He Said, She Said: Discerning The Truth Among Competing Claims

He Said, She Said

We’ve all had to wade through the maddening dynamics of a he-said-she-said-disagreement.

Siblings disagree about who broke the TV. Coworkers accuse each other of responsibility for the cash overage. Politicians debate whose policies are responsible for rises in crime.

Perhaps the most famous example of such a disagreement involved two mothers and a dead baby. The first woman accused the second woman of switching her own dead baby with her own living baby. The second woman denied it and said the first woman was making it all up.

This horrifying event happened in the ancient Kingdom of Israel and the women appeared before King Solomon to resolve the dispute (1 Kings 3:16-28). This account is in Scripture as a demonstration of God’s answer to Solomon’s prayer for wisdom (1 Kings 3:9, 12, 28). None of us will be as wise as Solomon was (1 Kings 3:12). But the account of Solomon’s resolution to this high stakes he-said-she-said gives us guidance about how to resolve similar situations in our own experience.

Principles for Discerning Between Competing Claims

The account of Solomon’s resolution of the complicated situation provides at least three principles we can use in our own situations.

1. Look for Tie-Breaking Evidence

The Bible is clear that people must only embrace charges based on evidence. Again and again, we are told that it takes the evidence of two or three witness to establish a matter (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19). Regardless of the strength of our suspicions, we must never act against someone based on an accusation without evidence.

We must look for witnesses and evidence to establish any claim. Often such evidence exists even if you have to look for it carefully. When other evidence exists, you are no longer dealing with a he-said-she-said, but an established matter.

A true he-said-she-said is one where no outside evidence exists to support or oppose any person’s claim. This was the situation faced by Solomon, “The King said, ‘The one says, “This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead”; and the other says, “No, but your son is dead, and my son is the living one”’” (1 Kings 3:23). The two mothers confirmed the lack of witnesses in their report of the situation (1 Kings 3:18).

Such a lack of evidence makes resolution very complicated. It means we must move to the second principle.

2. Ensure a Decision Is Necessary

Not every disagreement with competing claims requires a decision. We live in a world that rushes to judgment. Too many people believe that a decision is required of them when it isn’t. It is far too easy to forget the words of Jesus when he commands, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24). Jesus commands reserving judgment until we have looked beyond appearances, heard the matter out, and are sure that our determinations are right.

This is divine permission to withhold a hasty decision.

But sometimes a decision is required. That was definitely the case for Solomon. Israel’s King was facing a situation that called for swift justice. He was dealing with an innocent child in need of care, an innocent and loving mother at risk of losing her child, and a vile woman guilty of kidnapping and dishonesty. The situation was unsustainable and screamed for resolution.

Solomon had to decide. And he had to do it based on less than all the facts. We can learn from his example about how to move forward in our own situation.

3. Apply A Test of Character

As the ordained leader of the people of God, Solomon was authorized to use the sword. This he did in his disingenuous suggestion to cut this human being in half so each woman could have a share of the baby (1 Kings 3:24-25). Solomon had no intention of harming the child but wanted to test the characters of the women before him.

Solomon knew that the nature of the situation meant one woman was innocent and the other despicable. He also knew the behavior of the women was the overflow of character found deep inside their heart and that his job as a wise man was to draw it out (Proverbs 20:5).

He wisely created a test that would expose the character of the women. It was not a random, unrelated test, but one closely connected to their disagreement. He created a situation where the health and safety of the baby appeared to be at risk in order to see how each woman would respond.

The victimized woman defined by purity of character and love for her child revealed what was in her heart as she chose to spare her child even if it meant she would live apart from him. The woman with flawed character, already guilty of kidnapping and dishonesty, showed moral consistency by treating the child’s life with contempt (1 Kings 3:26). Her dark heart only desired winning the conflict. She didn’t care if an innocent child died, or a loving mother was robbed of her treasured child.

This test did not reveal the truth of the event about which the women disagreed. It was still, strictly speaking, a he-said-she-said situation. But the test revealed the character of the women, and that was enough to move forward (1 Kings 3:27).

We will not usually be able to use a sword like Solomon’s to resolve contemporary competing claims. That is not even the point. The point is to design a character test closely related to the issue of conflict and see what the test reveals. There are lots of ways to do this in today’s he-said-she-said conflicts. When people disagree about something, it is often helpful to ask them to meet to discuss the matter and observe who is willing to embrace this biblical goal and who is unwilling (Matthew 18:15). You can also try explaining to an accuser that you cannot take action against someone on a mere accusation and watch whether they embrace or reject that biblical teaching (Matthew 18:16). You can ask both parties, even though they deny being the primary offender, whether they believe they have any responsibility for anything and see who is humble enough to admit some element of wrongdoing (Matthew 7:1-5).

These tests and others may not produce any more hard evidence of guilt than Solomon’s test did. But they reveal the trajectory of someone’s heart. Solomon was able to determine who was guilty of the sin he did not observe by seeing who was guilty of the sin he did observe. In the same way, a person who is willing to follow your biblical advice when you are watching is more likely to have followed it when you were not. The person refusing to embrace the truth of Scripture in front of you casts doubt on their embrace of it behind your back.

Even when such tests don’t strictly prove what happened about the debated matter, they can reveal character. That is often enough to move forward.

Two Over-Arching Reminders

Resolving competing claims can be one of the most painful and frustrating tasks in life. As you engage the frustration it is helpful to remember two important truths.

One way or another, time always tells the truth. Over time, the truth is revealed about the character and behavior of most people. This is a truth that can comfort the innocent, that should convict the guilty, and can encourage those of who need to tell the difference.

More importantly than that, we can remember that the wisdom to arbitrate is God’s gift. God gave Solomon an unusual amount of wisdom, but he still gives wisdom to Christians today (James 1:5). Any of us asked to weigh in on competing claims should ask God for his wisdom with great faith that he will give all that is necessary to meet the need.