1 Kings 9:15-25

B. SOLOMON AND THE CORVÉE 9:15-25

The second means by which Solomon was able to construct so many buildings was the compulsory labor force. The use of forced labor (Heb. hammas) was mentioned in connection with the building of the Temple (1 Kings 5:13-18). Here it is mentioned again in connection with Solomon's other building projects. The object of the forced labor was the building of public works, the Temple, palace, fortifications and strategic points in the provinces. This section lists the various construction projects of the corvée (1 Kings 9:15-19), discusses the composition of the corvée (1 Kings 9:20-23), and concludes with two brief notes pointing to the completion of Solomon's Jerusalem projects (1 Kings 9:24-25).

1. THE PROJECTS OF THE CORVEE (1 Kings 9:15-19)

TRANSLATION

(15) And this is the case with regard to the levy which King Solomon raised to build the house of the LORD, and his house, and the Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. (16) Pharaoh, king of Egypt, had come up and captured Gezer and burned it with fire, and the Canaanites who lived in the city he had slain; and he had given it as a dowry to his daughter, the wife of Solomon. (17) And Solomon built Gezer, Beth-horon the Lower, (18) Baalath, Tamar in the wilderness of the land, (19) all the store cities which Solomon had, cities for his chariots, cities for his horses, and what Solomon was pleased to build in Jerusalem and in Lebanon and in all the land of the dominion.

COMMENTS

The building projects of the corvée fall into five categories: (1) the Jerusalem projects (1 Kings 9:15 a); (2) the fortress cities (1 Kings 9:15 b - 1 Kings 9:18); (3) the storage cities (1 Kings 9:19 a); (4) the chariot cities (1 Kings 9:19 b); and (5) the pleasure houses (1 Kings 9:19 c).

a) The Jerusalem projects. The first and foremost of the works of the manpower levy were the house of the Lord and the palace complex about which so much has already been narrated. In addition, two projects connected with Jerusalem are mentioned, the Millo and the wall of Jerusalem.

(1) The Millo is mentioned six times in Scripture, each time with the definite article. The term literally means the filling in. The fact that Millo is mentioned in connection with the wall of Jerusalem would seem to indicate that it was part of the defense works of the city. In 1 Kings 11:27 Millo is mentioned in connection with the closing of a breach in the city of David.[250] Thus the Millo may have been a bastion which filled some weak point in the walls.[251] The evidence seems to suggest that Millo stood in David's time and even in Jebusite days (2 Samuel 5:9). If this be the case, then Solomon's efforts must be viewed as either strengthening, extending or perhaps rebuilding this feature of the city's fortifications. Many theories have been put forward as to what part of the city of David was strengthened by the Millo, but in the absence of concrete archaeological evidence these theories must be regarded as pure speculation.

[250] Others, however, feel that the closing of the breach and construction of the Millo in 1 Kings 11:27 are two altogether different projects.

[251] Others think of the Millo as a rampart of filled-in earth or a land-fill in the ravine which separated the city of David from the Temple mount.

(2) The wall of Jerusalem. The precise extent and location of the wall of Jerusalem built by Solomon is uncertain.[252] With the expansion of the city to include the Temple and palace area, new fortifications were necessary. Solomon closed the breach of the city of David (1 Kings 11:27) and probably extended the city wall so as to enclose the Temple mount. He may also have surrounded the lower city with a wall since David had only built a fortification round about the upper city upon Zion (cf. 2 Samuel 5:9).

[252] Gray, OTL, p. 227.

b) The fortress cities. Outside Jerusalem Solomon constructed six fortresses located at points strategic for controlling all approaches to the plateau of Judah and (what was even more important) for controlling the movement of caravans of commerce. These fortresses were Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Lower Beth-horon, Baalath, and Tamar.

(1) The fortress of Hazor situated in northern Galilee occupied a position of military importance from the time of Joshua (cf. Joshua 11:10). Located on an elevation overlooking the waters of Merom, Hazor commanded the routes from the north. Archaeological excavation on the site has unearthed a double-chambered gateway and casemate walls dating to the time of Solomon. Hazor was a rather large city, and the modern remains are strewn over twenty-two acres.

(2) Megiddo was the great fortress which commanded one of the major passes through the mountain range which separated the costal Plain of Sharon from the Plain of Esdraelon, the great battlefield of Palestine. The main highway from Egypt to Damascus passed through Megiddo. Throughout the period of the monarchy, the city was heavily fortified until it was finally captured by the Assyrians in 734 B.C. The remains of a complex gateway and casemate walls dating to the time of Solomon have been excavated at Megiddo.[253]

[253] BAR, II, 240-247.

(3) Gezer (1 Kings 9:15) was Solomon's fortress guarding the southern frontier of Israel. The city stands on a spur of the Judaean foothills overlooking the major north-south highway through the coastal plains.

The mention of Gezer among the cities built and fortified by Solomon causes the author to digress that he might relate how this city came into the possession of Israel. Though Gezer was allotted to the tribe of Ephraim (Joshua 16:3) and designated as a Levitical city (Joshua 21:21), the Canaanite inhabitants had never been displaced either by the Philistines or by the military efforts of David. Gezer seems to have enjoyed an independent status. Pharaoh attacked and destroyed the city and put the Canaanite inhabitants to the sword. The precise date of this conquest is uncertain, but it must certainly have been several years prior to the marriage between Solomon and this Pharaoh's daughter. Pharaoh gave Gezer to his daughter as a wedding present (1 Kings 9:16). The city was then rebuilt and fortified by Solomon. The incorporation of this hostile fortress into Solomon's kingdom made possible the significant trade relations between Israel and Egypt which characterized Solomon's reign (cf. 1 Kings 10:26-29). That this trade was important to Egypt as well as Israel may be inferred from the trouble Pharaoh went to in order to bring Gezer under Solomon's control. For a suggestion as to the identity of the Pharaoh who conquered Gezer see comments on 1 Kings 3:1.

(4) Lower Beth-horon (1 Kings 9:17) was situated at the foot of a ravine on a prominent hill guarding one of the main roads between Jerusalem and the seacoast. The object of the king in fortifying this spot was to protect the Judaean highlands against invasion from the Philistine plain. According to 2 Chronicles 8:5 Upper Beth-horon, situated at the summit of the same pass, was also fortified by Solomon.

(5) Baalath, probably the place mentioned in Joshua 19:44, was located in the tribal territory of Dan southwest of Beth- horon.[254]

[254] The other possibility is that Baalath is to be taken with Tamar, in which case it would be the Baalath of Joshua 15:24 or the Baalah of Joshua 15:29 which are ascribed to Simeon (Joshua 19:3).

(6) Tamar (not Tadmor as in KJV) is mentioned in Ezekiel 47:19; Ezekiel 48:28 as the southeastern limit of the holy land. The name Tamar means Palms, and the spot may be the same as the city of Palms mentioned in Judges 1:16. No doubt this fortress protected the route to Ezion-geber, a city which was vital to Solomon's economic program as 1 Kings 9:26-28 indicate.

To this list of outlying fortresses the Chronicler adds Tadmor, an earlier name for Palmyra, the oasis in the Syrian desert a hundred fifty miles northwest of Damascus (2 Chronicles 8:4). The major trade routes to Mesopotamia met at this important oasis which was located about midway between Damascus and the Euphrates. Palmyra continued as an important trade center until the early centuries of the Christian age.

c) The store cities. Other cities were set aside for storage of produce. Such provisions were used for the troops and the royal household, and possibly as insurance against seasons of scarcity. These may have been the cities where Solomon's twelve administrative officers lived (1 Kings 4:7) who were responsible for supplying a month's provisions to the court each year. Each would have needed large storage facilities. Archaeologists have found buildings in several citiesBeth-shemesh, Lachish, Hazorwhich seem to have served the purpose of public storage bins.[255]

[255] Wright, BA, p. 130.

d) Chariot cities. Other cities served as bases for Solomon's chariot forces and cavalry units.[256] The remains of stables dating to the time of Solomon have been found at Hazor and at Taanach four miles south of Megiddo.[257] The great plain at Megiddo was an ideal location for training in chariot tactics. The chariot cities were probably in part identical with the store cities.

[256] Horses is a technical expression for horses used in military operations whether for cavalry or chariots. Mould, EBH, p. 197, n. 65.
[257] The stable complex found at Megiddo for many years was thought to be Solomonic. But Yadin has now pronounced them to be from the time of Ahab. BAR, II, 247.

e) Pleasure houses. In addition to the projects already named, Solomon constructed for himself pleasure buildings where he could relax and refresh himself. This seems to be the meaning of the phrase that which Solomon desired to build, which literally in the Hebrew reads, the desire of Solomon which he desired. Leisure houses were built in Lebanon and leisure gardens in and around Jerusalem and elsewhere in his domain (1 Kings 9:19).

2. THE COMPOSITION OF THE CORVÉE (1 Kings 9:20-23)

TRANSLATION

(20) And all the people remaining from the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and Jebusites which were not from the children of Israel, (21) their children which were left after them in the land which the children of Israel had not been able to destroy, them did Solomon bring up to the levy of servitude onto this day. (22) But of the children of Israel Solomon made no bondsmen; but they were men of war, his servants and his officers and his captains, his chariot commanders and his horsemen. (23) These are the chief of the officers who were over the work of Solomon, five hundred fifty who ruled over the people who did the work.

COMMENTS

Solomon's levy of bondslaves was taken from among the foreign peopleAmorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (1 Kings 9:20)whom the Israelites had not completely destroyed[258] when they entered Canaan (1 Kings 9:21). The various peoples named in 1 Kings 9:21 reflect the diversity of races which were to be found in Palestine prior to the Israelite invasion. Those racially closest to the Israelites would be the Amorites. The Hittites of antiquity were mainly located in Anatolia (Asia Minor), though some Hittite trading colonies seem to have been located in Palestine. The Perizzites, Gergashites and possibly the Jebusites may have been descendants of mercenaries from the northeast who had garrisoned in Palestine during the period of Egyptian domination from the fifteenth to the thirteenth century B.C.[259] The practice of subjecting these conquered peoples to servile labor originated with Joshua (Joshua 9:22-27). Nelson Glueck, in his explorations east of the Jordan, discovered what he believed were prison camps in the vicinity of copper mines. This would seem to indicate that the copper mines were worked by forced labor.[260] The levy of servitude was also a feature of Canaanite life as the Ras Shamra texts show.[261] Since the Law of Moses forbade enslavement of Hebrews (Leviticus 25:39), no Israelites were forced to become bondslaves. The statement in 1 Kings 5:13 that Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel must be interpreted in the light of the present passage. Probably there were two leviesone of Canaanite bondmen or slaves, and the other of Israelites who, though compelled to serve, were treated as hired servants.[262] Furthermore, the Canaanite bondservants were compelled to serve for a life-time whereas the Israelite levy served one month in three until the building projects were completed. By and large Solomon used Israelites for the more exalted service in the army or in the royal court as princes and officers. The word translated captains in 1 Kings 9:22 means literally third men and refers to a noble rank of soldiers who fought from chariots. Solomon's chariots carried three men, and the third man, besides the driver and the warrior, was the armor-bearer.[263]

[258] The term destroyed (Heb. cherem) is a technical term from the vocabulary of the holy war. The entire Canaanite population was put under the curse or ban and was to be exterminated. In the holy war the Israelites were acting as the agents of God's judgment.

[259] Gray, OTL, p. 233.
[260] Glueck, OSJ, chap. 3.
[261] Gray, OTL, p. 233.

[262] See further the comments on 1 Kings 5:13. Finley (BBC, p. 384) feels that even in 1 Kings 5:13 an all Canaanite levy is intended. He interprets the term all Israel to be geographical. The levy was raised from all the tribal territories of Israel; but only the Canaanites living in those regions were pressed into service.

[263] The term third man (Heb., shalish) came to signify a royal aide-de-camp, he on whose arm the king stayed himself (2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:17; 2 Kings 7:19). The position was of such importance that it could be used as a springboard to the crown (2 Kings 15:25).

At the top administrative level over Solomon's levy of bond-men were five hundred fifty officers (1 Kings 9:23). As has been previously pointed out in the comments on 1 Kings 5:16, three hundred of these superior officers were Canaanites.

2. FINAL CONSTRUCTION NOTICES (1 Kings 9:24-25)

TRANSLATION

(24) And the daughter of Pharaoh went up from the city of David unto her house which he had built for her; then he built Millo. (25) And Solomon offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings three times in the year upon the altar which he had built for the LORD, and he burned incense upon the altar which was before the LORD. So he finished the house.

COMMENTS

The account of Solomon's building operations is brought to a close with two notices in 1 Kings 9:24-25. When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, he brought her into the city of David (1 Kings 3:1) until he had finished his own palace and had built for her a house of her own. After this building was built, he had her brought up from the city of David to the loftier summit where her palace was situated. Just as soon as this project was completed, Solomon built Millo (see on 1 Kings 9:15). The corresponding verse in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 8:11) indicates Solomon's motives in moving his Egyptian wife out of the city of David. According to the Chronicler, Solomon felt that the presence of this foreign princess in the holy city would be sacrilegious. After the building of the Temple, the practice of sacrificing upon the altars of the high places could be brought to an end (cf. 1 Kings 3:2). The king was now able to offer burnt offerings and thank offerings upon the altar which he had built to the Lord in the courtyard of the Temple. This Solomon did three times a year at the three great yearly feastsPassover, Weeks and Tabernacles (2 Chronicles 8:13). These words are not to be interpreted to mean that Solomon himself officiated at the sacrifice, for this was the prerogative of the Aaronic priesthood alone. Still less is it to be inferred that Solomon entered the Holy Place and offered incense upon the altar. Only priests could enter there. Rather the meaning is that Solomon as builder of the Temple provided these special offerings which were offered by the ministering priests in the name of the king (cf. 2 Chronicles 8:14). The words so he finished the house are repeated from 1 Kings 6:22 except that here the inspired author uses a form of the verb which may carry the idea, he perfected the house, i.e., by devoting it to its proper use. It was, after all, to be a house of sacrifice.[264]

[264] Hammond, PC, pp. 194-95. Another view is that the phrase means that Solomon kept the Temple in repair.