1 Kings 14:26

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.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(26) He even took away all.—There is a touch of pathos in the description of the utter spoil of the treasures in which Solomon and Israel had gloried, and which now served only to buy off the victorious Egyptians. There is no notice of any sack of Jerusalem, nor, as in later cases, of any desecration of the Temple, or even of the plunder of its decorations. The record seems to imply surrender of the city and its treasures. The idea sometimes advanced, that, like the capture of Rome by the Gauls, the invasion of Shishak destroyed all ancient monuments and archives, has therefore no historical support from this passage; and with it many conclusions derived from it as to the dates of our Scriptural records must pass away.

Benson Commentary

1 Kings 14:26. And he took, &c. — Rehoboam, according to Josephus, delivered up the city to him without striking a stroke; which may seem strange, considering the great strength of it, and how much time it took Nebuchadnezzar and Titus to become masters of it. But it is probable that David and Solomon, in their building and altering the city, had more respect to state and magnificence than to its defence, as having no great cause to fear the invasion of any enemies: and it is certain that after the division between Judah and Israel, the kings of Judah added very much to the fortifications of it. Add to this, that this Shishak had a vast army, as we read 2 Chronicles 12:2, and so powerful, that as Herodotus, who calls him Sesostris, tells us, with it he conquered Asia. He took away the treasures of the Lord’s house — Within twenty-five years after it was finished, he plundered it, as also the king’s house, of all the wealth which they contained, and which had been amassed by David and Solomon. This, it is probable, had tempted Shishak to make this descent, and this Rehoboam lamely resigned to him, to prevent still worse consequences. Who that had seen the glory, the riches, the magnificence, the power of Solomon, would not have concluded, as the queen of Sheba seems to have done, that a long and lasting state of security and happiness was entailed on this people? But the Holy Scriptures inform us, that at the very time when every one was admiring and extolling Solomon’s glory and happiness, it was denounced unto him by the Lord himself, that if either he or his children should turn aside from following the Lord, and go after other gods, they should certainly and soon fall from their glory, and be a proverb and by-word among all people, 1 Kings 11:6, &c.; and that even that house, which was viewed by all the nations around as a prodigy of magnificence and strength, should be so reduced and brought to desolation, that every one that passed by should be astonished and hiss at it. Human foresight, doubtless, then perceived no likelihood of any such change taking place; but the event soon showed that its security and continuance depended on something more than human means.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

14:21-31 Here is no good said of Rehoboam, and much said to the disadvantage of his subjects. The abounding of the worst crimes, of the worst of the heathen, in Jerusalem, the city the Lord had chosen for his temple and his worship, shows that nothing can mend the hearts of fallen men but the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. On this alone may we depend; for this let us daily pray, in behalf of ourselves and all around us. The splendour of their temple, the pomp of their priesthood, and all the advantages with which their religion was attended, could not prevail to keep them close to it; nothing less than the pouring out the Spirit will keep God's Israel in their allegiance to him. Sin exposes, makes poor, and weakens any people. Shishak, king of Egypt, came and took away the treasures. Sin makes the gold become dim, changes the most fine gold, and turns it into brass.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The circumstances of Shishak's invasion, related here with extreme brevity, are given with some fulness by the author of Chronicles (marginal reference). It is still a question whether the submission of the Jewish king is or is not expressly recorded in the Karnak inscription. Midway in the list of cities and tribes occurs the entry "YUDeH-MALK" which it has been proposed to translate "Judah, king." Others regard it as the name of a Palestinian town not otherwise known to us.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

1Ki 14:25-31. Shishak Spoils Jerusalem.

25, 26. Shishak king of Egypt came up—He was the instrument in the hand of Providence for punishing the national defection. Even though this king had been Solomon's father-in-law, he was no relation of Rehoboam's; but there is a strong probability that he belonged to another dynasty (see on [313]2Ch 12:2). He was the Sheshonk of the Egyptian monuments, who is depicted on a bas-relief at Karnak, as dragging captives, who, from their peculiar physiognomy, are universally admitted to be Jews.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

He took away the treasures; it is implied, that first he took the city; which may seem strange considering the great strength of that city, and how much time it took Nebuchadnezzar and Titus to take it. But, first, It might cost Shishak also some time and a long siege ere he took it, though that be not here related. Secondly, It is probable that David and Solomon, in their building and altering of this city, had more respect to state and magnificence than to its defence, as having no great cause to fear the invasion of any enemies, and being too secure in reference to their posterity, because of God’s promise of the kingdom to be continued to them and to their seed for ever. And it is probable and certain, that after the division between Judah and Israel, the kings of Judah did add very much to the fortifications of this city.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord,.... Which perhaps Jeroboam had informed him of, and for the sake of which he came, as well as to make a diversion in favour of Jeroboam, who had contracted an intimacy with him when in Egypt; and who might have no regard for Rehoboam, who was not a son of Pharaoh's daughter, and so no relation to him: these were the treasures which David had left to his son Solomon, and had dedicated for the temple, even gold, silver, and vessels, which he put among the treasures of the house of the Lord, and perhaps added to them, 1 Kings 7:51, and the treasures of the king's house; the riches, gold, silver, and jewels, whatever of worth and value he had in his chests and cabinets:

he even took away all: that he could find and come at; for that there were some left is plain from 1 Kings 15:18,

and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made; and which were put in the house of the forest of Lebanon, 1 Kings 10:16.

Geneva Study Bible

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.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

26. he even took away all] Instead of these words the LXX. gives: ‘and the golden shields which David took from the hands of the servants of Hadadezer king of Zobah and brought them to Jerusalem.’ On these captures of David see 2 Samuel 8:7.

On the shields of gold made by Solomon cf. 1 Kings 10:17. At the close of the verse the LXX. adds that Shishak ‘brought’ his booty ‘into Egypt.’

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 26. - And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord [The historian omits to mention the interposition of Shemaiah (2 Chronicles 12:5-8). The account of the Chronicles is altogether much fuller], and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all [rather, "and everything (sc. that he could lay his hands on) he took away." The spoil must have been enormous]: and he took away all the shields of gold [cf. 1 Kings 10:17] which Solomon had made. 1 Kings 14:26

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

King Shishak of Egypt invaded the land with a powerful army, conquered all the fortified cities, penetrated to Jerusalem, and would probably have put an end to the kingdom of Judah, if God had not had compassion upon him, and saved him from destruction, in consequence of the humiliation of the king and of the chiefs of the nation, caused by the admonition of the prophet Shemaiah, so that after the conquest of Jerusalem Shishak contented himself with withdrawing, taking with him the treasures of the temple and of the royal palace. Compare the fuller account of this expedition in 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. Shishak (שׁישׁק) was the first king of the twenty-second (or Bubastitic) dynasty, called Sesonchis in Jul. Afric., Sesonchosis in Eusebius, and upon the monuments on which Champollion first deciphered his name, Sheshonk or Sheshenk. Shishak has celebrated his expedition against Judah by a bas-relief on the outer wall of the pillar-hall erected by him in the first palace at Karnak, in which more than 130 figures are led in cords by Ammon and the goddess Muth with their hands bound upon their backs. The lower portion of the figures of this long row of prisoners is covered by escutcheons, the border of which being provided with battlements, shows that the prisoners are symbols of conquered cities. About a hundred of these escutcheons are still legible, and in the names upon them a large number of the names of cities in the kingdom of Judah have been deciphered with tolerable certainty.

(Note: Compare Max Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums, Bd. i. p. 909, ed. 3, and for the different copies of this bas-relief in the more recent works upon Egypt, Reutschi in Herzog's Cycl. (art. Rehoboam). The latest attempts at deciphering are those by Brugsch, Geogr. Inschriften in den gypt. Denkmltern, ii. p. 56ff., and O. Blau, Sisaqs Zug gegen Juda aus dem Denkmale bei Karnak erlutert, in the Deutsch. morgenl. Ztschr. xv. p. 233ff. Champollion's interpretation of one of these escutcheons, in his Prcis du systme hierogl. p. 204, viz., Juda hammalek, "the king of Judah," has been rejected by Lepsius and Brugsch as philologically inadmissible. Brugsch writes the name thus: Judh malk or Joud-hamalok, and identifies Judh with Jehudijeh, which Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 45) supposes to be the ancient Jehud (Joshua 19:45). This Jehud in the tribe of Dan, Blau (p. 238) therefore also finds in the name; and it will not mislead any one that this city is reckoned as belonging to the tribe of Dan, since in the very same chapter (Joshua 19:42) Ajalon is assigned to Dan, though it was nevertheless a fortress of Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:10). But Blau has not given any explanation of the addition malk or malok, whereas Gust. Roesch takes it to be מלך, and supposes it to mean "Jehud of the king, namely, of Rehoboam or of Judah, on account of its being situated in Dan, which belonged to the northern kingdom." But this is certainly incorrect. For where could the Egyptians have obtained this exact knowledge of the relation in which the tribes of the nation of Israel stood to one another?)

Shishak was probably bent chiefly upon the conquest and plundering of the cities. But from Jerusalem, beside other treasures of the temple and palace, he also carried off the golden shields that had been made by Solomon (1 Kings 10:16), in the place of which Rehoboam had copper ones made for his body-guard. The guard, רצים, runners, are still further described as המּלך בּית פּתח בּית ה השּׁמרים, "who kept the door of the king's house," i.e., supplied the sentinels for the gate of the royal palace.