The Politics of Proximity: A Quarrel Over the King Text: 2 Samuel 19:40-43
Introduction: The Unruly Passions of Men
We come now to the tail end of a very messy chapter in David’s life. The rebellion of Absalom, his favored son, has been put down, but not without great cost. Absalom is dead, the kingdom is in tatters, and David has had to be coaxed out of a debilitating grief by Joab, his blunt and bloody general. The process of national reconciliation has begun, but as we see in our text, it is a fragile and fraught business. The civil war is over, but the political war is just getting started.
We often think of political disputes as arising from high-minded differences of principle. And sometimes they are. But more often than not, as this passage demonstrates with bracing clarity, our political squabbles are driven by something far more primal. They are driven by pride, jealousy, tribalism, and the raw desire for honor and proximity to power. What we are about to witness is a family squabble on a national scale. It is a dispute not over policy, but over prestige. It is a fight over who gets to be closest to the king.
This is a perpetual temptation for God’s people. We are wired for loyalty, for belonging. But when that loyalty becomes carnal, when it is detached from righteousness and fixed upon bloodlines, geography, or a partisan spirit, it curdles into a toxic brew. The question that ignites this powder keg is, “Who has more right to the king?” But as we will see, this is always the wrong question. The right question is, “What are the king’s rights over us?” When men forget the second question, their answers to the first will always be self-serving and destructive. This passage is a masterful case study in how easily a moment of national unity can be squandered by the unruly passions of men.
The Text
Now the king went on to Gilgal, and Chimham went on with him; and all the people of Judah and also half the people of Israel accompanied the king.
And behold, all the men of Israel came to the king and said to the king, “Why had our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and caused the king and his household and all David’s men with him to pass over the Jordan?”
Then all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, “Because the king is a close relative to us. Why then are you angry about this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king’s expense, or has anything been taken for us?”
But the men of Israel answered the men of Judah and said, “We have ten parts in the king, therefore we also have more claim on David than you. Why then did you treat us with contempt? Was it not our word first to have our king return?” Yet the words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel.
(2 Samuel 19:40-43 LSB)
The King's Procession and the First Complaint (vv. 40-41)
We begin with the scene being set. David is on his way back to his capital, his authority being restored.
"Now the king went on to Gilgal, and Chimham went on with him; and all the people of Judah and also half the people of Israel accompanied the king. And behold, all the men of Israel came to the king and said to the king, “Why had our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and caused the king and his household and all David’s men with him to pass over the Jordan?”" (2 Samuel 19:40-41)
David is making his way back to Jerusalem, and he is accompanied by a great host. Judah, his own tribe, is there in full force. But we are also told that "half the people of Israel" were there. This is significant. The nation is not yet fully united behind him. The wounds from the civil war are still fresh. Some are enthusiastic, some are hesitant, and some, as we will see, are resentful.
The men of Israel, representing the ten northern tribes, approach the king with a sharp accusation. Their language is telling. They accuse their brothers, the men of Judah, of having "stolen" the king away. This is the language of property and possession. They see David not as the Lord's anointed, the king over all Israel, but as a commodity, a prize to be controlled. Their complaint is not that David is being restored, but that they were not given what they considered to be their proper role in the ceremony. They feel slighted, overlooked. Their pride has been pricked.
Notice the core of their grievance: "Why had our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away?" This is a political fight masquerading as a concern for protocol. What they are really saying is, "You got to him first. You acted unilaterally. You made us look like second-class citizens in this kingdom." This is the kind of petty jealousy that can tear families, churches, and nations apart. It is a dispute born of envy and a lust for status.
Judah's Carnal Defense (v. 42)
Judah’s response is just as carnal as Israel’s complaint. They do not appeal to a higher principle, but to a lower one: tribal nepotism.
"Then all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, “Because the king is a close relative to us. Why then are you angry about this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king’s expense, or has anything been taken for us?”" (2 Samuel 19:42 LSB)
Their first argument is, essentially, "He's our guy." They claim a special relationship based on blood: "Because the king is a close relative to us." This is a profoundly dangerous argument to make in a covenant nation. While it is true that David was from the tribe of Judah, his kingship was not based on his tribal identity but on God's divine anointing. By appealing to kinship, Judah reduces the kingship from a divine institution to a tribal privilege. They are claiming special access and special rights because of their blood ties. This is the very definition of carnal politics.
Their second argument is a denial of corruption. "Have we eaten at all at the king's expense, or has anything been taken for us?" They are saying, "We haven't profited from this. We didn't get any special favors or contracts." This may have been true, but it completely misses the point. The men of Israel were not complaining about financial corruption; they were complaining about a perceived lack of honor. Judah defends themselves against a charge that wasn't made, which is a classic rhetorical trick to avoid addressing the real issue. The real issue was pride, and Judah’s response only poured fuel on that fire.
Israel's Rebuttal and Judah's Harshness (v. 43)
The men of Israel are not satisfied. They escalate the argument, and the narrator gives us a crucial insight into the tone of the dispute.
"But the men of Israel answered the men of Judah and said, “We have ten parts in the king, therefore we also have more claim on David than you. Why then did you treat us with contempt? Was it not our word first to have our king return?” Yet the words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel." (2 Samuel 19:43 LSB)
Israel’s counter-argument is based on democratic math. "We have ten parts in the king... therefore we also have more claim on David than you." They are arguing from a position of majority rule. "There are ten of us and only one of you (Judah, with Simeon absorbed into it), so we have a greater share in the king." Again, they are treating the king as a divisible asset, a corporate entity in which they hold controlling stock. This is a complete misunderstanding of covenantal headship. The king is not the sum of the people's interests; he is God's appointed ruler over all of them.
They then get to the heart of the matter: "Why then did you treat us with contempt?" This is the real wound. It is about honor, respect, and the fear of being despised. They also claim, "Was it not our word first to have our king return?" They are claiming procedural priority. They are jockeying for position, trying to establish their superior loyalty through a petty argument over who spoke first.
But the final sentence of this chapter is the most damning. "Yet the words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel." The Hebrew word for "harsher" implies severity, fierceness, and cruelty. Israel started the quarrel with a foolish and envious complaint. Judah, instead of responding with wisdom and grace, escalated the conflict with harshness. They could have been peacemakers. They could have said, "You are our brothers. We are one nation under God and under His anointed king. Let us rejoice together in his restoration." Instead, they chose the path of pride. They met Israel's carnal argument with an even more carnal response. And as we will see in the very next chapter, this harshness will bear bitter fruit, leading directly to the rebellion of Sheba and the further fracturing of the kingdom.
Conclusion: The Politics of the Kingdom
This sad little episode is a microcosm of so much of our political life, both in the world and, tragically, in the church. We fight over who has more "parts" in the king, forgetting that we are all wholly owned by the King. We argue from tribal loyalty, from majority rule, from procedural correctness, all while ignoring the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.
The men of Israel and Judah were arguing about their rights to David, when they should have been submitting to David's rights over them as the Lord's anointed. And this is precisely our problem. We come to Christ, our true King, and we immediately begin to quarrel over our status in His kingdom. We divide ourselves into tribes: Calvinist and Arminian, Baptist and Presbyterian, charismatic and cessationist. We argue about who has the better theology, the more faithful tradition, the "ten parts" of doctrinal correctness. We accuse our brothers of "stealing" the king, of acting without consulting us, of treating us with contempt.
And when confronted, we respond like Judah, with carnal defenses. "He is a close relative to us," we say, appealing to our theological pedigree. Or we respond with harshness, with words that are fierce and cruel, forgetting that "a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" (Proverbs 15:1). We think we are defending the truth, when in reality we are simply defending our pride.
The lesson here is a profound one. Unity in the kingdom of God is not built on tribal affiliation or majority opinion. It is built on shared submission to the one true King, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our claim is not in Him, but rather His claim is on us. We have no "parts" in Him; He has all of us. When we grasp this, our petty squabbles over status and honor are exposed for the foolishness they are. The question is not whether we are Judah or Israel, but whether we are Christ's. And if we are Christ's, then we are brothers, and we are called to speak to one another not with the harshness of pride, but with the grace of those who know they have been graciously received by the one King who rules over all.