Dead Men Tell Tales

by Harry Rimmer

Plate 27

Showing the manner in which these buildings are carved from the living stone

In the course of the passing years, Siamen was gathered to his fathers, and Psabekhanu the 2nd reigned in his stead. The wise mother of Hadad, knowing that alliances do not always outlast the persons who made them and, desiring to protect Hadad’s interests in the country that they had lost by force of arms, entered into a typical and common intrigue. She brought about the marriage of her son, Hadad, with a sister of Psabekhanu. Thus, Hadad became the brother-in-law of the reigning monarch of Egypt and, presumably, strengthened the ties that bound the Egyptian power to the interests of his small country.

In the meantime, Solomon, who had succeeded his father, moved to protect his inherited claim on Edom. This he did by marrying the daughter of Psabekhanu. It is presumed that the relationship of a son-in-law might be a stronger claim for alliance than that of a brother-in-law. Some short while later the second daughter of Psabekhanu married the Prince Shishak. Thus Solomon and the heir-apparent of the throne of Egypt, Shishak, became brothers-in-law. By marriage, however, the queen of Edom was their aunt. At a glance the student can see that affairs were a bit messy, to say the very least. Hadad maintained his rights to Edom and conducted at the Egyptian court an intrigue for his restoration. The desires of Pharaoh were divided between his natural wish to keep the peace and his interest in the importunities of his brother-in-law, as weighed against the desires of his son-in-law. Through this tangled scheme of alliances it came about that Solomon’s son would have some legal rights of succession in Egypt. But Shishak’s son would have the same claim to succession in Palestine. Solomon, being much older than Shishak, died first. The story which now follows is recorded in the Word of God, and on the pillars of antiquity, for, shortly after the death of Solomon, Shishak invaded Judah.

The “why” of the matter is easily understood. The first reason was loot. The brief account that is given in I Kings 14:25-28 is here appended to introduce our consideration of this event:

“And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.

“And King Rehoboam made in their stead brazen shields, and committed them unto the hands of the chief of the guard, which kept the door of the king’s house.

“And it was so, when the king went into the house of the Lord, that the guard bare them, and brought them back into the guard chamber.”

In that record it is noted that among the treasures of the house of the Lord which Shishak carried away, were the shields of gold which Solomon had made. For a description of these shields and some conception of their value, we turn to the tenth chapter of I Kings, verses fourteen to seventeen:

“Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,

“Besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.

“And king Solomon made two hundred targets of beaten gold: six hundred shekels of gold went to one target.

“And he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three pounds of gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon.”

The wealth of Solomon has never been adequately computed. It is stated that from the tomb of Tutanhkamen, in the most famous excavation of our generation, treasure to the value of $14,000,000 was recovered. The splendor and wealth of that pharaoh were insignificant compared to that of Solomon, the Magnificent. We see, for instance, in this fourteenth verse that Solomon’s income in gold bullion alone was almost the exact equivalent of $20,000,000 in our day and time. We must understand, however, that there was a vast difference between the values of the money standards of that time and of our own. The ratio would be about 15 to 1. For instance, a silver shekel would buy a cow; a half-shekel would buy an ass. If we evaluate their currency by purchasing power, it would take fifteen of our dollars to equal one of theirs. So the sum of gold, which is the equivalent of $20,000,000 by our former gold standard measurement, gives a conception of the annual income of Solomon, only if it is transmuted to our present ratio of purchasing power. This figure does not include all the tariff and income from taxes, the profit on his merchandising and the tribute in gifts of vassal nations. He was in the fortunate circumstance of paying income tax to himself so that his income remained undiminished! The gold of Solomon was hoarded for a unique and peculiar purpose.

When David desired to build a house for the worship of God, his offer was rejected on the ground that he was a man of blood. However, the Lord said that his son should build the house of prayer, and David began the hoarding of gold for the erection and beautification of that temple. The estimates of the amount of gold that went into that temple go as high as two and one-half billions of dollars. It is not too much to say that no building ever erected by the hands of man could excel the beauty, the artistic perfection, the splendor, and the intrinsic value of the temple that Solomon built.

In the Scriptural citation in I Kings, we have just read of the two hundred targets or bucklers of beaten gold. Also, there are catalogued the three hundred shields of beaten gold; three pounds of gold went into the construction of each shield. At the present rate of gold values, that would mean that each of these shields was worth $1680.00. There was considerably over a half million dollars of pure gold hammered into those shields. This glittering and entrancing treasure intrigued the greed of every conqueror of antiquity, but no man was able to take it from the House of God while His protection and care were upon it. It is not to be wondered that Shishak considered the capture of that treasure as the highest achievement of his reign.

The second reason for Shishak’s invasion, however, was mainly political. After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided. Rehoboam, possessing the Southern kingdom, was a weakling who was, moreover, under the influence of vicious, untrustworthy counselors. Perhaps his tendency towards idolatry may be traced to his mother who was an Ammonite and whose influence, undoubtedly, turned him away from monotheism. At any rate, Bel, Ashtoreth, Moloch and Baal were worshipped throughout the land on every high hill and under many green trees. The most unclean practices were indulged in by the people until the judgment of God necessarily descended upon them. Shishak’s chief concern was not over the idolatry of the people, however, but over the effect of their dereliction upon the development of the kingdom. In order to protect his possible rights of succession in Palestine, he moved to make Rehoboam a vassal, and brought him under the yoke of bondage, making him a governor for Egypt.

A more comprehensive account of this invasion is given in the twelfth chapter of II Chronicles. A great many people have raised the question as to why we have the duplication of the record in the books of Kings and Chronicles in the Scripture. It has been argued that the same stories told again in Chronicles are a senseless and useless repetition of the record already written in Kings. This specific instance is perhaps as fine an answer to that objection as can be found. It might be said that the Books of Kings recount the deeds of men and the Books of Chronicles deal largely with their motives. The Books of the Kings record history as enacted by man, while the records of Chronicles give God’s side of the story and tell the “why” of things that would otherwise be mysterious.

For instance, the twelfth chapter of II Chronicles begins, “And it came to pass when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.” Here is a bleak, unvarnished record of apostasy. The price of a man in his own position and standing has led him to debauch a nation spiritually and morally. Therefore, the second verse follows as a natural consequence: “And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord.” Here is an illuminating comment upon the motives and principles that underlie this record. It is a foreshadowing of the first chapter of Romans. When men give up God and deny Him a place in their culture and practices, it is inevitable that God will give them up to the consequences of their vile conduct. In this case it was Shishak who brought judgment upon Jerusalem. His twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand cavalrymen were supported by so many infantry that the number was never totaled. They are called “innumerable,” which is a simple way of saying that the number was too vast to take time counting them.

We are then told that when Shishak had captured all the outlying cities of Judah and was on his way to Jerusalem, the prophet Shemaiah frankly told King Rehoboam that his trouble had come upon him because of his apostasy. In blunt words he delivered this graphic warning: “Thus saith the Lord, Ye have forsaken me, and therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak.” When this message was so courageously delivered, the princes of Israel and the godless counselors of the apostate king together prostrated themselves before the Lord and acknowledged that His judgment was just and His decision was righteous. The record continues with the fact that when the Lord saw that they had repented, He promised to save the humbled court and the threatened city. But with the promise of deliverance from destruction there came also the grim edict that in order that they might learn the difference between serving God and being under the bondage of a heathen culture, they should be subject to Shishak and serve him.

Thus in Chronicles we do have the account repeated that was given to us in the record of the Kings, but with additional details that illumine and clarify the record. Shishak swept the land bare of precious metals and took away the treasures of the temple as well. Not only did he leave the king and the court destitute of their priceless ornaments, but he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.