The name of two kings of Aram (Syria) are known by this name in the Old Testament. A third king may be suggested in Amos 1:4 and Jer 49:27, though the name should probably be understood as the dynasty responsible for the construction of the fortress, or otherwise as a synecdoche for the nation of Aram.
1. Judah and Israel had been embroiled in constant cross-border conflict ever since their split soon after the death of Solomon. In the reign of Asa of Judah (reigned 911-870 BC), Baasha of Israel decided to fortified the border town of Ramah "to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah" (I Ki 15:17). Instead of confronting Baasha head-on, Asa decided to bribe Ben-Hadad, "son og Tabrimmon son of Hezion of Aram, who resided in Damascus" with the treasuries kept in the temple, who then "sent the commanders of his forces against the towns of Israel," capturing "Ijon, Dan, Abel Beth Maacah and all Kinnereth in addition to Naphtali," in the northern territory of Israel, leaving Baasha no choice but to abandon his provocative adventure.
2. Towards the latter period of King Ahab's reign (874-853 BC) a king by the name of Ben-Hadah mustered a coalition of thirty-two kings to attack Israel (1 Ki 20). The reasons leading up to the hostility are not given, but it was serious enough for Ben-Hadad to engage in a second season of battle after he had had to flee for his life in the first (vv20-26). Again Ben-Hadad was defeated and begged for his life to be spared. In a gesture that is strange beyond words, Ahab spared the belligerent, calling him "my brother" (vv32-33), and the two made a treaty between them. Upon this a prophet, un-named in the narrative but who had from the beginning counseled Ahab on Yahweh's mind on the course of the war, pronounced to Ahab that he had spared the life of a man whom Yahweh had determined should die, and that he would, therefore, have to pay for it with his own life (v42).
A major question surrounding this episode is whether this Ben-Hadad is to understood as the same person noted in 1) above, or does this account represent another person, possibly the son of the king above. A period of easily 50 years separated the two events. While the possibility cannot be denied, it seems unlikely that the two events represented the same person. At any rate, scholars differ in their opinions on the matter.
©ALBERITH
u211020lch