2 Samuel 19:13

Translation
King James Version
And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
And say H559 ye to Amasa H6021, Art thou not of my bone H6106, and of my flesh H1320? God H430 do H6213 so to me, and more H3254 also, if thou be not captain H8269 of the host H6635 before H6440 me continually H3117 in the room H8478 of Joab H3097.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
Also tell 'Amasa, 'You are my flesh and bone. May God bring terrible curses on me and worse ones yet if from now on you are not permanent commander of my army instead of Yo'av."
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
And say to Amasa, ‘Aren’t you my flesh and blood? May God punish me, and ever so severely, if from this time you are not the commander of my army in place of Joab!’”
Ask
American Standard Version
And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not my bone and my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
Say to Amasa, ‘Aren’t you my bone and my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if you aren’t captain of the army before me continually in the room of Joab.’”
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
Also say ye to Amasa, Art thou not my bone and my flesh? God do so to me and more also, if thou be not captaine of the hoste to me for euer in the roume of Ioab.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
And to Amasa say ye, Art not thou my bone and my flesh? Thus doth God do to me, and thus He doth add, if thou art not head of the host before me all the days instead of Joab.'
Ask
See also
2 Samuel 17:252 Samuel 8:16Ruth 1:171 Kings 19:22 Samuel 19:52 Samuel 19:72 Samuel 3:29
See on the biblical-era map
City Plan: Jerusalem in the Time of David
City Plan: Jerusalem in the Time of David View full PDF
David Returns to Jerusalem
David Returns to Jerusalem View full PDF

Map © Biblica Open Bible Maps · CC BY-SA 4.0

In the KJVVerse 8,525 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

Following the devastating defeat of Absalom's rebellion and the subsequent political instability, King David strategically reaches out to Amasa, his nephew and former commander of Absalom's forces. This pivotal verse captures David's solemn oath to Amasa, appealing to their familial bond ("bone and of my flesh") and promising him the esteemed position of captain of the host, permanently replacing the king's long-serving but increasingly insubordinate general, Joab. This calculated move is a profound effort to reconcile with the powerful tribe of Judah, which had largely supported Absalom, and to reassert David's authority over his kingdom and military command in a fractured nation.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: This verse is situated at a critical juncture in David's return to Jerusalem after the traumatic civil war ignited by Absalom. The preceding narrative details the brutal conflict, culminating in Absalom's death at the hands of Joab, an act that directly defied David's express command to spare his son's life (compare 2 Samuel 18:5 with 2 Samuel 18:14-15). David's profound grief over Absalom's demise (2 Samuel 18:33) and Joab's harsh, public rebuke (2 Samuel 19:5-7) set the immediate stage for David's urgent need to consolidate power and restore national unity. The kingdom, particularly the powerful tribe of Judah, remained fractured and hesitant to welcome David back, prompting David's direct appeal to the elders of Judah and, specifically, to Amasa, a key leader from their ranks (as seen in 2 Samuel 19:11-12). Thus, David's offer to Amasa is a strategic political maneuver designed to win back Judah's loyalty and decisively sideline Joab, whose actions had increasingly challenged the king's authority.
  • Historical & Cultural Context: Ancient Israelite society placed immense value on kinship, tribal loyalties, and the sanctity of oaths. The phrase "bone and of my flesh" was a deeply significant declaration of familial bond and shared identity, signifying the closest possible blood relation. This idiom was used to establish profound connection and common destiny, as exemplified by Adam's declaration regarding Eve in Genesis 2:23 and the tribes of Israel's affirmation of David's kingship over them in 2 Samuel 5:1. David's appeal to Amasa, his nephew (Amasa was the son of Abigail, David's sister, according to 1 Chronicles 2:16-17), shrewdly leveraged this cultural understanding to bridge the chasm created by the rebellion. Furthermore, solemn oaths, frequently accompanied by self-imprecations ("God do so to me, and more also"), were legally and religiously binding. Such vows invoked divine judgment upon the speaker if the promise was broken, underscoring the absolute seriousness and public nature of David's commitment, which was crucial for gaining trust from a recently rebellious faction.
  • Key Themes: This verse powerfully encapsulates several key themes within the broader narrative of David's complex reign. Firstly, it highlights Reconciliation and Unification, as David actively seeks to heal the deep divisions within Israel by extending grace and a high-ranking position to a former adversary. This act demonstrates a profound desire to restore national cohesion after the trauma of civil war. Secondly, it showcases David's Political Pragmatism and Strategic Leadership. His decision is not merely an emotional response but a calculated move to stabilize his kingdom, secure Judah's crucial loyalty, and reassert his supreme authority over his military, especially in light of Joab's repeated insubordination. Thirdly, the use of a Solemn Oath underscores the gravity of David's promise and the importance of covenantal faithfulness, even amidst intense political turmoil. This act also significantly sets the stage for the ongoing tension and power struggle between King David and Joab, a recurring and ultimately tragic theme that permeates the latter half of 2 Samuel and extends into 1 Kings.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • Bone (Hebrew, ‘etsem', H6106): Derived from a root meaning "to be strong," this word refers literally to a bone, but by extension, it can signify the body or even the very substance or self. In the context of "bone and of my flesh," it emphasizes the core, fundamental essence of shared being and kinship. David's use of this term highlights the deep, inherent connection he shares with Amasa, appealing to a bond that transcends political allegiances.
  • Flesh (Hebrew, bâsâr', H1320): This term refers to the soft tissues of the body, but broadly encompasses the body, person, or even kin. When paired with "bone," as in "bone and of my flesh," it forms a powerful idiom that denotes the closest possible blood relationship, signifying shared ancestry, identity, and destiny. David's declaration serves as a profound appeal to Amasa's loyalty based on their undeniable familial ties.
  • God (Hebrew, ʼĕlôhîym', H430): This plural noun, often used with the article to refer to the singular supreme God, is invoked here in a solemn oath formula. Its presence signifies that David's promise is not merely a human pledge but one made under divine witness, thereby imbuing it with sacred weight and binding authority. It places the veracity of David's word under the judgment of the Almighty, indicating the absolute seriousness of his commitment.

Verse Breakdown

  • "And say ye to Amasa": This opening phrase indicates David's direct command to his designated messengers, likely Zadok and Abiathar (as implied by 2 Samuel 19:11). It underscores the personal and urgent nature of David's appeal, bypassing normal military or political channels to communicate directly with Amasa, a key figure in the recent rebellion. This highlights David's strategic intent to win over Amasa and, through him, the tribe of Judah.
  • "[Art] thou not of my bone, and of my flesh?": This is a powerful rhetorical question, not seeking an answer, but rather asserting an undeniable truth. David reminds Amasa of their close familial bond (they were first cousins, David's sister Abigail being Amasa's mother). Despite Amasa's leadership of the rebel army, David emphasizes their shared heritage, extending an offer of profound grace and an invitation to reconciliation rooted in kinship, designed to elicit loyalty and trust from Amasa and his supporters in Judah.
  • "God do so to me, and more also": This is David's solemn, self-imprecatory oath, a common Old Testament formula where the speaker invokes divine judgment upon themselves if they fail to uphold their promise. Its inclusion here adds immense weight and credibility to David's words, demonstrating his unwavering commitment and sincerity. In a culture where oaths were sacred and binding, this declaration was meant to remove all doubt about David's intentions and the seriousness of his vow.
  • "if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab.": This clause reveals the specific content of David's momentous promise: Amasa will be appointed the supreme commander of the army, a permanent position (continually), replacing Joab. This not only signifies David's forgiveness and elevation of Amasa but also his decisive move to remove Joab from his powerful military command, a direct consequence of Joab's insubordination (particularly in killing Absalom) and a strategic effort to consolidate David's control over the military and secure Judah's loyalty.

Literary Devices

The verse employs several significant literary devices that enrich its meaning and impact. A prominent Rhetorical Question is evident in "Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh?", which is not meant to be answered but to emphasize a self-evident truth and appeal directly to Amasa's sense of familial loyalty and shared identity. The phrase "bone and of my flesh" functions as a potent Metaphor and Idiom, symbolizing the deepest possible kinship and shared essence. The inclusion of the Oath Formula ("God do so to me, and more also") is a form of Solemn Vow, underscoring the gravity and binding nature of David's promise. When viewed in light of Amasa's tragic and violent death at Joab's hands later in the narrative (2 Samuel 20:8-10), this oath takes on an element of Dramatic Irony, highlighting the tragic failure of David's best intentions and the persistent, destructive power struggles within his court. Furthermore, David's explicit intention to replace Joab serves as clear Foreshadowing for the ongoing conflict between the king and his formidable general, a tension that ultimately leads to Joab's execution under Solomon's reign (1 Kings 2:28-34).

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

This passage profoundly illustrates the complex interplay of divine sovereignty, human agency, and the enduring consequences of sin within the context of leadership. David, despite being described as a man after God's own heart, operates within a fallen world, navigating intricate political intrigue, personal betrayals, and the aftermath of civil war. His act of extending grace and a high office to Amasa, a former adversary, reflects a remarkable commitment to reconciliation and the restoration of national unity, echoing God's own patient and redemptive dealings with His often rebellious people throughout salvation history. It also powerfully highlights the weight and solemnity of oaths made before God, a theme consistently upheld in Scripture as a reflection of God's own unwavering covenant faithfulness. Yet, the tragic outcome for Amasa, who is later murdered by Joab, reveals the inherent limitations of human promises in the face of deep-seated animosities and the enduring, often violent, consequences of a fractured kingdom.

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

David's decision to forgive Amasa and offer him a position of immense power, despite Amasa's prominent role in the recent rebellion, offers profound and challenging lessons in leadership, reconciliation, and the relentless pursuit of unity. In moments of deep division, personal hurt, or societal fracture, true leadership often necessitates transcending personal grievances and prioritizing the greater good of the community. David's willingness to extend grace to an adversary, even one who had directly fought against him, demonstrates a strategic wisdom focused on healing the nation rather than perpetuating conflict or seeking retribution. For us, this narrative compels us to critically examine our own responses to those who have wronged us, opposed our views, or stood in direct opposition to our aims. Are we willing to prioritize reconciliation and genuine unity over holding grudges, nursing resentments, or seeking vindication? Furthermore, David's solemn oath serves as a stark reminder of the immense power and sacred weight of our words and commitments. In an age where promises are often lightly given and easily broken, this passage calls us to a higher standard of integrity, to let our "yes" truly be "yes" and our "no" truly be "no" (as taught in Matthew 5:37), thereby reflecting the unwavering faithfulness of God Himself, who always keeps His covenant promises.

Questions for Reflection

  • How does David's radical act of reconciliation with Amasa challenge my own approach to conflict and forgiveness in personal or communal relationships?
  • What does David's solemn oath reveal about the importance of integrity and the weight of our commitments, both to others and before God, in our contemporary context?
  • In what specific ways might prioritizing unity and the greater good require me to make difficult or counter-intuitive decisions, similar to David's choice regarding Amasa and Joab?

FAQ

Why did David want to replace Joab with Amasa?

Answer: David had several compelling and strategic reasons to replace Joab. Primarily, Joab had directly disobeyed David's explicit command not to harm Absalom, resulting in Absalom's death (2 Samuel 18:5 and 2 Samuel 18:14-15). This act caused David immense personal grief and demonstrated Joab's consistent insubordination, which had been a recurring issue throughout David's reign (e.g., Joab's murder of Abner in 2 Samuel 3:27). Politically, by appointing Amasa, who had led Absalom's rebel army, David aimed to reconcile with the powerful tribe of Judah, which had largely supported Absalom's rebellion and was hesitant to welcome David back (2 Samuel 19:11-12). This move was a strategic attempt to unify the fractured kingdom, assert David's authority over his military, and diminish Joab's entrenched power, which had often overshadowed the king's.

Who was Amasa, and what was his relationship to David?

Answer: Amasa was David's nephew, the son of Abigail (David's sister) and Ithra the Israelite (also known as Jether, as recorded in 1 Chronicles 2:17). During the recent civil war, Amasa had served as the commander of Absalom's rebel army, directly opposing King David. Despite leading the enemy forces, David appealed to their familial bond, referring to Amasa as "of my bone, and of my flesh." David's offer to make Amasa captain of the host was a strategic act of reconciliation, demonstrating his willingness to extend grace and integrate a key leader from the rebellious faction back into the kingdom under his leadership, thereby fostering unity.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

David's remarkable act of extending grace and offering a high office to Amasa, his nephew and former enemy, provides a powerful Old Testament shadow of Christ's ultimate and perfect work of reconciliation. Just as David reached out to one who had rebelled against him, appealing to their shared "bone and of my flesh," so too did God, in the person of Jesus Christ, become "flesh and dwell among us" (John 1:14) to reconcile a rebellious and estranged humanity to Himself. The ultimate "bone and of my flesh" connection is found in the Incarnation, where Christ fully identified with humanity, taking on our very nature "that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). He shared in our humanity so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest, making propitiation for the sins of the people (Hebrews 2:17). While David's oath to Amasa was a human promise, ultimately flawed and tragically unfulfilled due to Joab's treachery, Christ's covenant promises are eternally sure and unbreakable, secured by His own precious blood, establishing a "new covenant" that is "eternal" (Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 13:20). He is the true "Captain of our salvation" (Hebrews 2:10), who, unlike the insubordinate Joab, perfectly executes the Father's will, leading His people not through violence and political maneuvering, but through self-sacrificial love and perfect obedience, bringing about a reconciliation far deeper, more lasting, and eternally redemptive than any earthly king could ever achieve.

Copy as

Commentary on 2 Samuel 19 verses 9–15

It is strange that David did not immediately upon the defeat and dispersion of Absalom's forces march with all expedition back to Jerusalem, to regain the possession of his capital city, while the rebels were in confusion and before they could rally again. What occasion was there to bring him back? Could not he himself go back with the victorious army he had with him in Gilead? He could, no doubt; but, 1. He would go back as a prince, with the consent and unanimous approbation of the people, and not as a conqueror forcing his way: he would restore their liberties, and not take occasion to seize them, or encroach upon them. 2. He would go back in peace and safety, and be sure that he should meet with no difficulty or opposition in his return, and therefore would be satisfied that the people were well-affected to have him before he would stir. 3. He would go back in honour, and like himself, and therefore would go back, not at the head of his forces, but in the arms of his subjects; for the prince that has wisdom and goodness enough to make himself his people's darling, without doubt, looks greater and makes a much better figure than the prince that has strength enough to make himself his people's terror. It is resolved therefore that David must be brought back to Jerusalem his own city, and his own house there, with some ceremony, and here we have that matter concerted.

I. The men of Israel (that is, the ten tribes) were the first that talked of it, Sa2 19:9, Sa2 19:10. The people were at strife about it; it was the great subject of discourse and dispute throughout all the country. Some perhaps opposed it: "Let him either come back himself or stay where he is;" others appeared zealous for it, and reasoned as follows here, to further the design, 1. That David had formerly helped them, had fought their battles, subdued their enemies, and done them much service, and therefore it was a shame that he should continue banished from their country who had been so great a benefactor to it. Note, Good services done to the public, though they may be forgotten for a while, yet will be remembered again when men come to their right minds. 2. That Absalom had now disappointed them. "We were foolishly sick of the cedar, and chose the branch to reign over us; but we have had enough of him: he is consumed, and we narrowly escaped being consumed with him. Let us therefore return to our allegiance, and think of bringing the king back." Perhaps this was all the strife among them, not a dispute whether the king should be brought back or no (all agreed it was to be done), but whose fault is was that it was not done. As is usual in such cases, every one justified himself and blamed his neighbour. The people laid the fault on the elders, and the elders on the people, and one tribe upon another. Mutual excitements to the doing of a good work are laudable, but not mutual accusations for the not doing of it; for usually when public services are neglected all sides must share in the blame; every one might do more than he does, in the reformation of manners, the healing of divisions, and the like.

II. The men of Judah, by David's contrivance, were the first that did it. It is strange that they, being David's own tribe, were not so forward as the rest. David had intelligence of the good disposition of all the rest towards him, but nothing from Judah, though he had always been particularly careful of them. But we do not always find the most kindness from those from whom we have most reason to expect it. Yet David would not return till he knew the sense of his own tribe. Judah was his lawgiver, Psa 60:7. That his way home might be the more clear, 1. He employed Zadok and Abiathar, the two chief priests, to treat with the elders of Judah, and to excite them to give the king an invitation back to his house, even to his house, which was the glory of their tribe, Sa2 19:11, Sa2 19:12. No men more proper to negociate this affair than the two priests, who were firm to David's interest, were prudent men, and had great influence with the people. Perhaps the men of Judah were remiss and careless, and did it not, because nobody put them on to do it, and then it was proper to stir them up to it. Many will follow in a good work who will not lead: it is a pity that they should continue idle for want of being spoken to. Or perhaps they were so sensible of the greatness of the provocation they had given to David, by joining with Absalom, that they were afraid to bring him back, despairing of his favour; he therefore warrants his agents to assure them of it, with this reason: "You are my brethren, my bone and my flesh, and therefore I cannot be severe with you." The Son of David has been pleased to call us brethren, his bone and his flesh, which encourages us to hope that we shall find favour with him. Or perhaps they were willing to see what the rest of the tribes would do before they stirred, with which they are here upbraided: "The speech of all Israel has come to the king to invite him back, and shall Judah be the last, that should have been the first? Where is now the celebrated bravery of that royal tribe? Where is its loyalty?" Note, We should be stirred up to that which is great and good by the examples both of our ancestors and of our neighbours, and by the consideration of our rank. Let not the first in dignity be last in duty. 2. He particularly courted into his interest Amasa, who had been Absalom's general, but was his own nephew as well as Joab, Sa2 19:13. He owns him for his kinsman, and promises him that, if he will appear for him now, he will make him captain-general of all his forces in the room of Joab, will not only pardon him (which, it may be, Amasa questioned), but prefer him. Sometimes there is nothing lost in purchasing the friendship of one that has been an enemy. Amasa's interest might do David good service at this juncture. But, if David did wisely for himself in designating Amasa for this post (Joab having now grown intolerably haughty), he did not do kindly by Amasa in letting his design be known, for it occasioned his death by Joab's hand, Sa2 20:10. 3. The point was hereby gained. He bowed the heart of the men of Judah to pass a vote, nemine contradicente - unanimously, for the recall of the king, Sa2 19:14. God's providence, by the priests' persuasions and Amasa's interest, brought them to this resolve. David stirred not till he received this invitation, and then he came as far back as Jordan, at which river they were to meet him, Sa2 19:15. Our Lord Jesus will rule in those that invite him to the throne in their hearts and not till he be invited. He first bows the heart and makes it willing in the day of his power, and then rules in the midst of his enemies, Psa 110:2, Psa 110:3.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 9–15. Public domain.
Copy as
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying 2 Samuel 19:13 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

Read & Compare

Commentaries

Original Language & Research

Sermons, Hymns & Audio

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.