Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.15UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.13UNLIKELY
Fear
0.16UNLIKELY
Joy
0.57LIKELY
Sadness
0.52LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.7LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.56LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.86LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.79LIKELY
Extraversion
0.18UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.59LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.68LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Introduction
Chapter 10 recounts how David acted with good intentions.
But his motive was misunderstood.
And instead of creating friendship for Israel and himself, a bloody war resulted.
David had wished to demonstrate support for Hanun, the new king of Ammon.
Hanun, who’s name means “favored” was the son of Nahash.
You may remember from 1 Samuel that Nahash was the Ammonite who came against Jabesh-Gilead during the days of Saul.
The men of the city offered themselves in servitude if Nahash would make a treaty with them and spare the town.
The men of the city, offering themselves in servitude, petitioned Nabash to make a treaty with them; he agreed to do so on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel.
Given a week’s reprieve from his threat, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army (, ; ).
He later honored a reconciliation with David, which his son Hanun, on bad counsel, disregarded (; , ).
He agreed on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel … and he graciously gave them a week to think about it.
But instead, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army.
Strangely, it would seem that later David had developed a good relationship with Nahash.
And I guess the previous stuff was just water under the bridge.
It may have been that Nahash provided David refuge when he was fleeing from Saul, just as Achish, the Philistine king of Gath, had.
Later passages indicate that David had been on good terms with Nahash (; ).
Nahash may have provided David refuge when he was fleeing from Saul, just as Achish, the Philistine king of Gath, had ().
And we will see in this chapter how his Nahash’s son Hanun, on bad counsel, chose to disregard whatever agreement was between David and his father.
Interestingly, later during Absolom’s rebellion, another son of Nahash by the name of Shobi, is 1 of 3 men who bring supplies to David at Mahanaim after his flight from Jerusalem.
----
another son of Nahash, is one of three men who bring supplies to David at Mahanaim in the Transjordan after he flees Jerusalem
Whatever the case … David wished to show support for Hanun, the new king of Ammon.
But in doing so, he violated what was commanded in regarding the Ammonites and the Moabites:
Certainly, David did not mean to transgress this, but instead his desire was to show loyal love.
This would actually result in a lot of problems for David.
----
Now, we might recognize that there is a connection between chapter 9 and the loyal love that David showed for Mephibosheth and this chapter.
That principle is this: Whoever deals mercifully with the wicked will eventually be embarrassed and will suffer as a result.
In chapter 9, David brought Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth into his royal palace where he would live and have a place at the royal table all his life.
Mephibosheth, being Jonathan’s son was also the grandson of Saul and so he might have asserted some claim to the throne.
But David, because of the promise he had made to Jonathan chose to risk it and show kindness and mercy to Mephibosheth.
Likewise, David sought to show kindness and compassion on the son of Nahash.
But as we will see, the Ammonites decided that David was up to no good.
When they realize their mistake, instead of apologizing, they prepared for war.
We might recognize here also that David was more prone to mercy than he was to war.
In fact, for the most part David did not initiate the wars he won.
In context, the story is told to show that David did not initiate the wars he won, but fought out of necessity.
Yet those who seek symbolic meaning may find it.
Each person is invited to experience God’s kindness and loyal love.
Those who humbly accept, like Mephibosheth, are blessed.
Those who show contempt for God’s initiative and remain hostile to Him will be destroyed.
Instead, he fought out of necessity.
At the same time, when war was necessary, he did not hesitate and he saw it through to it’s end.
There is also some symbolic meaning here for us.
That is this: Each person is invited to experience God’s kindness and loyal love.
Yet those who seek symbolic meaning may find it.
Each person is invited to experience God’s kindness and loyal love.
Those who humbly accept, like Mephibosheth, are blessed.
Those who show contempt for God’s initiative and remain hostile to Him will be destroyed.
Those who humbly accept, like Mephibosheth, are blessed.
Those who show contempt for God’s initiative and remain hostile to Him will be destroyed.
Such preference of kindness and compassion over war must at times be costly and seem imprudent.
David would suffer greatly because of his preference toward compassion.
Christ would also suffer greatly at the hands of the objects of God’s compassion.
Prayer: Heavenly Father, we thank You for everyone here this evening.
Thank You that You know each of us by name and have caused us to walk with You.
Lord, we open up Your word desiring to hear from You ... not man's word or wisdom, but Your Words and Wisdom.
Please soften our hearts to receive from You.
v1-5
Having heard of the death of Nahash, David sent a delegation to console Hanun.
On top of this, it is always a wise political move to send ambassadors to establish good will.
As I mentioned earlier, scripture does not tell us what kindness Nahash had shown toward David.
Now, this is extra biblical and is found in the Midrash, but it relates that when David had left his family with the king of Moab for their protection, the king had murdered them.
It further relates that Nahash had moved to protect David’s only surviving brother, Elihu.
Again, this is essentially speculation as there is literally no evidence of this in scripture … so this is essentially tradition rather than scriptural.
Remember that Saul’s first military victory was over Nahash and the Ammonite army when they attacked Jabesh Gilead as recorded in .
That being said, it would make sense for Nahash, an enemy of Saul, to help David who was seen by Saul’s enemies as a danger to Saul’s rule.
Like the Ammonites, the Moabites were descendants of Lot () and therefore relatives of the Jews.
King Saul’s first military victory was over Nahash and the Ammonite army when they attacked Jabesh Gilead ().
King Saul’s first military victory was over Nahash and the Ammonite army when they attacked Jabesh Gilead ().
Like the Ammonites, the Moabites were descendants of Lot () and therefore relatives of the Jews.
How did David become friendly with the Ammonites when his predecessor was at war with them?
It probably occurred when David was in exile and appeared to be at war with Saul.
During those “outlaw years,” David tried to build a network of friendships outside Israel that he hoped would help him when he became king.
The phrase “show kindness” can carry the meaning of “make a covenant,” so it may have been David’s desire not only to comfort Hanun but also to make a treaty with him.
Yet, the Ammonites and the Moabites had been enemies of Israel, even to the time of Saul.
Like the Ammonites, the Moabites were descendants of Lot () and therefore relatives of the Jews.
So then, if the solution the Midrash presents us with might be more tradition than truth … How did David become friendly with the Ammonites when his predecessor was at war with them?
Well, it probably occurred when David was in exile and appeared to be at war with Saul.
During those years of hiding, David worked to build a network of friendships outside Israel that he hoped would help him when he became king.
Given the lack of testimony in scripture to what tradition might say, this explanation makes much more sense given what we know about David’s convenient friendship with the Philistine king.
----
Now, as for David’s motivation in sending this delegation, we have his words, “I will show kindness … as his father showed kindness to me.”
Could it be the other way around?
Could this have some other subtext that we are missing?
I bring this up because it seems logical that David who is a man after God’s own heart would not be doing something contrary to what scripture says.
And let’s remember that Deuteronomy says in regards to the Ammonites and the Moabites:
Perhaps there is an undertone to David’s statement.
Something like … Nahash threatened my people and sought to do them harm, therefore … “I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me.”
Well, that is certainly not the case because the Hebrew phrase employed here carries the meaning of “loyalty.”
It appears that there was some kind of treaty in play between David and Nahash that both had been loyal to, and David is seeking that same kind of treaty with his son.
And this is why David sends the delegation.
But why then are Hanun and his ministers so suspicious of David’s motives?
If they had known that the Torah forbid David from doing this … that might be a reason.
Or it might have simply been that some of them had never trusted David and those suspicious ones now had the ear of Nahash’s son.
Whatever
Whatever the case, immaturity and ignorance triumphed over wisdom and common sense.
The inexperienced new king listened to his suspicious advisers and treated David’s men as though they were spies.
----
Verse 4 tells us how they treated the ambassadors that David had sent.
They shaved the ambassadors’ faces, leaving but one side of each beard intact, and then cut the men’s garments off at the waist and sent them out that way.
It was a bizarre response, but one that was meant to show contempt.
Certainly, it would be embarrassing to be sent out only half clothed, but more clothes could be acquired.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9