I Kings 14:25 · Bible study
1 Kings 14:25 Commentary: Shishak's Invasion Under God's Judgment
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why did God allow Shishak to plunder Jerusalem? This verse shows the direct consequence of Judah's idolatry under Rehoboam, confirmed by Egyptian records.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Shishak's invasion of Jerusalem in Rehoboam's fifth year is presented as God's judgment for Judah's idolatry, not merely a political event.
- Key words: 'Came up' (עָלָה), standard term for a hostile advance; 'Shishak' (Sheshonk I, 22nd Dynasty); 'fifth year', three years after Rehoboam's faithful phase.
- Main debate: Whether Jeroboam prompted Shishak to attack Judah, or whether the invasion came purely as divine discipline with no human conspiracy.
- Theological theme: God's covenant jealousy: sin provokes judgment, but humility can turn away full destruction.
- Best use: A warning against spiritual drift, showing that God uses external events to correct His people and that repentance can limit damage.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
In the fifth year of Rehoboam’s reign, Shishak king of Egypt came up and attacked Jerusalem.
WEB World English Bible 2000
In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem;
KJV King James Version 1769
And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem:
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem;
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And it cometh to pass, in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, gone up hath Shishak king of Egypt against Jerusalem,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, [that] Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And in the fifth year of the reign of Roboam, Sesac, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Al quinto año del rey Roboam subió Sisac rey de Egipto contra Jerusalem.
Ao quinto ano do rei Roboão subiu Sisaque rei do Egito contra Jerusalém.
La cinquième année du règne de Roboam, Schischak, roi d’ Égypte, monta contre Jérusalem.
Aber im fünften Jahr des Königs Rehabeam zog Sisak, der König in Ägypten, herauf wider Jerusalem
Het geschiedde nu in het vijfde jaar van den koning Rehabeam, dat Sisak, de koning van Egypte, optoog tegen Jeruzalem.
L’anno quinto del regno di Roboamo, Scishak, re d’Egitto, salì contro Gerusalemme,
I stało się roku piątego królowania Roboama, że wyciągnął Sesak, król Egipski, przeciw Jeruzalemowi.
На пятом году царствования Ровоамова, Сусаким, царь Египетский, вышел против Иерусалима
羅波安 王 第五 年，埃及 王 示撒 上來 攻取 耶路撒冷，
Now in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem;
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · I Kings 14:25
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree on the theological core: Shishak's invasion was divine judgment for Judah's idolatry. The context (vv22-24) lists high places, sacred pillars, Asherah poles and ritual prostitution, provocations described as worse than anything under the judges. Gill states the invasion was 'suffered as a chastisement from the Lord.' JFB calls Shishak 'the instrument in the hand of Providence.' Keil and Delitzsch connect the timing: Rehoboam's first three years were faithful (2 Chronicles 11:17), then he and Judah turned away, and in the fifth year judgment arrived. Barnes and the Cambridge Bible note the historical confirmation from Shishak's monument at Karnak, which lists captured towns in both Judah and Israel, evidence that the campaign was devastating and divinely permitted.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: God allowed Shishak's invasion because of Judah's persistent idolatry and unfaithfulness, and the event served as both judgment and a call to repentance.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Why did Shishak invade? | All traditions see this as permitted by God as judgment for Judah's idolatry, as the surrounding context (vv22-24) and the Chronicler's account (2 Chronicles 12:2) make explicit. | Some commentators (Barnes, Cambridge Bible) emphasize Jeroboam's likely role in inviting Shishak, arguing the campaign was partly political. Others (Gill, JFB) stress God's sovereignty, viewing Shishak purely as an instrument of Providence. Both readings affirm divine agency. |
| Did Shishak attack only Judah? | The Karnak inscription lists cities from both Judah and northern Israel, showing the campaign was wider than Jerusalem alone. | Barnes argues the northern cities were Canaanite or Levitical towns that still acknowledged Rehoboam. Others see them as targets of opportunity for Shishak regardless of political alignment. The debate does not affect the theological point of judgment. |
| Is the invasion a direct punishment or a natural consequence? | The text presents it as both: God permitted Shishak to attack, and the attack followed from Judah's spiritual and moral decline. | Some traditions (Reformed) emphasize the sovereign decree behind the event. Others (Arminian) highlight human responsibility in provoking God and the possibility of averting judgment through repentance. Both agree that the invasion was a meaningful consequence. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Shishak is Sheshonk I, founder of Egypt's 22nd Dynasty and a contemporary of Solomon and Rehoboam. His Karnak relief depicts the siege of approximately 150 cities, including sites in Judah (Shoco, Adoraim, Aijalon) and in the northern kingdom, Canaanite and Levitical towns that may still have acknowledged Rehoboam. This has led scholars like Barnes to suggest Jeroboam invited Shishak to crush his rival's remaining footholds. The phrase 'came up' (עָלָה, Qal perfect) is standard Hebrew for a military advance, often against fortifications. The timing, 'the fifth year', is precise: Rehoboam reigned seventeen years, so this event struck a third of the way through his rule. According to Keil & Delitzsch, Rehoboam's good start lasted three years (2 Chronicles 11:17); after that, he and Judah forsook the law (2 Chronicles 12:1). The invasion followed directly after that apostasy. The religious background is explicit: 'Judah did that which was evil in Yahweh’s sight, and they provoked him to jealousy' (v22). The 'jealousy' language draws on marriage imagery, idolatry was spiritual adultery. Shishak's raid stripped the temple and palace treasuries, including the gold shields Solomon had made (v26). Rehoboam replaced them with bronze shields (v27), a permanent symbol of reduced glory. The Chronicler adds that the prophet Shemaiah declared the invasion was 'because they had trespassed against Yahweh' (2 Chronicles 12:2,5). So the historical event is framed unmistakably as a direct, measured judgment.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentaries and lexical data note no significant textual variants for 1 Kings 14:25. The verse is stable across Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions. The parallel in 2 Chronicles 12:2 is nearly identical, confirming the account.
Reception History
Early Christian interpreters read Shishak's invasion as a type of the judgment that falls on unfaithful communities. Jerome, in his commentary on the Minor Prophets, alluded to this event when warning against idolatry. Medieval Jewish exegetes, such as Rashi, focused on the precise timing (fifth year) as evidence that God gives a period of grace before punishment. Reformation-era commentators (Geneva Bible, Matthew Henry) used the passage to teach that national sins bring national calamities, and that even God's chastisement has a redemptive purpose, shepherding the humbled back to obedience. The replacement of gold shields with bronze became a common sermon metaphor for the loss of spiritual glory that follows compromise.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Faithfulness has a shelf life. Rehoboam kept faith for three years, then turned to idolatry. Spiritual decline rarely happens all at once, it creeps in when we stop guarding our devotion.
- Idolatry provokes God's protective jealousy. The marriage metaphor in v22 shows God's reaction is not petty anger but the deep grief of a covenant partner who has been betrayed.
- Grace does not cancel consequences. God could have stopped Shishak at the border. He did not. The invasion was both judgment and a wake-up call; after it, Rehoboam humbled himself and God delayed further disaster (2 Chronicles 12:6-7).
Five-point outline
- Where you start is not where you finish. Rehoboam began well (2 Chronicles 11:17) but his heart drifted. Every believer needs ongoing renewal.
- Corporate sin brings corporate ruin. 'Judah did evil' (v22), the whole nation shared the blame and the consequences. Leadership matters, but so does the people's response.
- God uses outsiders to discipline insiders. Shishak was an Egyptian king with no love for Israel's God, yet he became an instrument in God's hand (JFB). The world can become a rod of correction.
- What you treasure can be taken. Gold shields became bronze shields. The things we trust for security, wealth, military power, alliances, can vanish overnight. Only what is stored in heaven survives.
- Humility can stop a judgment mid-stream. Rehoboam and the leaders humbled themselves after Shemaiah's message, and God relented from total destruction (2 Chronicles 12:6-7). Repentance is never too late.
Illustration hooks
- The family business that drifted. A family-run store built on integrity for decades; the founder dies, the next generation cuts corners on quality and service. Within a year, competitors take over. The pattern is not unique to Rehoboam, spiritual drift often shows up first in practical compromises.
- The credit card warning. A person ignores small monthly statements, then one day faces a huge overdue bill. The invasion of Shishak is that overdue bill for Judah, the accumulation of small sins finally demands a painful reckoning.
- The doctor's diagnosis. A patient felt fine for months while a disease grew quietly. The invasion was the symptom that exposed the hidden condition. Judah's idolatry had been building; Shishak was the diagnosis.
Questions your congregation is asking
- If God is for us, why do bad things happen? How do I tell if a hardship is discipline or just life?
- Did Jeroboam set up Shishak, or was God behind the invasion directly?
- Does this mean every national disaster is God's punishment? How do we interpret tragedy today?
Leading a Discussion
This passage seems at first like a dry historical note: a foreign king attacked, took treasures, and left. But the surrounding verses shout that this event was not merely political, it was a direct response to Judah's idolatry. God had given Rehoboam three years of peace and growth; then the nation turned to pagan worship, and Shishak arrived. The group will explore how God uses events, even those caused by human choices, to call His people back.
Discussion questions
- Read 1 Kings 14:22-24. What specific sins are listed? In what ways do you see similar patterns in our own culture?
- The Chronicler says Rehoboam's first three years were faithful (2 Chronicles 11:17). Why do you think he and the nation later turned away?
- Shishak's invasion is described with a simple 'came up', no battle scene. What does the Bible's restraint here suggest about where the author wants our focus?
- In verse 26, the gold shields Solomon made are taken. Rehoboam replaces them with bronze (v27). What does this downgrade tell you about the long-term cost of sin?
- Second Chronicles 12:5-6 records that when Shemaiah interpreted the invasion as divine judgment, Rehoboam and the leaders humbled themselves. How does repentance reshape the aftermath of failure?
- What does this story teach about the relationship between personal sin, corporate sin, and national consequences?
- How can a group of Christians today 'guard against drifting' like Rehoboam? What practical checks can we put in place?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| I Kings 11:40 | Therefore Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam, but Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. |
| II Chronicles 12:2 | In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had trespassed against Yahweh, |
| II Chronicles 12:4 | He took the fortified cities which belonged to Judah, and came to Jerusalem. |
| II Chronicles 12:9 | So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem and took away the treasures of Yahweh’s house and the treasures of the king’s house. He took it all away. He also took away the shields of gold which Solomon had made. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes uses the Karnak inscription to show that Shishak conquered towns from both Judah and Israel. He argues Jeroboam likely invited Shishak to help subdue Canaanite and Levitical cities that still recognized Rehoboam’s sovereignty, making the campaign a successful move to consolidate Jeroboam’s control.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge note suggests Shishak's invasion of Judah may have been prompted by Jeroboam, who had earlier received a friendly reception from the Egyptian king. The commentary also points to Shishak's monument at Karnak, which records his conquests and names towns he captured in Palestine.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
And in the fift yere of King Rehoboam, Shishak King of Egypt came vp against Ierusale,
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill emphasizes the exact timing: the invasion came two years after Rehoboam and the people turned to wickedness. He sees Shishak's attack not as random history but as a specific divine chastisement from the Lord for their corrupt practices.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB identifies Shishak with the Egyptian king Sheshonk, shown on a bas-relief at Karnak dragging captives whose features are universally recognized as Jewish. He sees Shishak as God's instrument for punishing Israel's rebellion, noting he belonged to a different dynasty than Solomon's father-in-law.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch sees Jerusalem being called the Lord’s chosen city as a stark contrast to Rehoboam’s idolatry, not just a judgment on the ten tribes. They also note the queen-mother’s name appears because of her political influence, not because she led the king into sin.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry observes that the biblical writer finishes Jeroboam’s story first even though he outlived Rehoboam, so that Rehoboam’s entire reign can be read as one continuous, sorrowful record. He calls it a sad account of spiritual decline, robbery, and the humiliating replacement of gold shields with bronze.