Doctrines Covered

Doctrines Alluded To

Aram

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.

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.

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.

Thieme on Principles of Warfare

1.      The principle of the objective. The purpose of a military operation is the attainment of the objective assigned to a designated force. There needs to be more than someone yelling charge and everyone moves forward against the enemy. The objective constitutes the guide for the interpretation of orders, for the formulation of decisions, for the employment of the means available. The nation, the military forces and each element of the military forces all have objectives. Here, in the context of this chapter, it is the neutralization of 2 armies, the Syrian army and the Ammonite army. David, in sending out a flying column, thought that he sent enough out there to win the war, which is the objective at the highest echelon. David’s army had 2 basic objectives: the capture of Rammah and the destruction of the Syrian mercs (mercenaries). There are generally 2 sub-principles of the objective:

         1)      The neutralization or destruction of the power of the enemy’s military forces. This has to be done in battle and this is always the first consideration. This means the defeat of the enemy’s main forces as decisively as possible. This is more important than grabbing cities or chunks of land. There is the ford across Jericho, and going up high cliffs, where flankers are not needed. However, when Joab comes out to the valley, he will walk into a trap. He will find himself set up on both sides by the Ammonites and the Syrians. David and Joab knew the Ammonites were the easy army to defeat. Joab, after walking into this trap (which we will study) will quickly develop a plan. He will take his elite forces against the Syrians, and put a holding force on the Ammonites. Joab does not have to run to David to figure out what to do; he knows what to do.

         2)      The possession of localities that will attain the national objective, which is the defeating of the enemy..

2.      The principle of the offensive. The offensive permits concentration of effort and allows freedom of action and raised morale. Offensive is the only way by which an objective is gained. The offensive increases the effectiveness of a force that adopts it; it raises morale, it allows freedom of action, it brings victory while defensive can only fight off defeat. The offensive delivers a main blow in a decisive direction. Defensive is sometimes used in order to assist the offensive, which, ideally speaking, ought only be a temporary measure.

3.      Principle of mass: Mass is the principle of combat power. Numbers, weapons, combat skill, resolution, leadership, morale are all contributing factors to mass. Mass is where you place troops and equipment. Success in war is applying mass at a proper time in a proper place to gain the objective or for the accomplishment of a definite purpose.

4.      The principle of economy of force: Economy of force is the means by which the mass is employed in a main effort. The time and place of the main effort must be determined by the men and the means and their employment at the proper place and time with concern for not losing these forces...

5.      The principle of maneuver or movement. Movement is the maneuvering of combat elements. It is the offensive to bring the mass close to the enemy to attain a victory. The Syrians will have the advantage here; and the Ammonites will be right outside the city walls of Rabbah used as bait. Movement is more effective when concealed. A wide hope plain here, good for cavalry and chariots. This allows for mobility surprise. In this case, under the principle of movement, the Syrians will have the advantage of movement (but Joab will turn it around on them).

6.      The principle of surprise. Surprise in some form allows maximum effect with minimum loss. It can be a surprise with respect to time, force, place, tactics, direction, size of force, type of weaponry. It can be secrecy or rapidity of movement. There is more than one kind of surprise. If you listen to Bob’s lesson, he illustrates this with several examples from the Civil War. He also commented, “You men may want to consider how many times a woman has used surprise on you.”

7.      The principle of security: Security is guarding against the opposition’s military plans and to guard against being taken by surprise. Lack of security will be one of Joab’s problems. Joab will be perhaps a little too cocky on this occasion. He will have no idea that the whole Syrian army will be ready to jump on him. Reconnaissance teams should have gone in several different directions. Apart from the grace of God, David would have had the hell knocked out of him.

8.      The principle of simplicity: plans should be as simple as possible. There aren’t too many bright people in military life and the intelligent ones sometimes cannot think under pressure. Bob gives an example of a Japanese failure in the Philippines, where their plan was too complicated.

9.      Principle of cooperation. This is the concept of various components of an army working together for the accomplishment of a common mission; it means teamwork. The Army and Marines have to work together. The Air Force has to work with the army without killing them. In the Battle of the Bulge, there was a lot bombing of friendly troops. If there is anything that is devastating, it is antagonism between different branches of the service. At this juncture, Bob gives some fascinating illustrations Naval Officer and Marine officer got into it and that almost cost a large number of marines. There were also two Russian generals (Samsonov and Rennenkov?) who would not cooperate during the Russian Revolution; with the result that the Russian army was annihilated; 3/4 millions died because 2 generals would not cooperate. This was from the Battle of Tannenberg. It began during the Russian Japanese War. Bob gives the background, which culminated in a fist fight at a train station.

These notes are taken from R. B. Thieme Jr.’s 1972David series #631 Lesson #220. This is not necessarily an exact quotation.

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 (Black Liberation Theology). 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. Although I am leaning toward option 1 below, 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 indicate 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.

R. B. Thieme Jr. gives a set of points over this phrase:

R. B. Thieme Jr. on “It Came to Pass After This”

1.      Even in times of prosperity, things never remain the same in this life. Things are always changing; we are always changing. Even in prosperity, things never remain the same in this life. Prosperity can only be perpetuated under the principle that Jesus Christ controls history. You are either worse today or better. The day you miss doctrine is the day you take a nosedive. Even in prosperity, things never remain the same. Calvin Coolidge in his state of the union address said, “Things have never been better” in 1929, and the market fell at that point. Things never stand still. They become better and they become worse. It is important to know in every facet of your life. By standing still, you might become worse. 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, Likians, 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. They were able to think, which requires words and new words and concepts. People in our culture have stopped thinking and our system is used to peddle drugs to young people; the whole system of drug addiction destroys the mechanical ability to think. We lose our greatness when we destroy our brain cells, and there are 100's of thousands of kids hooked on drugs. Many of you have stopped thinking years ago; but doctrine will give you capacity for life. It will open you up to thoughts and subjects and books.

2.      Life is a set of changing circumstances, but the mature believer has capacity for thinking and for change; and he has enthusiasm for many subjects. Great decline in science, because everything is related to peace. Project Manhattan was an incredible thing and they were fascinated by the subject. We ought to use gas as rapidly as possible and encourages the use of gas as quickly as possible so that we use new energy forms. We will be surpassed by the Russians, who never could think, but they have captured Germans. The day they began shipping coal from Wyoming to San Antonio, we are going backwards. Our indoor plumbing is the greatest in the world. We are going back to the evil philosopher Rousseau. We will instead mess up the outside. We are trying to preserve everything for the noble savage concept.

3.      Part of the prosperity from the justice of God is being able to orient to change. We must be able to know change when it is coming, analyze that change and learn to deal with it. Prosperity imputed from the justice of God allows us to orient from the soul to the change.

4.      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 reigns. 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. The client nation is also the haven for the Jews. This was not true, of course, during the Age of Israel. At that time, they were the client nation. It is the Jew Barry Goldwater who opposes the president who wants to make a treaty with the Communists. The Shah of Iran is a great man and he has set up great principles of education, and liberals have come in there and have destroyed this.

Later on, in these same notes, Bob adds the point: The good old days of the past become pleasant memories to be replaced by the new challenges of the present. We become so preoccupied with the good old days, that we become disoriented to life and are divorced from reality. No matter what good times you have had in the past, all of the good times and all of the fun will not carry us in any catastrophe.

Notes taken from 1972David (series #631) Lesson #213.

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

R. B. Thieme Jr. makes some salient points here:

Thieme’s Summary Points for 2Samuel 10:2

1.      The integrity of David is manifested by his aggressiveness when it comes to grace. Grace can be passive or grace can be active. Sometimes grace is passive and lets an insult go by. Many believers fail in the Christian life because they do not know when grace should be active or passive.

2.      Therefore, David did the honorable thing. He was a military type and preferred peace over war, understanding the horrors of war more than anyone never in war.

3.      His aggressive approach to grace in this instance revealed a desire and an expectation of peace.

4.      The smart professional soldier is always prepared for war. You avoid war if you can have peace with honor.

5.      Arrogance causes implacability and David’s friendship seeking is perceived as weakness.

6.      Theses Jewish ambassadors should be treated with courtesy and dignity.

7.      However, arrogance, being unstable, is impetuous and rash. Hanun and his state department will maltreat the Jewish ambassadors despite them being sent on a mission of grace.

8.      The nation of Ammon worships Molech and this includes the phallic cult and child sacrifice and demon possession. This helps to explain their arrogance, because they love a lie more than they love the truth. The relationship with Nahash had with David likely included the truth; Nahash was likely a believer in Jehovah Elohim. However, Hanun and his state department were arrogant and they worshiped Molech.

9.      People who choose to worship that which is false are often arrogant.

10.    These men, because they are arrogant and because they have power, completely misread David’s aggressive use of grace, and they see David as weak.

These notes are taken from R. B. Thieme Jr.’s 1972David series #631 Lesson #215. This is not necessarily an exact quotation and they have been added to as well as edited after the fact.

R. B. Thieme gave a lot of notes on this chapter.

Thieme on Pettiness of Hanun and his State Department

1.      The gracious act causes Hanun to lose his poise. They did not understand what David was up to.

2.      Petty people never understand honorable motivation. They do not understand how great people think nor do they understand do they understand their actions.

3.      Jealousy and pettiness always live together. They are mated. A jealous person is also a petty person. Petty people are jealous. The ministers of Ammon were jealous of David, and the people of Ammon hate Israel.

4.      The treaty between David and Ammon was up for review under this new administration, and they were clearly rejecting their alliance with David.

5.      The ministers of Ammon begin by maligning David. They judge and malign him. They impugn his motivation. They reveal their own thinking. What they accuse David of is something that they would do. They would do some phoney nice thing, but behind it would be evil motivation and an ulterior motive.

6.      These jealous princes are arrogant and guilty of inordinate competition. They put down David in order to make it seem as though David is a lousy guy, so they look good by comparison. They paint a false picture of David, compare themselves to this false picture, and look good by comparison.

         a.      Related to this are strawman arguments. People will set up a strawman when trying to argue a point, and then knock this straw man down. A smart person sees through this and recognizes that knocking down a false argument or a false viewpoint does not give more credence to the person using the strawman argument.

         b.      This men are giving a false impression of who David is and what his motivation is; so, by comparison, they look pretty damn good. However, they are not really comparing themselves to David, but to their false portrait of him.

7.      Hanun’s state department do not see the consequences of their bad advice. They did not know David would step across the border some day and wipe them out.

8.      Their arrogance blinds them to the consequences of their actions.

         a.      I am editing these notes from 1978 some 32 years later, and we have a president who is abundantly arrogant. 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.

         b.      This president uses strawman arguments constantly when making the case for his liberal programs.

9.      Back to David’s era: this state department knows what David did to the Philistines and to the Edomites. They have seen David as an army commander. David conquered the Moabites, the Jebusites, the Edomites, and he could conquer them just as well.

10.    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.

11.    Hanun’s state department is a group of arrogant people who will give bad advice to Hanun, the Ammonite king. Their advice is offered only to gain power for themselves, and still offering a suicidal direction for their country.

         a.      Again, this has excellent application to the year 2010, as I append my notes on David with points made by R. B. Thieme Jr. There is a very close coterie of advisors to President Barrack Obama, most of whom are ideologues and in far over their heads.

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

         c.      Hanun simply does not have the intelligence and the common sense to understand what he is doing here.

         d.      Rather than give you an illustration of President Obama and his advisors, let’s 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.

12.    These princes or ministers of state were most anxious to send their ministers or ambassadors to defeat the Jewish army. By judging others you reveal your own thinking or your own motivation. Judging impugns the motives of others and reveals your own inner thinking.

13.    Arrogance and jealousy initiates a conspiracy against David.

14.    The arrogant princes ascribe their own thinking to David.

15.    Because they are arrogant, they are also very short-sighted.

16.    Their arrogance, pettiness and short-sightedness will bankrupt Ammon. Does this remind you of any other country that we know?

These notes are taken from R. B. Thieme Jr.’s 1972David series #631 Lesson #215. This is not necessarily an exact quotation and they have been added to as well as edited after the fact.

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]