2 Samuel 10

02/13/2026

I just finished reading 2 Samuel 10 NKJV. It says in verse 2 that Nahash, king of Ammon, showed kindness to David. Is there an account in the Bible that covers this kindness shown to David?

No, the Bible does not provide a specific, detailed account of the kindness that Nahash, king of the Ammonites, showed to David. The only direct reference to it appears in 2 Samuel 10:2 (NKJV), where David himself states it as the reason for his actions:

"Then David said, 'I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me.' So David sent by the hand of his servants to comfort him concerning his father."

This is mirrored in the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 19:2 (NKJV):

"And David said, 'I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, because his father showed kindness to me.' So David sent messengers to comfort him concerning his father."

The text presents this kindness as a past event that David remembers and seeks to reciprocate by sending messengers to console Hanun (Nahash's son) after Nahash's death. However, Scripture gives no explicit description of what that kindness entailed, when it occurred, or under what circumstances.

Biblical scholars and commentators commonly infer that it likely happened during the period when David was a fugitive, fleeing from King Saul (as described in 1 Samuel 21–26). Nahash, who had been an enemy of Saul (see 1 Samuel 11:1–11, where Saul defeated him at Jabesh-Gilead), may have offered David protection, asylum, supplies, or some form of support as a shared opposition to Saul. This would align with David's pattern of receiving help from various non-Israelite figures during his exile (e.g., the king of Moab in 1 Samuel 22:3–4).

Some traditions (e.g., from Josephus or Jewish midrashic sources) suggest possibilities like Nahash protecting one of David's family members, but these are not recorded in the canonical Bible text itself.

In short, while the Bible affirms that Nahash showed kindness to David at some point, it does not narrate the event separately—it's only alluded to here in the context of David's gracious (but ultimately misguided) gesture toward Hanun, which led to conflict.

It is a shame that whatever that kindness was, his son, Hanun, was apparently ignorant of it, or he was too easily influenced by his advisors.

Yes, it's indeed unfortunate and a clear example of how poor counsel and misplaced suspicion can derail what could have been a positive relationship or at least peaceful diplomacy.

In 2 Samuel 10:3, Hanun's advisors (the princes of the Ammonites) immediately cast doubt on David's motives:

"Do you think that David really honors your father because he has sent comforters to you? Has not David sent his servants to you to search the city and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?"

They framed David's gesture of condolence as a covert threat—likely espionage to scout Ammon for conquest—rather than genuine goodwill based on his past experience with Nahash. Hanun, whether due to inexperience as a new king, a desire to assert independence from any perceived Israelite influence, or simply being swayed by those around him, followed their advice. He then humiliated David's envoys by shaving off half their beards (a profound insult in ancient Near Eastern culture, where the beard symbolized dignity, maturity, and manhood) and cutting their garments in half up to the buttocks, exposing them before sending them away.

Biblical commentators often highlight this as a classic case of bad advisors leading to disastrous decisions. For instance, many note that Hanun might have been trying to project strength or popularity among his people by rejecting any hint of subservience to David, but it backfired spectacularly—escalating into full-scale war that Ammon ultimately lost badly (with help from Syrian allies). David's response was measured at first—he allowed the humiliated men to recover their dignity in Jericho until their beards grew back—yet the insult demanded retribution in that era's honor-based world.

It's a sobering reminder of the biblical theme that the company we keep matters greatly: "He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will be destroyed" (Proverbs 13:20, NKJV). Hanun's quick pivot to suspicion over gratitude echoes other stories where young or insecure leaders listen to the wrong voices (like Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12, who ignored the elders and followed his peers' harsh advice, splitting the kingdom).

The whole episode shows how one generation's positive relationship (Nahash and David) can unravel in the next due to ignorance, paranoia, or manipulative counsel—ultimately to Ammon's ruin.

It would be interesting to find out just how, in verse 6, "... the people of Ammon saw that they had made themselves repulsive to David...". Whatever it was, they knew they were in trouble.

Yes, verse 6 captures that moment of realization perfectly—the Ammonites (or "people of Ammon" in NKJV) fully understood that their actions had crossed a line and provoked serious hostility from David.

The key phrase in 2 Samuel 10:6 (NKJV)—"they had made themselves repulsive to David"—translates the Hebrew idiom where the verb literally means "they had made themselves stink" (or "become a stench") in David's eyes. This is a common biblical expression for becoming deeply offensive, odious, or abhorrent to someone (similar uses appear in Genesis 34:30, Exodus 5:21, and 1 Samuel 13:4). Parallel accounts render it as "made themselves odious" (e.g., in 1 Chronicles 19:6 and some translations like KJV).

What made them "repulsive"? It was the public humiliation of David's envoys—the shaving of half their beards and cutting their garments in half to expose them (v. 4). In ancient Near Eastern culture:

• The beard was a symbol of honor, maturity, and manhood; defacing it was an extreme insult, equivalent to stripping someone of dignity.
• Sending the men back half-shaved and half-naked was a deliberate act of contempt and defiance, not just a prank—it was a calculated provocation that screamed rejection of David's goodwill and challenged his authority as king.

The Ammonites weren't guessing; they knew this would infuriate David. Commentators often point out that the text emphasizes they themselves caused this rift ("they had made themselves repulsive")—David hadn't initiated hostility; their own actions turned a potential alliance into enmity. Rather than seek reconciliation (e.g., an apology or restitution), they doubled down by immediately hiring massive mercenary forces from the Arameans (Syrians) of Beth Rehob, Zobah, Maacah, and Tob—totaling over 33,000 troops—to prepare for the inevitable retaliation.

It's a stark picture of self-inflicted trouble: they recognized the gravity of their offense ("they saw that..."), yet their response was panic-fueled escalation instead of repentance. This echoes the biblical pattern where pride and poor choices lead to downfall, much like the advisors who sparked the whole mess in the first place. The Ammonites clearly sensed they were now in deep trouble, and events proved them right—David's forces, led by Joab, decisively defeated the coalition in the battles that followed (vv. 7–19).