And Ben-hadad said to him, The cities, which my father took from your father, I will restore; and you shall make streets for you in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. Then said Ahab, I will send you away with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him, and sent him away.
1 Kings 13:21-24,26 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, …
1 Samuel 15:22,23 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams…
you may set up your own marketplaces in Damascus,
Allowing Israel to set up marketplaces in Damascus suggests a significant economic concession. Damascus was a major trade hub in the ancient Near East, and this agreement would have opened up economic opportunities for Israel. This reflects the importance of trade and commerce in ancient times and highlights the interconnectedness of the region's economies. It also indicates a level of cooperation and peace between the two nations, at least temporarily.
as my father did in Samaria.”
This phrase indicates a reciprocal arrangement that had previously existed, where Aram had similar privileges in Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This historical reference suggests a precedent for such treaties and highlights the cyclical nature of political alliances and conflicts in the region. Samaria was a significant city, and such arrangements would have been beneficial for both parties involved.
“By this treaty I release you,” Ahab replied.
King Ahab's response indicates his acceptance of the terms and his willingness to enter into a treaty with Ben-hadad. This decision can be seen as a pragmatic political move, aimed at securing peace and stability for Israel. However, from a theological perspective, Ahab's actions might be viewed critically, as he fails to seek divine guidance or consider the prophetic word previously given by God's prophets. This reflects Ahab's often-compromised spiritual leadership.
So he made a treaty with him and sent him away.
The finalization of the treaty and Ben-hadad's release mark the conclusion of this episode. This act of diplomacy, while politically expedient, is later criticized by the prophet in the subsequent verses, as it demonstrates Ahab's failure to fully execute God's judgment against Aram. This decision foreshadows future conflicts and highlights the tension between political expediency and obedience to divine commands. Theologically, it serves as a reminder of the importance of aligning political actions with God's will.
Ben-hadad, king of Aram, has just survived two crushing defeats (1 Kings 20:13-21; 20:28-30). Now, captured and cornered, he addresses Israel’s King Ahab.
• God had promised victory to prove “that I am the LORD” (1 Kings 20:28), and the result is Ben-hadad’s surrendering voice.
• Similar scenes of humbled foreign rulers appear with Pharaoh before Moses (Exodus 10:16-17) and Nebuchadnezzar before Daniel (Daniel 4:34-37), underscoring the LORD’s unmatched sovereignty.
Ben-hadad offers to return Israelite towns his father (probably Ben-hadad I) had seized—towns Asa had once bribed him to capture from Baasha (1 Kings 15:18-20; 2 Chronicles 16:4).
• The pledge sounds like repentance but springs from political desperation.
• God had already delivered those cities into Israel’s hands by granting victory; Ben-hadad is merely promising what God has accomplished (cf. Deuteronomy 2:36; Joshua 21:43-45).
• Prophets had warned Israel not to trust in foreign alliances (Isaiah 31:1); the LORD alone was to be their security.
Ben-hadad sweetens the deal with commercial incentives: Israel can establish trading “streets” (market quarters) in Damascus, just as Aram once enjoyed in Samaria.
• This echoes earlier concessions—David placed garrisons in Aramean territory (2 Samuel 8:6)—but here the motive is profit, not obedience.
• Trade rows in Damascus recall its reputation as a thriving hub (Ezekiel 27:18).
• Ahab’s eyes shift from spiritual duty to economic gain, a misalignment repeatedly condemned in Israel’s history (Amos 8:4-6; Micah 6:10-12).
Ahab answers, “By this treaty I release you” (1 Kings 20:34).
• God had placed Ben-hadad under the ban of judgment (1 Kings 20:42), yet Ahab grants freedom for a bargain.
• Earlier kings were charged to destroy implacable foes (Deuteronomy 7:2); sparing them forfeited blessing (1 Samuel 15:18-23).
• Like Saul with Agag, Ahab compromises where God demanded complete obedience.
The immediate result is peace on paper, but history shows the truce is short-lived.
• Within three years Ben-hadad breaks his word at Ramoth-gilead, costing Ahab his life (1 Kings 22:1-35).
• Future Aramean invasions under Hazael (2 Kings 8:12-15; 10:32-33) prove the futility of trusting enemies rather than God.
• God’s prophet confronts Ahab: “Because you have released a man I had determined to destroy… your life for his life” (1 Kings 20:42).
1 Kings 20:34 records a deal struck in the aftermath of divine victory. Ben-hadad, powerless, promises to return cities and open Damascus to Israelite trade. Ahab, enticed by territorial and economic gain, seals a treaty and releases the very king God had delivered for judgment. The verse exposes a fatal exchange: obedience to God bartered for short-term advantage. The episode warns that treaties born of compromise, not covenant faithfulness, invite future ruin and divine rebuke.
(34) Make streets--properly, squares, or quarters of a city. This concession implies a virtual acknowledgment of supremacy; for the right to have certain quarters for residence, for trade, perhaps even for garrison, in the capital of a king, belongs only to one who has sovereignty over him. Hence it goes beyond the significance of the restoration of the cities--conquered, it would seem, from Omri, unless, indeed, taking "father" in the sense of predecessor, the reference is to the Syrian victories in the days of Baasha. (See 1Kings 15:20.) The narrative seems to convey an idea that the covenant was made hastily, on insufficient security. The great point, however, was that a war, victoriously conducted under prophetic guidance, should not have been concluded without prophetic sanction.Verse 34. - And Ben-hadad said unto him The cities, which my father took from thy father, I will restore [We can hardly see in these words "the terms of peace which he is willing to offer as the price of his freedom" (Rawlinson), because he was absolutely at Ahab's mercy, and was not in a position to make any stipulations; but they express Ben-hadad's idea of the results which must follow the conquest. His utter defeat would necessitate this reconstruction of their respective territories, etc. We cannot be quite certain that the cities here referred to are those enumerated in 1 Kings 15:20, as taken by Ben-hadad's armies from Baasha. For Baasha was not the father, nor even was he the "ancestor" (as Keil, later edition) of Ahab, but belonged to a different dynasty. At the same time it is quite conceivable that a prince in Ben-hadad's position, in his ignorance or forgetfulness of the history of Israel, might use the word "father" improperly, or even in the sense of "predecessor." We know that אָב had a very extended signification.] Keil and Bahr, however, think that we have a reference to some war in the reign of Omri (cf. 1 Kings 16:27), which is not recorded in Scripture. And the words which follow make this extremely probable, inasmuch as in Baasha's days Samaria had no existence] ? and thou shalt make streets [חצות lit., whatever is without; hence streets, spaces, quarters] for thee in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. [The commentators are agreed that a permission to establish bazaars or quarters, in which the Hebrews might live and trade, is here conceded]. Then said Ahab [These words are rightly supplied by our translators. The meaning would have been quite clear had the Hebrews been familiar with the use of quotation marks. For lack of these, all the versions ascribe the words to Ben-hadad], I will send thee away with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him and sent him away.