Jeremiah 49:1

"Concerning the children of Ammon, thus saith Jahveh: Hath Israel no sons, or hath he no heir? Why doth their king inherit Gad, and his people dwell in his cities? Jer 49:2. Therefore, behold, days are coming, saith Jahveh, when I will cause to be heard against Rabbah of the children of Ammon a war-cry; and it shall become a heap of ruins, and her daughters shall be burned with fire: and Israel shall heir those who heired him, saith Jahveh. Jer 49:3. Howl, O Heshbon! for Ai is laid waste. Cry! ye daughters of Rabbah, gird yourselves with sackcloth; lament, and run up and down among the enclosures: for their king shall go into captivity, his priests and his princes together. Jer 49:4. Why dost thou glory in the valleys? Thy valley flows away, O thou rebellious daughter, that trusted in her treasures, [saying], Who shall come to me? Jer 49:5. Behold, I will bring a fear upon thee, saith the Lord Jahveh of hosts, from all that is round thee; and ye shall be driven each one before him, and there shall be none to gather together the fugitives. Jer 49:6. But afterwards I will turn the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith Jahveh." The address begins with a question full of reproach: "Has Israel, then, no sons who could take possession of his land as their inheritance, that the king of the Ammonites has taken possession of Gad (i.e., of the hereditary portion of the tribe of Gad), and dwells in the cities of Gad?" The question presupposes that the Israelites had been carried away by Tiglath-pileser, but at the same time, also, that the country still belongs to the Gadites, for they certainly have sons who shall again receive the inheritance of their fathers. Since Jeremiah, as is clear from Jer 49:3, had Amo 1:13-15 in his mind, he evidently uses מלכּם in a double sense, n…

The Ammonites were next, both in kindred and neighbourhood, to the Moabites, and therefore are next set to the bar. Their country joined to that of the two tribes and a half, on the other side Jordan, and was but a bad neighbour; however, being a neighbour, they shall have a share in these circular predictions. 1. An action is here brought, in God's name, against the Ammonites, for an illegal encroachment upon the rightful possessions of the tribe of Gad, that lay next them, Jer 49:1. A writ of enquiry is brought to discover what title they had to those territories, which, upon the carrying away of the Gileadites, by the king of Assyria (Kg2 15:29, Ch1 5:26), were left almost dispeopled, at least unguarded, and an easy prey to the next invader. "What! Does it escheat ob defectum sanguinis - for what of an heir? Hath Israel no sons? Hath he no heir? Are there no Gadites left, to whom the right of inheritance belongs? Or, if there were not, are there no Israelites, none left of Judah, that are nearer akin to them than you are?" Why then does their king, as if he were entitled to the forfeited estates, or Milcom, their idol, as if he had the right to dispose of it to his worshippers, inherit Gad, and his people dwell in the cities which fell by lot to that tribe of God's people. Nay, there were sons and heirs of their own body, en ventre de sa mere - in their mother's womb, and the Ammonites, to prevent their claim, most barbarously murdered them (Amo 1:13): They ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border, that, having seized it, none might rise up hereafter to recover it from them. Thus they magnified themselves against their border and boasted it was their own, Zep 2:8. Note, Though among men might often prevails against right, yet tha…

49:1-6 Ammon was the next nation brought to trial in the Lord’s courtroom. Ammon was the second of Lot’s descendants (see study note on 48:1-47); its territory was north of Moab and east of Israel. The destruction of Ammon occurred shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. 49:1 After the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC, the Ammonites moved into territory that had been vacated by the tribe of Gad. • The Ammonites worshiped a fertility god named Molech (“ruler”), who was a lot like Baal (“master”).