After this, the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his place. 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. David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.
But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think that David honors your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Hasn’t David sent his servants to you to search the city, to spy it out, and to overthrow it?”
So Hanun took David’s servants, shaved off one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. When they told David this, he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly ashamed. The king said, “Wait at Jericho until your beards have grown, and then return.”
When the children of Ammon saw that they had become odious to David, the children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians of Beth Rehob, and the Syrians of Zobah, twenty thousand footmen, and the king of Maacah with one thousand men, and the men of Tob twelve thousand men. When David heard of it, he sent Joab, and all the army of the mighty men. The children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array at the entrance of the gate. The Syrians of Zobah and of Rehob, and the men of Tob and Maacah, were by themselves in the field. Now when Joab saw that the battle was set against him before and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians. The rest of the people he committed into the hand of Abishai his brother; and he put them in array against the children of Ammon. He said, “If the Syrians are too strong for me, then you shall help me; but if the children of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will come and help you. Be courageous, and let’s be strong for our people, and for the cities of our God; and may Yahweh do what seems good to him.” So Joab and the people who were with him came near to the battle against the Syrians, and they fled before him. When the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians had fled, they likewise fled before Abishai, and entered into the city. Then Joab returned from the children of Ammon, and came to Jerusalem. When the Syrians saw that they were defeated by Israel, they gathered themselves together. Hadadezer sent, and brought out the Syrians who were beyond the River: and they came to Helam, with Shobach the captain of the army of Hadadezer at their head. David was told that; and he gathered all Israel together, passed over the Jordan, and came to Helam. The Syrians set themselves in array against David, and fought with him. The Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed seven hundred charioteers of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and struck Shobach the captain of their army, so that he died there. When all the kings who were servants to Hadadezer saw that they were defeated before Israel, they made peace with Israel, and served them. So the Syrians were afraid to help the children of Ammon any more.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 18 The children of God are not unmindful of a…
The children of God are not unmindful of a benefit received.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–19 2Sa 10:1 And it came to pass after this,…
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}
Read full note →
And Hanun his son reigned in his stead.] Or, Chanun. The Greek hath it Annon: a good name, as signifying Gracious, but ill bestowed. There was an ancient Latin poet, contemporary with Virgil and Ovid, called Gratius the Faliseian; he bore a high esteem in that pure age. But this king carried grace in his name only, as did Ptolomeus Euergetes, Antiochus Epiphanes, and some princes and popes.
{a} Pachym., Hist., lib. v.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 The king of the children of Ammon; Nahash, 2Sa…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 15 Here is, I. The great respect David paid to…
Here is, I. The great respect David paid to his neighbour, the king of the Ammonites, Sa2 10:1, Sa2 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 (Sa2 10:2), 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 (Sa1 11:2), 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, Sa2 10:3. 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.
Read full note →
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, Sa2 10:5. 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. Psa 11:2. 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? Deu 23:3.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–19 And it came to pass after this,.... After the…
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, Sa2 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 Sa2 10:2, and probably might be the same that came against Jabeshgilead, from whom Saul delivered the inhabitants of that place, Sa1 11:1,
Read full note →
and Hanun his son reigned in his stead; who, being his son, was heir to his crown, and succeeded him in his kingdom.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 19 David's ambassadors are abused by Hanun, ver. 1-4. The…
David's ambassadors are abused by Hanun, ver. 1-4. The Ammonites prepare for war and are routed, ver. 5-14. Their allies, the Syrians rally and are defeated again, ver. 15-19.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 The king of Ammon being dead, David sends ambassadors…
CHAPTER X
The king of Ammon being dead, David sends ambassadors to
Read full note →
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
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 2Sa 10:1. The king of the children of Ammon…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 The king - In marginal reference. Nahash, king, etc.…
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.
Read full note →
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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 Naas, whom Saul had defeated, and who on that…
Naas, whom Saul had defeated, and who on that account is supposed to have received his rival more willingly, (Calmet) when he had retreated into the country of Moab, 1 Kings xxii. 3. After receiving many presents from Naas, he retired to Odollam. (St. Jerome, Tradit.) (Menochius) --- Though the Israelites were not to seek the friendship of these nations, (Deuteronomy xxiii. 6,) they were not forbidden to make a return of gratitude. (Menochius)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 IV. The Ammonite-Syrian War
IV. The Ammonite-Syrian War
2Sa_10:1-19
Read full note →
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 David’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 man’s 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. Israel’s 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 Aramæan 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, Stähelin, 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. Keil’s 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 Aramæan 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 Smith’s 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. Μαχαθί), 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 (θαῦβα) 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 (Τούβιον,17 Τουβίν), 1Ma_5:13; 2Ma_12:17. Stähelin: the present village Taibeh, mentioned by Ritter XV. 891, 922, and placed north of Tibneh in Wetzstein’s 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 (רֶכֶב, 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 Joab’s 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 Joab’s 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, strong—this applies to Abishai personally and indicates stout temper of mind—and let us show ourselves stout—this refers to warlike action; for our people and the cities of our God—with 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 God’s 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 Syrians—they 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 David’s 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, Hadarezer’s 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., Böttcher). 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 (חֵלָאם = חֵילָם). 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 Aramæans)—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., Bött. 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 David’s military spirit.—Tr.]
2Sa_10:18. David’s 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 Aramæans 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 Hadarezer’s 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 army—apart 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 David’s 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 God’s people and kingdom must serve not only to bring about more wonderfully the revelation of the Lord’s 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. Joab’s word to Abishai is a prelude to the Lord’s 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 Lord—thereby 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 God’s will, in presence of the greatest perils referring everything to Him; 2) A testimony borne by childlike and strong reliance on the Lord’s 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 one’s calling, and especially of all true bravery in fighting against the enemies of God’s 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 another’s 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 king’s 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 בּדור Sept. read (as in the Heb. of Chron.) עס דוד, which is rendered by them “the people of David” (עַם).
[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 ה 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” (ἠυτομόλησαν), a free translation; so probably Vulg. As to the addition in the Vulg. (see Exposition) Böttcher 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 שְׁתת = nates Chron. has the euphemistic מִפְשָׂעָה = 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 Τώβὶον, Tobion.—Tr.]
[18][The word in Chron. means “chariots” only, and does not include horsemen.—Tr.]
[19]Chron. has the Sing. (בָּחוּר), which is a more common designation of the army than the Plu. The בְּ (“in”) before “Israel” is to be retained (against the VSS. and some MSS.).
[20] חֵלָאמָה, “Heb. name of a Syrian city, dual-form from חַיִל (two armies), with the ָה-local” (Böttcher).
[21][This number is almost incredibly large, and the text of Sam. is to be preferred.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 16 the princes of the children of Ammon said unto…
the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun--Their suspicion was not warranted either by any overt act or by any cherished design of David: it must have originated in their knowledge of the denunciations of God's law against them (Deu 23:3-6), and of David's policy in steadfastly adhering to it.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 1. Ammon — The territory of the Ammonites was…
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19 1–5. David’s ambassadors insulted by the Ammonites
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.
Read full note →
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 Ἄννων (Annon).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 (1) The king.—His name is given in the next…
(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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 The king of the children of Ammon died. This…
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_26:1-8 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.
Vers. 1-5.
Read full note →
Rejected friendliness.
The facts are:
1. On the death of the King of Ammon, David resolves to send a kindlymessage 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 tothe 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 theirway 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 ch. 8. 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 ver. 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 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, 15 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.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE.
Vers. 1-4. (RABBAH.) (1Ch_19:1-4)
Requiting evil for good.
The Ammonites appear to have remained quiet since their defeat by Saul, nearly half a century before. (1Sa 11) 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 (ver. 2); but Hanun requited the kindness of David with insult and injury to his servants. (ver. 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
2. of pure gold" (2Sa_12:30; Psa_21:3) but in spirit they were wholly unlike.
3. 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.
4. 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 6)! It turns kindness into wrath, seems to justify the drawing of the sword, and inspires the hope of victory (ver. 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". (Ps 2) 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 warningsafforded 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 (ver. 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 berequited with evil.
2. Although others may render evil for good, we should render good for. (1Sa_11:12, 1Sa_11:13)
3. The noblest victories are those which are gained by patience,forbearance, and all-conquering love. D. (Rom_12:21)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv2, 11, 12, 13 I will show kindness unto Hanun the son of…
2Sa_10:2-19
I will show kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness unto me.
Read full note →
David and Hanun
Powerful though David had proved himself in every direction in the art of war, his heart was inclined to peace. 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. 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. 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 second was the collision at Jabesh-gilead at the beginning of the reign of Saul. 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 mans 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 defence 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. 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 Davids side. It was long, long ago when it happened, but love has a long memory, and the remembrance 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. Our difficulty is to understand how sane men could have acted in such a way. It is hardly necessary to say a word to bring out the outrageous character of their conduct.
(1) There was the repulse of Davids kindness. It was not even declined with civility; it was repelled with scorn. It is always a serious thing to reject overtures of kindness. Kindness is too rare a gem to be trampled under foot.
(2) But Hanun not only repelled Davids 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 charge 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 din 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.
(3) To these offences Hanun added yet another--scornful treatment of Davids ambassadors. In the eyes of all civilised 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 Davids 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. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
Ungenerous judgments
In thousands of men, the mind, if unveiled, would be found to be a star-chamber filled with false witnesses and cruel judgments. If you were to go back into the old star-chamber of England, and read the records made of testimony given and sentences passed by men of partial information, what a literature of hell those records would be I But worse than these are the cruel, rash, hateful judgments which men form of each other in the silence of the mind, simply because they follow their interests, their feelings, their prejudices, and not their conscience, in ascertaining facts and coming to conclusions. (H. W. Beecher.)
Two aspects of David
In chapters 10. and 11. 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 Hanon the son of Nahash, because Hanuns father had shown kindness to David in the old times of distress. 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. David is to be Credited with good retentions 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 hays 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. Hanun responded to the counsels of his advisers in a manner which he supposed would increase his own popularity with his subjects. He took Davids servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. (J. Parker, D. D.)
A fathers kindness repaid to his son
A good man of my acquaintance died very suddenly the other day, and when it came to settling up the account, it was found that, while with his presence and work he was able to get a living for his family out of his share in the business, with him gone there was nothing left. All the children were grown up and able to support themselves, with the exception of one young man who had two years yet to spend in the medical school before he would be able to take up his profession as a doctor. It seemed at first that he must drop out, and work his way for awhile saving up money to go on. But just then a man came forward, who said: Some years ago I was in a difficult place and needed a friend very much. Just at the critical time your father stepped into the breach, and in the gentlest, cheeriest way helped me out. I said then if ever I had a chance I would pay that kindness back. Now is my chance. You go back to the medical school and finish your course, and I will take care of the expenses. You can charge them up to your fathers kindness account. He who sows a kind deed may be sure that it is a long-lived, hardy crop, and certain to bring in its harvest by and by. (L. A. Banks, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1
CHAPTER X I I I.
DAVID AND HANUN.
Read full note →
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.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa_10:2. “Nahash.” This may be the same Nahash mentioned…
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 David’s exile.
Read full note →
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 person’s 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 ambassador’s 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 Joab’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 Keil’s 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 David’s life when nothing but a kindly disposition could have prompted him to the deed—when 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 Israel’s 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 David’s ambassadors a different reception. If goodwill to his father’s 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 country—he 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 war—they 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 hearts—venturing 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 God’s hands. Although he was not a true servant of God, he was at this time engaged in a service for God’s 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 Lange’s 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 Lange’s Commentary.
I. Courage is an essential characteristic of a good soldier—not 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 cause—and 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.—(Lange’s 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).
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa 10:12
2Sa 10:12
From these words I draw four useful and practical lessons.
Read full note →
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.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Division 4. (2Sa 10:1-19; 2Sa 11:1-27; 2Sa 12:1-31.)
Division 4. (2Sa 10:1-19; 2Sa 11:1-27; 2Sa 12:1-31.)
Failure of David also.
Read full note →
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.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v8 2 Samuel
2 Samuel
‘MORE THAN CONQUERORS THROUGH HIM’
Read full note →
2Sa 10:8 - 2Sa 10:19.
David’s growing power would naturally be regarded by neighbouring states as a menace. Success provokes envy, and in this selfish world strength usually encroaches on weakness, and weakness dreads strength. So it was quite according to the way of the world that David’s friendly embassy to the king of Ammon should be suspected of covering hostile intentions. Those who have no kindness in their own hearts are slow to believe in kindness in others. ‘What does he want to get by it?’ is the question put by cynical ‘shrewd men,’ when they see a good man doing a gracious, self-forgetting act.
But the Ammonite courtiers need not have rejected David’s overtures so insolently as by shaving half his ambassadors’ beards and docking their robes. The insult meant war to the knife. Probably it was deliberately intended as a declaration of hostilities, as it was immediately followed by the preparation of a formidable coalition against Israel. Possibly, indeed, the coalition preceded and occasioned the rejection of David’s conciliatory message. But, in any case, the Ammonite king summoned his Syrian allies from a number of small states of which we barely know the names, the chief of which was Zobah.
That state had apparently started into prominence under its king Hadar-ezer, as he is called in this chapter, which is obviously a clerical error for Hadad-ezer, as in 2Sa 8:3, etc. The name Hadad occurs again in Ben-hadad, and belonged to a Syrian god; so that the king of Zobah’s name, meaning ‘Hadad [is] help,’ may be taken as the banner flaunted in the face of the army of Israel, and as making the war a struggle of the false against the true God.
The war with the same enemies narrated in 2Sa 8:3 - 2Sa 8:13 is now generally supposed to be the same as that recorded in the latter part of this passage. It certainly seems more probable that there has been some dislocation of the text, than that so crushing a defeat as that retold in chapter viii. should have been followed by a revival of the same coalition within a short time. If, however, there was such a revival, it may remind us of the conditions of all warfare for God and goodness, either in our own lives or in the world. Sins and vicious institutions, once defeated, have a terrible power of swift recovery. The thorns cut down sprout fast again. Let no man say, ‘I have extirpated that sin from my nature,’ for, if he does, it will surprise him when he is lulled in false security. Hadad-ezer is not so easily got rid of. He does not know when he is beaten.
David took the bull by the horns, and did not wait to be attacked. It was good policy to carry the war into the enemies’ country, as it generally is. God’s soldiers have to be aggressive, and there is no better way of losing what they have won than by being contented with it. We must advance if we are not to retrograde. From I Chronicles we learn that the Ammonites had begun the campaign by besieging Medeba, a trans-Jordanic Israelitish city. The answer of Joab was to lay siege to Rabbath, the capital of Ammon, an almost impregnable fastness, perched on a cliff, and surrounded on all sides but one by steep ravines.
Apparently his bold strategy led to the abandonment of the attack on Medeba, and to the hurried march of its besiegers to relieve Rabbath. Probably the Syrian allies had been before Medeba, and suddenly appeared in Joab’s rear. Their advance led the besieged to attempt a sortie, so that Joab was between two fires. It was a difficult position. Whichever foe he attacked, his retreat was cut off, and another enemy was ready to hurl itself on his rear. There was no time for manoeuvring, and nothing for it but to face both assailants. So, without hesitation he made his dispositions. The new-comers, the Syrians, were evidently the more formidable, and Joab picked the best men to deal with them under his own command, while his brother Abishai was to give account of the Ammonites, who were pouring out of Rabbath. There is sometimes advantage in being ‘Mr. Facing-both-ways.’ We are often surrounded by allied evils or sins; for all our vices are kindred, and help each other, and all public or social iniquities are in league against the army of righteousness. We have to be many-sided in our attacks on what is wrong, as well as in our development of what is right.
Danger woke the best in Joab, Fierce and truculent as he often was, he had a hero’s mettle in him, and in that dark hour he flamed like a pillar of light. His ringing words to his brother as they parted, not knowing if they would ever meet again, are like a clarion call. They extract encouragement out of the separation of forces, which might have depressed, and cheerily pledge the two divisions to mutual help. What was to happen, Joab, if the Syrians were too strong for thee, and the Ammonites for Abishai? That very possible contingency is not contemplated in his words. Rash confidence is unwise, but God’s soldiers have a right to go into battle not anticipating utter defeat. Such expectation is apt to fulfil itself, and, on the other hand, to believe that we shall conquer goes a long way towards making us conquerors.
Does not Joab’s pledge of mutual help carry in it a lesson applicable to all the divisions of God’s great army? In the presence of the coalition of evil, is not the separation of the friends of good, madness? When bad men unite, should not good men hold together? The defeat or victory of one is the defeat or victory of all. We serve under the same banner, and, instead of shutting up our sympathies within the narrow limits of our own regiment, and even having a certain satisfaction at the difficulties into which another has got, we should feel that, if ‘one member suffer, all the members suffer with it,’ and should be ready to help all our fellow-soldiers who need help. Self-preservation as well as comradeship, and, above all, loyalty to Him for whom we fight, should lead to that; for, if Abishai is crushed, Joab will be in sorer peril.
His other word is equally pregnant. ‘Be of good courage’ is an exhortation always in season for Christ’s soldiers, for, whatever are their foes, ‘He that is with them is more than they that are with’ their enemies. One man with Christ to back him may always be sure of victory. Calculations of probabilities and of resources may often yield occasion for despondency if we calculate only what appears to sense, but if we bring Christ into the calculation we shall be of good cheer. ‘The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?’
We may note, too, the stimulating motive drawn from the thought of what Israel’s army fought for,-’Our people, and the cities of our God.’ Patriotism and devotion coalesced, and, like two contiguous flames in some duplex lamp, each made the other burn the brighter. So we may feel that we have the highest good of ‘our people,’ our brethren, in view, and that, in helping them and warring against evil, we are fighting for what belongs to God.
High courage, the effort to do their very best, and not to spare blood or life in the fight, blended nobly in Joab and his brother with recognition of God’s supreme determination of the event. Nothing can stand before men who live and fight in such a temper as that. The early conquests of Mohammedanism were secured by just such a blending of courage and submission. These were vulgar and poor, compared with the victories that would attend a Church which was animated by these principles in the higher form in which Christianity presents them.
The account of the victory is remarkable. It is surely not by accident that no word is said about fighting. Note that it was as Joab ‘drew nigh unto the battle’ that the Syrians fled as if in sudden panic, and infected the Ammonites with their terror. We hear nothing of men slain, or of any actual crossing of swords. Contrast 2Sa 10:18, which tells of a real fight. It is, perhaps, not pressing omissions too far to suggest that the narrative favours the supposition of a bloodless victory. The dangers that often appal Christ’s servants have a way of often disappearing when they are marched boldly up to. Like ghosts, they vanish when accosted.
So ended one campaign. But Hadad-ezer, the soul of the coalition, was not crushed, and the latter part of the passage tells of his renewed attempt. Partial defeat stirs up our foes to stronger struggles. The league was extended to include Syrian states farther east, and a still more formidable expedition was fitted out to attack this dangerous upstart king of Israel, who was casting his shadow so far. Such is always the case. We are never in more danger of fresh assailants than when we have won some victory over evil in ourselves or around us. David repeated his former tactics. Not waiting to be attacked, and to have the soil of Israel profaned and wasted by enemies, he crossed Jordan to meet the would-be invader, and, when he met him, struck hard, and crushed him and his host, slew the commander, and dispersed the thunder-cloud. The coalition broke down. Hadad-ezer’s tributaries were glad to shake off his yoke and transfer their allegiance to David.
‘Nothing succeeds like success.’ The alliances between worldly men banded against God’s soldiers are held together by self-interest, and, when that can be best secured by deserting a man when he is down, away go all the allies, tumbling over each other in their haste to be the first to desert and bring feigned submission to the conqueror. The jackals leave the sick lion. The Syrians had had enough of helping Ammon, and Rabbath might fall without their lifting a finger. So hollow are the world’s coalitions against God and His anointed!
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The War with Ammon and Syria
The War with Ammon and Syria
2. His father shewed kindness unto me] Occasion not stated.
Read full note →
3. The city] i.e. their capital, Rabbah. The Ammonites probably were thinking of the severity with which David had treated the neighbouring Moabites (2Sa_8:2).
4. Shaving the beard is the greatest insult that can be offered to an Oriental. The Arabs regard it as we should regard flogging or branding.
6. Hired] cp. 1Ki_15:18-20. Beth-rehob] near Laish or Dan (Jdg_18:28). King Maacah] RV 'the king of Maacah.' Maacah was a small Syrian kingdom on the border of eastern Manasseh. Ish-tob] RV 'the men of Tob.' See on Jdg_11:3.
8. Came out] from Rabbah.
Were by themselves] This implies distrust and disunion between the allies.
9. Joab took advantage of the division of the enemy to attack them in detail. Abishai kept the Ammonites in check while Joab crushed the Syrians, and then the two brothers combined their forces and fell on the Ammonites.
14. So Joab returned] The great strength of Rabbah rendered it hopeless to attempt to carry it by assault, and so Joab rested his army during the winter: see on 2Sa_11:1.
16. The river] i.e. the Euphrates. Helam] position unknown.
18. Forty thousand horsemen] 1Ch_19:18; 'forty thousand footmen.'
19. All the kings that were servants to Hadarezer] cp. 1Ki_20:16.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 7. The War with Ammon and the Syrians
7. The War with Ammon and the Syrians
CHAPTER 10
Read full note →
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 David’s 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). Hanun’s deed in treating David’s peaceful messengers in so shameful a way showed that he was a wicked man like his father and not worthy of David’s 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.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 15 David’s Servants Shamefully Treated
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.
Read full note →
v. 2. Then said David, I will show kindness unto Hanun, the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness unto me. Nahash had been defeated by Saul at Jabesh, 1 Samuel 11, but had maintained a friendly attitude toward David, probably also by rendering him some form of assistance during the years of his persecution. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father, he dispatched an embassy to express his sympathy at the bereavement of Hanun. And David’s servants came in to the land of the children of Ammon, as David supposed, to a nation friendly to Israel under his reign.
v. 3. And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun, their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honor thy father, literally, "Is David in thine eyes an honorer of 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? The suggestion that the messengers of David were spies was made with the purpose of causing Hanun to adopt a hostile attitude toward David which would be a challenge to war, for the Ammonites now felt themselves strong enough again to try conclusions with Israel.
v. 4. Wherefore Hanun, listening to the counsel of his princes, especially as this implied a criticism of his carelessness, took David’s servants and shaved off the one half of their beards, the one side, one of the grossest insults that can be offered an Oriental, who considers his beard the sign of manly dignity and freedom, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, thus exposing them before the eyes of all men, and sent them away, heaped with this double insult and disgrace.
v. 5. When they told it unto David, when the news of this shameful treatment came to him, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed, disgrace had been heaped upon them; and the king said, Tarry at Jericho, the district where that city had formerly stood, until your beards be grown, and then return. He himself did not want to witness their shame. To seek occasion for wars, to provoke quarrels, is a great wrong, which has often been punished by the Lord with great severity.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 Hanun ... Nahash
Hanun ... Nahash
These are the names of men. (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
Do you really think that ... you?
The leaders use a question to suggest to the king that he should not trust David. AT: "You are wrong to think that ... you!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
to spy
to secretly learn information about someone else
Has not David ... overthrow it?
The leaders use a question to suggest to the king that he should not trust David. AT: "You need to know that David ... overthrow it." (See: Rhetorical Question)
in order to overthrow it
Here "it" refers to the city which represents the people who live there. AT: "in order to conquer us" (See: Metonymy)
the city
Here "the city" refers to Rabbah, the capital city of the Ammonites.
translationWords
king
people group
Ammon
die
David
send
servant
comfort
lord
honor
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16 10:1-19 Following the interlude of ch 9, the narrative…
10:1-19 Following the interlude of ch 9, the narrative returns to David’s military feats. The Ammonites were likely the dominant political power in Transjordan (the area east of the Jordan) during Saul’s reign and the early years of David’s reign.
10:1-5 The king of Ammon insulted David’s ambassadors, which led to two battles between Israel and Ammon (10:6–12:31).
Read full note →
10:1 Some time after this: King Hadadezer appears in 10:1-19 as David’s active and capable foe (10:16), yet in 8:1-18 David had defeated him (8:3) and plundered his city (8:7, 12). Either Hadadezer was still alive, had regrouped, and revolted in 10:1-19; or possibly 10:1-19 unpacks the events of 8:1-18 as a prelude to 11:1-27.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.