A Theonomic Reading of Solomon’s Judgment

Some Christians mistakenly cite 1 Kings 3:16–28, the story of Solomon’s judgment between two mothers, to argue that God’s Torah is insufficient for adjudicating all criminal cases, thus justifying man-made laws to address scenarios not explicitly covered. This interpretation misreads the passage and undermines the sufficiency of divine law. Far from demonstrating a need for new legislation, Solomon’s ruling exemplifies how God’s Torah provides a framework for justice even in complex cases, relying on biblical principles without adding to or subtracting from the Law.

The Case: A Dispute with Limited Evidence

In 1 Kings 3:16–28, two women, both mothers, present a dispute before King Solomon: one claims the other swapped her living child for a dead one. As 1 Kings 3:18 notes, the women were alone, meaning no additional witnesses existed, and the only evidence was the dead child. Crucially, neither woman accuses the other of murder, so the case hinges solely on the accusation of child theft. According to God’s Law, this lack of corroborating evidence—specifically, the requirement of at least two witnesses (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15)—prevents any prosecution based on the women’s conflicting testimonies alone. Solomon, operating within the Torah’s constraints, cannot convict without sufficient evidence, demonstrating the Law’s built-in safeguards against unjust punishment.

The Accusation and Biblical Penalties

One woman accuses the other of stealing her child, an act that, if proven, carries severe consequences under God’s Law. Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 prescribe the death penalty for kidnapping, reflecting the gravity of depriving a mother of her child. Conversely, if the accusation is false, Deuteronomy 19:16–21 mandates that a false accuser receive the punishment they sought to inflict—in this case, death. However, with only one witness (the accuser) and no additional evidence, neither charge can be substantiated. God’s Law prioritizes evidentiary rigor, ensuring justice is not swayed by emotion or incomplete testimony, a principle that protects both the innocent and the judicial process itself.

Solomon’s Wisdom Within God’s Law

Solomon’s solution is a masterclass in applying God’s Law creatively without creating new laws. Lacking witnesses, he devises a test: he proposes dividing the living child between the women, knowing this will reveal their true motives (1 Kings 3:24–25). The true mother, driven by love, relinquishes her claim to save her child, while the guilty woman’s indifference exposes her falsehood. As Adam Terrell has suggested, Solomon’s test may echo Exodus 21:35–36, where property is divided in cases of uncertainty, providing a biblical analogy for resolving disputes without clear evidence. (Listen to Terrell’s argument here.) The innocent mother is restored, receiving her son, and justice is served within the Torah’s framework.

Notably, the guilty woman, a false accuser who should face execution under Deuteronomy 19:16–21, escapes punishment due to the lack of two witnesses or a confession. Her actions reveal her guilt, but God’s Law does not permit conviction on circumstantial evidence alone. To modern sensibilities, this outcome may seem incomplete, yet it upholds the Torah’s standard of justice. The guilty mother will face ultimate judgment before God, as no one escapes divine justice (Hebrews 9:27). Solomon’s ruling demonstrates that God’s Law is sufficient, even when earthly justice appears limited.

No New Laws Needed

The temptation to create new laws for complex cases like this one stems from a misunderstanding of God’s Torah. Deuteronomy 12:32 and Proverbs 30:6 explicitly forbid adding to or subtracting from God’s commands, while Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 affirm God as the sole Lawgiver. Solomon did not invent a new statute but applied the principles of the Torah—evidentiary standards, restitution, and discernment—to resolve the dispute. This case underscores a core theonomic principle: God’s Law is comprehensive, providing guidance for all scenarios, even those that challenge human wisdom. To supplement it with man-made laws risks usurping God’s authority and inviting injustice.