TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers 2 Samuel 19:9–15. His two-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
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.
Continue studying 2 Samuel 19:9 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Following the tragic conclusion of Absalom's rebellion and his death, 2 Samuel 19:9 vividly captures the intense national debate and widespread disunity among the tribes of Israel concerning King David's return to Jerusalem. Despite David's recent flight from the capital due to Absalom's usurpation, the people recall his past triumphs as their deliverer from enemies and the Philistines, recognizing his historical role as their divinely appointed king. This verse encapsulates the tension between David's proven leadership and his temporary vulnerability, highlighting the urgent need for stable governance and reconciliation in a fractured nation.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated at a pivotal moment in the narrative of 2 Samuel, immediately after Absalom's defeat and death (2 Samuel 18) and David's profound grief (2 Samuel 19:1-8). David, still in exile across the Jordan River, has been urged by Joab to cease mourning and resume his royal duties. The preceding verses depict David's return journey being prepared, but this verse interjects with the internal deliberations of the people. It sets the stage for David's eventual return to Jerusalem, not as a simple homecoming, but as a complex political maneuver requiring the active consent and invitation of the tribes, particularly Judah, who had been most closely aligned with Absalom. The "strife" described here underscores the lingering instability and the challenge of reunifying a kingdom deeply fractured by civil war.
Historical & Cultural Context
The period of the united monarchy under David was marked by both consolidation and internal strife. Tribal loyalties remained strong, often superseding national unity, a legacy from the period of the Judges. Absalom's rebellion exploited these underlying tensions, particularly the grievances of the northern tribes against David's rule, which often favored Judah. David's flight across the Jordan was not merely a personal retreat but a strategic withdrawal, leaving Jerusalem vulnerable and creating a power vacuum. The Philistines were Israel's perennial and most formidable enemies, and David's victories against them (e.g., the account of David and Goliath) were foundational to his legitimacy and popularity. The debate in 2 Samuel 19:9 reflects the ancient Near Eastern understanding of kingship, where a king's ability to provide security and deliverance was paramount, yet his personal conduct and political stability were equally scrutinized by the populace.
Key Themes
The verse powerfully illustrates several key themes prevalent in the Books of Samuel. Firstly, it highlights the fickle nature of public opinion, demonstrating how quickly popular sentiment can shift from adoration to questioning, and back again, based on immediate circumstances. The people remember David's past deliverances, yet also his recent flight, showcasing their pragmatic assessment of leadership. Secondly, it emphasizes the consequences of sin and rebellion, as Absalom's actions directly led to David's exile and the nation's disunity, even after the rebellion was quashed. The phrase "he is fled out of the land for Absalom" directly links David's predicament to his son's treachery. Thirdly, the verse underscores the importance of legitimate authority and national unity. The "strife" among the tribes reveals a nation yearning for stability and a clear leader, recognizing that despite the recent turmoil, David's past record as a deliverer points to his divine mandate and his capacity to restore order, as prophesied in God's covenant with David.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
The Hebrew word דִּין (dîyn), translated as "strife," is defined as "a primitive root; a straight course, i.e. sail direct; (come) with a straight course." While seemingly counterintuitive for "strife," this definition can imply a direct, unyielding contention or a straight-on dispute. In the context of the verse, it suggests that the people were engaged in a direct and earnest debate, taking a clear stance for or against David's return, rather than a meandering discussion. This "straight course" of argument highlights the intensity and directness of the divisions within the tribes.
The verb נָצַל (nâtsal), meaning "to snatch away, whether in a good or a bad sense; deliver (self), escape, preserve, rescue, rid, save," is used here to describe David's past acts of deliverance. The people's recollection that David "saved us out of the hand of our enemies" and "delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines" emphasizes his role as a powerful rescuer and protector. This word underscores his historical legitimacy and the security he brought to the nation, serving as a powerful argument for his restoration to the throne.
The verb בָּרַח (bârach), meaning "to bolt, i.e. figuratively, to flee suddenly; chase (away); drive away, fain, flee (away), put to flight, make haste, run away," describes David's ignominious departure from Jerusalem in the face of Absalom's rebellion. This word highlights David's vulnerability and the temporary disruption of his kingship. The people's acknowledgment that "he is fled out of the land for Absalom" captures the immediate, humiliating reality of David's situation, contrasting sharply with his past image as an invincible deliverer. This juxtaposition forms the core of the "strife" among the tribes.
Verse Breakdown
"¶ And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying,"
This opening clause establishes the widespread nature of the internal conflict. "All the people" and "all the tribes of Israel" emphasize the national scope of the debate, indicating that the question of David's return was a matter of intense public contention across the entire kingdom, not merely a localized issue. The "strife" (Hebrew dîyn) denotes a serious, direct, and often heated dispute, underscoring the deep divisions that Absalom's rebellion had created.
"The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines;"
This part of the verse presents the primary argument for David's return, rooted in his past accomplishments. The people recall David's proven track record as a military leader and deliverer. His victories against "our enemies" (general adversaries) and specifically "the Philistines" (Israel's most persistent and dangerous foes) were central to his initial rise to power and his legitimacy as king. This statement acknowledges his divine appointment and the security he brought to the nation, serving as a powerful reminder of why he was chosen and why he should return.
"and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom."
This clause presents the counter-point or the current reality that fuels the "strife." It acknowledges David's recent vulnerability and the direct consequence of Absalom's rebellion. David's flight was a public humiliation and a sign of his temporary loss of control. The phrase "for Absalom" directly attributes David's predicament to his son's treachery, highlighting the internal fracturing of the kingdom and the personal cost of the rebellion. This stark contrast between David's past triumphs and his present flight forms the crux of the people's debate.
Literary Devices
The verse effectively employs Juxtaposition to highlight the central dilemma facing the tribes of Israel. It starkly contrasts David's glorious past as a "savior" and "deliverer" from external threats, particularly the Philistines, with his recent ignominious "flight" from his own son, Absalom. This creates a tension that underscores the "strife" among the people, forcing them to weigh David's proven capabilities against his current vulnerability and the chaos caused by the rebellion. Furthermore, there is an implied Rhetorical Question within the "strife," as the people are implicitly asking themselves and each other: "Given his past, and his present situation, should David return as king?" This internal debate reflects the complex political and emotional landscape of a nation grappling with the aftermath of civil war.
Theological and Thematic Connections
This verse profoundly illustrates the tension between God's anointing and the shifting tides of human opinion. David, chosen by God and confirmed through mighty acts of deliverance, found himself temporarily displaced by a popular uprising. The people's "strife" reveals their struggle to reconcile David's divine mandate with his human vulnerability and the consequences of sin within his own household. It underscores the biblical truth that even divinely appointed leaders face challenges to their authority and that a nation's stability often hinges on its recognition and restoration of legitimate, God-ordained leadership. The people's memory of David's past deliverances, though momentarily overshadowed by his flight, ultimately serves as a powerful argument for his rightful place, pointing to God's enduring covenant faithfulness to David's line.
Reflection and Application
The "strife" among the tribes of Israel in 2 Samuel 19:9 offers a timeless lesson about the complexities of leadership, public perception, and the process of reconciliation after division. It reminds us that even leaders with a proven track record of divine favor and success can face periods of rejection or vulnerability, often due to circumstances beyond their immediate control or the consequences of sin. For communities and nations today, this verse highlights the critical importance of remembering past faithfulness and deliverance, even when present circumstances are challenging. It calls us to discern true leadership not merely by immediate popularity or temporary setbacks, but by a consistent pattern of character, divine anointing, and a commitment to the well-being of the people. Furthermore, it underscores the arduous but essential work of reconciliation and reunification after periods of conflict, reminding us that healing a fractured community requires open dialogue, a reckoning with past events, and a renewed commitment to shared purpose under legitimate authority.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why were the tribes "at strife" if David was the rightful king?
The "strife" among the tribes of Israel in 2 Samuel 19:9 was a complex reflection of the deep political and social fractures caused by Absalom's rebellion. While David was indeed the divinely appointed and rightful king, his flight from Jerusalem in the face of Absalom's usurpation had created a power vacuum and a crisis of confidence. The people were debating not just his right to rule, but the practicalities and implications of his return. Some might have feared renewed conflict, others might have been deeply implicated in Absalom's rebellion and worried about repercussions, and still others might have genuinely questioned David's ability to restore stability after such a humiliating retreat. Their recollection of his past deliverances ("The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines;") was a strong argument for his return, but it was weighed against the recent reality that "he is fled out of the land for Absalom." This indicates a genuine, widespread debate about the best path forward for the nation, highlighting the lingering instability and the need for a clear invitation for David to reclaim his throne.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
The "strife" among the tribes concerning David's return in 2 Samuel 19:9 powerfully foreshadows the divided responses to Jesus, the ultimate King and Deliverer. Just as David was remembered for saving Israel from their enemies, Jesus came as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!, delivering humanity from the ultimate enemies of sin and death. Yet, despite His miraculous deeds and authoritative teaching, there was constant "strife" and division regarding His identity and authority. Some hailed Him as the Son of David, the long-awaited Messiah, while others questioned His origins, accused Him of blasphemy, and ultimately demanded His crucifixion (e.g., the division among the people). Like David, who "fled out of the land for Absalom," Jesus, in His incarnation, emptied Himself and experienced human vulnerability, even facing rejection and a "flight" to the cross (e.g., Christ's humiliation and exaltation). However, His ultimate "return" was not from exile but from the grave, in glorious resurrection and ascension, establishing His eternal kingdom (e.g., the ascension of Jesus). Thus, David's temporary rejection and eventual restoration serve as a type for Christ's suffering, vindication, and ultimate reign, demonstrating that God's anointed King, though momentarily challenged, will ultimately triumph and gather His people.