Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Jeremiah 49:23 - 49:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Concerning Damascus. - Aram, on this side of the Euphrates, or Syria, was divided, in the times of Saul and David, into the kingdoms of Damascus, Zobah, and Hamath, of which the second, extending between Damascus and Hamath (see on 2Sa 8:3), or situated north-eastward from Damascus, between the Orontes and the Euphrates, was the most powerful; its kings were defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:47), and afterwards conquered and made tributary to the kingdom of Israel by David, who did the same to the Syrians of Damascus that had come to the assistance of Hadadezer king of Zobah (2 Sam 8 and 10). After the death of David and during the time of Solomon, a freebooter named Rezon, who had broken away from Hadadezer during the war, established himself in Damascus (see on 1Ki 11:23-25), and became the founder of a dynasty which afterwards made vassals of all the smaller kings of Syria, whose number is given 1Ki 20:1. This dynasty also, under the powerful rulers Benhadad I and II and Hazael, long pressed hard on the kingdom of Israel, and conquered a great part of the Israelite territory (1Ki 15:18., Jer 20:1., Jer 22:3.; 2Ki 5:1., Jer 6:8., 8:28f., 10:32f., 12:18ff., Jer 13:3.). At last, King Joash, after the death of Hazael, succeeded in retaking the conquered cities from his son, Benhadad III (2Ki 13:19.); and Jeroboam II was able to restore the ancient frontiers of Israel as far as Hamath (2Ki 14:25). Some decades alter, Rezin king of Damascus, in alliance with Pekah of Israel, undertook a war of conquest against Judah during the time of Ahaz, who therefore called to his aid the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser. This monarch conquered Damascus, and put an end to the Syrian kingdom, by carrying away the people to Kir (2Ki 15:37; 2Ki 16:5-9). This kingdom of Syria is called "Damascus" in the prophets, after its capital. We find threats of destruction and ruin pronounced against it even by such early prophets as Amos (Amo 1:3-5), for its cruelty committed against Israel, and Isaiah (Isa 17:1.), because of its having combined with Israel to destroy Judah. According to the use of language just referred to, "Damascus," mentioned in the heading of this prophecy, is not the city, but the kingdom of Syria, which has been named after its capital, and to which, besides Damascus, belonged the powerful cities of Hamath and Arpad, wxich formerly had kings of their own (Isa 37:13). Jeremiah does not mention any special offence. In the judgment to come on all nations, Aram-Damascus cannot remain exempt.
Jer 49:23
"Hamath is ashamed, and Arpad, for they have heard evil tidings: they despair; there is trouble on the sea; no one can rest. Jer 49:24. Damascus has become discouraged, she has turned to flee: terror has seized her; distress and pains have laid hold on her, like a woman in childbirth. Jer 49:25. How is the city of praise not left, the city of my delight? Jer 49:26. Therefore shall her young men fall in her streets, and all the man of war shall be silent in that day, saith Jahveh of hosts. Jer 49:27. And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall devour the palaces of Benhadad."
The largest cities of Aram are seized with consternation and discouragement. Damascus would flee, but its men of war fall by the sword of the enemy, and the city is in flames. The description of the terror which overpowers the inhabitants of Aram begins with Hamath (Epiphaneia of the Greeks, now called Hamah), which lies north from Hums (Emesa), on the Orontes (el 'Asi); see on Gen 10:17 and Num 34:8. Arpad is always mentioned in connection with Hamath (Isa 10:9; Isa 36:19; Isa 37:13; 2Ki 18:34 and 2Ki 19:13): in the list of Assyrian synonyms published by Oppert and Schrader, it is sounded Arpadda; and judging by the name, it still remains in the large village of Arfâd, mentioned by Marasç., about fifteen miles north from Haleb (Aleppo); see on 2Ki 18:34. The bad news which Hamath and Arpad have heard is about the approach of a hostile army. "She is ashamed," i.e., disappointed in her hope and trust (cf. Jer 17:13), with the accessory idea of being confounded. נָמֹוג, to be fainthearted from fear and anxiety; cf. Jos 2:9, Jos 2:24; Exo 15:15, etc. There is a difficulty with the expression בַּיָם, from the mention of the sea. Ewald has therefore invented a new word, בַּי, which is stated to signify mind, heart; and he translates, "their heart is in trouble." Graf very rightly remarks, against this, that there was no occasion whatever for the employment of a word which occurs nowhere else. The simplest explanation is that of J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and Maurer: "on the sea," i.e., onwards to the sea, "anxiety prevails." The objection of Graf, that on this view there is no nominative to יוּכַל, cannot make this explanation doubtful, because the subject (Ger. man, Fr. on, Eng. people, they) is easily obtained from the context. The words הַשְׁקֵט לֹא יוּכַל form a reminiscence from Isa 57:20, where they are used of the sea when stirred up, to which the wicked are compared. But it does not follow from this that the words are to be understood in this passage also of the sea, and to be translated accordingly: "in the sea there is no rest," i.e., the sea itself is in ceaseless motion (Hitzig); or with a change of בַּיָם into כַּיָם, "there is a tumult like the sea, which cannot keep quiet" (Graf). As little warrant is there for concluding, from passages like Jer 17:12., where the surging of the Assyrian power is compared to the roaring of the waves of the sea, that the unrest of the inhabitants of Syria, who are in a state of anxious solicitude, is here compared to the restless surging and roaring of the sea (Umbreit). For such a purpose, דְּאָגָה, "concern, solicitude," is much too weak, or rather inappropriate.
Jer 49:24-26
רָֽפְתָה דַמֶּשֶׁק, "Damascus has become slack," i.e., discouraged; she turns to flee, and cannot escape, being seized with trembling and anxiety. הֶֽחֱזִיקָה is not the third pers. fem., prehendit terrorem, but stands for הֶֽחֱזִיקָהּ, with Mappik omitted, because the tone is retracted in consequence of the Athnach; cf. Jer 6:24; Jer 8:21, etc. "Terror has seized Damascus." In the last clause וַחֲבָלִים is subsumed along with צָרָה; hence the verb is put in the singular. - Jer 49:25. The question, "How is not," etc., has been differently explained. Eichhorn, Gesenius, Ewald, and Umbreit take the words according to the German usage, in the sense, "How is the city forsaken?" or laid waste. But this Germanism is foreign to the Hebrew; and it is not obviated by C. B. Michaelis taking "how" in the sense of quam inopinato et quam horribiliter non deserta est, so that the words would mean nullus est modus desertionis aut gradus quem Damascus non sit experta, because אֵיךְ לֹא does not express the kind and manner, or the degree of an action. In the only other passage where אֵיךְ לֹא occurs (2Sa 1:14) the negative has its full meaning. Others (Calvin, Schnurrer, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Maurer) take עַזַב in the sense of leaving free, untouched: "How has she not been left untouched?" i.e., been spared. But this meaning of the verb is nowhere found. There is no other course left than, with Nägelsbach, to take the verb as referring to the desertion of the city through the flight of the inhabitants, as in Jer 4:29, etc., and to take the words thus: "How is (i.e., how has it happened that) the famous city (is) not forsaken?" According to this view, it is not the desolation of the city that is bewailed, but the fact that the inhabitants have not saved their lives by flight. The way is prepared for this thought by Jer 49:24, where it is said that the inhabitants of Damascus wish to flee, but are seized with convulsive terror; in Jer 49:25 also there is a more specific reason given for it, where it is stated that the youths (the young warriors) and all the men of war shall fall in the streets of the city, and be slain by foes. The suffix in "my delight" refers to the prophet, and expresses his sympathy for the fall of the glorious city (see on Jer 48:31); because not only does its population perish, but the city itself also (Jer 49:27) is to be burned to ashes.
Jer 49:27
Jer 49:27 has been imitated from Amo 1:4 and Jer 49:14 conjointly. בְּחֹמַת, not "on," but "in," i.e., "within the wall." "The palaces of Benhadad" are the palaces of the Syrian kings generally, because three kings of Damascus bore this name.
The fulfilment of this threat cannot be proved historically, from want of information. Since Pharaoh-Necho had conquered Syria as far as the Euphrates, it is very possible that, after the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish, in the conquest of Syria by Nebuchadnezzar, Damascus was harshly treated. The prophecy is, however, so general in its statement, that we need not confine its fulfilment to the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar.