2 Samuel 19 42

2 Samuel 19:42 kjv

And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, Because the king is near of kin to us: wherefore then be ye angry for this matter? have we eaten at all of the king's cost? or hath he given us any gift?

2 Samuel 19:42 nkjv

So all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, "Because the king is a close relative of ours. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we ever eaten at the king's expense? Or has he given us any gift?"

2 Samuel 19:42 niv

All the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, "We did this because the king is closely related to us. Why are you angry about it? Have we eaten any of the king's provisions? Have we taken anything for ourselves?"

2 Samuel 19:42 esv

All the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, "Because the king is our close relative. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king's expense? Or has he given us any gift?"

2 Samuel 19:42 nlt

The men of Judah replied, "The king is one of our own kinsmen. Why should this make you angry? We haven't eaten any of the king's food or received any special favors!"

2 Samuel 19 verses

2 Samuel 19 42 Meaning

This verse captures the intense tribal jealousy and political maneuvering following Absalom's rebellion. It records the men of Judah's defense against accusations from the men of Israel, who felt slighted by Judah's promptness in restoring King David to his throne. Judah's primary argument for their expedited action was their unique kinship with David, not any material gain. They emphatically deny receiving any special favors or provisions from the king, framing their loyalty as a pure expression of familial tie rather than a bid for advantage. This exchange highlights the deep-seated divisions between the northern tribes (Israel) and the southern tribe (Judah) that would later lead to the kingdom's schism.

2 Samuel 19 42 Context

This verse occurs immediately after Absalom's rebellion has been quelled and King David is returning to Jerusalem. The king had delayed his return due to uncertainty and disunity among his supporters, particularly between the tribes of Israel and Judah. David sent a message to the elders of Judah, reminding them of his close kinship and appealing to them to be the first to escort him back to the capital (2 Sam 19:11-12). Judah responded quickly, and its leaders, including Shimei, crossed the Jordan to welcome David. This swift action by Judah, combined with David's perceived favor towards them (as seen in his earlier appeals and forgiving Shimei), sparked significant resentment and a sense of neglect among the other tribes of Israel. The exchange in 2 Samuel 19:40-43 captures this argument, with Israel accusing Judah of "stealing the king" and Judah defending its actions based on kinship rather than self-interest. This deeply rooted tribal tension would eventually culminate in the division of the kingdom after Solomon's reign.

2 Samuel 19 42 Word analysis

• Then all the men of Judah:

  • Then: Indicates an immediate sequential response to the accusation made by "all the men of Israel" in the preceding verses (2 Sam 19:40-41). It signifies a defensive, reactive posture.
  • all the men of Judah: Represents the collective voice and unified sentiment of David's tribe. This highlights their corporate identity and tribal solidarity in backing their king. In Hebrew, "כָּל אִישׁ יְהוּדָה" (kol ish Yehudah) emphasizes every individual within Judah, indicating widespread agreement. Judah here acts as a unified political and social entity.

• answered the men of Israel:

  • answered: A direct rebuttal to Israel's complaint of injustice. It signals the beginning of a debate, where Judah must justify their actions.
  • the men of Israel: Refers to the other ten northern tribes, who feel slighted and overlooked despite having constituted the majority of the kingdom. This group felt their collective power and contribution were not adequately recognized, fueling their resentment. In Hebrew, "אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל" (ish Yisrael) implies the entirety of the northern kingdom, expressing their collective grievance.

• “Because the king is a close relative to us.":

  • Because: Introduces the justification for Judah's swiftness in bringing David back. It's the core of their argument.
  • the king is a close relative: The pivotal phrase. Judah's primary rationale is David's kinship. The Hebrew word "קָרוֹב" (qarov) means "near" or "close," and in this context specifically denotes a blood relative, a kinsman. This appeals to ancient tribal laws and customs where kinship played a crucial role in leadership and loyalty. It underlines that David belonged to Judah by birth, reinforcing Judah's "right" to prioritize his return. This was seen by Judah as a self-evident and natural bond, providing legitimate reason for their actions, which transcended any accusation of political gain. It taps into deeply ingrained familial obligations and loyalties central to Israelite identity.

• "Why then are you angry about this?":

  • Why then: A rhetorical question, aimed at challenging Israel's resentment and implying their anger is unfounded or illogical given the circumstances. It tries to diffuse tension by highlighting the supposed naturalness of Judah's action.
  • are you angry: Reflects the open resentment and jealousy of the northern tribes. They felt excluded from the decision-making process concerning David's return, and likely felt that David's special favor towards Judah bypassed their numerical majority and political weight.
  • about this: Refers specifically to Judah's initiative and David's reception among them, which Israel perceived as exclusive or advantageous.

• "Have we eaten at all at the king's expense? Or has he given us any gift?":

  • Have we eaten at all at the king's expense?: A rhetorical question asserting a negative answer. This denies any accusation of material benefit or luxurious living sponsored by the king. It counters the unspoken charge that Judah acted out of selfish ambition or for economic gain. Eating "at the king's expense" often implied enjoying royal provisions, status, and privilege, much like royal court officials. Judah strongly denies this.
  • Or has he given us any gift?: Another rhetorical question, reinforcing the previous denial. A "gift" (מַשְׂאֵת - mas'et) in this context would imply a tangible advantage, a special portion, or a bribe. Judah is denying receiving any special material benefit that would distinguish them or signify favoritism in a corrupt way. Both questions serve to strip away any suggestion of Judah having received "loaves" or "portions" (common indicators of royal favor and provision) beyond their ordinary share, thus solidifying their claim of loyalty born of kinship alone. This entire defense focuses on their perceived moral integrity and purity of motive.

2 Samuel 19 42 Bonus section

The deep-seated rivalry between Judah and the northern tribes predates David's reign, visible in early tribal alignments and even during the time of Saul, where Benjamin initially held prominence. David's early rule from Hebron over Judah alone for seven and a half years further solidified Judah's unique position before he became king over all Israel (2 Sam 5:5). This period of distinct rule likely fostered Judah's sense of proprietorship over their "son" David, making their argument in 2 Samuel 19:42 feel justified to them. Conversely, it fueled the northern tribes' feeling of being a "second class" segment of the kingdom. The failure of David or his court to effectively mediate or genuinely resolve this deeply rooted tribal resentment at crucial junctures ultimately led to recurring strife and, historically, contributed significantly to the permanent schism of the United Monarchy, with the northern kingdom forming "Israel" and the southern retaining the name "Judah." This incident foreshadows the irreparable divide documented in 1 Kings 12.

2 Samuel 19 42 Commentary

2 Samuel 19:42 marks a critical point of inter-tribal tension that threatened to unravel the unified kingdom even as it was being restored. Judah's defense is a carefully constructed argument appealing to a fundamental principle in Israelite society: kinship. By emphasizing that David was "a close relative" (קָרוֹב - qarov), they presented their prompt welcome of the king not as an act of political opportunism, but as a natural expression of familial loyalty and duty. This echoes the tribal structures and kinship networks that defined early Israel.

However, the question "Why then are you angry about this?" belies the deeper resentment among the men of Israel. While Judah claimed kinship, Israel likely perceived a subtle but growing shift of power and favor towards Judah, perhaps overlooking David's earlier dependence on all tribes. The rhetorical questions denying any material gain ("Have we eaten at all... Or has he given us any gift?") are meant to demonstrate Judah's selflessness, positioning their loyalty as purer than any perceived self-interest. Yet, this very defense implicitly accuses Israel of jealousy driven by material aspirations or a perceived unequal distribution of royal patronage. This conflict underscores the precariousness of national unity based on tribal confederation rather than a fully integrated, centralized kingdom. The simmering tension, left unaddressed at its core, would ultimately explode into further rebellion and, finally, the kingdom's division after Solomon's reign, manifesting the deep, historical chasm between Judah and Israel.