This verse demonstrates how Ahab and Ben-hadad temporarily shifted from confrontation to collaboration for the sake of mutual restoration.
“Ben-hadad said to him, ‘The cities which my father took from your father I will restore, and you shall make streets for yourself in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria.’ Ahab said, ‘And I will let you go with this covenant.’ So he made a covenant with him and let him go.” (v.34)
This verse presents a critical turning point in the ongoing conflict between King Ahab of Israel (circa 874-853 BC) and Ben-hadad, the king of Aram. When Ben-hadad declares, “The cities which my father took from your father I will restore” (v.34), he acknowledges that Aram’s previous aggression had wronged Israel. By prepared agreement, King Ahab receives the promise of restoration of those territories, exemplifying a moment of negotiation rather than warfare. The language, “and you shall make streets for yourself in Damascus” (v.34), suggests a political arrangement allowing Ahab certain privileges in one of the great cities of the ancient Near East. Damascus, located in the region today known as Syria, was one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities, resting in a fertile oasis that made it strategically and economically significant.
The reference to “as my father made in Samaria” (v.34) indicates that Ben-hadad’s father once held or influenced property rights within Samaria as well. Samaria, the capital city of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, sat on a hill strategically chosen by King Omri (Ahab’s father) around 885 BC (1 Kings 16). By paralleling conditions in Damascus with what once occurred in Samaria, Ben-hadad effectively equalizes the power dynamic, allowing for mutual benefit. After hearing this proposal, King Ahab responds by declaring, “And I will let you go with this covenant” (v.34). The decision to form an alliance rather than pursue the total defeat of Aram demonstrates Ahab’s political acumen but also foreshadows moral and spiritual dilemmas, as Israel’s kings were frequently admonished to rely on the LORD rather than foreign alliances (see 2 Chronicles 16 for a parallel situation with King Asa). This pursuit of peace and covenant agreements echoes forward to the New Testament, where Jesus teaches the virtues of reconciliation, though at a deeper spiritual level (Matthew 5:24).
When the verse concludes, “So he made a covenant with him and let him go” (v.34), it underscores that Ahab’s pursuit of peaceful coexistence overshadowed a harsher conclusion to battle. Historically, this signified a temporary lull in hostilities. Yet Israel’s complex interactions with Aram would continue, as recorded through subsequent chapters of 1 and 2 Kings. Ahab’s choice here demonstrates a mixture of political expediency and disregard for the prophetic warnings he often received (1 Kings 20:42), reminding readers that true stability for Israel rested not in geo-political treaties alone but in obedience to the LORD.
Set to dark mode
1 Kings 20:34 meaning
“Ben-hadad said to him, ‘The cities which my father took from your father I will restore, and you shall make streets for yourself in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria.’ Ahab said, ‘And I will let you go with this covenant.’ So he made a covenant with him and let him go.” (v.34)
This verse presents a critical turning point in the ongoing conflict between King Ahab of Israel (circa 874-853 BC) and Ben-hadad, the king of Aram. When Ben-hadad declares, “The cities which my father took from your father I will restore” (v.34), he acknowledges that Aram’s previous aggression had wronged Israel. By prepared agreement, King Ahab receives the promise of restoration of those territories, exemplifying a moment of negotiation rather than warfare. The language, “and you shall make streets for yourself in Damascus” (v.34), suggests a political arrangement allowing Ahab certain privileges in one of the great cities of the ancient Near East. Damascus, located in the region today known as Syria, was one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities, resting in a fertile oasis that made it strategically and economically significant.
The reference to “as my father made in Samaria” (v.34) indicates that Ben-hadad’s father once held or influenced property rights within Samaria as well. Samaria, the capital city of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, sat on a hill strategically chosen by King Omri (Ahab’s father) around 885 BC (1 Kings 16). By paralleling conditions in Damascus with what once occurred in Samaria, Ben-hadad effectively equalizes the power dynamic, allowing for mutual benefit. After hearing this proposal, King Ahab responds by declaring, “And I will let you go with this covenant” (v.34). The decision to form an alliance rather than pursue the total defeat of Aram demonstrates Ahab’s political acumen but also foreshadows moral and spiritual dilemmas, as Israel’s kings were frequently admonished to rely on the LORD rather than foreign alliances (see 2 Chronicles 16 for a parallel situation with King Asa). This pursuit of peace and covenant agreements echoes forward to the New Testament, where Jesus teaches the virtues of reconciliation, though at a deeper spiritual level (Matthew 5:24).
When the verse concludes, “So he made a covenant with him and let him go” (v.34), it underscores that Ahab’s pursuit of peaceful coexistence overshadowed a harsher conclusion to battle. Historically, this signified a temporary lull in hostilities. Yet Israel’s complex interactions with Aram would continue, as recorded through subsequent chapters of 1 and 2 Kings. Ahab’s choice here demonstrates a mixture of political expediency and disregard for the prophetic warnings he often received (1 Kings 20:42), reminding readers that true stability for Israel rested not in geo-political treaties alone but in obedience to the LORD.