Misinterpretations often portray this as blanket endorsement of brutal chattel slavery or genocide failure, ignoring the specific context of divinely mandated conquest where total destruction was commanded only for certain idolatrous groups to prevent spiritual corruption, yet allowances existed for forced labor from survivors; others wrongly equate it to enslaving fellow Israelites or justify modern racial oppression, overlooking the theocratic framework, temporary bondservice nature rather than lifelong hereditary bondage for foreigners, and Deuteronomy's humane regulations distinguishing it from abusive practices.
I Kings 9:20
King James Version (1769)
20 And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel,
This passage reveals Solomon's practical governance in utilizing the surviving Canaanite peoples—Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—who were not Israelites and had not been fully eradicated during the conquest, by conscripting their descendants into forced labor or bondservice for his extensive building projects, such as the temple and palaces; it underscores the distinction between Israelites, whom God forbade from enslaving in this manner, and conquered foreigners, aligning with Deuteronomy's directives for corvée labor from subjugated nations to support the kingdom's infrastructure while maintaining Israel's covenant identity.