Doctrines Covered

Doctrines Alluded To

Aram

Black Liberation Theology

Psalms Alluded To

Psalms Appropriately Exegeted with this Chapter

Psalm 44

Psalm 57

Psalm 60

Psalm 108

Other Chapters of the Bible Appropriately Exegeted with this Chapter

1Chron. 11:10–47

1Chron. 19

Definition of Terms

Client Nation

Client-Nation, is a national entity in which a certain number of spiritually mature Christians (the salt of the earth) have formed a pivot sufficient to sustain the nation and through which God specifically protects this nation so that believers can fulfill the divine mandates of evangelism, communication and custodianship of Bible doctrine, providing a haven for Jews, and sending missionaries abroad. The United States is a client-nation to God. A client nation must have freedom: Freedom to seek God, freedom to use one’s own volition and self-determination to succeed or fail, freedom from anarchy and tyranny, freedom for evangelism, freedom for believers to hear Bible teaching without government interference and, therefore, to grow spiritually, and freedom to send missionaries to other nations.

Divine Good

That which is good in God’s eyes. That which we do when filled with God the Holy Spirit (i.e., when we are in fellowship) is divine good.

Fighting on Interior Lines

Fighting from interior lines means that your army starts from a point and expands to attack several points.

Fighting on Exterior Lines

Fighting from exterior lines means you begin from several different places and converge upon a point.

Flying Column

A flying column, in military organization, is a small, independent land forces unit capable of rapid mobility and usually composed of all arms. It is often an ad hoc unit, formed during the course of operations.

Klicks

1 klick is equivalent to 1 kilometer (0.62 miles). One source I read put this as a relatively recent term, used in the Vietnam War, although I hear R. B. Thieme Jr. (World War II soldier) use it all the time when dealing with military movement. The source I read said klick was an abbreviation of kilometer.

The Laws of Divine Establishment

God has ordained certain laws for the survival and freedom of the human race during the course of human history. Anarchy exists when segments of nations ignore these laws. The laws of divine establishment provide the freedom to fulfill the divine plan as ordained in the divine decrees under many types of government. The laws of divine establishment are designed and directed toward both believer and unbeliever. They operate from the fall of man to the second advent, as well as in the Millennium with some modification in compatibility with perfect environment. These laws establish certain authority organizations: volition, marriage, family and nation.

Personal Sense of Destiny

A personal sense of destiny is God's meaning, purpose, and definition for the believer's life which becomes stronger as he progresses through the three stages of spiritual adulthood.

Pivot

The number of mature believers within a client nation, which provides that nation spiritual stability, guidance and direction. The smaller the pivot, the weaker the nation, the greater the possibility that our nation can end up on the trash heap of nations. Furthermore, the smaller the pivot, the greater the likelihood of a nation collapsing from within from degeneration and evil (e.g., developing a greater faith in the government than in God).

Relaxed Mental Attitude

This is an attitude which you have toward life and toward people; you are not cycling through various mental attitude sins in your thinking. You are able to remain flexible and loose. You are not mad, arrogant, implacable, jealous or inflexible. This mental attitude improves as you grow spiritually.

Spin-off

This is related to the pivot. When believers turn away from Bible doctrine and begin spending increasing time in carnality, this is known as spin-off, and a country will decline because of it.

Strategic Single Envelopment

A strategic single envelopment is attacking an army at a weaker point. When an army advances, its strength is generally in front; therefore, an envelopment is a tactic where the army is attacked at its flank (side) or from the rear. Also, part of the strategy is surrounding the army as much as possible.

Supergrace

A term which denotes spiritual maturity.

Some of these definitions are taken from

http://www.bibledoctrinechurch.org/?subpages/GLOSSARY.shtml

http://www.bigrick.org/pubs/terms.pdf

http://www.gbible.org/index.php?proc=d4d&sf=rea&did=28

An important characteristic to deal with is the general accuracy of the Old Testament itself.

The Accurate Historical Nature of the Old Testament

1.      Because of the very nature of the Bible—it being God’s Word to man—it is attacked in every way possible. Books written by Moses are said, even by major theological seminaries, to be the work of several groups of men at various times, long after the time of Moses. The timeline of the Bible is disparaged. And the historicity of the Bible is under continual attack.

2.      There are other existing ancient histories. However, these mostly exist in a fragmented forms. Furthermore, the history of nations like Assyria or Egypt are often (and obviously) slanted in favor of these countries, where historical disasters are ignored, and victories and expansions are exaggerated.

3.      The Bible is very different from this. We examine the historical events as well as the people, but the chief focus is man’s relationship to God and God’s plan.

4.      Although the Bible in no way purports to be a full and accurate history of Israel, it is the most significant and extensive history of any ancient country in existence.

5.      Because of the religious nature of the Old Testament, the text was preserved with greater accuracy and in more volumes than any other ancient work of any sort. This has been preserved by various groups who have been, from time to time and in varying degrees, hostile toward one another (for instance Christians and Jews). Yet the text is just as reliable, whether preserved by Jewish scribes or by Christian churches.

6.      We find no attempt in the preservation of the Old Testament to misrepresent or exaggerate the events related to Israel. We know this, in part, because of the numerous manuscripts which are in existence. No one could make wholesale changes to the Bible in ancient times any more than someone could do so today and make it stick—there are just too many manuscripts in existence. Furthermore, the character of Israel’s kings and Israel’s people is never favored or exaggerated. King David, the greatest king of Israel, is presented here in all of his royalty as well as in all of his flaws (the next few chapters will make this clear). His flaws are not glossed over, edited out of the text; nor are the tenets of God changed in order to conform with David’s bad behavior. He is simply presented as God’s man, but a man with feet of clay.

7.      We have several simultaneous witnesses to the history of Israel. We have Samuel and Kings, which present a chronological history of Israel from about 1100 to 400 b.c., written very close to the time of these events often by eyewitnesses to the events; and then we have the book of Chronicles, written hundreds of years later, summarizing these events, using Samuel, Kings and other ancient historical books, no longer available to us. Chronicles supplies a second witness, so to speak. A man with a good historical perspective revisits Israel’s history, and again, there is no glossing over of negative events, or any exaggeration of what would be seen as the good portions of Israel’s history.

8.      In addition to this, there are prophets who write, and they comment on the same historical events that we find in Kings and Chronicles. Their view of many kings is anything but complementary.

9.      Then we have the history of Josephus, which incorporates Jewish traditions and probably other historical documents, as well as the Bible as a source, and his extensive histories, for the most part, confirm the history of the Bible.

10.    I have mentioned other historical documents. None are as complete and as well preserved as the Old Testament. Furthermore, none are clearly written by eyewitnesses, and 1000's of years stand between these manuscripts and the events which they describe. It does not mean that other historical documents are worthless; the point I am making is, if these historical documents can be trusted, then much more the Old Testament record.

11.    There are some exceptions to this:

         a.      There are the approximately 350 clay tablets known as the Amarna letters (or tablets), which are letters written between Egypt and Canaan and Amurru. These were written between 1388–1353 b.c. and provide us with a good historical background for that time period (which would have coincided with the early period of the Judges in Israel).

         b.      There are various stelae, which are commemorative stones, which tell us about this or that event (or about a person who has died). One of the most famous stele is the Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone, which commemorates King Mesha’s victories, including his rebellion against Israel , when Ahab was king.

12.    There is continual archeological support for Biblical places and events. For several hundred years, the Bible was disparaged because ancient historians poo-pooed the idea of the Hittites being some sort of great ancient empire. To them, at most, the Hittites were some small tribe from the Middle East. However, archeology has shown the Hittites to be every much the great empire as they are presented in the Bible.

13.    Finally, we have the testimony of some ancient historians, like the famous ancient historian Will Durant, who wrote, The discoveries here summarized have restored considerable credit to those chapters of Genesis that record the early traditions of the Jews. In its outlines, and brring supernatural incidents, the story of the Jews as unfolded in the Old Testament has stood the test of criticism and archeology; every year adds corroboration from documents, monuments, or excavations...We must accept the Biblical account provisionally until it is disproved.¹

¹ The Story of Civilization; 1. Our Oriental Heritage, by Will Durant; MJF Books, ©1963; p. 300 (footnote).

Map of the Kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon

This map will give you a good idea as to what results from these wars which David is involved in. Saul was, at first, a great warrior; however, for the final decade or more of his rule, Saul spent all of that time chasing David, which did not increase the holdings of Israel.

However, David, as we have seen, has conquered country after country. In the blue area is what David controlled and where he had soldiers stationed in order to collect tribute.

This map is also helpful because it shows the geographical relationship between Israel, Aram and Ammon, the principle players in this chapter of 2Samuel.

Map taken from http://www.oneblood-onerace.org/images/Map7.jpg

At this point in time, we ought to examine The Doctrine of Aram (HTML) (PDF), which was originally covered back in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 26). The shortened version of this doctrine follows:

I don’t believe that Aram has really received a fair shake in recorded history. Some histories of this area just see it as a plot of ground through which a variety of peoples and cultures came and went, conquered from time to time. However, ancient Aram, although never seen as an empire by some historians, still, at its Zenith, controlled a great deal of land (almost from the Mediterranean to the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and beyond) and it left behind an enduring language and alphabet adopted by much of the ancient world, including the Jews.

The Abbreviated Doctrine of Aram (Syria)

1.      Aram is called Syria in the Greek, and there is no relationship between Syria and Assyria (other than they are both made up of Semitic peoples and were in conflict with one another on many occasions). Gen. 10:21–22

2.      The Aramæans are first cousins to the Jews (the Jews come through the line of Arpanchshad, Aram’s brother). Gen. 10:22 11:11–27

3.      Like all nations, there is an ebb and flow when it comes to the borders. Aram, at its largest, was north of Israel and stretched from the Mediterranean Sea all the way to the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. However, like any other country, its boundaries varied dramatically over the centuries. Although modern-day Syria is located in roughly the same place, there is no relationship between modern and ancient Syrians.

4.      In researching secular history, I found very few resources which treated Aram as an robust, independent power; and some simply treated Aram as a plot of land invaded, conquered and held by a series of peoples (which is essentially true of any plot of land). What I had a difficult time locating were timelines of ancient peoples which included the Aramæans as a separate group or Aram as a separate country.

         1)      There are several possible reasons for this. The Aramæans seemed to function as separate city-states but with strong alliances.

         2)      They may not have left much by way of records.

         3)      Like all ancient countries, there were conflicts with outside powers and there were certainly times when Aram had been conquered or put down by other countries.

         4)      I also believe in the Satanic influence on history. In this particular case, if Aram is portrayed as simply a plot of land through which other empires marched or which other empires conquered, then the Israeli-Aram wars are not seen as significant to human history.

         5)      However, to ee Aram as an insignificant nation is belied by the fact that Aramaic was spoken throughout the middle east between 700 b.c. and 700 a.d..

5.      Important dates in Syrian history:

         1)      Unidentified people live in Syria before 4500 b.c.

         2)      Semites settle Syria circa 3500 b.c.

         3)      2700–2200 b.c.: Ebla, an early city-state, established in Syria. All of these dates are probably compressed and closer to 2300–2000 b.c., as the flood ended approximately 2343 b.c.

         4)      Circa 2300 b.c.: The Akkadians conquer northern and eastern Syria.

         5)      Circa 2000 b.c.: Canaanites move into the southwest, Phœnicians settle along the Mediterranean coast and then carry aspects of Syrian culture throughout the Mediterranean world (I am assuming that this would have occurred through trade and/or war).

         6)      1700 b.c. the Amorites had consolidated their control over Syria.

         7)      Circa 1500 b.c.: The Aramæans arrive in Syria.

         8)      By 1200 b.c., Damascus became a prosperous Aramæan city.

         9)      During the late 1200's b.c., the Jews entered into this general territory, bringing with them the news of the One God, Jehovah Elohim.

         10)    King David has many conflicts with Aram around 1000 b.c., at which time the Aramæan empire appears to be composed of several city-states, closely allied, whose attempts at expansion are curtailed by King David. 2Sam. 8 10

         11)    732 b.c.: The Assyrians conquer most of Syria.

         12)    572 b.c.: The Chaldeans take control of the Assyrian empire, which includes Syria.

         13)    538 b.c.: Syria becomes a part of the Persian Empire.

         14)    333 b.c.: Alexander the Great gains control of Syria.

         15)    64 b.c.: Syria falls to the Romans.

         16)    a.d. 300's: Christianity becomes the state religion of Syria.

         17)    a.d. 637: Muslim Arabs invade Syria and take control. Islam replaces Christianity and Arabic replaces Aramaic as the language of the land.

6.      Ancient Syrian history in a nutshell: Ancient Syria was conquered by Egypt about 1500 B.C., and after that by Hebrews, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, and Alexander the Great of Macedonia. From 64 B.C. until the Arab conquest in A.D. 636, it was part of the Roman Empire except during brief periods. This particular site listed nothing of Aram’s greatness.

7.      At least two of the Patriarchs married Aramæan women; some of whom were fairly closely related to the patriarchs. Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 24); Jacob and Rachel (and Leah—Gen. 28–29). Jacob and Rachel were also first cousins, which means that there was some intermarriage between the Aramæans and the line of Arpachshad.

8.      Interestingly enough, one of the most ancient cities in the world is Damascus, the principle city of Aram, which is mentioned as early as Gen. 14:15 15:2. Perhaps nearly as ancient, the city of Hamath, mentioned in Num. 13:21 34:8.

9.      

Also interesting: Israel, although a cohesive nation, was very much a confederation of tribes. The two nations most similar to Israel in this regard bordered Israel (Phœnicia and Aram, both of which were a confederation of city-states).

10.    The name Aram, as applied to a country or state or city-state is first found in the 23^rd century b.c. in a cuneiform inscription of the Akkadian King Naram-Sin. There is evidence of nomads in the area of Aram as far back as the 3^rd millennium b.c.¹ However, these nomads do not appear to be Aramæans.

11.    When we think back to great empires, we often dwell upon Rome, Greece or Assyria, and see these are empires which controlled vast land masses at various times. However, Aram appears to be more a loose confederation of city-states, much like the Philistines.

         1)      Therefore, we read about the Aramæans of Damascus coming to help King Hadadezer, the king of Zobah in 2Sam. 8:5; however, these are both Aramaic cities, as are Betah and Berothai, which are mentioned in 2Sam. 8:8.

         2)      King David acts as a mediating factor with regards to the kingdom of Aram, keeping it from growing too large, and maintaining it both as a buffer country, and as a source of tribute. 2Sam. 8:3, 6–8

12.    David’s conflicts with Aram defined both his enemies (e.g., Ammon—2Sam. 10) and his allies (e.g., King Toi—2Sam. 8:9–10).

13.    Although David appears to have had an alliance with Ammon (which alliance is never fully developed or even explained in the Old Testament), this alliance was shattered by King Hanun, who embarrassed David’s ambassadors and resulted in a war between David and Ammon allied with Aram, which morphed into a war with Aram. R. B. Thieme, Jr. calls the battle between Israel and Aram (the Battle of Helam) one of the most important and decisive in Israel’s history. 2Sam. 10

14.    According the ZPEB, Aram’s greatest political influence was in the 11^th and 10^th centuries and its decline would have coincided with David’s several victories over the Aramæans.

15.    Because Syria borders the Northern Kingdom, there continued to be alliances and conflicts between Israel and Aram for many centuries.

16.    Aram’s great lasting contribution to culture is its language. The book of Esther and portions of Daniel are written in Aramaic. The Jews apparently adopted their alphabet to their Hebrew. For reasons which are not completely clear, the use of Aramaic was found throughout the Middle East, and the Jews used this language, in part, for at least a couple hundred years; and much of the Old Testament was paraphrased and translated into Aramaic (e.g., the targum of Onkelos). The Midrash and a portion of the Talmud (Jewish commentaries on the Old Testament, as well as a codification of their doctrines) was written in Aramaic. However, both Jews and Christians alike view the Hebrew Old Testament as being the inspired Word of God. Some branches of Christianity give particular reverence to the Syriac translation of the Bible, which is one of the most ancient. Syriac is a form of Aramaic.

¹ The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible; Merrill Tenney, ed., Zondervan Publishing House, ©1976; Vol. 1, p. 246.

Since Ammon is going to play a prominent part in this chapter, we ought to examine the Doctrine of Ammon.

The Abbreviated Doctrine of Ammon

1.      Lot was Abraham’s nephew. Although Abram and Lot went to the Land of Promise together, they eventually split up. Lot ended up in Sodom and Gomorrah. He was rescued from there by Abraham before God rained down fire and brimstone, destroying this degenerate people. He moved to a cave with his two daughters (his wife turned to a pillar of salt when she looked back upon this city), and these women decided that their prospects for husbands were poor. They moved from a vibrant and degenerate pair of cities off to no man’s land, and they were concerned that they would never have children. Today, they would have gone to a fertility clinic. However, what they did was, on two consecutive nights, they got their father drunk and had sex with him, and each bore a son, one’s name was Moab and the other was Benammi (son of Ammi). These two became the progenitors of the nations of Moab and Ammon. Gen. 19:30–38

         1)      It is important to recognize what is going on here. These women have either rejected the doctrine of right man/right woman or they do not know enough basic doctrine to even know this.

         2)      What these women did here was not only a degenerate mistake, but a complete rejection of what God is able to provide.

         3)      They looked at their situation—they used to live in this great and wonderful city with lots of men (this is from their viewpoint) and now they live in a cave with their father.

         4)      God is able to provide.

         5)      The focus of these women needs to be upon their own souls, not upon their immediate circumstances.

         6)      And example of such faith will be Ruth, a Moabite, whom we will study in this doctrine.

2.      Fausset contrasts the people of Moab with the people of Ammon: Moab was probably the more civilized half of Lot's descendants; whence we read of the plentiful fields, hay, summer fruits, vineyards, presses, songs of those who tread grapes, of Moab (Isaiah 15 16 Jeremiah 48): Ammon the more fierce, plundering, predatory Bedouin–like half; whence we read of their threat of thrusting out the right eye of all in Jabesh Gilead (1Sam. 11:2), ripping up pregnant women in Gilead (Amos 1:13), treacherously murdering, as Ishmael, Baalis' agent, did (Jer. 40:14 41:5–7), suspecting and insulting their ally David to their own ruin (2Sam. 10:1–5 12:31).¹

3.      Although Moab and Ammon had been kept from easily intermixing with the Jews for 10 generations (because of their treatment of the Jews when the Jews were going through the desert), this did not mean that a Moabite or an Ammonite could not come into Israel as a convert to worshiping Jesus Christ, the God of Israel. Deut. 23:2, 46 Neh. 13:2

4.      After the Israelites had spend nearly 40 years in the desert wilderness, the began to move north along the King’s Highway east of the Dead Sea. Part of this involved going through the territories of Moab and Ammon. Num. 21:11–24

         1)      The King of the Moabites, Balak, became quite concerned about the Israelites moving through his territory (particularly since they had just conquered the Amorites), and he hired Balaam, who apparently was a believer in Jesus Christ and a prophet, to curse the Israelites. Balaam ended up blessing the Israelites instead. Num. 22–24 Joshua 24:8–10

         2)      God said that the people of Moab and Ammon should have met Israel with bread and water instead of with hostility. For this reason, Moab and Ammon would not enjoy a spiritual relationship with God side-by-side with the Jews. Deut. 23:2–5

         3)      When the Jews marched northward along the east side of the Dead Sea, they fought against the enemies of Moab and Ammon, and this should have engendered some good will from Moab and Ammon. However, overall, it did not.

         4)      However, the real problem was when the Israelite men became interested in the daughters (women) of Moab, and got involved in idolatry because of their desire for these women. Num. 25:1–9

         5)      Although there were wars with Moab and Ammon, God did not want Israel to take from them their land. Deut. 2:9, 19, 37

         6)      Because they are first cousins, Moab and Ammon should have been natural allies of the Jews. Furthermore, since God gave them plots of land and forbade Israel to take it, there should have been mutual respect between Israel, Moab and Ammon, if not an alliance. However, from the very beginning, Moab and Ammon treated Israel with contempt.

5.      There were hostilities between Israel and Moab and Ammon during the time of the Judges. The greatest problem of Israel was chasing after their gods. Judges 3 10–11

6.      Saul developed a life-long fan club in Jabesh-Gilead by defeating Nahash the Ammonite, who threatened to not only enslave these people, but to gouge out their right eyes. 1Sam. 11

7.      Saul faced many enemies early on, including wars with Ammon and Edom. He was a very successful warrior. 1Sam. 14:47–49

8.      David and the Moabites and the Ammonites:

         1)      David apparently had a good relationship with Nahash, the King of Ammon, although the Bible gives us little by way of detail on this matter (2Sam. 10:1–2). As we have examined, this was probably the more gracious son of Nahash who was defeated by King Saul in 1Sam. 11.

         2)      David had an early run-in with the new King of Ammon, a son of Nahash, whose nobles turned him against David. Ammon brought in Syria (Aram) as an ally so that Israel would have to fight on two fronts. David sent his two top generals to fight against Ammon and Syria and Israel was victorious. 2Sam. 10 1Chron. 19

         3)      While being disciplined for the Bathsheba incident (the wife of the soldier mentioned above), David’s army was still victorious over Ammon. The Ammonites were made slaves of David’s. 2Sam. 12:26–31 1Chron. 20:1–3

         4)      Interestingly enough, when David was on the run from Absalom (his son, as a part of the discipline for his affair with Bathsheba), Shobi, the son of Nahash the Ammonite (see 1Sam. 11), brought food and supplies to David and his army. 2Sam. 17:26–29

9.      Some of the women who Solomon married or kept as mistresses were Moabite and Ammonite women. Such foreign women turned his heart away from God toward their heathen gods. Solomon build sanctuaries to Chemosh, a god of Moab and to Molech, a god of Ammon. Worship of these gods included human and even child sacrifice (although it is unclear whether it went that far with Solomon’s wives). 1Kings 11:1–3, 5–7

10.    Solomon’s son Rehoboam, who reigned over the southern kingdom circa 931–913 b.c., was half-Ammonite. 1Kings 14:21, 31 2Chron. 12:13

11.    There continued to be conflicts between Kings of Judah [Jehoshaphat (870–848 b.c.), King Joash (835–796 b.c.), King Uzziah (circa 767–740 b.c.), Josiah (640–608 b.c.), Jehoiakim (608–697 b.c.)] and Moab and Ammon. 2Chron. 20 24:23–27 26:8 27:5 2Kings 23:3–15 24:1–3

12.    After Zedekiah (597–586 b.c.) rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar put Gedeliah in charge as governor of the few people who remained in the land. Several Jews who ran for their lives began to return from places like Moab and Ammon. The King of the Ammonites successfully plotted against Gedeliah. Jer. 40–41

13.    The Prophets and Moab and Ammon:

         1)      Amos prophesies against Moab and Ammon. Amos 1:13–15 2:1–2

         2)      Isaiah prophesies about the destruction of Moab. This apparently would be fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar. Isa.  11:10–14 15–16 25:10

         3)      Zephaniah prophesies against Moab and Ammon, promising that they will be like Sodom and Gomorrah. Zeph. 2:8–9

         4)      Jeremiah prophesies against nations which have been against Israel, which includes Moab and Ammon. This appears to refer to the coming of Nebuchadnezzar as well as to the final judgment against Moab and Ammon in the end times (not to those nations in particular, but to nations which occupy those areas today and which nations display unrelenting hatred for Israel). Jer. 9:25–26 25:17–38 27:1–9 48 49:1–6

         5)      Ezekiel prophesies about the sword of Babylon coming into Jerusalem and Ammon. Ezek. 21:19–32 25:1–12

         6)      Daniel predicts the destruction of Moab and parts of Ammon. Dan. 11:41

14.    A partial history of one Moabite King, Mesha, is found on what is called the Moabite Stone, which dates back to approximately 900 b.c.

The complete doctrine can be found at www.kukis.org/Doctrines/Moab_ammon.htm

¹ Andrew Robert Fausset, Fausset’s Bible Dictionary; from e-Sword, topic: Ammon (some slight editing).

Weapons change, uniforms change but these principles of war never change. Although I first heard these principles in church, they are attributable to J. F. C. Fuller and to Clausewitz and have been enshrined in the 1921 Army Field Manual.

The Principles of Warfare

1.      The principle of the objective. The most fundamental principle of warfare is the destruction of your enemy’s forces and the removal of their will to fight. Each military operation needs to contribute to this ultimate objective. Each military operation will have its own objective (s), which is (are) both clearly defined and obtainable. In any military operation, there must be more going on that a general yelling charge and his army moving forward. The objective is the ultimate guide for the understanding and interpretation of orders, for the formulation of decisions, and for the use of the available assets.

         1)      There are generally 2 sub-principles of the objective: the enemy’s military forces must be neutralized or destroyed. This objective is generally accomplished in battle and is the primary focus. Rather than seizing and holding geographical locations, the defeat of the enemy’s main force is the primary objective.

         2)      It is certainly important to take and hold specific localities if this contributes to the overall objective of decisively defeating of the enemy..

         3)      In this chapter, the objective of David’s army is the neutralization of both the Syrian army and the Ammonite army.

         4)      David’s original objective was to capture Rabbah, the capital city of Ammon. In moving into position, Joab found himself trapped between two enemy forces: the Ammonites and the Aramaeans (Syrians). After walking into this trap (which we will study), Joab will quickly develop a plan. He will use his elite forces in an offensive against the Syrians, and employ a holding force against the Ammonites. Joab does not have the time or the need to confer with David (who is in Jerusalem) in order to determine what he needs to do. When it become apparent that Ammon has employed Syrian mercenaries, defeating them becomes another objective, which will contribute to the original objective.

2.      The principle of the offensive. Offensive action concentrates force in a decisive direction. Going on the offensive is the only way of attaining the objective. Being on the offensive promotes a concentration of forces, greater freedom of movement and it raises morale. Offensive action can attain victory while defensive action can, at best, stave off a defeat. Defensive action is sometimes employed in order to assist offensive action. Defensive action should only be temporary.

3.      Principle of mass: Mass is the concentration and synchronization of a subset of elements of combat power at a specific place and time, with the intent of having a decisive effect on the enemy force during this relatively short period of time. An illustration of mass, which I read is, hit the enemy with a closed fist as opposed to poking him with the fingers of an open hand. Mass must be sustained so that the effects are decisive and, if possible, crippling to enemy forces. Mass is the application of combat power—where men and equipment are placed—with respect to the enemy. Besides men and equipment, the application of mass must include consideration of the tactical skill, fighting ability, determination, discipline, and morale of one’s army, in addition to the leadership of that army. Success in war is the application of mass at the right time in the right place with the result that, the objective is gained.

4.      The principle of economy of force: Economy of force is the judicious use of resources when mass is employed against the enemy. This is not skimping on resources, but the application of sufficient force in order to achieve a particular objective.

5.      The principle of maneuver or movement. There are five forms of tactical maneuver: envelopment, turning movement, infiltration, penetration, and frontal attack (all of which I believe are found in the Bible).¹ The selection of maneuvers depends upon the forces involved, as well as their location. These various movements are usually combined during a military effort, each maneuver having a different tactical objective (the ultimate objective being, of course, to neutralize the enemy army). Movement is more effective when concealed, because it brings in the element of surprise (which is the next principle).

6.      The principle of surprise. Surprise means, you strike the enemy at a time, place or manner that is unexpected, and therefore, the enemy finds himself unprepared for such a strike. Surprise can compensate for the imbalance of combat power (1Sam. 14 is an illustration of this). Surprise can achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended. Surprise can take the form of movement, speed, the size and maneuverability of force, weaponry used, direction or location of main effort, and timing. Surprise can result in the achievement of a set of objectives with an economy of force and a minimal loss

         1)      Initially, the Syrians will appear to have the advantage here. The Ammonite army stands right outside the city walls of Rabbah as bait. Across from the Ammonite and hidden is the cavalry and chariots of the Syrians. Their strategy here is to maneuver against Joab’s army with the advantage of surprise. When Joab moves his army into place, he is going to find himself trapped between the Ammonite and Syrian armies.

         2)      Therefore, when it comes to the principle of movement and surprise, the Syrians will have the initial advantage (but Joab will turn it around on them).

7.      The principle of security: Security is simply the protection of one’s own forces. The intent of security is to preserve the safety and integrity of one’s forces from hostile acts, influence or surprise during all phases of an operation. This requires a constant application of imagination to the situation; what is the enemy capable of doing and what might they do?

         1)      Lack of security will be one of Joab’s problems. He will place his men into position without considering that there might be additional forces behind him.

         2)      Joab should have sent out reconnaissance teams in all directions. Joab did not due to lack of imagination in this engagement.

8.      The principle of simplicity: Orders and plans need to be clear, uncomplicated and concise so that their implementation up and down the chain of command is possible. Such orders and plans are more likely to be successful, as there is less likely to be misunderstanding and confusion among the troops. All other things being equal, the simplest plan is the best. Furthermore, because there is a wide range of intelligence within any military organization, a military operation is more likely to be successful when every person understands his place and objective in the operation. Also, war being what it is, simple plans are easier to execute under pressure.

9.      Principle of cooperation. The component parts of a military operation must function as a united and cooperative force, which includes the sharing of risks, burdens, and opportunities in every aspect of warfare. Given the alpha-dog nature of most commanders, friction at the top can ruin any military operation.

10.    Unity of Command: Whenever possible, there needs to be one commander guiding all the moving parts of a was theater.

11.    The principle of sustainability: logistical support must be available from entry to withdrawal.

References:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24707009/Principles-of-Warfare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_War

http://www.uc.edu/armyrotc/ms2text/msl_201_l02b_intro_to_principles_of_war_and_operations.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-0/ch7.htm

http://bibleprophecyfortoday.wordpress.com/the-art-of-spiritual-warfare/

These sites were accessed April 23–14, 2011.

http://www.thoughtstorm.com/2008/05/principles-of-war-military/

http://www.sailthechannel.com/stories/wp-content/uploads/images/3sigma/2008/02/principles-of-war.pdf

Accessed May 7, 2011.

See http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/07/2807407 for a more updated set of military principles, including the greatest awareness possible of the environment, the enemy, his strengths and weaknesses; the principle of continuous, organic planning; the ability to adapt to chancing circumstances (flexibility); and the principle of efficiency of command, so that there are no more layers of command than necessary.

¹ See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-0/ch7.htm for examples of each.

Because people in churches engage in little or no Bible study, very little is known about the Old Testament. Many churches become dramatically warped in their theology because they do not know what is in the Old Testament. In this chapter, there is a lot of war as well as war tactics; therefore, we ought to ask why God the Holy Spirit includes this in the Bible.

Why all of this War and Tactics in the Bible?

1.      Satan is constantly at war with believers in Jesus Christ. He will distort Bible doctrine, he will distort the Word of God, and he will do everything possible to distort our thinking.

2.      In our nation, there was a time when believers and skeptics alike knew the Bible and what was in it, almost cover to cover. I read through journals of my great grandfather, who was quite a skeptic of things religious in the Mormon family (I have no idea whether he was a believer or not; I don’t think that he was). What he did know was the Bible and he would make various arguments and statements based upon his own philosophy, reasoning and the Bible. I say this not to extol my great grandfather in any way, but to indicate that, at one time, we knew what was in the Bible in this nation. We had thoughts and ideas and opinions, and the Bible—the mind of Christ—was a part of this thinking.

3.      As we drift further and further away from the Bible in our churches and schools (schools were originally established to teach the Bible, for the most part), our understanding of God, man, and history becomes more and more warped.

4.      One of the best examples of this is the American Black church. At one time, they taught a reasonable amount of Bible doctrine. However, they became more and more emotional; then they became involved in social issues (the civil rights movement); and finally, today (2010), as many as a tenth of Black churches today teach hatred of America, hatred of whites, and they extol collectivism (socialism and/or communism) based upon a few Scriptures taken out of their context. See Black Liberation Theology (HTML) (PDF). The Catholic Church in Latin and South America have followed a similar route. Being a Catholic church, they did not teach much doctrine in the first place. Then church leaders became enamored of human suffering, and became more activist in the realm of dealing with human suffering; and finally, many of them today espouse Liberation Theology, which is communism made palatable to the religious masses.

5.      Part of the teaching of Liberation Theology is that evil whites came and destroyed all of the pristine cultures here in the Americas and replaced them with evil capitalism, built upon the blood of those who originally lived here in peace and harmony.

6.      When we study the Bible, we find out that the borders of nations do change, and this is done by means of warfare, and that warfare is a part of man’s existence. We find out that many nations lose out because they become very heathenistic and hedonistic (as was true of the Indians in the Americas).

7.      The Bible shows the expansion of Israel under David and Solomon, through warfare (some aggressive and some defensive).

8.      The Bible also teaches that slaves have rights and privileges, as given by God in the Law.

9.      Throughout the Bible, it is clear that David brought in a large number of foreigners into his army, which indicates that, even when Israel conquered a nation, they did not necessarily go in and kill everyone in that nation, unless ordered to do so by God. Many times, that nation would be given some measure of sovereignty, which was maintained by bringing tribute to Israel. However, sometimes that nation was destroyed and all of its people.

10.    In both the Old and New Testaments, members of the armed forces are treated with great respect. The Bible never disparages the military or soldiers.

11.    The importance of having a military is found by the study of the Old Testament.

12.    The inevitability of war is taught by Jesus in the New Testament. War will be a part of world history pretty much each and every year. If you pick some miscellaneous year, then you can find 5–50 wars which go on during that particular year.

13.    The Bible never teaches that a nation ought to disband its military in the name of peace (along these same lines, we do not reduce our weapons capabilities; and particularly, unilaterally).

14.    The United States, to some degree, paid attention to the Bible as it expanded westward. Some Indian tribes were wiped out, some were given land on which to live independently (although we make the mistake of subsidizing them; we ought to collect tribute from them) and many Indians were absorbed into our society (I had an uncle who was half American-Indian). Although the United States has not learned perfectly the doctrine of the Bible, it is clear that our founding fathers and those who pushed westward understood doctrine and tried to apply it as the United States expanded. This has resulted in one of the most diverse societies in the world, which, for many, has aimed for some homogenization (for decades, those who came to America became Americans and not hyphenated-Americans).

15.    In any case, nations contract and expand; nations maintain their own borders, and nations raise up armies to deal with their enemies.

16.    Just as the Jews always had enemies; the United States will always have enemies. You cannot have a nation where there are a number of born again believers and think that you can just continue merrily along without conflict. That is pure foolishness.

17.    The Jews in modern-day Israel recognize that they are surrounded by enemies, and that, oft times, their friends are not much better (e.g., the United States). Therefore, all Israelis are drafted and remain soldiers for most of their lives. 2 years ago (I write this in 2010), many of our nation’s people thought that we could elect a smooth-talking president of color, and that, somehow, this will take the place of having a large, well-trained army. We believed that he could travel about and engage in tough diplomacy of carrots and sticks, and reduce war in the world. If we knew the Bible, we would understand the folly of that approach.

18.    On the one hand, our President, Barrack Obama, speaks of a time when nuclear weapons can be removed from the face of the earth; and on the other hand, it is clear in the Bible that you cannot simply wish away warfare and hatred. Nor can you eliminate warfare and hatred through hard work and tough diplomacy. Do you recall David’s tough diplomacy against the Edomites? He laid their defeated army down and killed 2 out of every 3 men (2Sam. 8:2). The Muslim ties of our President mean nothing to Islamic radicals. They kill far more Muslims than westerners. They understand one thing: the increasing pile of dead radical Muslim bodies. We may have to kill almost every single radical Muslim in order to end this war of terror. To our President’s credit, he has given the order to kill lots of radical Muslims.

19.    Knowing the Old Testament allows a believer to properly understand and interpret both history and current events. As an example of this, R. B. Thieme, Jr., back in the 1970's, touted Israel, South Africa and Rhodesia as good and honorable nations. He said that the Shah of Iran was a leader which we ought to continue supporting and that things were fine in Rhodesia and South Africa. Almost every news source in the United States disagreed with him. President Carter, of that era, contributed what he could to the fall of the Shah of Iran, and Carter did what he could to end apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia (which meant shifts in power in all of these 3 nations). The end result was a nation which would prove to be an enemy of the United States for the next several decades (Iran); and evil and despotic rulers in South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) which has made the lives of the people in all 3 of these nations much worse. Divine viewpoint would have sought to maintain the status quo of those nations and human viewpoint sought to change them. The key is knowing the Old Testament.

20.    Four of our greatest generals (Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jonathon Jackson, George Patton and Douglas MacArthur) knew the Bible and knew Bible doctrine. MacArthur understood the importance of Christian missionaries in nation building, something which seems to have eluded former President George W. Bush (despite all of the history reading which he did).

21.    God does not expect us to be Gandhi-types, although liberal theology portrays Jesus as a long-haired homeless hippy, wandering about advocating peace and love and spouting pacifism and anti-war slogans (and they have been very successful at selling this wrong-headed portrayal of Jesus).

22.    If we understand what the Bible teaches, both Old and New Testaments, then we have a more well-rounded approach to our purpose on this earth.

23.    If we understand Bible doctrine, we can properly evaluate historical events and current events.

24.    Because war is an integral part of human existence, so are tactics, and the Bible presents warfare tactics on several occasions. Those who study the Bible—particularly military-types—learn from what the Bible teaches in this realm. Generals can actually learn military strategy and tactics from the Old Testament.

25.    If we know and understand the Bible, we will not go about crying, “Peace, peace” when there is no peace (Jer. 6:14b).

Always bear in mind that, every word of the Old and New Testaments are placed there by God the Holy Spirit. War is an integral part of human civilization, despite our best intentions.

I will admit to spending the past year struggling with 2Sam. 8 10 1Chron. 18–19 and Psalm 60. I do not yet feel comfortable coming down with a definite opinion as to the timing or exact nature of the historical events portrayed in this chapters.

Theories as to the Relationship between 2Samuel 8 and 2Samuel 10

Theories

Commentary

2Sam. 8 is an overview; 2Sam. 10 fills in some details:

Throughout the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, we find events summarized, and then some of these events later expanded upon in subsequent verses and chapters. David’s successful military endeavors (all were successful) are summarized in 2Sam. 8. Mentioned here are wars with Moab, Hadadezer of Aram, and Edom. Tribute is said to be collected from the king of Hamath (via an alliance), Aram, Moab, Ammon, the Philistines, Amalek, and specifically from Hadadezer of Aram. Tribute from Edom is implied.

The war with Ammon and with Aram, found in 2Sam. 10 simply gives some of the details of the conflicts alluded to above.

Problems with this view: There are a fair amount of details given in 2Sam. 8 about David’s conflict with Aram, including the casualty statistics and the name Hadadezer, who apparently is the one overseeing this war with Israel. There are differences which are quite pronounced between 2Sam. 8 and 10 concerning the war (s) with Aram which seem to preclude them being the same conflict.

2Sam. 8–10 describe consecutive events

At the end of this chapters, we will examine the differences between these two conflicts, and they are substantial. There is also enough detail about Israel’s war with Aram in 2Sam. 8 for this to be more than a simple summary of the war, which 2Sam. 10 then takes up.

Problems with this view: The biggest problem with this is, Hadadezer, in 2Sam. 8:3 tells us that Hadadezer went to restore his rule at the River, and that is when David made his move to stop him. In 1Chron. 19:6, some of the forces of Aram are coming from Mesopotamia, which would be the River. This would suggest that enough time passed for Aram to take this area again, but without any interference from David.

2Sam. 10 occurs before 2Sam. 8

This would be kind of an odd approach, but it may make sense when it comes to the details. 2Sam. 8 gives us more or less and overview, with some details. However, in 2Sam. 10 we go back to a previous conflict that David had with Ammon and with Aram. This would help to explain the verb restore which is used in 2Sam. 8:3. He had the power over that area in 2Sam. 10, but was beat so badly by David, that he lost it; and then we went to retake it in 2Sam. 8.

Problems with this view: The biggest problem with this is, we are no longer in chronological order. Now, that is not the end of the world, as there is no reason to assume every chapter is in chronological order relative to the chapters around it. However, there are verses like 2Sam. 13: and 15:1 which appear to place things into chronological order.

In any case, Aram included territory which extended beyond the Euphrates, which is confirmed in 2Sam. 10:16 and 1Chron. 19:16.

2Samuel 10:1a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

hâyâh (הָיָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]

to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #1961 BDB #224

ʾachărêy (אַחֲרֵי) [pronounced ah-kuh-RAY]

behind, after; following; after that, afterwards; hinder parts

preposition; plural form

Strong’s #310 BDB #29

kên (כֵּן) [pronounced kane]

so, thus; upright, honest; rightly, well; [it is] so, such, so constituted;

properly, an active participle; used primarily as an adverb

Strong's #3651 BDB #485

These two words together literally mean after so; however, they appear to mean afterward, afterwards, after these things, after this, [and] after that. See Gen. 15:14 23:19 25:26 Lev. 14:36 Deut. 21:13 1Sam. 10:5.

Life is always in a state of flux.

“It Came to Pass After This”

1.      Even in times of great prosperity, things never remain the same in this life. Things are always changing and we are always changing. Prosperity can only be perpetuated under the principle that Jesus Christ controls history. When a country has a significant pivot, that nation often enjoys increasing prosperity. As that pivot shrinks and as there is more spin-off, that nation goes into decline.

2.      You, as a believer, are either worse today or better. When you spend a day without listening to Bible doctrine, then your spiritual life retrogresses (unless your mind is thinking doctrine and functioning under divine viewpoint on that day).

3.      Even in times of prosperity for a nation, things never remain the same. Calvin Coolidge, on 4December, 1928, summed up his state of the union address with, “The country is in the midst of an era of prosperity more extensive and of peace more permanent than it has ever before experienced. But, having reached this position, we should not fail to comprehend that it can easily be lost.” President Coolidge did not realize how soon his prophetic words would come to pass. Less than a year later, in October of 1929, the stock market crashed, and continued to falter for the next 20 years (the stock market did not continue to go down; but it was erratic and undependable for more than 20 years). 10 years later, most of the world would be involved in the Great War; soon thereafter, we would join in.

4.      Life never stand still. Your life becomes better or it becomes worse.

5.      The only solution to crisis or disaster is the ability to think. The Greeks were some of the most barbarous people who have lived. The Dorians, Lykians, Thracians, Ionians, etc. all were barbaric. Once they were given words and an alphabet which was phonetic, and then they became the brilliant people that they were. This allowed them to express their thinking in writing and to pass down their thoughts from generation to generation. They were able to think, which requires words and new words and concepts.

6.      In our culture, the ability to think is being destroy by drugs. Drugs actually destroy the mechanism of the brain, so that drug-addled people bring our society down by their inability to think clearly. Much of their thinking and motivation revolves around getting high.

7.      We lose our greatness as a nation when we lose the ability to think. Today, millions of people have become hooked on drugs, and have compromised or even lost their ability to think objectively.

8.      The only chance for such a person is to give up drugs and to reinvigorate the thinking with Bible doctrine. Bible doctrine will give such a one a capacity for life because they are able to think again. That person’s mind will open up to new thoughts and new subjects and books.

9.      Even though life is a continuum changing circumstances, the mature believer develops the capacity for thinking and for change. Furthermore, he may develop a great enthusiasm for many subjects.

10.    Science, when it is not politicized, has a capacity to deal with an ever-changing world.

         1)      Our science is based upon faulty notions, like global warming, and the decreasing ozone layer, and, in particular, the evils of DDT. Science has become politicized, and, wherever science is politicized, that area of science goes on the decline. When science become politicized, people lose their objectivity. It is no longer a matter of experimentation leading to this or that conclusion, but data which is collected with a political goal in mind.

         2)      One example which comes to mind is the treatment of homosexuality by psychology. It is statistically demonstrable that there are a myriad of negative psychological and physiological aspects related to the homosexual lifestyle. Actual diseases and physiological syndromes are directly associated with male homosexual activity, as well as a dramatic reduction of life expectancy (a person who regularly engages in homosexual activity will see his life shortened even more than a smoker or a drinker). However, as the science of psychology began to make greater inroads in altering the behavior of homosexuals, psychology found itself under political attack, until it finally relented and removed homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders. None of this came about as a result of experimentation and research; it came about as a result of political pressure. As a result, research which even implies defect in relation to homosexuality is shouted down or denied funding.

         3)      In Africa, millions of people have died because DDT was not used to control mosquitoes. Again, politics trumps science. DDT, the most effective poison to use against mosquitoes, should have been used, at least initially, and then replaced as the mosquito population was reduced.

11.    As believers with doctrine, we must be able to recognize change when it occurs, properly analyze that change and orient to it. We develop our stability on the inside, with Bible doctrine in the soul.

12.    The unchanging world is Bible doctrine; the chancing world is all around us. As we become more filled with the unchanging truth of Bible doctrine, the easier it is for us to cope with changing circumstances.

         1)      As an example, I know from the Bible that homosexuality is a degenerate sin. Therefore, I understand that the practice of homosexuality is bad for the individual and bad for society.

         2)      However, when I see changes in our society with regards to homosexuality, I know from Bible doctrine that this is simply the advancement of evil in our society.

         3)      The lack of advancement in psychology with regards to homosexuality does not perturb me, because Bible doctrine teaches that Satan will attempt to pervert all divine principles.

         4)      The solution is spiritual advancement of the individual believers, not a political restructuring of the United States.

13.    What is true of the believer is also true of the client nation. A client nation is called of God to have laws of divine establishment operate so well that freedom is prioritized. We are a client nation with maximum freedom. We are free to accept or to reject Jesus Christ. Our government does not yet persecute believers for gathering or evangelists for spreading the gospel. Our client nation is also a haven for the Jews.

         1)      One of the great heresies to seep into the Republican party was anti-Semitism. This, in part, destroyed the Republican party. Far-left liberal Lyndon Johnson, one of the worst presidents in our history, soundly defeated a Jewish Barry Goldwater.

         2)      Goldwater understood conservatism and articulated it well. He understood communism and how evil it was, and opposed making treaties with the Communists.

         3)      A lot of doctrine in the souls of believers would have allowed them to clearly see the difference between Johnson and Goldwater. However, because Johnson was elected, not only did we lose the war in Vietnam, but he put into place policies that threaten to destroy the economy of the United States.

         4)      So we, as a client nation, will never stand still. However, the key to our prosperity is doctrine in the souls of the resident believers, and an expansion of the spiritual base (more evangelism).

The believer and human history never stand still. We may yearn for the good old days, but our memories of those times are often softened by time. In the good old days, we lived in the devil’s world; in the good old days, depending upon our spiritual status and that of our parents, we may or may not have been under demonic attack. Being able to enjoy your memories of the past, and yet also enjoy this day in your life ought to be the attitude of every believer. We live one day at a time. As an aside, even though human history moves forward that does not mean that we accept new norms and standards nor does that mean that all moving forward is wrong. In our society, skin color has become less and less of an issue in my lifetime, which is a good thing; but, at the same time, homosexuality has become more and more accepted, which is evil.

2Samuel 10:1b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

mûwth (מוּת) [pronounced mooth]

to die; to perish, to be destroyed

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #4191 BDB #559

melek^e (מֶלֶך׃) [pronounced MEH-lek]

king, ruler, prince

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #4428 BDB #572

bên (בֵּן) [pronounced bane]

son, descendant

masculine plural construct

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

ʿAmmôwn (עַמּוֹן) [pronounced ģahm-MOHN]

hidden; transliterated Ammon

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #5983 BDB #769

2Samuel 10:1c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

mâlak^e (מָלַך׃) [pronounced maw-LAHK^e]

to reign, to become king or queen

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #4427 BDB #573

Chânûwn (חָנוּן) [pronounced khaw-NOON]

favored, gracious, graciously given; transliterated Hanun, Chanun

masculine singular proper noun

Strong’s #2586 BDB #337

bên (בֵּן) [pronounced bane]

son, descendant

masculine singular noun with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

tachath (תַּחַת) [pronounced TAH-khahth]

underneath, below, under, beneath; instead of, in lieu of; in the place [in which one stands]; in exchange for; on the basis of

preposition of location or foundation with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #8478 BDB #1065

2Samuel 10:2a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

ʾâmar (אָמַר) [pronounced aw-MAHR]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare, to manufacture

1^st person singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

cheçed (חֶסֶד) [pronounced KHEH-sed]

grace, benevolence, mercy, kindness

masculine singular noun

Strong's #2617 BDB #338

ʿîm (עִם) [pronounced ģeem]

with, at, by near; like; from; against; toward; as long as; beside, except; in spite of

preposition of nearness and vicinity

Strong’s #5973 BDB #767

Chânûwn (חָנוּן) [pronounced khaw-NOON]

favored, gracious, graciously given; transliterated Hanun, Chanun

masculine singular proper noun

Strong’s #2586 BDB #337

bên (בֵּן) [pronounced bane]

son, descendant

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

Nâchâsh (נָחָש) [pronounced naw-KHAWSH]

serpent and is transliterated Nahash

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #5176 BDB #638

2Samuel 10:2b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

kaph or k^e (כְּ) [pronounced k^e]

like, as, according to; about, approximately

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #453

ʾăsher (אֲֹשֶר) [pronounced ash-ER]

that, which, when, who, whom

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

Together, kaʾăsher (כַּאֲשֶר) [pronounced kah-uh-SHER] means as which, as one who, as, like as, just as; because; according to what manner. Back in 1Sam. 12:8, I rendered this for example.

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare, to manufacture

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

ʾâb (אָב) [pronounced aw^bv]

father, both as the head of a household, clan or tribe; founder, civil leader, military leader

masculine singular noun with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #1 BDB #3

ʿîm (עִם) [pronounced ģeem]

with, at, by near; like; from; against; toward; as long as; beside, except; in spite of

preposition of nearness and vicinity with the 1^st person singular suffix

Strong’s #5973 BDB #767

cheçed (חֶסֶד) [pronounced KHEH-sed]

grace, benevolence, mercy, kindness

masculine singular noun

Strong's #2617 BDB #338

Although we are going to try to piece the relationship of David and Nahash together, this is one of the great untold stories of Scripture.

The Doctrine of (David’s Friend) Nahash

1.      First of all, there are 3 Nahash’s in the Bible:

         1)      There is the Nahash, King of Ammon, during the time of Saul (during his early years), who gave the citizens of Jabesh-Gilead the choice between all being killed or all having one eye gouged out. Saul rescued this city and despite Saul’s failings, these citizens never forgot what he did. 1Sam. 11

         2)      There is his son, Nahash, King of Ammon, a contemporary of David’s (perhaps a little older) who befriended David. Some treat #1 and 2 as identical. 2Sam. 10:2

         3)      There is another Nahash who is the father of David’s sister, which is rather confusing, as David’s father is Jesse and not Nahash. We will discuss this more when we come to it (however, the common explanation is, this Nahash was the original husband of David’s mother, and he sired Abigail and Zeruiah, making them David’s half-sisters). 2Sam. 17:25

2.      There is the possibility that the Nahash of 1Sam. 11 and 2Sam. 10 are one and the same. Nahash in 1Sam. 11 was a bloodthirsty monster. If that is the case, (1) there would have been a radical personality change and (2) he would have lived a long time, his career spanning the entire kingship of Saul and the first 10+ years of David’s reign..

3.      The second possibility is, there is Nahash, the King of Ammon, the enemy of Saul; and he had a son, Nahash, who became a friend of David’s. If the first Nahash was, say, 20+ years older than Saul when their paths crossed (Saul was a young man and Nahash was an established king at this time), the time frame for 2 Nahash’s would have made sense. Given the character of the first Nahash, naming his son after him would have been apropos to his own egotistical character. Furthermore, the time frame here would make perfect sense.

4.      There is an elapse of about 50 years between 1Sam. 11 and 2Sam. 10. If Nahash, the enemy of Israel, was older than Saul, then we have more than enough time for him to die, for his son (who is perhaps 20 years younger) to reign and to die as well.

5.      Do you think that God would have allowed such a cruel man—an enemy of Israel—to live so long? Also, would God have allowed such a one to preside over a prospering Ammon?

6.      Furthermore, what a sweet and grand irony it would be for such an enemy of Israel and of God (i.e., Nahash Sr.) to be replaced by a man who is a friend to David Nahash Jr.). God does appear to enjoy irony, as there is so much of it in the world.

7.      So, taking into consideration the time frame, the personalities of Nahash the elder and Nahash the younger, and the history presented (the first Nahash is a cruel enemy of Israel and the second apparently has a close relationship with David), it is most likely that are two men named Nahash, father and son, and that these are not the same man.

8.      According to Josephus, Saul killed Nahash the elder (Antiquities VI, v, 3). This would also support there being a Nahash I and Nahash II.

9.      Somehow, David crossed paths with Nahash Jr. and they became friends and allies. David, for awhile, had a good relationship with the king of Moab, entrusting his parents to him during David’s time on the run (which relationship changed dramatically as we saw in 2Sam. 8:2). Very likely, this was a result of a regime change, not unlike the one we are studying in this chapter.

         1)      ZPEB suggests¹ that David’s treatment of Moab in 2Sam. 8 caused Nahash to befriend David, but that strikes me as unlikely because of the time frame. We are probably not even 10 years removed from that war. Such an act of David might have gained quick respect from the Ammonites, but not necessarily a friendship as we have here. Although this relationship is possible based upon David’s cruel treatment of the Moabites, it is unlikely in my opinion.

         2)      Others have suggested that, because Nahash was an enemy of Saul and Saul made David his enemy, that was the basis of their friendship (in other words, Nahash I = Nahash II). However, Nahash’s potentially cruel treatment of the people of Jabesh-Gilead would not have endeared Nahash I to David, whereas, Saul’s action in that situation would have garnered respect from David (David would have been a very young man when this occurred).

         3)      My theory is this: at some point during David’s run from Saul, Nahash II and David crossed paths, and they became friends (Nahash brought David and his army food or something along these lines). Nahash II may have felt badly about what his father had done, and was looking for the opportunity to patch things up with Israel. Whatever it was that happened, David did not forget this and an alliance was formed. I suspect that after Israel’s war with Moab, Nahash II began to send tribute to David without being asked for it (which is a common ancient world custom).

         4)      R. B. Thieme, Jr. suggests that David developed a friendship with Nahash when he was on the run from Saul, and that David never forgot a kindness done to him.²

10.    We are told in 2Sam. 8:12 that David received tribute from the Ammonites, and this could be understood in two ways—this was either a gloss, which took place in time after most of the incidents in 2Sam. 8 (as a result of David defeating Ammon in this chapter); or this could represent tribute paid by Nahash II to David, as was typical in those days. Weaker nations paid tribute to stronger nations with whom they are allied or before whom they have fallen in battle. This happened all of the time in the ancient world; it was a common practice.

11.    However, there is no historical narrative giving us any information about David and Nahash II, apart from this chapter. So we know that Nahash II manufactured grace toward David (2Sam. 10:2), but nothing by way of specifics besides that.

12.    Hanun, the son of Nahash the Younger, will respond to David’s graciousness with arrogance and hostility, which will result in a war which will devastate Ammon’s army. 2Sam. 10

13.    Several years down the road, another son of Nahash the Younger will treat David with graciousness, (1) out of respect for his own father and his father’s relationship to David when his father was alive; and (2) to try to correct the lousy treatment of his brother toward David’s ambassadors (2Sam. 10:3–4). When David is on the run from his son, Absalom, Shobi ben Nahash will personally bring food and supplies to David and his men. 2Sam. 17:27–29

14.    Nahash the Younger apparently learned from his father to befriend the Jews. His father made the Jews his enemies and probably died when fighting them. Nahash the Younger, rather than respond to this incident with anger and revenge, appeared to learn from it—he looked at the facts objectively, and befriended David.

15.    Similarly, Shobi, the son of Nahash, learned from Hanun his brother. Hanun treated David’s ambassadors despicably and Ammon, as a country, paid the price; so Shobi chose to go another route, and to treat David with grace.

16.    Like Mephibosheth of the previous chapter, Nahash and his sons will enter into David’s life throughout are various points, and we will learn solid spiritual lessons from these interactions.

17.    This continues to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who despise you.” (Gen. 12:3a), a promise which holds true even today.

¹ The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible; Merrill Tenney, ed., Zondervan Publishing House, ©1976; Vol. 4, p. 355.

² From http://syndein.com/ii_samuel_10.html accessed December 27, 2009.

2Samuel 10:2c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

shâlach (שָלַח) [pronounced shaw-LAKH]

to send, to send for [forth, away], to dismiss, to deploy, to put forth, to stretch out, to reach out

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #7971 BDB #1018

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced l^e]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

nâcham (נָחַם) [pronounced naw-KHAHM]

to comfort, to console, to have compassion, to show compassion

Piel infinitive construct with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5162 BDB #636

b^e (בְּ) [pronounced b^eh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

yâd (יָד) [pronounced yawd]

generally translated hand

feminine singular construct

Strong's #3027 BDB #388

This combination of the bêyth preposition and hand literally means in [the] hand of; and can be rendered in the power of; by the power of; with; through, by, by means of; before, in the sight of.

ʿôbêd (עֹבֵד) [pronounced ģoh-BADE]

a slave, a servant

masculine plural noun with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5660 BDB #713

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced ehl]

unto; into, among, in; toward, to; against; concerning, regarding; besides, together with; as to

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

ʾâb (אָב) [pronounced aw^bv]

father, both as the head of a household, clan or tribe; founder, civil leader, military leader

masculine singular noun with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #1 BDB #3

2Samuel 10:2d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

bôwʾ (בּוֹא) [pronounced boh]

to come in, to come, to go in, to go, to enter

3^rd person masculine plural, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

ʿôbêd (עֹבֵד) [pronounced ģoh-BADE]

a slave, a servant

masculine plural construct

Strong’s #5660 BDB #713

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

ʾerets (אֶרֶץ) [pronounced EH-rets]

earth (all or a portion thereof), land, territory, country, continent; ground, soil; under the ground [Sheol]

feminine singular construct

Strong's #776 BDB #75

bên (בֵּן) [pronounced bane]

son, descendant

masculine plural construct

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

ʿAmmôwn (עַמּוֹן) [pronounced ģahm-MOHN]

hidden; transliterated Ammon

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #5983 BDB #769

A Map of Rabbah in Ammon

I have always found it easier to understand what is going on if you understand the geography. Ammon is east of central Israel, and their capital city, Rabbah, where David’s emissaries are going, is on the other side of the Jordan from Jerusalem, roughly the same distance from the Jordan.

This is about a 40 mile trip.

2Samuel 10:3a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

ʾâmar (אָמַר) [pronounced aw-MAHR]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3^rd person masculine plural, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

sar (שַׂר) [pronounced sar]

chieftain, chief, ruler, official, captain, prince, leader, commander

masculine plural construct

Strong’s #8269 BDB #978

bên (בֵּן) [pronounced bane]

son, descendant

masculine plural construct

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

ʿAmmôwn (עַמּוֹן) [pronounced ģahm-MOHN]

hidden; transliterated Ammon

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #5983 BDB #769

This is often transliterated Bene-Ammon and is a common designation for this country.

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

Chânûwn (חָנוּן) [pronounced khaw-NOON]

favored, gracious, graciously given; transliterated Hanun, Chanun

masculine singular proper noun

Strong’s #2586 BDB #337

ʾădônây (אֲדֹנָי) [pronounced uh-doh-NAY]

Lord, Master, my Lord, Sovereign; can refer to the Trinity or to an intensification of the noun; transliterated Adonai

masculine plural noun with the 3^rd person masculine plural suffix

Strong’s #113 & #136 BDB #10

2Samuel 10:3b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

hă (הֲ) [pronounced heh]

interrogative particle which acts almost like a piece of punctuation, like the upside-down question mark which begins a Spanish sentence. The verb to be may be implied.

Strong’s #none BDB #209

kâbêd (כָבֵד) [pronounced kaw^b-VADE]

to make heavy, to make insensible; to honor, to do honor to

Piel participle

Strong's #3513 BDB #457

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

ʾâb (אָב) [pronounced aw^bv]

father, both as the head of a household, clan or tribe; founder, civil leader, military leader

masculine singular noun with the 2^nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #1 BDB #3

b^e (בְּ) [pronounced b^eh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

ʿêynayim (עֵינַיִם) [pronounced ģay-nah-YIM]

eyes, two eyes, literal eye(s), spiritual eyes; face, appearance, form; surface

feminine plural noun with the 2^nd person singular suffix

Strong’s #5869 (and #5871) BDB #744

This phrase is literally in your eyes, but it can be translated in your opinion, in your estimation, to your way of thinking, as you see [it]. The dual and plural forms of this word appear to be identical.

kîy (כִּי) [pronounced kee]

for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time

explanatory or temporal conjunction; preposition

Strong's #3588 BDB #471

shâlach (שָלַח) [pronounced shaw-LAKH]

to send, to send for [forth, away], to dismiss, to deploy, to put forth, to stretch out, to reach out

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #7971 BDB #1018

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced l^e]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional/relational preposition with the 2^nd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

nâcham (נָחַם) [pronounced naw-KHAHM]

comforters, consolers, those having [showing] compassion

masculine plural, Piel participle

Strong’s #5162 BDB #636

2Samuel 10:3c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

hă (הֲ) [pronounced heh]

interrogative particle which acts almost like a piece of punctuation, like the upside-down question mark which begins a Spanish sentence. The verb to be may be implied.

Strong’s #none BDB #209

lôʾ (לֹא or לוֹא) [pronounced low]

not, no

negates the word or action that follows; the absolute negation

Strong’s #3808 BDB #518

Hă lôʾ together expect an affirmative answer. In fact, these two words together present a question with an obvious, self-evident answer.

baʿăbûwr (בַּעֲבוּר) [pronounced bah-ģu^b-VOOR]

because of, for, that, for the sake of, on account of, in order that; while

preposition/conjunction; substantive always found combined with the bêyth preposition

Strong’s #5668 BDB #721

Actually a combination of the bêyth preposition (in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before) and ʿâbûwr (עֲבוּר) [pronounced ģaw^v-BOOR] which means a passing over, a transition; the cause of a crossing over; the price [of transferring ownership of something]; purpose, objective. Properly, it is the passive participle of Strong’s #5674 BDB #720. Strong’s #5668 BDB #721.

châqar (חָקַר) [pronounced khaw-KAHR]

to search out, to search for, to investigate, to thoroughly investigate

Qal infinitive construct

Strong’s #2713 BDB #350

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

ʿîyr (עִיר) [pronounced ģeer]

encampment, city, town

feminine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #5892 BDB #746

1Chron. 19:3 and one early printed edition has the land here instead of the city. Ordinarily, if this were one errant manuscript, comment would not be necessary; however, this is in the parallel passage, which prompts us to ask, which did they say? It may seem like a minor point, but we cannot have one passage of the Bible saying one thing and another passage saying something entirely different. What makes the most sense to me is, Hanun has several underlings talking to him, and one says, “They’re here to spy out the city” and another says, “They are here to spy out the land.”

2Samuel 10:3d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

w^e (or v^e) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced l^e]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

râgal (רָגַל) [pronounced raw-GAHL]

to move the feet, to foot it, to tread, to go about, to go about as an explorer, to go about as a spy, to go on foot to scope something out; to slander

Piel infinitive construct with the 3^rd person feminine singular suffix

Strong’s #7270 BDB #920

2Samuel 10:3e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

w^e (or v^e) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced l^e]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

hâphak^e (הָפַך׃) [pronounced haw-FAHK^e]

to turn [as a cake, a dish, one’s hand or side], to turn oneself; to turn back, to flee; to overturn, to overthrow [e.g., cities]; to convert, to change; to pervert, to be perverse

Qal infinitive construct with the 3^rd person feminine singular suffix

Strong’s #2015 BDB #245

shâlach (שָלַח) [pronounced shaw-LAKH]

to send, to send for [forth, away], to dismiss, to deploy, to put forth, to stretch out, to reach out

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #7971 BDB #1018

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

ʿôbêd (עֹבֵד) [pronounced ģoh-BADE]

a slave, a servant

masculine plural noun with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5660 BDB #713

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied); with the 2^nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #413 BDB #39

2Samuel 10:3f

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

shâlach (שָלַח) [pronounced shaw-LAKH]

to send, to send for [forth, away], to dismiss, to deploy, to put forth, to stretch out, to reach out

3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #7971 BDB #1018

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

ʿôbêd (עֹבֵד) [pronounced ģoh-BADE]

a slave, a servant

masculine plural noun with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5660 BDB #713

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied); with the 2^nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #413 BDB #39

So far, our passage reads: After these things, it came to pass that the king of Ammon died and his son Hanun reigned instead of him. And so, David said, “I will manufacture grace toward Hanun, the son of Nahash, just as his father manufactured grace toward me.” Therefore, David sent his ambassadors to comfort Hanun concerning his father. And the ambassadors entered into the land of the Ammonites. And the state department of Ammon said to Hanun their sovereign, “Is David really honoring your father in your opinion simply because he sent comforters to you? Did not David send his ambassadors to you in order to thoroughly search out the city, for them to scope out the city as spies, and to later overthrow it?” (2Sam. 10:1–3).

The Pettiness of Hanun and his State Department

1.      What David does here is an act of grace. Petty people do not understand grace because they never act in grace. Hanun’s state department assumes that David is up to something or is attempting to manipulate them in some way.

2.      Petty people are unable to understand honorable motivation and gracious acts. They look at everything as it relates to them, and grace and honor are outside of their own modus operandi.

3.      Hanun’s state department is petty, and they are unable to understand the thinking or actions of a great man.

4.      Hannun’s state department is jealous of Israel and their prosperity (probably because they are paying them tribute) and the Ammonite people have developed hatred for the people of Israel.

         1)      We see much of this today in class warfare.

         2)      We have overpaid teachers, police and firefighters all over the United States; however, because they see someone who is much richer, and contributes to their salary, they believe that they are entitled to even more wealth.

         3)      Public unions have ginned up a great deal of anger, and we find huge numbers of state workers marching about, causing damage to capitol buildings, and screaming slogans (I write this in 2011).

         4)      These are people who are involved in what are traditionally honorable professions, but they have become jealous of riches, and want more, no matter what the effect this has upon their own state treasury.

         5)      Hanun’s state department is going to egg Hanun on to treat this gracious envoy from David shamefully, with the result that it will destroy the very nation that they head. Even though these are leaders, they have no ability to see the big picture.

         6)      We live in a time of budgetary madness, where our debt threatens to undo us, and politicians are only able to see as far as the next election cycle.

         7)      Let me give you a contemporary example from the Republican side. Many Republicans think that they must agree to raise the debt ceiling, even though they are calling for balancing the budget. At the time that I write this (1May 2011) this is being debated. The simplest approach would be to simply vote against raising the debt ceiling. That would result in a defacto balanced budget amendment. That would force the president to fund only those things for which he has the income to fund. Our country would do fine for weeks or even months with such a defacto balanced budget. However, my fear is, too many Republicans will vote to raise the debt ceiling and they will get very little in exchange for it.

         8)      Just as the state department of Ammon is short-sighted about the welfare of their own country, the same is true of most of our politicians.

5.      Whatever treaty was in place between David and Ammon would have been up for review because Ammon is now under this new administration.

6.      It is clear that this state department is rejecting their alliance with David.

7.      Pettiness of soul often results in sins of the tongue. Ammon’s state department beings to malign David. They incorrectly evaluate his motivation and then they malign him.

8.      Petty people reveal their own petty thinking when they malign the genuine motivation of others. They reveal what is in their own minds. They accuse David of the sort of thing that they would do.

         1)      We have observed this in American politics. Democrats have accused the TEA party (a grassroots movement which wants to see a reduction of government and government spending) of racism. They impute their own thinking to others.

         2)      Any group which wants to see racial preferences of any sort is racist. They see the racial group that is favored as inferior and unable to advance in life without their help.

         3)      Democrats accused FoxNews of receiving faxes of talking points from the Republican White House each day; and it turns out that, there was a large group of journalists who participated in a conference call each morning to receive liberal talking points (in a story which was almost completely ignored by the traditional media).

         4)      So, when these administrators of Ammon observe David doing something gracious, it is outside of their realm of experience, so they assigned to David evil motivation and ulterior motives.

9.      Because petty people are envious of others, they impugn the motivations of David in order to make themselves look good by comparison. However, it is these men in the state department who have all of the hidden motivations of evil.

10.    Petty people often employ strawman arguments. A strawman is a position or a motivation that someone else doesn’t really have, but petty people portray them as having this position or motivation. Then they attack he straw man and tear it down.

         1)      Politics is rife with such strawman arguments. President Obama used strawman arguments continually in his run for the presidency: "There seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing."¹

         2)      Other Obama examples: he said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."² Here, he both imputes evil motivation to an implied perpetrator of such a gutting.

         3)      He has also said: "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity."² Something which no one has ever said.

         4)      Hanun’s state department is intentionally giving a false impression of who David is and what his true motivation is. Therefore, they end up looking pretty good, by comparison. However, they are not really comparing themselves to David, but to their lying portrayal of him.

11.    Like many politicians, Hanun’s state department does not look into the future to see the harsh consequences of this bad advice. They either suffered a failure of imagination or they misjudged David terrible. It did not occur to them that David would bring his army into Ammon and take down Rabbah, their capitol city.

12.    Because they are arrogant, they are unable to see the consequences of their actions.

         1)      When I write this in 2011, it is abundantly clear that we have a president who is arrogant in the extreme. Because he has never run a business, had to make payroll, or lay anyone off, he has no idea as to the consequences of his actions. He sees himself as always being right; he is unable to see the other side of the argument, and has assumed that his programs and policies will have good results. His arrogance blinds him to the unintended consequences of liberalism.

         2)      This president has been quite effective in moving our country far to the left; far more than any president in my lifetime.

13.    Ammon’s state department knows what David did to the Philistines and to the Edomites. They are familiar with David as an army commander. David conquered the Moabites, the Jebusites, the Edomites, and he could conquer them just as well. They view David as being weak because he sends this envoy of grace.

14.    An arrogant person often tries to gain power by being the advisor. If he is not a leader, then he wants to be the 2^nd best thing—he wants to have the ear of the leader. The person who has the ear of the president is very powerful indeed.

15.    The advice of Hanun’s state department is offered up only to gain more power for themselves; however, they are taking their own country in a terrible and even suicidal direction.

         1)      There is a very close coterie of advisors to President Barrack Obama, most of whom are ideologues and in far over their heads.

         2)      Nahash kept the arrogance of his state department in check. If they offered up a goofy idea, he would shoot it down and give the reason why.

         3)      However, it is obvious that, if this was Nahash’s state department, that he was clearly able to hear opposing points of view.

         4)      On the other hand, Nahash’s son, Hanun, does not have the intelligence and the common sense to understand what he is doing here. He is manipulated into a course of action which will destroy his country.

         5)      Let’s use the example of, say, these 3 kids bully another kid, and they egg each other on in this bullying. It may not occur to them that this little kid has a big brother, or perhaps, 2 or 3 big brothers, who will step in and kick their asses.

16.    These ministers of state wanted to send our their own ambassadors to Israel, in order to spy out the country, so that they might defeat the Jewish army. They are judging David by their own ideas; by their own motivation. This is what they would do. When you judge others, your opinion of their motivations reveals your own inner thinking.

17.    The members of this state department are arrogant and jealous; and so they impute this thinking onto David.

18.    Furthermore, because they are arrogant, they lack imagination and they are very short-sighted.

19.    Their arrogance, pettiness and short-sightedness will result in the bankruptcy of Ammon. Does this remind you of any other country that we know?

¹ From http://www.gop.gov/wtas/09/02/11/washington-post-criticizes-obamas accessed May 1, 2011.

² From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561484923478287.html accessed May 1, 2011.