Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 1 Kings 11:14 - 11:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Solomon's Opponents. - Although the punishment with which Solomon was threatened for his apostasy was not to be inflicted till after his death, the Lord raised up several adversaries even during his lifetime, who endangered the peace of his kingdom, and were to serve as constant reminders that he owed his throne and his peaceable rule over the whole of the kingdom inherited from his father solely to the mercy, the fidelity, and the long-suffering of God. - The rising up of Hadad and Rezon took place even before the commencement of Solomon's idolatry, but it is brought by יְהֹוָה וַיָּקֶם (1Ki 11:14) into logical connection with the punishment with which he is threatened in consequence of that idolatry, because it was not till a later period that it produced any perceptible effect upon his government, yet it ought from the very first to have preserved him from self-security.
1Ki 11:14-22
The first adversary was Hadad the Edomite, a man of royal birth. The name הֲדַד (אֲדַד in 1Ki 11:17, according to an interchange of ה and א which is by no means rare) was also borne by a prae-Mosaic king of Edom (Gen 36:35), from which we may see that it was not an uncommon name in the royal family of the Edomites. But the conjecture of Ewald and Thenius, that our Hadad was a grandson of Hadar, the last of the kings mentioned there, is quite a groundless one, since it rests upon the false assumption that Hadar (called Hadad in the Chronicles by mistake) reigned in the time of David (see the Comm. on Gen 36:31.). הוּא before בֶּאֱדֹום stands in the place of the relative אֲשֶׁר: “of royal seed he = who was of the royal seed in Edom” (cf. Ewald, §332, a.).
1Ki 11:15-17
When David had to do with the Edomites, ... Hadad fled. אֵת הָיָה is analogous to עִם הָיָה, to have to do with any one, though in a hostile sense, as in the phrase to go to war with (אֵת) a person, whereas עִם הָיָה generally means to be upon the side of any one. The correctness of the reading בִּהְיֹוה is confirmed by all the ancient versions, which have simply paraphrased the meaning in different ways. For Böttcher has already shown that the lxx did not read בְּהַכֹּות, as Thenius supposes. The words from בַּעֲלֹות to the end of 1Ki 11:16 form explanatory circumstantial clauses. On the circumstance itself, compare 2Sa 8:13-14, with the explanation given there. “The slain,” whom Joab went to bury, were probably not the Israelites who had fallen in the battle in the Salt valley (2Sa 8:13), but those who had been slain on the invasion of the land by the Edomites, and still remained unburied. After their burial Joab defeated the Edomites in the valley of Salt, and remained six months in Edom till he had cut off every male. “All Israel” is the whole of the Israelitish army. “Every male” is of course only the men capable of bearing arms, who fell into the hands of the Israelites; for “Hadad and others fled, and the whole of the Idumaean race was not extinct” (Clericus). Then Hadad fled, while yet a little boy, with some of his father's Edomitish servants, to go to Egypt, going first of all to Midian and thence to Paran. The country of Midian cannot be more precisely defined, inasmuch as we meet with Midianites sometimes in the peninsula of Sinai on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, where Edrisi and Abulfeda mention a city of Madian (see at Exo 2:15), and sometimes on the east of the Moabitish territory (see at Num 22:4 and Jdg 6:1). Here, at any rate, we must think of the neighbourhood of the Elanitic Gulf, though not necessarily of the city of Madian, five days' journey to the south of Aela; and probably of the country to which Moses fled from Egypt. Paran is the desert of that name between the mountains of Sinai and the south of Canaan (see at Num 10:12), through which the Haj route from Egypt by Elath to Mecca still runs. Hadad would be obliged to take the road by Elath in order to go to Egypt, even if he had taken refuge with the Midianites on the east of Moab and Edom.
1Ki 11:18-20
From Paran they took men with them as guides through the desert. Thus Hadad came to Egypt, where Pharaoh received him hospitably, and gave them a house and maintenance (לֶחֶם), and also assigned him land (אֶרֶץ) to cultivate for the support of the fugitives who had come with him, and eventually, as he found great favour in his eyes, gave him for a wife the sister of his own wife, queen Tachpenes, who bare him a son, Genubath. This son was weaned by Tachpenes in the royal palace, and then brought up among (with) the children of Pharaoh, the royal princes. According to Rosellini and Wilkinson (Ges. Thes. p. 1500), Tachpenes was also the name of a female deity of Egypt. The wife of Pharaoh is called הַגְּבִירָה, i.e., the mistress among the king's wives, as being the principal consort. In the case of the kings of Judah this title is given to the king's mother, probably as the president in the harem, whose place was taken by the reigning queen after her death. The weaning, probably a family festival as among the Hebrews (Gen 21:8) and other ancient nations (vid., Dougtaei Analecta ss . i. 22f.), was carried out by the queen in the palace, because the boy was to be thereby adopted among the royal children, to be brought up with them.
1Ki 11:21-22
When Hadad heard in Egypt of the death of David and Joab, he asked permission of Pharaoh to return to his own country. Pharaoh replied, “What is there lacking to thee with me?” This answer was a pure expression of love and attachment to Hadad, and involved the request that he would remain. But Hadad answered, “No, but let me go.” We are not told that Pharaoh then let him go, but this must be supplied; just as in Num 10:32 we are not told what Hobab eventually did in consequence of Moses' request, but it has to be supplied from the context. The return of Hadad to his native land is clearly to be inferred from the fact that, according to 1Ki 11:14, 1Ki 11:25, he rose up as an adversary of Solomon.
(Note: The lxx have supplied what is missing e conjectura: καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Ἄδερ (i.e., Hadad) εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ· αὑτὴ ἡ κακία ἥν ἐποίησεν Ἄδερ· καὶ ἐβαρυθύμησεν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν γῇ Ἐδώμ. Thenius proposes to alter the Hebrew text accordingly, and draws this conclusion, that “shortly after the accession of Solomon, Hadad, having returned from Egypt, wrested from the power of the Israelites the greatest part of Edom, probably the true mountain-land of Edom, so that certain places situated in the plain, particularly Ezion-geber, remained in the hands of the Israelites, and intercourse could be maintained with that port through the Arabah, even though not quite without disturbance.” This conclusion, which is described as “historical,” is indeed at variance with 1Ki 22:48, according to which Edom had no king even in the time of Jehoshaphat, but only a vicegerent, and also with 2Ki 8:20, according to which it was not till the reign of Jehoshaphat's son Joram that Edom fell away from Judah. But this discrepancy Thenius sets aside by the remark at 1Ki 22:48, that in Jehoshaphat's time the family of Hadad had probably died out, and Jehoshaphat prudently availed himself of the disputes which arose concerning the succession to enforce Judah's right of supremacy over Edom, and to appoint first a vicegerent and then a new king, though perhaps one not absolutely dependent upon him. But this conjecture as to the relation in which Jehoshaphat stood to Edom is proved to be an imaginary fiction by the fact that, although this history does indeed mention a revolt of the Edomites from Judah (2 Chron 20; see at 1Ki 22:48), it not only says nothing whatever about the dying out of the royal family of Hadad or about disputes concerning the succession, but it does not even hint at them. - But with regard to the additions made to this passage by the lxx, to which even Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 276) attributes historical worth, though without building upon them such confident historical combinations as Thenius, we may easily convince ourselves of their critical worthlessness, if we only pass our eye over the whole section (1Ki 11:14-25), instead of merely singling out those readings of the lxx which support our preconceived opinions, and overlooking all the rest, after the thoroughly unscientific mode of criticism adopted by a Thenius or Böttcher. For example, the lxx have connected together the two accounts respecting the adversaries Hadad and Rezon who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14 and 1Ki 11:23), which are separated in the Hebrew text, and have interpolated what is sated concerning Rezon in 1Ki 11:23 and 1Ki 11:24 after הָאֲדֹמִי in 1Ki 11:14, and consequently have been obliged to alter וגו שָׂטָן וַיְהִי in 1Ki 11:25 into καὶ ἦσαν Σατάν, because they had previously cited Hadad and Rezon as adversaries, whereas in the Hebrew text these words apply to Rezon alone. But the rest of 1Ki 11:25, namely the words from וְאֶת־רָעָה onwards, they have not given till the close of 1Ki 11:22 (lxx); and in order to connect this with what precedes, they have interpolated the words καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Ἄδερ εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ. The Alexandrians were induced to resort to this intertwining of the accounts concerning Hadad and Rezon, which are kept separate in the Hebrew text, partly by the fact that Hadad and Rezon are introduced as adversaries of Solomon with the very same words (1Ki 11:14 and 1Ki 11:23), but more especially by the fact that in 1Ki 11:25 of the Hebrew text the injury done to Solomon by Hadad is merely referred to in a supplementary manner in connection with Rezon's enterprise, and indeed is inserted parenthetically within the account of the latter. The Alexandrian translators did not know what to make of this, because they did not understand וְאֶת־הָרָעָה and took וְאֶת for זֹאת, αὕτη ἡ κακία. With this reading וַיָּקָץ which follows was necessarily understood as referring to Hadad; and as Hadad was an Edomite, עַל־אֲרָם וַיִּמְלֹךְ had to be altered into ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν γῇ Ἐδώμ. Consequently all the alterations of the lxx in this section are simply the result of an arbitrary treatment of the Hebrew text, which they did not really understand, and consist of a collocation of all that is homogeneous, as every reader of this translation who is acquainted with the original text must see so clearly even at the very beginning of the chapter, where the number of Solomon's wives is taken from 1Ki 11:3 of the Hebrew text and interpolated into 1Ki 11:1, that, as Thenius observes, “the true state of the case can only be overlooked from superficiality of observation or from preconceived opinion.”)
1Ki 11:23-25
A second adversary of Solomon was Rezon, the son of Eliadah (for the name see at 1Ki 15:18), who had fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and who became the captain of a warlike troop (גְּדוּד), when David smote them (אֹתָם), i.e., the troops of his lord (2Sa 8:3-4). Rezon probably fled from his lord for some reason which is not assigned, when the latter was engaged in war with David, before his complete overthrow, and collected together a company from the fugitives, with which he afterwards marched to Damascus, and having taken possession of that city, made himself king over it. This probably did not take place till towards the close of David's reign, or even after his death, though it was at the very beginning of Solomon's reign; for “he became an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon (i.e., during the whole of his reign), and that with (beside) the mischief which Hadad did, and he abhorred Israel (i.e., became disgusted with the Israelitish rule), and became king over Aram.” הֲדָד אֲשֶׁר is an abbreviated expression, to which עָשָׂה may easily be supplied, as it has been by the lxx (vid., Ewald, §292, b., Anm.). It is impossible to gather from these few words in what the mischief done by Hadad to Solomon consisted.
(Note: What Josephus (Ant. viii. 7, 6) relates concerning an alliance between Hadad and Rezon for the purpose of making hostile attacks upon Israel, is merely an inference drawn from the text of the lxx, and utterly worthless.)
Rezon, on the other hand, really obtained possession of the rule over Damascus. Whether at the beginning or not till the end of Solomon's reign cannot be determined, since all that is clearly stated is that he was Solomon's adversary during the whole of his reign, and attempted to revolt from him from the very beginning. If, however, he made himself king of Damascus in the earliest years of his reign, he cannot have maintained his sway very long, since Solomon afterwards built or fortified Tadmor in the desert, which he could not have done if he had not been lord over Damascus, as the caravan road from Gilead to Tadmor (Palmyra) went past Damascus.
(Note: Compare Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 276. It is true that more could be inferred from 2Ch 8:3, if the conquest of the city of Hamath by Solomon were really recorded in that passage, as Bertheau supposes. But although עַל הָזַק is used to signify the conquest of tribes or countries, we cannot infer the conquest of the city of Hamath from the words, “Solomon went to Hamath Zobah עָלֶיהָ וַיֶּחֱזַק and built Tadmor,” etc., since all that עליה יחזק distinctly expresses is the establishment of his power over the land of Hamath Zobah. And this Solomon could have done by placing fortifications in that province, because he was afraid of rebellion, even if Hamath Zobah had not actually fallen away from his power.)
1Ki 11:26-28
Attempted rebellion of Jeroboam the Ephraimite. - Hadad and Rezon are simply described as adversaries (שָׂטָן) of Solomon; but in the case of Jeroboam it is stated that “he lifted up his hand against the king,” i.e., he stirred up a tumult or rebellion. בְּ יָד נָשָׂא is synonymous with בְּ יָד נָשָׂא in 2Sa 18:28; 2Sa 20:21. It is not on account of this rebellion, which was quickly suppressed by Solomon, but on account of the later enterprise of Jeroboam, that his personal history is so minutely detailed. Jeroboam was an Ephraimite (אֶפְרָתִי, as in 1Sa 1:1; Jdg 12:5) of Zereda, i.e., Zarthan, in the Jordan valley (see 1Ki 7:46), son of a widow, and עֶבֶד, i.e., not a subject (Then.), but an officer, of Solomon. All that is related of his rebellion against the king is the circumstances under which it took place. אֲשֶׁר הַדָּבָר יָד, this is how it stands with, as in Jos 5:4. Solomon built Millo (1Ki 9:15), and closed the rent (the defile?) in the city of David. פֶּרֶץ, ruptura, cannot be a rent or breach in the wall of the city of David, inasmuch as חֹומָה is not added, and since the fortification of the city by David (2Sa 5:9) no hostile attack had ever been made upon Jerusalem; but in all probability it denotes the ravine which separated Zion from Moriah and Ophel, the future Tyropoeon, through the closing of which the temple mountain was brought within the city wall, and the fortification of the city of David was completed (Thenius, Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 330). Compare מִפְרָץ, a gap in the coast, a bay. On the occasion of this building, Jeroboam proved himself a חַיִל גִּבֹּור, i.e., a very able and energetic man; so that when Solomon saw the young man, that he was doing work, i.e., urging it forward, he committed to him the oversight over all the heavy work of the house of Joseph. It must have been while occupying this post that he attempted a rebellion against Solomon. This is indicated by וגו הַדָּבָר יָד in v. 27. According to 1Ki 12:4, the reason for the rebellion is to be sought for in the appointment of the Ephraimites to heavy works. This awakened afresh the old antipathy of that tribe to Judah, and Jeroboam availed himself of this to instigate a rebellion.
1Ki 11:29-36
At that time the prophet Ahijah met him in the field and disclosed to him the word of the Lord, that he should become king over Israel. הַהִיא בָּעֵת: at that time, viz., the time when Jeroboam had become overseer over the heavy works, and not after he had already stirred up the rebellion. For the whole of the account in 1Ki 11:29-39 forms part of the explanation of בַּמֶּלֶךְ יָד הֵרִים which commences with 1Ki 11:27, so that הַהִיא בָּעֵת וַיְהִי is closely connected with אֹתֹו וַיַּפְקֵד in 1Ki 11:28, and there is no such gap in the history as is supposed by Thenius, who builds upon this opinion most untenable conjectures as to the intertwining of different sources. At that time, as Jeroboam was one day going out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah of Shilo (Seilun) met him by the way (בַּדֶּרֶךְ), with a new upper garment wrapped around him; and when they were alone, he rent the new garment, that is to say, his own, not Jeroboam's, as Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 388) erroneously supposes, into twelve pieces, and said to Jeroboam, “Take thee ten pieces, for Jehovah saith, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and give thee ten tribes; and one tribe shall remain to him (Solomon) for David's sake,” etc. The new שַׂלְמָה wen ehT . was probably only a large four-cornered cloth, which was thrown over the shoulders like the Heik of the Arabs, and enveloped the whole of the upper portion of the body (see my bibl. Archäol. ii. pp. 36, 37). By the tearing of the new garment into twelve pieces, of which Jeroboam was to take ten for himself, the prophetic announcement was symbolized in a very emphatic manner. This symbolical action made the promise a completed fact. “As the garment as torn in pieces and lay before the eyes of Jeroboam, so had the division of the kingdom already taken place in the counsel of God” (O. v. Gerlach). There was something significant also in the circumstance that it was a new garment, which is stated twice, and indicates the newness, i.e., the still young and vigorous condition, of the kingdom (Thenius).
In the word of God explaining the action it is striking that Jeroboam was to receive ten tribes, and the one tribe was to remain to Solomon (1Ki 11:31, 1Ki 11:32, 1Ki 11:35, 1Ki 11:36, as in 1Ki 11:13). The nation consisted of twelve tribes, and Ahijah had torn his garment into twelve pieces, of which Jeroboam was to take ten; so that there were two remaining. It is evident at once from this, that the numbers are intended to be understood symbolically and not arithmetically. Ten as the number of completeness and totality is placed in contrast with one, to indicate that all Israel was to be torn away from the house of David, as is stated in 1Ki 12:20, “they made Jeroboam king over all Israel,” and only one single fragment was to be left to the house of Solomon out of divine compassion. This one tribe, however, is not Benjamin, the one tribe beside Judah, as Hupfeld (on Ps 80), C. a Lap., Mich., and others suppose, but, according to the distinct statement in 1Ki 12:20, “the tribe of Judah only.” Nevertheless Benjamin belonged to Judah; for, according to 1Ki 12:21, Rehoboam gathered together the whole house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to fight against the house of Israel (which had fallen away), and to bring the kingdom again to himself. And so also in 2Ch 11:3 and 2Ch 11:23 Judah and Benjamin are reckoned as belonging to the kingdom of Rehoboam. This distinct prominence given to Benjamin by the side of Judah overthrows the explanation suggested by Seb. Schmidt and others, namely, that the description of the portion left to Rehoboam as one tribe is to be explained from the fact that Judah and Benjamin, on the border of which Jerusalem was situated, were regarded in a certain sense as one, and that the little Benjamin was hardly taken into consideration at all by the side of the great Judah. For if Ahijah had regarded Benjamin as one with Judah, he would not have torn his garment into twelve pieces, inasmuch as if Benjamin was to be merged in Judah, or was not to be counted along with it as a distinct tribe, the whole nation could only be reckoned as eleven tribes. Moreover the twelve tribes did not so divide themselves, that Jeroboam really received ten tribes and Rehoboam only one or only two. In reality there were three tribes that fell to the kingdom of Judah, and only nine to the kingdom of Israel, Ephraim and Manasseh being reckoned as two tribes, since the tribe of Levi was not counted in the political classification. The kingdom of Judah included, beside the tribe of Judah, both the tribe of Benjamin and also the tribe of Simeon, the territory of which, according to Jos 19:1-9, was within the tribe-territory of Judah and completely surrounded by it, so that the Simeonites would have been obliged to emigrate and give up their tribe-land altogether, if they desired to attach themselves to the kingdom of Israel. But it cannot be inferred from 2Ch 15:9 and 2Ch 34:6 that an emigration of the whole tribe had taken place (see also at 1Ki 12:17). On the other hand, whilst the northern border of the tribe of Benjamin, with the cities of Bethel, Ramah, and Jericho, fell to the kingdom of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:29; 1Ki 15:17, 1Ki 15:21; 1Ki 16:34), several of the cities of the tribe of Dan were included in the kingdom of Judah, namely, Ziklag, which Achish had presented to David, and also Zorea and Ajalon (2Ch 11:10; 2Ch 28:18), in which Judah obtained compensation for the cities of Benjamin of which it had been deprived.
(Note: On the other hand, the fact that in Psa 80:2 Benjamin is placed between Ephraim and Manasseh is no proof that it belonged to the kingdom of Israel; for can this be inferred from the fact that Benjamin, as the tribe to which Saul belonged, at the earlier split among the tribes took the side of those which were opposed to David, and that at a still later period a rebellion originated with Benjamin. For in Psa 80:2 the exposition is disputed, and the jealousy of Benjamin towards Judah appears to have become extinct with the dying out of the royal house of Saul. Again, the explanation suggested by Oehler (Herzog's Cycl.) of the repeated statement that the house of David was to receive only one tribe, namely, that there was not a single whole tribe belonging to the southern kingdom beside Judah, is by no means satisfactory. For it cannot be proved that any portion of the tribe of Simeon ever belonged to the kingdom of Israel, although the number ten was not complete without it. And it cannot be inferred from 2Ch 15:9 that Simeonites had settled outside their tribe-territory. And, as a rule, single families or households that may have emigrated cannot be taken into consideration as having any bearing upon the question before us, since, according to the very same passage of the Chronicles, many members of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh had emigrated to the kingdom of Judah.)
Consequently there only remained nine tribes for the northern kingdom. For וגו עַבְדִּי לְמַעַן see at 1Ki 11:13. For 1Ki 11:33 compare 1Ki 11:4-8. The plurals עֲזָבוּנִי, יִשְׁתַּחֲווּ, and הָלְכוּ are not open to critical objection, but are used in accordance with the fact, since Solomon did not practise idolatry alone, but many in the nation forsook the Lord along with him. צִדֹנִין, with a Chaldaic ending (see Ges. §87, 1, a.). In 1Ki 11:34-36 there follows a more precise explanation: Solomon himself is not to lose the kingdom, but to remain prince all his life, and his son is to retain one tribe; both out of regard to David (vid., 1Ki 11:12, 1Ki 11:13). אֲשִׁתֶנּוּ נָשִׂיא כִּי, “but I will set him for prince,” inasmuch as leaving him upon the throne was not merely a divine permission, but a divine act. “That there may be a light to my servant David always before me in Jerusalem.” This phrase, which is repeated in 1Ki 15:4; 2Ki 8:19; 2Ch 21:7, is to be explained from 2Sa 21:17, where David's regal rule is called the light which God's grace had kindled for Israel, and affirms that David was never to want a successor upon the throne.
1Ki 11:37-39
The condition on which the kingdom of Jeroboam was to last was the same as that on which Solomon had also been promised the continuance of his throne in 1Ki 3:14; 1Ki 6:12; 1Ki 9:4, namely, faithful observance of the commandments of God. The expression, “be king over all that thy soul desireth,” is explained in what follows by “all Israel.” It is evident from this that Jeroboam had aspired after the throne. On the condition named, the Lord would build him a lasting house, as He had done for David (see at 2Sa 7:16). In the case of Jeroboam, however, there is no allusion to a lasting duration of the מַמְלָכָה (kingdom) such as had been ensured to David; for the division of the kingdom was not to last for ever, but the seed of David was simply to be chastised. זֹאת לְמַעַן, for this, i.e., because of the apostasy already mentioned; “only not all the days,” i.e., not for ever. וַאעַנֶּה is explanatory so far as the sense is concerned: “for I will humble.” Jeroboam did not fulfil this condition, and therefore his house was extirpated at the death of his son (1Ki 15:28.).
1Ki 11:40
1Ki 11:40 is a continuation of בַּמֶּלֶךְ יָד וַיָּרֶם in 1Ki 11:26; for 1Ki 11:27-39 contain simply an explanation of Jeroboam's lifting up his hand against Solomon. It is obvious from this that Jeroboam had organized a rebellion against Solomon; and also, as 1Ki 11:29 is closely connected with 1Ki 11:28, that this did not take place till after the prophet had foretold his reigning over ten tribes after Solomon's death. But this did not justify Jeroboam's attempt; nor was Ahijah's announcement an inducement or authority to rebel. Ahijah's conduct as perfectly analogous to that of Samuel in the case of Saul, and is no more to be attributed to selfish motives than his was, as though the prophetic order desired to exalt itself above the human sovereign (Ewald; see, on the other hand, Oehler's article in Herzog's Cycl.). For Ahijah expressly declared to Jeroboam that Jehovah would let Solomon remain prince over Israel during the remainder of his life. This deprived Jeroboam of every pretext for rebellion. Moreover the prophet's announcement, even without this restriction, gave him no right to seize with his own hand and by means of rebellion upon that throne which God intended to give to him. Jeroboam might have learned how he ought to act under these circumstances from the example of David, who had far more ground, according to human opinion, for rebelling against Saul, his persecutor and mortal foe, and who nevertheless, even when God had delivered his enemy into his hand, so that he might have slain him, did not venture to lay his hand upon the anointed of the Lord, but waited in pious submission to the leadings of his God, till the Lord opened the way to the throne through the death of Saul. By the side of David's behaviour towards Saul the attempt of Jeroboam has all the appearance of a criminal rebellion, so that Solomon would have been perfectly justified in putting him to death, if Jeroboam had not escaped from his hands by a flight into Egypt. - On Shishak see at 1Ki 14:25.