The story of Solomon's wisdom as portrayed in 1 Kings chapter 3 is a well known and often told bible story. Two women, which in prophetic form represent Rachel and Leah or even Ephraim and Judah, do dispute over the life of a child and wise king Solomon detects who the true mother is, who in prophetic terms may be seen to be Mother Rachel, the true Mother of all of Israel and the sought after child.

"Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it [that is to say, 'slay it']." 1 Kings 3:26

History often mirrors or foreshadows the future as well as reflecting in repetition the past. Recorded scriptural history often takes on just such a prophetic role, for what is recorded of merit in scripture is often more meaningful and beneficial than just what a first light story reading might reveal. Such is the case of the parables of the Savior. Such is the case of the prophecies of the Old Testament. And such is the case in the recorded 'living parable' or story of the two Innkeepers or 'Harlots' who did argue over a child before the great and wise King Solomon found in 1 Kings 3:16-28. The Lord allowed half a chapter in that book of Kings to be that of a seemingly simple court case. With hundreds of such judgments brought before Solomon to decide, why would the Lord allow such a story to be preserved in the scriptures of the Lord?

Whether Solomon or the scribes ever considered the story as anything more than a recounting of an example of the wisdom of Solomon or not seems to be beside the point. If one treats the story as a parable and set it out verse by verse as to the events and compare them to the house of Leah or Judah and the house of Rachel or Ephraim as Israel being the two harlots, and Christ being the child, a very prophetic parable and application will be found. The parallels are striking as to the two Hebrew nations of the houses of Leah and Rachel, their foresaking the Lord as 'Harlots' and the seemingly lasting contention over the Messiah, represented by the Christ Child, being divided into two Messiahs. And thus one needs to ask if the true intent of the Lord in allowing it to be so recorded in his scriptures was not to prophetically layout the coming conditions of the Kingdom of Judah and that of Israel of Ephraim and the disputed dividing of the Messiah?

It is well documented Biblical history that both Ephraim as Israel and Judah did forsake their God as harlots forsaking their rightful husband in turning to their idolatrous Gods. The Lord in many Old Testament scriptures refer to them in no less terms. Yet the two harlots of Judah and Ephraim do commence to argue over the Child, the Child of Promise, the Living Messiah, and whose Child he is, Messiah ben David or Messiah ben Joseph. Judah of Leah, the false mother, does kill her Child and then seeks to divide the living Child assunder or in to two. So Judah has historically done. Judah claims falsely the Messiah of the world, yet when he comes 'she', Judah, over lays him and kills him. And then Judah seeks to divide the next coming Messiah/Child into two Messiahs, the one half being given to Joseph and Ephraim as being the 'Suffering Messiah' who according to the Jews is not the immortal Messiah but the one who is to suffer death as did the child which Judah had already killed. And the other Messiah which Judah is willing to claim is the immortal living Messiah they call Messiah Ben David, stealing David from his legal and rightful linage of the House of Ephraim and Joseph.

Yet it is the rightful mother, Rachel, who would recognize and spare the Child, allowing him to be claimed by Judah or Leah, rather than to have him divided into two. The rightful mother, Rachel/Ephraim, allows the false claims of the false mother, Judah/Leah, as long as it will spare the Child and let him live. But who is the rightful mother who weeps for her children when King Herod does slay the babes of the house of David? Is it Judah as the House of Leah? Or is it Rachel as the mother of the House of Ephraim? It is Rachel who weeps for the sons of David who are killed by the sword of Herod, not Leah (Matthew 2). Rachel and the House of Joseph through Ephraim is the rightful ancestor to the House of Daivd and the Messiah.

And as in Solomon's story turned parable, it is the wisdom of the King who does determine who the rightful mother of the Child is to be. And it is to be the mother whose love for the Child prempts her personal desires and wants for the Child to be hers in giving the Child to the other if but the Child can be preserved. But then the King recognizing the true mother of the Child does so give and designate the Child as hers who did love the Child most, and did not over lay and kill her own Child as the other mother had done by her neglect and lack of care toward the Child.

It is the House of Rachel in Ephraim in whose right belongs the true rights of the Child. It is not found in the House of Leah and Judah where the Child was over laid and killed of them. Christ is rightfully of the descent of Ephraim and the House of Mahlon and Elimelech and Chilion, Ephrathites or Ephraimites of the House of Joseph and of Mother Rachel. Christ is not a Jew but by blood. All legal and rightful claims to Christ reside in the blessings of the Covenant as given through and of the House of Joseph and thence to the House of Ephraim form the Fathers from the very beginning in Adam.

Through Mary, Christ is of the House of Joseph and Ephraim, just as rightfully so is Obed, Jesse, and David. That part of him which is mortal from his mother can legally by right be traced back to the rightful linages of Joseph of Egypt. But Christ is only partly of the House of Joseph. Not because of his ancient earthly mother in Ruth of Moah, but in his immediate Father being God the Father. This is Christ true and eternal heritage as being the Son of God. The immortal parent who gave Him the power to over come death in the resurrection of mankind..

Thus any such dispute over the ancestry of Christ is swallowed up in the fact that Christ's Father was God the Father and Christ was not born of mortal man but of God. The only right in Christ that man truely has is in the legal right of the Covenant of God with man. The linage and rights of those covenants have come down from the Fathers since Adam, Enoch, and Noah and thence on down through Abrham, Isaac and Jacob. Then Jacob pronouced them upon the heads of Joseph and Ephraim. And from Ephraim they flowed through Elimelech, Mahlon as vicariously performed by Boaz. And from thence to Obed the son of the House of Elimelech and Mahlon to Jesse, David and to Jesus Christ as the rightful heir as the son of God and of the Covenant made to man of his promised birth, work, resurrection and return in glory.

And the story of the two harlots of the tribes of Judah and Israel as told by the scribe who compiled the book of Kings does but foreshadow the human course of events as found in the historical events of the related matter. Christ is the Child. Judah and Ephraim as Israel are the harlots. The wisdom of the King's judgement is that of the Lord's judgement. And the true parentage and motherhood of the Christ will be so revealed. Rachel wept for the destroyed of the House of David. Leah did not. Judah killed the 'Suffering Messiah', the only nation wicked enough to have crucified the Lord. And it is and will continue to be Ephraim who does prepare for and usher in the coming of the 'Glorious and Conquering Messiah'. So whose Child is he? Who is His mother but Rachel in Ehpraim? And who is His Father but God the Father of us all?