2 Samuel 12:26–31

Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the people of Ammon, and took the royal city. And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, “I have fought against Rabbah, and I have taken the city’s water supply. Now therefore, gather the rest of the people together and encamp against the city and take it, lest I take the city and it be called after my name.” So David gathered all the people together and went to Rabbah, fought against it, and took it. Then he took their king’s crown from his head. Its weight was a talent of gold, with precious stones. And it was set on David’s head. Also he brought out the spoil of the city in great abundance. And he brought out the people who were in it, and put them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them cross over to the brick works. So he did to all the cities of the people of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.

Why did Joab not want to take the city and [have] it be called after my name? Is there something wrong with his name?

There’s nothing wrong with the name Joab; it’s a concatenation of an abbreviation of God’s holy name (Yahweh) and an abbreviation of the Hebrew word for Father (abba)—"Yo-ab.” (Note: there’s no “J” in Hebrew. In every case, it’s actually a “Y”.) So, it loosely means Yahweh is father. No problem there. So, why is Joab insisting that David show up for the ending?

He wants it to look big. It’s not Joab’s victory; it’s Israel’s victory. It’s not the end of a battle; it’s the conclusion of a war. Joab wants to make it look significant and enduring.

All of this pomp and circumstance is made possible by the fact that they had captured the city’s water supply. A city can’t survive long without water, so surrender was imminent.

That allows them to choreograph their triumphal entry.

But next David is remarkably merciful towards the Ammonites. Recall how, in chapter ten, he sent emissaries to Hanun, the new king of Ammon (and the son of Nahash, David’s friend). Hanun’s advisors insisted that the emissaries were spies and treated them shamefully. That’s what started this war.

David had no special instructions from the LORD to do anything in particular to the Ammonites. He decides, on his own, to let them live. We read of no special punishment for Hanun or any of his advisors.

In context (everything with Bathsheba, Uriah, Nathan, and the child) David’s grace to Hanun, his advisors, and all the Ammonite people raises an interesting question. Is David teaching them the grace lesson he just learned?

The penalties loaded on the Ammonites are great, but they’re not ultimate penalties. Thus, grace heaps burning coals on their heads. Also, while the text doesn’t explicitly state that the Israelites told the Ammonites the whole truth about how this war started, how could they not have?

Imagine the weight of knowing that all this didn’t have to happen—that David wanted to be friends.

To forward this devotional, see the link in green below.

These weekday DEEPs are written by Mike Slay. The Saturday ones are written by Matt Richardson. To subscribe to the DEEP click here: https://www.ailbe.org/resources/community

The weekly study guides, which include questions for discussion or meditation, are here: https://www.ailbe.org/resources/itemlist/category/91-deep-studies

Except as indicated, Scripture taken from the New King James Version. © Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ESV stands for the English Standard Version. © Copyright 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved. NIV stands for The Holy Bible, New International Version®. © Copyright 1973 by International Bible Society. Used by permission. All rights reserved. KJV stands for the King James Version.