Jeremiah 49:23-27

Judgment Against Damascus

49:23 The Lord spoke ¹  about Damascus. ² 

“The people of Hamath and Arpad ³  will be dismayed

because they have heard bad news.

Their courage will melt away because of worry.

Their hearts will not be able to rest. ⁴ 

49:24 The people of Damascus will lose heart and turn to flee.

Panic will grip them.

Pain and anguish will seize them

like a woman in labor.

49:25 How deserted will that once-famous city ⁵  be,

that city that was once filled with ⁶  joy! ⁷ 

49:26 For her young men will fall in her city squares.

All her soldiers will be destroyed at that time,”

says the Lord who rules over all. ⁸ 

49:27 “I will set fire to the walls of Damascus;

it will burn up the palaces of Ben Hadad.” ⁹ 

Amos 1:3-5

1:3 This is what the Lord says:

“Because Damascus has committed three crimes ¹⁰  –

make that four! ¹¹  – I will not revoke my

decree of judgment. ¹² 

They ripped through Gilead like threshing sledges with iron teeth. ¹³ 

1:4 So I will set Hazael’s house ¹⁴  on fire;

fire ¹⁵  will consume Ben Hadad’s ¹⁶  fortresses.

1:5 I will break the bar ¹⁷  on the gate of Damascus.

I will remove ¹⁸  the ruler ¹⁹  from Wicked Valley, ²⁰ 

the one who holds the royal scepter from Beth Eden. ²¹ 

The people of Aram will be deported to Kir.” ²² 

The Lord has spoken!

Zechariah 9:1

The Coming of the True King

9:1 An oracle of the word of the Lord concerning the land of Hadrach, ²³  with its focus on Damascus: ²⁴ 

The eyes of all humanity, ²⁵  especially of the tribes of Israel, are toward the Lord,

[49:23]  ¹ tn The words “The Lord spoke” and “he said” are not in the text. There is only a title here: “Concerning Damascus.” However, something needs to be supplied to show that these are the Lord’s words of judgment (cf. v. 26 “oracle of the Lord” and the “I” in v. 27). These words have been supplied in the translation for clarity and consistency with the introduction to the other judgment speeches.

[49:23]  ² sn Damascus is a city in Syria, located below the eastern slopes of the Anti-lebanon Mountains. It was the capital of the Aramean state that was in constant hostility with Israel from the time of David until its destruction by the Assyrians in 732 b.c. At various times it was allied with the Aramean state of Hamath which was further north. Contingents from these Aramean states were involved in harassing Judah and Jerusalem in 598 b.c. when Jehoiakim rebelled (2 Kgs 24:2) but little is heard about them in the rest of the book of Jeremiah or in the history of this period.

[49:23]  ³ tn Heb “Hamath and Arpad.” There is no word for people in the text. The cities are being personified. However, since it is really the people who are involved and it is clearer for the modern reader, the present translation supplies the words “people of” both here and in v. 24. The verbs in vv. 23-25 are all to be interpreted as prophetic perfects, the tense of the Hebrew verb that views an action as though it were as good as done. The verbs are clearly future in vv. 26-27 which begin with a “therefore.”

[49:23]  ⁴ tc The meaning of this verse is very uncertain. The Hebrew text apparently reads “Hamath and Arpad are dismayed. They melt away because they have heard bad news. Anxiety is in the sea; it [the sea] cannot be quiet.” Many commentaries and English versions redivide the verse and read “like the sea” for “in the sea” (כַּיָּם [kayyam] for בַּיָּם [bayyam]) and read the feminine singular noun דְּאָגָה (dÿ’agam) as though it were the third masculine plural verb דָּאֲגוּ (da’agu): “They are troubled like the sea.” The translation follows the emendation proposed in BHS and accepted by a number of commentaries (e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 333; J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 723, n. 1). That emendation involves reading נָמֹג לִבָּם מִדְּאָגָה (namog libbam middÿ’agah) instead of נָמֹגוּ בַּיָּם דְּאָגָה (namogu bayyam dÿ’agah). The translation also involves a double reading of “heart,” for the sake of English style, once in the sense of courage (BDB 525 s.v. לֵב 10) because that is the nuance that best fits “melts” in the English idiom and once in the more general sense of hearts as the seat of fear, anxiety, worry. The double translation is a concession to English style.

[49:25]  ⁵ tn Heb “city of praise.”

[49:25]  ⁶ tn Heb “city of joy.”

[49:25]  ⁷ tc Or “Why has that famous city not been abandoned, that city I once took delight in?” The translation follows the majority of modern commentaries in understanding לֹא (lo’, “not”) before “abandoned” as a misunderstanding of the emphatic ל (lamed; so J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 723, n. 3, and J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 333, n. c; see also IBHS 211-12 §11.2.10i and HALOT 485-86 s.v. II לְ for the phenomenon). The particle is missing from the Vulgate. The translation also follows the versions in omitting the suffix on the word “joy” that is found in the Hebrew text (see BHS note b for a listing of the versions). This gives a better connection with the preceding and the following verse than the alternate translation.

[49:26]  ⁸ tn Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.” For this title for God see the study note on 2:19.

[49:27]  ⁹ sn Ben-Hadad was a common name borne by a number of the kings of Damascus, e.g., one during the time of Asa around 900 b.c. (cf. 1 Kgs 15:18-20), one a little later during the time of Omri and Ahab around 850 (1 Kgs 20), and one during the time of Jehoash about 800 (2 Kgs 13:24-25).

[1:3]  ¹⁰ tn Traditionally, “transgressions” or “sins.” The word refers to rebellion against authority and is used in the international political realm (see 1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:22). There is debate over its significance in this context. Some relate the “rebellion” of the foreign nations to God’s mandate to Noah (Gen 9:5-7). This mandate is viewed as a treaty between God and humankind, whereby God holds humans accountable to populate the earth and respect his image as it is revealed in all people. While this option is a possible theological explanation of the message in light of the Old Testament as a whole, nothing in these oracles alludes to that Genesis passage. J. Barton suggests that the prophet is appealing to a common morality shared across the ancient Near East regarding the conduct of war since all of the oracles can be related to activities and atrocities committed in warfare (Amos’s Oracles against the Nations [SOTSMS], 39-61). The “transgression” then would be a violation of what all cultures would take as fundamental human decency. Some argue that the nations cited in Amos 1-2 had been members of the Davidic empire. Their crime would consist of violating the mutual agreements that all should have exhibited toward one another (cf. M. E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire). This interpretation is connected to the notion that Amos envisions a reconstituted Davidic empire for Israel and the world (9:11-15). Ultimately, we can only speculate what lay behind Amos’ thinking. He does not specify the theological foundation of his universal moral vision, but it is clear that Amos believes that all nations are responsible before the Lord for their cruelty toward other human beings. He also assumes that even those who did not know his God would recognize their inhumane treatment of others as inherently wrong. The translation “crimes” is general enough to communicate that a standard (whether human or divine) has been breached. For a survey of the possible historical events behind each oracle, see S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia).

[1:3]  ¹¹ tn Heb “Because of three violations of Damascus, even because of four.”

[1:3]  ¹² tn Heb “I will not bring it [or “him”] back.” The pronominal object (1) refers to the decree of judgment that follows; the referent (the decree) has been specified in the translation for clarity. See S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia), 46-47. Another option (2) is to understand the suffix as referring to the particular nation mentioned in the oracle and to translate, “I will not take him [i.e., that particular nation] back.” In this case the Lord makes it clear that he does not intend to resume treaty relations with the nation in view. See M. L. Barré, “The Meaning of lá ásŒybnw in Amos 1:3-2:6,” JBL 105 (1986): 622.

[1:3]  ¹³ tn Heb “they threshed [or “trampled down”] Gilead with sharp iron implements” (NASB similar).

[1:4]  ¹⁴ tn “Hazael’s house” (“the house of Hazael”) refers to the dynasty of Hazael.

[1:4]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “it”; the referent (the fire mentioned in the previous line) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:4]  ¹⁶ sn Ben-hadad may refer to Hazael’s son and successor (2 Kgs 13:3, 24) or to an earlier king (see 1 Kgs 20), perhaps the ruler whom Hazael assassinated when he assumed power.

[1:5]  ¹⁷ sn The bar on the city gate symbolizes the city’s defenses and security.

[1:5]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “cut off.”

[1:5]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “the one who sits.” Some English versions take the Hebrew term in a collective sense as “inhabitants” (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV). The context and the parallel in the next clause (“the one who holds the royal scepter”), however, suggest that the royal house is in view. For this term (יוֹשֵׁב, yoshev), see N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, 512-30.

[1:5]  ²⁰ tn Heb “valley of wickedness.” Though many English versions take the Hebrew phrase בִקְעַת־אָוֶן (biq’-at ’aven) as a literal geographical place name (“Valley of Aven,” so NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT), it appears to be a derogatory epithet for Damascus and the kingdom of Aram.

[1:5]  ²¹ tn Many associate the name “Beth Eden” with Bit Adini, an Aramean state located near the Euphrates River, but it may be a sarcastic epithet meaning “house of pleasure.”

[1:5]  ²² sn According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans originally came from Kir. The Lord threatens to reverse their history and send them back there.

[9:1]  ²³ sn The land of Hadrach was a northern region stretching from Aleppo in the north to Damascus in the south (cf. NLT “Aram”).

[9:1]  ²⁴ tn Heb “Damascus its resting place.” The 3rd person masculine singular suffix on “resting place” (מְנֻחָתוֹ, mÿnukhato), however, precludes “land” or even “Hadrach,” both of which are feminine, from being the antecedent. Most likely “word” (masculine) is the antecedent, i.e., the “word of the Lord” is finding its resting place, that is, its focus in or on Damascus.

[9:1]  ²⁵ tc Though without manuscript and version support, many scholars suggest emendation here to clarify what, to them, is an unintelligible reading. Thus some propose עָדֵי אָרָם (’ade ’aram, “cities of Aram”; cf. NAB, NRSV) for עֵין אָדָם (’en ’adam, “eye of man”) or אֲדָמָה (’adamah, “ground”) for אָדָם (’adam, “man”), “(surface of) the earth.” It seems best, however, to see “eye” as collective and to understand the passage as saying that the attention of the whole earth will be upon the Lord (cf. NIV, NLT).