vv. 19 and 20): the psalmist lies among the slain in the grave, remembered no more, "cut off" from God's hand. 2 Chronicles 26:21 uses it of Uzziah the leper king, cut off from the house of the LORD, and pairs it with מִשְׁפָּט-adjacent language of judgment, shâphaṭ. Isaiah 53:8 has it of the Servant, taken away by oppression and mishpat and cut off out of the land of the living. ⚙ The resonance is real but should not be overdrawn: this is a shared, moderately rare verb operating within a common motif of severance, not a citation. What it does show is that Solomon's threatened sentence uses the canon's vocabulary of being cut off from the living, which is exactly the horror the true mother hears in it.
Isaiah 53:8 · Psalm 88:5 · 2 Chronicles 26:21
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H1504 gâzar (in 13 vv) with all three refs; Psalm 88:5 also shares H7901 shâkab (in 190 vv), Isaiah 53:8 also shares H4941 mishpâṭ (in 395 vv), 2 Chronicles 26:21 also shares H8199 shâphaṭ (in 182 vv). Deliberately tiered structural rather than verbal: the lexeme is shared but no passage quotes another, and the link is a motif of severance.
⚙ This thread is the tool's own observation and carries no Verifier lexeme match. Solomon's first recorded act of judgment is a refusal to cut a living thing in two so that two claimants may each hold half. The book of Kings then narrates, of Solomon's own house, the opposite outcome: a prophet tears a garment into pieces and the kingdom is torn from his son, and Israel walks away from the house of David. The vocabulary differs (the tearing of the kingdom does not use gâzar), so this is a narrative pattern and nothing stronger. But the pattern is hard to miss: the king whose wisdom preserved one child intact left a nation that was halved, and the second halving was a judgment, not a bluff.
1 Kings 11:31 · 1 Kings 12:16
basis: No Verifier lexeme match was supplied for this pair and none is claimed; the recorded basis is a narrative motif of division within the book of Kings itself, observed by the machine layer. Stated as pattern, not as quotation or verbal link.
⚙ The Gospels name this scene's protagonist directly. Jesus tells his hearers that the Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and that something greater than Solomon is here (Matthew 12:42). The Pulpit, following Bahr, already makes the connection from the other side: the awe of Israel at v. 28 is the reaction recorded of the crowds at Christ's authority in Luke 4:36 and Luke 8:25. Isaiah 11:3 to 4 describes a coming ruler who will not judge by what his eyes see nor decide by what his ears hear, which is precisely the impasse of 1 Kings 3:18, no witness in the house. ⚙ Because this crosses Testaments, no shared Strong's number can support it and none is claimed; the link is a pattern of royal discernment, plus the New Testament's own explicit naming of Solomon's wisdom.
Matthew 12:42 · Isaiah 11:3 · Luke 8:25
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so shared Strong's numbers are impossible and no verbal tier is claimed. Basis: the New Testament's explicit naming of Solomon's wisdom at Matthew 12:42, the Pulpit Commentary's own citation of Luke 4:36 and Luke 8:25 at 1 Kings 3:28, and the shared motif of a king who judges without evidence (Isaiah 11:3).
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The unit ends by saying Israel feared the king because they saw that the wisdom of God was בְּקִרְבּוֹ, within him. Cambridge: "A superhuman discernment had taken up its home within him." Barnes insists the phrase means "a wisdom given by God," tying it back to the grant of 1 Kings 3:12. ⚙ The New Testament takes up exactly this figure. Jesus names Solomon's wisdom and claims to exceed it (Matthew 12:42); John reports that he needed no one to testify about man, because he knew what was in man, which is the impasse of 1 Kings 3:18 answered from the other side; and Isaiah 11:3 had already promised a ruler who would not judge by the hearing of his ears. The Pulpit, citing Bahr, notices that the awe of Israel at v. 28 is the same reaction the Gospels record before Christ's authority (Luke 4:36; Luke 8:25). This reading is the old one: Solomon as the type of the wise king whose greater antitype judges rightly, held widely across the Christian tradition rather than invented here.
Matthew 12:42 · John 2:25 · Isaiah 11:3
⚙ This particular connection is the machine layer's own and is offered as novel. The word by which Solomon threatens the child, גָּזַר (gâzar, H1504, in 13 verses), is the word Isaiah 53:8 uses of the Servant: taken away by oppression and by mishpat, and cut off out of the land of the living. In 1 Kings 3 the sentence of cutting off is never executed; a woman surrenders her claim and the child lives. In Isaiah 53 the sentence falls, and the Servant does not plead for himself. ⚙ The correspondence is inverse rather than direct, and the shared lexeme is a real but modest link, so no verbal claim is made here. What can be said honestly is this: the same canon that shows a wise king sparing a child under the raised sword also shows a righteous Servant not spared, and both scenes are described with the same verb and the same noun mishpat. The reading of Isaiah 53 as fulfilled in Christ is ancient and apostolic (Acts 8:32 to 35); the specific pairing with Solomon's courtroom is not, and the reader should weigh it as a suggestion.
Isaiah 53:8 · Acts 8:32
Geneva on v. 26: "Her motherly affection appears in that she would rather endure the rigor of the law than see her child cruelly slain." Gill goes further, keeping the rendering "on me, my lord": she asks that the blame and the punishment fall on her, "rather chose to be reckoned a liar, and to endure any punishment such an offence deserved, than that her child should be cut asunder." Henry states the principle: he "tried which loved the child best." ⚙ Read redemptively, the shape is familiar without needing to be forced. The one who relinquishes possession to preserve life is the one the king names as the true parent; the one who insists on her legal claim would rather have a corpse than lose face. The New Testament states the same logic as a law of the kingdom, that whoever would save his life will lose it, and calls self-giving the mark of the true shepherd as against the hireling who does not own the sheep (John 10:11 to 13). ⚙ The correspondence of pattern is genuine; the woman is not presented as a figure of Christ, and this synthesis does not claim she is.
John 10:11 · Mark 8:35
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text: Hebrew consonantal and Masoretic pointing as given in the Berean interlinear; Scripture quoted from the BSB. Word indices in the notes follow the interlinear ordering supplied in the brief, which in several verses follows the English clause order rather than the Hebrew word order; the literal renderings above have been rebuilt in Hebrew order, so the two will not always line up one to one. Verse 24 index 3 and verse 26 indices 16, 28 and 30 carry no Strong's number in the source data (inseparable prepositions with suffix) and have not been glossed as lexemes.
Sources: eleven public-domain commentators are present for this unit. Several entries are chapter-level rather than verse-level and are repeated by the source across every verse: Matthew Henry's concise note on 3:16 to 28, the JFB heading note, the K&D summary of the whole episode, and, through vv. 16 to 25, an Albert Barnes entry that in fact concerns the sacrifices earlier in the chapter and says nothing about this trial. Barnes is therefore quoted here only at v. 28, where his note is genuinely on the text. Where a commentator is quoted, the words are contiguous and verbatim; nothing has been stitched or modernized.
What is uncertain. (1) The women's occupation: zōnōwṯ is a participle of zânâh, and the "innkeeper" reading preserved by the Targum, Ben Gersom, Poole, Benson and Gill is a traditional softening that the Pulpit rejects on lexical grounds. This synthesis reports the dispute and takes no side. (2) Whether Solomon knew the answer before drawing the sword: Gill allows it, Benson transmits Abarbinel's full argument for it, Poole and Cambridge assume the test was real, Ellicott holds that it could have failed. The text does not say. (3) The sense of חָכְמַת אֱלֹהִים in v. 28: Poole offers a superlative idiom ("as the cedars or mountains of God") alongside the theological sense; Barnes and Benson take it as divine gift. These readings are not fully compatible and the verse does not decide between them. (4) Josephus's details (the two births in the same hour; an order to divide both children) are first-century embellishments reported by Cambridge, not features of the Hebrew, and Cambridge rejects the second. (5) The Grotius parallel of Ariopharnes king of Thrace, cited by both K&D and the Pulpit from Diodorus Siculus, is an ancient literary analogue only; it carries no evidential weight for the biblical account and is not used here as a thread.
Thread tiering: two threads carry a verbal tier on genuinely rare shared lexemes (H994 bîy, 12 verses; H3648 kâmar, 4 verses). The gâzar thread has been deliberately downgraded to structural despite a shared lexeme, because the link is a motif of severance and no passage quotes another. The kingdom-division thread rests on no Verifier match at all and says so. Both cross-Testament items are tiered structural, never verbal, since Greek and Hebrew cannot share Strong's numbers. Of the three Christ readings, one is marked ancient and widely held and two are marked novel; the reader is asked to test them rather than receive them. The sola pullquote is a machine sentence and is not Scripture.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)