Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
Solomon, asking God for wisdom, obtains it. Then, at verse 16, he settles the dispute of two women who had given birth, quarreling over the living child, with wonderful sagacity, and thus wins the highest authority and favor with everyone.
Vulgate Text: 3 Kings 3:1-28
1. So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon, and he made an alliance by marriage with Pharaoh king of Egypt; for he took his daughter and brought her into the city of David until he finished building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall around Jerusalem. 2. But the people were sacrificing on the high places, because there was no temple built for the name of the Lord until that day. 3. And Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, except that he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. 4. So he went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place: Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar at Gibeon. 5. At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and said: Ask what you wish Me to give you.
6. And Solomon said: You showed great mercy to Your servant David my father, as he walked before You in truth, and justice, and uprightness of heart with You; You have kept for him this great mercy, and have given him a son sitting upon his throne, as it is this day. 7. And now, O Lord God, You have made Your servant king in place of David my father; but I am a very young child, and I do not know my going out or my coming in. 8. And Your servant is in the midst of the people whom You have chosen, an immense people, who cannot be numbered or counted for their multitude. 9. Give therefore to Your servant a docile heart, that he may judge Your people, and discern between good and evil; for who will be able to judge this people, this great people of Yours? 10. And the word pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked such a thing. 11. And the Lord said to Solomon: Because you have asked this word, and have not asked for yourself long life, nor riches, nor the lives of your enemies, but have asked for yourself wisdom to discern judgment, 12. behold, I have done for you according to your words, and I have given you a wise and understanding heart, to such an extent that no one before you has been like you, nor shall anyone arise after you. 13. But also those things which you did not ask for, I have given you: namely riches and glory, so that no one has been like you among all the kings in all past days. 14. And if you walk in My ways, and keep My precepts and My commandments, as your father walked, I will make your days long. 15. Solomon therefore awoke, and understood that it was a dream; and when he had come to Jerusalem, he stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and offered holocausts, and made peace offerings, and gave a great feast to all his servants. 16. Then two women who were harlots came to the king, and stood before him; 17. one of whom said: I beseech you, my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house, and I gave birth in her presence in the bedroom. 18. And the third day after I gave birth, she also gave birth; and we were together, and no one else was with us in the house except the two of us. 19. And the son of this woman died in the night, for she lay upon him while sleeping and smothered him. 20. And rising in the silence of the dead of night, she took my son from my side while I, your handmaid, was sleeping, and laid him in her bosom; and her own son, who was dead, she placed in my bosom. 21. And when I rose in the morning to nurse my son, he appeared dead; and examining him more closely in the clear light, I discovered he was not the one I had borne. 22. The other woman answered: It is not as you say; but your son is dead, and mine is alive. On the contrary, the first woman said: You lie; for my son is alive, and your son is dead. And in this manner they contended before the king. 23. Then the king said: This one says: My son is alive, and your son is dead. And this one answers: No, but your son is dead, and mine is alive. 24. The king therefore said: Bring me a sword. And when they had brought a sword before the king, 25. Divide, he said, the living infant in two parts, and give half to one and half to the other. 26. But the woman whose son was alive said to the king (for her heart was moved with compassion for her son): I beseech you, my lord, give her the living infant, and do not kill him. On the contrary, the other woman said: Let him be neither mine nor yours, but let him be divided. 27. The king answered and said: Give this woman the living infant, and let him not be killed; for she is his mother. 28. All Israel therefore heard of the judgment which the king had judged, and they feared the king, seeing that the wisdom of God was in him to render judgment.
Verse 1: Solomon Made an Alliance with Pharaoh
Verse 1. He was joined in alliance with Pharaoh, king of Egypt; for he took his daughter as wife. Eupolemus, cited by Eusebius in Book 9 of the Preparation, last chapter, asserts that this Pharaoh was the one surnamed Vaphres, who is different from and much earlier than the Pharaoh Vaphres, or Ephree, or Apries, who was the grandson of Pharaoh Necho, the slayer of Josiah king of Judah, and the last of the Pharaohs, having been conquered and subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar, as I said on Jeremiah 44:30.
Solomon wished by this marriage to bind Pharaoh to himself, as a neighboring and powerful king, with whose help he might stabilize his kingdom and defend it against the force and power of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, etc.
Moreover, this marriage of a believer with an unbeliever was lawful, both because God had expressly forbidden the Jews only from taking as wives the daughters of the Canaanites, from whom there was a greater danger of perversion and idolatry, but not those of other nations, although He sufficiently showed that this too did not please Him on account of a similar danger, as will be evident in chapter 11, verse 1.
and also because it is likely that this Egyptian bride of Solomon was converted to Judaism; once this was done, it was lawful to marry her, for God permits this in Deuteronomy 21:20 and following. For thus Solomon had already married Naamah the Ammonite, and David the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, and Boaz Ruth the Moabite, and Salmon Rahab of Jericho, and Joseph the daughter of Potiphera the Egyptian, and Moses the daughter of Jethro the Midianite. So say Abulensis, Pineda, Serarius, Salianus, Sanchez, and others. Less correctly, therefore, the Hebrews in Seder Olam, Theodoret, and Procopius think that Solomon sinned by marrying a foreigner, on the grounds that God had forbidden it in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 7:3.
The Hebrews think that the epithalamium for these nuptials of Solomon with Pharaoh's daughter is sung in the Song of Songs; but they err, as I showed in my commentary on the Song. I admit, however, that allusions are made there to these nuptials, as when it says in Song of Songs 1:8: 'I have compared you to my steeds among the chariots of Pharaoh.' And chapter 3:11: 'Go forth and see, daughters of Zion, King Solomon in the diadem with which his mother crowned him on the day of his espousals'; which, although they literally apply to the nuptials of Christ with the Church, nevertheless allude to Solomon's marriage with the Egyptian woman, which was a type of those nuptials.
Finally, that Solomon married this Egyptian woman in the first year of his reign, while David was still living, is the opinion of Josephus, Serarius, and Sanchez, although Abulensis, Cedrenus, and Salianus place it in the third year.
Until he had finished building his own house. For after building the temple, Solomon built a house of his own for Pharaoh's daughter, about which see chapter 7:8; in the meantime, he assigned her a place in his palace, which was in the citadel of Zion.
Verse 2: The People Were Sacrificing on the High Places
Verse 2. But the people were sacrificing on the high places; for the temple had not been built. One may ask what these high places were, which are mentioned so frequently in the Books of Kings and Prophets. I answer that the high places were groves, or forests and woodlands planted on high mountains, hills, and shady recesses, in which most nations were accustomed to erect shrines and altars, as Homer, Virgil, and others attest, who teach that the ancients built tombs for their dead in groves, in which they first celebrated funeral rites, or offered worship to the heroes of the people, and soon began to sacrifice to them as though they were gods. They did this because lofty places are higher than others and closer to heaven, and therefore command more veneration among an uneducated people. Hence 'altar' (altare) is derived from 'height' (altitudo), as a high altar on which sacrifice is offered to the most high God; and the Greek word bomos, that is 'altar,' is derived from the Hebrew Bama, that is 'high place'; although the altar was not properly a high place. For Scripture, in 4 Kings 23:15, distinguishes between the altar and the high place; rather, the altar was in the high place, namely on a hill or mountain. Furthermore, groves, because they were dense and silent, inspired a certain sacred horror in the pagans, who superstitiously believed that gods dwelt there, whom they called Satyrs and Fauns, as gods of the forests. Hence temples were called fana from the Fauns; unless you prefer that the name was derived from fando, that is, from giving oracles.
Third, forests supply an abundant supply of timber for building shrines, altars, and funeral pyres on which victims might be burned; for this reason they erected high places in them.
Finally, forests, because they were leafy and pleasant, excited the pagans to practice in them their carnal rites, by which they served Bacchus through banquets and drunkenness, and Venus and Priapus through lust.
Thus Cyrus and the Persians, as Xenophon attests in Book 8, sacrificed in lofty places. Apollonius teaches the same about others in Book 2, On the Romans. The same is clear from the Capitol, in which they worshiped Jupiter Capitolinus. Hear Virgil, in Book 8 of the Aeneid:
'Hence to the Tarpeian seat and Capitol he leads, Golden now, once rough with woodland brambles. Already then a dread religion of the place Terrified the fearful rustics; already then they trembled at the grove and rock. This woodland, this hill with its leafy summit (What god, is uncertain) a god inhabits; the Arcadians Believe they have seen Jupiter himself.'
The same Virgil in Eclogue 7 lists the trees proper to the gods which the pagans consecrated in these groves:
'The poplar is most pleasing to Alcides (Hercules), the vine to Iacchus (Bacchus), The beautiful myrtle to Venus, his own laurel to Phoebus. Phyllis loves hazels.'
That the Canaanites likewise worshiped their gods in lofty groves and forests is evident from the fact that God frequently commands the Hebrews to burn and uproot them, as is clear from Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 7:5, and chapter 12:2, and chapter 16:21. In these places God directly and expressly forbids them from having high places such as the Canaanites had, in which they worshiped their false gods; but indirectly He also forbids them from sacrificing to Himself likewise in lofty forests and groves, but only in the tabernacle and at the altar designated by Him for that purpose and built by Moses, and especially in the temple soon to be built by Solomon.
The high places of the Hebrews, therefore, which are frequently mentioned in the Books of Kings and the Prophets, were of two kinds, of two classes. The first kind were those in which, after the manner of the pagans, they worshiped their gods and idols. These were manifestly unlawful, because they were dedicated to idols in offense against the true God. Hence the Prophets most severely inveigh against and thunder against them, as in Jeremiah chapter 7:31, Ezekiel chapter 6:3, Hosea chapter 10:8. Hence Solomon sinned most gravely in that, to please his pagan wives, he built groves and high places for their gods and idols, and worshiped them there; which King Hezekiah accordingly destroyed, his impious son Manasseh restored, and Josiah utterly abolished.
The second kind of high places were those in which the Hebrews sacrificed not to idols but to the true God. Thus Gideon offered sacrifice to God on a lofty rock, Judges 6:26.
Samuel did the same on a high place, 1 Kings 9:19, and Solomon here sacrificed on the high place of Gibeon, that is, at the tabernacle of Moses, which was then situated on the lofty and wooded hill of Gibeon.
Moreover, God did not love these second kind of high places because of the danger of paganism and idolatry; He tolerated them, however, until the fixed and stable temple should be built by Solomon in Jerusalem, for before that the tabernacle of Moses was mobile, and was transported from one place to another, and was even separated from the altar, as I said above. Hence it was inconvenient and difficult for many to sacrifice at it, and therefore they offered their victims at other lofty places.
Hence pious kings, such as Asa and Jehoshaphat, permitted high places erected to the true God; or if some were established for idols, they allowed them because, due to the ingrained custom of the idol-worshiping people, fearing sedition and rebellion, they could not prevent and remove them. More truly, however, as Abulensis holds in Questions 2 and 5, these kings only permitted high places in which sacrifice was offered to the true God, not to idols; which nevertheless the more pious kings did not permit but overthrew — namely David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, who are therefore alone among the other kings of Judah said not to have sinned, Sirach 49:5.
Moreover, that Samuel sacrificed at Ramah, Bethlehem, and other places, 1 Kings chapter 16, verses 4 and 5, and Elijah on Mount Carmel, 3 Kings 18:23, and David on the threshing floor of Araunah, 1 Kings last chapter, 18 — one must believe that they did this for grave and urgent reasons, and by God's inspiration and dispensation, as is evident regarding David from the cited passage.
For this reason — namely that all the high places might be removed — God willed that the temple be built by Solomon, and that sacrifice be offered to Him in it alone, so that in the one temple the unity of religion and Judaism might be preserved, and the Jews might be entirely kept from the profane and high-place sacrifices of the pagans. The same thing God had commanded to be done before the temple, in the tabernacle built by Moses, Leviticus 17:3 and 4. See what was said there.
Verse 3: Except That He Sacrificed on the High Places
Verse 3. Except that he sacrificed on the high places (those dedicated to the true God, about which I have already spoken). Hence Theodoret, Procopius, Abulensis, and Ribera in Book 1 On the Temple, chapter 2, think that before the building of the temple it was unlawful to sacrifice on the high places, and at least a venial sin, because Solomon is here criticized for sacrificing on the high places, although in other matters he loved the Lord and kept His precepts. The Hebrews, however, along with Lyra, Serarius, and others, think it was lawful — not as absolutely pleasing to God, but as conceded and permitted by Him until the firm and stable temple should be built. So also St. Augustine, Question 35 on Judges: 'God,' he says, 'tolerated rather than forbade the custom of His people, which outside His tabernacle nevertheless offered not to foreign gods but to the Lord their God, even hearing those who offered in this way.' But after the building of the temple, the high places were unlawful, and therefore David, Hezekiah, and Josiah removed them, although Asa, Amaziah, and Jehoshaphat tolerated them from fear of a greater evil — namely, lest if the high places of God were removed, the people would turn to the high places of the gods and the pagans, that is, to idols. Hence it is said of them: 'He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, etc., but nevertheless he did not remove the high places'; chapter 15:11 and 14, etc.
Verse 4: He Went to Gibeon to Sacrifice
4. He went therefore to Gibeon to sacrifice there, because at Gibeon was the tabernacle and altar of Moses; hence it was lawful to offer sacrifice there, and therefore it is soon called 'the great high place,' that is, the greatest and most revered, although the ark of the covenant was not at Gibeon but had been transferred from Kiriath-jearim to Zion by David, as is expressly stated in 2 Chronicles chapter 1:4 and 5. Note here the piety of Solomon, who begins his reign with the worship and invocation of God; for he offered a thousand victims, as follows, and therefore obtained from God wisdom so great as God had never granted to anyone.
Verse 5: The Lord Appeared to Solomon in a Dream
5. And the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, saying: Ask what you wish, that I may give it to you. One may ask what kind of dream this was for Solomon, and whether in it he had the use of free will, so that he freely asked God for wisdom, and therefore obtained it.
This question is debatable. For many affirm, many deny, and both sides offer probable reasons in their favor.
First, therefore, some think that this dream was natural, from daytime impressions naturally recurring at night in sleep; or naturally sent by God, so that it might be known that wisdom is to be desired by all men, but especially by kings and princes for governing wisely, above all other things, as supremely necessary for good governance. So says Abulensis. For since Solomon, praying and sacrificing at Gibeon during the day, had frequently and insistently begged God for wisdom, God brought it about that the same thought-impressions would naturally recur at night; so that Solomon sleeping would seem to himself to be asking for wisdom, and God to be granting it to him, according to that verse of Claudian:
'All the desires that are turned over in the senses during the day, Friendly rest returns in the nighttime.'
Aristotle teaches the same in his book On Dreams, and Hippocrates in his book On Insomnia.
If you say that this request of Solomon pleased God, and that he truly obtained wisdom through it, they reply that the request in his dream did not in itself please God, because it was the act of one dreaming, not freely requesting; but rather it was on account of another request for wisdom made by the same Solomon while awake, from which the one in the dream arose, and as an effect from a cause, naturally flowed. So St. Thomas, I-II, Question 113, article 3, reply to 2: 'Solomon,' he says, 'did not merit wisdom while sleeping, nor did he receive it, but in the dream it was declared that through his preceding desire wisdom would be infused into him by God.' He repeats the same in On Truth, Question 28, article 3, and II-II, Question 154, article 5, reply to 1. St. Augustine, in Book 12 of On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 15, whom St. Thomas cites. Likewise St. Bonaventure in Book 2, distinction 15, Question 6, number 72; Alexander of Hales in Book 4, Question 101, member 3, article 3; Richard, Quodlibet 1, Question 17; Sanchez, Salianus, Serarius, Pineda, Book 3 On Solomon, chapter 8; Pererius, Book 1 on Daniel, Question 7.
It is proved first because Solomon was sleeping and was in a dream; therefore all these things were represented to him not in reality but through a dream.
Second, because in verse 15, Scripture expressly says: 'Solomon awoke and understood that it was a dream.'
But the contrary opinion is no less probable; indeed, it offers stronger arguments — namely, that this dream was not natural but divine, and properly sent by God (although nature too, and Solomon's natural daytime thoughts, served God's purpose), and therefore it was not so much a dream as a prophetic vision or ecstasy, such as was the sleep of Adam, when God formed Eve from his rib, which the Septuagint call an ecstasy. For in it, by God's revelation, Adam knew of Christ's incarnation and the formation of the Church from His side, as St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Rupert, and others commonly teach. Such also was the dream of Abraham, Genesis 15:12, in which God revealed to Abraham and promised him a great posterity and the possession of Canaan. Such also was the dream of Joseph concerning his future rulership in Egypt, Genesis 37:5, and of Jacob, Genesis 28:12, where God in dreams promised him the same things as to Abraham, and indeed more.
It is proved first because Scripture expressly signifies this when it says: 'And the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, saying.' Behold, this was a true apparition and speech of God, which Solomon received, just as the prophets received God's oracles through both nocturnal and diurnal visions; therefore it was not a common and natural dream.
Second, because the following lengthy narrative recounts a true history, not a dreamed one. For God, truly speaking to Solomon, says: 'Ask what you wish, that I may give it to you,' and Solomon responds at length, asks for wisdom, and brings forward many weighty reasons for his request, and does so so wisely and prudently that he could not have spoken more prudently while awake. From this narrative and from Solomon's long discourse to God, it is clear that he had the most perfect reasoning and judgment, with consideration of God's majesty and His benefits, and of his own weakness and need in that royal state in which he had been placed; and that from this perfect reasoning and judgment he proposed that petition to God, and therefore it pleased Him.
Third, because in verse 11, God grants Solomon the reward of this his most wise and holy request, and consents to his desires, saying: 'Because you asked this word, etc., behold, I have done for you according to your words,' and not only this, but adds far more — namely riches, glory, long life, and magnificence above all kings. Scripture narrates all these things fully and accurately as having really happened, not in a dream, so that they can scarcely be twisted into another meaning and surpass and transcend any mere dream. And this is what Scripture meant in saying in verse 15: 'Solomon awoke and understood that it was a dream' — namely, not a human dream but a divine one, as I shall show at that verse.
Fourth, because God truly infused wisdom into Solomon in this dream, as Scripture signifies, for we can find or assign no other time at which Solomon received it; therefore equally truly Solomon in his dream prayed and asked for wisdom; for through prayer he obtained it, as is said in verses 11 and 12: 'Behold,' He says, 'I have done according to your words, and I have given you a wise heart.' So thinks Lyra, Dionysius, Salmeron in volume 3, treatise 22; Antonius Fernandez, in his Book on Visions, Prelude 7, numbers 8 and following; Hugo, the Gloss, Gonzalvo Cervantes on Wisdom chapter 7, verse 7, and at length and solidly Suarez in volume 2 On Religion, Book 2 On Prayer, chapter 19, where he teaches first that God can in sleep elevate the intellect and imagination to the perfect use of reason and to full judgment about truth whether speculative or practical, and that He did this in the sleep of Adam, Genesis 2. For God can so strengthen and clarify the imagination, and dispel all the vapors that impede it in sleep, that one can truly not only apprehend things but also rightly judge about them, while the external senses are preserved meanwhile in the same disposition that they have in natural sleep. St. Ambrose concurs in his commentary on Psalm 118, Octonary 18, at the end, where he asserts that Solomon then 'prayed' and 'merited.' Indeed, in Octonary 2, verse 2, he adds: 'Seeking God with his whole heart, he asked for wisdom, and because he demanded not royal wealth for himself but the gift of divine grace, he merited to receive the discipline of wisdom.' Tertullian also, in Book 4 Against Marcion, chapter 15, clearly holds that Solomon then had free choice, saying: 'With this option permitted to him, he preferred to ask for what he knew was pleasing to God — wisdom — and merited to obtain riches as well.' Eucherius speaks in the same manner, Question 2 on the 3rd Book of Kings, saying that Solomon prayed to God, etc.
Finally, in 2 Chronicles 1:7, where this same history is narrated, no mention is made of a dream: 'Behold,' it says, 'on that very night God appeared to him.' This dream was therefore a true apparition and vision of God, such as the other Prophets had.
To this opinion also, St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, and Richard ultimately incline, at the places already cited, when they add that Solomon by divine privilege could use reason and merit in his sleep; and St. Thomas, who in I-II, Question 113, article 3, reply to 2, gives a second response, saying: 'Or it can be said that that sleep was not natural but prophetic sleep, according to what is said in Numbers chapter 12: 'If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will speak to him in a dream or in a vision.' In which case one has the use of free will."
You will object: Sleep impedes the use of reason and free will, because in sleep the senses and imagination are put to rest and as it were bound, without which reason cannot operate freely. I reply that naturally, and in natural sleep, this is true, but not in supernatural and divine sleep, such as was this sleep of Solomon. For in such sleep God can infuse intelligible forms into prophets without recourse to phantasms, not impeding sleep, just as sleep did not impede vision in Christ, who says of Himself in Song of Songs 5:2: 'I sleep and my heart watches.' Thus also, that the Blessed Virgin while sleeping freely loved God and thereby merited, is held by St. Bernardine and others, and Suarez judges it probable, Part 3, Question 37, article 4, disputation 18, section 2. Or rather, God so strengthened and clarified the imagination of Adam, Solomon, and the Prophets in their sleep that they could freely understand, choose, and act, as I said a little before from Suarez. For this is more connatural to man.
Moreover, this entire dream God sent to Solomon through an Angel, who represented God, and specifically God the Son who was to be incarnate from Solomon's line, as St. Chrysostom teaches in Homily 16 on Acts, St. Leo, St. Ambrose, Tertullian, Origen, Theophylact, Eusebius, Clement, Nicephorus, and others, whom Pineda cites in Book 3 On the Affairs of Solomon, chapter 8, number 4.
One may ask why this vision was presented to Solomon at night and not during the day. I reply that the literal reason is that during the day Solomon had been occupied with the offering of a thousand victims. Hence he was then indisposed for this vision; through these offerings, however, he disposed himself and made himself worthy to receive this vision. Therefore, as a reward for his piety, he received this vision on the following night, while at rest, from God.
The symbolic reason was that although God is in Himself the supreme and infinite light, the created mind, especially the human mind, is blinded by it, just as the eye is blinded and dimmed by looking at the sun. Therefore God appeared to the saints, especially those of the Old Testament — to Abraham, Moses, Jacob — at night or in darkness. Hence St. Dionysius in his book On Mystical Theology teaches that he who wishes to contemplate God must enter with Moses into the darkness in which God is covered and veiled.
Mystically, St. Gregory in Book 2 of the Moralia, chapter 2, notes that night is a sign of bad omen and unhappy outcome: 'Judas,' he says, 'who was not to return to pardon, is reported to have gone out to his treacherous betrayal at night, as John says in chapter 13: Now it was night. And to the unjust rich man it is said in Luke 12: This night they will demand your soul from you; for a soul that is led to darkness is remembered as being called back not in the day but in the night. Hence it is that Solomon, who received wisdom without persevering in it, is described as having received it in dreams and at night.' These are Gregory's words, from whom Rupert, Eucherius, and others copied the same.
Rupert adds and criticizes Solomon for having asked for wisdom rather than holiness: 'Yet in this,' he says, 'he is blameworthy, that when the option was given to him by the Lord's generosity so inclined to give, he did not ask for that good which is true and supreme.'
But this good is included in the wisdom that Solomon requested, as St. Ambrose teaches on Psalm 118, on those words: 'With my whole heart I have sought You.' Hence in Wisdom 9, Solomon, asking God for wisdom, says: 'That I may know what is acceptable before You at all times,' on which more will follow shortly.
Verse 7: I Am a Very Young Child
7. But I am a very young child — that is to say: I am very young, inexperienced, and untested, and therefore like a child for so great a burden, namely the governing of so great a people as Israel, unfit of myself. For Solomon at this time was twenty years old, as I said above; hence, explaining further, he adds: Not knowing my going out and my coming in. This is a Hebrew phrase signifying all of a person's actions, that is to say: I do not know how I ought to conduct myself in the administration of so great a kingdom. Hence in 2 Chronicles 1:10, he says: 'Give me wisdom and understanding, that I may go in and go out before Your people,' as their king and shepherd. The Chaldean translates: I do not know how to go out or come in. He alludes to a child (which he called himself) who, taught by his mother, learns to go out and come in to the house.
Verse 9: Give Your Servant a Docile Heart
9. Give therefore to Your servant a docile heart — that is, one receptive of instruction, which may hear and drink in from You instruction, that is prudence and wisdom — in other words, a prudent, understanding, and wise heart. In Hebrew it is 'a hearing heart,' which indeed hears and receives wisdom. Hence in 2 Chronicles 1:10, explaining this, he says: 'Give me wisdom and understanding.' And here in verse 11, God responding to him says: 'You have asked for yourself wisdom,' etc.
Moreover, Solomon in asking for wisdom here is properly asking for prudence, by which he may wisely govern both himself and the entire people — that is, that he may prudently direct all his actions, both private and public, according to the law and will of God. Hence in Wisdom 9:4 and 10, explaining this his request for wisdom, he says: 'Give me the wisdom that sits by Your throne, etc., that she may be with me and labor with me, so that I may know what is acceptable to You.' He adds the reason in verse 17, saying: 'Who will know Your mind, unless You give wisdom and send Your Holy Spirit from on high?' See what was said there. For wisdom in the Wisdom books chiefly signifies practical or ethical wisdom, which teaches us to live wisely, that is justly and holily; which is therefore called in Wisdom 10, 'the knowledge of the Saints,' and in Luke 1, 'the prudence of the just.' Yet God, who surpasses the prayers and desires of His own, granted Solomon far greater wisdom, as I shall now say.
Verse 12: I Have Given You a Wise and Understanding Heart
12. I have given you a wise and understanding heart (the Chaldean has: 'and discerning'; the Septuagint: 'and expert') to such a degree that no one before you has been like you, nor will anyone arise after you. In 2 Chronicles 1:12, it is said: 'Wisdom and knowledge have been given to you.' By which understand first Ethics and Politics, for governing both himself and the people — this Solomon was chiefly asking for. Second, Physics, Medicine, Logic, Rhetoric, Poetry, Mathematics; Architecture (for he needed this to build the temple) and all the natural sciences and arts. For these are called wisdom by the Hebrews, as is clear from Exodus chapter 31, verse 3. For concerning these he himself says, Wisdom chapter 7, verse 17: 'For He Himself gave me true knowledge of the things that are, that I might know the disposition of the whole world, and the powers of the elements, the beginning and the end and the middle of times, the changes of the solstices and the variations of seasons, the courses of the year and the positions of the stars, the natures of animals and the furies of beasts, the force of winds and the thoughts of men, the differences of plants and the powers of roots, and whatever things are hidden and unforeseen I have learned: for wisdom, the maker of all things, taught me.' Third, the supernatural wisdom and prudence of the mysteries of faith, and indeed even the gift of prophecy. For that Solomon was an outstanding Theologian is clear from his Proverbs and Wisdom; that he was also a Prophet is clear from Proverbs chapter 30, verse 1. See what was said there. Solomon therefore received from God on this night the infused knowledge of all these things, and in a very intense degree, so that he could not forget them. So say Abulensis, Serarius, Pineda, Salianus, and others. Josephus adds that Solomon learned from God exorcisms for conjuring and expelling demons, and many other things, which Origen mentions in Treatise 35 on Matthew; Justin in his Dialogue on the Truth of the Christian Religion; Epiphanius in his treatise on the Heresy of the Ebionites. See Baronius at the year of Christ 56, and Sixtus of Siena in his Library, under the entry 'Solomon.'
Hence some think that a gratuitous grace was bestowed on Solomon for composing exorcisms by which the demon might be expelled. Josephus added that Solomon composed incantations for driving away diseases, which smacks of magic; but Josephus by 'incantations' perhaps meant prayers, which the common people afterwards superstitiously turned into magical incantations or charms.
The Rabbis add, or rather fabulize, that Solomon understood the chattering of birds, the barking of dogs, and comprehended the voices and conversations of all other beasts. But who can understand the voices of brute animals, which lack reason and intellect? In vain, therefore, do magicians boast of this for themselves.
So that no one before you has been like you. Solomon therefore surpassed in wisdom not only Trismegistus, Orpheus, Homer, Plato, Solon, Lycurgus, Aristotle, and all the wise men of the Greeks, Egyptians, Canaanites, etc. — since their wisdom was acquired by study, while Solomon's was immediately infused by God — but also Abraham, Moses, David, and Adam, at least after the fall. For although these excelled in certain areas — Abraham in eminent faith, Moses in receiving laws from God, David in composing psalms — yet Solomon surpassed them in the breadth of his wisdom, because he encompassed absolutely everything, and expressed to the life, in both words and deeds, Christ the Lord and His wisdom and His union with the Holy Church.
Nor shall any arise after you. Hence Abulensis rightly infers that Solomon was wiser not only than Adam and Moses but also than the Prophets and Apostles, excepting only Christ and His mother, the Blessed Virgin, although Suarez expresses doubt about her, in volume 2, disputation 18, section 5. St. Jerome asserts the same on Ephesians chapter 3, verse 8: 'Solomon,' he says, 'was wiser than all the Apostles, as the divine voice had promised to the Patriarchs of old, who also speaks confidently of himself: God has taught me wisdom, and I have known the understanding of the saints' (Wisdom chapter 7). Understand this in natural and political matters, for in the mysteries of faith and the Gospel, Paul and the Apostles were wiser than Solomon. Lyra, however, along with Dionysius and Pererius, Book 5 on Genesis, Question 3, think that Solomon is here said to be wiser than all, but in such a way that a few are excepted — namely the Apostles, etc.
Others limit it here: 'No one like you' — namely among kings; but this is too narrow. Others with Serarius better explain it thus: 'No one' — namely of those who became wise by human study and their own industry — 'will be like you,' who received it infused from God. Therefore, no comparison is made here with Adam, the Blessed Virgin, and the Apostles, whose wisdom was infused by God. See Pineda, Book 3 On Solomon, chapter 8, who also adds that together with wisdom the Holy Spirit was given to Solomon, that is, greater grace and holiness; for this is what he was chiefly asking for in and with wisdom. Hear Remigius, who on Colossians chapter 2, verse 9 — 'In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' — writes thus: 'He dwells in one way in each of the elect, in another way in Christ; for to them the Spirit is given in measure, but in Him He dwells fully. For He dwelt in Solomon through wisdom, in Daniel through chastity, in the Prophets through holiness, in Moses through meekness; but in Christ through every virtue and innocence.'
Verse 13: Riches and Glory I Have Given You Also
13. But also these things which you did not ask for, I have given (that is, I have decided to give, and will immediately and gradually give) to you — namely riches and glory, so that no one has been like you among all kings of past days. Hence Abulensis thinks that Solomon surpassed in riches and glory Nimrod, Ninus, Saul, David, and all other previous kings, but not later ones who came after Solomon, such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Augustus. But Serarius and others more rightly judge that Solomon is to be preferred to absolutely all kings, both future and past, and that he surpassed all in riches and glory. For in 2 Chronicles chapter 1, verse 12, it is clearly said: 'And riches and wealth and glory I will give you, so that none among kings, neither before you nor after you, will be like you.' From the Hebrew you may translate: 'And glory such as was not (equal) among kings before, and after you there will not be such,' that is, equal to yours.
Morally, learn here how great a good and gift of God wisdom is, and how much it is to be preferred to all other things — indeed, that it brings all other things with it — and that it is to be obtained more by prayer than by study. For the author and giver of wisdom is God, who is the Father of lights, James chapter 1, verses 5 and 17. See what was said there; and St. Augustine, Preface to Book 1 of On Christian Doctrine.
Verse 15: Solomon Awoke and Understood It Was a Dream
15. Solomon therefore awoke and understood that it was a dream. Vatablus and others explain this as meaning: Solomon upon awaking remembered his dream, that is, that he had dreamed about wisdom — meaning it had not been a real event, but a fleeting, false, and vanishing dream. But this cannot be said, for Solomon truly obtained wisdom here, as is clear from the words of Scripture in verse 12: 'I have given you,' He says, 'a wise and understanding heart,' etc. Therefore this interpretation directly contradicts Holy Scripture and undermines and overturns it.
I say therefore: 'Solomon upon awaking understood that it was a dream' — namely not a natural one, but a supernatural and divine one; that is, a vision really and effectively united with the reality itself, namely with the wisdom sent by God and implanted in him. Hence the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Chaldean have: 'Solomon therefore awoke, and behold, a dream' — that is, it had achieved its effect and proved to be true. As if to say: Solomon upon awaking saw that he had truly been made wise, just as he had dreamed, that is, just as he had seen through a divine vision while sleeping. For he saw the forms of all things presenting and hovering before his mind, by which he could clearly perceive any matter he had not previously known. He therefore understood that this dream had been real and true, as being supernatural and sent by God together with the thing dreamed. Hence he immediately resolved the intricate lawsuit of the harlots with the greatest wisdom, and administered everything else most wisely, as is clear from what follows. So say Suarez, Serarius, Pineda.
Similar dreams — not dreamed and false, but real and true — are found in Holy Scripture: as when St. Peter, about to be freed from prison by an Angel, was commanded to dress and go out, and 'he thought he was seeing a vision' and dreaming, Acts chapter 12, verse 9, and yet he truly was dressing and going out. So the Hebrews, freed from Babylon and returning to Jerusalem, say: 'When the Lord brought back the captivity of Zion, we were like those who were consoled'; the Hebrew has, 'like dreamers,' as if to say: So joyful, new, wonderful, and unexpected was our return from exile to our homeland that it seemed to be a dream, that we thought we were not really returning but were dreaming of a return. So Solomon here upon awaking seemed to himself to have dreamed; but he soon saw that the dream had been turned into reality. So St. Jerome, rebuked by God in a dream because he preferred Cicero above the Holy Scriptures, and hearing: 'You are a Ciceronian, not a Christian,' was severely beaten and flogged, not in a dream but in reality. Hear him in his letter 18 to Eustochium: 'Nor was it mere drowsiness or the vain dreams by which we are often deceived; witness is that tribunal before which I lay prostrate; witness is the terrible judgment that I feared. May it never happen to me to fall into such a trial again. I confess I had bruised shoulders; I felt the blows after the dream, and from then on I read divine writings with such zeal as I had not previously read mortal writings.'
And when he had come (from Gibeon, where he had asked for and obtained wisdom from God) to Jerusalem, he stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord and offered holocausts — in thanksgiving for so great a gift of wisdom bestowed on him by God. For the ark was in Zion, while the tabernacle and altar were in Gibeon, as was said in verse 4.
Verse 16: Two Women Who Were Harlots Came to the King
Verse 16. Then two women who were harlots came to the king — God so disposing things to reveal to Israel the wisdom of Solomon recently bestowed on him, through the skillful resolution of the harlots' dispute. For 'harlots' in Hebrew is zonot, which the Chaldean translates as 'innkeepers' or 'tavern-keepers'; for a zona, or harlot, is one who earns a living by selling either food, or services, or her body — such as an innkeeper, washerwoman, seamstress, weaver, or dye-worker who earns her livelihood by her trade and craft. And our Sanchez thinks these two were such women, because harlots properly so called scarcely conceive children due to promiscuous intercourse and mingling of seed, since they prostitute themselves to anyone; it is different with concubines, who adhere to one lover only, for they conceive just as wives do.
But St. Gregory, Ambrose, Prosper, Pineda, Salianus, and others generally think that these two were harlots properly so called, as the Septuagint and our Vulgate translate it; and this is supported by the fact that no mention of husbands is made here, but they themselves bring the lawsuit on their own. For harlots, because they are greedy, covetous, shameless, and irascible, are likewise litigious, and indeed the cause of many lawsuits, quarrels, duels, murders, and wars, as daily experience teaches.
Verse 19: She Lay Upon Him While Sleeping
Verse 19. For she lay upon him while sleeping — because by rolling over she lay upon the infant and suffocated him with the weight of her body. For this reason, Canon Law forbids mothers from sleeping with infants, on account of the danger of smothering them, as is clear from Book 2, Question 5, Canon 'Consuluit.'
They contended before the king — because witnesses and other proofs and evidence were lacking, and so these petty women quarreled among themselves with disputes of voice and clamor in their usual manner.
Allegorically, these two women represent the Synagogue of the Jews and the Church of the Christians, who contend with each other over the child Jesus, the living and true Messiah. But Solomon, that is Christ, resolves the matter saying in Matthew chapter 10: 'I have come not to bring peace but a sword.' For I have come to divide the law and grace, Jews and Christians, faithful and unfaithful, as St. Jerome beautifully teaches in letter 131 to Rufinus, where he also adds that Solomon performed this judgment in the twelfth year of his age, for he had begun to reign then; but I showed above that this happened in his twentieth year.
Again, they represent the Catholic Church and the Arian, Nestorian, and other heresies, which divide Christ into two, so that one in Him is God, another man, and strive to claim for themselves the true faithful who are the living children of the Church, to draw them into their heresy, and thereby to destroy and kill them. So St. Augustine, Sermon 200 On the Season: 'The impious and cruel heresy,' he says, 'cries out that He be divided. What does "let Him be divided" mean, except that the Son is not equal to the Father? For while it takes away equality from the Son, it denies that the Father is good and omnipotent. For if God the Father could beget a Son like Himself and did not wish to, He is not good; if He wished to and could not, He is not omnipotent.' But the true mother, namely the Catholic Church, cries out: 'Give her the child, and do not divide him. He is my Son, but let the child rather migrate to her — let him migrate whole — yet let maternal affection remain with me. Give her the child; let not the vows of the members be taken away; let his integrity not be divided, lest piety be taken from me. What she says — give her the child and do not divide — I too rightly say: Possess Him whole, and do not divide God.' These words Angelomus, Eucherius or rather Bede, and St. Prosper in his book On Predestination copied verbatim from St. Augustine.
Tropologically, St. Gregory in Book 21 of the Moralia, chapter 7, takes these two women to represent true and false teachers: for the true and good seek the salvation of their disciples, while the false and bad seek their own glory and profit, to the ruin of their disciples. 'For indeed,' says St. Gregory, 'teachers who are watchful in knowledge but sleeping in life, their hearers whom they nourish through their watchful preaching, since they neglect to practice what they preach, they kill through the sleep of torpor, and by their negligence crush those whom they seemed to be nourishing with the milk of words. Hence very often, since they live reprehensibly and cannot have disciples of praiseworthy life, they try to attract others to themselves, so that by showing they have good followers, they may excuse in human judgment the evils they do, and cover their deadly negligence, as it were, through the lives of their subjects. Hence in the story, the woman, because she killed her own son, sought the other's; but Solomon's sword found the true mother — for it is by the strict Judge's wrath in the final examination that it is shown whose fruit lives and whose perishes.' Then St. Gregory wisely advises that 'the living son is first ordered to be divided so that afterwards he may be restored to the mother alone; because in this life it is permitted, as it were, to divide the life of the disciple, while from it sometimes one is permitted to have merit before God, another praise before men. But the false mother does not fear that he whom she did not bear will be killed: because arrogant teachers, ignorant of love, if they cannot obtain the fullest name of praise from others' disciples, will cruelly persecute their lives. For inflamed with the torch of envy, they do not wish to live for others whom they perceive they cannot possess.' Angelomus and Eucherius copied the same from St. Gregory.
Symbolically, St. Ambrose in Book 3 On Virginity says: 'The two women are faith and temptation. After temptation lost its own offspring through the vice of carnal conversation and the sleep of the mind, it tries to steal the fruits of another's posterity. And so while temptation litigates, faith wavers, until the sword of Christ distinguishes the hidden affections. What is this sword of Christ? That of which it is written: I have come to cast a sword upon the earth. For it is the sword of which it is written: And a sword shall pierce through your own soul. But know what this sword is, what this blade is: The Word, he says, sharp and powerful, and more piercing than any sharpest sword, penetrating even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow.'
Verse 25: Divide the Living Infant in Two
25. Divide (he said) the living infant into two parts, and give half to one and half to the other. Solomon said this not seriously as though passing sentence, but as a pretense, to discover in which of the two maternal affection resided, so that he might award the living son to her. For no other proof or other means of deciding this lawsuit was available. For by nature there is implanted in a mother a hidden love and compassion for her offspring, of which she who is not the mother has no share. Solomon therefore here interrogated nature, and nature, responding, showed by its own affection who the genuine mother was. For, as St. Ambrose says in Book 3 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 7: 'Solomon considered that the true mother would consult more for her son than for her own comfort, and would prefer grace to right, not rights to grace. But she who had feigned a mother's affection, blinded by eagerness to win, would think little of his death, in which she would not recognize the loss of piety. And so that spiritual man who judged all things (for the spiritual man judges all things) sought nature in the affections, which lay hidden in the words, and questioned piety to bring forth the truth. And so the mother conquered by the affection of love, which is the fruit of the spirit.'
You will object: An unjust fear of her son's dissection was inflicted on the true mother. I reply that this was necessary in this place and time for the mother's good — namely, so that by this means she might be freed from perpetual litigation with her rival and from the constant danger of losing her son, which was a far greater evil for her. Therefore it was better for her to endure this fear for a brief time, so that through it she might be recognized as the mother and her son be returned to her.
By a similar expedient, Emperors have discovered the truth and identified the true mother or father. For the Emperor Claudius Caesar, says Suetonius in his Life, chapter 15, 'when a woman would not acknowledge her own son, and the evidence on both sides was uncertain, compelled her to confess by ordering her to marry the young man; for when this was refused, since nature recoiled from it, she acknowledged him as her son.' Claudius therefore compelled a mother who denied that a certain young man — who truly was her son — was her own child, to confess the truth by ordering her to marry that same young man. Charlemagne likewise, certain that either a father or a son whom he held captive had killed someone, but uncertain which of them had done it, ordered both to be hanged. But when the father, who had truly committed the crime, saw no hope of reprieve, he confessed and acknowledged his own guilt, and thus freed his son from the impending execution. So reports Johannes Molanus, Doctor of Louvain, from the Life of Charlemagne, in Book 1 On Keeping Faith with Heretics, chapter 8, and Martin Delrio in volume 3 of the Magical Investigations, Book 4, in the preamble, from Andreas Barbatius on the chapter 'Præsenti,' On Proof.
Third, this judgment of Solomon was imitated by Alfonso, King of Aragon, who, as Antonio Panormitano writes in his Deeds, Book 2, chapter 39, when a servant-woman had conceived from her master and borne a son, and therefore claimed her freedom under Spanish law, while the master, lest he be deprived of both mother and son, denied the boy was born from him — the king decreed that the infant be sold at auction. And when the infant was about to be handed over to the one who had offered the highest price, the father, overcome by natural love, could not restrain his tears and confessed that the boy was his son. Wherefore the king immediately awarded the son to the father and the freedom owed to the mother.
Related to this is the judgment of Ariopharnes, king of Thrace, who, when three sons of the king of the Cimmerians were disputing over their father's kingdom, ordered their father's body to be taken from the tomb and tied to a tree, and them to compete with their bows, so that whichever one pierced the father's heart would succeed to the kingdom. The firstborn pierced the throat, the second the chest; the third, younger but more pious, refused to shoot at his father's heart, saying it was impious to pierce a father's heart. And so the Thracian king awarded the kingdom to him. This example is recounted in the Theater of Human Life, volume 7, Book 4, after the beginning, and it cites Diodorus, Book 20, as the source; but Diodorus, apart from the names of Ariopharnes and the sons of the Cimmerian king, has nothing of the sort. I therefore consider it suspect in historical reliability and mythical.
Verse 26: Give Her the Living Infant, Do Not Kill Him
26. But the woman whose son was alive said to the king (for her heart was moved with compassion for her son): I beseech you, my lord, give her the living infant, and do not kill him. On the contrary, the other woman said: Let him be neither mine nor yours, but let him be divided. Hence it is clear that this woman was not only a false mother, but also labored with envy and hatred against the true mother, and therefore asked that her son be killed, just as her own was dead. For otherwise she would have asked that the infant be kept for herself, since the true mother was requesting from the king that he be given to her rival, lest her son be killed. She therefore wished that his son should die, just as her own son had died. So says Abulensis. Hear St. Ambrose in Book 3 On Virginity: 'Upon hearing this, the woman who was claiming the other's child not only agreed but even demanded the division of the infant, moved by no maternal feeling. The one who knew the infant was hers, fearing not defeat but bereavement, and now consulting not her own comfort but her pledge of love, began to pray that the child be given unharmed to the rival rather than be cut in pieces and returned to his own mother. Whence Solomon, who was questioning the inward affection not by divine majesty but by human reasoning, judged that the child should rather be returned to her whose own pain had betrayed her as the true mother; but her whom the mercy of the dying child did not move, he declared to be devoid of nature, since he saw she was devoid of piety. The truth, therefore, did not remain hidden, but through the pretense of the other it wavered; and the good mother long remained in suspense at the uncertain outcome, while she was imperiled by the uncertainty of the judgment.
Tropologically, St. Gregory in Book 21 of the Moralia, chapter 8, taking these two women as false and true teachers: 'The perverse woman,' he says, 'cries out: Let him be neither mine nor hers. For as we have said, those whom they see not following them for temporal glory, they begrudge to live for others through truth. But the true mother is concerned that her son at least be with the stranger and live; because truthful teachers concede that from their disciples some may have the praise of teaching, provided the same disciples do not lose the integrity of life. By these marks of compassion, this same true mother is recognized, because all teaching is approved in the test of charity; and she alone merited to receive the whole, who had, as it were, conceded the whole — because faithful leaders, inasmuch as they not only do not begrudge others the praise from their good disciples but even pray for their profit and advancement, they themselves receive sons whole and living, when in the supreme judgment they will obtain the joys of perfect retribution from their lives.'
In a similar manner, but with a dissimilar affection and different result, the mother of the Caesars Antoninus Caracalla and Geta, says Herodian, in order to unite them as they quarreled and divided the empire, requested to be divided between them, so that each of them might have a part of her in his kingdom. But in vain; for Caracalla, fearing his brother Geta as popular with the people, killed him in his mother's arms, and to cover his crime with a veil of piety, enrolled him among the gods, saying: 'If he cannot be alive, let him be a god.'
Verse 27: Give This Woman the Living Infant
27. The king answered and said: Give this woman the living infant, and let him not be killed; for she is his mother. For nature and natural compassion certainly indicate this to be the mother. See here the shrewdness and wisdom of Solomon. 'And so it was not without reason,' says St. Ambrose in Book 2 On Duties, chapter 8, 'that the understanding of God was judged to be in him, in whom the hidden things of God reside. For what is more hidden than the testimony of the innermost heart, into which the wise man's understanding descended, as it were, as an arbiter of piety, and drew out, as it were, a voice from the mother's womb, by which the maternal affection was revealed — she who had chosen that her son should live even with a stranger, rather than be killed before his mother's eyes. It was therefore the part of wisdom to distinguish the hidden consciences, to draw truth from what was concealed, and as with a kind of blade, so with the sword of the spirit to penetrate not only the innermost parts of the womb but also of the soul and mind. It was also the part of justice that she who had killed her own should not take another's, but that the true mother should receive her own. Finally, Scripture also pronounced this: All Israel heard, it says, this judgment which the king had judged, and they feared the king because the understanding of God was in him to render justice.'