Conflict is easily ignited. David has good intentions in offering a peace agreement to the newly enthroned Ammonite king, Hanun. But rather than embrace peace, the Ammonites are spooked through suspicion or cynicism and humiliate David’s envoys, cutting off half their beards and inflicting ‘forced indecent exposure’,* to put it politely! Hanun’s father had been an ally of David when David was being harried by Saul. David now extends a kind hand of friendship only to have it bitten as if by a cornered dog. The kindness of God through his people can be misinterpreted, being perceived as a sign of weakness or raising suspicions of an ulterior motive. Kindnesses do not necessarily produce gratitude.

Conflict comes easily but is costly. Peace was in the Ammonites’ grasp, but full-scale war ensues. They and their allies are crushed at the price of many lives. David’s armies implement a strategy involving both military guile and trust in God. Trust in God does not breed complacency or a simplistic ‘God is on our side’ mentality. They devise strategies knowing that the outcome lies in God’s hands and in his mysterious purposes. God gives the victory; Israel secures its territory and David is honoured. But a shock wave is about to hit. There is victory but also fragility.

*AA Anderson, Word Biblical Commentary: 2 Samuel, Nelson, 1989, p147.

‘The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and he helps me. My heart leaps for joy, and with my song I praise him.’¹

The opening phrase, ‘In the course of time’, reminds us that we don’t have a detailed account of all that happened, just a selection of events and actions that writers saw as significant. Our challenge is to work out what is significant about each situation that is recorded and what we might learn from it! The actual events here are clear, and we have seen many such events repeated throughout history and particularly in recent years. Often, the circumstances are international, but the pattern is also seen in national, regional, family and even church contexts. Two leaders had a good relationship. One attempts to continue that relationship with the succeeding regime, but the trust, essential for such links, has, for some unknown reason, completely disappeared. Lack of trust leads to proactive aggression, which leads to full-blown war, which leads to other nations entering the fray, leading to the deaths of many thousands. Interestingly, here it is Aram and Ammon who come off worst in the end.

So, should we concentrate on the need to assume that people can be trusted until they actually prove untrustworthy, or maybe on the importance of leaders going themselves and not just sending a delegation? Or should our focus be the need to identify and support those in our service who have been mistreated? Must we assume all aggression should automatically evoke strong and violent response? Is the writer’s main concern to point out that Joab and not David was leading the army and to emphasise Joab’s skill as an army commander? This is a detailed and complex account, with many possible lessons – we must be asking ourselves which one is particularly being drawn to our attention when we read this story carefully ourselves. 

Lord, please help us to avoid actions which are likely to cause responses that can then spiral out of control. 

¹ Ps 28:7