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?

KJV (with Strong's)

And all the men {H376} of Judah {H3063} answered {H6030} the men {H376} of Israel {H3478}, Because the king {H4428} is near of kin {H7138} to us: wherefore then be ye angry {H2734} for this matter {H1697}? have we eaten {H398} at all {H398} of the king's {H4428} cost? or hath he given {H5375} us any gift {H5379}?

Complete Jewish Bible

All the men of Y'hudah answered the men of Isra'el, "Because the king is our close relative. Why are you angry about this? Have we eaten anything at the king's expense? Has any gift been given to us?"

Berean Standard Bible

And all the men of Judah replied to the men of Israel, “We did this because the king is our relative. Why does this anger you? Have we ever eaten at the king’s expense or received anything for ourselves?”

American Standard Version

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

Commentary

### SUMMARY
2 Samuel 19:42 vividly portrays the escalating tension between the men of Judah and the men of Israel in the immediate aftermath of Absalom's rebellion and King David's return. This verse records Judah's impassioned defense against accusations of self-serving motives, asserting their right to escort David based on kinship and vehemently denying any pursuit of personal gain or royal favor. It underscores the deep-seated tribal rivalries that plagued the nascent monarchy and ultimately threatened the unity of Israel.

### CONTEXT
* **Literary Context:** This verse is situated at a critical juncture in the narrative of 2 Samuel, following the defeat and death of Absalom (cf. [2 Samuel 18:14](/2_samuel/18-14 "2 Samuel 18:14 - Absalom's Death")). King David, having mourned his son, is preparing to return to Jerusalem and reclaim his throne. A significant point of contention arises regarding who will facilitate his return. David, through Zadok and Abiathar, specifically appeals to the elders of Judah, his own tribe, reminding them of their kinship (cf. [2 Samuel 19:11-12](/2_samuel/19-11 "2 Samuel 19:11-12 - David's Appeal to Judah")). Judah's swift and independent action in escorting David across the Jordan River (cf. [2 Samuel 19:15](/2_samuel/19-15 "2 Samuel 19:15 - Judah Escorts David")) is perceived by the northern tribes of Israel as an act of favoritism and an usurpation of their collective right to bring back their king. The ensuing heated exchange, culminating in the accusations from Israel and Judah's rebuttal in this verse, sets the stage for further tribal strife and even another rebellion by Sheba (cf. [2 Samuel 20:1-2](/2_samuel/20-1 "2 Samuel 20:1-2 - Sheba's Rebellion")).
* **Historical & Cultural Context:** Ancient Israel was a tribal society, where kinship and lineage were paramount. Loyalty was primarily to one's tribe, and the concept of a unified nation-state under a single king was still relatively new and fragile. David, though king over all Israel, was deeply rooted in the tribe of Judah. This created an inherent tension, as other tribes, particularly the larger and more powerful northern tribes like Ephraim, often felt marginalized or slighted. The act of "eating at the king's cost" or receiving "gifts" was a common practice in ancient Near Eastern monarchies, signifying royal patronage, favor, and a dependent relationship. To deny such benefits was to assert independence and purity of motive, claiming that their actions were driven by genuine loyalty and kinship rather than self-interest or a desire for special privilege. The political landscape was volatile, with the recent rebellion highlighting the precariousness of David's reign and the deep divisions within his kingdom.
* **Key Themes:** The central theme illuminated by this verse is the **Tribal Rivalry and Jealousy** that permeated the Israelite monarchy. The men of Israel's accusation, and Judah's defensive retort, clearly articulate the deep-seated resentment and competition for influence and favor with the king. This rivalry, particularly between Judah and the northern tribes, is a recurring motif throughout the books of Samuel and Kings, ultimately culminating in the **Division of the Kingdom** after Solomon's reign (cf. [1 Kings 12:16](/1_kings/12-16 "1 Kings 12:16 - The Division of the Kingdom")). Another prominent theme is **Kinship and Loyalty**, as Judah's primary justification for their actions is their blood relation to David ("Because the king is near of kin to us"). This highlights the enduring power of familial bonds and tribal identity in shaping political allegiance. Finally, the verse probes the theme of **Motive and Self-Interest**. By denying any material gain or gifts, Judah attempts to portray their actions as purely altruistic, driven by duty and kinship, rather than by a desire for personal enrichment or exclusive access to royal power, a common accusation in political disputes (cf. [Proverbs 28:21](/proverbs/28-21 "Proverbs 28:21 - Favoritism and Justice")).

### EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
#### Key Word Analysis
* **Near of kin (Hebrew, _qārôb'_):** The Hebrew word קָרוֹב (_qārôb_) literally means "near," "close," or "at hand." In this context, it carries the strong connotation of familial proximity, blood relation, and intimate connection. Judah's use of this term emphasizes their direct lineage to David and their perceived inherent right and duty to act on his behalf, distinct from the other tribes. It underscores a claim of natural, privileged access and loyalty based on shared ancestry.
* **Eaten at all of the king's cost (Hebrew, _lōʾ ʾāḵalnu ʾet-kāl-məʾûmâ min-hammeleḵ'_):** This phrase, literally "we have not eaten anything at all from the king," is an idiom for receiving sustenance, provision, or patronage from a benefactor. In the context of a king, it implies being supported by the royal treasury, receiving a stipend, or benefiting from royal favor. Judah's emphatic denial ("not at all") serves to refute any accusation that their actions were motivated by a desire for material gain or to become royal dependents. They assert their independence from such patronage.
* **Gift (Hebrew, _mattāṯ'_):** The Hebrew word מַתָּת (_mattāṯ_) refers to a present, offering, or gift. In a royal context, it could signify a reward for service, a bribe for loyalty, or a special favor granted by the monarch. By denying receipt of any "gift," Judah further reinforces their claim of pure motives, asserting that their loyalty was not bought or influenced by any form of special remuneration or bribery from David.

#### Verse Breakdown
* **"And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel":** This opening clause immediately establishes the confrontational setting. It highlights the collective voice of Judah, indicating a unified and firm stance against the accusations leveled by the northern tribes of Israel. The public nature of this exchange underscores the deep tribal divisions and the struggle for influence within the kingdom.
* **"Because the king [is] near of kin to us":** This is Judah's primary justification and the core of their defense. They appeal to the fundamental principle of kinship, asserting that their close blood relationship with David (who was from the tribe of Judah) naturally gave them precedence and a special right to act in his interest. This argument dismisses Israel's claims of being slighted by appealing to a higher, more intrinsic bond.
* **"wherefore then be ye angry for this matter?":** This is a rhetorical question designed to challenge the legitimacy of Israel's anger. Judah implies that their actions were entirely reasonable and justifiable given their unique relationship with David, and therefore, Israel's resentment is unfounded and illogical. It seeks to deflect blame and put Israel on the defensive.
* **"have we eaten at all of the king's [cost]?":** This is the first of two rhetorical questions aimed at refuting accusations of self-interest. By denying that they have "eaten at the king's cost," Judah emphatically states that they have not received any financial support, provisions, or ongoing patronage from David. This is a strong assertion that their actions were not driven by a desire for material benefit or to become royal dependents.
* **"or hath he given us any gift?":** This second rhetorical question further reinforces Judah's denial of corrupt motives. By denying that they have received "any gift," they are disclaiming any special favors, bribes, or rewards from the king. This aims to demonstrate that their loyalty was not bought but was freely given out of genuine kinship and duty, distinguishing their actions from those motivated by personal gain.

#### Literary Devices
The verse employs several potent literary devices. The most prominent is the **Rhetorical Question**, used twice ("wherefore then be ye angry...?" and "have we eaten at all...? or hath he given us any gift?"). These questions are not posed to elicit information but to make a forceful assertion and to challenge the validity of the accuser's premise, implying that Israel's anger is baseless and their accusations of self-interest are false. There is also an element of **Antithesis** at play: Judah's claim of pure, kinship-driven loyalty is set in stark contrast to Israel's implied accusation of self-serving motives and the pursuit of material gain. This highlights the fundamental disagreement over the nature of their respective relationships with the king. Furthermore, the entire exchange serves as **Foreshadowing**, hinting at the deep-seated tribal divisions that would eventually lead to the schism of the kingdom into Judah and Israel after Solomon's reign, demonstrating that the unity achieved under David was always precarious and fraught with internal tensions.

### THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
This tribal dispute, seemingly a mere political squabble, reveals profound theological truths about human nature, leadership, and the challenges of unity. It underscores how easily envy, perceived favoritism, and self-interest can fracture even divinely ordained communities. The emphasis on kinship highlights the biblical importance of covenant and familial bonds, yet also demonstrates how these can become sources of division when elevated above the common good or a broader national identity. The episode serves as a cautionary tale against the dangers of partiality and the need for leaders to foster genuine unity rather than playing into existing divisions. It implicitly calls for a higher loyalty, one that transcends tribal or personal gain, to the God who chose and established the nation as a whole.

* [Proverbs 13:10](/proverbs/13-10 "Proverbs 13:10 - Pride and Strife")
* [James 3:16](/james/3-16 "James 3:16 - Envy and Disorder")
* [Galatians 5:15](/galatians/5-15 "Galatians 5:15 - Biting and Devouring One Another")

### REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
The intense exchange in 2 Samuel 19:42 offers timeless lessons for navigating conflict and fostering unity within any community, whether family, church, or organization. It challenges us to examine the underlying causes of division, which often stem from perceived slights, jealousy over influence, or accusations of impure motives. Judah's defense, while understandable from their perspective, also reveals the human tendency to prioritize narrow group interests over broader communal harmony. For us today, this narrative prompts deep introspection: Are our actions truly driven by selfless devotion and genuine connection, or are we subtly seeking personal advantage, recognition, or exclusive access? How do we respond when others are perceived to receive favor or opportunities we believe are rightfully ours? The passage reminds us that true unity is not merely the absence of conflict, but the active pursuit of reconciliation, mutual respect, and a shared vision that transcends individual or group agendas. It calls us to cultivate humility, to celebrate the successes of others, and to prioritize the well-being of the whole body over the perceived entitlements of any single part.

#### Questions for Reflection
* **Where do I see "tribalism" or factionalism manifesting in my own community or church, and what role might I be playing in it?**
* **How do I respond when I perceive others receiving favor or opportunities that I believe I deserve?**
* **Am I able to genuinely celebrate the successes of others, even when they seem to overshadow my own contributions?**
* **What are my true motivations when I serve or lead? Am I seeking personal gain, recognition, or special access, or am I driven by selfless love and a desire for the common good?**
* **How can I actively work to bridge divides and foster unity in areas where I see tension or rivalry?**

### FAQ
**Why were the men of Israel so angry with Judah for bringing David back?**

Answer: The men of Israel, representing the ten northern tribes, felt deeply slighted and disrespected. They believed they had an equal, if not greater, claim to the king, stating in [2 Samuel 19:43](/2_samuel/19-43 "2 Samuel 19:43 - Israel's Claim of Ten Parts") that they had "ten parts in the king." They likely viewed Judah's independent action in bringing David back as a unilateral move that excluded them from a significant national event and reinforced Judah's perceived favoritism in David's eyes. This fueled their jealousy and sense of being marginalized, leading to the angry confrontation.

**What does "eaten at all of the king's cost" mean in this cultural context?**

Answer: This phrase is an idiom signifying receiving royal patronage, provision, or financial support. In ancient Near Eastern courts, those who "ate at the king's table" were often officials, loyal servants, or those in special favor, indicating a dependent relationship and a share in the king's resources. Judah's denial was a strong assertion that their actions were not motivated by a desire for material gain, a stipend, or to become royal dependents. They were claiming purity of motive, stating their loyalty was freely given, not bought.

**How does this incident foreshadow later events in Israel's history?**

Answer: This intense tribal dispute is a stark foreshadowing of the eventual division of the united monarchy. The deep-seated rivalry and jealousy between Judah and the northern tribes, particularly Ephraim, continued to simmer throughout David's and Solomon's reigns. After Solomon's death, this tension erupted into open schism when the northern tribes rejected Rehoboam, Solomon's son, and formed their own kingdom under Jeroboam (cf. [1 Kings 12:16](/1_kings/12-16 "1 Kings 12:16 - The Division of the Kingdom")). The arguments presented in 2 Samuel 19:42-43 directly mirror the very reasons for that later, permanent split, highlighting the persistent challenge of maintaining national unity in the face of strong tribal identities and perceived injustices.

### CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The tribal rivalries and the fractured loyalties evident in 2 Samuel 19:42 powerfully underscore humanity's desperate need for a King who transcends all earthly divisions and establishes a kingdom of true, enduring unity. David, despite being God's anointed, could not ultimately overcome the deep-seated tribalism and self-interest that plagued Israel, leading to eventual schism. In stark contrast, Jesus Christ is the true King, not merely "near of kin" to one tribe, but the Son of God, who came to reconcile all humanity to Himself and to each other. He breaks down the "dividing wall of hostility" (cf. [Ephesians 2:14](/ephesians/2-14 "Ephesians 2:14 - Christ Our Peace")) between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, uniting them into one new humanity in His body, the church (cf. [Galatians 3:28](/galatians/3-28 "Galatians 3:28 - Unity in Christ")). Unlike human leaders who are accused of seeking personal gain or distributing "gifts" to secure loyalty, Christ's leadership is characterized by ultimate self-sacrifice, giving His life as a ransom for many (cf. [Mark 10:45](/mark/10-45 "Mark 10:45 - The Son of Man Came to Serve")). His kingdom is "not of this world" (cf. [John 18:36](/john/18-36 "John 18:36 - Jesus' Kingdom Is Not of This World")), and therefore, it is not built upon tribal favoritism or material benefits, but on righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (cf. [Romans 14:17](/romans/14-17 "Romans 14:17 - The Kingdom of God")). He is the head of His body, the church, in whom all things hold together (cf. [Colossians 1:18](/colossians/1-18 "Colossians 1:18 - Christ the Head of the Church")), offering a fulfillment of kingship that truly brings all people into a unified, eternal family under His perfect, selfless reign.

Note: Commentary is generated by AI with a directive for Biblical fidelity. Always rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment. The Scripture text and cross-references are from verified, non-AI sources.

Cross-References

2 Samuel 19:12

Ye [are] my brethren, ye [are] my bones and my flesh: wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king?

1 Chronicles 2:3

The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: [which] three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him.

1 Chronicles 2:17

And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa [was] Jether the Ishmeelite.

2 Samuel 5:1

¶ Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we [are] thy bone and thy flesh.