2 Samuel 10

Introduction

Chapter 10 recounts how David acted with good intentions.

But his motive was misunderstood.

And instead of creating friendship for Israel and himself, a bloody war resulted.

David had wished to demonstrate support for Hanun, the new king of Ammon.

Hanun, who’s name means “favored” was the son of Nahash.

You may remember from 1 Samuel that Nahash was the Ammonite who came against Jabesh-Gilead during the days of Saul.

The men of the city offered themselves in servitude if Nahash would make a treaty with them and spare the town.

The men of the city, offering themselves in servitude, petitioned Nabash to make a treaty with them; he agreed to do so on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel. Given a week’s reprieve from his threat, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army (, ; ). He later honored a reconciliation with David, which his son Hanun, on bad counsel, disregarded (; , ).

He agreed on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel … and he graciously gave them a week to think about it.

But instead, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army.

Strangely, it would seem that later David had developed a good relationship with Nahash.

And I guess the previous stuff was just water under the bridge.

It may have been that Nahash provided David refuge when he was fleeing from Saul, just as Achish, the Philistine king of Gath, had.

Later passages indicate that David had been on good terms with Nahash (; ). Nahash may have provided David refuge when he was fleeing from Saul, just as Achish, the Philistine king of Gath, had ().

And we will see in this chapter how his Nahash’s son Hanun, on bad counsel, chose to disregard whatever agreement was between David and his father.

Interestingly, later during Absolom’s rebellion, another son of Nahash by the name of Shobi, is 1 of 3 men who bring supplies to David at Mahanaim after his flight from Jerusalem.

----

another son of Nahash, is one of three men who bring supplies to David at Mahanaim in the Transjordan after he flees Jerusalem

Whatever the case … David wished to show support for Hanun, the new king of Ammon.

But in doing so, he violated what was commanded in regarding the Ammonites and the Moabites:

Deuteronomy 23:6 NKJV

You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.

Certainly, David did not mean to transgress this, but instead his desire was to show loyal love.

This would actually result in a lot of problems for David.

----

Now, we might recognize that there is a connection between chapter 9 and the loyal love that David showed for Mephibosheth and this chapter.

That principle is this: Whoever deals mercifully with the wicked will eventually be embarrassed and will suffer as a result.

In chapter 9, David brought Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth into his royal palace where he would live and have a place at the royal table all his life.

Mephibosheth, being Jonathan’s son was also the grandson of Saul and so he might have asserted some claim to the throne.

But David, because of the promise he had made to Jonathan chose to risk it and show kindness and mercy to Mephibosheth.

Likewise, David sought to show kindness and compassion on the son of Nahash.

But as we will see, the Ammonites decided that David was up to no good.

When they realize their mistake, instead of apologizing, they prepared for war.

We might recognize here also that David was more prone to mercy than he was to war.

In fact, for the most part David did not initiate the wars he won.

In context, the story is told to show that David did not initiate the wars he won, but fought out of necessity. Yet those who seek symbolic meaning may find it. Each person is invited to experience God’s kindness and loyal love. Those who humbly accept, like Mephibosheth, are blessed. Those who show contempt for God’s initiative and remain hostile to Him will be destroyed.

Instead, he fought out of necessity.

At the same time, when war was necessary, he did not hesitate and he saw it through to it’s end.

There is also some symbolic meaning here for us.

That is this: Each person is invited to experience God’s kindness and loyal love.

Yet those who seek symbolic meaning may find it. Each person is invited to experience God’s kindness and loyal love. Those who humbly accept, like Mephibosheth, are blessed. Those who show contempt for God’s initiative and remain hostile to Him will be destroyed.

Those who humbly accept, like Mephibosheth, are blessed.

Those who show contempt for God’s initiative and remain hostile to Him will be destroyed.

Such preference of kindness and compassion over war must at times be costly and seem imprudent.

David would suffer greatly because of his preference toward compassion.

Christ would also suffer greatly at the hands of the objects of God’s compassion.

Prayer: Heavenly Father, we thank You for everyone here this evening. Thank You that You know each of us by name and have caused us to walk with You. Lord, we open up Your word desiring to hear from You ... not man's word or wisdom, but Your Words and Wisdom. Please soften our hearts to receive from You.

v1-5

Having heard of the death of Nahash, David sent a delegation to console Hanun.

On top of this, it is always a wise political move to send ambassadors to establish good will.

As I mentioned earlier, scripture does not tell us what kindness Nahash had shown toward David.

Now, this is extra biblical and is found in the Midrash, but it relates that when David had left his family with the king of Moab for their protection, the king had murdered them.

It further relates that Nahash had moved to protect David’s only surviving brother, Elihu.

Again, this is essentially speculation as there is literally no evidence of this in scripture … so this is essentially tradition rather than scriptural.

Remember that Saul’s first military victory was over Nahash and the Ammonite army when they attacked Jabesh Gilead as recorded in .

That being said, it would make sense for Nahash, an enemy of Saul, to help David who was seen by Saul’s enemies as a danger to Saul’s rule.

Like the Ammonites, the Moabites were descendants of Lot () and therefore relatives of the Jews.

King Saul’s first military victory was over Nahash and the Ammonite army when they attacked Jabesh Gilead ().

King Saul’s first military victory was over Nahash and the Ammonite army when they attacked Jabesh Gilead (). Like the Ammonites, the Moabites were descendants of Lot () and therefore relatives of the Jews. How did David become friendly with the Ammonites when his predecessor was at war with them? It probably occurred when David was in exile and appeared to be at war with Saul. During those “outlaw years,” David tried to build a network of friendships outside Israel that he hoped would help him when he became king. The phrase “show kindness” can carry the meaning of “make a covenant,” so it may have been David’s desire not only to comfort Hanun but also to make a treaty with him.

Yet, the Ammonites and the Moabites had been enemies of Israel, even to the time of Saul.

Like the Ammonites, the Moabites were descendants of Lot () and therefore relatives of the Jews.

So then, if the solution the Midrash presents us with might be more tradition than truth … How did David become friendly with the Ammonites when his predecessor was at war with them?

Well, it probably occurred when David was in exile and appeared to be at war with Saul.

During those years of hiding, David worked to build a network of friendships outside Israel that he hoped would help him when he became king.

Given the lack of testimony in scripture to what tradition might say, this explanation makes much more sense given what we know about David’s convenient friendship with the Philistine king.

----

Now, as for David’s motivation in sending this delegation, we have his words, “I will show kindness … as his father showed kindness to me.”

Could it be the other way around?

Could this have some other subtext that we are missing?

I bring this up because it seems logical that David who is a man after God’s own heart would not be doing something contrary to what scripture says.

And let’s remember that Deuteronomy says in regards to the Ammonites and the Moabites:

Deuteronomy 23:6 NKJV

You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.

Perhaps there is an undertone to David’s statement.

Something like … Nahash threatened my people and sought to do them harm, therefore … “I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me.”

Well, that is certainly not the case because the Hebrew phrase employed here carries the meaning of “loyalty.”

It appears that there was some kind of treaty in play between David and Nahash that both had been loyal to, and David is seeking that same kind of treaty with his son.

And this is why David sends the delegation.

But why then are Hanun and his ministers so suspicious of David’s motives?

If they had known that the Torah forbid David from doing this … that might be a reason.

Or it might have simply been that some of them had never trusted David and those suspicious ones now had the ear of Nahash’s son.

Whatever

Whatever the case, immaturity and ignorance triumphed over wisdom and common sense.

The inexperienced new king listened to his suspicious advisers and treated David’s men as though they were spies.

----

Verse 4 tells us how they treated the ambassadors that David had sent.

They shaved the ambassadors’ faces, leaving but one side of each beard intact, and then cut the men’s garments off at the waist and sent them out that way.

It was a bizarre response, but one that was meant to show contempt.

Certainly, it would be embarrassing to be sent out only half clothed, but more clothes could be acquired.

The beards, however, would take time to grow back.

The Torah in several places such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy stated that a Jewish man’s beard was to be left intact.

Leviticus 19:27 NKJV

You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.

So then, to do such a thing as shave half a man’s beard would have been very insulting and embarrassing.

The question might be asked, however, that if he suspected the men of being spies, why wouldn’t he have them executed?

Well, it may have been that Hanun felt there were both good intentions and evil intentions.

And so he thought he was being quite clever in shaving half their face and cutting half their clothes.

Another option is that his ministers were sending a message … “You Israelites are no better than us.”

You see, cutting the bottom half of the Ambassadors robes would have removed the tassles that marked them as Israelites.

And cutting off part of their beards would also have been an insult to their national identity.

Whatever the case … whatever his motivation … it would prove to be a terrible mistake.

But it would prove to be a terrible mistake.

It was virtually a declaration of war, leaving David with no option but to follow suit.

David now recognized that

v6–14

It was treating them as though they were prisoners of war (), and it also meant removing some of the tassels on their garments that identified them as Jews (; ).

v6–14

The members of the delegation could easily secure other garments, but it would take time for their beards to grow; so they stayed in Jericho until they looked presentable.

However, new beards couldn’t erase old wounds.

When King Hunan allowed his officials to mistreat the delegation, he not only insulted the men personally, but he also insulted King David who sent them and the nation they represented.

In short, it was a declaration of war.

David had the ambassadors wait at Jericho, which was close to the Ammonite boarder.

It was an outpost, so there was minimal exposure to other people.

At the same time, it was a reminder for a staging Israelite army of what had happened.

And it was a reminder for the new Ammonite king of how he had overreacted.

And realizing they had overreacted, Hanun and his court expected David to attack.

However, new beards couldn’t erase old wounds.

When King Hunan allowed his officials to mistreat the delegation, he not only insulted the men personally, but he also insulted King David who sent them and the nation they represented.

In short, it was a declaration of war.

And realizing they had overreacted, Hanun and his court expected David to attack.

Hanun did not have an army that was a match for David’s.

So, he started to hire on mercenaries hoping to get the first strike against Israel.

In fact … David reacted by mobilizing his troops under his military commander, Joab.

Hanun did not have an army that was a match for David’s.

So, he started to hire on mercenaries hoping to get the first strike against Israel.

Hanun wasn’t prepared for war, especially against a seasoned general like Joab AND a military king like David.

However, new beards couldn’t erase old wounds.

When King Hunan allowed his officials to mistreat the delegation, he not only insulted the men personally, but he also insulted King David who sent them and the nation they represented.

In short, it was a declaration of war.

But King Hunan wasn’t prepared for war, especially against a seasoned general like Joab and a famous king like David; so he paid a thousand talents of silver () to hire troops from the north, including Syrians and Arameans, nations that David eventually defeated (8:12).

So, according to , he paid a thousand talents of silver to hire troops from the north.

These troops included Syrians and Arameans, … nations that David eventually defeated.

One thousand talents of silver was a huge amount of money … enough to gain him 33,000 additional soldiers with 32,000 chariots (as says).

So, this huge military force joined with the Ammonite army in attacking the Jewish army.

----

With verse 7 we see that David appointed Joab to lead the army rather than lead it himself as he had done in the past.

The text doesn’t explain why.

Perhaps it was so that the Ammonites couldn’t boast about having gone to war against the very king of Israel.

But it also might have been out of David’s respect for Hanun’s father, Nahash.

Whatever the case, Joab was selected by David to lead the war against these 2 armies … the Ammonite army and their hired mercenary army.

So, Joab faced two armies who were using a pincer movement to defeat Israel.

So, Joab faced two armies who were seeking to defeat Israel.

They were probably using a military tactic made most famous by the German army in WWII called the pincer movement.

Actually, Joab faced two armies who were using a pincer movement to defeat Israel, with the Syrians and Arameans coming from the north and the Ammonites coming from the south.

The pincer movement is a military maneuver in which forces simultaneously attack both sides of an enemy formation.

Sun Tzu wrote about it in the early 6th century BC.

It was used most famously at the battle of Marathon and then also it was used by Hannibal against Rome.

It was used in the Revolutionary War.

But again, most people would think of Germany and their Blitzkrieg tactics during WWII.

Prior to any of these examples, Israel’s army faced the Ammonite army and this mercenary army attempting the same tactic.

But with another twist …

The Syrian and Aramean mercenaries were coming from the north and the Ammonites were coming from the south.

But note what verse 8 says … The Ammonites were in battle array at the “entrance of the gate.”

This means they stayed within range of their fortified city, knowing they were not strong enough to stand against the Israelite army.

This way they could quickly retreat to safety.

The mercenary armies of the Arameans and Syrians were a bit further from home, however.

According to , they were encamped at Medeba, about 15 miles south of Rabbah … almost due east of Jerusalem across the Jordan Valley at the northern tip of the Dead Sea.

MAP

----

So, being caught between the Ammonites and the mercenaries, Joab divided his forces.

He took the better fighters for himself … and before you think poorly of Joab … he chose to go against the more formidable force of the Arameans and the Syrians.

Abishai took command of the rest of the Israelite force and went to the southern front against the Ammonites, who were much weaker.

Both of the forces would go on the offensive against the enemy armies.

If one got in trouble, the other would come to their aid and the other way around.

This is a great idea not just for Israel’s army but also for the Christian army.

If one got in trouble, the other would come to their aid and the other way around.

Matthew Henry notes here:

Mutual helpfulness is brotherly duty. If occasion be, thou shalt help me, and I will help thee. Christ’s soldiers should thus strengthen one another’s hands in their spiritual warfare. The strong must help the weak. Those that through grace are conquerors over temptation must counsel, and comfort, and pray for, those that are tempted.

It’s good for all of us to both be ready to help and be ready to ask for help.

Luke 22:31–32 NKJV

And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Luke 22:32 NKJV

But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

If those close to the Lord during were subject to being sifted by Satan, then we too face heavy temptation many times.

We know this to be true … the Bible in various places reminds us that temptation will come.

And there will be times that we stumble or yield to temptation.

When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren, .

The members of the natural body help one another, .

----

Back to our text … what if the mercenary army proved too strong for Joab AND the Ammonites too strong for Abishai?

Well, in verse 12, Joab exhorted his brother and their armies to be strong and courageous and the will of God would prevail.

Which is interesting because much of the time when we exhort ourselves to be strong and courageous it’s that a particular result would come to be.

If that result doesn’t come about, we must not have had faith, some would say.

Here, however, Joab says, “Do your duty and fight bravely. Then we can accept the outcome as God’s will.”

So then, if they succeeded against the armies they would accept it as God’s will AND if the armies of the Ammonites and Syrians prevailed, though it would be hard to understand, it was also to be accepted as God’s will.

---

The Ammonites never had much confidence in their ability to fight the Israelites.

This was why they hired mercenaries.

And when they saw the Syrian mercenaries fleeing, the Ammonites retreated back into their city.

Joab felt that they were not a threat and didn’t bother to lay seige, but instead returned to Jerusalem.

For the time being, the battle was over.

v15–19

The Ammonites were content with having retreated back to their city.

The Syrians, on the other hand could not stomach their defeat.

So, they called for reinforcements in order to mount another attack.

Those reinforcements came from “beyond the river” … that is the Euphrates.

----

Shobach here is the same as Shophac in .

He was the commander of the army of King Hadadezer.

We saw Hadadezer back in .

There, David defeated him and his Aramean allies.

David killed 22,000 troops and hamstrung most of Hadadezer’s chariot horses.

Only, David did not completely strip him of chariots and soldiers.

Now, Hadadezer is again coming against David.

Now … there is some possibility that the text of 2 Samuel inverts the battle here and the battle of chapter 8.

This would seem to make sense, because the battle of chapter 8 seems to be very final, with David occupying much of the land afterwards.

In contrast, Hadadezer’s defeat in this chapter seems much less final.

If that’s the case, then chapter 8 may have been a summary of what was to come and this chapter gives the detail of a battle leading up to those events.

To complicate things a bit more, has Hadadezer ruling Zobah even while Solomon was king.

And some scholars believe that Hadadezer was ruler over two kingdoms, Zobah and Beth-rehob … names that match 2 Kingdoms that fought Shalmaneser III.

It could be that there are multiple Hadadezers spanning a number of years and a number of kingdoms.

----

So, David was told that these forces were gathering against Israel.

And although David had not led the battle against the Ammonites, this Syrian and Aramean army with reinforcements was more formidable.

So, David came personally to lead the battle.

David came personally to lead the battle against the Syrians, and he and the army of Israel defeated them, and the Syrians became vassal states in David’s growing empire.

He gathered all the army of Israel and crossed the Jordan to Helam.

We don’t know the exact location of Helam today.

Obviously it was Transjordan, but it was also probably located between Damascus and Hamath to the north.

Here, the Syrians staged their troops.

So, even though it was the Syrians that were making war, it was David who took the battle to them.

And David and the army of Israel defeated them.

and he and the army of Israel defeated them, and the Syrians became vassal states in David’s growing empire.

They killed 700 charioteers and 40,000 horsemen.

David also killed Shobach, the Syrian commander.

----

With this defeat, verse 19 says that the Syrians became vassal states in David’s growing empire.

Now, remember that Joab had not besieged the Ammonites, but had gone back to Jerusalem.

We’ll see in chapter 11 that a few months later David sent Joab to finish that job.

Joab wisely waited to set up a siege against the Ammonite capital of Rabbah at that time, so he waited to renew the attack in the spring of the year (11:1).

But while this was going on, David remained in Jerusalem, became infatuated with another man’s wife, and committed adultery.

He took the city and David came to finish the siege and claim the honors (12:26–31).

So, that’s what we’ll get to next week.

----

David was a man of war and fought the battles of the Lord, and the Lord was with him to give him victory.

David indeed was a man of war and fought the battles of the Lord, and the Lord was with him to give him victory.

He extended the Israelite empire to the River of Egypt on the south, to the Euphrates River on the north, and on the east he conquered Edom, Moab, and Ammon, and on the north defeated the Arameans and the Syrians, including Hamath.

Because of God’s gifts and help, David undoubtedly became Israel’s greatest king..

Prayer: Lord Father we thank You for this time we’ve had together studying Your Word and we ask that You would make it fertile in our lives to do what You desire. Thank You for loving us so much and may Your desires be the desires of our hearts.