The Brazen Shields of Rehoboam
In the logical presentation of this subject, we now come to that period
of history in which the pharaohs, who are named by name in the
Scriptures and are thus identified beyond question, make their
contribution to the evidence which sustains the record of the Bible.
Laying aside controversial discussions as to the identity of the various
pharaohs who preceded, we note that the first of Egypt’s many monarchs
to appear under his personal name in the Word of God is Shishak the 1st.
His name appears on the monuments of Egypt as Shashanq the 1st, but his
own records identify him as the “Shishak” of I Kings 14, and II
Chronicles 12. The outstanding accomplishments of his entire reign seem
to have been the invasion of Palestine and the capture of Jerusalem. In
the account which this monarch left in the priceless writings at Karnak,
the most noteworthy is the story told on the second pylon of the main
temple, where the conqueror has given a list of all the towns and
villages which he overthrew in Palestine. To this he added a record of
the gold and silver ornaments that he carried away from Jerusalem. He
specifically noted the bucklers and shields of Solomon and also the
golden quivers which Solomon’s father had captured from the king of
Zobah.
Once again we listen to some collateral gossip from far antiquity to see
the background of this strange invasion of Jerusalem. Weaving together
records of forgotten campaigns, homely events of family affairs, the
conduct of pragmatic generations, the history preserved in the books of
the Old Testament, together with the voices of monuments and ruins, we
gradually achieve a basis of understanding. The Pharaoh Siamen, whose
capital was at Zoan, appears to have been an ally of Edom. In the days
when secular historical records begin to coincide with the record of the
text, Edom was ruled by a regent. King Hadad was a lad of tender years,
and though he nominally was vested with the crown, his able and powerful
mother ruled in his name. The queen regent, incidentally, was an aunt of
Solomon. Holding that thought in temporary abeyance, we will continue to
investigate this quaint family alliance. David and Jonathan made a
successful assault upon Edom, which resulted in the capture of the city.
Such rights and powers as a conquering monarch has always abrogated to
himself, then devolved upon David in respect to Edom. When it became
apparent that the city would fall, the queen regent took her young son
and fled to Egypt for safety. In view of the fact that Edom and Egypt
were at that time allies, the royal party was well received and, with
the prodigal hospitality of that day, became guests at the court for the
balance of their lives.
Plate 26
[Illustration: “El Kahzne” (The Temple of the Urn)]
Plate 27
[Illustration: 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.
Plate 28
[Illustration: Note how top of building seems to erupt from the
hill]
Plate 29
[Illustration: Compare size of men in the doorway of “El Deir”]
We now enter into a consideration of one of the most tragic and
humiliating spectacles in all antiquity. When the penitent and restored
king saw the effects of his apostasy, he called the people back to the
practice of their earlier faith and himself came daily to the house of
the Lord for the exercise of prayer. But as the humbled monarch knelt in
prayer, he could not keep his eyes off the vacant walls. Where the five
hundred golden objects had once hung, testifying to the wealth of that
house and the greatness of his father, there was nothing but the bare
wall. It must be remembered that those golden ornaments had not belonged
to him. They had been hung in their places to praise and glorify God by
his greater ancestor. Therefore, when an enemy came and stole them away,
it was a constant and mute reproach to him because of his own failure to
live up to the standards and greatness of a preceding generation.
The troubled king gave orders that the targets and shields should be
replaced with copies of what had been lost. There was, however, neither
gold nor silver in the land, for Shishak had made a clean sweep of all
that was valuable. Thus, having lost the reality of their treasure, the
best they could do was to make a cheap similitude in brass.
Needless to say, brass is a pitiful substitute for the precious metal
which we call gold. If it is kept in a shining condition, at first
glance brass may have some resemblance to the nobler metal, but it
quickly tarnishes and its glitter fades. For this reason, the targets
and shields of brass were stored in the house of the guard. At the hour
when the king came to the temple to pray, the guard polished these
ridiculous substitutes and hung them in their places so that the king
might delude himself by the glitter and shine, and thus have some balm
for his troubled spirit. There is, of course, an element of humour in
this tragic record!
The moral lessons are almost innumerable and would provide a minister
with sermon material for days on end. We are faced with a somewhat
similar situation in Christendom today. Upon the walls of the House of
Faith, our believing fathers hung the golden shields that constitute the
doctrines of Christianity. The brilliant glory of those foundational
treasures was never threatened as long as the church was true to God.
But we in our generation, alas, have allowed an enemy to come in and rob
us of many of those golden shields.
We cannot over-emphasize the fact that it is always an enemy who seeks
thus to despoil the House of our Faith. Though he may come in the guise
of a friend, or even of a relative, as in the case of Shishak, the man
who robs us of our golden shields is an enemy at heart and in purpose.
May we illustrate this suggestion by saying, for instance, that our
fathers believed in the golden fact of the deity of Jesus Christ. They
held as a basic fact of Christianity that in the person of our Saviour,
Almighty God was incarnated to be the Redeemer of mankind. Satan, in the
person of many of his charming and well-mannered cohorts, has stolen
that shield from many a temple of prayer. Men speak now of the
“divinity” of Jesus instead of the “deity.” Having established this
premise, they then continue with the statement that we are _all_ divine
and have this same spark of divinity within our spirits, to a greater or
lesser extent. When the golden shield of the deity of Christ disappeared
from the walls of many churches that had once been Christian, the
worshippers made a beautiful substitute with the brazen replica of
Unitarianism. The tarnished brass of that un-Christian doctrine is a
miserable substitute indeed for the blessed assurance that is resident
in the fact of the deity of the Saviour.
Our fathers believed also in the virgin birth of the Son of God. They
accepted literally the record that Almighty God himself had given of the
incarnation of His Son. Our fathers believed that the body of Jesus was
formed in the womb of a virgin woman because of the direct visitation of
the Holy Ghost. Thus, the birth of Jesus Christ was a biological
miracle, and He owed even His earth origin to His _heavenly_ Father
alone! This foundational fact of the Christian revelation has
disappeared from the walls and the worship of many a once-Christian
gathering. In the place of that golden fact there is the ghastly and
brazen substitute of an illegitimate child, who was probably the fruit
of a woman’s sin! And then men wonder that the old-time power and
greatness of the Christian faith seem lacking in much of our land today!
In like manner, the golden shield of redemption through the shed blood
of Calvary has been exchanged for the brazen substitute of a “Perfect
Example.” The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ has been bartered
for a misty idea of some sort of a spiritual resurrection that has no
bearing upon the facts of the record that God has given to man. Shield
by shield, and buckler by buckler, the things that were given to us for
our defense, gleaming with the intrinsic value of a supernatural
revelation, have been stolen away by the enemy. The humanistic
substitutes that have replaced them have left us at the mercy of the
enemy who would destroy our souls.
But great as are the moral lessons involved in this record, its
apologetical value is incalculably greater. It has been the custom in
our day to question the historical accuracy of much of the record of the
Scripture. So it is with considerable interest that we turn back to
ancient Egypt to see what can be learned from the external sources of
pure archeology concerning these sections of the Old Testament.
The visitor to the British Museum may come away well acquainted with
this man Shishak. In the fourth Egyptian Room, in Table Case “O”, there
is a pair of gold bracelets, the exhibits being numbered 134 and 135.
These beautiful ornaments are overlaid with lapis lazuli, and a blue
substance which is similar to faience. The inside of each is inscribed
with a text written in hieroglyphics stating that the bracelets were
“Made for the Princess,” the daughter of the chief of all the bowmen,
Nemareth, whose mother was the daughter of the Prince of the land of
Reshnes. This Nemareth was the descendant in the fifth generation of
Buiu-auau, a Libyan prince who was the father of Shishak the First.
In this same case, exhibit number 217 is a heavy gold ring set with a
scarab carved from soapstone, which is inscribed with a clearly cut
cartouche containing both the prenomen and nomen of Shishak the First.
Looking further in this case, exhibit number 392 is a silver ring
inscribed with the titles of an official who held many important
positions under two monarchs. He was president of the granaries, also a
prophet of the fourth order, served as a scribe and at one time was
libationer in the reigns of Psammetichus and Shishak.
The most important of all the records of Shishak, of course, is the
voluminous account that he caused to be engraved at the Temple of
Karnak. A detail is added in Shishak’s record that is not contained in
the Scriptures. According to the conqueror, to strengthen the ties of
vassalage, he gave Jeroboam one of his daughters in marriage. This
complete record of Shishak’s we photographed, studied carefully, and
found eminently satisfactory, with the single exception that the king of
Judah is not named by name in Shishak’s account of this conquest. But he
does tell of the capture of Judah, the rape of Jerusalem, and gives a
categorical list of cities and villages overthrown. He specifically
mentions the bucklers and shields of gold that he took from the temple.
In a word, this science of archeology, upon the authority of men long
dead, but who have since been raised to testify, stamps an emphatic O.
K. upon this section of the Sacred Record.[1]
The next king who parades these pages under the designation of his
proper name is the Pharaoh Zera, who has also been identified with
Osarkon. Shishak’s first-born son, named both Usarkon and Osarkon the
First, succeeded his father to the throne as the last of the Tanite
kings of the twenty-first dynasty. This son, in turn, was called Shishak
and became the high priest of Amon. Osarkon the First was succeeded by
Takeloth the First, who, in turn, was followed by Osarkon the Second.
Since both of these Osarkons figure in the Scriptural account, we
briefly cover their record as it occurs in antiquity.
Being emperor of Ethiopia, as well as of Egypt, the first Osarkon, or
Zera, had a vast horde of Ethiopian allies who fought with him in his
important conquests. This entire line was of Libyan extraction. A
portion of Africa that is now temporarily possessed by the crown of
Italy seems to have given rise to this family of conquering rulers.
Undoubtedly the designation “Ethiopian” was suggested by this African
ancestry.
The Scriptural account of this man’s ill-starred military expedition is
given in the fourteenth chapter of II Chronicles. When King Abijah died,
his son Asa succeeded to the throne. The ascension of Asa was followed
by ten years of such peace and prosperity as was almost unprecedented in
those troublous times. The reason given is that Asa was a godly man and
found favour in the sight of the Lord. He shattered the images erected
to unclean idols, cut down the groves where Ashtoreth was worshipped,
demolished the altars and the high places, and purged the land of its
apostasy. He compelled the people of Judah to return to the true faith
and to obey the Lord and His commandments. He strengthened the fortified
centers and in a masterly fashion built up his reserves.
The ten years of prosperity and industry found the land of Judah in an
enviable condition that left it well worth robbing! Since the
opportunity to steal and loot was the only incentive required by the
grim pragmatists of antiquity, Zera, or Osarkon, gathered together an
army of a million foot soldiers, reinforced with three hundred chariots,
and journeyed toward Palestine to loot the land. The vicinity of
Mareshah was chosen as the site of the battle and Asa came out with his
pitiful little company to defend his possessions. The drama of this
record begins in the eleventh verse of the fourteenth chapter of II
Chronicles in the great prayer of Asa:
Plate 30
[Illustration: Enroute to the “High Place”]
Plate 31
[Illustration: The Altar of Sacrifice]
“And Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing
with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power:
help us, O Lord our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go
against this multitude. O Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail
against thee.”
The high-hearted courage and simple faith of Asa is sufficient
introduction to the very natural result, which follows in simple words:
“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and
the Ethiopians fled.”
We then read a condensed account of the pursuit that Asa and his people
indulged in, chasing the horde of Egyptians all the way across their own
border. They were in such confusion that they could not recover and make
a stand, so that not even a rear-guard action was fought. The children
of Israel recaptured all of the cities that Rehoboam had lost, and with
a typical Hebraism the account concludes with the statement that “they
carried away exceeding much spoil.” Although they never recovered the
golden shields, it is to be hoped they got their equivalent in the value
of this recounted spoil.
It was the universal custom of conquerors to record their victories and
say nothing of their defeats. Therefore, it is a bit startling to find
this record of II Chronicles borne out by the account the Egyptian
monarch has left of his own campaigns. This simple paragraph is
illuminating:
“Seventeen campaigns I waged. In sixteen of them I was victorious. In
the seventeenth campaign I was defeated. Not by man, Heaven fought
against me.”
So even in the record of a defeat this man can brag that his strength
and greatness were so phenomenal that only the Lord could overthrow him.
Once again, a dead man tells a tale. He also, in the illuminating
account that he has left, rises from the dead to write “o. k.” across
the pages of Holy Writ, attesting its historical fidelity and the
accuracy of its records.