Why did Solomon not destroy the descendants of the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites? Text of 2 Chronicles 8:7–8 “As for all the people who remained of the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—who were not of Israel—their descendants who remained in the land, those whom the Israelites had not destroyed—Solomon conscripted them as forced laborers to this day.” Historical Background: The Original Command Prior to Israel’s entrance into Canaan, Yahweh ordered the utter destruction (ḥērem) of seven specific nations (Deuteronomy 7:1–5; 20:16–18). The stated purpose was spiritual quarantine: “that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable practices” (Deuteronomy 20:18). The Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites are five of those seven. The Hebrew Concept of Ḥērem (“Devoted to Destruction”) Ḥērem signified irrevocable dedication of people or property to God—often through destruction, but sometimes through permanent servitude (Leviticus 27:28). Thus, when a city surrendered peacefully (Deuteronomy 20:11) its population could become “forced labor” rather than annihilated. Chronicles’ wording echoes this nuance. Earlier Incomplete Conquest Joshua’s campaigns broke Canaanite military power but left pockets of population (Joshua 13:1–6; Judges 1:21–36). By David’s reign, those remnants were tributaries (2 Samuel 8:2, 6). Consequently, by Solomon’s day they were already politically subjugated but alive. Legal Provision for Forced Labor Deuteronomy 20:10–15 distinguishes cities “far off” from the seven nations under ḥērem; yet vv. 11–12 authorize conscription for any city that surrendered. Because many of these Canaanites capitulated rather than fought to the last man, Solomon could lawfully conscript them, fulfilling the letter—though not the spirit—of ḥērem. Political and Economic Motives Solomon faced massive building projects: the temple, his palace, Millo, store cities, chariot cities (1 Kings 9:15–19). Using subject Canaanites spared taxation on Israelites (1 Kings 9:22) and avoided depleting Israel’s male labor force, while still asserting covenantal supremacy. Covenant Considerations: The Gibeonite Precedent Joshua’s treaty with Gibeon imposed perpetual servitude: “hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God” (Joshua 9:23). Breaking that oath later brought divine wrath (2 Samuel 21:1). Solomon, aware of this, retained rather than executed descendants of earlier oaths lest he incur covenantal breach. Theological Balance—Judgment and Mercy Yahweh’s justice judged Canaanite idolatry; His patience allowed repentance. Rahab (Joshua 2) and the Gibeonites illustrate Canaanites spared when they submitted. Solomon’s policy, therefore, displayed the sovereignty that can judge or preserve according to divine purposes. Archaeological Corroboration • Jar handles stamped “GBN” at el-Jib match biblical Gibeon, confirming a surviving sub-Israelite enclave. • The Amarna Letters (14th century BC) list “Hivites” (Ḫi-vi-ti), showing regional terminology consistent with Scripture. • The Merneptah Stele (c. 1208 BC) names “Israel” already in Canaan, verifying the biblical timeline into which these peoples survived. • Excavations at the Jebusite stronghold (City of David) reveal continuous occupation layers through the United Monarchy, compatible with a non-exterminated Jebusite population under Israelite control. Consequences of Solomon’s Policy While strategically advantageous, tolerating Canaanite remnants seeded future idolatry. Post-Solomonic narratives record altars “on every high hill” (1 Kings 12:31; 14:23), a direct breach of Deuteronomy 12. The prophets trace Judah’s syncretism to “the people of the land” (2 Kings 21:9). Harmonizing with a Young-Earth/Ussher Chronology Using Ussher’s dates, Joshua’s conquest (c. 1406 BC) preceded Solomon (c. 970–930 BC) by ~450 years. Plenty of time existed for Canaanite survivors to intermarry, shift dialects, and become a permanent servile caste, matching archaeological occupational layers without invoking deep-time evolutionary scenarios. Ethical Objections Answered 1. Was Solomon disobedient? Yes, in motive; yet God overruled, using even mixed motives to build His temple (cf. Acts 2:23). 2. Why allow forced labor? Scripture regulates rather than immediately abolishes fallen social realities, progressively steering toward redemption (Galatians 3:24). 3. Does this contradict divine love? No; divine love is holy and confronts entrenched evil (Psalm 5:4–5) while preserving any who repent (Isaiah 55:7). Practical Lessons • Partial obedience breeds lingering temptation. • Treaties made in God’s name must be honored. • Building “for the Lord” does not excuse pragmatic compromises. • God’s redemptive plan survives human inconsistency; His Messiah still arises from Solomon’s line, culminating in the empty tomb verified by over five hundred eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6). Summary Solomon did not annihilate the remaining Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites because (1) many had earlier surrendered and were legally eligible for servitude rather than execution, (2) longstanding treaties bound Israel’s conscience, (3) economic and political needs favored their conscription, and (4) God’s larger narrative could incorporate their survival without compromising His justice. The biblical, textual, and archaeological records cohere, demonstrating both the consistency of Scripture and the sovereignty of Yahweh over history. |
    |