And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

And Hazor shall be a dwelling-place of jackals, a desolation for ever: no man shall dwell there, neither shall any son of man sojourn therein.

And Asor shall be a habitation for dragons, desolate for ever: no man shall abide there, nor son of man inhabit it.

And Hazor hath been for a habitation of dragons, A desolation, unto the age, No one doth dwell there, nor sojourn in it doth a son of man!'

And Hazor will be a hole for jackals, a waste for ever: no one will be living in it, and no son of man will have a resting-place there.

And Hazor shall be a dwelling-place of jackals, A desolation for ever; no man shall abide there, Neither shall any son of man dwell therein. .

And Hazor will be a habitation for serpents, deserted even unto eternity. No man will abide there, nor will a son of man tend it."

Et erit Hazor in habitationem draconum, vastitas usque in perpetuum (in seculum;) non habitabit illic vir, et non manebit illic (aut, peregrinabitur in ea) filius hominis.

Here Jeremiah concludes his prophecy concerning the Kedareans; he says that their land would be deserted. The Prophets often make use of this way of speaking, that the land, deserted by its inhabitants, would become the habitation of dragons. And this is more grievous than when the land remains empty; for when dragons succeed men, it is a dreadful thing. Hence, that God's judgment might produce more impression on men's feelings, the Prophets often declare that a deserted place would become the dwelling of dragons. He adds what imports the same thing, A waste shall it be for an age: but vlm, oulam, means perpetuity. And it is added, Not dwell there shall a man, nor live there shall a son of man There seems indeed to be a superfluity of words, for it would have been sufficient in one sentence to say, that the land would be deserted and not inhabited. But he first assigns it to dragons: then he adds that it would be a waste or solitude; and lastly, he says that no one would dwell there, and not only so, but having mentioned man, he adds the son of man Some indeed think that by man the nobles are referred to, and that by the son of man, or Adam, we are to understand the common people, the multitude. But as we have said elsewhere, this is too refined. It is a repetition which increases the effect, though in the second clause he speaks more generally and expresses the thing more clearly, as though he had said, that no one of the human race would become an inhabitant of that land. [1] It now follows, --

Footnotes

1 - The difference in the two clauses is properly distinguished by Blayney, in his version, -- There shall not a man dwell there, Nor shall a son of man sojourn therein. -- Ed

Dragons - i. e., jackals.

Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons - Shall be turned into a wilderness.
A desolation for ever - Never to be repeopled.
There shalt no man abide there - It may occasionally be visited, but never made a permanent abode.

And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever,.... The city of Hazor, as well as the kingdoms of it; the royal city, where their king and principal men dwelt; even this should be no more inhabited by men, but by dragons, and the wild beasts of the field, and so remain for ever, at least a long time; see Isaiah 13:20;
there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it: signifying the utter desolation of it; See Gill on Jeremiah 49:18.

(Malachi 1:3).

The dwelling-places of the settled tribes (Hazor) shall become the habitation of jackals (cf. Jeremiah 9:10), an uninhabited desolation for ever. Jeremiah 49:33 is in part a repetition of Jeremiah 49:18.
With regard to the fulfilment of this prophecy, it follows from the latter part of the title that Nebuchadnezzar had smitten the Arabian tribes, i.e., defeated them, and subjected them to his sway. But we have no historical information as to the time when this took place. M. von Niebuhr (Gesch. Assyr. u. Bab. S. 209) and Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterth. i. S. 427) suppose that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had returned home to Babylon from Hither Asia, having heard of the death of his father, after his victory at Carchemish, and after he had ascended the throne, "as it seems," first thought of extending his authority over the Arabians on the lower portion of the Euphrates, in North Arabia, and in the Syrian desert. This supposition may possibly be true, but cannot be raised to historic probability; moreover, it is connected, by the above-mentioned historians, with theories regarding the campaigns against Hither Asia which rest upon statements of Josephus that are very uncertain, and some of which can be proved to be incorrect. Such is the statement in Antt. x. 6. 1, that Nebuchadnezzar, after his victory at Carchemish, in pursuing the Egyptians to the borders of their country, did not touch Judea. The only notice we have, apart from Scripture, of the conquest of Arabia by Nebuchadnezzar, is that furnished by Josephus (contra Ap. i. 19) from Berosus: κρατῆσαι δέ φησί τὸν Βαβυλώνιον (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) Αἰγύπτου Συρίας Φοινίκης ̓Αραβίας. But this notice is stated in such indefinite and general terms, that nothing more specific can be inferred from it regarding the time and circumstances of the conquest of Arabians.