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.”