Solomon's Extensive Building Projects (1 Kings 9:15-25).
The author now links the building of the Temple and the palace complex with a number of other large scale building works in which Solomon engaged, all of which required extensive slave-labour. The emphasis is on the fact that it caused the raising of the levies, suggesting the prophet's disapproval of the situation. Solomon obtained this slave-labour by conscripting the Canaanites who were left in the land, for while it has previously been mentioned that he pressed Israelites into part-time service while building the Temple (1 Kings 5:13-14), causing great dissatisfaction (1 Kings 12:4), he had been careful not to make them into slave-labourers. That would have gone against all the recognised customs in Israel. Instead they were made responsible for the defence of the realm as well as the oversight of the slaves. The Canaanites were, however, seen as suitable material for being turned into bond-slaves. That was the old traditional way of dealing with them (Joshua 9:27; Judges 1:28; Judges 1:30; Judges 1:33; Judges 1:35).
Engaging in huge amounts of building works was a policy amongst great kings, who were often judged on that basis. Solomon was thus out to demonstrate his own greatness, as well as to fortify the land.
Analysis.
a And this is the reason for the levy which king Solomon raised, to build the house of YHWH, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer (1 Kings 9:15).
b Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and had slain the Canaanites who dwelt in the city, and given it for a portion to his daughter, Solomon's wife (1 Kings 9:16).
c And Solomon built Gezer, and Beth-horon the nether, and Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness, in the land, and all the store-cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen, and what Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion (1 Kings 9:17-19).
d As for all the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel, their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy, of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants to this day, but of the children of Israel Solomon made no bondservants, but they were the men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen (1 Kings 9:20-22).
c These were the chief officers who were over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty, who bore rule over the people who wrought in the work (1 Kings 9:23).
b But Pharaoh's daughter came up out of the city of David to her house which Solomon had built for her (1 Kings 9:24 a).
a Then did he build Millo. And three times a year did Solomon offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings on the altar which he built to YHWH, burning incense with them, on the altar which was before YHWH. So he finished the house (1 Kings 9:24-25).
Note that in ‘a' Solomon engaged in building many building works including the Temple and Millo, and in the parallel he built Millo and completed the Temple. In ‘b' Pharaoh supplies a marriage portion for his daughter, and in the parallel, his daughter takes possession of her new palace. In ‘c' the many building works are described, and in the parallel the overseers of the work are described. Centrally in ‘d' we learn how Solomon obtained his slave labour, and how he behaved towards his own people.
‘ And this is the reason for the levy which king Solomon raised, to build the house of YHWH, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer.'
We note the continual references to the Temple and the palace complex, which were not necessarily required here, having been mentioned previously. This possibly indicates what pride Solomon had in them, or the point might be the cost of them in human lives (this is a prophet writing). In the chiasmus the theme also connects back to the parallel passage of building the Temple and palace complex in 1 Kings 5:1 to 1 Kings 7:12, with a further parallel being found in the levy on the Israelites in 1 Kings 5:13. Here we have an explanation of the full-scale slave levy on the previous inhabitants of the land. It is in fact almost as though the author is apologising for it. Such levies of subject peoples were common with great kings who had massive building projects planned. We can compare Exodus 1:11, and there are many parallels in inscriptions. Here Solomon is described as ‘building' not only the Temple and the palace complex, but also the Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. Lists of building projects like this are common in inscriptions.
“The Millo (filling).” This is unquestionably referring to fortification work in Jerusalem. It has been suggested that it refers to the system of terraces, which consist of retaining walls with levelled filling, discovered by archaeologists on the eastern slope of Ophel Hill. This enabled the construction of defensive buildings on the slope, and would tie in with the repairs to the walls of Jerusalem.
“Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer.” These were important defensive cities from north to south. Casemate walls and six-roomed gate towers from the Solomonic period have been discovered at all three. Hazor was in northern Naphtali. It was a substantial city, eight kilometres (five miles) south of the now nearly dry Lake Huleh, and guarded the road from the north. Megiddo, an even larger city, guarded the route from Phoenicia and the important trade route through the Valley of Esdraelon. Gezer was the southernmost large city in Palestine and guarded the way to Jerusalem from the coast. It dominated the south western Philistine plain.
‘ Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and had slain the Canaanites who dwelt in the city, and given it for a portion to his daughter, Solomon's wife.'
Gezer had been an independent ‘Canaanite' city, but Pharaoh Siamun, a Pharaoh of the weak twenty first dynasty, who ruled around 978-959 BC, had engaged in a police action against it and had subdued it. The weakness of the twenty first dynasty is known from external sources but is apparent here in that it is clear from what is said that Egypt were making no claims on ‘Canaan', an area which, in their strongest periods, they had looked on as containing vassal city states. They did, however, continue to conduct local actions against the Canaanites and Philistines in protecting their borders from supposed incursions, in the course of which, according to inscriptions, they ‘smote Gezer'. Thus they were not totally quiescent. A damaged triumphal relief scene at Tanis depicts Siamun smiting a foreigner, seemingly a Philistine judging by the Aegean type axe in his hand, which confirms that Siamun did engage in such ‘police action' in Philistia. But with regard to the area of Canaan as a whole Siamun was apparently quite content to make his northern border safe by means of a marriage treaty with the powerful Solomon as described here, something which would be to their mutual benefit, especially tradewise. One of the obvious benefits of this treaty to Solomon was seen in the multiplicity of horses that he later possessed, for Egypt was a well known source of such horses (1 Kings 10:26-29). There is again here the hint of disapproval. This was the ‘Pharaoh's daughter' of 1 Kings 3:1.
‘ And Solomon built Gezer, and Beth-horon the nether (Lower Beth-horon), and Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness, in the land,'
The fortification of Gezer is mentioned here again because of 1 Kings 9:16. Also fortified were Lower Beth-horon (something also evidenced archaeologically) which guarded the road through the Ayalon Valley, protecting the route to Jerusalem from the Coastal Plain, together with Baalath, which was possibly south west of Beth-horon in Dan (Joshua 19:44). Alternately the Baalath in mind may have been in the southern wilderness (Joshua 15:24). ‘Tamar in the wilderness' was south of the Dead Sea, protecting trade with Southern Arabia and with the port of Elath. ‘In the land' may signify Judah, compare 1 Kings 4:19.
‘ And all the store-cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen, and what Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.'
As well as the great fortified cities Solomon built store cities, and cities for his chariots and horsemen, all necessary for the defence of the land. And on top of these he built many other things, both in Jerusalem, Lebanon and throughout the land. Long, pillared store places have been discovered at a number of places, and at Megiddo there is evidence of earlier Solomonic stables beneath the remains of the stables of Ahab.
It may be that Solomon built a summer house in Lebanon, or it may be that the buildings were connected with iron mines. Alternately ‘Lebanon' is a name sometimes applied to sections of northern Canaan (southern Lebanon) which would be ‘within Israel', and it may be building work there that is in mind here.
‘ As for all the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel, their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to exterminate (put under the Ban), of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants to this day.'
The ‘Canaanites' would be used to the idea of the slave-levy as exercised by their own kings, as we discover from Ugarit. Thus they would not have been surprised as a subject people to find themselves drafted for this work. As with the Israelites in Egypt they and their families would be provided with food of a kind, and would still have their own homes. That is not to say that they found it palatable. No doubt they too groaned under their taskmasters. Nor is it likely that a prophet in 6th century BC found such slavery any more palatable as a concept. It represented the side of Solomon that he was unhappy with (1 Kings 12:4).
Strictly these Canaanites should have been slaughtered or driven from the land. They had been ‘devoted' to YHWH as being unfit to live amongst because of their evil and perverted ways (Genesis 15:16).
“Amorites” was a term that could signify all the pre-conquest inhabitants of the land, or could alternatively signify the hill-dwellers in the hill country. The Hittites would be groups which had wandered into Canaan centuries before and were related in some way to the Hittite empire to the north (see ‘the sons of Heth' in Genesis 23). T he Perizzites (‘villagers') who dwelt in the hills were probably native primitive peoples. The Hivites were principally in the Lebanon hills and the Carmel range. The Jebusites were the ancient inhabitants of the hills around Jerusalem. The population of Canaan as a land which was open to settlers had previously been a very mixed one. Compare for these names the names of the original inhabitants of the land regularly mentioned in the Law of Moses (e.g. Exodus 3:17; Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 7:1; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 3:10; etc.).
“To this day” may have been in the original record, the author incorporating it in order to remind people that they were still around, suggesting a date for his writing before the final Exile (say in the days of Zedekiah).
‘ But of the children of Israel Solomon made no bondservants, but they were the men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and the third men in his chariots and his chariot horsemen.'
The children of Israel were seen as ‘free-men' and could not be turned into bond-slaves except by personal choice for debt or in order to ensure a livelihood, even by such a tyrant as Solomon had become. They were thus called into service as soldiers, officers, commanders, captains, chariot shield-bearers and drivers. This was in fact what Samuel had warned the people would be the result of having a king (1 Samuel 8:12). Again the prophet is letting us know that Solomon was the typical harsh non-YHWH-like monarch.
This does not contradict 1 Kings 5:13-14. That was only a partial levy (mas) and was in order to work on the timber for the Temple in a foreign country. That was not a task that could not entrusted to the inhabitants of the land, if only because they were not ‘holy'. These were mas-‘obed, the slave-levy.
‘ These were the chief officers who were over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty, who bore rule over the people who wrought in the work.'
And over the levy were five hundred and fifty taskmasters. Seemingly there were three hundred semi- senior Canaanite taskmasters (over the three units (thousand) of ordinary taskmasters in 1 Kings 5:16, making three units and three hundred) and two hundred and fifty senior Israelite taskmasters.
1 Kings 9:24 a ‘But Pharaoh's daughter came up out of the city of David to her house which Solomon had built for her.'
Adding to his disapproval the prophet points out that much of this work had been carried out in order to make provision for Pharaoh's daughter. (You can almost hear himself saying, ‘that woman'). Now that the palace complex had been completed, and the Ark had been removed from the Sacred tent in David's house, the Egyptian princess, with her false deities, could be allowed to live there.
1 Kings 9:24 b ‘Then did he build The Millo.'
And this was the time when he built The Millo. ‘The Millo (filling)' unquestionably referring to fortification work in Jerusalem. It has been suggested that it refers to the system of terraces, which consist of retaining walls with levelled filling, discovered by archaeologists on the eastern slope of Ophel Hill, strengthening the hillside. This enabled the construction of defensive buildings on the slope, and would tie in with the repairs to the walls of Jerusalem.
‘ And three times a year did Solomon offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings on the altar which he built to YHWH, burning incense with them, on the altar which was before YHWH. So he finished the house.'
The Temple having been built it was used as the Central Sanctuary to which the men of Israel gathered for the three great feasts, Passover, Sevens (Weeks) and Tabernacles. And during those feasts Solomon arranged for the offering of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings as required by Law, and as required for the subsequent feasting. The burnt- offering was a dedicatory offering, and was wholly consumed. The peace or wellbeing offerings were also atoning, but parts of the animal could be eaten by the worshippers. These would be offered on the bronze altar. The incense would be burned by the priests ‘before YHWH' on the incense altar in the Holy Place before the veil. The reference of the original word to incense is however secondary, and the word may simply refer to ‘fire-offerings'. (There is no requirement that we see Solomon as doing this himself. It was the responsibility of the priests. Indeed if Solomon had offered all the offerings himself he would have been a very busy man).
“The altar which he built to YHWH.” The bronze altar was hollow and had to be built up inside so as to take the heat of the flames.
“So he finished the house.” Compare 1 Kings 6:14; 1Ki 6:22; 1 Kings 6:38. The House could not be considered to be ‘finished' until it had been put to its proper use in the offering of the required offerings and sacrifices, and that had awaited the transfer of Pharaoh's daughter to the palace complex, and the establishment of the Ark in its unique position in the Most Holy Place. Now at last it was fully operational.