Verses 1-5
David’s Victory Over Ammon And Their Aramaean Allies (2 Samuel 10:1-19 ).
The greatest threat to Israel at this time, with both Egypt and Mesopotamia in a weak condition, was a burgeoning Aramaean empire to his immediate north (2 Samuel 8:3). This was something that Saul had had to combat in its infancy (1 Samuel 14:47), and it would appear that it was now stirring up some of the minor Transjordanian powers (note the connection of Zobah with the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites in 1 Samuel 14:47) to act against Israel. It may well have been their influence on Moab which had resulted in their continual aggravation of David, which had made him have to deal so harshly with them (2 Samuel 8:2), and we learn of a similar connection of the Aramaeans with the Edomites in 2 Samuel 8:13. David had earlier removed the threat which had been in the middle of his land (the Jebusites of Jerusalem), now he would have to deal with this empire, which itself was seeking expansion and stirring up trouble on every quarter.
It was not, however, initially a consequence of David’s choice. Paradoxically it arose because he wanted to show kindness to the son of Nahash, the king of Ammon who had previously shown kindness towards him. But in view of what follows we must surely see the attitude of the princes of Ammon as inspired because of their intrigues with their Aramaean ‘allies’. Those who are suspicious of other people’s attempts at spying usually have something to hide. Perhaps they did not want David to be aware of the fact that they themselves were building up their armed forces, and even had Aramaean advisers among them. And the sudden availability of a combined Aramaean army can surely not have been coincidental. It smacks of preparedness. (You do not just contact someone and say, ‘Oh by the way, I think I have offended David. Do you think that you could lend me three armies from scratch’ and expect them to arrive in time to deal with his reprisal).
The Suspicions of The Ammonites Cause Them To Insult David’s Ambassadors (2 Samuel 10:1-5 ).
On the death of Nahash, king of Ammon, his son Hanun came to the throne, and because Nahash had shown him kindness in the past David sent ambassadors to him with messages of condolence. This, however, raised the suspicions of the princes of Ammon, who simply saw the ambassadors as spies, with the consequence that they treated them in such a way as deliberately to insult David. The usual cause of suspicions like that is that those who are suspicious have something to hide. Messages of condolence on the death of a king would not usually arouse suspicions. This seems to be confirmed in what follows, which, while only covered briefly, suggests a major and protracted war with major powers with which David had to contend, who would have had no reason for coming to the aid of the Ammonites other than because they had already had communications with them with David in mind.
The rise of David would have pleased no one in the area around Palestine, and we know already that the Moabites must somehow have behaved abominably. Given that David had reason to be grateful to them for looking after his parents when he was fleeing from Saul (1 Samuel 22:3-5), and that he tended to be generous in his appreciation of those who were kind to him (2 Samuel 9:3; 2 Samuel 10:2), his harsh treatment of them (2 Samuel 8:2) could only possibly have arisen as a result of some heinous behaviour on their part, while the necessity of culling their forces so severely suggests that he had larger problems to deal with and could not risk having to deal with their further activities. This might be seen as indicating that he already knew that he was facing the threat of action from elsewhere. And as the Philistines had already been dealt with, and the Egyptians were busy with their own affairs, that could only be from enemies in the north.
But those enemies were seemingly still unsure of their ground, and it would appear that they had therefore approached some of the princes of the Ammonites and the Edomites as potential allies with a view to arousing them against David, the Moabites having already responded to their suggestions and having been mercilessly crushed (they would not be the first to act in expectation of help from others, only to discover that the help did not materialise). This very crushing of and treatment towards the Moabites would in itself have aroused fears and dislike among the Ammonites and Edomites. Who knew whom David would savage next? (They would not consider that the Moabites may have brought it on themselves. The Moabites were their friends).
This pernicious influence of the Aramaeans would serve to explain why they are seen as connected with both the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10:6) and the Edomites (2 Samuel 8:13), and as so willing to assist them. They had, however, seemingly made no firm commitment, for on David’s forces being gathered to attack the Ammonites, it resulted in the Ammonites appealing to the Aramaeans and paying them a large sum (a thousand talents of silver - 1 Chronicles 19:6) to come to their aid. As so often, those who were mainly responsible for the trouble and had stirred it up did not want to get their hands dirty unless it was made worth their while. It may well have been tribute.
Analysis.
a And it came about after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. And David said, “I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me” (2 Samuel 1:1-2 a).
b So David sent by his servants to comfort him concerning his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon (2 Samuel 10:2 b).
c But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think that David is doing honour to your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Has not David sent his servants to you to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?” (2 Samuel 10:3).
b So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away’ (2 Samuel 10:4).
a When they told it to David, he sent to meet them; for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, “Wait at Jericho until your beards are grown, and then return” (2 Samuel 10:5).
Note that in ‘a’ David aims to show kindness to the Ammonite king, and in the parallel we have an indication of the rebuttal of that kindness. In ‘b’ the ambassadors are sent and come into the land of the children of Ammon, and in the parallel they are shamed and sent away. Centrally in ‘c’ we learn of the reason for the bad treatment of the ambassadors.
‘ And it came about after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.’
The passage commences with the background to what follows. All arose as a result of the death of the current king of Ammon, Nahash, who was seemingly on good terms with David. He had been replaced by his son Hanun. The end of a long reign was often the time when men began to think about how the current situation could be altered, especially if they were egged on by others.
‘ And David said, “I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me.” So David sent by his servants to comfort him concerning his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.’
News of Nahash’s death reached David who immediately determined to show his sympathy and offer friendship to Hanun, because Nahash had previously shown kindness towards him. We have no indication of what this kindness was, and it may have been related to his time when he was a fugitive from Saul. On the other hand it may simply indicate that they had maintained good relations during their respective reigns, with each helping the other. It parallels David’s intention of showing kindness to the house of Saul in 2 Samuel 9:1, the only difference being that this time it backfired against him.
So David sent messengers of comfort to Hanun, and his messengers accordingly entered the land of the children of Ammon.
‘ But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think that David is doing honour to your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Has not David sent his servants to you to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?” ’
The princes of Ammon, however, far from being grateful, sought to persuade their new king against David. The death of Nahash had increased their ability to influence the throne, and it must seem very probable that these half wild princes of a half wild people (situated between the more sophisticated Moabites and the even wilder Arabian nomads) had been stirred up by outside troublemakers to take this attitude in view of the fact that they were opposing the view of their late king. It was in fact regularly during an interregnum and the commencement of a new reign that such troublemakers would seek to take advantage of the situation to stir up trouble, and if Moab had been ‘pacified’ fairly recently it would explain their attitude even more. Thus these princes, possibly taking advantage of his innocence, suggested to the new young king that what David was doing was not genuinely showing honour to his dead father, but simply spying on them and assessing their capabilities with a view to an invasion. It is doubtful if they really thought this, for there had been a fairly long period of peace between Israel and Ammon (although it is quite true that it was at the commencement of a new reign that a potential aggressor might have such intentions). It is far more likely that they were being influenced by troublemakers from outside, namely the Aramaeans, who did not want to attack Israel themselves, but were hoping to foment trouble with that aim eventually in view.
‘ So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.’
The result of their urgings was that the new and rather naive king, no doubt egged on by his princes, decided to show David what he thought of him, and took David’s ambassadors, and shaved off half their beards, and cut their robes so that their buttocks were revealed, and then sent them away. This was a deliberate insult of a most serious kind. To a Near-Easterner to have the beard shaved off was looked on as a major insult, and indeed warranted a death sentence on the culprit. Men would rather die than had their beards shaved off. And to shave off only half their beard added to the insult. There are a number of examples throughout history which demonstrate how deeply such insults were felt. Furthermore to have the buttocks bared was equally shameful (compare Isaiah 20:4). The ambassadors thus arrived back in Jericho feeling utterly shamed and humiliated, and in doing it to his ambassadors Ammon had in effect done it to David.
‘ When they told it to David, he sent to meet them; for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, “Wait at Jericho until your beards are grown, and then return.” ’
When David heard what had happened to his messengers he sent messages of sympathy and support to them at Jericho and told them that they could wait there until their beards had re-grown. Then they were to return to court. Meanwhile the insult was so great that retaliation was inevitable. No king could have held his head up after such treatment if he did not do something about it. So, as the Ammonites clearly recognised with some trepidation, an aggressive response to the insult would only take a matter of time.
Be the first to react on this!
