Verse 22 gives us the denial of the other prostitute and the insistence of the first that her complaint was valid. In her denial, the second woman was by implication making her own charge against her colleague. She implied that it was the first that actually caused the death of the dead child and simply claimed the living one as her own. This woman has no more proof to bring the truth of what she alleges than the first woman. With the inclusion in this verse of the first woman’s charge of lying against the other, we have a repetition of the circumstance that, by outward evidence, there is no method of determining which of the two women is telling the truth and which is guilty of a heinous crime.
The case is phrased in such a way that a reader who comes to it for the first time is caused to be in eager expectation to know how Solomon’s newfound wisdom will sort the truth from falsehood. Familiarity with the story by many Christians robs us of the suspense, but it would be well if they would seek to retrieve the uncertainty.
22 L'autre femme dit: Au contraire! c'est mon fils qui est vivant, et c'est ton fils qui est mort. Mais la première répliqua: Nullement! C'est ton fils qui est mort, et c'est mon fils qui est vivant. C'est ainsi qu'elles parlèrent devant le roi.