Poole on 2 Samuel 19:40-43: Strife between Judah and Israel!

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

Verse 40:[1]  Then the king went on to Gilgal, and Chimham (Heb. Chimhan[2]) went on with him:  and all the people of Judah conducted the king, and also half the people of Israel.

[Therefore, the king passed over, etc., וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ הַגִּלְגָּ֔לָה וְכִמְהָ֖ן עָבַ֣ר עִמּ֑וֹ וְכָל־עַ֤ם יְהוּדָה֙ וֶיעֱבִ֣רוּ אֶת־הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ]  According to the Kethib it is to be read ‎וַיַּעֲבִרוּ, and they caused to pass over (Dieu).  Thus they translate it:  And the king crossed over unto Gilgal, and Chimham crossed over with him, and all the people of Judah, and they caused the king to cross over (Montanus, Malvenda).  This did not please the Masoretes; for thus the people of Judah would have previously been beyond Jordan, and would have crossed with the king to the near side of Jordan, which is evidently false from verse 16.  Hence they monstrously pointed it וֶיעֱבִרוּ, so that it might be read ‎הֶעֱבִירוּ, they caused to pass over, and thus that difficulty was avoided.  Junius evades that problem in another manner, namely, by taking the עָבַר, to pass over, not as the action of the king, whereby he crossed over Jordan, but whereby he, having already crossed, advanced; and translates it, then, with the king having advanced to Gilgal, and with Chimham advancing with him [hitherto he follows the Arabic], when the whole people of Judah was escorting the king; and in the margin, they caused the king to advance [when the whole tribe of Judah had crossed with the king (Arabic)].  We approve neither, and we marvel that they found in the Kethib any problem.  Of course there is, if the ו/and in ‎וַיַּעֲבִרוּ, and they caused to pass over, ought to be copulative; but is that necessary? since according to a quite common Hebraism it could be, and actually is in this place, retributive, and ‎וְכָל־עַ֤ם יְהוּדָה֙, and all the people of Judah, is a nominative absolute, also quite common among the Hebrews, in this sense, and the king crossed over to Gilgal, and Chimham crossed over with him; and the whole people of Judah (that is, as far as the whole people of Judah was concerned) caused the king to cross over.  Thus the כְּתִיב/Kethib is clearly the same as the קְרִי/Qere [הֶעֱבִירוּ], neither is it necessary to attribute a defect to the text; for here the children of Judah are narrated to have done that for which they are said in verse 16 to have come.  Such a ו is extant in Genesis 22:4,‎בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֗י וַיִּשָּׂ֙א, on the third day he lifted up; thus in 2 Samuel 20:12, ‎וְעָמָד, he stood still;[3] and in 1 Kings 12:17, ‎וַיִּמְלֹךְ, he reigned[4] (Dieu).  [Others translate the passage a little differently:]  And the king crossed over, etc., and all the people of Judah brought the king across (Jonathan, Pagnine), correctly (Dieu); or they escorted, etc. (Tigurinus); and they conducted the king (Munster).

Conducted the king; attended upon him on his journey towards Jerusalem.

[And only the half part of the people of Israel had been present (similarly Strigelius)]  So that David might give satisfaction to the men of his own tribe, he had set out on the journey, without awaiting the rest from the other tribes, who were preparing to escort him (Menochius).  ‎וְגַ֕ם חֲצִ֖י עַ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃, and (or and at the same time [Tigurinus]) half (or part [Junius and Tremellius], the half part [Munster], some part [Vatablus]) of the people of Israel (Septuagint, Pagnine, Montanus, similarly the Syriac, Arabic, Tigurinus); that is, those that had followed David while he he was fleeing, and those thousand of the tribe of Benjamin that Shimei had brought[5] (Vatablus).  The number of Judah was twice as great as that of all Israel (Sanchez).

And also half the people of Israel; whereas the men of Judah came entirely and unanimously to the king, as is noted here, and above, verse 14, the Israelites of the other tribes came in but slowly, and by halves, as being no less guilty of the rebellion than the tribe of Judah; but not encouraged and invited to come in by such a particular and gracious message as they were.  And this is here mentioned as the occasion both of the contention here following, and of the sedition, 2 Samuel 20.

Verse 41:[6]  And, behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said unto the king, Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away, and (2 Sam. 19:15) have brought the king, and his household, and all David’s men with him, over Jordan?

All the men of Israel, to wit, such as were present.

[Wherefore have they stolen thee away? (thus the Septuagint, Munster, Pagnine, Montanus)]  Why have they taken thee away? (Syriac, similarly Jonathan).  Why have they kept us in ignorance about thy crossing, etc.? (Arabic).  Why have they carried thee off secretly? (Tigurinus, Junius and Tremellius), that is, without waiting for us (who had arranged to bring thee back with all pomp, as it is fitting for the king), they snatched away this honor (Malvenda out of Junius, similarly Menochius, Tirinus).  Why were those only the attendants to bring back the king? they ought to have summoned us (Vatablus).  Out of ambition did those by their haste exclude us from escorting the king (Menochius).  What things are done secretly appear to be done dishonestly and cunningly.  How great is the instability of the multitude:  previously they conspired against David, but now all show themselves so eager for things convenient for David, that the matter at length issues in ill will.  Kingdoms depend upon God, not upon the people.  Men are generally fickle (Martyr).  A rivalry honest, and in anticipation of David, which nevertheless was set ablaze by harsh words, furnished a pretext for those wishing to change things.  Honest things indeed, but out of which the worst things would arise, says Tacitus, Annals 11 (Grotius).

Stolen thee away, that is, conveyed thee over Jordan hastily and privily, not expecting nor desiring our consent and concurrence in the business, which we were no less ready to afford than they.  It is also a secret reflection upon the king, for permitting this precipitation.

[And have brought the king and his house over Jordan, and all the men of David with him? (thus Montanus, Jonathan, Munster, Pagnine, Tigurinus)]  And all the men of Judah with thee? (Syriac, similarly the Arabic).  And all the men of David with him? (Junius and Tremellius), that is, his fellow tribesmen, and those that fought for David (Junius).  [Others otherwise:]  And all the men of David with him (Septuagint).  Now, all the men of David were with him.  These are not the words of David [he would have said, I suppose, they are not of the men of Israel], but of the author (Piscator):  to indicate the reason for so bold a response of the tribe of Judah:  that is, because they had the soldiers of David on their side (Piscator nearly out of Junius).

All David’s men, that is, all thy men; such changes of persons being most frequent in the Hebrew language; thy officers, and guards, and soldiers.  This is mentioned as an aggravation of their fault, that they did not only carry the king over Jordan, but all his men too, without asking their advice.

Verse 42:[7]  And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, Because the king is (2 Sam. 19:12) 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?

[And he answered…because the King is nearer to me, ‎כִּֽי־קָר֤וֹב הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ אֵלַ֔י]  He answered, or rather they answered, etc., we brought him over because he is a relative, or kinsman, etc.  Either that is to be understood, or כִּי/that/because is superfluous, as quite frequently happens.  They say this, because David dwelt in the tribe of Judah (Vatablus). 

Near of kin to us; of the same tribe with us, and therefore both oweth the more respect to us, and might expect and challenge more respect from us.

[Have we eaten, etc.]  It is a Hebraism.  Have we received food from the King for this? (Vatablus).  What if I came first? was anything taken from thee thereby? (Martyr).

[Or were gifts given to us, ‎אִם־נִשֵּׂ֥את נִשָּׂ֖א לָֽנוּ׃]  Whether (if [Montanus]) he gave donative to us? (Pagnine, Junius and Tremellius, similarly the Septuagint, Jonathan, Syriac), or did we receive to ourselves? (Tigurinus, similarly Munster).  I did not seek my own advantage; I only did my duty (Martyr).

Hath he given us any gift? we have neither sought nor gained any advantage to ourselves hereby, but only discharged our duty to the king, and used all expedition in bringing him back, which you also should have done, and not have come in by halves, and so coldly as you have done.  See verse 40.

Verse 43:[8]  And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than ye:  why then did ye despise us (Heb. set us at light[9]), that our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king?  And (see Judg. 8:1; 12:1) the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel.

[Ten parts, etc., ‎עֶשֶׂר־יָד֙וֹת לִ֣י בַמֶּלֶךְ֘]  Ten hands (parts [Pagnine, Mariana], portions [Syriac], understanding, there are [Pagnine]) to me in the king (Pagnine, Junius and Tremellius, etc., Piscator).  Emphatically; that is, in the kingdom:  as it is evident from what follows (Piscator out of Junius, Malvenda).  King is thus taken in the place of kingdom, Hosea 10:15 (Malvenda out of Junius).  I am the greater part of the whole republic, and I am able to bring more soldiers to battle; and so the king ought to have a greater care of us (Martyr); for we are ten tribes (Vatablus).

We have ten parts; they say but ten, though strictly there were eleven; either because they accounted Joseph (which comprehends both Ephraim and Manasseh under it) for one tribe, as it is sometimes reckoned; or because Simeon, whose lot lay within the tribe of Judah, were joined with them in this action.  In the king, that is, in the kingdom, and the management of the affairs of it; the word king being put for kingdom, as it is 2 Chronicles 23:20; Isaiah 23:15; Daniel 7:17; Hosea 10:15.  Or, in the king’s person, and the disposal thereof.

[David pertaineth more to me than to thee, ‎וְגַם־בְּדָוִד֘ אֲנִ֣י מִמְּךָ֒]  And also in David I before thee (Montanus), or more than thou (Pagnine, Vatablus).  He says the same thing twice (Vatablus).  And hence in David more than you (Syriac, similarly the Arabic).  In David; that is, in the right which I have in David, as king, because of course then tribes had more ability than two in the creation of David as king (Piscator).  If David be viewed as a private man, he pertaineth more to you, because he is of your tribe; but, if as king, more to us; because we are the greatest part of that kingdom (Menochius).  But also in David I am before thee (Munster), or I am above thee (Tigurinus).  Even if he is of thy tribe, I am superior; he pertaineth more to me (Mariana).  And so on behalf of David I am superior to thee (Junius and Tremellius).  In David more than thee, understanding, I am approved (certain interpreters in Malvenda).  I choose David above thee; that is, more than thou (Vatablus).  And also we want David more than thee (Jonathan).  [The Chaldean reads ‎מִנָּךְ, which is rather to be translated, more than thou.]

We have also more right in David than ye; as in the general we have more right in the king and kingdom, so particularly we have more right in David, than you, because you were the first beginners and the most zealous promoters of this rebellion; and as David is nearest of kin to you, so he hath been most injured by you; howsoever, as he is king, we justly claim a greater interest in him than you, inasmuch as we are the far greatest part of his subjects.

[And it was not told to me first, that I might bring back my king?‎ וְלֹא־הָיָ֙ה דְבָרִ֥י רִאשׁ֛וֹן לִ֖י לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־מַלְכִּ֑י]  And was not (or that might not be [Munster]) my word first (previously [Jonathan]) to me, to bring back my king (Montanus, Munster, similarly Osiander, Strigelius, Castalio).  Why have ye not given first place to me, that the word or authority might abide before me, as the greater, and thou might not usurp that to thyself (Munster).  We ought to be first in the office of bringing the King back, whether you have regard to Reuben, who was the firstborn by nature, or Joseph, who was firstborn by substitution.[10]  Both in number and dignity I excel (Martyr).  To us was it pertaining to be first to bring back the king (Syriac, similarly the Arabic).  Others thus:  Was not my speech first before me (or my word first to me [the Septuagint and Jonathan in Mariana, Pagnine, Vatablus]) concerning bringing my king back? (Junius and Tremellius).  Was I not the first to speak, etc.? (Tigurinus, Vatablus).  A Hebraism:  did I not previously speak, or decree, or determine (Vatablus).  This determination was first made by us (Martyr).

That our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king; that we being the far greater number, should not have the first and chiefest vote in this action.  But the words are by some, and may well be, rendered interrogatively, And was not my word first about bringing the king back?  Did not we make the first mention of it, before you could be drawn to it?  For so indeed they did, verse 11; and therefore the neglect of their advice herein might seem more inexcusable.

[They responded more sternly, etc., וגו״ ‎וַיִּ֙קֶשׁ֙ דְּבַר־אִ֣ישׁ יְהוּדָ֔ה]  And stern (or hard [Malvenda], sterner [Pagnine, Junius and Tremellius]) was the word of the man of Judah more than the word of the man of Israel; that is, in refuting the arguments of the Israelites, and in mocking them (Malvenda).  Sterner speech; that is, more vehement and effective (Piscator); they spoke more arrogantly and insolently (Vatablus).  The word of the Men of Judah prevailed (Syriac).  The Judahites overcame the Israelites with their words (Arabic); but of what words they made use, we do not have from Scripture (Menochius).  It appears that the tumult was so vehement, that the king did not dare to interpose at all.  Yet he appears to connive with his own tribe in some measure, and so the rebellion spread (Martyr).

The words of the men of Judah were fiercer; instead of mollifying them with gentle words, they answered them with greater fierceness and insolency; so that David durst not interpose himself in the matter.

[1] Hebrew:  ‎וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ הַגִּלְגָּ֔לָה וְכִמְהָ֖ן עָבַ֣ר עִמּ֑וֹ וְכָל־עַ֤ם יְהוּדָה֙ וַיַּעֲבִ֣רוּ אֶת־הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וְגַ֕ם חֲצִ֖י עַ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

[2] Hebrew:  ‎וְכִמְהָן.

[3] 2 Samuel 20:12:  “And Amasa wallowed in blood in the midst of the highway.  And when the man saw that all the people stood still, he removed Amasa out of the highway into the field, and cast a cloth upon him, when he saw that every one that came by him stood still (‎כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר רָאָ֔ה כָּל־הַבָּ֥א עָלָ֖יו וְעָמָֽד׃).”

[4] 1 Kings 12:17:  “But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them (‎וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל הַיֹּשְׁבִ֖ים בְּעָרֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֑ה וַיִּמְלֹ֥ךְ עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם רְחַבְעָֽם׃).”

[5] Verses 16, 17.

[6] Hebrew: ‎וְהִנֵּ֛ה כָּל־אִ֥ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בָּאִ֣ים אֶל־הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֶל־הַמֶּ֡לֶךְ מַדּוּעַ֩ גְּנָב֙וּךָ אַחֵ֜ינוּ אִ֣ישׁ יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיַּעֲבִ֙רוּ אֶת־הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן וְכָל־אַנְשֵׁ֥י דָוִ֖ד עִמּֽוֹ׃ ס

[7] Hebrew: ‎וַיַּעַן֩ כָּל־אִ֙ישׁ יְהוּדָ֜ה עַל־אִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל כִּֽי־קָר֤וֹב הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ אֵלַ֔י וְלָ֤מָּה זֶּה֙ חָרָ֣ה לְךָ֔ עַל־הַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה הֶאָכ֤וֹל אָכַ֙לְנוּ֙ מִן־הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ אִם־נִשֵּׂ֥את נִשָּׂ֖א לָֽנוּ׃ ס

[8] Hebrew: ‎וַיַּ֣עַן אִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל֩ אֶת־אִ֙ישׁ יְהוּדָ֜ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר עֶֽשֶׂר־יָד֙וֹת לִ֣י בַמֶּלֶךְ֘ וְגַם־בְּדָוִד֘ אֲנִ֣י מִמְּךָ֒ וּמַדּ֙וּעַ֙ הֱקִלֹּתַ֔נִי וְלֹא־הָיָ֙ה דְבָרִ֥י רִאשׁ֛וֹן לִ֖י לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־מַלְכִּ֑י וַיִּ֙קֶשׁ֙ דְּבַר־אִ֣ישׁ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִדְּבַ֖ר אִ֥ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ ס

[9] Hebrew:  ‎הֱקִלֹּתַנִי.

[10] See 1 Chronicles 5:1.