Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 10:1
And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.
1 5. David’s ambassadors insulted by the Ammonites
1. And it came to pass after this ] On this formula of transition see note on ch. 2Sa 8:1.
the king of the children of Ammon ] Forty years at least had passed since the events of 1 Samuel 11, so that this Nahash was probably the son or grandson of the king defeated by Saul at Jabesh. On the Ammonites see note on 1Sa 11:1.
Hanun ] This name is identical with the Phoenician Hanno, which appears so frequently in Carthaginian history. In Greek both take the form ( Annon).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The king – In marginal reference. Nahash, king, etc. The interval between the two events, not less than 50 years, and possibly more, is against his being the same as the Nahash of 1Sa 11:1-15.
The Ammonites are almost always spoken of as the children of Ammon, from the name of their first ancestor Ben-ammi Gen 19:38.
Hanun – The equivalent of the Carthaginian Hanno, from the same root as the Hebrew, Hananiah, Johanan, Hannah, etc. The same name appears in composition with Baal in Baal-Hanan, an Aramean king Gen 36:38-39.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER X
The king of Ammon being dead, David sends ambassadors to
comfort his son Hanun, by 2.
Hanun, misled by his courtiers, treats the messengers of David
with great indignity, 3-5.
The Ammonites, justly dreading David’s resentment, send, and
hire the Syrians to make war upon him, 6.
Joab and Abishai meet them at the city of Medeba, and defeat
them, 7-14.
The Syrians collect another army, but are defeated by David with
great slaughter, and make with him a separate peace, 15-19.
NOTES ON CHAP. X
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The king of the children of Ammon; Nahash, 2Sa 10:2; probably the same whose army Saul defeated and destroyed, 1Sa 11, who out of enmity to Saul showed kindness to David, as it follows; hoping also by fomenting the differences between Saul and David, to make way for his future conquests.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And it came to pass after this,…. After the wars with the Moabites, Syrians, and Edomites, being friendly with the children of Ammon, David sent an embassy to their king, after related; by which it appears what is said concerning the spoils of the children of Ammon, 2Sa 8:12, is by anticipation; for these spoils were not taken until the following war with them, the occasion of which is here told:
that the king of the children of Ammon died; whose name was Nahash, as is clear from 2Sa 10:2, and probably might be the same that came against Jabeshgilead, from whom Saul delivered the inhabitants of that place, 1Sa 11:1;
and Hanun his son reigned in his stead; who, being his son, was heir to his crown, and succeeded him in his kingdom.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
This war, the occasion and early success of which are described in the present chapter and the parallel passage in 1 Chron 19, was the fiercest struggle, and, so far as the Israelitish kingdom of God was concerned, the most dangerous, that it ever had to sustain during the reign of David. The amount of distress which fell upon Israel in consequence of this war, and still more because the first successful battles with the Syrians of the south were no sooner over than the Edomites invaded the land, and went about plundering and devastating, in the hope of destroying the people of God, is shown very clearly in the two psalms which date from this period (the 44th and 60th), in which a pious Korahite and David himself pour out their lamentations before the Lord on account of the distress of their nation, and pray for His assistance; and not less clearly in Ps 68, in which David foretels the victory of the God of Israel over all the hostile powers of the world.
2Sa 10:1-2 Occasion of the war with the Ammonites. – 2Sa 10:1. On the expression “it came to pass after this,” see the remarks on 2Sa 8:1. When Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead, David thought that he would show him the same kindness that Nahash had formerly shown to him. We are not told in what the love shown to David by Nahash consisted. He had most likely rendered him some assistance during the time of his flight from Saul. Nahash was no doubt the king of the Ammonites mentioned in 1Sa 11:1, whom Saul had smitten at Jabesh. David therefore sent an embassy to Hanun, “to comfort him for his father,” i.e., to show his sympathy with him on the occasion of his father’s death, and at the same time to congratulate him upon his ascent of the throne.
2Sa 10:3 On the arrival of David’s ambassadors, however, the chiefs of the Ammonites said to Hanun their lord, “Doth David indeed honour thy father in thine eyes (i.e., dost thou really suppose that David intends to do honour to thy father), because he has sent comforters to thee? Has David not sent his servants to thee with the intention of exploring and spying out the town, and (then) destroying it?” The first question is introduced with , because a negative answer is expected; the second with , because it requires an affirmative reply. is the capital Rabbah, a strongly fortified city (see at 2Sa 11:1). The suspicion expressed by the chiefs was founded upon national hatred and enmity, which had probably been increased by David’s treatment of Moab, as the subjugation and severe punishment of the Moabites (2Sa 8:2) had certainly taken place a short time before. King Hanun therefore gave credence to the suspicions expressed as to David’s honourable intentions, and had his ambassadors treated in the most insulting manner.
2Sa 10:4 He had the half of their beard shaved off, and their clothes cut off up to the seat, and in this state he sent them away. “The half of the beard,” i.e., the beard on one side. With the value universally set upon the beard by the Hebrews and other oriental nations, as being a man’s greatest ornament,
(Note: “Cutting off a persons’ beard is regarded by the Arabs as an indignity quite equal to flogging and branding among ourselves. Many would rather die than have their beard shaved off” (Arvieux, Sitten der Beduinen-araber). Niebuhr relates a similar occurrence as having taken place in modern times. In the years 1764, a pretender to the Persian throne, named Kerim Khan, sent ambassadors to Mir Mahenna, the prince of Bendervigk, on the Persian Gulf, to demand tribute from him; but he in return cut off the ambassadors’ beards. Kerim Khan was so enraged at this, that he went the next year with a large army to make war upon this prince, and took the city, and almost the whole of his territory, to avenge the insult.)
the cutting off of one-half of it was the greatest insult that could have been offered to the ambassadors, and through them to David their king. The insult was still further increased by cutting off the long dress which covered the body; so that as the ancient Israelites wore no trousers, the lower half of the body was quite exposed. .deso , from or , the long robe reaching down to the feet, from the root = , to stretch, spread out, or measure.
2Sa 10:5 When David received information of the insults that had been heaped upon his ambassadors, he sent messengers to meet them, and direct them to remain in Jericho until their beard had grown again, that he might not have to set his eyes upon the insult they had received.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Hanun’s Usage of David’s Servants. | B. C. 1038. |
1 And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. 2 Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon. 3 And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather sent his servants unto thee, to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it? 4 Wherefore Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. 5 When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.
Here is, I. The great respect David paid to his neighbour, the king of the Ammonites, 2Sa 10:1; 2Sa 10:2. 1. The inducement to it was some kindness he had formerly received from Nahash the deceased king. He showed kindness to me, says David (v. 2), and therefore (having lately had satisfaction in showing kindness to Mephibosheth for his father’s sake) he resolves to show kindness to his son, and to keep up a friendly correspondence with him. Thus the pleasure of doing one kind and generous action should excite us to another. Nahash had been an enemy to Israel, a cruel enemy (1 Sam. xi. 2), and yet had shown kindness to David, perhaps only in contradiction to Saul, who was unkind to him: however, if David receives kindness, he is not nice in examining the grounds and principles of it, but resolves gratefully to return it. If a Pharisee give alms in pride, though God will not reward him, yet he that receives the alms ought to return thanks for it. God knows the heart, but we do not. 2. The particular instance of respect was sending an embassy to condole with him on his father’s death, as is common among princes in alliance with each other: David sent to comfort him. Note, It is a comfort to children, when their parents are dead, to find that their parents’ friends are theirs, and that they intend to keep up an acquaintance with them. It is a comfort to mourners to find that there are those who mourn with them, are sensible of their loss and share with them in it. It is a comfort to those who are honouring the memory of their deceased relations to find there are others who likewise honour it and who had a value for those whom they valued.
II. The great affront which Hanun the king of the Ammonites put upon David in his ambassadors. 1. He hearkened to the spiteful suggestions of his princes, who insinuated that David’s ambassadors, under pretence of being comforters, were sent as spies, v. 3. False men are ready to think others as false as themselves; and those that bear ill-will to their neighbours are resolved not to believe that their neighbours bear any good-will to them. They would not thus have imagined that David dissembled but that they were conscious to themselves that they could have dissembled, to serve a turn. Unfounded suspicion argues a wicked mind. Bishop Patrick’s note on this is that “there is nothing so well meant but it may be ill interpreted, and is wont to be so by men who love nobody but themselves.” Men of the greatest honour and virtue must not think it strange if they be thus misrepresented. Charity thinketh no evil. 2. Entertaining this vile suggestion, he basely abused David’s ambassadors, like a man of a sordid villainous spirit, that was fitter to rake a kennel than to wear a crown. If he had any reason to suspect that David’s messengers came on a bad design, he would have done prudently enough to be upon the reserve with them, and to dismiss them as soon as he could; but it is plain he only sought an occasion to put the utmost disgrace he could upon them, out of an antipathy to their king and their country. They were themselves men of honour, and much more so as they represented the prince that sent them; they and their reputation were under the special protection of the law of nations; they put a confidence in the Ammonites, and came among them unarmed; yet Hanun used them like rogues and vagabonds, and worse, shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the midst, to expose them to the contempt and ridicule of his servants, that they might make sport with them and that these men might seem vile.
III. David’s tender concern for his servants that were thus abused. He sent to meet them, and to let them know how much he interested himself in their quarrel and how soon he would avenge it, and directed them to stay at Jericho, a private place, where they would not have occasion to come into company, till that half of their beards which was shaved off had grown to such a length that the other half might be decently cut to it, v. 5. The Jews wore their beards long, reckoning it an honour to appear aged and grave; and therefore it was not fit that persons of their rank and figure should appear at court unlike their neighbours. Change of raiment, it is likely, they had with them, to put on, instead of that which was cut off; but the loss of their beards would not be so soon repaired; yet in time these would grow again, and all would be well. Let us learn not to lay too much to heart unjust reproaches; after awhile they will wear off of themselves, and turn only to the shame of their authors, while the injured reputation in a little time grows again, as these beards did. God will bring forth thy righteousness as the light, therefore wait patiently for him,Psa 37:6; Psa 37:7.
Some have thought that David, in the indignity he received from the king of Ammon, was but well enough served for courting and complimenting that pagan prince, whom he knew to be an inveterate enemy to Israel, and might now remember how, when he would have put out the right eyes of the men of Jabesh-Gilead, he designed that, as he did this, for a reproach upon all Israel, 1 Sam. xi. 2. What better usage could he expect from such a spiteful family and people? Why should he covet the friendship of a people whom Israel must have so little to do with as that an Ammonite might not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to the tenth generation? Deut. xxiii. 3.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
AUTHORS NOTE: Second Samuel – Chapter 10 AND First Chronicles – Chapter 19
Solicitude Abused, 2Sa 10:1-5 AND 1Ch 19:1-5
The passage now under study relates a provocation which led to war with the Ammonites, eventually involving various of the Syrian, or Aramaen, states, as well. In the course of these wars David fell into the sin which has for ever remained a blot on his character and brought immeasurable sorrow in his life.
The occasion was the death of Nahash, the Ammonite king, and David’s decision to send his condolences. This may have been the same Nahash whom Saul defeated in his early reign (1Sa 11:1 ff), in which case he would have been a very old man. His kindness unto David was likely some form of aid he gave him during the time that he was a fugitive from Saul. David sent a delegation to Hanun, the new king, son and successor of Nahash, to offer his comfort.
However, the Ammonite council was suspicious of David’s intentions and advised their new king not to accept them. They convinced Hanun the Israelite messengers were there to spy out the city and land and to seek its overthrow by David. To show their contempt for David and his supposed underhanded attempts they abused his messengers. They shaved off one side of their beards and cut off their robes midway of their hips Thus they sent them homeward in great shame and embarrassment.
Bad news travels fast, and this reached David before the returning messengers. He sent word to them to remain at Jericho, on the border of Israel west, until their beards had grown out again. Thus ended the first step of David’s effort to establish friendly rapport with a pagan neighbor.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
2Sa. 10:2. Nahash. This may be the same Nahash mentioned in 1 Samuel 11; but as this was probably forty years after the event there recorded, it is more likely a son of the same name. As his father showed kindness. What this kindness was, or when shown is nowhere recorded; most likely some friendly act in the days of Davids exile.
2Sa. 10:3. The city. Rabbah, or Rabbath-Ammon the capital city, which was a city of much importance from these days until the fourth century. Its position and defences would make it necessary that an enemy proposing to besiege it should examine it from within. The remains of this city which still exist are among the most remarkable in Syria; and although most of the buildings are said to be Roman, the citidel is said to be much more ancient, and Mr. Oliphant (Land of Gilead) refers some of the fortifications to the days of David. Shaved off, etc. Cutting off a persons beard is regarded by the Arabs as an indignity quite equal to flogging and branding among ourselves. Many would rather die than have their beards shaved off. Niebuhr relates a similar occurrence as having taken place in modern times. In the year 1764, a pretender to the Persian throne, named Kerim Khan, sent ambassadors to the prince of Bendervigk, on the Persian gulf, to destand tribute of him; but he in return cut off the ambassadors beards. Kerim Khan was so enraged at this, that he made war upon the prince and took the city. (Keil) The Iraelites, except the priests, wore no breeches; so much the grosser, therefore, was the second insult. (Erdmann).
2Sa. 10:6. Beth-rehob. Probably identical with the present Rubaibeh, about twenty-five miles N.E. of Damascus. Tobah, see on 2Sa. 8:3. King Maacha, rather, king of Maacha. A territory on the northern border of Bashan, on the south-west declivity of Hermon. (Deu. 3:14.) Ish-tob. Rather the men of Tob, a region near the Ammonite territory, where Jephthah took refuge. (Jdg. 11:5.) Its exact location cannot be fixed. Twenty thousand footmen. The account of the composition of the forces differs here from that in Chronicles, no chariots being here mentioned. There are copyists errors in both texts. For the Syrian troops consisted neither of footmen alone, nor of chariots and horsemen alone, but of infantry, cavalry, and war chariots, as is evident, not only from 2Sa. 8:4, and 1Ch. 8:4, but also from the close of our narrative. (Keil.)
2Sa. 10:8. Here the position of the Syrians in the field, i.e., on the broad plain of Medeba, is clearly distinguished from the Ammonites before the city, so that the position of Joabs army is clear. He could (see 2Sa. 10:9) be attacked both in front and rear. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 10:12. The cities of our God. Joab and Abishai were about to fight, in order that Jehovahs possessions might not fall into the hands of the heathen, and become subject to their gods. (Keil.)
2Sa. 10:13. They fled. As often happens for those that fight for pay alone, and not for the cause. (Grotius.)
2Sa. 10:14. Joab returned. As may be inferred from 2Sa. 11:1, because it was too late in the season to besiege Rabbah. Or also because the Syrians were not sufficiently broken, or he had not the materials for a siege. (Biblical Commentary.)
2Sa. 10:16. Hadarezer. (See on 2Sa. 8:3.) The river. The Euphrates. This king had tributaries in Mesopotamia. (See 2Sa. 8:3) Helam. The locality of this place is not known. As this is the same battle that, according to 1Ch. 18:3, was fought at Hamath, it must be across the Jordan, (see 2Sa. 10:17), not on the Euphrates, but further west than Hamath. (Erdmann.) For Hamath, see 2Sa. 8:9.
2Sa. 10:18. Seven hundred chariots, etc. (See Keils remark at the close of 2Sa. 10:6.) He and other scholars consider that in this chapter we have simply a more circumstantial account of the war of which the result is given in chap. 8. In support of this view it is urged that in the former chapter David is said to have subdued the Syrians and the children of Ammon, and there is nothing said here of a revolt from an authority previously acquired, but the circumstances which led to the subjugation of Ammon are here fully related on account of its connection with the death of Uriah in the next chapter.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
DAVID AND THE AMMONITES
I. The wisdom and virtues of the parent are not necessarily found in the child. Although we have no further information concerning the father of Hanun than that which is furnished by the words of David, they are sufficient to show that he was a far wiser and better man than his son. It is reasonable to suppose that he showed kindness to David at that period in Davids life when nothing but a kindly disposition could have prompted him to the deedwhen the present king of Israel was not in a position either to resent an insult or reward a service rendered. We may fairly then assume that this former king of the Ammonites was a man whose character was above the level of the monarchs by whom he was surrounded, and it is possible that, as a descendant of Lot, he cherished some regard for the nation of Israel, and some reverence for Israels God. But the conduct of his son is a proof of the painful truth that neither wisdom nor moral worth are hereditary. If Hanun had been only politically wise he would have given Davids ambassadors a different reception. If goodwill to his fathers old ally did not move him to continue the friendship, a wise man would have seen it would be politic to do so. For David was now a king himself, and a king whom it was worth while to propitiate. When, therefore, Hanun not merely cast from him an opportunity of strengthening his kingdom by alliance with David, but added great insult to his rejection, he showed himself as weak as he was wicked, and an unworthy son of a worthy parent.
II. Those who are in the wrong are often the first to strike the blow which leads to war. It does not appear that David took any steps to avenge the insult offered to himself and to his countryhe probably felt he could afford to let it pass, and was willing to leave the Ammonites and their king in the hand of God. But Hanun and his followers measured David by their own standard, and concluding that he would be filled with feelings of revenge, hastened to follow up their first act of defiance by another, which compelled David to take action against them. Thus they forced upon Israel the battle which ended in their own destruction, for David would have failed in his duty had he not have now dealt out retribution. This principal is ever in operation in the various spheres of human life. Even in the play-ground the boy who is in the wrong is often more eager than the companion whom he has offended to settle the dispute by blows, and ascending to the unequal contest which rebellious man wages with his Maker, we find that all the defiance and active insolence is on the side of the offending human creature, and all the long-suffering and for bearance on that of the God against whom he has sinned. Let all in such case beware, lest, like these Ammonites, they force the sword of retribution to descend upon them.
III. If those who are in the wrong are bold, much more should those who are in the right show courage and determination. These Syrians and Ammonites were engaged in an unjust warthey had no possible excuse for the attack they made upon Israel, and therefore they could have had no conviction of being in the right to sustain them. Yet they came to the contest with bold heartsventuring their liberties and their lives in a wrong cause. As we have before had occasion to notice, men will be brave in trying to advance wrong as well as in defending what is right. But seeing that they who are engaged in fighting for the righteous cause have God and conscience on their side, it behoves them at all times to equal, if not to surpass, their opponents in courage and devotion. Joab could here draw inspiration from the certainty that he was fighting for God in fighting against the heathen, and this thought enabled him to be of good cheer, and leave the issue in Gods hands. Although he was not a true servant of God, he was at this time engaged in a service for Gods people, and the consciousness of this seems to have lifted him for a time above his ordinary frame of mind, and filled him with a real religious devotion. If Joab could be thus animated and strengthened, surely no truly godly man ought to fear or falter in the day of righteous conflict.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa. 10:3. It is hard for a wicked heart to think well of any other; because it can think none better than itself and knows itself evil.Bp. Hall.
2Sa. 10:5.
1. We must beware of casting pearls before swine (2Sa. 10:2). The Ammonites must have been known to David as a cruel and barbarous people.
2. Nothing is so offensive as a wanton insult in return for respect and kindness.
3. The gravest men are sensitive to ridicule of their personal appearance.
4. All persons of noble nature are considerate of the feelings of others.
5. Time heals many ills.Tr. of Langes Commentary.
2Sa. 10:6. It is one of the mad principles of wickedness, that it is a weakness to relent, and rather to die than yield. Even ill causes, once undertaken, must be upheld, although with blood; whereas the gracious heart, finding his own mistaking, doth not only remit of an ungrounded displeasure, but studies to be revenged of itself, and to give satisfaction to the offended.Bp. Hall.
That is the way with an evil conscience; it flees before it is hunted. (Job. 15:20.)Cramer.
2Sa. 10:12. That soldier can never answer it to God, that strikes not more as a justiciar, than as an enemy; neither doth he content himself with his own courage, but he animates others. The tongue of a commander fights more than his hand. It is enough for private men to exercise what life and limbs they have: a good leader must, out of his own abundance, put life and spirits into all others: if a lion lead sheep into the field, there is hope of victory. Lastly, when he hath done his best, he resolves to depend upon God for the issue, not trusting to his sword, or his bow, but to the providence of the Almighty, for success, as a man religiously awful, and awfully confident, while there should be no want in their own endeavours. He knew well that the race was not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; therefore he looks up above the hills whence cometh his salvation. All valour is cowardice to that which is built upon religion.Bp. Hall.
Joab was a selfish, unscrupulous, unprincipled man; yet in entering upon a perilous battle he talks piously. So do almost all civil rulers and generals in any great emergency; not only because they know that the people feel their dependence upon God, but because in the hour of trial they feel it themselves. Such language under such circumstances does not clearly prove one to be devout, or to be hypocritical; it expresses a feeling which may be genuine, though transient and superficial.Tr. of Langes Commentary.
I. Courage is an essential characteristic of a good soldiernot a savage ferocious violence; not a foolhardy insensibility of danger, or headstrong rashness to rush into it; not the fury of inflamed passions broke loose from the government of reason; but calm deliberate rational courage; a steady, judicious, thoughtful fortitude; the courage of a man, and not of a tiger. This will render men vigilant and cautious against surprises, prudent and deliberate in concerting their measures, and steady and resolute in executing them. II. It is of great importance to excite and keep up courage in such an expedition that we should be fully satisfied that we engage in a righteous causeand in a cause of great moment; for we cannot prosecute a suspected, or wicked scheme which our own minds condemn, but with hesitation and timorous apprehensions; and we cannot engage with spirit and resolution in a trifling scheme, from which we can expect no consequences worth our vigorous pursuit. The consideration of the justness and importance of the cause may also encourage hope that the Lord of Hosts will espouse it, and render its guardians successful. The event, however, is in His hands as the closing words of the text suggest. They may be looked upon in various views; as
1. The language of uncertainty and modesty. Such language becomes us in all our undertakings; it sounds creature-like, and God approves of such self-diffident humility.
2. It may be expressive of a firm persuasion that the event of war entirely depends upon the providence of God. q.d. Let us do our best; but after all, let us be sensible, that the success does not depend upon us. It is no great exploit of faith to believe this; it is but a small advance upon atheism and downright infidelity.
3. It may express an humble submission to the disposal of providence, let the event turn out as it would we have not the disposal of the event, nor do we know what it will be; but Jehovah knows and that is enough
4. These words, in their connection, may intimate, that, let the event be what it will, it will afford us satisfaction to think that we have done the best we could. q.d. We cannot command success: but let us do all in our power to obtain it, and we have reason to hope we shall not be disappointed; but if it should please God to render all our endeavours vain, still we shall have the generous pleasure to reflect, that we have not been accessory to the ruin of our country, but have done all we could for its deliverance.From a sermon by President Davies of New Jersey, preached on the invasion of British America by the French, 1755.
2Sa. 10:13. Joab provided for the worst, and put the case that the Syrians or Ammonites might prove too strong for him; but he proved too strong for them both. We do not hinder our successes by preparing for disappointment.(Henry).
2Sa. 10:1-19. One injustice produces another, and drags men on irretardably to destruction by the resulting chain of sins and injustices.(Langes Commentary).
Our Psalter contains several songs which betray an undeniable reference to the last wars and victories of David. To these belong, in the first place the sixtieth in which he begins by looking back on the invasion of the Syrians, in which his army had to lament sorrowful losses, and on all the terrors of war which had spread over the land. O God, Thou hast cast us off, etc. Thou hast given a banner, etc. (i.e., Thou didst give them deliverance, and didst raise up that before them like an encouraging banner). He concludes with God hath spoken in His holiness (glorious promises has He given to me); therefore (i.e. on the ground of them) I will rejoice: I will divide (to Israel) Shechem (the land on this side of Jordan), and mete out the valley of Succoth (the land on the farthest side of Jordan). The whole land David regards as his possession. But why does he name only these two places? He names them as denoting the two portions of the land, with a retrospective reference to the patriarch Jacob, who, after his return from Mesopotamia settled, first in Succoth, and then afterwards in Shechem, and there built an altar, thus foreshadowing the taking possession of the land at a later period.
The twentieth Psalm is a Davidic war song, belonging to the same days, also the forty-fourth, and we have in the sixty-eighth Psalm, an animated song of triumph, which has reference, with its whole contents, to the issue, so glorious for Israel, of that most fearful of all their wars, the Syro-Ammonitish. The Psalmist begins it with joyful expressions of praise to Jehovah as the Protector of the righteous, and the inflexible Judge of the wicked. Then he recalls to remembrance the mighty deeds by which God had made himself glorious to Israel during their marchings in the wilderness, and the peaceful days which he had granted to his people after the conquest of Canaan till the erection of the tabernacle on Mount Zion. After a description of the glory of God, who, as the King of all kings sat enthroned in majesty on His holy hill of Zion, and had again shown himself, in the subjugation of all the enemies of His people, that He was the God of Israel, the Psalmist describes the festal procession in which the holy thing, the ark of the covenant, which had accompanied the army into the field during the Ammonitish war, was brought back again to Jerusalem. He names several tribes, among others those of Benjamin and Judah, Zebulun and Naphtali, which took part in this procession, as representatives of the whole nation. Then he sees in spirit the veil raised from the most distant future, and all the nations of the earth bending under the sceptre of the God of Israel. Then the song becomes Messianic, and closes with these words: Ascribe ye strength unto God: His excellency is over Israel, and His strength is in the clouds. O God, Thou art terrible out of Thy holy places: the God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto His people. Blessed be God!(Krummacher).
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
III. TROUBLE IN DAVIDS FAMILY, 2Sa. 10:1 to 2Sa. 14:33.
1. The War With Ammon, 2Sa. 10:1-19.
Davids Ambassadors Shamed. 2Sa. 10:1-5
And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Amnon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.
2 Then said David, I will show kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And Davids servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.
3 And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honor thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather sent his servants unto thee, to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?
4 Wherefore Hanun took Davids servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
5 When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.
1.
Who was Hanun? 2Sa. 10:1
Hanun was the new king over the people of Ammon. David had subdued these people in one of his campaigns (2Sa. 8:12). As the son and successor of Nahash, the king of the Ammonites in the days of Saul, he showed himself to be of the same warlike nature. He was not able to withstand the agitation of courtiers who misjudged the object of Davids mission, and he treated Davids ambassadors shamefully.
2.
Who was Nahash? 2Sa. 10:2
A man named Nahash is mentioned in 1Sa. 11:1-3. We cannot be sure that this is the same Nahash mentioned in 2Sa. 10:2. We suppose that it was the same person. It may have been that the latter mention of the name refers to a son of the man formerly mentioned. It would be hard to understand how this man had helped David, since no specific mention of it is made. He may have befriended David during the time that David was in hiding from the presence of Saul. Nahash could have helped David in order to spite Saul, who had wreaked such vengeance on the Ammonites after they had gone out against the men of Jabesh-gilead.
Other tribes had fallen under the sword of David and Hanun was afraid to trust David because the other tribes had suffered such a fate. When the Ammonites mistreated the ambassadors from Israel, ample cause for war was present. The abuse of an ambassador was considered a just cause for war.
3.
Why did they doubt Davids motives? 2Sa. 10:3
The young prince was ready to act on suspicion. His advisors thought that David would hardly be so sympathetic as to send ambassadors to console the king when his father died. They thought that he had come to search out the city, to spy on it, and to overthrow it. The record in Chronicles indicates that they thought that he had come to spy out the entire land. This was the same motive attributed to Abner by Joab who came on a mission of peace to David at Hebron. Their suspicions are a reflection upon their own attitudes and motives, but David had given them no reason to have such fears. Their suspicions were founded on national hatred and enmity which had possibly been increased by Davids treatment of Moab and other neighbors of Ammon.
4.
How did Hanun treat Davids servants? 2Sa. 10:4
Hanun treated Davids servants shamefully. He shaved off half of their beards and cut off their garments in the middle. Whether the men were shaved down one side of their faces or their beards were cut off so that they were only half as long as they were designed to be cannot be determined. Their garments were cut off so that they were ashamed to be seen in public. For that reason, David told them to stay in Jericho, near the Jordan river, and wait until their beards were grown and they could be outfitted with other clothes. They would then be free to return to Jerusalem and make a report of their mission.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) The king.His name is given in the next verse and in 1Ch. 19:1, as Nahash. He was probably a son or grandson of the Nahash whom Saul conquered (1 Samuel 11), as more than fifty years must have passed away since that event. The kindness he had shown to David is not recorded, but may have been some friendly help during his wanderings, or merely a congratulatory embassy on his accession.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Ammon The territory of the Ammonites was contiguous to that of the Moabites. See on Gen 19:37-38. Against this nation Jephthah and Saul had fought and been victorious. Jdg 11:32-33; 1Sa 11:11.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
David’s Victory Over Ammon And Their Aramaean Allies ( 2Sa 10:1-19 ).
The greatest threat to Israel at this time, with both Egypt and Mesopotamia in a weak condition, was a burgeoning Aramaean empire to his immediate north (2Sa 8:3). This was something that Saul had had to combat in its infancy (1Sa 14:47), and it would appear that it was now stirring up some of the minor Transjordanian powers (note the connection of Zobah with the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites in 1Sa 14:47) to act against Israel. It may well have been their influence on Moab which had resulted in their continual aggravation of David, which had made him have to deal so harshly with them (2Sa 8:2), and we learn of a similar connection of the Aramaeans with the Edomites in 2Sa 8:13. David had earlier removed the threat which had been in the middle of his land (the Jebusites of Jerusalem), now he would have to deal with this empire, which itself was seeking expansion and stirring up trouble on every quarter.
It was not, however, initially a consequence of David’s choice. Paradoxically it arose because he wanted to show kindness to the son of Nahash, the king of Ammon who had previously shown kindness towards him. But in view of what follows we must surely see the attitude of the princes of Ammon as inspired because of their intrigues with their Aramaean ‘allies’. Those who are suspicious of other people’s attempts at spying usually have something to hide. Perhaps they did not want David to be aware of the fact that they themselves were building up their armed forces, and even had Aramaean advisers among them. And the sudden availability of a combined Aramaean army can surely not have been coincidental. It smacks of preparedness. (You do not just contact someone and say, ‘Oh by the way, I think I have offended David. Do you think that you could lend me three armies from scratch’ and expect them to arrive in time to deal with his reprisal).
The Suspicions of The Ammonites Cause Them To Insult David’s Ambassadors ( 2Sa 10:1-5 ).
On the death of Nahash, king of Ammon, his son Hanun came to the throne, and because Nahash had shown him kindness in the past David sent ambassadors to him with messages of condolence. This, however, raised the suspicions of the princes of Ammon, who simply saw the ambassadors as spies, with the consequence that they treated them in such a way as deliberately to insult David. The usual cause of suspicions like that is that those who are suspicious have something to hide. Messages of condolence on the death of a king would not usually arouse suspicions. This seems to be confirmed in what follows, which, while only covered briefly, suggests a major and protracted war with major powers with which David had to contend, who would have had no reason for coming to the aid of the Ammonites other than because they had already had communications with them with David in mind.
The rise of David would have pleased no one in the area around Palestine, and we know already that the Moabites must somehow have behaved abominably. Given that David had reason to be grateful to them for looking after his parents when he was fleeing from Saul (1Sa 22:3-5), and that he tended to be generous in his appreciation of those who were kind to him (2Sa 9:3; 2Sa 10:2), his harsh treatment of them (2Sa 8:2) could only possibly have arisen as a result of some heinous behaviour on their part, while the necessity of culling their forces so severely suggests that he had larger problems to deal with and could not risk having to deal with their further activities. This might be seen as indicating that he already knew that he was facing the threat of action from elsewhere. And as the Philistines had already been dealt with, and the Egyptians were busy with their own affairs, that could only be from enemies in the north.
But those enemies were seemingly still unsure of their ground, and it would appear that they had therefore approached some of the princes of the Ammonites and the Edomites as potential allies with a view to arousing them against David, the Moabites having already responded to their suggestions and having been mercilessly crushed (they would not be the first to act in expectation of help from others, only to discover that the help did not materialise). This very crushing of and treatment towards the Moabites would in itself have aroused fears and dislike among the Ammonites and Edomites. Who knew whom David would savage next? (They would not consider that the Moabites may have brought it on themselves. The Moabites were their friends).
This pernicious influence of the Aramaeans would serve to explain why they are seen as connected with both the Ammonites (2Sa 10:6) and the Edomites (2Sa 8:13), and as so willing to assist them. They had, however, seemingly made no firm commitment, for on David’s forces being gathered to attack the Ammonites, it resulted in the Ammonites appealing to the Aramaeans and paying them a large sum (a thousand talents of silver – 1Ch 19:6) to come to their aid. As so often, those who were mainly responsible for the trouble and had stirred it up did not want to get their hands dirty unless it was made worth their while. It may well have been tribute.
Analysis.
a
b So David sent by his servants to comfort him concerning his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon (2Sa 10:2 b).
c But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think that David is doing honour to your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Has not David sent his servants to you to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?” (2Sa 10:3).
b So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away’ (2Sa 10:4).
a When they told it to David, he sent to meet them; for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, “Wait at Jericho until your beards are grown, and then return” (2Sa 10:5).
Note that in ‘a’ David aims to show kindness to the Ammonite king, and in the parallel we have an indication of the rebuttal of that kindness. In ‘b’ the ambassadors are sent and come into the land of the children of Ammon, and in the parallel they are shamed and sent away. Centrally in ‘c’ we learn of the reason for the bad treatment of the ambassadors.
2Sa 10:1
‘ And it came about after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.’
The passage commences with the background to what follows. All arose as a result of the death of the current king of Ammon, Nahash, who was seemingly on good terms with David. He had been replaced by his son Hanun. The end of a long reign was often the time when men began to think about how the current situation could be altered, especially if they were egged on by others.
2Sa 10:2
‘ And David said, “I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me.” So David sent by his servants to comfort him concerning his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.’
News of Nahash’s death reached David who immediately determined to show his sympathy and offer friendship to Hanun, because Nahash had previously shown kindness towards him. We have no indication of what this kindness was, and it may have been related to his time when he was a fugitive from Saul. On the other hand it may simply indicate that they had maintained good relations during their respective reigns, with each helping the other. It parallels David’s intention of showing kindness to the house of Saul in 2Sa 9:1, the only difference being that this time it backfired against him.
So David sent messengers of comfort to Hanun, and his messengers accordingly entered the land of the children of Ammon.
2Sa 10:3
‘ But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think that David is doing honour to your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Has not David sent his servants to you to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?” ’
The princes of Ammon, however, far from being grateful, sought to persuade their new king against David. The death of Nahash had increased their ability to influence the throne, and it must seem very probable that these half wild princes of a half wild people (situated between the more sophisticated Moabites and the even wilder Arabian nomads) had been stirred up by outside troublemakers to take this attitude in view of the fact that they were opposing the view of their late king. It was in fact regularly during an interregnum and the commencement of a new reign that such troublemakers would seek to take advantage of the situation to stir up trouble, and if Moab had been ‘pacified’ fairly recently it would explain their attitude even more. Thus these princes, possibly taking advantage of his innocence, suggested to the new young king that what David was doing was not genuinely showing honour to his dead father, but simply spying on them and assessing their capabilities with a view to an invasion. It is doubtful if they really thought this, for there had been a fairly long period of peace between Israel and Ammon (although it is quite true that it was at the commencement of a new reign that a potential aggressor might have such intentions). It is far more likely that they were being influenced by troublemakers from outside, namely the Aramaeans, who did not want to attack Israel themselves, but were hoping to foment trouble with that aim eventually in view.
2Sa 10:4
‘ So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.’
The result of their urgings was that the new and rather naive king, no doubt egged on by his princes, decided to show David what he thought of him, and took David’s ambassadors, and shaved off half their beards, and cut their robes so that their buttocks were revealed, and then sent them away. This was a deliberate insult of a most serious kind. To a Near-Easterner to have the beard shaved off was looked on as a major insult, and indeed warranted a death sentence on the culprit. Men would rather die than had their beards shaved off. And to shave off only half their beard added to the insult. There are a number of examples throughout history which demonstrate how deeply such insults were felt. Furthermore to have the buttocks bared was equally shameful (compare Isa 20:4). The ambassadors thus arrived back in Jericho feeling utterly shamed and humiliated, and in doing it to his ambassadors Ammon had in effect done it to David.
2Sa 10:5
‘ When they told it to David, he sent to meet them; for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, “Wait at Jericho until your beards are grown, and then return.” ’
When David heard what had happened to his messengers he sent messages of sympathy and support to them at Jericho and told them that they could wait there until their beards had re-grown. Then they were to return to court. Meanwhile the insult was so great that retaliation was inevitable. No king could have held his head up after such treatment if he did not do something about it. So, as the Ammonites clearly recognised with some trepidation, an aggressive response to the insult would only take a matter of time.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Sa 10:4 Wherefore Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
2Sa 10:4
“The wine had soon its effect, the guards became exceedingly drunk, and fell fast asleep; under the advantage of the night, the young man took down the body of his brother, and in derision shaved the right cheeks of the guards: he placed the body on one of the asses, and returned home, having thus satisfied his mother.” (Herodotus, The Histories 2.121) [56]
[56] Herodotus, Herodotus, vol. 1, trans. William Beloe (London: A. J. Valpy, 1803), 253-254.
2Sa 10:18 And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.
2Sa 10:18
1Ch 19:18, “But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots , and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.”
A look at the difference in the Hebrew:
2Sa 10:18 – Hebrew ( ) – the men of seven hundred chariots.
1Ch 19:18 – Hebrew ( ) – seven thousand men which fought in chariots.
Hebrew ( ) (H7651) “seven”
Hebrew ( ) (H3967) “hundred”
Hebrew ( ) (H505) “thousand”
Hebrew ( ) (H7393) “men which fought in chariots”
2Sa 10:18 “forty thousand horsemen” – Comments – The parallel passage in 1Ch 19:18 says, “forty thousand footmen.”
1Ch 19:18
A look at the difference in the Hebrew:
2Sa 10:18 – Hebrew ( ) – forty thousand horsemen.
1Ch 19:18 – Hebrew ( ) – forty thousand footmen.
Hebrew ( ) (H705) “forty”
Hebrew ( ) (H505) “thousand”
Hebrew ( ) (H6571) “horsemen”
Hebrew ( ) ( ) (H7273) “footmen”
2Sa 10:18 “Shobach” – Comments – The parallel passage in 1Ch 19:18 says, “Shophach.”
1Ch 19:18
A look at the difference in the Hebrew names:
2Sa 10:18 – Hebrew ( ) – Shobach. (H7731).
1Ch 19:18 – Hebrew ( ) – Shophach. (H7780).
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
David’s Servants Shamefully Treated
v. 1. And it came to pass after this that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun, his son, reigned in his stead.
v. 2. Then said David, I will show kindness unto Hanun, the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness unto me. v. 3. And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun, their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honor thy father, v. 4. Wherefore Hanun, v. 5. When they told it unto David,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Sa 10:1
The king of the children of Ammon died. This war is very briefly referred to in 2Sa 8:12; but we have now entered upon a narrative, the interest of which is altogether unlike all that has gone before. There we saw David crowned with earthly glory, and made the monarch of a vast empire; he is also a prophet, and, as such, not only restores, but enriches and enlarges, the worship of the sanctuary; and, as prophet and king, he becomes not only the type, but the ancestor of the Messiah. In this narrative he is a sinner, punished with terrible, though merited, severity, and must henceforth walk humbly and sorrowfully as a penitent before God. From 1Ch 19:1 we learn that the king’s name was Nahash; but whether he was the same as the Nahash mentioned in 1Sa 11:1 is uncertain. There was an interval of more than forty years between, but Nahash was probably a young man, just seated on the throne, when he attacked Jabesh-Gilead; and Saul, who repelled him, might have been still alive but for the battle of Gilbea. The name means a “serpent,” and is used in Job 26:1-14 :18 of the constellation Draco. It may thus have been a name assumed by several Ammonite kings, the dragon representing majesty and power, and being the symbol on their seal, just as it is the Chinese imperial emblem now. The phrase, “It came to pass after this,” has no chronological significance either hero or in 2Sa 8:1. It is simply a form of transition from one subject to another.
2Sa 10:2
His father showed kindness unto me. This makes it probable that it was the same Nahash as Saul’s enemy. The smart of the defeat caused by Saul’s energy would make him regard with friendship any one who was a thorn in the side of the man who had so unexpectedly stopped him in his career, and hence his kindness to David.
2Sa 10:3
Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father! This insinuation arose probably from ill will, stirred up by David’s success in war; and, with that distrust with which neighbouring nations too often regard one another, they see in his embassy only a purpose of spying into their defences with view to future attack. Rabbah, their city, was a place strong beth naturally and by reason of its fortifications.
2Sa 10:4
Hanun shaved off the one half of their beards. To an Oriental the beard was the mark of his being a free man, and to cut it off on one side was not merely an insult to David’s ambassadors, but the treating them like slaves. Moreover, as only the priests wore underclothing, and as the ordinary dress of men consisted of a tunic and a loose flowing robe thrown over it, the cutting of this robe short up to the hip was a vile and abominable affront. Of course, Hanun intended this as a challenge to war, whereas David had meant peace and friendship.
2Sa 10:6
That they stank (see notes on 1Sa 13:4; 1Sa 27:12). As the Hebrew literally means, had made themselves stink, the Revised Version rightly translates “had made themselves odious.” The children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians. From 1Ch 19:6 we learn that his mercenaries from Aram cost Hanun a thousand talents of silver, or nearly five hundred thousand poundsa vast sum, especially considering the great relative value of silver in those days. The mercenaries, moreover, were gathered out of numerous districts of Aramfrom Rehob, Zoba, Beth-Maacah, and Tob; the margin being right in rendering “the men of Tob,” instead of “Ish-tob.” So, too, the Revised Version, “The men of Tob twelve thousand men.” It was to this land that Jephthah fled (Jdg 11:3). The whole number of the allies was thirty-three thousand, with which total the parallel place agrees, as they are described there as “thirty-two thousand, and the King of Maacah and his people,” who are here said to have been a thousand strong. The text, however, there must be corrupt, as it describes them all as horsemen (Authorized Version, “chariots;” 1Ch 19:7); here footmen only are mentioned, with which the narrative agrees (see note on 1Ch 19:18).
2Sa 10:7
And all the host of the mighty men. The Hebrew is, and all the host, mighty men. By this is meant, not “the mighties,” but that the Israelites had now become practised in war, and veterans.
2Sa 10:8
The Syrians were by themselves in the field. We learn from 1Ch 19:7 that the rendezvous of the Arameans was at Medeba, a small town situated upon a hill in the Mishor, or treeless prairie land, called “the plain” in Jos 13:16. As it was four miles southeast of Heshbon, and more than twenty miles distant from Rabbah, it is plain that they were marching northward, and that Joab was only just in time to prevent a junction of the two armies. The Ammonites, who were expecting their allies, and knew of their approach, had come outside of Rabbah, but had only posted themselves in fighting order “at the entering in of the gate.”
2Sa 10:9
The front of the battle. The object of Joab was to prevent at all hazards the junction of the Syrians with the Ammonites, and he was only just in time to throw himself between them. This was resolute but dangerous policy, as, in case of defeat, he would have a powerful enemy in his rear. Apparently, however, he was aware that his real work lay with the Syrian mercenaries, who were dangerous enough by themselves, and would become more than a match for him if they were reinforced by the men of Rabbah. He therefore leaves Abishai with such troops as he could spare to watch the Ammonites, feeling sure that they would not hazard an attack unless they saw matters going ill with him; and, taking with him all his bravest men, “the choice man of Israel,” he prepares with them to give battle to the Syrians.
2Sa 10:11
And he said, etc. Thenius remarks, “We have here the briefest of warlike exhortations, but one most full of point and meaning.” Joab recognized the full danger of their situation; for should he meet with any check in his attack on this vast host of mercenaries, he was well aware that the Ammonites, watching the battle with eager interest, would, on the first news of victory, rush upon Abishai with exulting fury; and the men with him, being only ordinary troops, would be disheartened by Joab’s failure, so that without extraordinary bravery on their leader’s part, they would give way, and all would be lost.
2Sa 10:12
Be of good courage, and let us play the men. The Hebrew employs two conjugations of the same verb, literally, be strong, and let us show ourselves strong. And need there was for bravery; for the welfare, as he went on to show, of all Israel, and the honour of Israel’s God, were in jeopardy. Finally he adds, The Lord do that which seemeth him good. They are the words not so much of confidence as of determined resolution. Come good or ill, he and Abishai would do their utmost.
2Sa 10:14
So Joab returned. It seems strange to us that Joab should have made no attempt to follow up his victory. But as the Ammonites were posted close to the gate of their city, they would withdraw into it without less as soon as they learned that their allies were defeated. There was thus the certainty of a long siege before Rabbah could be taken. We gather from 2Sa 11:1 that it was late in the year when Joab won this victory, and it was part of the weakness of ancient warfare that a long campaign was beyond the power of either side.
2Sa 10:16
Hadarezer (see note on 2Sa 8:3). Hadarezer probably had been well content to let his subjects receive the pay of the Ammonites, and extend his empire at their cost. But as paramount king in Aram, the defeat of the mercenaries obliged him to make the war a national affair, and undertake the management of it himself. He therefore summons troops from all the Aramean states on both sides of the Euphrates, and places his own general, Shobach, in command, and makes Helam the place of gathering. Helam. No such place is known, and the word might mean “their army,” in which case the translation would be, “and they came in full force.” The Vulgate takes it in this way, but makes the verb the causative singular, and translates, “and he brought their army.” On the other hand, the LXX; the Syriac, and the Chaldee make it a proper name here, as even the Vulgate necessarily does in 2Sa 10:17, where there can be no doubt. In the parallel place (1Ch 19:16,1Ch 19:17) it is omitted in the first place, and in the second we find in its stead, “upon them.” Either, therefore, the chronicler did not know of such a place, or the text is corrupt. Ewald and others suppose that Helam may be identified with Alamata; but we learn from 1Ch 18:3 that the battle was fought near Hamath, and Alamata is on the Euphrates, too far away for David to have made his attack there.
2Sa 10:17
David gathered all Israel together. Some commentators see in this an indication of dissatisfaction with Joab. Really it was a matter of course that in so great a war the king should place himself at the head of his levies. For not only was he possessed of great military genius, but his personal presence would make the men of Israel, a race of sturdy free men, assemble in greater numbers, and would give them confidence. If David himself went there would be no shirking the war and finding excuses to stay at home, and in the camp there would be prompt alacrity and zeal.
2Sa 10:18
David slew, etc. (see note on 2Sa 8:4). We have seen there that the word translated “chariots” means any vehicle or animal for riding. The numbers here are seven hundred chariots with their charioteers, and forty thousand horsemen; in 2Sa 8:4 we have seventeen hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen; finally, in 1Ch 19:18 we find seven thousand chariots and charioteers, and forty thousand footmen. It is impossible to reconcile these conflicting numbers, but as David had no cavalry, the numbers in 2Sa 8:4 are the more probable, namely, seventeen hundred cavalry and chariots, and twenty thousand infantry. The Syriac Version gives us here very reasonable numbers, namely, “seven hundred chariots, four thousand cavalry, and much people.”
2Sa 10:19
The kings served them. It is evident from this that the petty kings of Rehob, Tob, and Maacah had been subject to Hadarezer; they now acknowledged the supremacy of David, and paid to him the tribute which they had previously paid to Zobah, and would be bound to supply him with a contingent of men in case of a war in their neighbourhood. The wars with Damascus and Edom, mentioned in 2Sa 8:5, 2Sa 8:13, probably followed immediately upon Hadarezer’s defeat, but are not referred to here, as the interest now centres in David’s personal conduct.
HOMILETICS
2Sa 10:1-5
Rejected friendliness.
The facts are:
1. On the death of the King of Ammon, David resolves to send a kindly message to Hanun, in remembrance of favours received from his father Nahash.
2. On the arrival of David’s servants, the chief men of Ammon suggest to the new king that their message of condolence is a piece of trickery on the part of David for political ends.
3. Listening to these insinuations, Hanun shows his contempt for David by cutting off one side of the beard of his ambassadors, and exposing the lower part of their person.
4. On hearing of this humiliation, David sends a message to them on their way home, directing them to remain at Jericho till their beards were gown again. The question as to the chronological order of the events mentioned in this chapter as compared with 2Sa 8:1-18. does not affect the character of the facts or the lessons conveyed. The supposition that David deserved the insult he met with at the hand of Hanun, in consequence of showing friendliness to one of Israel’s traditional foes, is not justified, because of the explicit reference to David’s remembrance of acts of kindness. As in the case of Mephibosheth remembrance of Jonathan’s kindness is referred to by way of explaining the conduct described, so here it is evidently regarded as a corresponding excellence in David that he was mindful also of the kindness of aliens. The object of the historian is obviously to bring out into view the king’s broad generosity. In this light, then, we may regard the narrative as showing
I. THE EXISTENCE IN HUMAN INTERCOURSE OF UNREQUITED AND UNRECORDED ACTS OF KINDNESS. Had not this 2Sa 8:2 been written we might never have known that the pagan Nahash had showed kindness to the Lord’s anointed. Possibly few in Israel knew of the actual service rendered by Nahash to David at some period of his exile. No record of it existed save in the king’s memory; and Nahash died before his consideration for one in trouble was acknowledged in regal form. Possibly he may have felt it strange that no notice was taken of the past when David came into power. The fact that we have this incidental reference to the kindness suggests what we often observe to be true, that many kindly deeds are done of which history takes no note, and which in the hurry and strife of life are lost to sight and mind. There is more good in the world than is tabulated. Thousands of considerate friendly deeds, revealing the true brotherhood of man and the latent worth of human nature, are being daily performed, but of which the mass of mankind will know nothing, and which, perhaps, will lie for a long time, through unavoidable circumstances, unrequited. We ought to bear this in mind when we strive to form an estimate of the state of the world, and it should set us at ease if our own generous acts do not figure in the annals of our time, and are to all appearance disregarded and unproductive of reciprocal Conduct. It is the course of life; and yet nothing is lost, nothing is in vain.
II. THE GENEROSITY OF A TRUE HEART PASSES BEYOND CONVENTIONAL BOUNDS. To some it would seem strange that the King of Israel should cherish kindly sentiments towards an alien monarch, and even go out of the ordinary course to express those sentiments. Bigotry and a narrow interpretation of fidelity to the theocratic principle on which David’s government was based would restrict generous feelings to one’s own nationality. But David saw that man was before citizen, and the law of love before political expediency; and, as the Saviour later on saw a man and brother in the Samaritan and in every human creature, so now David saw in a kindly Nahash a kinship prior to and more radical than even the bonds which held him to his own nation. It is in these goings out of the best hearts of ancient times in kindliness towards the politically alien that we see a prefigurement of the broad evangelical charity which would embrace in its consideration every child of Adam. It is the delight of the good to recognize good in all men. The restrictive influences of sect and party, of nationality and race, are to be guarded against. The conventional is transitory; nature is permanent. The sentiments proper to nature must, if possible, rise above the accidental sentiments springing from the casual and fleeting forms of life.
III. IT IS SOMETIMES THE MISFORTUNE OF THE BEST CONDUCT TO BE MISJUDGED. David’s conduct was pure in motive, correct in form, and beneficial in tendency; yet it, was regarded by astute men with suspicion, and repaid by the most malicious insult. This was no new thing in his experience. We have seen how again and again, during his early trials, he was misunderstood by Saul, and his very deeds of kindness returned by more bitter persecution. This is the portion of not a few in all ages. The world is dark, and men cannot or will not see the colours of good. It is one of the sad forms of confusion brought about by sin. The merciful Redeemer blessed men, but he was despised and rejected of them. The most lovely character that ever adorned the earth was clothed by the foul imagination of men with the horrible attributes of Satan (Luk 11:15-18). The same treatment in a milder form was to be expected by his disciples (Mat 5:11; Mat 10:17, Mat 10:18). We may be comforted, when the like experience happens to us, that it is all foreseen and provided for. The clouds that pass over the sky are not endued with permanence. They are incident to a changeful atmosphere.
IV. THE SOURCE OF THE MISJUDGMENT IS INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL. The men who persuaded Harem to scorn David’s friendliness did not know David. It was ignorance of the actual intentions and the inner character of the king that gave scope for the base moral element to come in and impute to him vile motives (2Sa 8:3). They really supposed him to be a man like unto themselves, and, cherishing ill will, they found no difficulty in tracing his conduct to such considerations as would have influenced themselves had they been in his position. There is in all men affected by what is called the spirit of the world, a primary suspicion and distrust of others. It is a sort of first principle in business, in diplomacy, in casual intercourse. In the absence of perfect knowledge of the heart, the imagination is set to work to find out the possible motives at work. The existence of the slightest dislike will assuredly cause the imagination to see something evil, and hence the deeds most worthy in origin and design may be treated as base and deceitful. Ignorance and dislike combined to slay the Lord of glory (Joh 8:37-45; 1Co 2:8). If such things happened to the Master, the servants may be patient and trustful should they also happen to them.
V. WICKEDNESS AND FOLLY, BY THEIR MISJUDGMENT, TURN AN ACT OF FRIENDLINESS INTO AN OCCASION OF DESTRUCTION. The conceit and ill will of these Ammonites, acting on Hanun, first misjudged David’s conduct, and then, by a natural process of evil, gave rise to a deed which proved the occasion of turning the friendliness of David into retributive anger which issued in their ruin. The men capable of reasoning and feeling as these did were certainly capable of the deed of shameful insult to David in the persons of his ambassadors (2Sa 8:4). When men allow an ill-informed mind to be swayed by a malicious spirit, there is no telling to what lengths they may go in sin. Evil deeds are blind deeds. Their folly is parallel with their depravity. The most conspicuous instance of this is in the case of the people who misjudged Christ and rejected his friendliness. That which was to have been a rock on which they could build a great and blessed future became a stone to grind them to powder (Mat 21:40-44; Mat 23:37; 1Pe 2:7, 1Pe 2:8). It is also the wanton rejection of Christ’s kindness which will prove the occasion of the bitterest woe to individuals (Mat 10:14, Mat 10:15; Mat 11:20-24; cf. Pro 1:24-27). All rejections of friendliness involve ultimate loss; rejection of Christ’s friendliness involves loss proportionate to his greatness and glory.
2Sa 10:6-19
International quarrels.
The facts are:
1. The Ammonites, discovering the displeasure of David, hire mercenaries of the neighbouring peoples.
2. As a countermovement, David sends out a strong force under Joab.
3. The opposing forces coming into contact, Joab arranges that he should confront the Syrians, while Abishai deals with the Ammonites.
4. Joab, exhorting Abishai to courage, in dependence on God, arranges also for mutual support, in case of need, in their respective attacks.
5. On the Syrians yielding to the assault of Joab, the Ammonites also flee from before Abishai, whereupon Joab returns to Jerusalem.
6. Another effort of the Syrians under Hadarezer, aided by others from beyond the Euphrates, draws out David at the head of a large army to the eastern side of Jordan.
7. A great battle, issuing in the complete defeat of the Syrians; the tributary kings under Hadarezer make peace with Israel and serve them. We have here a record of quarrels and entanglements, which to the eye of a sacred historian have a bearing on the development of the kingdom of Israel, and consequently on the ultimate advent of the “Prince of the kings of the earth.” In that respect the events form a section of the intricate movements of Providence for the furtherance of spiritual interests, and they have their natural place in the Divine moral order, allowing for human freedom, as truly as the formation of the igneous and sedimentary rocks have in the physical order. The narrative may thus be taken as typical of a class. But we may regard the record as suggesting, or illustrating, truths which, while prominent in international quarrels, have also a wider application to human life in general. These chiefly are as follows.
I. THE MAINTENANCE OF HONOUR IS A DUTY. It was right for David to resent the indignity and insult. Meekness and gentleness are qualities consistent with assertion of what is due to self as a man, as a ruler, as a representative of a people and of a Divine institution. A king’s honour is his strength, because of the trust of his people, the sentiment of loyalty, the force of his decrees, his silent restraint of the turbulent, and, in David’s case, also because of the Divine institution of his government. How kings and individuals may best maintain their honour is a question to be decided by the circumstances of the case; in some way the holiest and kindest may do it and ought to do it.
II. THE REPROACH AND DISPLEASURE OF THE JUST IS ITSELF THE BEGINNING OF PUNISHMENT. That the Ammonites “stank before David”a monarch so wise, just, and generouswas a brand on them of demerit, and the natural forerunner of chastisement to come. Whoever by his deeds falls righteously under the displeasure of a just man, is ipso facto branded as base, is classed by his own conscience and all honourable observers as a criminal. This changing of the face of the just towards the wicked is the primary social punishment of sin ordained by God, and, as the gathering clouds precede the storm, it is the token of further providential chastisements. The course of nature in the long run follows in the course of moral right.
III. SINFUL FOLLY IS SURE TO BRING ON PERPLEXITIES AND PERILS. No doubt there was great mirth in the court of Hanun when the Hebrew ambassadors were half shorn of their beards and apparel. But the mirth was as “the crackling of thorns under a pot” (Ecc 7:6). It was soon found that this cheap mirth was, in fact, dearly bought; for the displeasure of so mighty a king as David was soon discovered to mean for them great perplexity and peril. So is it with all sin, which is a sort of moral madness. It may give passing gratification, and all may seem secure, but it leads to perplexities and perils from which there is no escape as long as a Righteous One sits on his throne. The irony of the preacher is painfully true (Ecc 11:9).
IV. ONE EVIL DEED REQUIRES OTHER DEVICES TO SUSTAIN IT. The sinful folly of the Ammonites necessitated the device of hiring mercenary troops to ward off the blow that was impending as a consequence of their sin. It is quite true that in any progressive life action must be sustained by action, but in the case of evil doing the device is to stave off something which ought not to come, and which would not be feared but for the previous wrong. Sin cannot remain sole. If there is not immediate repentance there will be an effort to get out of the self-caused difficulties by other questionable means. The liar has to take ceaseless precautions because of his lie. The man who rejects Christ is conscious of much uneasiness, and has to exercise ingenuity to escape this consequence. Troops of mercenaries are hired.
V. WELL STORED RESOURCES ADMIT OF PROMPT ACTION IN EMERGENCIES. David had during the five years of his reign paid great attention to the administration of the affairs of his kingdom, and, as a consequence, he was now able at once to avail himself of the resources that had been treasured up. He sent “Joab, and all the host of mighty men” (2Sa 10:7). The fruits of prescience and care were now available without confusion or delay. In kingdoms, as in homes and in business, providence and orderly arrangement give great advantages for action when unexpected and trying events transpire. The same is true of early education and culture, of Church organization, of the personal spiritual life. The world is evil; events at cross purposes with our plans and adverse to our peace will arise; it is “impossible but that offences come.” The moral is, lay up in store continuously, and so be ready for action, and therefore ready for victory.
VI. SOUND PRINCIPLES PERTAINING TO CONDUCT AFFORD MORAL SUPPORT IN TIMES OF GREAT STRESS AND DANGER. Joab showed the better side of his nature when he exhorted Abishai, in face of the foe, to act as a man for the honour and safety of his people and cities, leaving the consequences in the hands of God (2Sa 10:12). Not for military display, not for aggrandizement, not for personal gain, but to vindicate a people whose head had been insulted,this was the principle on which the battle should be fought. In this was duty; consequences were with God, who cares for the just. History reveals instances in which men have been made strong by the just principle for which they contended. A righteous cause is itself equivalent to an armed force, both in the moral tone it gives to those engaged in it, and in the secret depression of those on the other side. It would be interesting to trace out the physical bearings of moral influences. Let us see to it that out’ great efforts are under the guidance of clear moral principles.
VII. IN THE CONFLICTS OF LIFE AN ASSURANCE OF MUTUAL HELPFULNESS IS A HELP AGAINST DISASTER. The arrangement for mutual help in case of pressure (2Sa 10:11) was helpful, in that it anticipated a possible evil, and it inspired each with the courage that comes of sympathy and support. In human affairs, secular and religious, the possibility of disaster must be taken into account, because of personal imperfection and of the unascertained forces against us. We do not possess the knowledge by which we can always dispose of our strength in the right quarter, and, even when we do possess it, there may be sudden moral paralysis. None of us contend alone, or for self only. Hence we can be mutually helpful, as were Joab and Abishai. More of this in things sacred and secular would save from many a disaster.
VIII. UNWISE ALLIANCES LEAD ON TO SERIOUS ENTANGLEMENTS. The Syrians lent themselves for gain (2Sa 10:6) to an alliance with the Ammonites. This compact, destitute of sound principle, involved the Syrians in what appeared to them to be the necessity of maintaining their reputation in spite of defeat; and hence further arrangements were made with Syrians “beyond the river.” A Syrian war, with the whole of Israel’s army under the leadership of the invincible David, was the consequence. Such difficulties arise when men make unholy alliances against a just cause. If men cannot unite without evil it is better to stand aloof. Nature has formed certain elements to combine, and others to keep apart. Whoever tries to put together what is contrary to nature will get into difficulty. Whoever forms an unholy alliance in human affairs, national or personal, is seeking to bring about advantages which it is in the course of moral order to prevent; and sooner or later greater embarrassments will arise. In moral matters simplicity and direct submission to the moral order are true wisdom.
IX. ADVERSE BEGINNINGS MAY, FOR THE JUST, ISSUE IN GOOD ENDINGS. It is a pain and annoyance to David to have his friendliness so wantonly rejected (2Sa 10:4), but the event issued in the extension of his power and the surer peace of his people (2Sa 10:18, 2Sa 10:19). Man has the beginnings of things in his hand, but a Mightier One works them up towards issues of his own. The persecution of the early Church resulted in the wider diffusion of the gospel. The rejection of Christ by the Jewish nation is to issue in a greater glory. Many things in our personal experience may pain and injure us, but by stirring up our strength, by awakening more trust in God and leading to greater caution and courage, we may in the end achieve conquests once never thought of.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
2Sa 10:1-4
(1Ch 19:1-4). (RABBAH.)
Requiting evil for good.
The Ammonites appear to have remained quiet since their defeat by Saul, nearly half a century before (1Sa 11:1-15.). Nahash their king (perhaps a son of the former Nahaeh) had rendered friendly service to David. But on the accession of Hanun, his son, the old hostility of the children of Ammon revived, and showed itself in a way that made conflict inevitable. To this the growing power of David and his recent subjugation of their kindred, the Moabites (2Sa 8:2), doubtless contributed. Their deliberate, wanton, and shameless treatment of his messengers was the occasion of “the fiercest struggle, and, so far as the Israelitish kingdom of God was concerned, the most dangerous, that it ever had to sustain during the reign of David.” In it we see
I. A PERSONAL CONTRAST. David requited the kindness of Nahash with kindness to his son; condolence on his bereavement, congratulation on his accession (2Sa 10:2); but Hanun requited the kindness of David with insult and injury to his servants (2Sa 10:4; Isa 20:4). The conduct of the one displayed gratitude, sympathy, confidence, and benevolence; that of the other ingratitude, contempt, distrust, and malignity.
1. How different in character the men who hold similar positions! David and Hanun were both kings, their heads were pressed by the same “crown of pure gold” (2Sa 12:30; Psa 21:3); but in spirit they were wholly unlike.
2. How different the construction put on similar actions! Such actions are regarded by men as good or evil, according to their ruling disposition; just as the same objects appear of different hue according to the colour of the medium through which they are viewed. Hence what is well meant is often ill interpreted.
3. How different the consequences that flow from similar influences! Kindness is like sunshine, that melts the ice and hardens the clay; causes pleasure to the healthy and torture to the diseased eye. It tests, manifests, and intensifies the good or evil in the heart, and leads to opposite courses of conduct. Its proper tendency is to produce its like; but its actual effect is often the contrary (Joh 13:27). Even the kindness of God is perverted by hardness of heart to more abounding wickedness (Isa 26:10; Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5). If it be sinful to “recompense evil for evil” (Rom 12:17), how much more to recompense evil for good (1Sa 25:21)!
II. A PUBLIC DISHONOUR. It was not a private and personal indignity put on these ambassadors, but an open and national insult offered to their king and people, by Hanun and his court (2Sa 10:3), who probably expressed therein the prevalent suspicion and hatred of the children of Ammon.
1. How prejudicial the indulgence of jealousy and suspicion to the maintenance of peace and good will among nations!
2. How pernicious the influence of evil counsel and calumny on the political principles and policy of rulers! “We see in this the bitter fruits which evil counsel to princes, especially to those who are young and inexperienced, produces” (Guild). “The slanderer inflicts a threefold wound at one stroke. He wounds himself by his breach of charity; he wounds his victim by injuring his good name; he wounds his hearers by poisoning their minds against the accused” (St. Bernard).
3. How provocative the exhibition of ingratitude, injustice, and contempt to resentment and retaliation (2Sa 10:6)! It turns kindness into wrath, seems to justify the drawing of the sword, and inspires the hope of victory (2Sa 10:12). “Thou knowest not what may show itself when thy contempt awakes the lion of a sleeping mind.”
III. A PRESUMPTUOUS AND FATAL DEFIANCE. It was a challenge by the worshippers of Moloch, confident in their strength and success, to the people of Jehovah; the first step of a renewed attack “against Jehovah and against his Anointed” (Psa 2:1-12.). The opposition of the ungodly to the kingdom of God, though it slumber for a season, ever breaks forth afresh.
1. How infatuated their hostility! They are heedless of the warnings afforded by the past.
2. How groundless their confidence! “They trust in vanity.”
3. How certain their overthrow!
“He that sitteth in the heavens laughs,
The Lord hath them in derision,” etc.
(Psa 2:4-9.)
The evil which they do returns on their own heads (2Sa 10:14); and “their end is destruction” (2Sa 12:31). “These shall make war with the Lamb,” etc. (Rev 17:14).
CONCLUSION.
1. We should not be deterred from doing good by the fear that it may be requited with evil.
2. Although others may render evil for good, we should render good for evil (1Sa 11:12, 1Sa 11:13).
3. The noblest victories are those which are gained by patience, forbearance, and all-conquering love (Rom 12:21).D.
2Sa 10:4, 2Sa 10:5
(1Ch 19:4, 1Ch 19:5). (JERICHO.)
Ridicule.
“Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return” (2Sa 10:5). It has been the endeavour of men in all ages to make the objects of their aversion appear contemptible and ridiculous. Few things are more painful and humiliating than exposure to popular derision. The fear of it, no doubt, sometimes exerts a salutary influence in restraining from what is unseemly and wrong; but it also frequently exercises an opposite influence in deterring from what is becoming and right. Of ridicule, together with the sense of dishonour (2Sa 10:5, former part) which it naturally produces, observe that it is often
I. INCURRED BY FIDELITY. Like the servants of David, the servants of Christ are made the object of scornful raillery (a common and effective instrument of persecution):
1. In the faithful performance of duty, in obedience to the will of their Lord; conveying his message of kindness, acting as his representatives. “For righteousness’ sake;” “For my sake” (Mat 5:10, Mat 5:11; Mat 10:22). It is not the suffering, but the cause, that makes the martyr (1Pe 2:20; 1Pe 4:15).
2. By those who hate and misrepresent them and him whom they serve, and whose hostility is due to their diverse character and principles. “If ye were of the world,” etc. (Joh 15:19).
3. After the example of the faithful in past time. “Others had trial of mockings” (Heb 11:36). “Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him,” etc. (Luk 23:11, Luk 23:35, Luk 23:36).
II. MODERATED BY SYMPATHY. “And they told it unto David, and he sent to meet them,” etc. Those who, in the way of duty, suffer the reproach of the bad, enjoy the sympathy of the good; and especially of the Master himself:
1. Whose sympathy is inexpressibly precious.
2. Who has suffered the same, and is therefore able to feel with them and for them (2Sa 6:20).
3. Who also expresses it in the most appropriate and effectual manner. He regards what is done to them as done to himself, affords them wise and friendly counsel, takes them under his protection, and stands ready to defend and avenge them. “They departed, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name” (Act 5:41; Act 16:25; 1Th 2:2).
III. REMEDIED BY PATIENCE. “Tarry,” etc. They were probably disposed to go up at once to Jerusalem, and proclaim their wrongs; but David, out of consideration for their position in public estimation, bade them remain in obscurity, and “bide their time”a piece of advice sometimes given (though not always in a like spirit) to persons who are about to attempt something for which they are unfit, on account of their immaturity or want of due preparation; or in which they have already failed.
1. Those who would attain success and honour in any position or enterprise should consider well their ability to accomplish what is necessary for their purpose (Luk 14:28).
2. Inconsiderate and rash endeavours are likely to issue in a result which those who make them neither expect nor desire.
3. The lapse of time soothes many a smart; and the wise and patient employment of it qualifies for and ensures honourable achievements. “Ye have need of patience” (Heb 10:36). “Let us learn not to lay too much to heart unjust reproaches; after a while they will wear off of themselves, and turn only to the shame of their authors; while the injured reputation in a little time grows again, as these beards did” (Matthew Henry).
IV. SUCCEEDED BY HONOUR. “And then return” to the holy city, where they would be honoured (instead of being despised) with:
1. The public commendation of the king.
2. The general admiration of the people.
3. All the more because of the indignity and ridicule which they had previously endured.
“If ye are reproached for the Name of Christ, blessed are ye,” etc. (1Pe 4:14); “great is your reward in heaven” (Mat 5:12).D.
2Sa 10:6-11
(1Ch 19:6-12). (MEDEBA.)
An agreement of mutual help.
“If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou shalt help me: but if the children of Ammon be too strong for thee, then I will come and help thee” (2Sa 10:11).
1. On perceiving the effect of their treatment of David s ambassadors (2Sa 10:6; “That they had made themselves odious,” 1Ch 19:6), the Ammonites obtained, for “a thousand talents of silver,” the aid of the Syrians of Beth-rehob and of Zobah (under Hadarezer, the most powerful of David’s adversaries), the King of Maacah and the men of Tob; “who came and pitched before Medeba” (1Ch 19:7), twenty miles southwest cf Rabbah, with their infantry, cavalry, and war chariots. “And the children of Ammon gathered themselves together from their cities” to the capital (Rabbah), and put themselves in battle array before the gate.
2. Hearing of their warlike preparations, David had sent forth “all the host, the mighty men,” under Joab (2Sa 3:22-30), who now found himself between the two hostile forces; and, selecting a portion of the army, placed himself opposite to the Syrians, whilst he left the rest, under Abishai, to cover his rear and hold the Ammonites in check. He doubtless hoped to defeat the enemy in successive engagements.
3. But fearing a simultaneous attack, he made an agreement with his brother, that if either of them were worsted, the other should hasten to his relief. Such an agreement is prudent, needful, and beneficial among those also who are engaged in spiritual warfare against the enemies of the kingdom of God. It
I. CONFIRMS AN OBVIOUS DUTY. For it is plainly the duty of brethren:
1. To consider each other’s condition, to sympathize with each other’s weakness and distress, and not to be concerned about themselves alone. “Not looking each of you to his own things,” etc. (Php 2:4; 1Co 10:24).
2. To make use of their power, to “strengthen their brethren,” especially when taking part in the same conflict as themselves. The strong should help the weak.
3. To afford them help, opportunely, promptly, with all their might, and even at much sacrifice and hazard to themselves. If the ungodly “helped every one his neighbour; and every one said to his brother, Be of good courage” Isa 41:6), much more ought the godly to do the same. “But if ye will not do so, behold ye have sinned against the Lord: and he sure your sin will find you out” (Num 32:23). And the agreement to render mutual help in time of need makes the obligation to do so more distinct, impressive, and effective.
II. CONTEMPLATES A POSSIBLE REVERSE. “If the Syrians be too strong for me,” etc.; indicating a conviction of:
1. The great power of the enemy and the serious nature of the struggle (1Sa 13:1-7). It would he madness to despise them.
2. The possibility of failure in the wisest plans and disappointment in the most sanguine expectations. “We do not hinder our successes by preparing for disappointment.” Although those who “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” cannot be generally and permanently defeated, yet particular organizations, methods, and hopes may be overthrown. None, however strong, can be certain of never needing help; whilst the promise of help furnishes the weak with a special claim to it.
3. The necessity of taking every precaution for repairing defect in the weakest part, lest it should issue in disaster to the whole. “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the Law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).
III. CONDUCES TO SIGNAL SUCCESS. By:
1. Giving them to feel their mutual dependence, and bringing them into closer union in the spirit of a common enterprise.
2. Affording assurance of the advantages arising from cooperation toward a common end. These advantages are inestimable. “Two are better than one And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecc 4:9-12).
3. Inspiring them with increased confidence arising therefrom; and inciting them to greater individual effort than they might otherwise have put forth on behalf of each other and their common safety, welfare, and honour. Both the Syrians and Ammonites were routed (Isa 41:13, Isa 41:14). “It was, perhaps, the first time in his life that Hadarezer suffered defeat” (Ewald); and this defeat was followed ere long by another (by David at Helam) still more overwhelming; so that “all the kings that were servants to Hadarezer made peace with Israel, and served them,” etc. (Isa 41:15-19; 2Sa 8:3, 2Sa 8:4).D.
2Sa 10:12
(1Ch 19:13). (MEDEBA.)
Martial courage.
“Be of good courage,” etc. Human life is a warfare, unavoidable, arduous, enduring; and spiritual life, more especially, is a warfare of a similar kind. In this conflict nothing is more needful than manly or martial courage (“virtue,” 1Pe 1:5). It is that quality of mind which meets difficulty, danger, pain, or death, calmly and fearlessly. It has been reckoned by moralists among the four cardinal virtues (prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice), and, in its highest form, it is often enjoined in the Scriptures. “As it is necessarily requisite to the susception of all other virtues, so it is their main support, guardian, and establishment. Without this, every other virtue is precarious, and lies at the mercy of every cross accident” (J. Norris). “All the noble deeds that have beat their marches through succeeding ages have proceeded from men of courage” (O. Felltham) This brief and significant warlike exhortation of Joab was pitched in a higher key than we might have expected; but the devout feeling which it expressed, though genuine, was probably superficial and transient, passing away with the critical occasion which called it forth. We have now to consider, not the character of the speaker, but the import of his words. They indicate the nature, motive, and pervading principle of godly martial courage; that it should be displayed
I. IN STRENUOUS OPPOSITION TO THE ENEMIES OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. “Be strong” (in spirit), “and show yourselves strong” (in action) in your struggle with numerous and powerful foes; not private, but public enemies; not men as such, but as imbued with principles and devoted to practices which are antagonistic to the righteous and beneficent purposes of God; “principalities and powers,” etc. (Eph 6:12). “Who will rise up for me against the evil doers?” etc. (Psa 96:1-13 :16). There must be:
1. Firm resistance to their attack. “Whom resist steadfast in the faith” (1Pe 5:9).
2. Patient endurance of the sufferings which such resistance involves. “Here is the patience of the saints.”
3. Active endeavour for their defeat and subjection. “The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits” (Dan 11:32). “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1Co 16:13). The chief instrument of this opposition is “the sword of the Spirit.” “A humble Christian battling against the world, the flesh, and the devil, is a greater hero than Alexander the Great.”
II. FROM SINCERE DESIRE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD. Not for pay and plunder (like the mercenary Syrians), nor for glory, nor even for personal safety or life; but “for our people” (to whom we are bound by the closest ties), “and for the cities of our God”, imperilled by the attack of his enemies and ours. Pro aris et focis. “Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just”‘ This, however, is an appeal, not merely to a sense of justice, but also and chiefly to patriotism and piety, which, in the men of Israel, were inseparably Blended. There is a place for patriotism in the heart of a Christian (1Sa 23:1-6). But his love for his country must be held in harmony with and subordination to his love for the Christian brotherhood, united in spiritual fellowship and confined to no nation; “the people of God” (1Pe 2:9, 1Pe 2:10), “his inheritance” (Eph 1:18), “the Church which is his body” (Eph 1:22; Eph 5:25; Act 20:28), the light of the world, and the salt of the earth. “I endure all things for the elect’s sakes” (2Ti 2:10; Col 1:24).
1. The preservation of their faith and holiness, their unity and peace, from corrupting and destructive influences.
2. The maintenance of their privileges and services, their freedom and independence.
3. The promotion of their prosperity and progress.
4. The fulfilment of their purposes, aims, and hopes. “They shall prosper that love thee” (Psa 122:4-9; Psa 137:7).
III. WITH STRONG CONFIDENCE IN THE RECEPTION OF THE HELP OF GOD. “And the Lord do that which seemeth him good” (Authorized Version); expressive of humble submission to the Divine will. “It may be understood as the language of:
(1) Uncertainly and modesty.
(2) A firm persuasion that the event of war entirely depends upon the providence of God.
(3) A humble submission to the disposal of Providence, let the event turn out as it would.
(4) And it may intimate that, let the event be what it will, it will afford us satisfaction to think that we have done the best we could” (Samuel Davies). But the proper reading is, “And Jehovah will do that which is good in his sight,” really good for his people. The root of Christian courage, as of every Christian excellence, is faith in God.
1. In his readiness to cooperate with us, when we strive against the enemies of his kingdom and for the welfare of his people. “The Lord is on my side, I will not fear.”
2. In the sufficiency of his might to strengthen the weakest and overthrow the strongest. “Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2Ki 6:16; 1Sa 14:1-15).
3. In the certainty of his affording to his faithful servants all the help they need. Even though he should permit a temporary reverse, he will surely give them the victory over all their adversaries. Such confidence is warranted by his relation to them, his regard for them, his express promises, and his past achievements. “The battle is the Lord’s.” “If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom 9:31 -39).D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
2Sa 10:2-4
Kindness misinterpreted and ill requited.
“I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war” (Psa 120:7). It is not probable that these words were written by David, but they might have been with truth. It does not appear that he desired war with the neighbouring peoples; but for a time he was continually at war with one or other of them. Jealous of the growing greatness and power of Israel under his rule, they sought to humble them, but only to their own discomfiture and subjugation. And as the kingdom extended, more distant nations feared for themselves, and were ready to combine against what seemed the common foe. This is probably the real explanation of the transactions recorded in this chapter, including the most serious struggle which the rising kingdom had had to maintain. Nahash, “the king of the children of Ammon,” having died, David, to whom Nahash had in some way shown kindness, sent ambassadors to Hanun, his son and successor, with a message of condolence. But the young king, induced by the princes to regard the ambassadors as spies, who had been sent to obtain such knowledge of the city as might facilitate its overthrow, treated them with the grossest contumely and indecency, and so dismissed them. Hence sprang a deadly war, in which the Ammonites were aided by other and more powerful peoplesa war which taxed to the utmost the strength of Israel, and issued in the complete overthrow of their enemies. The first step in all this commotion and destruction was the false interpretation put upon the kind act of David; and, regarding it as an illustration of a too common evil, we take occasion to remark upon the evil itselfmisinterpretation of good deeds.
I. THE CAUSES OF IT.
1. Knowledge of the world. There is so much evil in it, so much evil which conceals itself under the pretence of good; the actions which at first appear good are so often, on closer acquaintance, discovered to be evil; that experience of the world tends to produce a suspicious spirit, which is slow to believe in the reality of goodness in any particular instance, quick to think the worst of the conduct of others, especially of strangers.
2. Evil in one’s self. Which may be conscious or unconscious. We are indisposed to believe others to be better than we know ourselves to be; and prone to suspect others of motives we are conscious of indulging ourselves. And, without distinct consciousness, we are influenced in our judgments of others by our own character; and may be so far under the influence of evil as to be blind to the good in others. The cold, selfish, illiberal, cannot credit others with the opposite virtues; but suspect the appearance of them to be only a semblance adopted for some unworthy purpose.
3. Enmity. If on any account we cherish ill will towards another, we are ever ready to think evil rather than good of him; and specially slow to think he can intend good to us. If another has failed to show as high an esteem for ourselves as we think we deserve, our mortified pride is apt to vent itself in depreciation of him. Prejudice is one kind of enmity, more or less virulent. It commonly exists in those of one party in religion or politics towards those of the opposite party, and predisposes them to misinterpret whatever they do.
4. Fear. Which was one of the motives that prompted Hanun and his advisers.
5. Conceit of sagacity. A cheap and easy way of appearing very wise, and of obtaining from some a reputation for wisdom, is to affect to discover unworthy motives in good actions.
6. Bad advisers. Such as those of Hanun. Those who might be otherwise disposed to a just estimate of good deeds will seldom want advisers to poison their minds, if they will listen to them.
II. THE EVIL OF IT.
1. In itself. It is inherently base. It is contrary to:
(1) Charity, which “believeth all things, hopeth all things” (1Co 13:7), whenever it is not manifestly impossible.
(2) Justice. Judgments which seem to be only charitable will often be simply just.
(3) Gratitude, in the case of actions kind to ourselves. Better to waste a little gratitude than indulge needless suspicion.
(4) The plain commands of our Lord. Such as “Judge not;” “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Mat 7:1, Mat 7:12). It involves, further, an assumption of knowledge such as men do not possess, and a usurpation of the office of him who alone searches the heart (1Co 4:5). We are not, however, required to cherish a blind credulity, nor to trust men with important interests without positive knowledge of their moral worth, still less against plain evidence of the contrary. Prudence is a virtue as well as charity. The Ammonites might have rightly exercised such caution towards David’s messengers as would have prevented their obtaining so much knowledge of the city as would facilitate hostile measures against it, if these were really contemplated. They did wrong in concluding that the seeming kindness was covert hostility. To have returned civility for civility could have done them no harm, and would have prevented the severe retribution for their barbarity which followed.
2. In its effects.
(1) On those who are guilty of it. It deprives them of the happiness and other good which they would gain from kindness exercised towards them, were it duly appreciated and acknowledged; and of the benefit which it would impart in the way of example and influence. It strengthens the bad dispositions and habits from which it springs. It prompts to conduct (as in this case) which may work incalculable mischief.
(2) On those towards whom it is indulged. Inflicting pain, producing resentment, and perhaps active revenge, and discouraging them in the practice of virtues which are liable to be so maligned.
(3) On others. Infecting with unjust suspicions some who would not otherwise cherish them; encouraging disbelief in genuine goodness, and thus loosening the bonds of mutual confidence by which society is held together; disinclining also from good deeds, and so lessening the amount of goodness in the world.
III. HOW IT SHOULD AFFECT US.
1. It should not surprise us. Considering what men are, we should regard it as quite possible that any good we may do will be misrepresented, or at least fail to be duly appreciated and acknowledged even by those whose benefit we seek.
2. It should not deter us from doing good. The great motives for good deeds abide the same. They are quite independent of human appreciation. They should be our chief motives, the hope of approval or suitable return from men occupying a very subordinate position. Let us study and labour to be accepted of God (2Co 5:9), and be content with his approval, let men think what they may.
3. If men misrepresent our conduct, let us exercise charity towards them, hoping, if we cannot confidently believe, that they have sinned through ignorance or inconsideration rather than ill will. If compelled to vindicate ourselves, let us do it with meekness. We should also reflect whether we have given any occasion in the manner of our conduct for misunderstanding of its real quality; and avoid the error in future. And, if we are really reproached for that which is good, without just occasion, let us be mindful that we are fellow sufferers with our Lord and many of the best men of all ages.
4. Let us be watchful against every temptation to depreciate and misrepresent the good which is practised by others.G.W.
2Sa 10:11, 2Sa 10:12
Cooperation, courage, and resignation.
Joab here appears at his best. A great occasion, involving great peril for the army and the kingdom, calls forth, not only his eminent military qualities, but sentiments of piety and religious patriotism worthy of David himself. He presents an example worthy of imitation by commanders of armies; but we take his words as adapted to guide and animate the soldiers of Christ in their warfare against error and sin. They Call attention to three duties incumbent upon individual Christians, the several bands of each division of the Christian army, and the several divisions themselves.
I. MUTUAL HELP. (2Sa 10:11.) The servants of Christ are engaged in the endeavour to conquer the world for him, and, in pursuing it, have to fight against enemies of various kinds. In this warfare they ought to cheerfully cooperate, and, as opportunity may arise, help each other. Much mutual assistance they cannot but render, however any might desire to confine the benefits of their activity to their own party. Every hymn book testifies to this. No individual or section can do good work without helping others. But there should be more of conscious and hearty cooperation.
1. Why it should be so.
(1) The cause is onethe cause of Christ our King, the defence and extension of his kingdom, the cause of truth and righteousness and human salvation.
(2) Christians are comrades in the same army. They should cherish the feeling of brotherhood, realize that they are fighting against common foes, and be glad to encourage and help each other. The success of any is the success of all, and should be so regarded; the failure of any should be a trouble to all; and, if any can aid their brethren to turn threatening defeat into victory, their aid should be cheerfully afforded and joyfully accepted.
(3) The need is urgent. The spiritual necessities of men, the special needs in particular cases. The field is extensive; the opposing forces numerous, powerful, and incessantly vigilant and active. The utmost exertions of all are required. To hold back, to refuse cooperation with fellow soldiers because they belong not to our regiment or division of the army, to observe with pleasure the failure of any of them, or to waste energies and resources in fierce conflicts with one another, is to be disloyal to their Sovereign,, unbrotherly to each other, and unfaithful to the souls of men.
2. Why it often is not so.
(1) Deficiency of spiritual insight. Incapacity, voluntary or involuntary, to discern:
(a) The real nature of the kingdom of Christ. That it is essentially spiritual, consisting in “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost;” that “he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men” (Rom 14:17, Rom 14:18); and that in Christ Jesus nothing avails but “a new creature,” “faith which worketh by love,” and “the keeping of the commandments of God” (Gal 6:15; Gal 5:6; 1Co 7:19).
(b) The essential qualities of Christ’s soldiers, which are not the dress they wear, nor the particular drill to which they are accustomed, but love and loyalty to Christ.
(2) Deficiency of spiritual affections. Want of supreme and ardent love for Christ and his kingdom, and for his servants as such. These deficiencies of mind and heart act and react on each other, and they open the way for all kinds of blundering and perversity. Fellow soldiers are mistaken for enemies, and treated as such. The great cause is made practically subordinate to matters infinitely small in comparison. Sectarian rivalry takes the place of Christian cooperation; or a worse thing happenspetty personal ambition and selfishness, or likings and dislikings, dominate, separating those who should be acting together, and introducing low, worldly principles into a region where the spiritual should alone reign. Pride, jealousy, envy, uncharitableness, perhaps the merest avarice, reduce to a fraction, if they do not altogether extinguish, those noble Christian feelings which Christianity inspires, and which would impel brothers to own brothers, cordially to render or receive help in the common work, to rejoice in each other’s successes, and sorrow for each other’s reverses.
3. Who should take the lead in effecting cooperation? Joab addresses Abishai, his fellow commander; and it is just the leaders and commanders in Christ’s army who should be foremost in promoting a good understanding between its various bands, and inducing them to work together. But, alas! they are often foremost in promoting alienation and separation. The people are frequently more disposed to be friendly towards each other than the clergy.
II. COURAGE. (2Sa 10:12.) In war this is essential to success. In the Christian warfare it is not so obviously or universally required. It is, however, still required in many cases. When unpopular truth has to be proclaimed, when strongholds of sin or superstition have to be assailed, when the evangelization of barbarous tribes is attempted, or perilous climates have to be encountered, the Christian soldier must be prepared to endure hardship, suffering, or death. Even the ridicule which not unfrequently assails the earnest Christian calls for a good deal of courage. Joab sought to inspire his brother, and through him the soldiers under his command, with courage, by reminding him that it was “for our people, and for the cities of our God,” that they were about to fight. In like manner Christians may be exhorted to “be of good courage” and “play the men” for the Church of God, and for the sake of the world which they aim to conquer for Christ. Joab might have added, “for our king;” and the strongest and most animating consideration for us is that we are witnessing and working and fighting for our great King, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is worth living for, suffering for, dying for. He has gone before us in the labour and the suffering. He is present with us. His eye is upon each of us. He will overlook no true-hearted soldier of his when he distributes the rewards of victory. “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him” (2Ti 2:12).
III. RESIGNATION. Those who engage in war, though they may hope for victory, must be prepared for defeat. “The battle” is not always “to the strong” (Ecc 9:11) or the brave. Nor in the better warfare can we “command success” in this or that particular encounter, however faithful or brave or zealous we may be. We are to recognize, like Joab, that “the Lord” is over all, and be content that he should “do that which seemeth him good.” Not that we are required to be resigned to ultimate failure, for we are assured of final and complete victory.
“The saints in all this glorious war
Shall conquer, though they’re slain.”
Nor are the courage and devotedness of any single soldier lost. All the faithful contribute to the final triumph, and all shall unite in the song of victory, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” “Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth!” “And he shall reign forever and ever” Rev 11:15; Rev 19:6).G.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
IV. The Ammonite-Syrian War
2Sa 10:1-19
1And it came to pass after this that the king1 of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. 2Then said David [And David said], I will show kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And Davids servants came into the land of the children of Ammon. 3And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest2 thou that David doth honour thy father that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather [om. rather] sent his servants unto thee to search the city3 4and to spy it out and to overthrow it? Wherefore [And] Hanun took Davids servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in 5the middle even [om. even] to their buttocks and sent them away. When [And] they told it unto David4 [ins. and] he sent to meet them, because [for] the men were greatly ashamed; and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.
6And when [om. when] the children of Ammon saw that they stank [that they had made themselves loathsome5] before David [ins. and], the children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians of Beth-rehob and the Syrians of Zobah, twenty thousand footmen, and of king Maacah [and the king of Maacah] a thousand men, and 7of Ish-tob [and the men of Tob], twelve thousand men. And when [om. when] David heard of it, he [and] sent Joab and all the host of [om. of], the mighty men. 8And the children of Ammon came out and put the battle in array at the entering in [the doorway] of the gate; and the Syrians of Zoba and of Rehob and Ish-Tobit 9[the men of Tob] and Maacah were by themselves in the field. When [And] Joab saw that the front of the battle was against him before and behind [ins. and], he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them6 in array against the Syrians; 10And the rest of the people he delivered into the hand of Abishai his brother that he might put [and put] them in array against the children of Ammon. 11And he said, If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou shalt help me, but [and] if the children of Ammon be too strong for thee, then I will come and [to] help thee. 12Be of good courage, and let us play the men [Be strong, and let us show ourselves strong7] for our people and for the cities of our God; and the Lord [Jehovah will] do8 that which seemeth him good. 13And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were 14with him, unto the battle against the Syrians, and they fled before him. And when [om. when] the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians were fled, then fled they also [and they fled] before Abishai, and entered into the city. So [And] Joab returned from the children of Ammon and came to Jerusalem.
15And when [om. when] the Syrians saw that they were smitten before Israel [ins. 16and], they gathered themselves together. And Hadarezer9 sent and brought out the Syrians that were beyond the river; and they came to Helam,10 and Shobach 17the captain of the host of Hadarezer went before them [was at their head]. And when [om. when] it was told David [ins. and], he gathered all Israel together and passed over [ins. the] Jordan and came to Helam. And the Syrians set themselves in array against David and fought with him. 18And the Syrians fled before Israel, and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians and forty thousand horsemen [of the S. seven hundred chariot-men and four thousand horsemen], and smote Shobach the captain of their host who [so that he] died there. 19And when [om. when] all the kings that were servants to Hadarezer saw that they were smitten before Israel [ins. and], they made peace11 with Israel and served them. So [And] the Syrians feared to help the children of Ammon any more.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Compare the parallel narrative in 1 Chronicles 19
2Sa 10:1-5. The cause of the war with the Ammonites. This war, having been only mentioned in 2Sa 8:12, is here, together with the Syrian wars occasioned by it (given fully in 2 Samuel 8), described in its whole course, because of its close connection with the history of Uriah and his wife, which became for David the fatal point at which his kingdom turned from glory to downfall.
2Sa 10:1. And it came to pass after this. On this loose, general formula of connection see 2Sa 8:1. The king of the children of Ammon died.His name (which is inserted in Chron.12 by way of explanation) is not mentioned till 2Sa 10:2; this Nahash is the same as he of 1Sa 11:1. [As this was probably about forty years after the events narrated in 1 Samuel 11, it is possible, certainly, that the two kings Nahash may be the same; but it is neither certain nor very probable, considering the usual length of royal reigns.Tr.]
2Sa 10:2. What kindness Nahash had shown David is unknown. Perhaps he had sent congratulations on his accession to the throne. At all events his relations with David were friendly, while with Saul his relations were hostile.13 For his defeat at Jabesh see 1 Samuel 9[Some refer to 2Sa 17:25 as possibly indicating a family-alliance between David and Nahash.Tr.] David accordingly sent an embassy of condolence to Hanun the son of Nahash.
2Sa 10:3. After the death of Nahash, who was in friendly connection with David, the Ammonite princes, jealous no doubt of the mighty growth of the kingdom of Israel, introduce a new era by counselling his successor to adopt a hostile policy that would be a challenge to war.Is David in thine eyes an honorer of thy father (which question involves a negation)? The question itself contains a slight reproach against the king, that he allowed himself to be deceived by Davids conduct. They express to him the suspicion that David sent this ostensibly consolatory embassy merely for the purpose of spying out and then destroying the city, that is, Rabbah (1Sa 11:1), the capital-city of the country. Rabbah was a strongly fortified place (comp. 2Sa 10:14), the internal examination of which was certainly important for an enemy purposing to besiege it.
2Sa 10:4. The king, treating the ambassadors as spies, subjected them to the indignity of shaving off the half (that is, one side) of their beards. This is the grossest insult that can be offered an Oriental; for the beard is the sign of the free mans dignity and his finest adornment. Isa 7:20; 1. 6.14 See Lakemacher, Observ. X. 145 sq., Arvieux, Nachricht. III. 173, Niebuhr, Beschreib. v. Arab., 317, and farther in Winer, s. v. Bart.[Keil, Philippson and others quote modern instances. Many Orientals would rather die than lose their beards, and the Turks used to regard beardless Europeans as runaway slaves. A war like this occurred in Persia in 1764.Tr.] Hanun besides cut off the long outer garments of the ambassadors to the buttocks.15 The Israelites, except the priests, wore no breeches. So much the grosser, therefore, was the insult.
2Sa 10:5. After hearing of the double insult offered his ambassadors, David directs them not to return, but to stay at Jericho and wait for their beards to grow.
2Sa 10:6-14. Israels successful war against the Syrians, whom the Ammonites had hired (2Sa 10:6-13), and against the Ammonites, who after the flight of their allies, likewise took to flight (2Sa 10:14).
2Sa 10:6. The Ammonites desired war with Israel. They knew that by their treatment of the ambassadors of David they had made themselves stinking, that is, hateful to him (1Sa 13:4), and hired as allies: 1) the Syrians of Beth-Rehob; comp. 2Sa 10:8; 2Sa 10:16 where we have simply the name Rehob. This Rehob is the name of the Syrian district, whose capital-city was Beth-Rehob. This is hardly to be sought where Robinson (Neue bibl. Forschung., p. 488 [Am. ed. III. 371, 372]) conjecturally locates it, namely, in the ruins of the fortress Hunin, southwest of the Tell el Kadi (the old Laish-Dan), the northern boundary of Palestine, since in that case the capital-city of this Araman region would have lain within the land of Israel (Keil); it is better located [twenty-five Eng. miles] north-east of Damascus, on the site of the present Ruhaibeh (Kremer, Dam., p. 192, Ritter XVII. 1472, Sthelin, 56), unless, following the reading in Chron. (Naharaim for Beth-Rehob), we prefer the Rehoboth of the river, that is, of the Euphrates (Gen 36:37), where there is now (near the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates) a place called Er-rahabeh or Rahabeh (Rosenm., Alterth. II. 2, 270 sq.; Ritter XV. 128), where this city may have been situated. Keils argument against this view, namely, that the sway of the king of Zobah (2Sa 10:16) extended beyond the Euphrates into Mesopotamia, and hence this Rehoboth on the river cannot well have been the capital-city of a particular Araman kingdom, is not of force, partly because this sway is by no means certainly proved, partly because it is not made out that it embraced the whole territory between the two rivers. [See Arts. Rehob and Rehoboth in Smiths Bib. Dict.Tr.]2) The Syrians of Zobah, see 2Sa 8:3. 3) The king of Maachah (in Chron. Aram-Maachah), bordering on Geshur, according to Jos 12:5 on the northern border of Bashan, on the south-western declivity of Hermon (comp. Onom. ), on the border of the Israelitish trans-jordanic territory (Deu 3:14), especially of Reuben and Gad (Jos 13:11). 4) Not Istob (as in the VSS., Joseph., Ew., 273 b), but the men of Tob, since there was a region of this name near the Ammonite territory, to which Jephthah fled (Jdg 11:5). Its location cannot be fixed with certainty. Ewald: the Thauba () of Ptol. 5, 19, which, however, must be sought for in desert Arabia. Knobel: the present Tubneh, about twenty-four Eng. miles south of Damascus, comp. Tubion (,17 ), 1Ma 5:13; 2Ma 12:17. Sthelin: the present village Taibeh, mentioned by Ritter XV. 891, 922, and placed north of Tibneh in Wetzsteins map of Hauran. Chron. gives exacter information: Hanun sent one thousand talents of silver to hire from Aram-Naharaim, Aram-Maachah and Zobah chariots and horsemen. For this large sum (over two million dollars) the Ammonites, according to Chron., hired him thirty-two thousand chariots and horsemen18 (, comp. 2Sa 8:4) and the king of Maachah with his people. Chron. states that the hired auxiliaries encamped at Medeba (comp. Jos 13:9; Jos 13:16, with Num 21:30), the present Medaba, four Eng. miles south-east of Heshbon, between the Arnon and the Jabbok opposite Jericho, in the territory of Reuben; it afterwards came into the possession of Moab, Isa 15:2.[It is mentioned in the inscription of the Moabite king Mesha as having been captured by Omri, and recaptured by Mesha.Tr.] The ruins, situated on a hill, are a mile in circuit. See Raumer, 264. As it was in a plain (Jos 13:16), not more than eight miles southwest of Rabbah, the strong Ammonitish capital-city, it was a suitable rendezvous for the hired auxiliaries and a good position for the defence of Rabbah against a siege. The auxiliaries of Tob are not mentioned in Chron. The two accounts [Sam. and Chron.] agree in the number of the auxiliaries. According to Chron. the Ammonites hired thirty-two thousand men [Chron. says chariots.Tr.] and the troops of Maachah; Sam. gives one thousand from Maachah, two thousand from Zobah, and twelve thousand from Tob. But as to the composition of the auxiliary troops, the two accounts differ; according to the Chronicler there were chariots and horsemen, according to our passage footmen, while yet according to 2Sa 8:4 and 1Ch 18:4 the king of Zobah fought against David with chariots and horsemen. Keil: Here, then, there are copyists errors in both texts. For the Syrian troops consisted neither of infantry alone, nor of chariots and horsemen alone, but of infantry, cavalry and war-chariots, as is evident not only from 2Sa 8:4; 1Ch 18:4, but also from the close of our narrative.The Syrians fought in both battles with all three arms, so that David twice defeated chariots, cavalry and infantry.
2Sa 10:7. Against these hostile troops David sends his general Joab and the whole host, the mighty men. Not the whole host of the warriors (De Wette), but Gibborim [mighty men] is in apposition with the whole host. The mention of the whole army excludes the supposition of a select body, a foundation of the Israelitish army (Bunsen), especially as the Gibborim are never distinguished from the whole army (Bertheau on 1Ch 19:8). There is therefore no ground for supplying and before the mighty men (Thenius). [Eng. A. V. incorrectly inserts of.Tr.]
2Sa 10:8. And the Ammonites came out, that is, from their capital city, where they had gathered within the protecting fortifications. This appears from the following words: and put themselves in battle-array before the gate of the city, that is, Rabbah (so in Chron. before the city). The position of the Syrian auxiliaries in the field, that is, on the broad plain of Medeba, is clearly distinguished from that of the Ammonites before the city (for defence or attack), so that the statement of the position of Joabs army (2Sa 10:9) is clear. It is not said: And when Joab saw that the battle was against him (De Wette), but: that the face (front) of the battle was against him, in front and in rear. He could be attacked on both sides, by the Ammonites in rear, by the Syrians in front. He therefore so makes his dispositions as to select some from all the chosen19 men in Israel. This chosen body Joab sets against the Syrians, their position in the open field making their attack sharper (perhaps, also, they were the more numerous), while the Ammonites stood in reserve to cover their stronghold Rabbah.The rest of the army (2Sa 10:10) he placed under the command of his brother Abishai against the Ammonites, in order that he might be covered in rear in his attack on the Syrians, and might have support, if he needed it.To this refers his agreement with Abishai in 2Sa 10:11. Either was to come to the help of the other, if there was danger of being overpowered by the enemy. It hence appears that the Israelites were not to make an assault on both sides at the same time, but Joab intended first to attack and defeat the Syrians, while Abishai was to cover his rear. A simultaneous attack might, however, be made by the two armies between which Joab and Abishai stood. The point here, therefore, was quickly and stoutly to carry through a bold stroke.This is the reference in Joabs words to Abishai in 2Sa 10:12, of which Thenius finely remarks: This is a warlike exhortation, the briefest indeed, but the fullest of meaning. Be stout, strongthis applies to Abishai personally and indicates stout temper of mindand let us show ourselves stoutthis refers to warlike action; for our people and the cities of our Godwith these words he points out the prize for which they were contending. The weal and freedom of the whole Israelitish people was at stake. The cities of our God; these words mean either the cities of Israel in general, which as representatives of the whole land are called the cities of God, because they are with the whole land Gods property and possession (Keil), or those cities in which the worship of the living God was established for the whole people, whose conquest by the enemy would have resulted in the overthrow of the worship of Jehovah and the establishment of the heathen worship of idols. [Others suppose, not so well, that the reference here is to Medeba and other cities now threatened by the enemy, though still in the hands of the Israelites.Tr.]. The Lord will do what is good in his eyes; these words express trust in God combined with unconditional submission. Alongside of the faithfulness (to be shown by bravery and firmness), that was to do its duty in this situation so dangerous for the people and for Jehovah, is put the hidden will of God in respect to what will happen, and unconditional submission to His counsel and deed. The sense is well expressed by Clericus: If it should seem good to God to give our enemies the victory, we must acquiesce in His will; meantime let us go bravely into battle.
2Sa 10:13. Quickly and vigorously the attack is made on the Syriansthey flee. Grotius: as often happens with those that fight for pay alone without respect to the cause. [So Bp. Patrick.Tr.]. Inasmuch as for them, casually assembled, there would be neither glory in victory nor shame in flight, Tacit. Hist. II. 12. [Perhaps Joab first attacked the Syrians not solely because they were mercenaries and in the open field, but also because they were better disciplined and therefore more to be feared than the Ammonites.Tr.].
2Sa 10:14. This rout of the allied force occasioned the flight of the Ammonites also, who threw themselves into their capital city. After this brilliant exploit Joab brought the campaign to an end and returned to Jerusalem, probably because (see 2Sa 11:1) the advanced season was unfavorable to carrying through the siege of Rabbah [or also, because the Syrians were not sufficiently broken, or because he had not the materials for a siege (Bib. Com.).Tr.]
2Sa 10:15-19. Second battle with the Syrians and their complete defeat under Hadarezer.
2Sa 10:15. The ground of the Syrians for again collecting their forces was shame at having been defeated by the Israelites, and care for their safety against a presumable campaign of David. Among the Syrians king Hadarezer of Zobah (2Sa 8:3) appears as the most powerful prince and Davids most hostile opponent. Here and in Chron. he is always called Hadarezer, in chap. 8. Hadadezer. The Syrians (reassembled after their rout) are reinforced by the Syrian troops that Hadarezer (2Sa 10:16) called to his help from beyond the river, that is, from Mesopotamia. These Mesopotamians levied by him were, therefore, under his jurisdiction (comp. 2Sa 10:19). Shobach, Hadarezers field-marshal, led these troops, but was also general-in-chief of the whole Syrian army (2Sa 10:18). And came to Helam.The Hebrew might also be translated: and their army came (Then., Bttcher). But the remark would be somewhat superfluous and excessively dragging in this militarily lively and curt account. As there is no such remark in Chron., and as in 2Sa 10:17 the phrase he came to Helamah, designates the place where David met the Syrians, the word is to be taken (with the ancient VSS.) as the name of a place, our word here being merely a shorter form of that in 2Sa 10:17 ( = ). The place has not yet been identified. [Instead of the second Helam Chron. has to them. If we adopt this text and render their army in 2Sa 10:16, the account will read: Hadarezer brought the Syrians, and their army came and Shobach before them and David passed over Jordan and came to them, and the Syrians, etc. It is not easy to decide between the texts of Sam. and Chron.; the difficulty of identifying Helam may be an argument for both.Tr.].
2Sa 10:17. Helam is designated as the place across the Jordan whither David brought his army and fought the Syrians. Chron. has he came on them (the Aramans)either a scribal error, or an intentional omission of the name of the place because it was too little known. The name Helam20 is thought by Ew., Btt. and Then. to point to the Alamata on the Euphrates (Ptol. 5, 15, 25). But the Syrians would hardly have fallen back before David as far as the Euphrates to receive his attack there with the river in their rear. As this is the same battle that (according to 1Ch 18:3) was fought at Hamath (comp. 2Sa 8:4), and the statement came to Helam here follows immediately after the remark that David crossed the Jordan, Helam must be located across the Jordan, not on the Euphrates, but farther west near Hamath. Here the whole Israelitish and Syrian armies stood opposed to one another in battle. [Why David took command in person is not stated; probably on account of the importance of the campaign, hardly from any dissatisfaction with Joab. Some account must be taken of Davids military spirit.Tr.]
2Sa 10:18. Davids splendid victory. The Syrians partly took to flight, partly were cut to pieces by the Israelites. The completeness of the victory is farther especially brought out by mentioning first (2Sa 10:18) the large number of the slain: seven hundred chariot-soldiers and forty thousand horsemen (Chron. gives seven thousand21 chariot-men and forty thousand footmen). With this the statements in 2Sa 8:4 and 1Ch 18:4-5 (one thousand seven hundred horsemen, or one thousand chariot-men and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen of Aram-Zobah, and twenty-two thousand men of Aram-Damascus) agree as well as can be expected in the well known corruption of numbers, so that there is scarcely a doubt that the number of fallen Aramans is the same in both accounts (chaps. 8 and 10), and that our chapter relates circumstantially the same war, the result only of which is given in 2 Samuel 8 and 1 Chronicles 13 (Keil). It is then further stated that David so smote the general that he died; that is, he died on the field of wounds received in battle.
2Sa 10:19. The result of this defeat: 1) all the vassal-princes that had followed Hadarezers summons to war against David, made peace with Israel when they saw that they were beaten. The addition (after the first Israel) in the Vulg.: they feared, and there fled fifty-eight thousand in the presence of Israel, does not warrant us in introducing it into the text (with Thenius), and finding therein the statement of the number of those that were slain in flight; for such a numerical statement does not suit the tenor of the narrative, which here intends only a general remark on the recognition of their complete defeat by the Syrians, so that we should least expect such a statement here about merely a part of the defeated armyapart from the fact that the word smitten (2Sa 10:19) includes all the slain, not merely those that fell in flight; 2) the Syrian princes and peoples became tributary to Israel, and rendered the Ammonites no more aid against the Israelites.Nothing is here said of the wars with Damascus and Edom, to which Joab turned in the south (2 Samuel 8), while David was gaining his victories in the north, because the narrative is here occupied with the fortunes of Rabbah only because of their connection with those of Uriah (Ewald).
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. One injustice produces another, and drags men on irretardably to destruction by the resulting chain of sins and injustices. The king of Ammon with sinful levity lends his ear to the liars and calumniators that surround him; thence comes the most outrageous insolence towards Davids ambassadors, and the most abusive insult to the whole people of Israel; on this follows the hasty preparation and provocation of a wholly unjust, wicked war; therein the princes are forced to take part, and so to stake their land and people. The end is complete destruction.
2. This great danger, prepared for David by his enemies, was made through the divine control to conduce to the magnifying of his name, and to his ascent to the highest point of royal glory. The bold insolence of the enemies of Gods people and kingdom must serve not only to bring about more wonderfully the revelation of the Lords power in subduing enemies and helping friends, but also to manifest more splendidly the glory and might of His kingdom in the battles into which it is forced by enemies.
3. Joabs word to Abishai is a prelude to the Lords word to Peter: Strengthen thy brethren. Heroic bravery in the war (it exhorts) is to be combined 1) with the recognition of those most sacred possessions and ends for which the struggle is to be made,thereby it is consecrated,and 2) with humble, trustful submission to the will of the Lordthereby it is preserved from temerity and presumptuousness. The war is a just and holy one, undertaken for the defence of the possessions received from God, to guard the honor of God, and in the name of God.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa 10:12. Bravery in battling for the highest objects: 1) It is rooted in fidelity to God and to our brethren the people of God; 2) It is proven by devotion of body and soul and the whole life to the aims of the kingdom of God; 3) It is sanctified by unconditional submission to the purposes and doings of the will of God.
The Lord do that which seemeth him good: 1) A confession of humble submission to Gods will, in presence of the greatest perils referring everything to Him; 2) A testimony borne by childlike and strong reliance on the Lords help, which is confidently expected in the cause of His people and His kingdom; 3) The expression of a devout frame of mind, which is the basis of all genuine fidelity in fulfilling the duties of ones calling, and especially of all true bravery in fighting against the enemies of Gods kingdom.
2Sa 10:1 sqq. Cramer: Nothing worthier can be devised than to requite thanks with thanks. Pro 17:13.Seb. Schmid: When God will chastise a people, He withdraws from them good and sensible rulers; and woe to the land whose king is a child (Ecc 10:16).
2Sa 10:3. Seb. Schmid: Calumny is a diabolical vice, since under appearance of prudence and truth it calls forth the greatest misfortunes.Starke: To put an evil construction upon good is the best art of the ungodly.[Hall: Carnal men are wont to measure anothers foot by their own last; their own falsehood makes them unjustly suspicious of others. It is hard for a wicked heart to think well of any other; because it can think none better than itself, and knows itself evil. The freer a man is from vice himself, the more charitable he uses to be unto others.Tr.]
2Sa 10:6. Cramer: That is the way with an evil conscience; it flees before it is hunted (Job 15:20).J. Lange: When a man knows that he has deserved punishment, and yet is unwilling to acknowledge his guilt, he is sure to heap upon himself more and more guilt.[Hall: It is one of the mad principles of wickedness, that it is a weakness to relent, and rather to die than yield. Even ill causes, once undertaken, must be upheld, although with blood; whereas the gracious heart, finding his own mistaking, doth not only remit of an ungrounded displeasure, but studies to be revenged of itself, and to give satisfaction to the offended.Tr.]
2Sa 10:12. Starke: A Christian must indeed show all diligence in his calling and station, but must look to God for whatever progress he wishes to make (1Co 3:6).[Hall: The tongue of a commander fights more than his hand. A good leader must, out of his own abundance, put life and spirits into all others: if a lion lead sheep into the field, there is hope of victory. All valor is cowardice to that which is built upon religion.Henry: God and our country was the word. When we make conscience of doing our duty, we may with the greatest satisfaction leave the event with God; not thinking that our valor bids Him to prosper us, but that still He may do as He pleases, yet hoping for His salvation in His own way and time.Tr.]. 2Sa 10:13 sq. Osiander: Those who rely on man and do not trust God, come to shame (Psa 25:3).[Henry: Joab provided for the worst, and put the case that the Syrians or Ammonites might prove too strong for him (2Sa 10:11); but he proved too strong for them both. We do not hinder our successes by preparing for disappointment.Tr.]
2Sa 10:15-19. Schlier: He who does evil will also reap a harvest of evil; and he who helps in evil will certainly also get a poor reward from it. As the seed, so the harvest.The Lord has everything in His hand, then He has the insolence of enemies in His hand and makes all work well. He can check and subdue even the greatest insolence, and convert it into a blessing for His people.
[2Sa 10:3-4. They who are tempted to offer gross insults had always better look before they leap.
2Sa 10:5. Tarry at Jericho, etc. 1) We must beware of casting pearls before swine (2Sa 10:2. The Ammonites must have been known to David as a cruel and barbarous people). 2) Nothing is so offensive as a wanton insult, in return for respect and kindness. 3) The gravest men are sensitive to ridicule of their personal appearance. 4) All persons of noble nature are considerate of the feelings of others. 5) Time heals many ills.
2Sa 10:12. Joab was a selfish, unscrupulous, unprincipled man; yet in entering upon a perilous battle he talks piously. So do almost all generals and civil rulers in any great emergency; not only because they know that the people feel their dependence on God, but because in the hour of trial they feel it themselves. Such language under such circumstances does not clearly prove one to be devout, or to be hypocritical; it expresses a feeling which may be genuine, though transient and superficial.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa 10:1. The reason for the omission of the kings name here (in the Heb. and all the VSS.) is not obvious; yet there is no good ground for supplying it. The Arab. vers. omits the name of the son also in this verse.
[2][2Sa 10:3. Lit.: is David an honorer of thy father in thy eyes, that? etc.
[3][2Sa 10:3. Some MSS. and edd. of the Heb., and the Arab. have land instead of city, which, as being the easier rendering, is here less probable.
[4][2Sa 10:5. Chron. has: and they went and told David concerning the men, which is an expansion for the sake of clearness.
[5][2Sa 10:6 Syr. Arab., Vulg., Sym. and Chald. render: that they had injured David, which does not point to a different text, but is an explanation. Instead of Sept. read (as in the Heb. of Chron.) , which is rendered by them the people of David ().
[6][2Sa 10:9. Philippson renders: put himself, and so below (2Sa 10:10) he put himself, but this seems less natural than the usual translation.Tr.]
[7][2Sa 10:12. It is better here to preserve the identity of the Heb. word rendered strong, which is used in several places in the context.Tr.]
[8][2Sa 10:12. The form here is future, not optative (Vulg.), though it is possible that the final is repeated from the following word.Tr.]
[9][2Sa 10:16. Here also there is wavering in the Heb. MSS. as to the spelling of this name, some MSS. and edd. having Hadadezer; see on 2Sa 10:3.Tr.]
[10][2Sa 10:16. For the discussion of this reading see the Exposition. So on 2Sa 10:18.Tr.]
[11][2Sa 10:19. Sept. renders fled to (), a free translation; so probably Vulg. As to the addition in the Vulg. (see Exposition) Bttcher would put it at the beginning of 2Sa 10:18. It is perhaps better to regard it as a marginal remark made on some copy of the Vulg., though it is not easy to account for the number given, fifty-eight thousand. Its absence from the other versions justifies us in excluding it from the text.Tr.]
[12][The German here has incorrectly the Septuagint, instead of Chronicles.Tr.]
[13][Bp. Patrick suggests that he was friendly to David because hostile to Saul.Tr.]
[14][Lev 19:27; Deu 14:1 are not in point here; they refer not to ordinary shaving, but to idolatrous clipping of the hair. Comp. the Nazarite-vow.Tr.]
[15]For = nates Chron. has the euphemistic = step, that is, the part of the body where stepping is made possible, since the legs there begin.
[16][The Germ. has 2 Samuel 8, where the name Rehob is used of a king (2Sa 10:3; 2Sa 10:12), but not of a district.Tr.]
[17][In 1Ma 5:13 Tischendorf writes , Tobion.Tr.]
[18][The word in Chron. means chariots only, and does not include horsemen.Tr.]
[19]Chron. has the Sing. (), which is a more common designation of the army than the Plu. The (in) before Israel is to be retained (against the VSS. and some MSS.).
[20] , Heb. name of a Syrian city, dual-form from (two armies), with the -local (Bttcher).
[21][This number is almost incredibly large, and the text of Sam. is to be preferred.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
In following David’s history, we are here again presented with the relation of war. David sent a friendly message to the king of the Ammonites; but he receiving it unfriendly, and treating the ambassadors of David ill, David enters upon a war with him, and entirely defeats the king of Ammon, and the Syrians, whom he had called to succour him.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. (2) Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.
What kindness David had received from Nahash, is not easy to say, for he had been a bitter enemy to Israel, as we read 1Sa 11:1-4 ; but perhaps it might be upon some occasion when David was fleeing from place to place to avoid Saul. His motive, however, was good, in sending his servants to comfort his son. But what motive, excepting pure grace and mercy, prompted the infinite mind of our God to send his servants as ambassadors to us? We have shown no kindness, but rebellion all our days. And yet the Lord hath sent, and is continually sending the ministers of his gospel, praying us in Christ’s stead, to be reconciled to God. Wonderous mercy! 2Co 5:20 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Play the Man
2Sa 10:12
What is it to play the man? It is:
I. To Take Things Seriously Of Louis XV of France it was said that, being wholly occupied with his amusements, he had not an hour in the day for important matters; while the best that could be said of our own King Charles II was that he was a ‘merry monarch’. There was no true manhood there, to say nothing of royal dignity.
II. Cheerful Courage. But along with this seriousness, this clear and frank recognition of things as they are, there must be also, if we would play the man, that courage for which Joab appealed, and a courage which is something better than obstinacy and dogged endurance a courage which has in it something of cheerfulness and hope. If you are a man, then, even though you may feel tired, and though the burden may weigh heavily upon you, and though the prospect may not be too bright, still you will set your face and press on. And the harder the battle, the stonier the path, the more resolute you will be not to be beaten, and not to cry out and make a fuss. Of course it is often difficult to play a manly part in this sense. It is especially difficult to keep going steadily on. That is the hardest kind of courage to practise: the courage that is needed in order to persevere.
III. The Courage to Endure And if you need manhood for patient continuance in well-doing, you need it also, and perhaps more, for patient continuance in the bearing of pain and trouble. It is much easier for us to bear our troubles at first than later on.
IV. Public Spirit. ‘Let us play the men for the people and for the cities of our God.’ It is not only courage and patience that are demanded of us, but public spirit. There is no nobler ambition that can possess any man’s mind, when he looks out into the world and sees how his brethren are faring, than the ambition to play a true man’s part in the defence of the needy and the weak, and in the furtherance, though it be by much toil and sacrifice, of every sacred cause which aims at beating down the enemies of mankind, and bringing in the golden age of which so many prophets have dreamed, and for which so many martyrs have died. That, indeed, is the very Spirit of Jesus.
H. Arnold Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. LXXII. 1907, p. 81.
References. X. 12. Canon Atkinson, Christian Manliness, Sermons, 1828-93. XI. 1. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. viii. No. 450; see also vol. xv. No. 895. XII. 5-7. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 55.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
2Sa 10
[ The greatest and most critical war in the reign of David is now about to be reported. The 60th Psalm should be read in this connection. ]
1. And it came to pass after this, that the king [Nahash] of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.
2. Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.
3. And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather sent his servants unto thee to search the city [Rabbah, almost the only city owned by the Ammonites], and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?
4. Wherefore Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards [the extremest of all personal insults], and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
5. When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho [in some cottage or village thereabout] until your beards be grown, and then return.
6. And when the children of Ammon saw that they stank [or had made themselves stink] before David, the children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians of Beth-rehob, and the Syrians of Zoba, twenty thousand footmen, and of king Maacah a thousand men, and of Ish-tob [this word means A good man] twelve thousand men [for which service they paid a thousand talents of silver, upwards of 125,000].
7. And when David heard of it, he sent Joab, and all the host of the mighty men.
8. And the children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array at the entering in of the gate: and the Syrians of Zoba, and of Rehob, and Ish-tob, and Maacah were by themselves in the field.
9. When Joab saw that the front of the battle was against him before and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians [the stronger division of the enemy]:
10. And the rest of the people he delivered into the hand of Abishai his brother, that he might put them in array against the children of Ammon.
11. And he said, If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou shalt help me: but if the children of Ammon be too strong for thee, then I will come and help thee.
12. Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of our God: and the Lord [will] do that which seemeth him good.
13. And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were with him, unto the battle against the Syrians: and they fled before him.
14. And when the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians were fled, then fled they also before Abishai, and entered into the city. So Joab returned from the children of Ammon, and came to Jerusalem [for reasons unknown].
15. And when the Syrians saw that they were smitten before Israel, they gathered themselves together.
16. And Hadarezer sent, and brought out the Syrians that were beyond the river: and they came to Helam [now unknown], and Shobach the captain of the host of Hadarezer went before them.
17. And when it was told David, he gathered all Israel together, and passed over Jordan, and came to Helam [he took the field in person]. And the Syrians set themselves in array against David, and fought with him.
18. And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there [and thus inflicted a crushing blow, from which the enemy did not recover during his reign or the reign of his son].
19. And when all the kings that were servants to Hadarezer saw that they were smitten before Israel, they made peace with Israel, and served them [transferring their vassalage to David]. So the Syrians feared to help the children of Ammon any more.
Two Aspects of David
IN chapters x. and xi. we see king David at his best and also at his worst. The second verse of the tenth chapter opens almost in the same spirit as the first verse of the ninth. In both instances David is determined to “show kindness.” In the first instance he would show kindness to any survivor of the house of Saul, as we have just seen, and now he will show kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, because Hanun’s father had shown kindness to David in the old times of distress. So far we see David at his best. It is the more notable, because David is never recorded as the aggressor in any of the innumerable wars in which he was engaged; he was always the party threatened or challenged, and never the party defying and brow-beating: but in the matter of kindness he takes the initiative, not only originating the purpose as a mere sentiment, but endeavouring to carry it beneficently into effect. In estimating the character of David let this consideration be put down to his credit namely, that in war he was never the aggressor, and that in kindness he was always the originator. In both these historical instances David acts retrospectively, in the sense that he is not proposing to show kindness to living men for their own sakes but on account of some virtue or goodness on the part of their ancestors. A merely technical or literal nature would have been content with contemporary action, that is to say, would not have troubled about going back into yesterday in order to honour the memory of a dead man. But even in this generous retrospection David is faithful to his poetic nature and his religious enthusiasm. It was not enough to treat a man within his own limits and boundaries for the present day, and then to dismiss him as a discharged creditor; the goodness of the man in question lived on after the man himself had physically disappeared. Is not this a noble trait in the character of king David? It should not be lightly passed over as a matter of commonplace, especially when there is in reserve for David a penetrating and heavy criticism which must not be mitigated on account of any good reputation which the king may have acquired on other occasions. Justice will at least seek to state both sides of the case, and then demand that the character be judged, not in separate aspects, but in its complete totality.
David is to be credited with good intentions in this case, as he was in the case of proposing to build the temple and to do kindness to any survivor of the house of Saul. Even good intentions have a distinctive value of their own. Sweet waters do not rise from bitter fountains. To have one good wish, one unselfish desire, one generous impulse, is to have some degree of divine influence operating upon the heart, and so far is to show that the heart has not been given over to utter reprobation. This is a comforting thought for ourselves. Are all our thoughts entirely bad? Is there not any light of unselfishness shining from any one of them? Or do we now and again feel the heart stirred to do some generous deed, or speak some word that will assuage human sorrow or lighten human burdens? Even the impulse will do us good. How were David’s good intentions received by the counsellors of Hanun? We read that “the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather sent his servants unto thee, to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?” ( 2Sa 10:3 ). Again and again in history we come upon such narrow-minded and rash advisers. We shall come upon them again in the second book of Kings in the instance of Rehoboam, who was brought to ruin by the suspicious counsels of foolish men. There are always persons who are ready to credit others with bad motives. According to our interpretation of the motives of others do we often reveal the true quality of our own hearts. Suspicion is more to be dreaded than simplicity. When Christian education is completed in the heart there will be a readiness to assign the best possible motives to all human action, at least in the absence of the clearest evidence to the contrary. Many men are ruined by their so-called sagacity, as well as by their want of mental pith and alacrity. These longheaded counsellors of the young king imagined that they knew human nature better than he did; they oppressed the young man by the weight of their experience; they brought to bear upon him all the influence, happy or unhappy, which ought to attach to old age and large views of human action. Whether the counsellors were young or old in point of age does not interfere with the fact that they were of malignant disposition. Had they been generous they would have led Hanun into new relations with the powerful king of Jerusalem, and of Israel, and might have established the kingdom of Hanun on stronger foundations than ever. We should always be on our guard against men who are too clever. Human nature does not lie wholly on lines of baseness; but even on the appalling suspicion that such may be the case, seldom is anything lost by accepting a generous word in a generous spirit, for in doing so even hypocrisy itself may be baffled and outwitted.
Hanun responded to the counsels of his advisers in a manner which he supposed would increase his own popularity with his subjects. He “took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle” ( 2Sa 10:4 ). Noted travellers have told us that the cutting off of a person’s beard is regarded by the Arabs as an indignity equal to flogging and branding amongst ourselves. It has also been made clear by travellers that the loss of their long garments, so essential to Oriental dignity, was no less insulting than that of their beards. Hanun was not one of the men who could adopt a middle course. Without receiving the comforting words of David in the sense in which they were intended, he need not have gone to the extreme which he adopted. But some men are incapable of seeing the middle course, which is one of proverbial safety, and they imagine that they display their ingenuity and teach a useful lesson to others by adopting a policy of complete rigour. The men might have been sent back with a coldly polite reply, which would have discouraged further approach on the part of the king of Israel, or they might have been received with gladness, and thus reflex honour might have been shed upon the throne of David. But no such course opened itself before the vision of the counsellors of Hanun. They would show their greatness by humbling the messengers of David to the uttermost depths. It is little to the honour of human nature that there are not only insults which men can hurl at one another in moments of passion and defiance, but there are studied insults which are elaborated in cold blood and inflicted with a sense of enjoyment by the cruel men who have fashioned new modes of social humiliation. No doubt that night there was joy in the palace of Hanun and in the houses of his triumphant princes. They had adopted a spirited foreign policy. They were not going to receive any messages from outlying peoples which might be construed into obligations, but were going to teach the nations that whatever Nahash might have done in his effusive old age, they were determined to be known as men of rigour and men of dignity.
The insult inflicted upon Israel was not only personal, it was deeply religious. Not only was David dishonoured, but God himself was defied. In Lev 19:27 , we see how stringent was the law regarding this matter of shaving the head. “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” It is not for us to enter into the value of any such ordinances: suffice it to say that they were the distinct ordinances of the people of Israel, and as such had religious value and significance. There is a cruelty in our own day which seeks to injure men through the medium of their religious convictions. The history of Christian persecution runs wholly along this line of offence; Men have been nick-named, taunted with the peculiarity of their faith, mocked as to the manner of their prayers, laughed at by the ruffianism of their age. To-day men are kept out of pecuniary positions because of their religious faith. Social advancement is barred to not a few persons on account of their religious convictions. Were such men without conviction, light-headed, and light-hearted, ready to adopt any form or ceremony as they might adopt a change of garments, their course in life would be much smoother; but because they are earnest, even to agony, their convictions are made into so many stumbling-blocks by which their progress is hindered.
The counsellors of Hanun the son of Nahash were too blinded by their own passion to foresee the results of their foolish policy. What was a practical jest to them was an occasion of just anger to the king whom they had insulted. It is well to take some account of the resources of the enemy before being too defiant or adopting a course of lofty superciliousness. But folly seldom sees both sides of a question. Suppose the counsellors of Hanun had asked themselves how David would regard this method of reply, possibly they might have slackened their speed in their evil course. But passion never pauses to consider the full issue of its rage. The men who carried a message to Hanun could also carry a message to David. When David was told of the event he showed once more the noble quality of his nature by delicately sending to meet the men and advising them to tarry at Jericho until their beards were grown, and then they could return ( 2Sa 10:5 ). The verse reads as if David were inclined to follow the impulse of his better feeling. Dealing with his own men, his action is conspicuous for considerateness and gentleness. Not one word of anger is introduced into this portion of the history. David would seem rather to have been ashamed with the shame of the afflicted men, and to have been so overborne by his sympathy with them as to forget the indignity which had been heaped upon him by the son of Nahash. But David’s mind quickly turned to the shocking reality of the case with which he had to deal. He “sent Joab, and all the host of the mighty men,” and thus inaugurated his policy of revenge. It is easy for us in the midst of our Christian civilisation to point out what other course David might have adopted, but judging events by the time and atmosphere in which they occurred, it would be hard to say that David did not adopt the only policy which could be understood by the heathen aggressor. It is a notable characteristic of the genius of history that it is always faithful to its own time. As the action of David would now be out of place as between Christian nations, so any other course than that which he adopted would have been out of place in relation to his particular injury. Read history in its own light. It is essential to adopt this canon of interpretation in reading many portions of the Old Testament; otherwise the mind will be thrown often into a state of moral bewilderment, and be ready almost to cry out against the Spirit of God.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XVIII
THE WARS OF DAVID
2Sa 5:11-25
Our last chapter intimated that the union of the nation under such a king as David, in such a capital, would naturally excite the jealousy and alarm of all neighboring heathen nations. This section commences thus: “And when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David.”
Your attention has already been called to the necessity of breaking the power of the hostile heathen nations lying all around Judah, if ever the Jewish nation is to fulfil its mission to all other nations. The geographical position of Judah, which is the best in the world for leavening the nations with the ideas of the kingdom of God, if it maintained its national purity and adherence to Jehovah, also made it the most desirable possession for other peoples having far different ideals. As the salvation of the world including these very hostile nations, depended on the perpetuity and purity of Israel, these nations, through whom came idolatry and national corruption, must be broken, hence the seeming cruelty and partiality of Jehovah’s order through Moses to destroy the Canaanites, root and branch, and to avoid the corruptions of the other nations, were meant as mercy and kindness to the world.
The nations against which David successfully warred, so far as our text records them, were the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Syrians of Zobah, the Syrians of Damascus, the Moabites, and the Edomites. He had previously smitten the Amalekites of the Negeb. On these wars in general the following observations are noteworthy:
1. He was never the aggressor.
2. He never lost a battle.
3. His conquest filled out the kingdom to the boundaries originally promised to Abraham.
4. The spoils of all these wars, staggering credulity in their variety and value, were consecrated to Jehovah, making the richest treasury known to history.
5. By alliance without war he secured the friendship of Hiram, king of Tyre, most valuable to him and to his son Solomon. As Phoenicia, through the world-famous fleets of Tyre and Sidon, commanded the Mediterranean with all its marine commerce, and as David ruled the land through whose thoroughfares must pass the caravans carrying this traffic to Africa, Arabia, India, Syria, and Mesopotamia, it was of infinite value to both to be in friendly alliance. To these merchant-princes it was of incalculable advantage that all the land transportation of their traffic should lie within the boundaries of one strong and friendly nation rather than to have to run the gauntlet between a hundred irresponsible and predatory tribes, while to David, apart from the value of this peaceful commerce, the whole western border of Judah along the Mediterranean coast was safe from invasion by sea so long as friendship was maintained with Hiram, king of the sea.
6. By the voluntary submission of Hamath after his conquest of Damascus, he controlled the famous historic “Entrance into Hamath,” the one narrow pathway of traffic with the nations around the Caspian Sea, thus enabling David to reach those innumerable northern hordes so graphically described in later days by Ezekiel, the exile-prophet.
7. By the conquest of Damascus he controlled the only caravan route to the Euphrates and Mesopotamia, since the desert lying east of the trans-Jordanic tribes was practically impassable for trade and army movement from a lack of water, We have seen Abraham, migrating from Ur of the Chaldees, low down on the Euphrates, compelled to ascend that river for hundreds of miles in order to find an accessible way to the Holy Land through Damascus. In his day, also Chedorlaorner’s invasion had to follow the same way, as we will see later invasions do in Nebuchadnezzar’s time, which at last conquered David’s Jerusalem.
8. By the conquest of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, all the Arabah passed into his hands, checkmating invasion by Arabian hordes, as well as barring one line of invasion from Egypt. By the conquest of the Philistines and Amalekites the other two ways of Egyptian invasion were barred. You should take a map, such as you will find in Huribut’s Atlas, and show how David’s wars and peaceful alliances safeguarded every border, north, east, south, and west.
Besides these general observations, we may note a special feature characterizing these, and indeed all other wars, prior to the leveling invention of gunpowder and other high explosives, namely, much was accomplished by individual champions of great physical prowess and renown. David himself was as famous in this respect as Richard, the Lionhearted, until in a desperate encounter, related in this section, his life was so endangered that a public demand justly required him to leave individual fighting to less necessary men and confine himself to the true duty of a general the direction of the movements of the army.
Your text recites the special exploits of Jashobeam, Eleazer, Shammah, Abishai, Benaiah, or Benajah, after whom my father, myself, and my oldest son were named. With them may be classed the ten Gadites whose faces were like the faces of lions and who were as swift as the mountain deer, the least equal to 100 and the greatest equal to 1000. These crossed the Jordan at its mighty flood and smote the Philistines in all its valley, east and west.
Quite to the front also, as giant-killers, were Sibbecai, Elhanan, and Jonathan’s nephew. Of others, all mighty heroes, we have only a catalogue of names as famous in their day as Hercules, Theseus, and Achilles, Ajax, Ulysses, Horatius, and .King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, but, as philosophizes Sir Walter Scott in lvanhoe concerniog the doughty champions at the tourney of Ashby de la Zouch: “To borrow lines from a contemporary poet, ‘The knights are dust, And their good swords rust, Their souls are with the saints, we trust,’while their escutcheons have long mouldered from the walls of their castles; their castles themselves are but green mounds and shattered ruins; the place that once knew them knows them no more. Nay, many a race since theirs has died out and been forgotten in the very land which they occupied with all the authority of feudal proprietors and lords. What then would it avail to the reader to know their names, or the evanescent symbols of their martial rank?”
One exploit of three of these champions deserves to live forever in literature. It thrills the heart by the naturalness of its appeal to the memory of every man concerning the precious things of his childhood’s home. David was in his stronghold, the Cave of Adullam, weary and thirsty. Bethlehem and his childhood rise before him: “O that one would give me water to drink of the Well of Bethlehem that is by the gate!” His exclamation thrills like Woodworth’s famous poem, “How dear to my heart are the scenes of my childhood, As fond recollections presents them to view! The orchard, the meadow, the deep-tangled wildwood, And ev’ry loved spot which my infancy knew”.
David’s longing for water from that particular well, and Woodworth’s “Old Oaken Bucket” harmonize with my own experience whenever I am delirious with fever. I always see a certain spring on my father’s plantation issuing from the mosscovered, fern-bordered rocks, and filling a sucken barrell. Hard by, hanging on a bush, is the gourd which, when dipped into the cold, clear spring, is more precious to thirsty lips than the silver tankards or gold drinking cups of kings; only in my fever-thirst I never am able to get that gourd to my lips. Three of David’s mighty men heard the expression of his longing for that water out of the Well of Bethlehem, and slipping quietly away, not caring that a Philistine garrison held Bethlehem, the three men alone break through the defended gate and under fire draw water from the well and bring a vessel of it over a long, hot way to thirsty David. It touched his heart when he saw their wounds. He could not drink water purchased with their blood, but poured it out as a libation to such great and devoted friendship.
Some other incidents of the Philistine war are worthy of comment:
1. So great was the defeat of the Philistines in their first battle, where David, under divine direction, attacked the center of their army, the scene is named “Baal-Perazirn,” i.e., “The place of breaking forth.” Splitting their column wide open at its heart, he dispersed them in every direction. They even sat their gods behind them to be burned by David’s men. We need not be startled at the burning of such gods, for history tells of one nation that ate their god, made out of dough, in times of famine. This breaking of a battle-center was a favorite method with Napoleon later, and vainly attempted by Lee at Gettysburg.
2. In the second great battle, again following divine direction, he avoided the center where they expected his attack as before and were there prepared for him this time, and “fetched” a compass to their rear, sheltered from their view by a thick growth of balsam trees, and on hearing “a sound of a going” in these trees, struck them unawares and overthrew them completely.
So Stonewall Jackson, his movements sheltered from observation by the trees of the wilderness, marched and struck in his last and greatest victory at Chancellorsville. And so did that master of war, Frederick the Great, screened by intervening hills, turn the Austrian columns and win his greatest victory at Leuthen. Major Penn, the great Texas lay-evangelist, preached his greatest sermon from “This fetching a compass,” and “When thou hearest the sound of a going in the mulberry trees, bestir thyself.” His application was: (a) Let great preachers attack the center, as David did at Baal-Perazim. (b) But as I am only a layman I must fetch a compass and strike them in the rear where they are not expecting attack. (c) As the signal of assault was the sound of a going in the mulberry trees, which we interpret to mean the power of the Holy Spirit going before, we must tarry for that power, for without it we are bound to fail. (d) But that power being evident, let every member of the church bestir himself. On this last point his zealous exhortation put every man, woman, and child to working.
3. The third incident of this war was its culmination. He pressed his victory until “he took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines;” that is, he captured Gath and the four other cities, or daughters, that had gone from it. To take the bridle of a horse from the hand of a rider is to make that horse serve the new master, so Gath and her daughters paid tribute to David and served him quite a new experience for the Philistines.
4. The result of these great achievements is thus expressed: “And the fame of David went out into all lands; and the Lord brought the fear of him on all nations.”
The occasion of his next war, the one with Ammon, was remarkable. Nabash, the king of Ammon, held very friendly relations with David. The fact is that he may have ‘been the father of Amasa, a son of David’s sister, Abigail. Anyway, the relations between them had been very pleasant, so when Nahash died, David, out of the kindness of his heart, always remembering courtesies shown him, sent a friendly embassy to Hanun, the son of Nahash, but the princes of Ammon said to the young king, “Do you suppose that love for your father prompted David to send these men? He sent them to spy out the land so that he can make war successfully against us.” This evil suggestion led the young king to do a very foolish thing, and one that violated all international policy. He arrested these ambassadors and subjected them to the greatest indignity. Their venerable beards were cut off. I don’t know whether that means cut off half-way or just shaved off one side of the face. Then he cut off their long robes of dignity so they would be bob-tailed jackets striking about the hips, and sent them home. No mortification could exceed theirs. Somebody told David about it and he sent this word to them: “Tarry at Jericho until your beards grow out.”
A deacon of the First Church at Waco, when I was pastor, whenever a young member of the church would propose some innovation on the customs of the church, would draw up his tall figure he was quite tall and would reach out his long arm and point at the young man and say, “My young brother, you had better tarry at Jericho until your beard grows out.” It was very crushing on the young brother, and I used to exhort the deacon about his curt way of cutting off members who, whether young or old, had a right equal to his own to speak in conference.
Having practiced that unpardonable indignity upon the friendly ambassadors, the Ammonites know they must fight, since they have made themselves odious to David, so they raise an enormous sum of money, 1,000 talents of silver, and hire 33,000 men from the Syrians, the different branches of the Syrians. Some of them were horsemen from across the Euphrates, some from Tob, some from Maacah, and the rest of them from Zobah. David sends Joab at the head of his mighty army of veterans to fight them. The Ammonites remain in their fortified city of Rabbah, and as Joab’s army approaches, 33,000 Syrians come up behind them, and Joab sees that there is a battle to be fought in the front and in the rear, so he divides his army and takes his picked men to attack the Syrians, and commands Abishai, his brother, to go after the Ammonites as they pour out of their city to attack in front. Joab says to his brother, “If the Syrians are too strong for me, you help me, and if the Ammon-ites are too strong for you, then I will come and help you,” and so they fight both ways and whip in both directions with tremendous success. Joab destroys the Syrians, and Abishai drives the Ammonites back under the walls of their city.
That victory leads to another war. When the Syrians heard of the overthrow of the contingent sent to succor Ammon, they sent across the Euphrates again for reinforcements and mobilized a large home army to fight David. David met them in battle and blotted them off the map, and having disposed of the Syrians, at the return of the season for making war, he sent Joab with a mighty army to besiege the city of Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites. Joab besieges them and when he sees them about to surrender he sends for David to come and accept the surrender and David puts the crown of the king of Ammon on his own head. Then having destroyed the Ammonites, he marches against their southern ally, Moab, and conquers them. Following up this victory he leads his army against Edom, and conquers all that country. This war lasts six months. He gains a great victory over the Edomites and through Abishai, his leader, 18,000 of the Edomites were slain. The heir of the king escapes with great difficulty to Egypt, and is sheltered there. Joab remained six months to bury the dead and gather up the spoils. So ends this period of conquest.
The text tells you, in conclusion, who were the administration officers during this period. You will find it on page 122 of the Harmony. Joab was over the host, Jehoshaphat was recorder, Zadok and Ahimelech were priests, Seraiah was scribe, Benaiah, or Benajah, was over the Cherethites and Pelethites and David’s sons were chiefs about the king.
That great round of successes is followed by the magnificent song of thanksgiving, which needs to be analyzed specially and which is transferred to the Psalter as Psa 18 .
That you may have a connected account of these wars, the consideration of three periods is deferred to the next chapter:
1. The great sin of David, with its far-reaching consequences, 2Sa 11:2-12:24 .
2. His treatment of the Ammonites after the fall of Rabbah, 2Sa 12:31 and 1Ch 20:3 .
3. His treatment of the Moabites, 2Sa 8:2 .
QUESTIONS
1. What is the necessity of breaking the power of the hostile nations within and around Judea?
2. Show why the geographical position of Judea was favorable to its mission of leavening all nations with the ideas of the kingdom of God, and why Judea was a desirable possession to those nations.
3. What event brought a tide of war on David?
4. According to the record, with what nations did he wage successful war?
5. What eight general observations on these wars?
6. What special feature characterized them and all other ancient wars, and what modern inventions have now divested war of this feature?
7. Cite the names of some of David’s champions and their exploits.
8. How does Sir Walter Scott, in Ivanhoe, philosophize on the speedy oblivion coming to great champions?
9. Recite one exploit that deserves to live in literature, and why?
10. Cite the notable characteristic of the battle of Baal-Perazirn.
11. Name the more decisive battle which followed, and give illustrations from history of the different methods of attack in those two battles.
12. Give Major Penn’s text and sermon outline on some words concerning this battle.
13. Explain: ”He took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.”
14. What the result of these great achievements?
15. Recite the occasion of the war with Ammon and its results, and describe the first battle.
16. Give a brief statement of wars with Syria, Moab, and Edom.
17. With a map before you, show just how by these wars and alliances David safeguarded all his borders.
18. How did he commemorate his victories?
19. How did he celebrate them?
20. Into what other book was his thanksgiving song transferred, and how numbered there?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Sa 10:1 And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.
Ver. 1. The king of the children of Ammon died. ] Death is the only king “against whom there is no rising up.” as it is in Pro 30:31 . Nugus, king of Scythia, slighted certain precious presents sent him by Michal Paleologus, the Emperor, asking whether they could drive away sickness and death; for if so, then they would be worth the receiving. a
And Hanun his son reigned in his stead.
a Pachym., Hist., lib. v.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
children = sons.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 10
It came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. And David, upon hearing the death of the king, sent certain of his men [Emissaries, actually] unto Hanun to express David’s condolences. [And to just sort of greet them in David’s name, and express David’s sorrow and all for the death of his father.] Now some of his counselors said, Do you think that David is really just trying to show kindness to you? Listen, these guys are actual spies, and they’ve come to spy out the weakness of the land, and the next thing you know, David’s gonna be attacking you. So Hanun took these emissaries that had been sent by David and he cut off [or shaved] half of their beards, and cut off their skirts exposing their backsides, and sent them away. Well the guys were extremely embarrassed, and humiliated. And so David heard of what had been done to them and he said, You guys just wait down at the city of Jericho until your beards grow back again, and then come on back into the city. But over in Ammon [Which of course is the present day, Ammon, the capital of Jordan, they heard of how these men were not allowed back into Jerusalem until their beards grew back and so forth. So they feared an immediate attack by David,] and so they sent to Syria and hired from Syria twenty thousand mercenaries to come and to help them fight against David. So when David heard that they had hired the Syrian mercenaries and others to fight against him, he sent his armies against the Ammonites and as they came to battle, Joab saw that the Syrians were coming from the north joining with them. So Joab said to his brother Abishai, We’ll divide our forces in half. I’ll take on the Syrians, you take on the Ammonites, and if they start to overcome you, then I’ll come and help you. If the Syrians start to overcome me, you come and help me. [But be valiant, be strong. In fact, his words I thought were very interesting in verse twelve.] Be of good courage, let us play the man for our people, and for the cities of our God: and the Lord do that which seemeth him good. And so Joab came to the Syrians: and the Syrians began to fall back before Joab. When the Ammonites saw that the Syrians were retreating, they too began to retreat ( 2Sa 10:1-14 ).
And the men of Israel gained a tremendous victory over the forces of Hadarezer, over the Ammonites, and over the Syrians in that battle. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Here we have the record of victories over Ammon and Syria. So far as David is concerned it is interesting in revealing the same spirit of good will in David in his attempt to show kindness to Hanum, and the same elements of strength as a warrior as he led the hosts of Israel against the forces of Syria, and defeated them.
Joab appears once more in all the rugged and terrible strength of his nature. It is interesting to observe that in his arrangements he made no allowance for the possibility of ultimate defeat in his conflict with Arnmon. He divided his forces, and did so in order that if the Syrians on the one side should be too strong for him, the army of Abishai, his brother, should help him. Or if, on the other hand, the children of Ammon should be too strong for Abishai, he would help Abishai.
It does not seem to have occurred to him that the combination might have been too much for both of them. In all this the true quality of the soldier is revealed. It recognizes the possibility of defeat at a point, but never that of the poet’s final triumph. We are not surprised that Joab was victorious.
This story constitutes the culmination of the account of David’s rise to power, and prepares for the terrible story of his fall by showing the general circumstances under which the fall occurred.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
the Penalty of Rejecting Kindness
2Sa 10:1-19
A Jewish tradition tells us that Nahash, Hanuns father, had shown kindness to David by sheltering one of his brothers, when the king of Moab treacherously massacred the rest of the family. Civility is the daughter of Piety. The son had inherited his fathers throne but not his spirit. He was misled by foolish advisers to offer a gross insult, not only to the ambassadors, but to the king and nation whom they represented.
Let us, however, contrast our Lords dealings with those who ill-treated Him in the person of His disciples. When they had been refused by a certain village of the Samaritans, they appealed for fire from heaven; but Jesus reminded them that the dispensation in which Elijah had lived was past. The disciples were the children of a new age, and the only fire with which they could deal was that of love, Luk 9:54, etc. Yes, and afterward the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to Samaria, perhaps to those very villages, Act 8:1-40. It used to be said that the best way to secure the tenderest kindness of the great and saintly Archbishop Leighton was to show him a discourtesy. He had not followed his great Master in vain.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2Sa 10:12
From these words I draw four useful and practical lessons.
I. I learn a lesson of mutual helpfulness. “As occasion demands,” says Joab, “thou shalt help me and I will help thee.” He was neither so vain as to think he could not possibly need a brother’s help, nor so mean as to dream of standing aloof in a brother’s difficulty. God intends that we shall be indebted to each other, and if Joab has to come to the help of Abishai, Abishai has no more reason to be ashamed than Joab.
II. I learn from the text a lesson of manly heroism. “Be of good courage and let us play the man.” A hero is a man in the fullest sense of the word. There are heroes of the workshop, of the counter, of the office, of the market-place, on whose fortitude might be put quite as severe a strain as though they stood upon the battlefield, amid the glitter of cold steel or the rattle of musketry. If you are to play the part of the man, you must carefully cultivate the higher part of your nature. Lay the foundation of those intellectual and moral habits which will not only open up to you a vast range of elevating enjoyment, but will make you more capable of receiving the highest truth of all-the truth that concerns the kingdom of God.
III. I learn from the text a lesson of Christian patriotism. Great dangers put an edge upon true courage. “God and our country,” was the cry of these two young men. It was a call to action and to danger, impelled by love to Israel and Israel’s God. “Christian patriotism” was the term I used. You have no right to separate these words. The weal of our land is inseparably bound up with its religious condition. A true patriot will burn with desire to have his country leavened with real piety.
IV. I learn from the text a lesson of pious submission. ”And the Lord do that which seemeth Him good.” I do not venture to say that Joab was a saint, but on this occasion, certainly, his conduct and language were admirable, and worthy of imitation.
J. Thain Davidson, Forewarned, Forearmed, p. 78.
References: 2Sa 10:12.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 235. 2Sam 10-Ibid., p. 146. 2Sa 11:1.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. viii., No. 450, and vol. xv., No. 895. 2Sa 11:2.-Ibid., Evening by Evening, p. 17. 2Sa 11:13,-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 43.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
7. The War with Ammon and the Syrians
CHAPTER 10
1. David and Hanun (2Sa 10:1-5)
2. Ammon and the Syrians smitten (2Sa 10:6-19)
The chapter with the war against Ammon and the Syrians is the prelude to the great sin of David. While Joab is carrying on the siege of Rabbah, the last city of the Ammonites, David, no doubt flushed with the great victory and prosperity, remained in his house and committed his awful sin. The war with Ammon originated through the insults which Hanun the King of Ammon had heaped upon Davids ambassadors. David wanted to show kindness also to Hanun as his father Nahash had shown kindness to David. We have no record of this kindness. In this endeavour David did certainly not follow the right course, for Ammon was an enemy, and while Nahash showed some kindness to David during his exile, he also had reproached Israel and was ready to thrust out the right eyes of the men of Jabesh-gilead (1Sa 11:1-3). Hanuns deed in treating Davids peaceful messengers in so shameful a way showed that he was a wicked man like his father and not worthy of Davids kindness. Had he inquired of the Lord the messengers would have been spared these indignities. Ammon then formed an alliance with the Syrians, but Joab smote them. The greatest victory is recorded in verses 15-19. The king appeared himself to lead his hosts against the mighty foe and their overthrow followed. It foreshadows the day of final victory over the rebellious nations, led by the beast (Rev 19:19-20) when the true King comes to fight against those nations.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
AM 2967, bc 1037, An, Ex, Is, 454
king: Jdg 10:7-9, Jdg 11:12-28, 1Sa 11:1-3, 1Ch 19:1-3
Reciprocal: Gen 19:38 – children Gen 22:17 – thy seed Gen 27:29 – Let people 2Sa 17:27 – the son of Nahash 1Ki 5:1 – sent 2Ch 27:5 – the king of the Ammonites Neh 4:7 – the Ammonites Psa 18:38 – General Psa 18:43 – made Psa 68:30 – Rebuke Psa 118:10 – All nations Jer 40:14 – Ammonites Amo 1:13 – and for
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Division 4. (2Sa 10:1-19; 2Sa 11:1-27; 2Sa 12:1-31.)
Failure of David also.
The account of David’s greatness is, as we have seen, a summary in some respects anticipative of the after-history. The first four sons given as born to him in Jerusalem are sons of Bathsheba, and yet the sorrowful history of their mother has not been given; so also apparently with the account of the victory over Hadadezer. The last seems evidently connected with the Syro-Ammonitish war, which now follows, and with which is interwoven the shameful fall of David himself. The story of this latter begins, therefore, with that of the war, the first successes of which are the preface to it, as the hour of prosperity is so often the prelude to some fleshly manifestation. The fall that seems most sudden is only the witness of decay that has begun before, or at least of some inherent weakness, some lack of self-judgment, which exposes one to it. Walking really with God in humility and dependence, we are safe, -safe as His strength can make us.
(1) The beginning is in blessing, -the victory over the Ammonites and their hired allies. Along with this, however, we may find, perhaps, some hint of another beginning, such as has just been intimated, an unjudged link between the Ammonite and the Israelite, such as we should not have imagined in David. Was it the fruit of alliances in time past,when in his distress he had gone to the king of Moab and the king of Gath, for help that faith would have found much nearer? If so, this would show us how surely, if not prevented by true self-judgment, the sins of our past pursue us. The Ammonite, with the Moabite and the Philistine, were all special enemies of Israel, upon whom, as such, the divine sentence rested. Faith, as in Ruth,would surely at any time have found grace, as she did: but in none of these was there any faith; and Nahash the Ammonite was apparently the same as he whose insolent reproach upon Israel Saul had in the beginning of his reign been called to avert from the men of Jabesh. That very contention with Saul may have led him (for his own ends) as it did Achish, to “show kindness” to David; but real ground of fellowship, we may be sure, there was not. Favor shown to the Ammonite could not have the blessing of God, and so in the end it proves. Hanun means “favored,” and thus emphasizes the lesson, “Let favor be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn uprightness.” Hanun, quickly persuaded by his counselors, adopts their suspicions as his own, repays the courtesy of David with contempt and ignominy, and then, anticipating the resentment he has provoked, seeks allies and rushes into open war.
Nahash would have thrust out the right eyes of the men of Jabesh, but to an Israelite this can never be done but by his own consent. Hanun, with a lighter reflection of his father’s scorn, takes away from David’s ambassadors half their beards and half their garments. At Jericho, the place of the world’s judgment, they must tarry till they have recovered their dignity as men: so they return.
(b) The Ammonites betake themselves to their natural allies. The pride of the world, in its various forms, which the Syrians picture, goes in full harmony with that perversion of the truth which we recognize in the Ammonite. In all error will be found some association with a heart in insubjection to God. Nor need we wonder if the men of Tob (“good men,” as the world speaks,) join themselves in numbers to this company: what a contrast to the discreditable one that came to Adullam before, to shelter themselves with David! But “ye see your calling, brethren,” and will understand well the reproach which grace has bad at all times to meet. Just these Adullamites are now the “mighty men” that come with Joab against this array!
Joab, after all, (“Jehovah is Father,”) is the suited leader of such. The “elder son” of the parable -a genuine “man of Tob” -never knew the gladness of the Father’s house, never knew the Father’s arms or the Father’s kiss. An Adullamite that has known these grows quickly into a “mighty man” that has hearth and home to fight for: such links of love knit thews and sinews for the battlefield, as is well known. Nature still speaks in echo, though far off, of sweet tones with which the gospel has familiarized us.
Victory depends upon defeating the Syrians, and against them Joab leads the choice men of his host. We know both sides, and understand the spiritual meaning here. In fact the Syrians are vanquished, and fly, and so the Ammonites: and these battles are repeated to this day, with the same result, that all is found to depend upon the Syrians, -a secret which the “mighty men” know well.
(c) But the final victory waits for David in person, that is, for Christ in the day of His appearing. The pride of the world will not be smitten down effectually until He comes; and when He comes, the day of Armageddon will find it in Helam, the place of “their strength,” banded together in opposition against Him. The full height of human pride will then be reached, the opposition in man’s heart will come fully out, the confederacy which has existed ever since “Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together “against the Lord and against His Christ, will have reached its highest power and most imposing front, when the beast and the kings of the earth shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them.” Then Shobach, the “shedder” of blood, the prince of Hadarezer’s (“Glory-help’s”) army shall himself be slain, and war between man and man be ended. “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
(2) From this hint of future blessing for the earth we turn back to trace in the executor of God’s judgment upon others the course of sin which henceforth darkens with its shadow all David’s life. Truly the king for whom Israel waited had not yet come; and for Him (“the desire of all nations”) the earth and Israel still are waiting. Of this sin in David we may not think either, as if it were the one black spot in his history, or as the result of a sudden and violent temptation too strong for resistance, or as anything unaccountable at all. It is rather the breaking out of tendencies easily to be discerned in him before this; and which, unchecked by heartfelt humbling before God, only waited for opportunity, to display themselves, and work disaster. We know there was sudden temptation, and all the facilities afforded by despotic power and the license of the times; but it would be poor comfort to suppose that God’s saints, if walking as saints, are liable to such sudden overthrows. The moral is not this; it is almost the very opposite of this: it is rather the certainty with which evil permitted in the heart works outward in the life at last; it is that sin is sin, and works as sin, however fashion may yield it license, and call it by another name. David’s sin is not exceptional or unaccountable, else it would in that measure cease to have warning for us; and even as to himself would appear as much a misfortune as a crime; whereas nothing could more strictly follow law; cause and effect are as plain here as they may anywhere be traced.
The custom of the times favored polygamy; nor could the law itself as yet plainly and in terms forbid it. The law in its abstract form was perfect as exhibited in the tables of the covenant. In its concrete expression, as in the detailed commandments, “it was weak through the flesh.” Grace alone could bring in power for perfect restraint, and therefore alone (as in Christianity) plainly declare the mind of God. In the precepts and walk of Christ our pattern, and in the competency of a known salvation and the indwelling Spirit, perfection absolutely is reached, but only thus. There has been, therefore, “the disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, (for the law made nothing perfect,) and the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw near to God.” (Heb 7:18-19.)
The law could not directly forbid polygamy. Early had the human race escaped from the divine law of creation in this matter (Gen 4:19), but in the race of Cain, and in the family of him whose song to his two wives so taken is in justification of homicide. At the new beginning after the flood, Noah and his three sons are found maintaining what began in Paradise.
Generations pass, and the world has traveled far from God: in the story of Abraham the next lesson is given us of a patriarchal household distracted by a sin of this kind, but to which his wife had urged, against faith, the man of faith, apparently to fulfill by carnal means a divine promise. Thus there is the most plausible pretext in the world, and urged in the most plausible way. It ends, however, not in the fulfillment of the promise, for which God needs no help, but in the casting out both of Hagar and her son; while her son, begotten in lawlessness, becomes the father of a lawless race.
Next Leah is foisted upon Jacob in deceit, and has to be supplemented with Rachel, the loved and bargained for. But here again strife and distraction follow, and the sisters’ rivalry increases the misery of it with two concubines additional. This very marriage of two sisters at the same time, which, standing where it did, might be a snare to Israel, the law (Lev 18:18) specifically points out afterwards, to prohibit it.
In general, there were obvious hindrances which would limit the practice of polygamy; and it was yet reserved for a far future day and in the midst of the full light of Christianity, to put a premium upon it, as the Mormons do. On the contrary,where most temptation might meet with opportunity, as in the case of a king in Israel, such as David was, it was distinctly said, “He shall not multiply wives to himself, that they turn not his heart aside.” (Deu 17:17.) The perversion of the heart from God is here declared to be the result of such a practice; and the pregnant example of this we find in Solomon; but Solomon was himself the son of David and Bathsheba! Heredity, as men say, tells; but only where divine grace has not lifted the heart above it.
David had not fulfilled the injunction of the law. He had not realized his own weakness, as is shown by his many marriages. He had not made, as Job had, a covenant with his eyes. Walking in self-indulgence, the height to which he was raised precipitated his fall. In the warm sun of prosperity, the fruits of permitted license ripened into bitter vintage; and there was no resource, for none was sought! So he fell; and so will all who follow in this course.
At the time when kings go forth to war, and there being war, David remains at Jerusalem. These things which Scripture puts together tell their own tale as so put together. David was seeking ease and engirding himself when circumstances called for activity and energy. What a contrast with the behavior of the Hittite soldier, whom for his faithfulness he presently condemns to death! “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord camp in the open field: and shall I go to my house?” What a wound for the conscience from this Hittite sword! David is at his house, and on his couch, and then walking upon the roof of his house, when he is snared through his eyes. The woman he finds is a wife, and of one of his own heroic men now at the war for Israel and for him; but nothing stops him. He is a king, and everything yields to him with the facility which is the curse of power. She returns -purified, alas! -to her dishonored home.
But the consequences follow, and to escape them sin follows sin. He sends for Uriah, plays the deceiver, is balked by the devotedness and honesty that contrast so manifestly with his own conduct here, and at last, wrought into madness by the thought of his own shame and what may come of it, sends back the unsuspecting man with his own death-warrant in his hand, to be put into execution by the unscrupulous man he knows so well, and who is to serve him by it.
Strange it seems to find all this dwelt on and lingered over as it is in the history! the awful accusation of one who finds the place in it that David finds! The account of a crime by which truly the enemies of the Lord have been made to blaspheme, as Nathan says, from that day to this. There it is, clear and sharp-edged, to the last word of smooth hypocrisy: “Let not this thing be grievous in thine eyes, for the sword devoureth one as well as another: -encourage him!” There it is in the light, and to be ever in the light, published in the book of inspiration, handed down from generation to generation, to be read by all eyes that will, and by the people of God assuredly, as long as the word of God shall last! Yes, down to the seven days of mourning of the wife for her husband by her sin done to death, after which “David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife.”
David, too, has faced that ever since, and faces it still: he will face it ever. It is put away, that sin, yet it remains, and will remain, type of all sins of His people, and of God’s dealing with them: out of the holy light of eternity they will never pass, -out of our memories never! Here is man, here is his condemnation, -redeemed, saved, justified man! Thyself; reader; myself. Cease ye from man forever! -from ourselves, sinner or saint! Turn we to God forever, and let us ascribe greatness and salvation to Him alone.
This is what an unexercised conscience can bring a David to. This is what lack of self-judgment, with temptation and opportunity, may make of a saint! Shall we not cry afresh, with David himself, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting”?
(3) “Lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” Even among Christians, paralysis of conscience is not rare. Not, indeed, general paralysis, which would be as fatal spiritually as it is naturally, but a local paralysis. Touch a man at one point, he is all alive; he can feel acutely; he can denounce earnestly: touch him at another, there is no response; it is not even that he feels, but governs himself and gives no answer: no, he does not even feel it. Take two things judged by the Word alike as contrary to God, how differently will the minds of even true Christians be affected by them! Take the question of moral evil,with the mass, perhaps,of Christians today, how little are they affected by the most serious doctrinal evil in comparison with this! They would league readily with Unitarians or any others for the suppression of drunkenness, when if you asked them to league with drunkards for the suppression of Unitarianism, they would open their eyes with astonishment. And they would be quite right in the latter case, of course; but is the denial of Christ less serious? If we are to judge by the Word we shall have to say that, if the one is fleshly, the other is devilish; if the truth it is that sanctifies, the denial of the truth is to prohibit sanctification. And who in the light of Christianity will stand up to defend drunkenness? while as an angel of light Satan can propagate the other.
It is true that this may be urged upon the other side, that what the conscience of men almost universally condemns must be the most pernicious evil; and that to get men to Christ you must first reform them: but this is mere natural judgment only, and the denial of the gospel and of the power of Christ.
It will be found, one must fear, that with the highest possible standard of judgment, those who accept the word of God as that are practically far below it, and walk not in the light of the sanctuary, but in the common light of men. And how easily, if at any time the walk is not with God, does the standard lower itself to something much nearer the level of the walk! Adepts as we are at self-deceit, if the eye be not single and the whole body be not full of light, and if we can no longer see, we dream, -shaping our dreams also in a way which will show clearly (to others, at least) the quality of our slumber: “if the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”
Thus David’s sin, with all its aggravation, does not seem to have been like a blow that wakes one with a start to consciousness and pain, but like the heavier blow or fall that brings unconsciousness. His demeanor before Nathan does not betray at least the convicted sinner, while he listens to the story, so much less grave than his, of the rich man, with his flocks and herds, singling out for slaughter for his pleasure the one pet ewe lamb of the poor man his neighbor. At the end he is wrought into a passion of justice, which falls, one can see plainly, in the most unlooked-for way, upon himself at the disclosure, “Thou art the man.” Then comes the summing up, item by item, of his guilt, the word of Jehovah that breaks the rocks asunder, and makes the mightiest and proudest quake before it; until humbled, silenced, all the fire gone out of him, not the judge now but the criminal, he bows to receive the sentence of the Lord. Out of his own house, that house of which once so differently, and “not after the manner of men,” had Jehovah spoken, -out of that house should evil now arise, the blessing banned, because he had profaned it. He had struck at the holiest of nature’s ties; and nature in his own cherished ties should strike him. Think of how he would look now into. the faces of his children, and shudder, asking himself, which of these was to be the destined wrath of God upon his sin, -which of these sons of his strength should smite his father!
But the sentence is passed, and is not to be revoked: it has smitten him with a divinely directed blow right on the head of his sin; yea, it is his sin that smites him. But he does not say, “I have sinned against myself,” though that be true; nor does he plead against his sentence. He does not say, though that be plainly true, “I have sinned against my brother.” Nor does he profess his penitence even, adding to his confession what is meant as some balance, however slight, over against it. His mouth is stopped as to all this: he knows God and himself too well. “I have sinned against Jehovah” is now all that he can say; and the flash of divine light which has revealed this to him is more, as one sees, than the thunder-peal which follows it. Such is true conviction.
Accordingly, the voice of divine mercy is not delayed: “Jehovah has also put away thy sin: thou shalt not die.” For sin such as his, there was in the law no offering or sacrifice: death was the righteous penalty, which only could be remitted directly by the Throne above the throne. And this is the meaning of what he declares in his psalm of penitence: “for Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou delightest not in burnt-offering”; and then, in contrast with that, he shows what God had accepted as of more value with Him: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.” (Psa 51:16-17.)
This is not, of course, a denial of the worth and need of sacrifice, but only of such as were in his hand to bring, or the law could ordain. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin; and for sins like David’s these were not spoken of at all. What really availed to prevent the extreme sentence, when nothing else could, was just the broken heart,” divinely convicted, which God saw in him. This is no question of atonement: there was no atonement made with God by this conviction; the atonement -for David and for all others -was made on Calvary alone; only through this could the mercy of God prevail against judgment. The contrite heart was only, as a “sacrifice,” upon the footing of the legal sacrifices, as having efficacy through the work to which they pointed; -though more efficacious than these because it testified of real faith on the part of him in whom it had produced this, and which linked him with that in which the efficacy truly was.
Yet the government of God is not displaced by the grace shown, nor would it be grace that did displace it. The throne becomes a “throne of grace,” but is no less one may reverently say, all the more -a throne. God reigns, through Christ’s work, in the joyful hearts of the redeemed. The knowledge of Him who reigns makes His reign to be the one necessity, and rest, and joy. His acts are light and love. If there be evil, He must be seen to be in opposition to the evil, even as He seeks in His love to deliver men from it. His chastenings are needed by His children, because they are children; they are needed, also, as witness to the world of what He is. Thus for David the government of God is not hindered but necessitated by the relation that David bears to Him: “because by this thing thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of Jehovah to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.”.
To remove this sentence, therefore, all David’s fasting and prayer are ineffectual. The king mourns but submits, and to the question of his servants as to his change of conduct on hearing of the child’s death he answers by showing that it was not mere natural grief that had actuated him, nor would he fret against the Lord by useless sorrow. The child had gone whither David himself would follow, and where he would find him: in this certainly he expresses the comfort that remains for him of meeting in eternity the babe of a few days’ existence upon earth.
The birth and naming of Solomon shows us, on the other hand, how complete was the divine forgiveness, and how completely David’s heart was possessed by it. “Peaceful” could he be and call this child of Bathsheba, spite even of the unrevoked declaration as to the sword upon his house. The future is not untroubled, and yet his heart is. There is a true peace in submission, where God is known in His perfect love: that “perfect love casteth out fear”; and how else is this ever attainable?
And to this faith Jehovah answers: not hence is the blow to come, though it might well be thought so. Where our sin has been met and healed by the grace of God in self-judgment, there are we strongest against attack; the enemy will rather select another part. This son of Bathsheba, son of peace as he is to his father’s heart, God seals to him as His gift, with a love the barrier of which cannot be broken through: “Jehovah loved him; and he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet, and called him Jedidiah,” “beloved of Jah.” Let us bless God for a love that can so triumph over sin.
(4) And now the chief city of Ammon falls, -Rabbah, the “great.” Were we in the line of former symbolism, the connection of this with what immediately precedes would not be doubtful. Let God’s great remedy for sin be understood and realized in souls, the stronghold of heresy (of which the Ammonite speaks) is surely taken, and the power of it destroyed. The mind wanders from God because the heart has wandered, -if indeed it has ever known Him. The apprehension of grace it is that keeps the heart, and delivers therefore from the dominion of sin, putting one under Him in whose presence is our sanctuary from it. Grace maintains the sovereignty of God for the soul; while he who is not at peace with God in the knowledge of it invents, or is ready to accept the invention of, a God with whom he can be at peace. The son of Bathsheba being born, Rabbah falls. For Bathsheba here attains the power of her name, which, we have seen, is “daughter of the oath,” and equivalent to what she is also called, Bathshua, the “daughter of salvation.” Thus all is of a piece.
A gleam of typical meaning would, in fact, seem to flash out here, most appropriately, surely. And in this way we need not find fault with our David, if he deal however severely with the Ammonite. Scripture is severe enough against doctrinal evil,which is the dishonor of God and the perversion of the truth which alone sanctifies. The knowledge of God in Christ is not consistent with indifference to that which affects His glory. The crown which the Ammonite king usurps belongs to David’s head, which alone can easily sustain the weight of it: the error must meet its judgment.
Historically we are in no way inclined to justify the king of Israel. There may have been retaliation for Ammonite barbarities, such as Nahash’s threatening of the men of Jabesh would prepare us for. Nothing of this, however, is in the history, which leaves all moral questions of this kind in general to the conscience of the reader. David has not shown himself in any way beyond criticism; and the word of God does not, as we know, cover up anything. The customs of the times were barbarous. We leave all this as really outside our province, and beyond our power to deal with aright. The instruction that we need lies in another direction.
The Books of the Kings.
F. W. Grant.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
2Sa 10:1. The king of the children of Ammon died Who, it appears by the next verse, was Nahash, to whom Saul gave a very great defeat at Jabesh-Gilead, 1 Samuel 11.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Sa 10:4. Shavedhalf their beard. The critics make many quotations from ancient authors, showing how high a value eastern nations set on the hair of the head and beard; and even at the present time the mutilating of the beard would be deemed among the Turks the greatest insult that could be offered. In the year 1764, says Motraye, when Kerim Khan sent to demand tribute for his possessions in Kermesir, Mir Mahenna maltreated the officer, and caused his beard to be shaved. See also Leviticus 19. Deuteronomy 14.
2Sa 10:5. Jericho was inhabited, but not fortified.
2Sa 10:6. The Syrians of Beth-rehob. Rehob reigned on the east and west of the Euphrates. David had before defeated these Syrians: 2Sa 8:3. The Babylonian empire must, of course, have been weak in the time of David. The cavalry were hired from Mesopotamia. 1 Chronicles 19.King Maacah, a prince to whom Jephthah fled.Ish-tob, which Josephus turns, king of Tob.Zoba, a city forty miles east of Damascus.
2Sa 10:16. The Syriansbeyond the river Euphrates. Helam is not found in ancient maps. King Hadarezer had contributed, through malice, to make David illustrious, and to fulfil the word of the Lord, that the boundary of Israel should be from the river Euphrates to the river of Egypt; and though that kingdom had partially recovered its strength, it was now overthrown, for Solomon built Tadmor, not far from Zobah. 2Ch 8:4.
2Sa 10:18. Seven hundred is here mis-written for seven thousand, as appears from 1Ch 19:18. Horsemen also, as in the Septuagint, and in Josephus, is rendered footmen.
REFLECTIONS.
A kindness done to bad men is soon forgotten, unless it be that they ask a repetition of favours; but a kindness done to the good is often amply repaid, and when the least expected. Nahash, and a more worthy person than the Nahash who demanded the right eyes of all the men in Jabesh- gilead, had showed some kindness to David, and now he wished to send a most respectful embassy to congratulate his son on his accession to the throne of his father. This was a duty towards a nation with whom David was at amity. This prince, it would seem, if we may draw a parallel between him and Rehoboam, had dismissed his fathers venerable ministers, and surrounded his person with juvenile companions, who persuaded him to suspect and insult the embassy, which insult was accounted as done to Davids own person. What a calamity when the helm of state is in the hands of a man who has no discretion! But when God is about to ruin a nation, he sends distraction on their councils. When the Ammonites saw the gathering storm, they made no overtures of satisfaction; but hired their neighbours to fight against Israel. Thus wicked men are very apt to involve others in their quarrels and calamities, till a general ruin be the consequence.
The character of Joab, as a general, here rises high. When he saw himself opposed by Ammon, and flanked by his allies, he instantly formed the plans of battle. He chose to fight the Assyrians as the best equipped and disciplined troops, and left his brother to oppose Ammon, giving each other the promise of mutual support, in case of disaster, from the enemys numerous forces of chariots and cavalry. This was a prompt and consummate display of skill, as the issue realized. And may not the christian learn of this great, though wicked man, how to stand and fight for God? Sinners are as much infatuated now in opposing the Lord and Saviour, as the Ammonites were in opposing David. He sends them kind messages, inviting them to friendship and love: but infidel in principle, and profligate in habit, they deride his servants, and mock at his message. What then may they not expect from his vengeance? He will trample upon them in his fury, and stain all his raiment with their blood. Let us also learn of Joab and Abishai to support one another in the conflict, and especially in sending missionaries to the ends of the earth, that our glorious David may triumph over all the heathen, and stretch the lines of his empire, wide as prophecy has announced it, to the full extent of his dominion.
The overthrow of Ammon and his allies was the cause of fresh alarms to Davids foes, and of adding fresh laurels to his crown. The king of Assyria attacked him with the whole force of his kingdom, and lost forty thousand men, perhaps twenty thousand more, who fell in the seven thousand chariots. How often have nations, risen in wickedness, and consequently infatuated, destroyed themselves by an injudicious resistance to a rising empire. Evidently doomed in the sentence of heaven to exist no more as nations, they have precipitated themselves into the abyss, and been rolled away in the tempest of desolation. The ruins of their temples and cities, the fragments of their laws and poems alone seem to exist, to tell posterity how great was their glory, how shameful their wickedness, and how tremendous their fall. Yet we ourselves, as though fated to similar calamities, seem incapable of receiving instruction for the future, by a contemplation of the past.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 Samuel 10. War with the Ammonites and the Syrians (J).
2Sa 10:1-5. The king of Ammon insults Davids ambassadors. [J. G. Frazer (Taboo and the Perils of the Soul, p. 273) connects Hanuns action with the well-known belief that to get possession of the hair of a person is to have him in ones power. He supposes that Hanun, distrusting Davids designs and desirous to have some guarantee of peace, thought he secured this by retaining half the beards and garments He quotes as a parallel the treatment of a traitor by two Moabite Arabs who shaved completely one side of his head and his moustache on the other, and set him at liberty.A. S. P.]
2Sa 10:6-14. The Ammonites hire mercenaries from the Syrian states; Joab takes command of the general levy of Israel and the standing army (read, the host and the mighty men; probably Davids 600 were continued as the nucleus of a standing army). Joab marched to the gate, i.e. of Rabbah, the capital of Ammon; and though caught between the Ammonites and the Syrians, won a signal victory.
2Sa 10:6. Beth-rehob: Num 13:21*.Maachah: Deu 3:14.Tob: Jdg 11:3*.
2Sa 10:15-19. Further victories over the Syrians. Apparently a variant of 2Sa 8:3-8, which see; perhaps an editorial addition.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
The Ammonites were of the family of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). We have seen in 1Sa 2:1 that in Saul’s day their king was called “Nahash,” which means “serpent.” It is thought likely that this was a flattering title given to Ammonite kings because the serpent was considered to be the symbol of wisdom. Of course the wisdom of the world is “devilish” (Jam 3:15): this is not true wisdom, but subtlety. Ammon is the picture of satanically false religion. Its wicked cruelty was rewarded by a crushing defeat by Saul in 1Sa 11:11. if the “Nahash” then ruling was killed in that battle, then Nahash, the father of Hanun was likely his son. Yet it may be the same Nahash, who could be cunning enough to outwardly show kindness to David because of David’s separation from Saul. At any rate, the kindness of an Ammonite is always deceitful, and David was not wise to seek to encourage friendship with this enemy of God.
David therefore erred in his too gracious desire to return this kindness by sending men with a message of sympathy concerning the death of the father of Hanun (v.2). The princes of Ammon were suspicious, just as people of false religions are suspicious of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. False doctrines never give honest credit to the grace of God, but emphasize the legal principle of man’s self-righteousness. Its motives are selfish, therefore it suspects the same selfish motives in others. These princes decide that David’s men were merely sent as spies (v.3).
They therefore resort to the gross folly of treating David’s men with insulting contempt, shaving off half of their beards and cutting off their garments in the middle as far as their hips, sending them away deeply humiliated (v.4). When David heard this he first gave the men a vacation at Jericho until their beards grew. Nothing is said of how David himself responded to this offensive insult that was leveled at him and at Israel, nor are we told of any move that David made with a view to attacking Ammon before Ammon began preparations for battle.
The Ammonites knew perfectly well that David and Israel would greatly resent this insult, and decided to prepare to take the offensive rather than to wait to defend themselves. They were not confident of their own power to defeat Israel, so that they sent to the Syrians to hire a total of 33,000 soldiers to help them. It may be that the Syrians wanted an opportunity to revenge their former defeat by Israel. These armies gathered together against Israel before we read of David’s taking any action. The Ammonites came to “the entrance of the gate,” but we are not told what city this was. The Syrians were in the field. Thus Israel was faced with a two-front formidable array.
When Joab went out to meet the Ammonites and Syrians, he evidently considered the Syrians a greater threat than the Ammonites, for he chose choice men to go with him against Syria while the remaining soldiers he sent with Abishai to engage the Ammonites (vs.9-10). They each agreed to help the other if the need arose (v.11). Though it seems doubtful that Joab was a born again man, his words. here (v.12) are good. He knew it was important to give God His place in the battle, and that God would work His own will. Applying this in a personal way is a different matter.
When Joab and his men attacked, the Syrians were quickly put to flight (v.13). We are not told at this time how many were killed, but the Ammonites, seeing the Syrians flee, were themselves taken with fear and turned to flee into the city, which appears to be an Ammonite city (v.14). The victory was gained with apparently not too much bloodshed, and Joab and his army returned to Jerusalem.
However, Syria was still not willing to admit total defeat. Hadadezer, the Syrian king of Zobah, of whom we have read in Chapter 8:3-8 as being soundly defeated by David, was evidently thirsting for revenge and mustered a larger army, enlisting Syrians from east of the Euphrates River to supplement his own large company (v.16).
When David received information of this assemblage, he did not wait for the Syrians to cross the Jordan to attack Israel, but gathered all Israel to cross the Jordan going eastward, to meet the enemy before they came near Jerusalem (v.17). This gave them no time to plot any special strategy. The battle was evidently not very prolonged. The Syrians again fled and David’s men killed 700 charioteers and 40,000 horsemen, an enormous decimation of an army that had not previously boasted that total number (v.6). The Syrian commander, Shobach, was among those killed. The Ammonites had evidently faded into the background: they are not even mentioned in this battle, though they had started the whole thing.
Hadadezer and the kings under him could do nothing but accept defeat: they made peace with Israel and submitted to their authority, having been taught a serious lesson not to help the Ammonites (v.11).
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
B. God’s Faithfulness despite David’s Unfaithfulness chs. 10-12
These chapters form a sub-section within the Court History portion of 2 Samuel. [Note: Youngblood, p. 920.] The phrase "Now it happened" or "Now it was" (2Sa 10:1; 2Sa 13:1) always opens a new section. [Note: Wolfgang Roth, "You Are the Man! Structural Interaction in 2 Samuel 10-12." Semeia 8 (1977):4; John I. Lawlor, "Theology and Art in the Narrative of the Ammonite War (2 Samuel 10-12)," Grace Theological Journal 3:2 (1982):193.] Descriptions of Israel’s victories over the Ammonites (2Sa 10:1 to 2Sa 11:1; 2Sa 12:26-31) frame the David and Bathsheba story. Similarly, descriptions of David sparing Saul’s life (1 Samuel 24, 26) frame the David and Abigail story (1 Samuel 25). The parallel passage in 1 Chronicles (2Sa 19:1 to 2Sa 20:3) spans 2 Samuel 10-12 while omitting the David and Bathsheba incident. The motif word salah ("send") appears 23 times in this section but only 21 times in the rest of the Court History. Its occurrence may signal the development of a power motif here. [Note: Lawlor, p. 196; Randall C. Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12.]
1. The Ammonite rebellion ch. 10
This section prepares for David’s adultery with Bathsheba (ch. 11) by giving us the historical context in which that sin took place. It also shows David’s growing power that led to his sinning. [Note: For a helpful study of the structure and narrative technique of this pericope, see Lawlor.] David’s growing power had previously led to his sinning by marrying Abigail (1Sa 25:39).
This event must have taken place early in David’s reign, probably after his goodness to Mephibosheth (ch. 9). Again David showed kindness to a son for his father’s sake, but this time the objects of David’s kindness were Gentiles. In this instance David’s kindness (Heb. hesed, 2Sa 10:2; cf. 2Sa 9:1) was neither appreciated nor reciprocated, as is still the case occasionally. The evidence for this is as follows.
King Nahash of Ammon had just died. This king had threatened Jabesh-gilead at the start of Saul’s reign (1Sa 11:1-11), so Nahash must have reigned longer than 40 years. However, he must not have reigned much longer than that. If he had done so, he would have had an unusually long reign. Furthermore, when the Ammonites humiliated David’s soldiers (2Sa 10:4), they showed no fear of Israel. This would have been their reaction only at the beginning of David’s reign, not after he had subdued all his enemies. Probably Hanun shaved the beards of David’s messengers vertically to make them look very foolish (cf. Isa 7:20). [Note: Youngblood, p. 922.] Military victors sometimes humiliated their captives by exposing their buttocks (cf. Isa 20:4). Notice that Hanun’s advisors assumed David’s worst motives rather than the best, which is a temptation for many people.
"As the hair on Samson’s shorn head ultimately grew back (Jdg 16:22) and proved to be a bad omen for the Philistines, so also the regrowth of the beards of David’s men would portend disaster for the Ammonites." [Note: Ibid., p. 923.]
The fact that Zobah, Aramea, and other northeastern enemies of Israel would ally with Ammon also suggests that this event took place before David had brought them under his authority (2Sa 10:19; cf. 2Sa 8:3-8). Perhaps 993-990 B.C. are reasonable dates for the Ammonite wars with Israel. [Note: Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., p. 244.]
"One may also note that there is at least no explicit consultation of Yahweh, such as described in 2Sa 2:1 and 2Sa 5:19; 2Sa 5:23." [Note: Anderson, p. 149.]
The first battle took place at Medeba in Transjordan (2Sa 10:8; cf. 1Ch 19:7). Note Joab’s commendable spirituality in 2Sa 10:12. David first had Joab lead his army against the enemy (2Sa 10:7), but later David himself went into battle and led his soldiers (2Sa 10:17). Later David would stay behind in Jerusalem and let Joab lead again (2Sa 11:1). Saul also got into trouble when he stayed behind rather than leading his people against their enemy (1 Samuel 14). Similarly, Jesus Christ is allowing His followers to engage in spiritual warfare now. However, the time is coming when He will personally return to the scene of opposition and subdue other Gentile enemies who have rejected his grace (cf. Rev 19:11-16).
Another textual problem exists in 2Sa 10:18. Probably 1Ch 19:18 is correct in recording 7,000 charioteers. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, p. 380.] Probably the writers of Samuel and Chronicles used different terms to describe the same fighting force in 2Sa 10:6 and 1Ch 19:6-7 a, and in 2Sa 10:18 and 1Ch 19:18. [Note: Zane C. Hodges, "Conflicts in the Biblical Account of the Ammonite-Syrian War," Bibliotheca Sacra 119:475 (July-September 1962):238-43.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XIII.
DAVID AND HANUN.
2Sa 10:1-19.
POWERFUL though David had proved himself in every direction in the art of war, his heart was inclined to peace. A king who had been victorious over so many foes had no occasion to be afraid of a people like the Ammonites. It could not have been from fear therefore that, when Nahash the king of the Ammonites died, David resolved to send a friendly message to his son. Not the least doubt can be thrown on the statement of the history that what moved him to do this was a grateful remembrance of the kindness which he had at one time received from the late king. The position which he had gained as a warrior would naturally have made Hanun more afraid of David than David could be of Hanun. The king of Israel could not have failed to know this, and it might naturally occur to him that it would be a kindly act to the young king of Ammon to send him a message that showed that he might thoroughly rely on his friendly intentions. The message to Hanun was another emanation of a kindly heart. If there was anything of policy in it, it was the policy of one who felt that so many things are continually occurring to set nations against one another as to make it most desirable to improve every opportunity of drawing them closer together.
It is a happy thing for any country when its rulers and men of influence are ever on the watch for opportunities to strengthen the spirit of friendship. It is a happy thing in the Church when the leaders of different sections are more disposed to measures that conciliate and heal than to measures that alienate and divide. In family life, and wherever men of different views and different tempers meet, this peace-loving spirit is of great price. Men that like fighting, and that are ever disposed to taunt, to irritate, to divide, are the nuisances of society. Men that deal in the soft answer, in the message of kindness, and in the prayer of love, deserve the respect and gratitude of all.
It is a remarkable thing that, of all the nations that were settled in the neighbourhood of the Israelites, the only one that seemed desirous to live on friendly terms with them was that of Tyre. Even those who were related to them by blood, – Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, Ammonites, – were never cordial, and often at open hostility. Though their rights had been carefully respected by the Israelites on their march from Sinai to Palestine, no feeling of cordial friendship was established with any of them. None of them were impressed even so much as Balaam had been, when in language so beautiful he blessed the people whom God had blessed. None of them threw in their lot with Israel, in recognition of their exalted spiritual privileges, as Hobab and his people had done near Mount Sinai. Individuals, like Ruth the Moabitess, had learned to recognize the claims of Israel’s God and the privileges of the covenant, but no entire nation had ever shown even an inclination to such a course. These neighbouring nations continued therefore to be fitting symbols of that world-power which has so generally been found in antagonism to the people of God. Israel while they continued faithful to God were like the lily among thorns; and Israel’s king, like Him whom he typified, was called to rule in the midst of his enemies. The friendship of the surrounding world cannot be the ordinary lot of the faithful servant, otherwise the Apostle would not have struck such a loud note of warning. “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, would be the friend of the world is the enemy of God.”
Between the Ammonites and the Israelites collisions had occurred on two former occasions, on both of which the Ammonites appear to have been the aggressors. The former of these was in the days of Jephthah. The defeat of the Ammonites at that time was very thorough, and probably unexpected, and, like other defeats of the same kind, it no doubt left feelings of bitter hatred rankling in the breasts of the defeated party. The second was the collision at Jabesh-gilead at the beginning of the reign of Saul. The king of the Ammonites showed great ferocity and cruelty on that occasion. When the men of Jabesh, brought to bay, begged terms of peace, the bitter answer was returned that it would be granted only on condition that every man’s right eye should be put out. It was then that Saul showed such courage and promptitude. In the briefest space he was at Jabesh-gilead in defense of his people, and by his successful tactics inflicted on the Ammonites a terrible defeat, killing a great multitude and scattering the remainder, so that not any two of them were left together. Men do not like to have a prize plucked from their hands when they are on the eve of enjoying it. After such a defeat, Nahash could not have very friendly feelings to Saul. And when Saul proclaimed David his enemy, Nahash would naturally incline to David’s side. There is no record of the occasion on which he showed kindness to him, but in all likelihood it was at the time when he was in the wilderness, hiding from Saul. If, when David was near the head of the Dead Sea, and therefore not very far from the land of the Ammonites, or from places where they had influence, Nahash sent him any supplies for his men, the gift would be very opportune, and there could be no reason why David should not accept of it. Anyhow, the act of kindness, whatever it was, made a strong impression on his heart. It was long, long ago when it happened, but love has a long memory, and the remembrance of it was still pleasant to David. And now the king of Israel purposes to repay to the son the debt he had incurred to the father. Up to this point it is a pretty picture; and it is a great disappointment when we find the transaction miscarry, and a negotiation which began in all the warmth and sincerity of friendship terminate in the wild work of war.
The fault of this miscarriage, however, was glaringly on the other side. Hanun was a young king, and it would only have been in accordance with the frank and unsuspecting spirit of youth had he received David’s communication with cordial pleasure, and returned to it an answer in the same spirit in which it was sent. But his counselors were of another mind. They persuaded their master that the pretext of comforting him on the death of his father was a hollow one, and that David desired nothing but to spy out the city and the country, with a view to bring them under his dominion. It is hard to suppose that they really believed this. It was they, not David, that wished a pretext for going to war. And having got something that by evil ingenuity might be perverted to this purpose, they determined to treat it so that it should be impossible for David to avoid the conflict. Hanun appears to have been a weak prince, and to have yielded to their counsels. Our difficulty is to understand how sane men could have acted in such a way. The determination to provoke war, and the insolence of their way of doing it, appear so like the freaks of a madman, that we cannot comprehend how reasonable men should in cold blood have even dreamt of such proceedings. Perhaps at this early period they had an understanding with those Syrians that afterwards came to their aid, and thought that on the strength of this they could afford to be insolent. The combined force which they could bring into the field would be such as to make even David tremble.
It is hardly necessary to say a word to bring out the outrageous character of their conduct. First, there was the repulse of David’s kindness. It was not even declined with civility; it was repelled with scorn. It is always a serious thing to reject overtures of kindness. Even the friendly salutations of dumb animals are entitled to a friendly return, and the man that returns the caresses of his dog with a kick and a curse is a greater brute than the animal that he treats so unworthily. Kindness is too rare a gem to be trampled underfoot. Even though it should be mistaken kindness, though the form it takes should prove an embarrassment rather than a help, a good man will appreciate the motive that prompted it, and will be careful not to hurt the feelings of those who, though they have blundered, meant him well None are more liable to make mistakes than young children in their little efforts to please; meaning to be kind, they sometimes only give trouble The parent that gives way to irritation, and meets this with a volley of scolding, deals cruelly with the best and tenderest part of the child’s nature. There are few things more deserving to be attended to through life than the habit not only of appreciating little kindnesses, but showing that you appreciate them. How much more sweetly might the current run in social life if this were universally attended to!
But Hanun not only repelled David’s kindness, but charged him with meanness, and virtually flung in his face a challenge to war. To represent his apparent kindness as a mean cover of a hostile purpose was an act which Hanun might think little of, but which was fitted to wound David to the quick. Unscrupulous natures have a great advantage over others in the charges they may bring. In a street collision a man in dirty clothing is much more powerful for mischief than one in clean raiment. Rough, unscrupulous men are restrained by no delicacy from bringing atrocious charges against those to whom these charges are supremely odious. They have little sense of the sin of them, and they toss them about without scruple. Such poisoned arrows inflict great pain, not because the charges are just, but because it is horrible to refined natures even to hear them. There are two things that make some men very sensitive – the refinement of grace, and the refinement of the spirit of courtesy. The refinement of grace makes all sin odious, and makes a charge of gross sin very serious. The refinement of courtesy creates great regard to the feelings of others, and a strong desire not to wound them unnecessarily. In circles where real courtesy prevails, accusations against others are commonly couched in very gentle language. Rough natures ridicule this spirit, and pride themselves on their honesty in calling a spade a spade. Evidently Hanun belonged to the rough, unscrupulous school. Either he did not know how it would make David writhe to be accused of the alleged meanness, or, if he did know, he enjoyed the spectacle. It gratified his insolent nature to see the pious king of Israel posing before all the people of Ammon as a sneak and a liar, and to hear the laugh of scorn and hatred resounding on every side.
To these offences Hanun added yet another – scornful treatment of David’s ambassadors. In the eyes of all civilized nations the persons of ambassadors were held sacred, and any affront or injury to them was counted an odious crime. Very often men of eminent position, venerable age, and unblemished character were chosen for this function, and it is quite likely that David’s ambassadors to Hanun were of this class. When therefore these men were treated with contumely – half their beards, which were in a manner sacred, shorn away, their garments mutilated, and their persons exposed – no grosser insult could have been inflicted. When the king and his princes were the authors of this treatment, it must have been greatly enjoyed by the mass of the people, whose coarse glee over the dishonoured ambassadors of the great King David one can easily imagine. It is a painful moment when true worth and nobility lie at the mercy of insolence and coarseness, and have to bear their bitter revilings. Such things may happen in public controversy in a country where the utmost liberty of speech is allowed, and when men of ruffian mould find contumely and insult their handiest weapons. In times of religious persecution the most frightful charges have been hurled at the heads of godly men and women, whose real crime is to have striven to the utmost to obey God. Oh, how much need there is of patience to bear insult as well as injury! And insult will sometimes rouse the temper that injury does not ruffle. Oh for the spirit of Christ, who, when He was reviled, reviled not again!
The Ammonites did not wait for a formal declaration of war by David. Nor did they flatter themselves, when they came to their senses, that against one who had gained such renown as a warrior they could stand alone. Their insult to King David turned out a costly affair. To get assistance they had to give gold. The parallel passage in Chronicles gives a thousand talents of silver as the cost of the first bargain with the Syrians. These Syrian mercenaries came from various districts – Beth-rehob, Zoba, Beth-maacah, and Tob. Some of these had already been subdued by David; in other cases there was apparently no previous collision. But all of them no doubt smarted under the defeats which David had inflicted either on them or on their neighbours, and when a large subsidy was allotted to them to begin with, in addition to whatever booty might fall to their share if David should be subdued, it is no great wonder that an immense addition was made to the forces of the Ammonites. It became in fact a very formidable opposition; all the more that they were very abundantly supplied with chariots and horsemen, of which arm David had scarcely any. He met them first by sending out Joab and ”all the host” of the mighty men. The whole resources of his army were forwarded. And when Joab came to the spot, he found that he had a double enemy to face. The Ammonite army came out from the city to encounter him, while the Syrian army were encamped in the country, ready to place him between two fires when the battle began. To guard against this, Joab divided his force into two. The Syrian host was the more formidable body; therefore Joab went in person against it, at the head of a select body of troops chosen from the general army. The command of the remainder was given to his brother Abishai, who was left to deal with the Ammonites. If either section found its opponent too much for it, aid was to be given by the other. No fault can be found either with the arrangements made by Joab for the encounter or the spirit in which he entered on the fight. ”Be of good courage,” he said to his men, “and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of our God; and the Lord do that which seemeth to Him good.” It was just such an exhortation as David himself might have given. Some were trusting in chariots and some in horses, but they were remembering the name of the Lord their God. The first movement was made by Joab and his part of the army against the Syrians; it was completely successful; the Syrians fled before him, chariots and horsemen and all. When the Ammonite army saw the fate of the Syrians they did not even hazard a conflict, but wheeled about and made for the city. Thus ended their first proud effort to sustain and complete the humiliation of King David. The hired troops on which they had leaned so much turned out utterly untrustworthy; and the wretched Ammonites found themselves minus their thousand talents, without victory, and without honour.
But their allies the Syrians were not disposed to yield without another conflict. Determined to do his utmost. Hadarezer, king of the Syrians of Zobah, sent across the Euphrates, and prevailed on their neighbours there to join them in the effort to crush the power of David. That a very large number of these Mesopotamian Syrians responded to the invitation of Hadarezer is apparent from the number of the slain (2Sa 10:18). The matter assumed so serious an aspect that David himself was now constrained to take the field, at the head of “all Israel.” The Syrian troops were commanded by Shobach, who appears to have been a distinguished general. It must have been a death-struggle between the Syrian power and the power of David. But again the victory was with the Israelites, and among the slain were the men of seven hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen (1Ch 19:18, “footmen”), along with Shobach, captain of the Syrian host It must have been a most decisive victory, for after it took place all the states that had been tributary to Hadarezer transferred their allegiance to David. The Syrian power was completely broken; all help was withdrawn from the Ammonites, who were now left to bear the brunt of their quarrel alone. Single-handed, they had to look for the onset of the army which had so remarkably prevailed against all the power of Syria, and to answer to King David for the outrage they had perpetrated on his ambassadors. Very different must their feelings have been now from the time when they began to negotiate with Syria, and when, doubtless, they looked forward so confidently to the coming defeat and humiliation of King David.
It requires but a very little consideration to see that the wars which are so briefly recorded in this chapter must have been most serious and perilous undertakings. The record of them is so short, so unimpassioned, so simple, that many readers are disposed to think very little of them. But when we pause to think what it was for the king of Israel to meet, on foreign soil, confederates so numerous, so powerful, and so familiar with warfare, we cannot but see that these were tremendous wars. They were fitted to try the faith as well as the courage of David and his people to the very utmost. In seeking dates for those psalms that picture a multitude of foes closing on the writer, and that record the exercises of his heart, from the insinuations of fear at the beginning to the triumph of trust and peace at the end, we commonly think only of two events in David’s life, – the persecution of Saul and the insurrection of Absalom. But the Psalmist himself could probably have enumerated a dozen occasions when his danger and his need were as great as they were then. He must have passed through the same experience on these occasions as on the other two; and the language of the Psalms may often have as direct reference to the former as to the latter. We may understand, too, how the destruction of enemies became so prominent a petition in his prayers. What can a general desire and pray for, when he sees a hostile army, like a great engine of destruction, ready to dash against all that he holds dear, but that the engine may be shivered, deprived of all power of doing mischief – in other words, that the army may be destroyed? The imprecations in the Book of Psalms against his enemies must be viewed in this light. The military habit of the Psalmist’s mind made him think only of the destruction of those who, in opposing him, opposed the cause of God. It ought not to be imputed as a crime to David that he did not rise high above a soldier’s feelings; that he did not view things from the point of view of Christianity; that he was not a thousand years in advance of his age. The one outlet from the frightful danger which these Syrian hordes brought to him and his people was that they should be destroyed. Our blessed Lord gave men another view when He said, “The Son of man is come not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” He familiarized us with other modes of conquest. When He appeared to Saul on the way to Damascus, and turned the persecutor into the chief of apostles, He showed that there are other ways than that of destruction for delivering His Church from its enemies. “I send thee to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.” This commission to Saul gives us reason for praying, with reference to the most clever and destructive of the enemies of His Church, that by His Spirit He would meet them too, and turn them into other men. And not until this line of petition has been exhausted can we fail back in prayer on David’s method. Only when their repentance and conversion have become hopeless are we entitled to pray God to destroy the grievous wolves that work such havoc in His flock.