Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 9:1
And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?
1. that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake ] In fulfilment of his oath to Jonathan. See 1Sa 20:14-17; 1Sa 20:42.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2Sa 9:1-13
Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake.
A gracious temper
I. An affecting exhibition of the vicissitudes of human life. I do not now refer to those common changes which are taking place in the community, but to those which are calculated powerfully to affect the mind. Neither do I now particularly allude to those by which persons have rapidly risen from their original obscurity, to stations of eminent dignity, emolument, or power, so that mankind have been astonished at their sudden elevation. My reference is to events of a precisely opposite character. See, for example, the patriarch Job, the richest man in his day in the east. Listen to the language of one who was in the golden mediocrity, and bad all her wants liberally supplied, but was afterwards so reduced that she exclaimed–Call me no more Naomi, but call me Marah for I went out full but the Lord has sent me home empty. Look at the family of Saul. And, not to multiply examples from scripture, have we not witnessed similar events, and equally surprising, within the last twenty years of our lives? If we look into the more private circle, how many, through changes and war, through the violence and fraud of others, or through their own imprudence and ambition, have been precipitated from the summit of the mount to the very bottom of the valley! To them we may almost apply the language of Solomon–I have seen princes sitting on dunghills. In a word–we are taught the folly of making earthly things our rest and portion. If you possess them in abundance, they cannot give true or abiding satisfaction:–possess them!–they are so insecure, that you know not that they shall be yours by the dawn of to-morrows morn. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. You may be in a palace and on a throne, and your family overloaded with opulence and secular distinctions, and in a few years the question may be asked, Is there any left of the house of Saul?
II. there is a noble triumph of a generous and gracious temper. For who was Saul? We have said he was a king; and let us not indulge towards him a radical spirit, but do him justice. For some time he acted according to the rules of equity and humanity, and law, by the advice of his wise and pious counsellor Samuel; and for a while his kingdom prospered. But at length he disobeyed the positive commands of God, distinctly given him by the prophet. With respect to David, who never treated him but with respectful courtesy and kindness, he was so jealous of his rising character and fame, that he left no means which he could command untried, to deprive him of his life. Now, mark the disposition and demeanour of David. Religion does not require us to select as our chosen associates, those who have furnished unequivocal evidence that they would injure us if it were in their power: but it does require of us to control our passions; to suppress unholy irritation; to pass by an offence; to bury it in silence; to be willing to show acts of kindness to the injurious.
III. Here is a beautiful specimen of delicate friendship. There was a condescension and an activity in the benevolence which is here described, and which deserve more emphatic notice. David was in his palace, surrounded by the distinctions of royalty. Mephibosheth, the last of Sauls remaining sons, was in the shade of seclusion and poverty. But the prince did not deem it beneath his dignity to ask after the humblest or the poorest subject in his realm, and to solicit information of his condition, and to stretch out his hand to lift the impoverished relict from his obscurity, and liberally supply his wants. Let those in elevated rank, and magisterial office, wear their honours unmoved, and let those in opulence enjoy their abundance, and share in the permitted delights of the sons of men–but let them also be assured that it is no degradation to be touched with the feeling of human infirmities, or to wipe away tears from the eyes of the distressed; nor is there any enjoyment more sweet or luxurious (next to communion with God) than that with which he is inspired, who can say, I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame; and I was a father to the poor. The blessing of him who was ready to perish came upon me, and I caused the widows heart to sing for joy.
IV. Behold in this text and history, a descriptive representation of the mind of Him of whom David was an ancestor and a type. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was a lineal descendant of David, according to the flesh. In real dignity, the Saviour infinitely surpassed him; and hence David called Him Lord; hence the proclamation I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star, which shines with a brilliancy above the rest (J. Clayton.)
Kindness to Jonathans son
I. The unselfish kindness of David. To send across the Jordan to Lo-debar to find a young man whom he perhaps had never seen, the grandson of Saul, who had so often sought to slay him, and whose house was a rival one in the kingdom–a young man crippled in both feet, with no prospect of being useful to the king–to alienate from the crown the forfeited estates of the house of Saul and restore them to cripple Mephibosheth–affords beautiful evidence of the unselfish kindness of Davids generous heart. Davids wonderful exaltation from the sheepfold to the kingdom had a natural tendency to repress or stifle the kindlier impulses of his heart. How many are there who in times of prosperity utterly forget the friends of former and adverse days! To seek out the lame, the halt, the blind, the poor, the wretched, to minister unto others, not to be ministered unto, is the beauty and the glory of the Christian life.
III. Davids kindness to the son was not only unselfish, it was also according to the covenant with his father. Twenty-two years before, David, fearing the wrath of Saul, made a covenant of friendship with Prince Jonathan, and then fled from the court. That covenant was a holy thing; it sacredly bound both David and Jonathan in life, and even after death: Thou shalt not only while I yet live show me the kindness of the Lord, but thou shalt not cut off thy kindness frown my house for ever. All covenants, agreements, bargains, constitutions, except those sinful in themselves, should be most faithfully observed by all the parties who enact or ratify them. One of the characteristics of the man who shall abide in the tabernacle of the Lord and dwell in His holy hill is that he sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not. Fidelity to covenant engagements, whether in daily labour, the mechanics shop, the marts of business, the learned professions, whether in pulpit or pew, is one of the very highest virtues of mankind. Be true to your word at the loss of property or even of life itself.
III. Davids kindness was not only unselfish and according to covenant; it was the kindness of God. Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him? Referring to the covenant, we find that Jonathan made David swear that he would show the kindness of the Lord to him and his house. Even the tender mercies of man are cruel. True and unselfish kindness of man to man must have its origin in God–kindness that flows into the human soul from God, and is akin to the kindness of His great and loving heart. Show me not mans kindness, but the kindness of God. We hear much in these days of the enthusiasm of humanity, and the brotherhood of man; but whence comes this enthusiasm, and who first taught this brotherhood of man? The so-called natural religions never inspired in man any love for humanity, and the Christless teachers of the race never proclaimed the brotherhood of man it is simple historic verity to assert that apart from Christ and His religion there has never been any true and lasting humanitarianism on the earth. David had felt in his own soul something of the great and wondrous kindness of God, and this kindness he will show to Jonathans crippled son.
IV. The kindness shown was for the sake of another kindness to the son for the fathers sake. How many since David have shown kindness to the children of the old and tried friends of former days for the parents sake? Years ago you had a dear friend who stood by you in the darkest hour of your sorest trial, and now he is no more; but his children remain, and how deeply concerned are you in their welfare and happiness? how ready are you to aid them in every possible way, to share in their joys and sympathise in their sorrows, and by word and deed to show the kindness of God to the children for the fathers sake? The child of an old friend is far nearer to us all than the child of the stranger. If the unseen spiritual history of souls could be laid bare to mortal gaze, it would be seen that thousands and tens of thousands of the most active and useful Christians of every age of the Church were saved in virtue of covenanted mercy and pious ancestors. Of many it may be said, as of Timothy, The unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice. God has shown His marvellous kindness to many wayward and wicked children for the sake of sainted father or mother–saved, in the infinite mercy of God, by His kindness for anothers sake. Gods covenant of love with the parent abides in all the fulness of Divine blessing for children and childrens children, even unto a thousand generations of such as love Him and keep His covenant and commandments. The kindness of God shown by David to Mephibosheth for the sake of another affords a most striking and beautiful illustration of the method whereby God shows His saving kindness to sinners. We are saved through the infinite mercy and kindness of God bestowed on us abundantly solely for the sake of another, even Jesus Christ our Lord. Kindness to one for anothers sake is the law of Christian service. When we give meat to the hungry and drink to the thirsty, when we clothe the naked and visit the prisoner and minister to the sick, we show the kindness of God unto our brethren for the sake of the Elder Brother, and He recognises the service as rendered unto himself. If in all of our ministries of mercy to the lame of body or mind or soul we realised and acted on the principle of thus showing the kindness of God for the sake of our Saviour, how full of joy and blessedness would all our service be! Let each Christian ask himself daily, Is there yet any one of Adams lost race to whoa I may show the kindness of God for my Saviours sake? (A. W. Pitzer, D. D.)
David and Mephibosheth, a faint image of God and the world
The fragment of history of which this chapter is composed may be looked upon in two lights.
1. As supplying a fine illustration of human friendship. Between David and Jonathan there existed a friendship the most tender and strong.
2. As a faint image of Divine love to the world. We are far from regarding David here as a type of the Eternal. I see more of the Eternal in the true kindness of a holy man–such kindness as David now displays–than I can see in any part of material nature. It is a brighter reflection of the Infinite One than stars or suns. I see the sun in the ray;–the dew-drop mirrors the Atlantic.
I. The Disinterestedness Of The Kindness Is Illustrative Of The Divine.
1. The kindness which David displayed to Mephibosheth was unmerited. Was David under any obligation to show this kindness? Was there any excellence in the son of Jonathan to call it forth? No; David had the affection even before he knew there was such a person. Was God under any obligation to show mercy to the world? or did He see aught of excellence in the world to call it forth? No; if He had left humanity to perish for ever in its sins, no one could have complained. Angels would still have sung on, Just and right are Thy ways, &c. Was there an excellence in man to call it forth? No; God commendeth His love to us in that while we were yet sinners, &c.
2. The kindness which David showed Mephibosheth was unsought. The son of Jonathan did not make any application;–he did not knock at the door of royalty entreating favour. Did the world seek the gift of Christ? No, for two reasons:–
(1) Because it did not feel the need of a Saviour.
(2) If it had it never could have supposed that such a gift was possible. God sent Christ into the world not only without the worlds request, but against the worlds will. He came to His own, but His own, &c.
II. The occasion on which this disinterested kindness was displayed is illustrative of the Divine.
1. The kindness which David showed Mephibosheth was in consideration of some one else. It was for Jonathans sake. Why all this love to the poor lame youth more than to some one else? Hundreds in the empire perhaps required and desired more than he. Because of Jonathan. Why does God show love to this world more than hell? Hell requires mercy. Because of some One else. Christ is not the cause of Gods love, but He is its channel. All blessings, temporal and spiritual, come through Christ. He took not on Him the nature of angels, &c.
2. The kindness which David showed Mephibosheth was on account of some one else who was very near to the heart of the king. You remember Davids wail over Jonathan: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan, &c. How dear is Christ to the Everlasting Father. Mine Elect, in whom my soul delighteth. My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. I do not understand the mysterious connection subsisting between Jesus and the Everlasting Father. My intellect bows reverently before the mystery. But the Bible tells me that it is that of an only-begotten Son.
III. The results which this disinterested kindness realised are illustrative of the divine.
1. It found out Mephibosheth. Then King David sent and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, from Lo-debar. Christ came to seek and to save; like the man who had lost one of his sheep, the woman her silver, the father his son, the apostles were sent out in search of gods objects of love. Gods love searches men out. Providence, conscience, and the Gospel are His Messengers. (Mat 22:2-10.)
2. it restored him to his patrimonial inheritance, I will restore thee all the land, &c.(2Sa 9:7). Thou shalt walk the fields and meadows which thy father often trod. Gods love restores us to our lost possessions. Salvation is paradise regained. All things are yours, &c.
3. Exalted to distinguished honours. And thou shalt eat bread at my table continually (2Sa 9:7). If any man hear My voice, I will come in unto him, &c.
4. The command of suitable attendants. Thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, &c. What agents God employs for the objects of His love I All things work together for good. Are they not all ministering spirits? &c. (Homilist.)
Davids treatment of Mephibosheth
The chapter opens with a question which we should have thought at one period of our study to have been utterly impossible. There is a most subduing melancholy in the inquiry. The kings own sweet music is lost in that atmosphere. The question sounds hollow, dismal, like a poor voice struggling in a cave of wind. Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul? Can such a house die? Are there influences at work which can crumble the pyramids? I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away,–a very subtle suggestion of an infinite effect operating continually in human affairs. If questions of this kind were not asked, the heart might sometimes at least secretly wonder whether God be not really partial to the rich and strong and great. He seems to spare the tempest from their roof, and to turn away the wind when it would strike their flocks or their lives. But it is not so. With God there is no respect of persons. That I may show him kindness (2Sa 9:1). Once leave David to himself, and he blossoms into wonderful grace of character. He never began a war. David was no aggressor. The shepherdly heart was Davids: he began at the sheepcotes, and he never left them as to all high moral pastoral solicitude and love. He was often in war, but always challenged, provoked, defied. A man may add a little to his own respectability by pronouncing judgment on the errors and sins of David. But remember that again and again when the hand of pressure is taken from him he wants to be a shepherd, to do acts of kindness, to go out after that which is lost until he find it. David always saw where another chair could be put to the banqueting-table. He observed how much food was taken away from that table that might have been consumed there by necessity, could that necessity have been discovered and urged by hospitable welcomes to partake of the feast. But can Saul or Jonathan have left any man to whom kindness can be shown? Their sons will be wealthy. The inheritance of such men must be a boundless estate. Quite a sad thing is it to be in such circumstances that nobody can do us a kindness; and sadder still to be supposed to be in such circumstances when in reality we are not. We are effusive in our kindness to people who are lying in the street; but there are many men of really radiant face, and merry life, and joyous, happy, witty speech would be glad of the help of a little childs hand. They are the men who are to be inquired about. Persons are to be glad that the question may be put to them, Where are such men? They will require to be found at twilight, for they shrink from noonday, and their gloom would make midnight a darkness impenetrable. For Jonathans sake. It is an honest word. Not for Sauls sake there are some memories we cannot honour; but for Jonathans sake: there are some memories we can never forget. How the past lives and burns! We can never repay, in the sense of being equal with, any man who ever did us kindness. Kindness is not to be repaid, in the sense of being discharged, struck off the book of memory, and no longer constituting a pious recollection. We cannot pay for our salvation; silver and gold have no place in the region opened by that infinite word: they are terms unknown. Nothing Could be done for Jonathan: he had passed away; but there is always the next best thing to be done. Blessed are they whose quick ingenuity is inspired to find out the next best thing. We cannot do the departed any good, for they have passed beyond the human touch; but we can do deeds to the poor, the ignorant, the out-of-the-way, the suffering, which will be a happy memorial to those we have lost. Take some poor child, open its way in life, and when you have done so set up in your hearts memory a stone bearing the inscription, Sacred to the memory of a loving parent. So write the epitaph of the dead, and the writing shall never be obliterated. Then King David sent . . . (2Sa 9:5). What has David to do with such matters now? He is the king. Why should kings stoop to look after obscure subjects? Does not elevation destroy responsibility? Does not a throne excuse from human solicitude and pity? Does not a great public position exonerate a man from care for those he has left behind? The man struggles up through the king: there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty gives him understanding. David was first a man, then a shepherd, then a king; and in proportion as he was fit to be king he cared nothing for his kingship. Mephibosheth was worthy, too, of his father. He quietly accepted his degradation. He was not one of the men who had a grievance and was continually fomenting the people in order to have that grievance remedied. There was no little philosophy in Mephibosheth. He saw how history had gone; he recognised Providence in events, and he had rest in proportion as he had true piety. There are many men in obscurity who ought not to be there when looked upon from a certain point of view. They could easily establish a grievance, and bring an accusation against public policy or social justice. Mephibosheth waited until he was sent for. Blessed are they who can accept their fortunes, and who can call fate by the name of Providence. The great, the eternal truth underlying all this is, that there comes a time when sonship rises above accident. Mephibosheth had come to that happy time. He was Jonathans son. True, he was lame; true, he was in an obscure position; true, he had counted himself as little better than a dead dog: but there came a time when sonship was the principal fact of his life. So it shall be in the great search which God makes in His universe for the obscure and the lost, the woebegone and the friendless. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Davids kindness to Mephibosheth
I. The first, and, perhaps, one of the most obvious lessons is the mutableness of all human affairs.
1. David is on the throne, and none of Sauls family is left but a lame grandson, who is living in such obscurity, that except to a few faithful and generous adherents, his existence appears to be unknown.
2. And, then, what an illustration of the changefulness of human life we have in the fact that David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake? Another illustration of our changeful life is Jonathan. David wishes to show kindness to Sauls house for Jonathans sake. And then, there is Mephibosheth, the obscure orphan, whom Davids affectionate remembrance of his departed friend has brought to light: who was only five years old at the time of his fathers death, and has been ever since dependant on charity. Do we not witness the same change in mens lives? Monarchs are cast down from their high places, their thrones are overturned, and they are compelled to flee in disguise from their native land. Other men, born in humble circumstances, rise from one position to another till they reach the highest places of power. Some sink from wealth to pauperism; other rise from pauperism to wealth. So rapid is the fall of some, that when you hear of it the words of the poet spring to your lips–
Ships, wealth, general confidence: all were his;
He counted them at break of day;
And when the sun set, where were they?
With the same rapidity others rise. We see the good and true die, as the basehearted die; one event happeneth alike to all–to the righteous and to the wicked. The dearest friendships are dissolved; death puts the most close friends far apart. Children that come into the world amid the most auspicious circumstances are oftentimes early deprived of earthly love and care, misfortunes befall them, and while their life is but young and tender, it is nipped in the bud. In all these respects we witness the same mutation as men have witnessed in all former times. The providence of God is uniform in successive ages. That which hath been is new; and that which is to be hath already been; and God recalleth that which is past.
II. A second lesson this narrative teaches us is, the beauty and excellency of faithful friendship. Is there, said David, yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake? David has been concerned in the establishment of his throne, and the cares and duties of his kingdom. He has had little leisure from State business and war, to attend to matters of a more private nature. But now he remembers the ancient covenant made between him and his friend long dead. Friendship, says Jean Paul, requires action. Well, here is a befitting action. What strength of expression David employs! He desires to show to the house of Saul, for Jonathans sake, the kindness of God. In that tender, solemn hour, when the two friends covenanted in the open field, and swore eternal love and faithfulness, Jonathan said to David, And thou shalt not only while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not, but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever. And David sware he would not. The kindness of the Lord! The expression is strong; but it carries with it its own exposition and defence. It was kindness, the covenant of which God was called to witness, and it was kindness cherished in Gods sight and fear, and for His glory. Friendships change. Friends die. But there is one friend that sticketh closer than a brother. Jesus Christ will not neglect nor despise you because you are unfortunate and poor. Your adversities and distresses awaken his tenderest sympathies and compassion, lie knows where you dwell. He sees that there is a need be for your present trials. He liveth for evermore.
III. That this chapter teaches us Gods care for the fatherless, especially the seed of His servants. Mephibosheth was only five years old when his father was slain, His nurse, in her anxiety to escape with him, let him fall, so that he was lame for life. See how God cared for him. Machir, the son of Ammiel, of Lodebar, the same man who in after years joined with Shobi and Barzillai in supplying David and his people with beds and food at Mahanaim, clearly a large-souled, benevolent man, took him into his house and brought him up in his family. Now, as the result of Davids inquiry, the lame, orphan youth is raised to sit at the kings table. In every age God has shown Himself the Father of the fatherless. Especially does God care for the children of those who love Him; He remembers them for their fathers sake. He suffers not all the pains taken to be unrewarded–all the tears shed un-noticed all the prayers offered unheard. A good man leaveth an inheritance to his childrens children.
IV. This chapter illustrates the truth that even in this world vice brings its own punishment and virtue its own reward,
1. See from this chapter, how He punishes sin! Saul was proud and disobedient; and God makes that saying good, Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall; and that other saying, addressed to the guilty monarch personally, For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
2. Now mark how God rewards piety on earth! No man serves Him for nought. Follow the career of David. He begins life in the fear of God. Some of his most devout and beautiful psalms appear to have been composed while he was yet a youth. He took care to cleanse his way by a diligent use of Gods word. He loved the exercise of Divine worship. He endeavoured to acquit himself well in all stations. In his fathers house, among his flocks, at court, as Sauls armour-bearer and companion; in banishment, leading a roving life; on the throne of Israel–everywhere he sought to please God. There is a lesson here conveyed to all. Whatever your position may be, however humble and obscure, discharge its duties in the fear of God. Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. May that blessedness be yours and mine! Amen! (W. Walters.)
David and Mephibosheth
It is a proof that the bloody wars in which David had been engaged had not destroyed the tenderness of his heart, that the very chapter which follows the account of his battles opens with a yearning of affection–a longing for an outlet to feelings of kindness. This proceeding of Davids in making inquiry for a fit object of beneficence may afford us a lesson as to the true course of enlightened kindness. Doubtless David had numberless persons applying for a share of his bounty; yet he makes inquiry for a new channel in which it may flow. The most clamorous persons are seldom the most deserving. Enlightened benevolence aims at something higher than the mere relief of passing distress. There are other debts besides money debts it becomes you to look after. In youth, perhaps, you received much kindness from friends and relatives which at the time you could not repay; but now the tables are turned; you are prosperous, they or their families are needy. And these cases are apt to slip out of your mind. It is not always hard-heartedness that makes the prosperous forget the less fortunate; it is often utter thoughtlessness. Thoughtlessness regarding his neighbours is not a poor mans vice. The empty house is remembered, even though it costs a sacrifice to send it a little of his own scanty supplies. Few men are so hardened as not to feel the obligation to show kindness when that obligation is brought before them.
3. Accustomed to think that his wisest course was to conceal from David his very existence, and looking on him with the dread with which the family of former kings regarded the reigning monarch, he must have come into his presence with a strange mixture of feeling. He had a profound sense of the greatness which David had achieved and the honour implied in his countenance and fellowship. But there was no need for his humbling himself so low. There was no need for him calling himself a dog, a dead dog–the most humiliating image it was possible to find. We should have thought him more worthy of his father if, recognising the high position which David had attained by the grace of God, he had gracefully thanked him for the regard shown to his fathers memory, and shown more of the self-respect which was due to Jonathans son. In his subsequent conduct, in the days of Davids calamity, Mephibosheth gave evidence of the same disinterested spirit which had shone so beautifully in Jonathan, but his noble qualities were like a light twinkling among ruins or a jewel glistening in a wreck. Every arrangement was thus made that could conduce to his comfort. His being a cripple did not deprive him of the honour of a place at the royal table, little though he could contribute to the lustre of the palace. The lameness and consequent awkwardness, that would have made many a king ashamed of such an inmate of his palace, only recommended him the more to David. Regard for outward appearances was swallowed up by a higher regard–regard for what was right and true. There is yet another application to be made of this passage in Davids history. We have seen how it exemplifies the duty incumbent on us all to consider whether kindness is not due from us to the friends or the relatives of those who have been helpful to ourselves. This remark is not applicable merely to temporal obligations, but also, and indeed emphatically, to spiritual. We should consider ourselves in debt to those who have conferred spiritual benefits upon us. Should a descendant of Luther or Calvin, of Latimer or Cranmer or Knox, appear among us in need of kindness, what true Protestant would not feel that for what he owed to the fathers it was his duty to show kindness to the children? (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
David and Mephibosheth
There is so much Gospel in this quaint incident that I am embarrassed to know where to begin. Whom do Mephibosheth, and David, and Jonathan make you think of?
I. Mephibosheth, in the first place, stands for the disabled human soul. Lord Byron described sin as a charming recklessness, as a gallantry, as a Don Juan; George Sand describes sin as triumphant in many intricate plots; Gavarini, with his engravers knife, also shows sin as a great jocularity; but the Bible presents it as a Mephibosheth, lame on both feet. Sin, like the nurse in the context, attempted to carry us, and let us fall, and we have been disabled, and in our whole moral nature we are decrepit. Sometimes theologians haggle about a technicality. They use the words total depravity, and some people believe in the doctrine and some reject it. What do you mean by total depravity? Do you mean that every man is as bad as he can be? Then I do not believe it either. But do you mean that sin has let us fall, that it has disfigured, and disabled, and crippled our entire moral nature until we cannot walk straight, and are lame in both feet? Then I shall admit your proposition. I do not care what the sentimentalists or the poets say in regard to sin; in the name of God I declare to you to-day that sin is disorganisation, disintegration, ghastly disfiguration, hobbling deformity.
II. Mephibosheth stands for the disabled human soul humbled and restored. When this invalid of my text got a command to come to King Davids palace be trembled. The fact was that the grandfather of Mephibosheth had treated David most shockingly, and now Mephibosheth says to himself: What does the king want of me? Isnt it enough that I am lame? Is he going to destroy my life? Is he going to wreak on me the vengeance which he holds towards my grandfather Saul? Its too bad. But go to the palace Mephibosheth must, since the king has commanded it. With staff and crutches, and helped by his friends, I see Mephibosheth going up the stairs of the palace. Consider the analogy. When the command is given from the palace of heaven to the human soul to come, the soul begins to tremble. It says: What is God going to do with me now? Is He going to destroy me? Is He going to wreak His vengeance upon me? My friend, we come out with our prayers and sympathies to help you up to the palace. If you want to get to the palace you may get there. Start now. The Holy Spirit will help you. All you have to do is just to throw yourself on your face at the feet of the King, as Mephibosheth did.
III. Mephibosheth stands for the disabled human soul saved for the sake of another. Mephibosheth would never have got into the palace on his own account. Why did David ransack the realm to find that poor man, and then bestow upon him a great fortune, and command a farmer by the name of Ziba to culture the estate and give to this invalid Mephibosheth half the proceeds every year? Why did King David make such a mighty stir about a poor fellow who would never be of any use to the throne of Israel? It was for Jonathans sake. It was what Robert Burns calls for auld lang syne. David could not forget what Jonathan had done for him in other days. Now, it is on that principle that you and I are to get into the Kings palace. The most important part of every prayer is the last three words of it–For Christs sake. They are the most important part of the prayer. When in earnestness you go before God and say, For Christs sake, it rolls in, as it were, upon Gods mind all the memories of Bethlehem, and Gennesaret, and Golgotha. If there is anything in all the universe that will move God to an act of royal benefaction, it is to say, For Christs sake. If a little child should kneel behind Gods throne and should say, For Christs sake, the great Jehovah would turn around on His throne to look at her and listen. No prayer ever gets to heaven but for Christs sake. No soul is ever comforted but for Christs sake. The world will never be redeemed but for Christs sake.
IV. Mephibosheth stands for the disabled human soul lifted to the Kings table. It was more difficult in those times even than it is now for common men to get into a royal dining-room. The subjects might have come around the rail of the palace and might have seen the lights kindled, and might have heard the clash of the knives and the rattle of the golden goblets, but not got in. Stout men with stout feet could not get in once in all their lives to one banquet, yet poor Mephibosheth goes in, lives there, and is every day at the table. Oh, what a getting up in the world for poor Mephibosheth! Well, though you and I may be wofully tamed with sin, for our Divine Jonathans sake, I hope we will all get in to dine with the King. O, my soul, what a magnificent Gospel! It takes a man so low down and raises him so high! What a Gospel! Come, now, who wants to be banqueted and empalaced? I come out now as the messenger of the palace to invite Mephibosheth to come up. I am here to-day to tell you that God has a wealth of kindness to bestow upon you for His Sons sake. The doors of the palace are open to receive you. The cupbearers have already put the chalices on the table, and the great, loving, tender sympathetic heart of God bends over you this moment, saying: Is there any that is yet left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jesus sake? (T. De Witt Talmage, D. D.)
Kindness to Jonathans son
It appears from the story that David had never known of his existence, or had forgotten it in the stress of his anxieties and struggles. The boy was born after he and Jonathan parted from each other in the wood at Ziph, and so completely had he been kept out of the way that the courtiers at Jerusalem could only summon Ziba–a prosperous servant of Souls family–to ask him the question David proposed. There was every reason for keeping him in concealment. Oriental fashions would have prompted a new king to kill all surviving members of a rival household, and David might destroy the possible claimant. David, no doubt, looked forward with tremulous eagerness to the coming of Jonathans son. He already loved him. He looked eagerly upon the cripple prostrate before him, longing for the touch of a vanished hand and the sound of a voice that is still. It requires no stretch of imagination to see in Mephibosheth many excellent qualities. This modest, humble, loyal youth had inherited something of his fathers generous spirit. He was perfectly content to be as his father, in a place second to Davids. He was, in a sense, entitled to the throne. He might easily have been made a claimant for it by soured politicians, who would have rallied round his supposed interests to advance their own. History is full of such instances. Mephibosheth chose, and kept in perfect obscurity. Physical deformity has a varied effect upon the sufferer. It embitters some against God and man. Lord Byron seems to have been made miserable by his lameness. Shakespeare represents King Richard
III. as full of rage at his misfortunes, and determined to work mischief.
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun,
And descant on mine own deformity.
I am determined to prove a villain.
But, on the other hand, grace sometimes compensates for natures lack. Multitudes will approach the study of this chapter, wondering what there is in it worthy their time and of the Bible itself.
But it teaches us a few valuable lessons. Let us note among them how–
I. It corrects our estimate of what we call small deeds. David did a great many notable things that impress us far more than this one; but it is just here that we see far into his true character. The Bible makes this record because of its importance in the portraiture of a great character, and our estimate of it will be a test of our own spirit. Is there not something here worth remembering and copying? What is to come up at the judgment-day as the ground of our acceptance, but trifling deeds of love done spontaneously and soon forgotten, simply because they were the natural outworking of our dispositions? The story is told of a Russian soldier exposed to intense cold while on duty as a sentinel. A poor working man, going home, took off his coat and gave it to him for his protection. That night the sentinel perished. Not long after the working man was brought to his deathbed, and fell into a slumber, in which he dreamed that he saw Jesus wearing his old coat. You have my coat on, he said to him. Yes, was the answer of the Lord. You gave it to me the cold night I was a sentinel in the forest. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
II. This story illustrates the humaneness of the whole Bible. It balances some of the recorded cruelties of the early ages. Now, the world is full of inequalities, selfishness, and strife for place and power and of forgotten friends. Hence it needs, early and late, the lessons of love, the lessons that show us the obligations of friendship, no matter what the relative position of the friends may come to he, and the claims of the children upon the friends of their parents. This, the Bible tells us, was one of the great acts of Davids life. The whole world responds to a touch of humanity, and the Bible is for the whole world. That spirit is cultivated by it which led Webster to remember his early neighbours when he came to greatness and power; which led Governor Andrew to say, I never despised a man because he was ignorant or because he was poor or because he was black. No one illustrates it as Christ Himself does, in Whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. This narrative proves that–
III. The kindness of man to man is a godlike quality. David gives two reasons for finding Jonathans son: first, his old covenant, which included the children of both parties; and, second, the Divine law of love. He wished to show the kindness of God to Mephibosheth. The phrase, kindness of God may be taken to mean either the kindness God requires of man or shows to man. Robert-son Smith says (Prophets of Israel) that it is not necessary to distinguish between Jehovahs kindness to Israel, which we should call his grace, or Israels duty of kindness to Jehovah, which we should call piety, and the relation between man and man, which embraces the duties of love and mutual consideration. To the Hebrew mind these three are essentially one, and all are comprised in the same covenant. As Portia says:–
We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
IV. Christian love alone will enable us to show one another the kindness of God. David uses this beautiful expression, kindness of God; but his ideas of it were extremely limited as compared with those we find all through the Gospels. He showed kindness towards his old friends son. There is pathos and gentleness and a right royal spirit in his act. We cannot., with Christ on the cross before us, construe our duties and our privileges as men once did before he read the law anew and told us its real meaning. In Christ God Himself has come down. He has sought out the lame, the halt, the blind, the paralytic, the forgotten, the dead in trespasses and sins. A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not quench. He devises means by which His banished may not be expelled from Him. This is Gods kindness, leading to sacrifice for the fallen and the perishing. This is the love of God towards men. By the work of the Holy Spirit this love becomes the possession of men. (Monday Club Sermons.)
Mephibosheth
Mephibosheth resembles the sinner and his salvation:–
I. He was an enemy to the king, not the king his enemy.
II. Was sought in his indifference.
III. Received in his deformity.
IV. Received for the sake of another.
V. Received a rich inheritance.
VI. Received into daily fellowship with the king. (Homilist.)
The kindness of God
I. In the first place, we have here a splendid instance of that charity which suffereth long, and is kind. This is certainly not the manner of men, not the rule of the world, as we have to deal with it, and as we note its character and policy from day to day. It was the manner of Christ, who commanded only that which He Himself performed, whose worshipper David then was, and who had received into his heart the disposition of charity, which must be found with every true follower of the forgiving and merciful Saviour.
II. We cannot hide it from our reflections that this purpose or act of David was undertaken at a late period in his history, A long interval had passed since his escape out of trouble, by the death of Saul–fully fifteen years; and eight of these were spent in possession of the throne of Israel, as well as that of Judah. After so long a time, at the very least eight years of perfect freedom from all the emergencies which arose from the pretensions of Sauls family to the government–after so long a time it is that he enters upon the work of charity. Here was no false shame, but diligent and anxious inquiry, proving that necessity alone had caused the previous delay of kindness. If we doubt this, be it remembered that the law of common life is to forget favours, but never injuries; seldom to requite the former, but most usually the latter. Nevertheless the chief butler remembered not Joseph, but forgot him. We may take this passage as a general expression of human deportment. In the present case, time had not effaced the memory of Jonathans friendship, nor did any extraordinary incident cause its sudden revival. Hence we must view it as an act of serious deliberation, and, in this form, it speaks to us with much solemnity. There are many stirring persuasives, and imperative compulsions to Christian piety, which carry us along, perforce, in the way of obedience. But here was no immediate appeal to passion, no interposition of witness, none to applaud, none to condemn–calmly, deliberately, on principle alone, the past is considered, and the duty is determined on.
1. So should we meditate and act as rational Christians. We may possess true piety, but yet a piety which is nourished by continual excitement, by a restless temperament, which seeks insatiably after enterprise and events, to maintain its own fire of enthusiasm.
2. We must be Christians on principle, and when the world is shut out, and every external persuasion to godliness removed, we must find the soul within determined on the service of the Lord.
3. We must be deliberating Christians. We should trace over the years that are past, to mourn for our positive transgressions, to derive from them fresh abhorrence of evil.
III. We may now take into account the reference made in the text to the early friendship which existed between Jonathan and David. Some fifteen or sixteen years had elapsed since the interruption of that friendship occurred, by the unhappy death of Jonathan. Yet Davids heart yearns after his departed friend, his love is as ardent as ever.
1. True friendship–Christian friendship, must suffer nothing from time, or absence, or separation. It must outlast all, and if it experience any change–change only to improvement in strength and purity.
2. Next, it must bear upon and include all relations. It is but a mockery of friendship, if we pretend to love a man in one consideration alone, and will net serve him in all his wants and circumstances. If he need our labour for his temporal good, he must have it as well as our spiritual kindness.
IV. In the text we have the quality and degree of the favours which were intended.
1. Primarily, the phrase signifies that here was no spontaneous movement of generosity, but the fulfilling of a bond–the observance of an obligation mutually imposed between David and his friend, prior to his final flight from the house of Saul.
2. The kindness here mentioned requires some farther notice with regard to its extent, as it is called the kindness of God. His kindness extends from generation to generation, even to a thousand generations of them who love Him and keep His commandments. After looking thus closely on holy friendship as enduring and extensive, we must not omit its quality, the regulation of its acts, prescribed by the expletive–the kindness of God. Its acts are like the acts of Divine benevolence, ever for the true good of the object. This you understand by the contrast which the false friendships of the world present. Men make leagues and covenants of amity offensive and defensive, for mutual advantage, the furtherance of gain, the increase of pleasure, the successful prosecution of guilty purposes. There is a friendship here, no doubt, and sometimes a durable one, but it is like the wisdom of this world, earthly, sensual, devilish. Finally, we may take the phrase as the Hebrew form of the superlative degree, signifying the utmost kindness, and here our research upon the subject must end. This sacred friendship sanctions such a kindness, such an extreme or superlative one, when occasion requires it. (C. M. Fleury, A. M.)
Mephibosheth
1. We have no reason to think that Mephibosheth had any special ability to advise in affairs of state, or that David needed any adviser. He had done nothing to attract the kings notice, and in fact his very existence seems to have been unknown to him till special enquiry was made for any representatives of the fallen house that had survived the fatal day. He certainly was no ornament at the kings table. But he was there
(1) Because of the covenant David had made with Jonathan. Jonathan, knowing well that David would reign, had secured his oath in favour of his seed. That oath David held sacred, and now upon the poor cripple he lavished the love that used to be given to Jonathan.
(2) Because of the abounding grace of David. The letter of the covenant might by many have been thought sufficiently kept in merely sparing the lives of Jonathans descendants, but as David had made the covenant in love he now fulfils it with love. Going far beyond the letter he restores to Mephibosheth the estates which had belonged to the house of Saul; thus securing to him a princely revenue. Then he set him among princes by appointing him a position at the royal table. So should it be done to the man whom the king delighted to honour! In this honoured cripple we may see ourselves, lost and ruined by the fall, helpless, unworthy, living quietly without God, fearing Him rather than desiring Him, till divine mercy sought us out and found us. Not for our sake but for Christs sake, for the Covenants sake, sealed with the blood of atonement, mercy has been extended to us: and this in no grudging spirit.
2. What return Mephibosheth made for his privileges. What silver and gold he had he derived from the kings bounty. He was incapable of military or state service. He could only love the king, and this he did. When David fled from Jerusalem he left at least one true heart behind him, and when lie returned a pitiful spectacle met his eyes, Mephibosheth had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor changed his clothes, since the king fled; the days of the Kings absence had been to him days of mourning. If tie could not show his love in one way he could in another. What return are we making to our King? We may often vainly wish that we were able to do something really great for Him. But from Mephibosheth let us learn–
To do what we can, being what we are,
To shine like a glow-worm, if we cannot like a star.
Let us love our King with our whole heart, and that love will be ingenious in finding its own modes of expression. It is not want of opportunity or ability, but too often want of real love that occasions so great a lack of the ready service that should be rendered to our King. (C. O. Eldridge, B. A.)
Early friendship remembered
Agrippa I. (Act 12:1) had been in earlier years on terms of friendship with Caligula, the grandson of Tiberius, and having offended the emperor, thereupon was thrown into prison and a chain put upon him. When Caligula became emperor, he not only released and promoted Agrippa, but gave him a golden chain equal in weight to the one he had worn in prison. Lord. Grey and the Rev. Sydney Smith had long been friends; but the latter was very poor, and his noble friend was unable to secure for him a better living. As soon, however, as Lord Grey became Prime Minister, he is said to have exclaimed, Now, I can do something for Sydney Smith! And he did.
Kindness shown for the love of another
In the late Crimean War, I have heard that a New York merchant helped every youth that might come to him bearing the uniform of his son. This he had, however, to stop, but on one occasion a young man walked into his office, at first to receive a blunt refusal, but the youth produced a note and handed it to the merchant, which ran something like the following: The bearer of this note has come home to die. He has been fighting in the front with me. Do all you can for him. Call in a nurse, and let him have my room. Engage the family physician. For Charlies sake. Needless to say that the fathers heart was opened at once. What he had done brought: but the plea of the boy. So it is, through the plea of Gods son, we have been spared, and mercy and forgiveness are offered. (Newton Jones.)
Grateful memories expressed in deeds
An interesting story is told of Dr. Livingstone and of the respect which his courage in going about unarmed inspired among the Arabs. On one occasion, a traveller Says, I was for two days the guest of an Arab chief near the south end of Tanganyika, who had formerly been a famous slave-trader. I had a good deal of conversation with him regarding Livingstone, whom he had known intimately. III taking leave of him I thanked him for his hospitality, when he replied, For the sake of the Doctor.
For Christs sake
Sir Henry Burdett, perhaps the greatest living authority upon hospitals and their working, has recently said concerning nurses: Those trained in religious institutions are the best from the patients point of view. The religious idea embodies devotion to duty, abnegation of self, concentration upon the case in hand, and a determination to do everything possible for the patients welfare. To such a nurse the patient is always a human being, not merely a case–which makes all the difference. They are women, and not mere money-making machines. Is not this the secret of all true helpfulness to others? For Christs sake is the only motive that will outlast all temptation to weariness, to abandoning our service in disappointment or despair. The service of man is, in its highest and best, only possible as it is also the service of God. (H. O. Mackey.)
For anothers sake
In a historic sketch of Robert Bruce, king of Scotland, occurs this paragraph: King Robert was now alone, and he left the cottage very sorrowful for the death of his foster-brother, and took himself in the direction toward where he had directed his men to assemble after their dispersion. It was now near night, and, the place of meeting being a farmhouse, he went boldly into it, where he found the mistress, an old true-hearted Scotch-woman, sitting alone. Upon seeing a stranger enter, she asked him who and what he was. The king answered that he was a traveller, who was journeying through the country. All travellers, answered the good woman, are welcome here for the sake of one. And who is that one, said the king, for whose sake you make all travellers welcome? It is our lawful King Robert the Bruce, answered the mistress, who is the rightful lord of this country; and, although he is now pursued and hunted after with hounds and horns, I hope to live to see him king over all Scotland. For the sake of one, and that One Jesus, as a motto in our Church life. How it would smooth the way for doing effective work for God and souls, if for His sake we would be charitable, long-suffering, kind, not criticising, but helpful.
Physical imperfections
In Count Tolstois Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth, he tells us that he felt deep pain when at the early age of six years, he heard his mother confess that he was only a plain homely boy. I fancied, he says, that there was no happiness on earth for a person with such a wide nose, such thick lips, and such small grey eyes as I had: I besought God to work a miracle, to turn me into a beauty, and all I had in the present, or might have in the future, I would give in exchange for a handsome face. Yet there is something far more beautiful than these in that rugged face: the deep impress of great moral and spiritual power.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER IX
David inquires after the family of Jonathan, and is informed
of Mephibosheth his son, 1-4.
He sends for him and gives him all the land of Saul, 5-8;
and appoints Ziba the servant of Saul, and his family, to till
the ground for Mephibosheth, 9-13.
NOTES ON CHAP. IX
Verse 1. Is there yet any that is left] David recollecting the covenant made with his friend Jonathan, now inquires after his family. It is supposed that political considerations prevented him from doing this sooner. Reasons of state often destroy all the charities of life.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Davids wars being ended, he set himself to the administration of justice to all his people, 2Sa 8:15; and, amongst others, he minds his just debt and obligation to Jonathan and his family.
Of the house of Saul; he saith not of the house of Jonathan, for he knew not of any son which he had left, and therefore thought his kindness and obligation was to pass to the next of his kindred. As for Mephibosheth, he was very young and obscure, and possibly concealed by his friends, lest David should cut him off from jealousy of state, as hath been usual among princes in like cases, and therefore was unknown to David, as well he might be, especially when Davids head and hands were full of war with divers and potent enemies, as they had hitherto been.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-7. David said, Is there yet anythat is left of the house of SaulOn inquiry, Saul’s landsteward was found, who gave information that there still survivedMephibosheth, a son of Jonathan who was five years old at hisfather’s death, and whom David, then wandering in exile, had neverseen. His lameness (2Sa 4:4) hadprevented him from taking any part in the public contests of thetime. Besides, according to Oriental notions, the younger son of acrowned monarch has a preferable claim to the succession over the sonof a mere heir-apparent; and hence his name was never heard of as therival of his uncle Ish-bosheth. His insignificance had led to hisbeing lost sight of, and it was only through Ziba that David learnedof his existence, and the retired life he passed with one of thegreat families in trans-jordanic Canaan who remained attached to thefallen dynasty. Mephibosheth was invited to court, and a place at theroyal table on public days was assigned him, as is still the customwith Eastern monarchs. Saul’s family estate, which had fallen toDavid in right of his wife (Nu27:8), or been forfeited to the crown by Ish-bosheth’s rebellion(2Sa 12:8), was provided (2Sa9:11; also 2Sa 19:28), forenabling Mephibosheth to maintain an establishment suitable to hisrank, and Ziba appointed steward to manage it, on the condition ofreceiving one-half of the produce in remuneration for his labor andexpense, while the other moiety was to be paid as rent to the ownerof the land (2Sa 19:29).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And David said,…. To some of his courtiers:
is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul? which question was put by him, not in order to destroy them, lest they should disturb his government, as was usual with other princes, and especially such who got their crowns by usurpation; but to prevent any suspicion of that kind in the persons he inquired of, he adds,
that I may show him kindness, for Jonathan’s sake? not for Saul’s sake, who had been his implacable enemy, though he had sworn to him that he would not cut off his seed; but for Jonathan’s sake, his dear friend, whose memory was precious to him. Some of the Jewish writers have thought, because this follows upon the account given of the officers of David, both in his camp and court, that this question was occasioned by a thought that came into his mind, while he was appointing officers, that if there were any of Saul’s family, and especially any descendant of Jonathan, that was fit for any post or office, he would put him into one; but this seems to be a long time after David had settled men in his chief offices; for Mephibosheth, after an inquiry found out, was but five years of age when his father was slain, and so but twelve when David was made king over all Israel, and yet now he was married, and had a young son, 2Sa 9:12; so that it was a long time after David was established in the kingdom that he thought of this; which is to be imputed to his being engaged so much in war, and having such a multiplicity of business on his hands.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2Sa 9:1-4 When David inquired whether there was any one left of the house of Saul to whom he could show favour for Jonathan’s sake ( : is it so that there is any one? = there is certainly some one left), a servant of Saul named Ziba was summoned, who told the king that there was a son of Jonathan living in the house of Machir at Lodebar, and that he was lame in his feet. , “is there no one at all besides?” The before is a roundabout way of expressing the genitive, as in 1Sa 16:18, etc., and is obviously not to be altered into , as Thenius proposes. “The kindness of God” is love and kindness shown in God, and for God’s sake (Luk 6:36). Machir the son of Ammiel was a rich man, judging from 2Sa 17:27, who, after the death of Saul and Jonathan, had received the lame son of the latter into his house. Lodebar ( , written in 2Sa 17:27, but erroneously divided by the Masoretes into two words in both passages) was a town on the east of Mahanaim, towards Rabbath Amman, probably the same place as Lidbir (Jos 13:26); but it is not further known.
2Sa 9:5-7 David sent for this son of Jonathan ( Mephibosheth: cf. 2Sa 4:4), and not only restored his father’s possessions in land, but took him to his own royal table for the rest of his life. “Fear not,” said David to Mephibosheth, when he came before him with the deepest obeisance, to take away any anxiety lest the king should intend to slay the descendants of the fallen king, according to the custom of eastern usurpers. It is evident from the words, “I will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father,” that the landed property belonging to Saul had either fallen to David as crown lands, or had been taken possession of by distant relations after the death of Saul. “Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually,” i.e., eat at my table all thy life long, or receive thy food from my table.
2Sa 9:8 Mephibosheth expressed his thanks for this manifestation of favour with the deepest obeisance, and a confession of his unworthiness of any such favour. On his comparison of himself to a “dead dog,” see at 1Sa 24:15.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| David’s Kindness to Jonathan’s Son. | B. C. 1039. |
1 And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake? 2 And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba. And when they had called him unto David, the king said unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, Thy servant is he. 3 And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may shew the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, which is lame on his feet. 4 And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lodebar. 5 Then king David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, from Lodebar. 6 Now when Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, was come unto David, he fell on his face, and did reverence. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered, Behold thy servant! 7 And David said unto him, Fear not: for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually. 8 And he bowed himself, and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?
Here is, I. David’s enquiry after the remains of the ruined house of Saul, v. 1. This was a great while after his accession to the throne, for it should seem that Mephibosheth, who was but five years old when Saul died, had now a son born, v. 12. David had too long forgotten his obligations to Jonathan, but now, at length, they are brought to his mind. It is good sometimes to bethink ourselves whether there be any promises or engagements that we have neglected to make good; better do it late than never. The compendium which Paul gives us of the life of David is this (Acts xiii. 36), that he served his generation according to the will of God, that is, he was a man that made it his business to do good; witness this instance, where we may observe,
1. That he sought an opportunity to do good. He might perhaps have satisfied his conscience with the performance of his promise to Jonathan if he had been only ready, upon request or application made to him by any of his seed, to help and succour them. But he does more, he enquires of those about him first (v. 1), and, when he met with a person that was likely to inform him, asked him particularly, Is there any yet left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness? v. 3. “Is there any, not only to whom I may do justice (Num. v. 8), but to whom I may show kindness?” Note, Good men should seek opportunities of doing good. The liberal deviseth liberal things, Isa. xxxii. 8. For, the most proper objects of our kindness and charity are such as will not be frequently met with without enquiry. The most necessitous are the least clamorous.
2. Those he enquired after were the remains of the house of Saul, to whom he would show kindness for Jonathan’s sake: Is there any left of the house of Saul? Saul had a very numerous family (1 Chron. viii. 33), enough to replenish a country, and was yet so emptied that none of it appeared; but it was a matter of enquiry, Is there any left? See how the providence of God can empty full families; see how the sin of man will do it. Saul’s was a bloody house, no marvel it was thus reduced, ch. xxi. 1. But, though God visited the iniquity of the father upon the children, David would not. “Is there any left that I can show kindness to, not for Saul’s own sake, but for Jonathan’s?” (1.) Saul was David’s sworn enemy, and yet he would show kindness to his house with all his heart and was forward to do it. He does not say, “Is there any left of the house of Saul, that I may find some way to take them off, and prevent their giving disturbance to me or my successor?” It was against Abimelech’s mind that any one was left of the house of Gideon (Judg. ix. 5), and against Athaliah’s mind that any one was left of the seed royal,2Ch 22:10; 2Ch 22:11. Those were usurped governments. David’s needed no such vile supports. He was desirous to show kindness to the house of Saul, not only because he trusted in God and feared not what they could do unto him, but because he was of a charitable disposition and forgave what they had done to him. Note, We must evince the sincerity of our forgiving those that have been any way unjust or injurious to us by being ready, as we have opportunity, to show kindness both to them and theirs. We must not only not avenge ourselves upon them, but we must love them, and do them good (Matt. v. 44), and not be backward to do any office of love and good-will to those that have done us many an injury. 1 Pet. iii. 9,— but, contrari-wise, blessing. This is the way to overcome evil, and to find mercy for ourselves and ours, when we or they need it. (2.) Jonathan was David’s sworn friend, and therefore he would show kindness to his house. This teaches us, [1.] To be mindful of our covenant. The kindness we have promised we must conscientiously perform, though it should not be claimed. God is faithful to us; let us not be unfaithful to one another. [2.] To be mindful of our friendships, our old friendships. Note, Kindness to our friends, even to them and theirs, is one of the laws of our holy religion. He that has friends must show himself friendly, Prov. xviii. 24. If Providence has raised us, and our friends and their families are brought low, yet we must not forget former acquaintance, but rather look upon that as giving us so much the fairer opportunity of being kind to them: then our friends have most need of us and we are in the best capacity to help them. Though there be not a solemn league of friendship tying us to this constancy of love, yet there is a sacred law of friendship no less obliging, that to him that is in misery pity should be shown by his friend, Job vi. 14. A brother is born for adversity. Friendship obliges us to take cognizance of the families and surviving relations of those we have loved, who, when they left us, left behind them their bodies, their names, and their posterity, to be kind to.
3. The kindness he promised to show them he calls the kindness of God; not only great kindness, but, (1.) Kindness in pursuance of the covenant that was between him and Jonathan, to which God was a witness. See 1 Sam. xx. 42. (2.) Kindness after God’s example; for we must be merciful as he is. He spares those whom he has advantage against, and so must we. Jonathan’s request to David was (1Sa 20:14; 1Sa 20:15), “Show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not, and the same to my seed.” The kindness of God is some greater instance of kindness than one can ordinarily expect from men. (3.) It is kindness done after a godly sort, and with an eye to God, and his honour and favour.
II. Information given him concerning Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. Ziba was an old retainer to Saul’s family, and knew the state of it. He was sent for and examined, and informed the king that Jonathan’s son was living, but lame (how he came to be so we read before, ch. iv. 4), and that he lived in obscurity, probably among his mother’s relations in Lo-debar in Gilead, on the other side Jordan, where he was forgotten, as a dead man out of mind, but bore this obscurity the more easily because he could remember little of the honour he fell from.
III. The bringing of him to court. The king sent (Ziba, it is likely) to bring him up to Jerusalem with all convenient speed, v. 5. Thus he eased Machir of his trouble, and perhaps recompensed him for what he had laid out on Mephibosheth’s account. This Machir appears to have been a very generous free-hearted man, and to have entertained Mephibosheth, not out of any disaffection to David or his government, but in compassion to the reduced son of a prince, for afterwards we find him kind to David himself when he fled from Absalom. He is named (ch. xvii. 27) among those that furnished the king with what he wanted at Mahanaim, though David, when he sent for Mephibosheth from him, little thought that the time would come when he himself would gladly be beholden to him: and perhaps Machir was then the more ready to help David in recompence for his kindness to Mephibosheth. Therefore we should be forward to give, because we know not but we ourselves may some time be in want, Eccl. xi. 2. And he that watereth shall be watered also himself, Prov. xi. 25. Now,
1. Mephibosheth presented himself to David with all the respect that was due to his character. Lame as he was, he fell on his face, and did homage, v. 6. David had thus made his honours to Mephibosheth’s father, Jonathan, when he was next to the throne (1 Sam. xx. 41, he bowed himself to him three times), and now Mephibosheth, in like manner, addresses him, when affairs are so completely reversed. Those who, when they are in inferior relations, show respect, shall, when they come to be advanced, have respect shown to them.
2. David received him with all the kindness that could be. (1.) He spoke to him as one surprised, but pleased to see him. “Mephibosheth! Why, is there such a man living?” He remembered his name, for it is probable that he was born about the time of the intimacy between him and Jonathan. (2.) He bade him not be afraid: Fear not, v. 7. It is probable that the sight of David put him into some confusion, to free him from which he assures him that he sent for him, not out of any jealousy he had of him, nor with any bad design upon him, but to show him kindness. Great men should not take a pleasure in the timorous approaches of their inferiors (for the great God does not), but should encourage them. (3.) He gives him, by grant from the crown, all the land of Saul his father, that is, his paternal estate, which was forfeited by Ishbosheth’s rebellion and added to his own revenue. This was a real favour, and more than giving him a kind word. True friendship will be generous. (4.) Though he had thus given him a good estate, sufficient to maintain him, yet for Jonathan’s sake (whom perhaps he saw some resemblance of in Mephibosheth’s face), he will take him to be a constant guest at his own table, where he will not only be comfortably fed, but have company and attendance suitable to his birth and quality. Though Mephibosheth was lame and unsightly, and does not appear to have had any great fitness for business, yet, for his good father’s sake, David took him to be one of his family.
3. Mephibosheth accepts this kindness with great humility and self-abasement. He was not one of those that take every favour as a debt, and think every thing too little that their friends do for them; but, on the contrary, speaks as one amazed at the grants David made him (v. 8): What is thy servant, that thou shouldst look upon such a dead dog as I am? How does he vilify himself! Though the son of a prince, and the grandson of a king, yet his family being under guilt and wrath, and himself poor and lame, he calls himself a dead dog before David. Note, It is good to have the heart humble under humbling providences. If, when divine Providence brings our condition down, divine grace brings our spirits down with it, we shall be easy. And those who thus humble themselves shall be exalted. How does he magnify David’s kindness! It would have been easy to lessen it if he had been so disposed. Had David restored him his father’s estate? It was but giving him his own. Did he take him to his table? This was policy, that he might have an eye upon him. But Mephibosheth considered all that David said and did as very kind, and himself as less than the least of all his favours. See 1 Sam. xviii. 18.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Samuel – Chapter 9
Covenant with Jonathan Fulfilled, vs. 1-5
It is not known just when David remembered his covenant with Jonathan (1Sa 18:3; 1Sa 20:8; 1Sa 20:16-17; 1Sa 23:18). Verse 12 of this chapter indicates that Mephibosheth was now an adult, for he was father of a son already. He was five years old when his father, Jonathan was slain (2Sa 4:4). David was king seven and a half years over Judah only, before he became king of all Israel (2Sa 5:5), so that Mephibosheth was then about twelve years of age. Perhaps about ten years had expired, at the least before David could perform the oath of his covenant with Jonathan (Ecc 5:4-5).
David had no knowledge of Mephibosheth and found out from a servant of Saul, a questionable character named Ziba, when he inquired of him. It is probable that Ziba was living on and enjoying the lands which had belonged previously to Saul and his family, to which he may have laid claim after the death of Ish-bosheth. It would have been to his advantage to keep the existence of the heir secret from the king. On the other hand it was doubtless feared that David, after the manner of ancient kings, might put to death all the heirs of the previous king.
Ziba told the king that Jonathan had a young son living in the house of Machir in Lo-debar, but that he was lame in both his feet. David stated that he wished to show the kindness of God unto him. Lo-debar is thought to have been identical with the place usually called Debir, in the land of Gilead, east of the Jordan Machir bore the famous name of Manasseh’s eldest son, whose family settled on the east side of Jordan when Israel came out of Egypt (Num 32:39-40).
Some have constructed an analogy from the condition of Mephibosheth to that of the lost sinner. Ammiel (the father of Machir) means “people of God”; Machir means “sold”; Lo-debar means “no pasture”. Thus Mephibosheth, a lone and crippled man, lived in the land of “no pasture”, with a man who was “sold”, but who, yet, was of the “people of God.” So the lost sinner, though “people” of God’s creation, lives among those “sold” under sin by the fall, in a land of “no pasture”, or no hope (Eph 2:11-13). The sequel will continue this analogy.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
2Sa. 9:1. And David said. This could not have occurred until David had reigned many years, seeing that Mephibosheth was only five years old when his father died, and was now a father himself. (See 2Sa. 9:12 and 2Sa. 4:4.)
2Sa. 9:3. The kindness of God. This expression is understood by some as love and kindness shown in God, and for Gods sake, (Keil); by others as a kindness such as God Himself shows, (Erdmann); while Patrick takes the expression as a superlative form to denote simply very great kindness. Wordsworth paraphrases it love for the Lords sake, and in the Lords sight, and according to the Lords example.
2Sa. 9:4. Lodebar. From 2Sa. 17:27 we learn that this was beyond Jordan, near Mahanaim; it is generally thought to be identical with Lidbir or Debir, mentioned in Jos. 13:26. From the same source we learn that Machir was a man of position and wealth.
2Sa. 9:7. Fear not. Mephibosheths alarm may have arisen merely from the simplicity and bashfulness of a youth who had lived in a nomad country, and who was awed by the splendour of a court, (Jamieson), or from the fear that David was about to follow the custom of oriental rulers, and slay all the representatives of the royal family which he had displaced. All the Land, etc. It is evident from these words that the landed property belonging to Saul had either fallen to David as crown lands, or had been taken possession of by distant relations after the death of Saul. (Keil.)
2Sa. 9:8. A dead dog. Mephibosheths early misfortunes threw a shade over his whole life, and his personal deformityas is often the case when it has been the result of accidentseems to have exercised a depressing and depreciatory influence on his character (see also 2Sa. 19:26; 2Sa. 19:28). (Smiths Bib. Dict.)
2Sa. 9:10. Although a daily guest at the royal table, Mephibosheth had to make provision as a royal prince for the maintenance of his own family and servants. (Keil.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
DAVID AND MEPHIBOSHETH
I. The merit of a dead parent is often a channel of blessing to the living child. Other things being equal, it is doubtless a blessing to descend from parents of gentle bloodfrom those who belong to the nobility of this world. Any member of such a family, if he be at all worthy of the name he bears, finds that name a fortune in itself in respect to the earthly and temporal advantages it confers upon him. But such a man does not monopolize all the honour and respect shown to children on account of their parentage. Men who cannot boast of a long pedigree, but who can rejoice in the greater honour of descending from the morally great, have often found the goodness of their departed father or mother bearing fruit for them, their sons and daughters, long after their parents have left the world. It is a principle which has received a Divine sanction, for God who declares that He visits the sins of the fathers upon the children (Exo. 20:5), has, both by word and deed, repeatedly blessed the children for the fathers sake. (Gen. 26:4-5; Gen. 28:13, etc.). In the case of Mephibosheth, the principle had not until now fully asserted itself. The son of one whose nature was as noble as his birth was princely, and whose heroic submission to the Divine will and devoted friendship have been very rarely equalled and never surpassed, Mephibosheth seems hitherto to have come sadly short of what was due to him as the sole surviving heir of Jonathan. Those who protected his helpless infancy and sheltered him in his crippled manhood may have been in part actuated by regard for his father, but none owed him so much as David, who now at last discharges the debt and makes his friends child feel that, after all, God had not forgotten to care for the son of a faithful servant.
II. True friendship rejoices to find a child to receive the gratitude which it would have rendered to the dead father. If Jonathan had lived until this day of Davids exaltation, he would have been satisfied to be Davids friendto be next unto him (1Sa. 23:17) in the kingdom of Israel, and David would have known how to estimate such unselfish loyalty and must have regarded such a friend with profound and admiring gratitude. We may be sure that nothing would have been wanting on Davids side which could give expression to the feelings which must have filled his soul. But the calamity which had deprived Mephibosheth of his father had removed Davids beloved friend, and all that he could now do was to put the son in the fathers place. This he did so far as it was possible. He could not rejoice in the presence of Jonathan at his table, but Mephibosheth should take his place and keep his fathers memory green in the kings heart. None who is truly grateful to a friend for favours in the past will make that friends death an excuse for neglecting to acknowledge and to repay the debt of gratitude. A true man will feel it his duty and his delight to place any who belong to his benefactor in that benefactors place, and to do that relatively which he can no longer do personally.
III. Elevation to power should be embraced as a God-given opportunity for repaying past favours. When David first received kindly notice from Jonathan he was but an unknown youth who could only give grateful love in return for the princes favour. And as the years rolled on and he became more known only to be more in need of a true friend, Jonathans brotherly faithfulness was often his only source of human counsel and cheer. But now times had changed, and David was on the throne of Israel, while Jonathans child was an exile and apparently dependent upon the bounty of others, and so an opportunity was given to the king to testify his grateful remembrance of past kindnesses. It would be well if all men who rise from obscurity to fame and power were to make their elevation a like opportunity of remembering those who befriended them in their days of adversity, and of testifying their gratitude to them. If they neglect to do this, they omit to perform a most sacred duty, and show themselves wanting in one of the main elements of a noble disposition.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
This fragment of history may be looked upon in two lights. I. As supplying a fine illustration of human friendship. Jonathan was still fresh in the heart of David. Death cannot really deprive us of our friends after all. Memory holds them, enshrines them, presses them to the heart, makes them more real to us after death than before. Friendship gives a common interest: what our friend loves, we love; His children in a sense are ours. II. As a faint image of Divine love to the world. We are warranted I presume, to use facts in human history, as Jesus used the waving cornfields, etc. to illustrate spiritual and Divine facts. Besides, the good in man is a Divine emanation, and the best means of giving an idea of God. I see more of the Eternal in a true kindness of a holy mansuch kindness as David now displaysthan in any part of material nature I feel justified therefore, in looking upon Davids conduct towards Mephibosheth as serving to illustrate Gods conduct towards our ruined world.
1. The kindness was unsought. The son of Jonathan did not make any application. Did the world seek the gift of God?
2. The kindness was in consideration of someone else. It was for Jonathans sake. Christ is not the cause of Gods love, but He is the channel.
3. The results of the kindness are illustrative of the Divine. It found out Mephiboslieth. Christ came to seek and to save. The apostles were sent out in search of Gods objects of love. Gods love searches out men. Providence, conscience, and the Gospel, are His messengers. It restored to him his patrimonial inheritance. Gods love restores us to our lost possessions. Salvation is paradise regained etc. It exalted to distinguished honours. And thou shalt eat bread at my table continually. If any man hear my voice, I will come in unto him, etc.Dr. David Thomas.
2Sa. 9:1. Good men should seek opportunities of doing good. The liberal deviseth liberal things (Isa. 32:8.) For the most proper objects of our kindness and charity are such as will not be frequently met with without inquiry. The most necessitous are the least clamorous. David had too long forgotten his obligations to Jonathan, but now, at length, they are brought to his mind. It is good sometimes to bethink ourselves whether there be any promises or engagements that we have neglected to make good; better do it late than never.Henry.
We must also see where Jesus our fast friend hath any receivers; that since our goodness extendeth not to Him, we may show Him kindness in His people, who are His seed and prolong His days upon earth. (Isa. 53:10; Psa. 16:3.Trapp.
2Sa. 9:8. Humiliation is a right use of Gods affliction. What if he was born great? If the sin of his grandfather hath lost his estate, and the hand of his nurse hath deformed and disabled his person, he now forgets what he was, and calls himself worse than he is, a dog. Yet, a living dog is better than a dead lion. There is dignity and comfort in life; Mephibosheth is therefore a dead dog unto David. It is not for us to nourish the same spirits in our adverse estate, that we found in our highest prosperity. What use have we made of Gods hand, if we be not the lower with our fall? God intends we should carry our cross, not make a fire of it to warm us: it is no bearing up our sails in a tempest. Good David cannot disesteem Mephibosheth ever the more for disparaging himself; he loves and honours this humility in the son of Jonathan. There is no more certain way to glory and advancement, than a lowly dejection of ourselves.Bp. Hall.
2Sa. 9:13. Here also we see that the sure mercies of David overflowed on the faithful and humble-minded in the family of Saul. Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, was admitted to partake in the royal prerogatives of Davids son, and to sit continually at Davids table; and so it will be with the Jews; when they are Mephibosheths in faith and humility, they will be Mephibosheths in honour, they will be admitted to share in the glory of the True David in the Church militant here and triumphant hereafter.Wordsworth.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4. Davids Kindness to the House of Saul, 2Sa. 9:1-13.
David Seeks Sauls Heirs. 2Sa. 9:1-4
And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake?
2 And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba. And when they had called him unto David, the king said unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, Thy servant is he.
3 And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may show the kindness of God unto him? and Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, which is lame on his feet.
4 And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar.
1.
Why was David interested in survivors of Sauls house?
2Sa. 9:1 Quite often a king would seek out survivors of his predecessors royal house in order that he might put all of them to death. Davids motive was quite different as he made inquiry about any survivors of Sauls house. David knew that Sauls sonsJonathan, Malchi-shua, and Abinadabwere all slain in the battle on Mount Gilboa. Ish-bosheths head had been brought to him by his assassins, and this was the fourth member of Sauls house to die. David had made a covenant with Jonathan that he would show kindness to any of his house; and so when he was settled in his kingdom, he made inquiry about any survivors. David would probably have spared not only descendants of Jonathan but any other of the house of Saul, for he had made essentially the same covenant with Saul when they parted after David spared Sauls life the first time (1Sa. 24:21-22).
2.
Who was Ziba? 2Sa. 9:2
Ziba was a former servant of Sauls who knew about the existence of Jonathans son, Mephibosheth. The word Ziba is apparently from Semitic stem of a word meaning branch or twig. Since he was Sauls servant, it is reasonable to suppose that he was from the tribe of Benjamin. He had been left behind when Saul went to battle, but had kept a record of the activities of the family.
3.
What had caused the boys lameness? 2Sa. 9:3
The nurse, taking care of the five-year-old boy, had dropped him while fleeing from the invading Philistines. This was made clear in 2Sa. 4:4, but it does not indicate that she was actually carrying him in her arms or on her back. She may have lost her hold on his hand as they were fleeing from the mountains, causing the lad to fall and become permanently injured. The exact nature of the injury is not given, but when David returned from his successful suppression of Absaloms revolt, Mephibosheth said that he had not gone with David because he could not walk. He also said that he had not dressed his feet all the time David was gone (2Sa. 19:24). Such a circumstance would indicate that his feet had open sores.
4.
Who was Machir? 2Sa. 9:4
Machir was a former friend of Saul. Mephibosheth had been living in his house. Machir was the son of Ammiel, a resident in the area of Lo-debar. We gather from this fact that Mephibosheth was in his house and from a reference in 2Sa. 17:27, that he was a man of wealth and prominence. The home was beyond the Jordan, and probably not very far from the Mahanain.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
DAVID’S KINDNESS TO MEPHIBOSHETH, 2Sa 9:1-13.
1. Is there yet any of the house of Saul Being but five years old at his father’s death, (2Sa 4:4,) Mephibosheth must have been born during the period of David’s wanderings, so that it is nothing strange that David had no knowledge of him; and the incessant cares of his reign had thus far prevented the king’s making special inquiry into this matter. Now, in a time of peace, his thoughts go back to the brotherly covenant made between himself and Jonathan, (1Sa 18:3; 1Sa 20:15-16; 1Sa 20:42,) and he yearns for opportunity to requite some of the kindness of that noble prince.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Restoration Of The Wealth Of The House Of Saul And Jonathan In The Person of Jonathan’s Son Mephibosheth ( 2Sa 9:1-13 ).
While it has been made clear by the barrenness of Michal that YHWH had fully removed the kingship from even an indirect connection with the house of Saul for ever, it was fitting on the other hand that David should remember his covenant with Jonathan, and that YHWH should thereby show genuine compassion towards Saul’s descendants. Man of blood David may have been. But this story confirms that he was both loyal and true, and that he could show great magnanimity towards those who were willing to respond rightly towards him, just as he looked to YHWH to show great magnanimity towards him.
The story, (which is in direct contrast to that in 2 Samuel 10), commences with David making an attempt to seek out any member of the house of Saul in order that he might ‘show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake’. (Compare how in 2Sa 10:2 he wanted to show the king of Ammon kindness for his father’s sake). It may at first sight appear strange that David was not aware of what descendants of Saul remained, but what that does testify to is firstly David’s lack off vindictiveness and total confidence in his own position, and secondly to the fact that those who had Mephibosheth’s interests at heart had not wanted to draw David’s attention to a Saulide who might be seen as a possible contender for the throne (in the hands of unscrupulous men) and have to be ‘got rid of’. They could so easily have sought to claim Saul’s lands back for Mephibosheth. But it is apparent that they had not. Furthermore Mephibosheth’s lameness would also have contributed to his being kept out of the limelight, for in those days the lame were looked on both with pity and contempt (compare 2Sa 5:6) and attention would not have been drawn to him. In the circumstances it was to the great credit of Machir that he was concerning himself with Mephibosheth’s safety and wellbeing.
The story then goes on to show how David not only restores to Mephibosheth all Saul’s lands, but even more importantly in many ways, invites him to sit among his sons at the king’s table. It made evident the fact that he felt totally secure in his own position, and that his love for Jonathan, and the commitment that he had made to him, had not in any way diminished (1Sa 20:15-16). He was loyal to the end. Many a king in those days would have considered that exterminating those of his rival’s house took precedence even over a sworn covenant.
It will be noted that in the section chiasmus above this incident parallels that which demonstrated YHWH’s establishment of David’s kingship and David’s receipt of a house of cedar. In the same way as David had received a house of cedar from YHWH, so Mephibosheth receives back his lands and his name, and is established at the royal court ‘for Jonathan’s sake’.
We find here a beautiful picture of the love of Jesus Christ for us. Like Mephibosheth we are ‘lame in both our feet’, but our Lord Jesus Christ not only came to redeem us back to Himself at the cost of His blood, but also promised that we would sit with Him at the King’s Table, yes, and even that, once we are there, He Himself will act as our servant and feed us at that table (Luk 12:37; Mat 20:25-28). It is because of what He has done for us that our heavenly Father shows us kindness ‘for Jesus’ sake’.
Analysis.
a
b And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba, and they called him to David, and the king said to him, “Are you Ziba?” And he said, “Your servant is he” (2Sa 9:2).
c And the king said, “Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may show the kindness of God to him?” And Ziba said to the king, “Jonathan has yet a son, who is lame of his feet” (2Sa 9:3).
d And the king said to him, “Where is he?” And Ziba said to the king, “Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar.” Then king David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, from Lo-debar (2Sa 9:4-5).
e And Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David, and fell on his face, and did obeisance. And David said, “Mephibosheth.” And he answered, “Behold, your servant!” (2Sa 9:6).
f And David said to him, “Do not be afraid, for I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father’s sake, and will restore you all the land of Saul your father, and you shall eat bread at my table continually” (2Sa 9:7).
e And he did obeisance, and said, “What is your servant, that you should look on such a dead dog as I am?” (2Sa 9:8).
d Then the king called to Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said to him, “All that pertains to Saul and to all his house have I given to your master’s son. And you shall work the land for him, you, and your sons, and your servants, and you shall bring in the fruits, that your master’s son may have bread to eat, but Mephibosheth your master’s son shall eat bread always at my table. Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants (2Sa 9:9-10).
c Then said Ziba to the king, “According to all that my lord the king commands his servant, so shall your servant do.” “As for Mephibosheth,” said the king, “he shall eat at my table, as one of the king’s sons” (2Sa 9:11).
b And Mephibosheth had a young son, whose name was Mica. And all who dwelt in the house of Ziba were servants to Mephibosheth (2Sa 9:12).
a So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem, for he ate continually at the king’s table. And he was lame in both his feet (2Sa 9:13).
Note that in ‘a’ David wishes to show kindness to the house of Jonathan, and in the parallel he does so. In ‘b’ we learn of Ziba the servant of Saul, and in the parallel he becomes servant to Mephibosheth. In ‘c’ we learn of Jonathan’s son who is lame in both his feet, and in the parallel David seats him at the king’s table ‘as one of the king’s sons’. In ‘d’ David graciously fetches Mephibosheth from Lo-Debar and in the parallel he establishes him and gives him all that had pertained to the house of Saul. In ‘e’ Mephibosheth makes his obeisance to David, and in the parallel he does the same. Centrally in ‘f’’ David declares how he will show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake.
2Sa 9:1
‘ And David said, “Is there yet any who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?”
We do not, of course, know at what stage in David’s reign this occurred (although we do know that it was some time before Absalom’s rebellion). But it was very probably in the middle of his reign, for Mephibosheth, who was twelve when David took the throne of Israel, seemingly by this time had a son (unless we see the mention of his son as simply indicating that he had one later). We should recognise that very few if any of David’s contemporary kings would even have considered the possibility of showing kindness to the house of those from whom they had taken over their kingship. Indeed they would have been busy rooting them out in order to destroy them. It was therefore a sign of David’s genuine compassion and loyalty towards Jonathan that he sought out a member of the house of Saul, not so that he could destroy him, but so that he could show him kindness ‘for Jonathan’s sake’. It makes clear that he had never forgotten the bond that had lain between them. It also make clear the total confidence he has in the ability of YHWH to maintain him on his throne. We should note also in passing that he began his search before he was aware that Mephibosheth was disabled. It was not a case of adopting a lame duck.
2Sa 9:2
‘ And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba, and they called him to David, and the king said to him, “Are you Ziba?” And he said, “Your servant is he.”
It is clear that David’s words were addressed to his ‘servants’ (advisers and courtiers) for it appears to have been they who sought out Ziba, a former estate manager of Saul, and brought him to David. It is probable that Ziba was somewhat afraid for he would recognise the danger inherent in his position as one of the deceased king’s prominent ‘servants’. We can almost hear the tentative note in his voice as, to the king’s question as to his identity, he says, ‘I am he’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Sa 9:1-13 David Shows Kindness to Mephibosheth In 2Sa 1:1-13 we have the story of David showing kindness to Mephibosheth, King Saul’s only remaining son. David honoured King Saul until the king’s death. Even after his death, David wept for him and gave him an honourable burial. This honor continued through his son Mephibosheth. It is significant to understand that as long as David served King Saul, he ensured that God would help David fulfil his destiny. David continued sowing in this area of his life by ministering to Saul’s son.
2Sa 9:1 And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?
2Sa 9:1
[54] Kenneth Copeland, Believer’s Voice of Victory (Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Fort Worth, Texas), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.
David is showing kindness to Mephibosheth as a result of his covenant with Jonathan. We find this covenant in 1Sa 20:14-16.
1Sa 20:14-16, “And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not: But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever : no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David’s enemies.”
2Sa 9:3 And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may shew the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, which is lame on his feet.
2Sa 9:3
2Sa 9:4 And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lodebar.
2Sa 9:4
[55] W. Ewing, “Lo-debar,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
2Sa 17:27, “And it came to pass, when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar , and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim,”
Jos 13:26, “And from Heshbon unto Ramathmizpeh, and Betonim; and from Mahanaim unto the border of Debir ;”
2Sa 9:7 And David said unto him, Fear not: for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually.
2Sa 9:7
2Sa 9:9 Then the king called to Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said unto him, I have given unto thy master’s son all that pertained to Saul and to all his house.
2Sa 9:9
Ziba had been the servant of King Saul. Since all of Saul’s sons were dead, Ziba felt justified and wanting the king’s inheritance. Perhaps Ziba had been caring for this land since the death of King Saul. Perhaps he felt that the land rightfully belonged to him.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
David Receives Mephibosheth Graciously
v. 1. And David said, v. 2. And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba, v. 3. And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him? v. 4. And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lodebar. v. 5. Then King David sent and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, from Lodebar. v. 6. Now, when Mephibosheth v. 7. And David said unto him, fear not, v. 8. And he,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Sa 9:1
Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul? As Mephibosheth was five years old at his father’s death (2Sa 4:4), but now had a son (2Sa 9:12), a sufficient time must have elapsed for him to grow up and marry; so that probably the events of this chapter occurred seventeen or eighteen years after the battle of Gilboa. As David was king at Hebron for seven years and a half, he had been king now of all Israel for about nine years. But during this long period he had been engaged in a weary struggle, which had left him little repose, and during which it might have been dangerous to draw the house of Saul out of obscurity. But he was at last firmly established on the throne, and had peace all around; and the time was come to act upon the promise made to Jonathan (1Sa 20:14, 1Sa 20:15), and which we may be sure David had never forgotten.
2Sa 9:2
A servant whose name was Ziba. It is evident from this that David was not certain that Jonathan had left behind him a son; but not because of the change of name from Meribbaal (1Ch 8:34); for Baal retained its innocent meaning of “lord” until the time of Jezebel. It then became the title of the Phoenician sun god; and Jezebel’s shameless worship of this deity, and her cruelty to Jehovah’s prophets, made the people henceforth change the name Baal into Bosheth, “the shameful thing” (see note on 2Sa 2:8). Mephibosheth had not changed his name, but had lived in obscurity in the wild region beyond Mahanaim. Meanwhile Ziba had probably taken care of Saul’s property in the tribe of Benjamin. There is no reason to doubt that he had been steward there for Saul, and after his master’s death had continued in possession of the estate. David, we may feel sure, would not interfere with it, and Ziba would hold it for Saul’s heirs, who could not themselves take possession. To him David now sends, not because he expected to hear of a son of his dear friend Jonathan, but because he was ready to show kindness to any representative of the fallen monarch.
2Sa 9:3
The kindness of God. That is, extraordinary kindness. The devout mind of the Orientals saw in everything that was more than common a manifestation of God, and thus the epithet “of God” came to be applied to anything that was very great. David would show Saul’s seed kindness as wonderful as are God’s dealings with man.
2Sa 9:4
Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar. Of Lo-debar nothing is known, but it must have been east of the Jordan, near Mahanaim. Of Ammiel we read again in 2Sa 17:27, where we find that he was a man of wealth, who helped to supply the wants of David and his men during the rebellion of Absalom. Possibly this kindness of David towards one for whom he had feelings of loyalty, as representing a royal house to which he had remained faithful, won his heart. There was a magnanimity about it which would commend it to a man who was himself generous and true.
2Sa 9:6
He fell on his face. Mephibosheth probably expected the fate which in the East usually befalls the members of a dethroned dynasty. Subsequently in Israel each new line of usurpers put to death every male relative of its predecessor, and it was with difficulty in Judah that one babe was rescued from the hands of its own grandmother, Athaliah, when she usurped the throne. Looked at, then, in the light of Oriental policy, David’s conduct was most generous.
2Sa 9:7
All the land of Saul thy father. David probably restored to Mephibosheth not only the lands at Gibeah, which Ziba had managed to hold, but Saul’s estates generally. There seems, nevertheless, to have been on Ziba’s part a grudge against Mephibosheth for thus getting back from the king what he had hoped to keep as his own. The privilege of being the king’s friend, and eating at his table, was an honour that would be more highly prized than even the possession of the estates.
2Sa 9:8
A dead dog. At first sight this extreme self-humiliation makes us look on Mephibosheth as a poor creature, whom early misfortune and personal deformity had combined to depress But really this is to impose on an Oriental hyperbole a Western exactness of meaning. When in the East your entertainer assures you that everything he has to his last dirhem is yours, he nevertheless expects you to pay twice the value foreverything you consume; but he makes his exaction pleasant by his extreme courtliness. So Ephron offered his cave at Machpelah to Abraham as a free gift, but he took care to obtain for it an exorbitant price (Gen 23:11, Gen 23:15). Mephibosheth described himself in terms similar to those used by David of himself to Saul (1Sa 24:14); but he meant no more than to express great gratitude, and also to acknowledge the disparity of rank between him and the king.
2Sa 9:9
Thy master’s son. Strictly Mephibosheth was Saul’s grandson, but words of relationship are used in a very general way in Hebrew.
2Sa 9:10
That thy master’s son may have food to eat. Instead of “son,” Hebrew ben, some commentators prefer the reading of a few Greek versions, namely, “house,” Hebrew, beth. But the difficulty which they seek to avoid arises only from extreme literalness of interpretation. Though Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table, he would have a household to maintainfor he had a wife and sonand other expenses; and his having “food to eat” includes everything necessary, as does our prayer for “daily bread.” He would live at Jerusalem as a nobleman and Ziba would cultivate his estates, paying, as is usual in the East, a fixed proportion of the value of the produce to his master. Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants (slaves). He had evidently thriven; for, beginning as a slave in Saul’s household, he had now several wives and many slaves of his own, and had become a person of considerable importance. He would still remain so, though somewhat shorn both of wealth and dignity in becoming only Mephibosheth’s farmer.
2Sa 9:11
As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he, etc. These words are difficult, because they make David say the same thing thrice. The text is probably corrupt, as it requires the insertion of some such phrase as the “said the king” of the Authorized Version to make it intelligible. Of the many emendations proposed, the most probable is that of the LXX. and Syriac, which make this clause an observation of the historian pointing out the high honour done to Mephibosheth in placing him on an equality with David’s own sons. It would then run as follows: So Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table as one of the king’s sons.
2Sa 9:12
Micha. This son of Mephibosheth became the representative of the house of Saul, and had a numerous offspring, who were leading men in the tribe of Benjamin until the Captivity (see 1Ch 8:35-40; 1Ch 9:40-44).
HOMILETICS
2Sa 9:1-13
The facts are:
1. David, remembering his love for Jonathan, inquires whether there were any survivors of the house of Saul; and being informed of the proximity of Ziba, an old servant, he sends for him.
2. He is told that a son of Jonathan, lame of foot, is a sojourner in the house of Machir.
3. Being sent for, Mephibosheth, on appearing before the king, falls on his face and pays reverence, but is spoken to kindly.
4. Being assured by David that there was no need for fear, that kindness for his father’s sake was in store, and that all his grandfather’s property should be restored, he expresses by deed and word his sense of unworthiness.
5. David informs Ziba of his decision as to the property, and orders him to act as steward for the benefit of Mephibosheth, who was to be henceforth a guest at the royal table.
6. The arrangements are carried out, and so is explained the fact of Mephibosheth’s residence in Jerusalem.
The power of hallowed associations.
Scripture, in common with all history, usually gives us the outward facts of life, leaving to be inferred the private mental and moral processes which must have lain in their rear. There is an abruptness in the transition of the historian from an account of David’s victories and general administration to this record of an act of personal kindness. But if the laws of the human mind were the same then as now, we may be sure there was no such disconnection in the inner course of David’s experience. During the few years of public activity in seeking the consolidation of his power, covered by the preceding chapters, there had often risen up in his mind memories of former days of trial, and of names of friends and foes now no longer among the living; and if thought breeds emotion, he would, on these occasions, experience feelings corresponding to the subject-matter of his thoughts. Among these thoughts, with their corresponding feeling, were doubtless those relating to his beloved Jonathan; and what the historian here places before us in the narrative concerning Mephibosheth is simply the ultimate welling up, from the depths of the memory, of the old associations clustering around the name of Jonathan in such strength as to issue in the deeds here recorded.
I. HALLOWED ASSOCIATIONS ARE A GREAT POWER IN LIFE. Human life is not determined in its condition or conduct at any particular hour by what is purely new in thought, in feeling, or in circumstance. The past furnishes the seed on which the present acts as new environment, and the nature of that past is a more potent element in determining the conduct than is the new environment. The chief clue to David’s later character is to be sought in his earlier experiences. The mightiest inner forces that thus influence life are those which centre in strong and sacred associations. The memory of Jonathan’s love worked unconsciously as a spell throughout David’s career. Every man is subject to this law of life. As a rule, the early mental associations of our life give tone and colour to all that comes after. The power lying in the memory of a mother’s love over even the vagaries of later years is proverbial. The mention of a name may suffice to flood the eyes with tears and break down the stoutest heart. David never knew how much of restraint, of tenderness, of noble aspiration, and of fidelity to truth and honour he owed to the associations carried in his memory with the name of his friend Jonathan. So to us the “Name that is above every name” is the centre of associations as powerful as they are blessed; and the more we can enrich our nature with kindred associations, the richer and more Christlike will our lives become.
II. THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN HALLOWED ASSOCIATIONS CAN EXERT THEIR PROPER INFLUENCE. During the first few years of his reign David seems to have been utterly absorbed with the work of restoring the civil and religious order of his kingdom, and of securing it against the pressure of surrounding foes. A consideration of the actual state of things consequent on the misgovernment of Saul, and of the enormous labours involved in an absolute monarchy when its obligations are faithfully carried out, will account for the apparent neglect of Jonathan’s house till the present date. It is only reasonable to suppose that David had sometimes thought of this matter, and the manner in which it is introduced in 2Sa 9:1 suggests that now was the time to give effect to his own previously cherished desires. It might have been politically unwise, and to Saul’s descendants personally injurious by placing them in the way of temptation to conspiracies, had he sought to reinstate any of them during the rebellion of Ishbosheth and immediately on his decease. The safe and full establishment of his authority was evidently the occasion for the old and piously cherished associations with the no, me of Jonathan to put forth their strength. We all have within us a reserve power in the hallowed associations we cherish. They are never without an unconscious influence; but there may come seasons when we may do well to open the doors and let them come forth in full force to sway our conduct. Thus at Easter and Christmas do Christians give free scope to blessed memories. Thus our family birthdays, and days sacred to the memory of those now more blessed than ourselves, are times when our nature becomes enriched with holy feelings, and our vows become more influential. Sometimes, apart from our will and special seasons, by the spontaneous force of mental laws, sacred memories pour forth into our barren experience streams of blessing; and if by pressure of secular business the channels of thought and emotion are clogged, it is well now and then to pause, and, by an effort in quiet solitude, to open some sacred spring within our nature, so that it shall send forth its blessed streams to quicken and beautify our spiritual life.
III. A TRUE HEART WILL SEINE OCCASION FOR REVIVING THE POWER OF HALLOWED ASSOCIATIONS. The occasion arose in the course of David’s public life, and because his heart was still true to God and man, he seized it. The cares of official life and the attractions of exalted position had not yet done him spiritual damage. The David that swore love and fidelity to his friend (1Sa 20:13-17, 1Sa 20:42) was still alive. The man was not lost in the king. There are sad instances of the reverse. Old friends, former vows, are forgotten in the satiety of wealth or power, or, if not entirely forgotten, no occasion is sought to let the love of former days assert itself. Much of our power over our future lies in the use we are disposed to make of the fountains of holy thought and feeling which have been formed within by the experiences of former days. The pressure of business may cause them to lie unnoticed for months and years; but now and then opportunities will occur which an uncorrupted heart will gladly use for bringing them into the current of daily life. There may be an abuse of “days and seasons;” but a well regulated life will not, on that account, be hindered from taking pains to sweeten and subdue the present, and prepare for a better future, by a distinct and deliberate revival of the most sacred and tender experiences of the past.
IV. THIS DELIBERATE USE OF HALLOWED ASSOCIATIONS SECURES A CONTINUITY OF GOODNESS. There was a native force in David’s generous sentiments toward Jonathan in early days which would tend to their continuous assertion. The main elements of a man’s moral life will abide in spite of counteracting evils. Yet as limbs maintain their muscular power by exertion, so the special qualities of David’s character, as seen in his early friendship for Jonathan, would form a continuous feature of his life only in so far as he availed himself of passing opportunities for reviving the sentiments associated with the name of his departed friend. To this habit of allowing the feelings peculiar to such associations to act again and again, as occasion permitted, upon his life, in combination, of course, with other forms and methods of spiritual culture, we may ascribe the freshness and force of the kindly, generous sentiments which were a distinctive feature of his character to the very end. The characters of some men are disjointed. The main qualities of one part of their life are not conspicuous later on. The good has been overlaid, crushed down, by an enormous pressure of thought and sentiment of an adverse kind, and no care has been taken to give new force to latent memories. Their later good qualities are not of the same order as their earlier. This is not true growth. The true continuity of goodness is that seen in David’s case, and is promoted by the same careful use of the power that lies in the best associations of our earlier life.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. Let us see to the storing of the mind in early years with facts and experiences that will be as fountains of blessing to freshen life amidst the carking cares of a busy life.
2. We should be careful to east out low thoughts, lest they occupy, in the mental and moral area, ground on which holy and generous feelings may take root and flourish.
3. It is desirable to make seasons when the best memories of the past are allowed to exercise their full power over us. This seems to be one reason, at least, for the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
4. It is by cultivating the memories of departed friends, and cherishing the sentiments associated with their name, that the communion of the saints on earth and in heaven is promoted.
5. It is by the deliberate cultivation of sacred memories that we shall be able to conserve the more gentle virtues of life, and so give tone and purity to the otherwise hard and unsympathetic life of the world.
6. It behoves us to consider well what sacred vows of our earlier years are yet waiting to be redeemed.
7. In the remembrance of former friendships we may do well to inquire whether there are any in trouble and need on whom the spirit of the old friendship may exercise itself.
A spiritual parallel.
Great mischief may arise from the endeavour to trace spiritual analogies in the ordinary historical narratives of Scripture, in consequence of the licence of an overactive imagination. It is not a safe canon of interpretation to say that sacred history is throughout an allegory. That an apostle saw an allegory in one or two cases is not proof of a general rule (Gal 4:24). But, under limitations, we are warranted in tracing parallels between the temporal and spiritual, the earthly and the heavenly: the one may exhibit features which serve to illustrate the other. Much of our Saviour’s teaching partook of this character. In this lies the essence of parable. In this light we may regard the story of David’s conduct toward Mephibosheth: it serves to illustrate the bearing and action of the true King of Zion toward the weak and lowly, Naaman’s cleansing and Mephibesheth’s elevation are historic facts shedding light on spiritual realities. Note
I. A PLEDGE TO BE KEPT. The events here recorded have their root in the free pledge given by David many years before that he would care for the seed of Jonathan (1Sa 20:15). He had undertaken to bless when need should arise. In a deeper sense the whole merciful transactions recorded in New Testament history are the outcome of a “covenant ordered in all things.” Christ’s interposition on behalf of the fallen was not a casual act called forth by a passing incident in human history. Before the mountains were set fast his “delights were with the sons of men.” The purpose and, speaking in human phrase, the. plan of redemption were in the original order; and hence Christ’s coming was, as it were, to redeem his own pledge, to keep his own vow, to fulfil the covenant. “Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me.” Virtually he was “slain before the foundation of the world;” for all that happened was consequent on “the eternal purpose” (Eph 3:11), though not in violation of human freedom (Act 2:23).
II. A DEFERRED FULFILMENT. We have seen that some years elapsed, not only after the vow, before any ostensible steps were taken to fulfil it, but also after David came to the kingdom. In this there is no cause for reflection on his sincerity. Providence has many things to bring about in a monarch’s wise policy, and he may have to wait till events are ripe for certain lines of action. Here, on a small scale, we have an illustration of the apparently deferred fulfilment of the merciful undertaking of our Saviour. Generations passed ere the set time had come when he could, consistently with the working out of other issues, subordinate or coordinate, come to “perform the mercy promised” in the past (Luk 2:1-52 :72). Now that we have the complete history of David, we can see the propriety of his not taking measures for the elevation of the seed of Jonathan while his work of consolidation was incomplete; and so now that we have the full record of the Old and New Testaments, we can see the wisdom of the manifestation of the covenanted grace being deferred till the “fulness of time” (Gal 4:4). Many threads were being woven by the hand of Providence to meet in the revelation of Christ.
III. A SEARCH FOR THE FALLEN. David inquired after the seed of Jonathan and Saul. The sons of the distinguished were in obscurity and, in a social and political point of view, lost. As compared with the position once held by their father and grandfather, they were indeed degraded and outcast. Their splendid inheritance had vanished. They had to be sought out. How truly their relative social condition represents our spiritual condition is obvious. We have fallen far below the original state of our great ancestor. The effect of sin on man, in so far as it touches his relative social position in the enduring spiritual world, is to lower him, to render him inferior to the holy beings who constitute the members of the eternal kingdom of God. “Thou hast fallen by thine iniquity” (Hos 14:1). The mission of Christ, in one aspect of it, is said to be a search for that which is lestan effort to find and rescue from degradation and shame those who are living below their proper position in the spiritual life (Luk 15:3-10, Luk 15:32; Luk 19:10). This is true of the race; and his work considered as “finished” on Calvary is an effort to find out and save mankind. It is also true of us as individuals that Christ does, like the good shepherd (Joh 10:16; cf. Luk 15:4), search for us. He follows us in our wanderings, comes near to our loneliness, and calls us by his Word, his providence, and his Spirit.
IV. A YEARNING COMPASSION. “Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may show the kindness of God unto him?” (verse. 3). How this reveals the deep longings of the heart! David is not satisfied with the desire to show ordinary attentions to the fallen house; he must show such kindness as God would show. The thought of Jonathan evidently brought up again the old love; and it must, if possible, pour itself forth in some unwonted form. There can be no question that, in the regal and better qualities of his life, David illustrates the more perfect King who comes to reign in righteousness and save the poor and needy. This strong yearning compassion was conspicuous in our Lord in the days of his flesh, when he was seeking a lost race. In this he is unapproachable. It appears in his deeply pathetic tone whenever referring to sin and sorrow, in his patient unwearying toil, in his pleadings with the weary and heavy laden, in his looking with compassion on the people as sheep without a shepherd, in his tears over Jerusalem, and in the sweet and gentle submission with which he drank the cup in Gethsemane, and poured out his life on the cross. Overflowing love! And he is the same now (Heb 13:8). His life, suffering, and death were the revelation of a permanent character, and therefore of an ever-yearning compassion for the fallen.
V. A GRACIOUS BEARING. Mephibosheth trembled in the presence of David, and was overcome by the sense of his own unworthiness (2Sa 9:6-8). No doubt he was surprised at such wondrous conduct on the part of the king as to send for him. But the king in a tone which no written words can indicate, said, “Mephibosheth!” We all know what volumes of meaning may be conveyed by addressing an individual by his name in a certain tone. And, lest this should not suffice, there came the words, “Fear not!” As a brother and friend, on the same level, he speaks to the heart of the weak and troubled one. Foreshadow is this of him who was “meek and lowly in heart;” who would not “break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax;” who touched the outcast leper and inspired the fallen one with hope. No reproach, no coldness of heart, no imposition of impossible burdens, but the gentleness and grace that banish fear and cause the poor outcast to feel that in him there is a tender, loving Friend!
VI. AN ELEVATION TO HONOUR. David would be content with nothing less than that Mephibosheth should be a free and constant guest at his table. He was to be raised from social degradation and obscurity to a position of greatest distinction. No mere pension, no formal expression of personal interest, no delegation to others of attention to be paid to him would suit the largeness of the king’s heart. His idea of the “kindness of God” (2Sa 9:3) far transcended the best human conceptions of generosity, and this unwonted elevation to honour was but the index of it. What a marvellous change in the condition of this poor, feeble outcast! How contrary to all the usages of monarchs, to the offspring of the fallen, was this overflow of “the kindness of God”! Than this there is not in the Bible a more apt illustration of the exceeding grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, who condescends to our low estate, seeks us out, bows us down in wondering submission by his matchless gentleness, and then raises us to the honour of being members of his household, of free access to his Person and closest fellowship with himself and those most dear to him. “Neither do I condemn thee” (Joh 8:11; cf. Rom 8:1). He gives “power to become the sons of God” (Joh 1:12, Joh 1:16; 1Jn 3:1, 1Jn 3:2). The “far off” are made “nigh” (Eph 2:13), and are called “friends” (Joh 15:15), blessed with constant fellowship (1Jn 1:3), and even made heirs of “the glory” given to himself (Joh 17:22-24). It is in the Antitype alone that we find the full and true expression of “the kindness of God” (2Sa 9:3). “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (1Co 2:9).
VII. A PERSONAL GUARANTEE. A personal guarantee, involving the king’s honour, and backed by all the resources at his command, was given that Mephibesheth should henceforth be regarded “as one of the king’s sons” (2Sa 9:11), and that ample provision should be made for all his wants (2Sa 9:10). Whatever demands came on him for the sustenance of his dependents, they were met by the arrangement, under royal warrant, with Ziba. Thus all his interests, present and future, personal and relative, social and material, were provided for. The king guaranteed all. Now, this is beautifully illustrative of what Christ does for those whom he raises from degradation to be his friends. He cares for all their interests. He so orders providence that they shall “want no good thing.” It is said of them, “All things are yours” (1Co 3:22); and, to scatter all fear and afford abundant consolation, the King has said, “Because I live, ye shall live also” (Joh 14:19). Mephibosheth rested under the care of a faithful David. All the power and all the high moral qualities of David were pledged to secure to him all his life long the blessings now enjoyed; so all the power and all the ineffable qualities of Christ are pledged to secure to us the possession and enjoyment of glorious heritage as Christians as long as we live, i.e. forever.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It becomes us to follow the example of David and of Christ, and seek out those who may be in need of blessing, and who may have a special claim on our sympathy.
2. We should make the Divine character and conduct the model of our bearing towards those in trouble. “The kindness of God” is the ideal to be converted into the realities of our life.
3. The lowly and despised may take encouragement from all that is recorded of Christ’s gracious bearing and deeds of kindness.
4. We may trace, in every instance of Christ’s mercy to the fallen, the permanently elevating tendency of Christianity. It is the one element which alone lastingly raises mankind in material and social good.
5. The resources of Christ for securing the fulfilment of his promises are so vast as to remove all fear. He is more to the universe at large than David was to his kingdom.
6. We see the dignity of bearing that becomes those who are honoured with the royal friendship of Christ.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
2Sa 9:1
(JERUSALEM.)
For Jonathan’s Sake.
David had sworn to his friend Jonathan that he would “not cut off his kindness from his house forever” (1Sa 20:15). He had been probably unaware of his leaving a son behind him (for Mephibosheth was born while he was in exile, five years before the battle of Gilboa); or, if acquainted with the fact, supposed that he perished in the destruction of the house of Saul. But surmising, perhaps, from something he heard, that a son of his friend survived, he made the inquiry, “Is there yet any that is left,” etc.? It was a practice only too common in the East, on a change of dynasty, for the reigning monarch to put to death the surviving members of the family of his predecessor, in order to make his own position more secure. And the conduct of David, in contrast therewith, evinced his gratitude, fidelity, piety, and noble generosity. “Neither the splendour of victories, nor the pleasures of prosperity, nor the lustre of his crown, could make him unmindful of his covenant and oath to his former friend. A suspicious, faithless tyrant would at least have kept the family that imagined they had a right to his kingdom low enough to have prevented the possibility of their ever disputing it with him; or at least have shut up the heir of it in close imprisonment, or got rid of his fears upon his account by totally destroying him; thinking he might reasonably dispense with his oath to his deceased friend through the necessity of self-preservation, and securing to his own family the peaceable succession to his crown” (Chandler). The words “for Jonathan’s sake”
I. EXPRESS A PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN CONDUCT. It is not unusual for one person to show kindness to another for the sake of someone else, for whom, whether living or dead, he entertains a high regard, on account of his excellent character or eminent services; with whom the object of his kindness is closely connected, and without whom he would not have shown it. How often has a king exercised his prerogative of mercy toward an offender, or bestowed riches and honour on a subject, for the sake of the faithful service of his father! “The fruit of well doing lives longer than himself who is the doer, and thereby he leaves a blessing and good treasure behind him to his posterity” (Guild). “There are thousands of young men and women who are daily receiving kindness for their fathers’ and mothers’ sakes. And this is, in fact, one of the incidental blessings connected with having parents who, though now dead, were, when living, persons of worthy and estimable life. Their children inherit the advantages which the love of others for their memory can bestow, and many an applicant for some office of trust and emolument would be turned away from the door were it not that his face bears the lineaments of a departed and cherished friend, or his tones call back to memory the voice which will speak no more” (E. Mellor).
II. ILLUSTRATE A METHOD OF DIVINE DEALINGS. God deals with men, not merely in their separate individuality, but also in their relationship to one another; spares and blesses them, not only directly and immediately, but also indirectly and mediately, through and on account of each other; and shows kindness to many for the sake of one. This:
1. Occurs in various ways. By means of the hereditary influence of a good man on his descendants, and the moral influence on others of his example, utterances, labours, and sufferings; and (with more special reference to the case under consideration) by granting his intercessory requests, fulfilling the promises made to him on their behalf, and doing them good out of regard to him, or because of something he has done which was necessary to that end.
2. Appears in numerous instances. With respect to individuals, “The Lord hath blessed me for thy sake” (Gen 30:27; Gen 19:29; 1Ki 11:12); families (Gen 39:5; Psa 69:26; Pro 13:22); Churches, cities, and nations (Gen 18:26; Exo 32:14; 1Ki 8:19); “beloved for the fathers’ sakes” (Rom 11:28); “As the new wine is found in the cluster,” etc. (Isa 65:8; Isa 1:9). So God testifies his love of righteousness, teaches the worth of a good man in relation to the unworthy, and causes his sovereign mercy to abound toward them.
3. Has its highest application in Christ, “the one Mediator between God and man,”
(1) who is very dear to God (Mat 3:17; Eph 1:6);
(2) who is closely allied to men (Heb 2:16);
(3) who has laboured, interceded, and suffered for us (1Pe 3:18); and
(4) to whom many promises have been made on behalf of those who are in him (Ga:20; 2Co 1:20). The nature, grounds, and extent of his mediation cannot be fully explained; but the fact is certain, that it is “for Christ’s sake” (Eph 4:32), “in Christ” (Revised Version), and “for his Name’s sake” (1Jn 2:12), we are forgiven, have access to the Father, and are “blessed with every spiritual blessing” (Eph 1:3). “He comprises in his own Person all and everything that is most desirable” (Gregory Nazianzen).
III. SUGGEST A GROUND OF DEVOUT CONFIDENCE. When Mephibosheth appeared before the king, “he doubtless was in fear for his life (2Sa 9:6, 2Sa 9:7). Such generosity to a fallen rival as David showed in restoring him to his paternal property, seemed to him scarcely credible” (‘Speaker’s Commentary’). But the assurance that it was “for Jonathan’s sake” must have inspired him with confidence. And similarly, “for Jesus’ sake” affords a
(1) needful,
(2) effectual, and
(3) abiding ground of hope, and
Provides for those who come to God
An all-prevailing plea.”
“Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name, he will give it you” (Joh 16:23; Joh 14:13).
IV. INDICATE A MOTIVE TO PRACTICAL BENEVOLENCE, after the example of David and from love to our Divine Friend (2Sa 1:26); in:
1. Forgiving each other (Eph 4:32).
2. Kind and comforting speech. “Fear not” (2Sa 9:7).
3. Generous gifts.
4. Self-denial.
5. Suffering (Mat 5:11; Php 1:29).
6. Prayers (Rom 15:30).
7. Personnel, diligent, and constant service on behalf of “the Church which is his body,” and of all “for whom Christ died” (2Co 4:5; 3Jn 1:7).
“For his Name’s sake;” “For my sake.” This is the Christian’s peculiar, highest, and mightiest motive; implying not only supreme affection toward him who “alone is worthy,” but also sincere sympathy with his spirit and purposes; and producing most beneficent effects.D.
2Sa 9:3
(JERUSALEM.)
Showing the kindness of God.
David remembered the request of Jonathan to show him “the kindness of Jehovah” (1Sa 20:14, 1Sa 20:15); felt the obligation of his former promises and covenants (1Sa 24:21, 1Sa 24:22; 1Sa 23:18); and now purposed, in accordance therewith, to “show the kindness of God,” i.e. “love from religious motives, or as God shows it” (Thenius); “in God and for his sake” (Keil); “in the Lord’s sight, and according to the Lord’s example, pure, perpetual love, and not such love as arises from mere human respects and is shown in the eye of man” (Wordsworth); and not simply “great and eminent kindness” (Poole, Patrick). There are benevolent affections in our nature; but they must be imbued with religious motives and principles in order that their exercise may be of the highest kind. “The kindness of God” is such as is shown:
1. Out of reverence for his Name. Holy, just, and true; merciful and gracious; delighting in loving kindness. “God is love;” and the eternal Fountain of love in his creatures.
2. In obedience to his will, as expressed in numerous injunctions to the faithful performance of what has been promised; in the royal law (Jas 2:8); and in manifold exhortations to compassionate love.
3. From gratitude for his benefits. These had been bestowed on David in abundant measure (2Sa 7:18; 2Sa 8:6). The acts of kindness which God performs toward men both enable and incite them to perform acts of kindness toward their fellow men. “What goodness the Lord shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee” (Num 10:32). Freely ye have received, freely give.”
4. In imitation of his example; of faithfulness, goodness, unsought, abounding, unfailing, and everlasting love. David was specially called, as king, to exhibit in his character and conduct an image of the moral excellences of the Divine King of Israel; and to this Christians are likewise celled. “Be ye therefore perfect,” etc. (Mat 5:43-48), “merciful” (Luk 6:36), “imitators of God as beloved children,” etc. (Eph 5:1).
5. Under the inspiration of his grace, his love, his Spirit; and, indeed, “it is the merciful love of God himself that dwells in the heart of the truly pious, and works therefrom; for he that lives in fellowship with God receives into his heart, through the Holy Ghost, the love that is in God, and lives and moves in that love” (Erdmann). “He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1Jn 4:16). He not only reflects the Divine love on others, but is also the medium of its communication to them.
6. With the desire of his approval, of pleasing him rather than men, and of partaking more fully of his loving kindness, which “is better than life.”
7. For the promotion of his glory; “that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”D.
2Sa 9:4
(GILEAD.)
The kindness of Machir Ben-Ammiel.
One of the obscure characters of Scripture. He dwelt at Lo-debar, among the mountains of Gilead, “a favourite asylum for refugees;” was, probably, a descendant of Machir the son of Manasseh; and “the principal man of Gilead” (Josephus). Of his generosity two notable instances are recorded (ch. 4:4; 17:27). From these it may be inferred that he was rich in earthly possessions, and (what is of much greater importance) in:
1. Grateful memories. Like the men of Jabesh-Gilead, he remembered the heroic enterprise of Saul on behalf of his people (1Sa 11:9; 1Sa 31:11; 1Sa 2:4-7).
“But, O Saul, do not fail us.
Saul. Fail ye?
Let the morn fail to break; I will not break
My word. Haste, or I’m there before you.
Fail?
Let the morn fail in the east; I’ll not fail you;
But swift and silent as the streaming wind,
Unseen approach, then gathering up my force
At dawning, sweep on Amnon, as night’s blast
Sweeps down from Carmel on the dusky sea.”
(C. Heavysege, ‘Saul: a Drama.’)
Hence he afforded ready shelter and hospitality to his grandson, and may have assisted the revival of his house at Mahanaim (2Sa 2:8); and when, subsequently, David was in exile at the same place, remembering his kindness to Mephibosheth, rendered him generous aid.
2. Tender compassion toward the orphan, unfortunate add friendless. The sight of human distress drew forth his sympathy; and (like the good Samaritan) he suffered no other considerations to hinder its practical expression.
3. Constant friendship. During many years (verse 12), with all their changes, he provided, apparently “without fee or reward,” a peaceful home for the crippled prince, and continued his steadfast protector.
4. Active benevolence. He was “rich in good works” (2 Timothy 6:18). Sensibility, as the word is generally used, is a mere animal instinct, useless when it does not immediately lead to active benevolence; and in such cases not only useless, but pernicious, because it has a tendency to produce a resting satisfied with the emotion and a neglect of the action” (W. Cooke Taylor).
5. Beneficent influence. His conduct could not but produce a good effect on the rude, warlike tribe of which he was chief; and possibly incited others (Shobi and Barzillai) to the like.
“Great deeds cannot die:
They with the sun and moon renew their light
Forever, blessing those that look on them.”
(Tennyson.)
6. Noble recompense. “The blessing of him that was ready to perish” (Job 29:13), the approval of his own conscience, the enduring memorial of a good name. Although (like that of Abou Ben-Adhem) his name has not been written in the sacred record among “the names of those who love the Lord,” but only “as one that loves his fellow men,” it could not fail of being divinely honoured.
“The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again, with a great wakening light,
And show’d the names whom love of God had bless’d,
And lo! Ben-Adhem’s name led all the rest.”
(Leigh Hunt.)
D.
2Sa 9:5-13
(THE KING‘S PALACE.)
Mephibosheth before the king.
We have here a picture of
I. EXTRAORDINARY VICISSITUDES IS LIFE. A prince by birth, deprived of his father, crippled by a heedless footstep, carried into exile and poverty, recently a helpless dependent in a remote district, is conducted into the presence of one who was once a shepherd boy, afterwards a wandering outlaw, and now the greatest monarch on earth! Such changes:
1. May be largely, though not entirely, traced to moral causes, personal character, hereditary relationships.
2. Are wrought by Divine providence (1Sa 2:7, 1Sa 2:8; Psa 113:7, Psa 113:8).
3. Are designed for human welfare; being not only corrective, but also tentative and disciplinary (Psa 55:19; Job 23:10; Heb 12:6).
4. And should be regarded in an appropriate spirit (Jas 1:9, Jas 1:10).
II. THE DEPRESSING INFLUENCE OF MISFORTUNE. “He fell on his face, and did reverence” (2Sa 9:6); “And he bowed himself, and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?” (2Sa 9:8). His physical infirmity, combined with long continued dependence, made him not merely humble, but timid, anxious, abject, and self-depreciatory. Hence his language (due in part to Oriental exaggeration) is excusable, though scarcely to be commended (Kitto, ‘Daily Bible Illus.’). The natural tendency of heavy affliction to enfeeble and crush the spirit is effectually overcome only by the aid of Divine grace.
III. AN ADMIRABLE EXHIBITION OF KINDNESS; spontaneous, faithful, considerate, magnanimous, practical, enduring, Divine.
1. In gracious and encouraging words. “Mephibosheth!” (2Sa 9:6). “Fear not!” etc. (2Sa 9:7). To David himself, in a time of dejection, Jonathan had said,” Fear not!” (1Sa 23:17); and how often has the Lord spoken the same comforting word to his servants (Gen 15:1; Luk 12:32; Rev 1:17)!
2. In becoming and beneficent acts; fulfilling what had been promised (2Sa 9:9-11), restoring an alienated inheritance, and making a sure, permanent, and abundant provision (2Sa 9:12).
3. In honoured, intimate, and abiding friendship. ‘”Mephibosheth, thy master’s son, shall eat bread alway at my table” (2Sa 9:10, 2Sa 9:11,2Sa 9:13). Such kindness, like sunshine after rain, and as a visit of “the angel of God” (2Sa 19:27, 2Sa 19:28), dispersed his fear, alleviated his misfortune, and filled him with grateful devotion; whilst his presence at the royal table would daily remind the king of his deceased friend, and incite him to renewed generosity.
IV. THE IRREMEDIABLE DEFECTS OF THE MOST FAVOURED EARTHLY CONDITION. “And he was lame on both his feet” (2Sa 9:13). His deformity was incurable; his infirmity became an occasion of complaint and slander (2Sa 16:2-4); and his dejection and distress returned “as the clouds after the rain” (2Sa 19:24-30). The king himself often longed to flee away and be at rest (Psa 55:6). And it is vain to expect perfection in character or condition except in the heavenly mansions.
“There is a spot in every flower,
A sigh in every gale,
A shadow in the brightest hour,
Thorns in the smoothest vale.
“To smile and weep, and weep and smile,
To man alternate given;
To cling to earth permitted while
We learn to long for heaven.”
2Sa 9:13
Lost and found: a sermon to young people.
The story of Mephibosheth may be used as a little parable of the spiritual history of everyone who is restored to God. He was:
1. A prince. To you belongs a more than princely dignity; for you are all “the offspring of God,” and bear on you traces of “the image and glory” of “the Father of spirits.”
2. Lost. You belong to a sinful and fallen race; and your condition is one of deprivation, helplessness, obscurity, and misery. “A true religion ought to instruct man both in his greatness and his misery” (Pascal).
3. Sought. Infinite piety has sought and is still seeking every one of you, and employs many means to find and save you (Mat 18:10-14; Luk 15:1-32.).
4. Found; unexpectedly to himself and to the joy of the seeker. So is it when the gracious message of the gospel comes to you, “not in word only, but in power.”
5. Self-abased; in the presence of the king. When you see the height of Divine greatness and goodness, you also see the depth of your own unworthiness and shame.
6. Comforted. “Fear not; only believe.”
7. Exated; endowed with more than had been lost; and adopted as “one of the king’s sons” (2Sa 9:11). The gifts of God are worthy of himself. When one, to whom Alexander gave a city, declined to accept it, on the, ground that it was unsuitable to his condition, he said, “I do not ask what is becoming in you to receive, but what is becoming in me to give” (Seneca, ‘De Beneficiis’).D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
2Sa 9:3
The kindness of God.
David, settled on the throne and in his new metropolis, recalls to mind the fallen house of Saul, not to destroy them, as was usual with Eastern monarchs, but to show them kindness for Jonathan’s sake. In his inquiry after them he uses substantially the same phrase which Jonathan had used (1Sa 20:14) when he took an oath of him that he would be kind to himself and his family. “The kindness of the Lord,” or “the kindness of God,” is an expression descriptive of the highest and best kindness possible to man or angel. It is kindness which
I. FLOWS FROM GOD. This is true of all the kindness which exists amongst men. “Love is of God.” All the love of men towards each other streams forth from the fountain of Divine love, and should be thus regarded by those who are the objects of it, he being praised for all. But this is emphatically true of Christian kindness. It originates in, and is a manifestation of, the love of God in Christ. It is produced by the Holy Spirit as given to the disciples of Christ, and by means of the truth respecting him (1Pe 1:22, 1Pe 1:23). It is a product of regeneration. It is God’s love dwelling in human hearts and revealing itself in human lives. It is an element of “the Divine nature” of which Christians are “partakers” (2Pe 1:4).
II. IS EXERCISED FROM REGARD TO GOD.
1. It has its root, like all Christian graces, in faith towards God (Gal 5:6).
2. It springs from gratitude and love to him for all his goodness, especially for his redeeming love (1Jn 4:11).
3. It. is practised in obedience to his commandments (lJn 4:21).
4. It aims at his approval
5. It imitates him (Luk 6:36; Eph 4:32). Hence it
III. IS GOD–LIKE. As it is:
1. Disinterested. “Seeketh not her own” (1Co 13:5). Kindness which is exercised with a view to personal advantage is not kindness but policy and commercial subtlety.
2. Expansive. Ready to help all who need, as far as power permits. Not restricting itself to the good and worthy, but “kind unto the unthankful and the evil” (Luk 6:35); nor yet to friends, but extending to enemies (Mat 5:44, Mat 5:45, Mat 5:48); nor to one’s own sect in religion, but regarding with love all Christian brethren (1Jn 5:1; Eph 6:24). Yet it is:
3. Discriminating. The Divine love is united with righteousness, and seeks righteous ends. Hence it cannot be the same thing, and displayed in the same manner, towards the righteous and the unrighteous, the obedient and the disobedient; and it mainly seeks to promote righteousness and salvation in all, and varies its methods accordingly. Christian love and kindness will be exercised with similar discrimination as far as is possible to men; and will seek supremely the moral and spiritual benefit of its objects. Indiscriminate benevolence does more harm than good.
4. Unsparing. “He spared not his own Son” (Rom 8:32), and in him the love of God appears as self-sacrificing (1Jn 3:16) and bountiful (Eph 1:3). Christian love possesses the same qualities of bountifulness (2Co 8:2, 2Co 8:3, 2Co 8:9-11), self-denial, and self-sacrifice. It “endureth all things” (1Co 13:7).
5. Constant. The love of God is long suffering, persistent, and eternal (Psa 103:17; Psa 136:1-26; passim), His children are like him in this respect also (1Co 13:4, 1Co 13:8, 1Co 13:13).
IV. IS NOURISHED BY CONVERSE WITH GOD. The acts and habits of devotionreading, meditation, prayer, praisebring us into closer communion with God, secure us more of his Spirit, open our hearts to receive the impress of his character, promote in us all those sentiments and principles towards him which issue in hearty love and kindness towards our brethren. Let us draw nigh continually to him whose name is Love, and we shall find it ever more easy to be loving.G.W.
2Sa 9:13
Eating at the king’s table.
David, out of regard to the memory of his dear friend Jonathan, and mindful of his oath to him, not only restores to his son Mephibosheth the forfeited property of Saul, and arranges for its cultivation by Ziba and his sons, but exalts Mephibosheth to the position of a constant guest at his own table, “as one of the king’s sons.” So Mephibosheth “did eat continually at the king’s table.” The circumstance may serve to remind us of the greater honour which good men enjoy it is theirs to eat continually at the table of the King of kings.
I. THIS IS TRUE AS RESPECTS THEIR PARTICIPATION OF THE GIFTS OF GOD‘S PROVIDENCE. All creatures depend upon him, and he supplies their wants (Psa 104:27, Psa 104:28; Psa 145:15, Psa 145:16). But the lower creatures partake of his bounty unconscious of the hand which feeds them. They are, in relation to God, rather like the horses in the stable, or the cattle and sheep in the fields, than the children at the table. And what these are through incapacity, ungodly people are through unbelief and forgetfulness. They live on the bounty of God, unmindful of him and unthankful. His children, however, even in the enjoyment of their daily food, “sit at his table.” As he provides, so they recognize his care and bounty, and give him thanks. As he is present, so they are conscious of his presence. They regard him as presiding at their meals, and are glad to discern him so near. They ask for his blessing, and receive it. They “eat to the Lord, and give God thanks” (Rom 14:6). They satisfy their appetites and gratify their tastes as in his sight. They aim “to eat and drink to the glory of God” (1Co 10:31). They not only enjoy his gifts, but commune with himself. They talk with him, and he with them. Common meals thus enjoyed become as sacraments and means of grace. Let it be our endeavour to enjoy them thus more than we have done.
II. THE WORDS ARE MORE EMPHATICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE CHRISTIAN‘S ENJOYMENT OF SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS. In this sense, “he eats continually at the king’s table.” The image reminds us of:
1. His exaltation. Once, like Mephibosheth, living far away from the king, now brought near, and associated with, yea, made really one of, his children. Still “lame” and otherwise defective, and unfit perhaps for much service, yet admitted to favour and honour.
2. The abundance of the best provisions he enjoys. At the King’s table is plenty, and of the best. At the table of the heavenly King, spread under the gospel, are provisions the choicest and rarest, to be found nowhere else; and which nourish, not for this short earthly life, but for life eternal. The best intellectual food is here; but especially that food which quickens and nourishes the soul, in faith, and love, and hope, and holiness. Divine truth and whatever it reveals and presentsthe pardoning mercy and fatherly love of God, the love and sacrifice of Christ, his body and his blood, which are the real food and drink of men. Of these the believing and loving soul may partake at will, anywhere and everywhere. The King’s table is not confined to place; but especially in the house of God and at the Lord’s Supper, the table is spread, and Christians gather together to feed and feast.
3. At the King’s table is the best society. At the table of the Divine King we associate with the Father and the Son, by the Spirit; and by him also with saints and angels, “the excellent of the earth” and the excellent of heaven. The Lord fulfils his promise, “I will sup with him, and he with me” (Rev 3:20).
4. At the King’s table is gladness. The honour, the provision, the company, all tend to give pleasure.
5. There also is safety. The palace of a king is commonly the securest spot in the land. Far more assured is the safety of those who sit at the table of the heavenly King. Angels guard them; God himself is their Dwelling place and Defence.
6. The privilege of eating at the table of our King is perpetual. As in the case of Mephibosheth. If it is not continually enjoyed, it is our own fault. The privilege enjoyed by Mephibosheth would be a constant solace to him in his helplessness; and the spiritual counterpart is to Christians a constant source of comfort and support under their troubles.
III. THE WORDS ARE PERFECTLY FULFILLED IN THE HEAVENLY WORLD. The future blessedness of God’s people is often compared to a feast (see Mat 8:11; Rev 2:7; Rev 19:9). It is, in fact, the continuance and the perfecting of the blessedness now enjoyed, The King himself is perfectly “manifested.” “They shall see his face” (Rev 22:4); “We shall see him as he is” (1Jn 3:2). His love and favour are so displayed as not to admit of a doubt. The provisions at his table are the same as on earth; but the guests are better able to enjoy them, their spiritual appetite and tastes being freed from all that lessens their fitness to do so. The society is the same, but those imperfect on earth are perfected in spirit and in body (Heb 12:23; Php 3:21). The security is absolute; the joy unmingled with sorrow; the feast is perpetual and without end. “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” (Luk 14:15). Who shall partake of that bliss? All are invited by the gospel; and none will be excluded but such as exclude themselves by refusing to accept the invitation, and obtain the necessary preparation for the feast, which consists in reconciliation to the King through Jesus Christ, constant loyalty and obedience to him, and joyful partaking now of his spiritual gifts. To “eat continually at the King’s table” here is the necessary condition of our doing so hereafter, as it is also the preparation for that happiness and the evidence that we shall enjoy it.G.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2Sa 9:1. Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul After the establishment of his kingdom, religion was David’s first care; chap. 2Sa 7:1-2. Friendship now became his second. It is not, I think, to be imagined, but that he well knew there yet survived one of the sons of his dear friend Jonathan. Knowing him, however, to be under the protection of a very considerable family, where he wanted no convenience of life, it was not altogether so consistent with the principles of political prudence to look out for a rival to his throne, before that throne was thoroughly established; and, perhaps, this is one reason why the sacred Writer lets us know that his throne was now thoroughly established, before he made an inquiry after Saul’s posterity. See the foregoing chapter.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
III. The splendid development of Davids royal rule without and within
2 Samuel 8-10
1. Without by wars and victories over Israels external enemies. 2Sa 8:1-14
1And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued [humbled] them; and David took Metheg-Ammah1 out of the hand of the Philistines.
2And he smote Moab and measured them with a line, casting them down to [making them lie down on] the ground; even with two lines measured he [and he measured two lines] to put to death and with [om. with] one2 full line to keep alive. And so [om. so] the Moabites became Davids servants and brought [bringing] gifts.
3David smote also [And David smote] Hadadezer3 the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at [to make an attack at4] the river Euphrates.5 4And David took from him a thousand chariots6 and seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen; and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
5And when the Syrians7 of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, 6David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men. Then [And] David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David and brought [bringing] gifts. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went. 7And David took the shields8 of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. 8And from Betah9 and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass [copper].
9When [And] Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of 10Hadadezer, Then [And] Toi sent Joram10 his son unto king David, to salute him and to bless [congratulate] him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him; for Hadadezer had wars with Toi; and Joram brought with him [and in his hand were] vessels of silver and vessels of gold and vessels of brass [copper]. 11Which [These] also king David did dedicate unto the Lord [Jehovah] with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all [ins. the] nations which he subdued, 12Of Syria11 and of Moab and of the children of Ammon and of the Philistines and of Amalek and of the spoil of Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah.
13And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of [om. of] the Syrians12 in the valley of salt, being [om. being] eighteen thousand men. 14And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of [om. they of] Edom became Davids servants. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
A general survey is here given of Davids wars and victories with the aid of the Lord (2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:14), without its being indicated, however (as is above observed), by the word after this that the wars here detailed were chronologically attached to the events of chap 7, or that these wars were chronologically related to one another as the sequence of mention might seem to show. The phrase after this is the general formula of transition and connection, which introduces Davids wars grouped according to the factual point of view, and works them into the broad frame of the theocratic history. See a similar loose, not strictly chronological connection by this formula in 2Sa 10:1; 2Sa 13:1. The parallel section in 1 Chron. is chap. 18.
2Sa 8:1. The subjection of the Philistines. David not only defeated them in a battle, but also subjected them to his authority. He took out of their hand the bridle of the mother13 ( metheg ha ammah). The Chronicler has for this Gath and her daughters, which words are to be accepted in explanation of our expression instead of giving place to vague conjectures. Ammah (, feminine formation from ) = mother-city; so the capital city of a country is often called in Arabic and Phnician, comp. Gesen. Thesaurus, p. 112, and our word metropolis; and the cities dependent on the capital city are called daughters, comp. Jos 15:45; Jos 15:47. Among the five chief cities of the Philistines (1Sa 6:16-17), Gath in Sauls time already, as seat of a king who appears at the head of the Philistine princes (1Sa 27:2; 1Sa 29:2 sq.), had attained the rank of a capital of Philistia, whence the bridle of dominion was extended over the other cities and the whole people. [These notices do not seem sufficient in themselves to show a hegemony for Gath.Tr.] The bridle of the motherthat is, according to Chron., the power and authority over Philistia concentrated in the metropolis, Gath, the mother with the daughters, or Philistine cities over which Gath exercised authorityDavid took possession of, he subjugated Philistia, and made it tributary, as the nations afterwards mentioned. The king of Gath mentioned in 1Ki 2:39 belonged also to the tributary kings, subject to Solomon, this side of the Euphrates, as far as Gaza (1Ki 5:1; 1Ki 5:4). So Gesenius, De Wette, Keil. Of other explanations of our phrase some do not accord with the meaning of the words, e. g., Schultens, Mich., Ewald render arm-bridle, but ammah does not mean arm, and Grotius gives claustra montis Ammthe fortress of Mount Ammah,but metheg cannot mean fortress. Some do not agree with the actual condition of things, e. g., Bertheau explains, he wrested from the Philistines the dominion that they had hitherto exercised over Israel, but this does not agree with Davids dominion over Israel; and Bttcher takes ammah()as meaning one that goes before and leads, and then in the abstract sense of leading, guidance, the bridle of guidance,but this would suit only if the setting aside of a hegemony were here spoken of (Then.). Looking at the words of Chron., the Sept. (= the separated, marked off) and 1Sa 7:13-14, Thenius conjectures that the text has arisen by error of copyists from an original text, which contained a description (that cannot now be made out) of the boundary-district, which David then forever wrested from the Philistines. In the essence of the thing, this explanation agrees with that above given.
2Sa 8:2. The subjugation of the Moabites.On the former friendly relation between the king of Moab and David, see 1Sa 22:3-4. The cause of Moabs enmity against him is unknown. Perhaps meantime another king had come to the throne than he with whom David sought refuge and with his parents found hospitality. Probably in this war occurred what is mentioned in 1Ch 11:22 of Benaiah, one of Davids heroes, that he slew two of the king of Moabs sons. The severe punishment inflicted on the arms-bearing Moabites (they were compelled to lie in a row on the ground, two-thirds were measured with a line for death, and one-third for life) points to some very grave offence on their part. They thenceforward became Davids servants, that is, were subject to him and paid him tribute. [Patrick: Now was fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam, Num 24:17.Tr.]
2Sa 8:3-4. Subjugation of Hadadezer, king of Zobah.And David smote Hadadezer.Instead of this name we have Hadarezer in 2Sa 10:16; 2Sa 10:19, and in Chron.; so also Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., Josephus. But as Hadad was the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, and frequently occurs in Syrian proper names (see Movers, Phn. I. 196 sq.), Hadadezer, = whose help God is, must be taken as the original reading. [For a different view see Text. and Gramm.Tr.] The district of Zobah was a part of Syria (2Sa 10:6; 2Sa 10:16 and Psa 60:2, where it is called Aram–Zobah), bordering on Syria, beyond the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, whence Hadadezer brought Arameans to his help across the Euphrates. Its position is more exactly described in 2Sa 8:5 (it was near the territory of the Damascus Syrians) and 2Sa 8:9 and 2Ch 8:3 (it touched Hamath on the north, at the Orontes). It must therefore be put north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and the Euphrates. Comp. Winer, R.-B. II. 738. It seems to have reached so far south that the Ammonites could get help from it against Israel, 2Sa 10:6; 1Ch 19:6. As Zobah was doubtless the capital city of the country, it is probably (Grot., Ew.) to be identified with the city Sabe (Ptol. 2Sa 5:19) which lay on the same parallel with Damascus and eastward towards the Euphrates.14 We must therefore look for Zobah to the east of the transjordanic Israelitish territory and beyond its northern border, and its king must have ruled over a great part of the desert between Palestine and the Euphrates, and consequently over the southern part of Syria (Sthelin, Leben Davids, p. 51). But on what occasion and under what circumstances was David involved in a war with this distant kingdom? The answer to this question will appear in the course of the following exposition. As he went to re-establish his power at the river (Euphrates). [Lit. as he went to put forth his hand = to make an effort or attack. See Text and Gramm. against Erdmanns rendering.Tr.] The question is whether Hadadezer or David is subject here. The Heb. [hand] = power, dominion. The Infin. () means not to stretch out, extend (De Wette), but to draw back, re-establish a dominion, which consequently existed before. Taking Hadadezer as subject, and looking to 1Sa 14:47, where it is said that Saul fought successfully against Zobah, it has been explained to mean that Hadadezer now attempted to regain the territory then lost (Maurer, Bunsen, Ewald, Keil). But can we suppose that Hadadezer waited so long after Sauls death? Rather it is to be presumed that he had long ago re-established his power. In favor of taking David as subject, it may be said that the whole sentence would then have the same subject, which is most natural according to the tenor of the narrative, and that David must have felt called on to restore Israels power up to the Euphrates which had been lost since Sauls time. But against this undoubtedly is the word his power (); for David had not yet occupied the land on the Euphrates. We are therefore obliged to take Hadadezer as subject, who had attempted to restore his shattered power on the Euphrates when David conquered him in this war and made him his vassal. How his power was shattered will appear hereafter. Chron. has to establish (), which agrees with the above explanationand so the Sept. . [=establish]. Which was the original reading cannot be determined. [The phrase in Sam. is a common one; that in Chron. (in the Heb.) is difficult and improbable.Tr.] Against the rendering of Grot. and Cler.: as he (David) went to force back his (Hadadezers) power towards the Euphrates is the prep. in, at () before river, and the change of persons in this subordinate sentence (Thenius). [Adopting the rendering suggested above, the reference may very well be to David as the subject: David going to make an attack at the Euphrates, was naturally opposed by the powerful Hadadezer; otherwise it is difficult to see how Hadadezers attack in this region could have brought him in contact with David.Tr.] The Masora adds Euphrates after river [so Eng. A. V.],which, however, is not necessary, since the word the river () of itself means the Euphrates.15 How important it must have been for David to rest his power on this side on the Euphrates is obvious. 2Sa 8:4. And David took (prisoners) from him 1700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen.Chron. has 7000 horsemen and 1000 chariots. Here, therefore, the word chariot has fallen out, and the sign for seven thousand () been changed to that for seven hundred (). The text of Chron. is the correct one; for to 20,000 footmen in the plains of Syria 7000 horsemen is evidently better proportioned than 1700 (Thenius). The 1000 chariots also accords with the connection, because afterward David is said to have houghed the chariot-horses (Cler.). And David lamed all the riding-animals.The word () means riding-animals in general, not merely chariot-horses (so Isa 21:7). These David made useless and harmless by cutting the sinews of their hind feet (.comp. Jdg 11:6; Jdg 11:9). It was a matter of importance to David to render useless not the chariots, but the horses. [He reserved a hundred horses not for war, but for a triumph or a guard; whether or not this reservation was illegal and ungodly is not said.Tr.]
2Sa 8:5-8. The conquest of Aram-Damascus (the Syrians of Damascus). 2Sa 8:5. Aram-Damascusthat is, the Aramans whose capital was Damascus (Chron. Darmesek, Sam. Dammesek)east of the Antilibanon range, on the Chrysorrhoas (Pharpar) river, and on the great caravan-route from Central Asia to Western Asia. These Syrians of Damascus came as allies to the help of Hadadezer, attacking David from the north, but suffered a severe defeat, as appears from the fact that they lost 22,000 men. [See Josephus reference here to the account of Nicolaus of Damascus (Ant. 7, 5, 2), who mentions a Syrian king Hadad beaten at the Euphrates by David (Then.).Tr.]
2Sa 8:6. To hold them in subjection he placed posts, garrisons in their territory, comp. 1Sa 10:5; 1Sa 13:3. He made them subject and tributary to him. [Some render officers instead of garrisons, but hardly so well.Tr.]
2Sa 8:7. Shields (), not armour, comp. 2Ki 11:10, Gesen., Thes. and Lex. by Dietrich. The golden shields of Hadadezers servants (that is, his immediate guard) David sent as booty to Jerusalem. The Sept. here has the additional statement: And Susakim [Shishak] king of Egypt took them away when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Roboam, son of Solomon, of which there is no trace in any other version or in Chron., and which there is no good reason for introducing into our text (against Thenius), since, by comparing 1Ch 18:8 (where the use made of the copper is mentioned), and 1Ki 14:25-27, it is clear how a translator or copyist from inexact observation of these passages might have been led to make such an addition to the text as marginal note or explanation. [Keil also points out that the shields carried off by Shishak were not these captured by David, but those made by Solomon.Tr.]
2Sa 8:8. And from Hadadezers cities Betah and Berothai took king David very much copper.It is not possible to determine certainly the position of these cities. But it may be conjectured that Berothai (comp. Eze 47:16), for which Chron. has Kun, is identical either with Barathena, near Sabe (Ptol. Geog. 5, 19, 5; so Ewald), or with the present Berah south-east of Damascus (Thenius), or with Birtha on the eastern bank of the Euphrates (= Birtha, Ptol. Geog. 5, 19, 3), not to be confounded with Birtha, on the Tigris (Ptol. Geog. 5, 18, 9). The old Phnician Berytus on the Mediterranean Sea (= Beirut) is out of the question, since the territory of the king of Zobah could certainly not have reached so far. The name may be derived as well from berosh [cypress], in Syrian beroth, as from beer [a well] (Thenius). See Winer s. v. (Bib. Comm.: Can the Wady Barada be the modern representative of the name?Tr.] Instead of Betah Chron. has Tibhath, to which answer the Metebak of the Sept. and the Tebah of the Syriacso that we may suppose from Tebah () to be the original reading (Then., Keil). This is favored by the Tebah of Gen 22:24 (which points to this region), the name of a son of Nahor, and also of a place that now stands north of Damascus and Tadmor, between Tadmor and Aleppo (Bsching, Erdbeschreib. XI., I., 544). The booty of these cities consisted of a large quantity of copper. Chronicles (either, as Movers supposes, taking it from another source, or using more completely the same source as the author of Samuel) adds in respect to the use of the booty: Therefrom Solomon made the copper sea and the pillars and the coppern vessels. The Sept. adds these words here after very much brass with the insertion and the wash-basins. But there is no reason with Thenius to alter our text accordingly, since the effort of the Sept. to explain and fill out from other material is evident here, as in 2Sa 8:7. [On copper in Canaan see Deu 8:9. Some centuries before this copper was carried in quantities from Syria to Egypt [Bib. Com.).Tr.]The loss of the Syrians in these battles was forty-two thousand men (comp. 2Sa 8:4-5). This number agrees with the statement of the loss in 2Sa 10:18 = forty thousand men. From this alone it is clear that the Araman war that is minutely related in 2 Samuel 10 is the same as that here spoken of. It is to be further noted that the war against the Aramans here related ends with their complete subjection (2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:9). Against the view that 2 Samuel 10 narrates a second Araman war, wherein the subjugated Aramans revolt when David becomes involved in war with the Ammonites, and help them against him, is the fact that in 2 Samuel 10 nothing is said of such a revolt, the Syrians appearing as wholly independent of David and hiring their aid to the Ammonites (2Sa 10:6). Before the Aramans could unite with these latter, Joab defeated them under Hadadezer; the latter called the Aramans from beyond the Euphrates to his help in order to regain his power on the Euphrates, which was lost by that defeat, and they were now also defeated by David (2Sa 10:13-18). This explains our 2Sa 8:3 : as he (Hadadezer) went to re-establish his power at the river Phrath (Luther). In the general view of Davids wars in 2 Samuel 8 this Araman war is briefly related according to its issue under Davids lead. In 2 Samuel 10 the Ammonitish war (here merely alluded to, 2Sa 8:12) is minutely related on account of the history of Uriah therewith connected; and as this war led to that with the Aramans, the latter also, after the summary statement of it in 2 Samuel 8, is fully narrated in 2 Samuel 10 The war with Ammon, whose development could not be understood without the Syrian, is more elaborately narrated (in 2 Samuel 10.) for a special reason only, namely, for the sake of Uriahs history, and is for this reason no doubt merely mentioned in the general view of all the great wars (2Sa 8:12), since otherwise its issue at least would necessarily have been described as fully as that of the Moabite war (Ewald, Gesch. [Hist. of Israel] III. 205). Comp. Keils Comm.,[Eng. Tr., p. 358 sq.]According to 1Ch 18:3 Davids decisive victory over the Aramans was gained at Hamath, that is, Epiphania on the Orontes, a colony of the Canaanites (Gen 10:18), at the foot of Hermon, therefore on the western boundary of the district of Zobah, and on the northernmost border of Palestine, still one of the greatest cities of Turkish Asia, retaining its old name; according to 2Sa 10:17 the victory was gained at Helam, an unknown place; but this difference is insignificant, and may be removed by supposing either that Helam was near Hamath (Keil), or that the decisive combats occurred at both places at the same time.16
2Sa 8:9-10. King Toi of Hamath seeks a friendly alliance with David in consequence of the latters victory over the king of Zobah and his allies.For Toi Chron. has To. When Toi heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer (Davids victory was therefore a decisive one), he sent his son Joram (better Hadoram) to David. Chron., instead of Joram, has Hadoram, Joseph. Adoram, and Sept. Jeddouram; Hadoram (according to Mich., from Hador, the name of a Syrian deity, but see also Gen 10:27; 1Ch 1:21, where it is the name of an Arabian tribe) is to be regarded as the original reading, instead of the Heb. name Joram, which doubtless got into the text from similarity of sound by error of copying or of hearing [or, it is a Hebraization of a foreign name, as often happens.Tr.]. The embassy was 1) to greet David in Tois name, properly, to ask after his welfare, comp. Gen 43:27; Gen 43:2) to bless him, that is, to congratulate him on his victory over Hadadezer. The reason for this congratulation is given in the words: for a man of wars of Toi was Hadadezer, that is, Hadadezer carried on constant wars with Toi; Aq. and Sym. have waging war (). On the phrase: man of wars = one whose call and business is warring, comp. 1Ch 28:3; Isa 42:13. Since Hamath and Zobah bordered on one another, Toi was in constant danger of being entirely despoiled of his authority by Hadadezer, on whom he was perhaps in some degree dependent. Hence his congratulation of David as the expression of joy over the victory that freed him from a dangerous enemy, and of the wish to enter into a relation of friendship and alliance with the powerful victor, to which end he sent rich presents consisting of vessels of silver, of gold, and of copper. [For the forms of ancient Chaldean and Assyrian vessels see Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies I. 91, 386.Tr.]
2Sa 8:11-12. David consecrates to the Lord all the booty of gold and silver taken from the conquered nations. Davids wars were wars of the Lord, in whose name he fought against the enemies of the chosen people, and led the people to victory. Therefore the booty belonged actually to the Lord. David affirmed this by separating it from profane use (this is the primary meaning of dedicated, ), and setting it apart for the Lord, that is, either in general he put it into the treasury of the sanctuary, or he determined that it should be used in making sacred vessels for the temple that was to be built. Instead of the second dedicated () Chron. has took (), which gives the same sense.
2Sa 8:12. From Aram [-Syria] and from Moab and from the children of Ammon and from the Philistines and from Amalek and from the spoil of Hadadezer. Instead of Aram Chron. has Edom, and omits the words referring to Hadadezer, that is, makes no mention at all of the wars against Aram. But as in this enumeration of all Davids wars (as it obviously is) Aram could not, as it seems, be properly omitted, it might appear probable that we should read Aram in Chron. instead of Edom especially as the victory over Edom is not mentioned till afterwards. It might, however, be also supposed that Aram was omitted [in Chron.] because the booty taken from the Aramans has just been spoken of, and the further mention of booty from other nations was attached immediately to that statement. On the other hand it is not necessary (with Keil) to suppose a gap in our text after Aram, that is to be filled with from Edom. It may be supposed that, as the Chronicler did not mention Aram because he had spoken of it just before, so our narrator did not include Edom because he intended to speak of the victory over the Edomites immediately afterwards. [On this reading see Text. and Gram. As Edom is geographically connected with Moab and Ammon, and as the spoil of the Syrian Hadadezer is mentioned at the end of the verse, it seems better (with Bib. Com.) to read Edom for Aram; though the Aram of our text might refer to the Syrians of Damascus (so Gill).Tr.]
2Sa 8:13-14. Conquest of Edom. Comp. 1Ch 18:12-13, where it is said that Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, smote the Edomites in the valley of salt, eighteen thousand men, and the statements in Psa 60:2 [superscription] and 1Ki 11:15, which vary from this in minor points.
2Sa 8:13. And David made himself a name. Against the rendering he set up a monument is the fact that such a statement could not have been made here without reference to the Lord and indication of the place, and that it is wholly irreconcilable with Davids disposition that he should here set up a monument to himself. The proper translation is: made himself a name (comp. Gen 11:4; Gen 21:1) gained renown (so the Vulg.), 2Sa 7:9, I have made thee a great name, etc., is not in contradiction with this, for it points out the divine causality in Davids glorious military career as contrasted with its human side.The glory of his name was exalted still more by another splendid achievement. As he returned from the battle against Aram, literally, from smiting Aram. The connection alone naturally suggests that the Araman wars related above are here meant. But our text affirms David made himself a name by a new victory over Aram in the valley of salt. The text is here obviously incomplete. The words in the valley of salt cannot be connected with what here precedes, since a battle with the Aramans in this valley, which lay on the ancient border of Judah and Edom in the Edomite territory south of the Dead Sea, is out of the question. Before these words we must insert and he smote Edom, which may easily have fallen out in copying through the similarity of Edom and Aram ( and ). Sept: he smote Idumea. [Or, we may read Edom instead of Aram (Syria), comp. 1Ch 18:12, and see Text. and Gram.Tr.] Davids wars in the north against the Aramans and Ammonites had led the Edomites to fancy that they might easily get possession of the southern part of the Israelitish territory. When David had ended those wars, he returned (the word returned does not refer to Joab (Ew.)see below). Whether he returned on the east or west of the Jordan and the Dead Sea is uncertain. The battle with the Edomites was then fought in the salt valley, the same place where Amaziah afterwards conquered the Edomites (2Ki 14:7). The Edomites lost eighteen thousand men; so also Chron. But in Chron. the battle is fought not by David himself, but by Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, and in 1Ki 11:15 and in Psa 60:2 [superscription] by Joab. There are here no real contradictions, since in different reports (for ex., in the last German-French war) the same battles are referred to different leaders, in one to the Fieldmarshal, in another to his subordinate Generals, in still another to the Generalissimo himself. Abishai, who in the Syrian-Ammonitish war commanded a division of Davids army under Joab, was the conqueror of the Edomites, while Joab was General-in-chief, and David had control of the whole military operation. Michaelis: David as king, Joab as chief commander, and Abishai, who was sent forward by his brother, and overthrew the enemy. Only incapacity to conceive such affairs in their reality and manifoldness can find a discrepancy here. For the rest it is to be noted that the Chronicler, though he names Abishai as leader in this victory, was at the same time thinking of David as the conqueror (in accord with our passage), since he adds: And the Lord helped David in all his undertakings. The difference in numbers also (here and in Chron. eighteen thousand, in Psalms 60. twelve thousand) is unimportant; there is no need to suppose an error of copyist in the last passage (Ew.) to explain it. It receives a simple explanation from the various statements about the battle in different authorities. In the last German-French war the reports of the numbers of killed or prisoners often differed by thousands. How much more might such differences arise at a time when so exact countings were not provided for. [Bp. Patrick suggests that Abishai began the fight and slew six thousand, and then Joab, advancing with his reserve, slew twelve thousand more (so Psalms 60). It is impossible to give a certain explanation of the difference.Tr.] David put garrisons in all Edom (not in Chron). Thenius supposes the reason of the special emphatic statement here (comp. 2Sa 8:6), that no part of Edom was left without a garrison, to be that this was not the case in former campaigns against Edom (see for ex. 1Sa 14:47). But the explanation lies rather in the numerous mountains, caves and gorges of the country, which made a complete garrisoning necessary.Thus had David overthrown the huge column of nations that were dangerous to Israel from north to south, and on its ruins founded his dominion.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. In all his wars and victories over Israels enemies David, as theocratic king, was only the instrument of the Lord, who Himself waged these wars for His people. Therefore in his royal military calling David knows himself also only as servant of the Lord, to whom, as the true Commander, he consecrates and dedicates the booty gained. And the prophetical narrative can say nothing higher of David than that he performed these splendid deeds of arms through the help of the Lord (2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:14). But in these victories over the enemies of Gods people was fulfilled the Lords promise (2Sa 7:10-11), trusting in which David could advance to battle prepared for war and certain of victory.
2. Davids royal calling was to be fulfilled chiefly in wars and victories over Israels enemies, in order that the kingdom of God in Israel might attain its unhindered, theocratic-national full development of form. But from this historical basis is subsequently developed the idea of the theocratic kingdom as a mighty and powerful one that victoriously combats the enemies of the theocracy, and makes them subservient to the divine might and power. On this is then built up the Messianic prophecy of the future king, who in divine might and glory will complete the kingdom of God by the thorough conquest of all its enemies, establish Gods universal dominion in the people of God redeemed from the world-powers, and dispense Gods blessing under His protection and pastoral fidelity. Compare especially Psalms 2, 72, 110, which in their historical foundation and fundamental ideas are unintelligible without the history of Davids wars and victories (ch. 8.) that lays the foundation both for the Messianic prophecy and for the promise in ch. 7.
3. Under the guidance of Psalms 60which refers to the impending new war with the Edomite (after the glorious conclusion of the Syrian-Ammonite war) and to Israels new danger from their inroad (Delitzsch, Moll), not to the situation after the victory over Edom in the Salt-valley (Hengst.)it is possible to follow the ups and downs of Davids thoughts under the experiences of this time and afterwards in his recollection of its trials and Gods gracious manifestations, and to exhibit the truths therein contained that hold good for Gods kingdom in all times. After the days of mighty manifestations of divine help there have come for Gods people times of great distress within and without, not, however, by chance, by a necessary natural process or by unavertable fate, but immediately from the Lord. The deep powerful feeling of the absolute dependence of all human life on the Lord permits no lament over calamity, without accompanying declaration that the Lord has sent it according to His unsearchable counsel, and without giving Him the glory by the confession: This hath the Lord done! So Davids lament in Psa 60:3-5 [13] is such a declaration and confession of the Lords omnipotent power in the infliction of severe sufferings and great dangers on His people. O God, thou hast cast us off, thou hast scattered us, made the land tremble and broken it, hast made thy people see hard things, etc.But with such lament and confession is connected in the pious heart the living remembrance of Gods former manifestations of favor in His promises, as the banner that is raised by the Lord for them that fear Him. Thereby has the Lord Himself given His assailed ones the right to remind Him of His promises, and so the lament changes into the prayer: Help, answer us! (Psa 60:6-7 [4, 5]). Praying faith hears the divine answer in the might-displaying word of the living God (God hath spoken in His holiness) wherein He announces Himself as the unlimited Owner and Lord of His land and people, and as the victorious opponent and sovereign of their enemies. These are the two fundamental truths that the history of Gods kingdom everywhere affirms and confirms: the Lord acknowledges His people (as His possession) with His promises and their fulfilment; and the enemies of Gods kingdom and people will not be able to elude His power, but must submit to it (Psa 60:8-10 [68]). But in how sharp contradiction of such divine promises is the actual condition of Gods people in the world? Hast thou not cast us off? Dost thou not go forth with our hosts? (Psa 60:11-12 [9, 10]). [The translation of the Eng. A. V. is also possible, and gives the same general sense.Tr.]. The above lament is repeated in such a question, which arises from the involuntary comparison of the present straitened condition of Gods kingdom and people with the majestic declaration of God that promises victory and dominion over all enemies. This sharp dissonance must penetrate deep into the heart of Gods servant when he sees with equal vividness and clearness both the rich promises of God and the needs and straits of Gods kingdom. But it is resolved into all the more pressing entreaty and prayer for the divine help and into the twofold confident avowal and confession: 1) In God we shall show our power, that is, carry off the victory, and 2) God the Lord, who is in His people, will through them destroy the power of the enemy (Psalm 60:13, 14 [Psa 60:11-12]). The Psalm ceases with the same twofold ground-tone that sounds through 2 Samuel 8. David made himself a name by his victories over his enemies, and the Lord helped him whithersoever he went.
Nearly related to Psalms 60. is Psalms 44,17 which similarly presupposes the affliction of Gods people and the danger of their conquest and dispersion by the hostile neighboring nations. Through the Lords help to the fathers when the land was taken possession of (Psa 44:2-4 [13]) is awakened and sustained faith that the same God, as king of His people, will now also grant His people victory over their enemies (Psa 44:5-8 [47]), so that they shall forever thank Him as they have hitherto boasted of Him (Psa 44:9 [8]). But in contradiction of this tradition of divine help in the olden time and of this confidence is the present overthrow and distress of the people (Psa 44:10-17 [916]) which is felt all the more deeply in view of the peoples faithfulness to the covenant, as the omniscient God knows (Psa 44:18-22 [1721]). But the consciousness of undeserved sufferings and afflictions leads to the profounder conviction that such sufferings, inflicted by the Lord, must be endured for the Lords sake, since the enmity towards the Lords people is directed against the Lord Himself (Psa 44:23 [22]). Therewith, however, is connected also the hope of Gods people, as expressed in their prayer that the Lord would arise from His inactivity and espouse His peoples cause. The ground of this hope and prayer lies in their need of help and in the free grace of God. Psalms 44., being thus similar to Psalms 60. in its course of thought and its historical presuppositions, most probably belongs to the time of affliction expressly designated in Psalms 60., when the Edomites sorely pressed Israel; comp. Amo 1:6. The frightful castigation that Joab inflicted on them (1Ki 11:15) intimates the greatness of the suffering that they had prepared for Israel, and thus serves indirectly to confirm the historical circumstances presupposed in these two Psalms.In Psalms 108. we find a repetition of Psa 60:7-12 [512]) loosely combined with another Psalm-fragment Psa 57:8-11 [711]).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
War is right and a duty before God, when the object Isaiah 1) To guard Gods law and order against hostile power; 2) To preserve gifts and goods granted by God; 3) To fulfil tasks assigned by God; 4) To carry out the clearly recognized plans of Gods wisdom.
2Sa 8:1. Schlier: We see here how it still is at the present day with wars in the world, what righteous and unrighteous wars properly are, but also what wars always ought to be.
2Sa 8:2. Tueb. Bible: To pious kings God gives victory and glory. Pro 20:28.Osiander: That is the most glorious victory and the most fortunate government, when the conquered enemies do not hate the conqueror, but hold him in honor and render him willing obedience.
2Sa 8:3-4. Osiander: If the mightiest foes could not subdue David, so too no human power will extirpate the kingdom of Christ.S. Schmid: Against God and those who trust in God no human might avails (Pro 29:25). When the kingdom of God is the object of attack, the ungodly are somewhat united and help each other, while at other times they are against each other (Luk 23:12; Act 4:27).
2Sa 8:6. Cramer: The heathen also must bring gold and gifts (Isa 60:6), and willingly offer to him in holy attire.
2Sa 8:9-13. A beautiful emblem of the fact that many among the heathen also shall willingly turn to Christ.Starke: Gods promises, though it be late, are yet truly and surely fulfilled (Gen 25:23).18 If God gives to us, we should also give to Him again. But we give to Him again when we do good to His children and servants.Schlier: How well it would be if all rulers and warlike heroes never had their eye on themselves, but always and only on the honor of the Lord, if all happened to the Lords honor alone, if all honor were given only to the Lord, if all booty were spent only for the service of the Lord and never for display and pride.
[2Sa 8:2. David is at the present day often charged with great cruelty for slaying so many of the Moabites; but to most of his contemporaries, friend and foe, it probably seemed a hazardous leniency to spare a full third. The Asiatic rulers have always inclined to what we should regard as extreme severity in punishment; but no man has ever been able to rule long in Asia without such punishments, at least to the extent of making examples, as David did here and in 2Sa 12:31. Is there not danger in the Christendom of to-day that we shall go to the opposite extreme, that mercy to criminals will be carried so far as to become cruelty to society?
2Sa 8:3. Only once, and for a brief season, did the children of Abraham possess the whole region promised to him, Gen 15:18. During all the centuries it was theirs by right through Gods gift; but it was not theirs by possession through their own fault. In like manner, how seldom does national or individual life and character reach up to the height of its heaven-permitted possibilities.Tr.]
[2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:14. I. How trying a life David was leading, in its exertions, hardships, perils. II. How blessed a life amid it all, since the Lord preserved him whithersoever he went!
2Sa 8:10-11. It is the lot of many who wish to be greatly useful that they can but gather materials and devise plans, leaving it for others to build and rejoice. Men forget the former class, but God does not. We speak only of Solomons Temple; but in the eye of God it was Davids Temple too. Does one long for a different task, and feel tempted to repine? That which God assigns will be best for us, if we waste not life in dreaming of some other lot, but faithfully stand where He puts us.Tr.]
[2Sa 8:1-13. Lessons from Davids years of warfare. 1) A pious man may have many enemies. 2) A pious man may be required to spend much of his life in war. 3) A pious man may be compelled to inflict severe punishments (2Sa 9:2). 4) A pious man, even though not always prospered or preserved (2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:14) is always guided and blessed. 5) A pious man will rejoice to consecrate the richest results of his struggles and toils unto God (2Sa 8:10-11).Tr.]
2. Davids Internal Government: Organization of the Administration of the Kingdom (2Sa 8:15-18) and Magnanimous Exhibition of Royal Favor to the Sunken House of Saul.Mephibosheth. Chapter 2Sa 8:1-13.
a. The Administration of the Kingdom and Davids Officers 2Sa 8:15-18
15And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people. 16And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; 17And Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar [Abiathar the son of Ahimelech]19 were the priests; and Seraiah20 was the [om. the] scribe; 18And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over21 both [om. both] the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and Davids sons were chief rulers.22
b. Davids Magnanimity toward Mephibosheth, Jonathans Son. 2Sa 9:1-13.
1And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake? 2And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba. And when they had called [And they called] him unto David [ins. and] the king said unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, Thy servant is Hebrews 3 And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son [There is yet a son of Jonathan] which is [om. which is] lame on 4[in] his feet. And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel in Lodebar.
5Then [And] king David sent and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the 6son of Ammiel, from Lodebar. Now when [And] Mephibosheth23 the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come [came] unto David he fell [and fell] on his face and did reverence. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered [said], Behold thy servant! 7And David said unto him, Fear not, for I will surely shew [show] thee kindness for Jonathan thy fathers sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father, and thou shaft eat bread at my table continually. 8And he bowed himself and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?
9Then [And] the king called to Ziba Sauls servant and said unto him, I have 10given unto thy masters son all that pertained to Saul and to all his house. Thou therefore [And thou] and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits that thy masters son may have food [bring thy masters son food]24 to eat; but [and] Mephibosheth thy masters son shall eat bread alway at my table. Now [And] Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants. 11Then said Ziba [And Ziba said] unto the king, According to all that my lord the king hath commanded his servant so shall thy servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king,25 he shall eat at my table as one of the kings sons. 12And Mephibosheth had a young son whose name was Micha. And all that dwelt in the house 13of Ziba were servants unto Mephibosheth. So [And] Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually at the kings table; and [ins. he] was lame on [in] both his feet.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
a. 2Sa 8:15-18. The internal administration of the kingdom. Alongside of Davids military activity without is here placed the new summary view of the offices and their incumbents, whereby a unitary administration, embracing all the internal affairs of the kingdom was carried on.
2Sa 8:15. To Davids wars, which gained him safety from enemies and dominion over Israel is here attached a general characterization of his government in its inward nature. He was executing, that is, striving in all things thoroughly to establish judgment and justice in the whole nation.According to this point of view he ordered and administered the affairs of the kingdom through the following offices, the names of the incumbents of which are given.
2Sa 8:16. 1) Joab was over the host, had the supreme command of the army, was Minister of war and Chief Marshal in one. See 2Sa 2:18. 2) Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud (Ahilud was a well-known man) was Mazkir (), that is, not the recorder and preserver of the most important events of the kingdom, as Vulg. (a commentariis) and Sept. ( [keeper of the records]) understand it, but the referee in all internal affairs and highest representative counsellor, the Chancellor, who at the same time suggested and drew up the royal decrees and saw to their proper publication and registration in the State-archives. Comp. hler in Herzog. VIII. 15. [For further mention of this office see 1Ki 4:3; 2Ki 18:18; 2Ki 18:37; 2Ch 34:8. It is evident that the office was a very important one; and from the etymology (the word = one who calls to remembrance) it seems not unlikely that it included the recording of important events. It would thus sufficiently differ from that of Sopher (Scribe or Secretary), which would be more personal and political. Gesenius and others refer to the Roman Magister memori and the Persian Waka Nuwis (imperial historiographer). In the absence of any English term exactly representing the Hebrew, the recorder of Eng. A. V. may be retained.Tr.].
2Sa 8:17. Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests (= high-priests). Zadok here appears for the first time; he therefore did not become high-priest till after Davids accession to the throne. Through his father, Ahitub, he was a descendant of Aarons son Eleazar (1 Chr. 5:29 compared with 1 Chr. 5:34 and 1Ch 6:35-37); Ahimelech on the contrary descended through Abiathar from Ithamar, Aarons younger son, 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6. The Abimelech in 1Ch 18:16 is an error of copyist, since we have Ahimelech also in 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6. Elsewhere, however, the two high-priests in Davids time are given as Zadok and Abiathar (2Sa 15:24; 2Sa 15:35; 2Sa 17:15; 2Sa 19:12; 2Sa 20:25), and according to 1Sa 22:20, Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech. Movers, Thenius, Ewald, hence suppose an inversion of names here, so that we should read: Abiathar, son of Ahimelech. But in that case we should have to suppose a similar inversion, so far as regards the change of Ahimelech to Abiathar in 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6; 1Ch 24:31, passages quite independent of ours, where Ahimelech, as son of Abiathar appears as high-priest of Ithamars line alongside of Zadok, who is of Eleazars line. Instead of this violent procedure Bertheau (on 1Ch 18:16), hler, Keil, and others, suggest that Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, had a son of the same name as his grandfather, and that he, for some reason unknown to us, acted as high-priest along with his father who was still living at the beginning of Solomons reign (1Ki 2:27). That he might have had such a son of proper age is to be presumed from 1Sa 14:3. According to 2Sa 15:27; 2Sa 17:17; 2Sa 17:20, Abiathar had a younger son Jonathan, who afterwards joined Adonijah against Solomon [1Ki 1:42], while Ahimelech is mentioned neither there nor here, perhaps because he was no longer alive. But this suggestion is open to grave doubts, not merely because an Ahimelech son of Abiathar appears nowhere but here and in the passages cited from Chron., but especially because elsewhere Zadok and Abiathar appear as the acting priests [=high-priests] under David. There remains the supposition of a historical error (instead of an error of copyist) in the authority used here and in 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6; 1Ch 24:31, the author of the original account having reversed the order of the names. [This supposition of Erdmanns seems the most improbable of all here cited; error in such a point can hardly be supposed in the author of Samuel, with 1 Samuel 22. and the rest of the history before him. An error in copying easily perpetuates itself, though we cannot always explain how it arose, and how it comes to reappear in certain places and not in others.Still less probable is the opinion of Geiger (Urschrift, p. 21) and Well-hausen that there are here traces of a systematic attempt to exalt the line of Eleazar (Zadokites) at the expense of the house of Ithamar; that an Ahitub should occur several times is not strange or suspicious, and the whole tone of the history is quiet and natural, showing no signs of distortion and tendentious manipulation. There seems to be no sound objection to supposing an inversion of these names here by a scribes error. See Text, and Gram.Tr.].Zadok acted as high-priest in Gibeon (1Ch 16:39; comp. 1Ki 3:4) at the Sanctuary, the other in Jerusalem.4) Seraiah was scribe (Sopher), State Secretary, not a military muster-officer, for this is designated by another word (), see 2Sa 24:2; 2Sa 24:4; 2Sa 24:9. Comp. hler (Herz. VIII. 15) and Keil. [So in 2Ki 25:19 a certain military officer is termed the scribe (sopher), the captain of the army, who levied the people, or, perhaps (as in margin of Eng. A. V.) the scribe of the captain of the army. It is possible that the Sopher combined civil and military duties; it has also been supposed (though there is no proof of it) that there were two officers called Sopher, one civil and military (as here), the other ecclesiastical.Tr.].The name of this man in 1Ch 18:16 is Sharsha, in 2Sa 20:25 Sheya [Eng. A. V. has the marginal (Qeri) Sheva] and in 1Ki 4:3 (where the same person is meant) Shisha. According to this, Sheya26 seems to be a shortened form of Shisha = Shavsha, and the latter, along with Seraiah, a second name of the same person. Possibly, however, the difference came from scribal error or indistinctness of letters, whichever was the original form.
2Sa 8:18. 5) Benaiah the son of Jehoiada (a mighty warrior of Kabzeel, 2Sa 23:20-23) was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites (we are to read over instead of the unintelligible masoretic and, as in the parallel passage in Chron.). These two names designate the royal body-guard attached to the kings court and person (Jos. Ant. 7, 5, 4 ). The name Cherethite is to be derived from a verb () meaning to cut down, destroy, it having been the duty of royal guards in the East to execute the death-sentence; so did Benaiah in 1Ki 2:25. Pelethites, from a verb (), to hasten, flee, means runners, the men of the bodyguard having had to carry the royal orders swiftly to distant places. Comp. 2Ch 30:6. In the parallel passage 2Sa 20:23 instead of Kerethi [Cherethi] stands Kari (from , to dig), and in 2Ki 11:4; 2Ki 11:19, for the whole phrase stands: the Kari and the runners; that is, Pelethites = runners. So Gesen. (Thes. s. v.), Then. (here and on 1Ki 1:38; 2Ki 11:12) and Keil (here and on Chron.). The words are adjectives (formed by ) with substantival meaning, designating offices, properly executioners and runners (as the in 2Sa 23:8 [Eng. A. V. captains]). Comp. Ew., 177, 164.Opposed to this explanation is another, first advanced by Lakenmacher (observ. philolog. II. 11 seq.), and then defended by Ew., Berth., Mov., Hitzig, Starke, Rtschi and others, namely, that the Kerethi = Cretes or Carians (), and the Pelethi = Philistines, since the latter are called Kerethi in 1Sa 30:14; Zep 2:5; Eze 25:16. But in the first passage the name designates not the Philistines in general, but a branch of the Philistine people settled in the southwest of Philistia, and in the two prophetic passages the name Philistines stands along with this name (Kerethi), which characterizes them as murderers, exterminators. Further, the view that Pelethi is corrupted from Philistines ( from ) is to be rejected as wholly without foundation (so Keil after Gesen.: who can endure such a contraction in a Shemitic language?). If Kerethi and Pelethi both mean Philistines, the application of two synonymous words to the royal body-guard is as strange as if one should combine Englishmen and Britons, Italians and Welshmen27 (Gesen.). Against this view, moreover, is the later designation Kari and runners, whence Pelethi = runners. Besides, the conjecture that the Philistines immigrated from Crete rests on the indefinite statements of Tacitus (Hist. 5, 1, 2): they say that the Jews fled from the island of Crete, and settled in the extreme parts of Libya, and of Stephanus of Byzantium (s. v. ) that this city [Gaza] was once called Minoa after Minos king of Crete, to which are opposed Deu 2:23; Amo 9:7, which state that the Philistines came from Caphtor. See Keil, Comm. 266 A. 1 [Eng. transl., p. 368 Note]. Further, as Thenius remarks, it is altogther improbable that the patriotic David, so faithful to the service of the one true God, should have surrounded himself with a foreign and heathen body guard, to which Keil (ubi supra) admirably adds against Hitzig: Least of all would David have chosen his bodyguard out of the Philistines, the hereditary enemies of Israel.[The ancient versions throw little light on these words. Sept. and Vulg. transfer them; Syriac has nobles and rustics (Lond. Polyg. soldiers), Chald. archers and slingers.There are strong reasons for holding them to be not appellatives (as Ges. and Erdm.) but gentile nouns: 1) the grammatical form of the words (Krethi, Plethi) points to this; the termination i is used in Heb. to form patronymics and gentilics, and besides to form nouns only from other nouns (sub. or adj.) or adverbs, that is, in general it forms denominative nouns; it cannot, then, be here well referred to verbal roots, as Gesenius and others wish, but must form a denominative, which here cannot well be anything but a gentilic noun; the shalishi of 2Sa 23:8, cited by Erdmann, being a denominative, does not favor his view; 2) in 1Sa 30:14 one of these words, Krethi, actually denotes a Philistine tribe, or a tribe dwelling near Philistia; this establishes the fact that it was the name of a tribe, while of any other use there is no established trace in the Bible; for so also it is used in Eze 25:16 and Zep 2:5, where there is no reason to hold that anything else than the gentilic sense is meant, Ezekiel simply making a play on the name, as is very common in the prophetic writings; 3) add to this that if these words were appellatives signifying executioners and runners, it is not easy to see why the common Heb. words for these offices were not employed, and why our words appear only in Davids time (Retschi).These reasons seem almost decisive for regarding these as proper names (without saying anything of their origin and signification).The objections urged against this view by Keil and Erdmann seem insufficient to set it aside: a) the objection from synonymous names rests on the assumption that both words must be taken as = Philistines; but, as Erdmann himself remarks, the Krethi are only a tribe living in or near the Philistine territory, and the Plethi may be another different tribe or family possibly not Philistines at all; b) it is thought that the later phrase the kari and the runners (2Ki 11:4; 2Ki 11:19) establishes the fact that plethi = runners, and that one of our words being an appellative, the other also must be appellative; but that the common Heb. word for runners or footmen should be used in Athaliahs time (as in Sauls, 1Sa 22:17, and of Absalom and Adonijah) cannot prove that David did not have a special body of guards with a special gentilic name, even supposing the phrase in 1 Kings 11. to be parallel with ours, which is by no means certain; if the Plethi were runners, it does not follow that the word itself means runners; nor is it clear whether the Kari (Eng. A. V. incorrectly captains) are the same with the Krethi (in 2Sa 20:23 the text has Kari, the margin Krethi), rather the word is another proper name (Carians or some other); c) Davids patriotism and piety would be no bar to his taking a body-guard from neighboring tribes, among whom he had probably passed a part of his time of exile, and had many friends (compare Uriah, Ittai, and other foreigners), nor were such men necessarily heathen because they were foreigners, many foreigners having attached themselves to the religion of Israel.As to the origin of the names Krethi and Plethi there is much uncertainty. The first is identified with Cretan by those that think Caphtor (Gen 10:14, Deu 2:23) to be Crete, but against this Ebers has brought strong reasons (gypt. I. 130 sq.); however, independently of any reference to Caphtor, a tribe may have come from Crete and settled on the Mediterranean shore. The connection of Kari with Carian, while not improbable in itself, is yet unproved. The identification of the second name Plethi with Plishti or Philistine (by the falling out of the s letter) is hard and improbable; Bp. Patrick thinks it likely that the name designated an Israelitish family, and refers to the Reubenite Peleth, Num 16:1, and the Judahite of the same name, 1Ch 2:33; Abarbanel (cited and approved by Philippson) regards both words as names of Israelitish families. At present we must be content to remain in ignorance of the origin of the names.Tr.]28 6) And Davids sons were confidential counsellors. As Movers (Bibl. Chron. 302 sq.) has shown, the word cohen [usually = priest] does not here mean domestic chaplains, palace-priests, unlevitical spiritual advisers (Gesen., De Wette, Winer, Maurer, and others), but confidential counsellor, according to 1Ki 4:5, where the same term applied to Sabud, son of Nathan [Eng. A. V. principal officer] is explained by the phrase the kings friend. [This phrase is not necessarily an explanation of the term cohen, but may be simply another descriptive epithet.Tr.]. The periphrastic expression in 1Ch 18:17 the first [chief] at the hand (side) of the king points to the same signification. According to Kimchi the verb () means to serve in an office of dignity; according to Grotius, to do service, whence the participle in reference to God means a priest, in reference to the king a minister. [This seems to be the most probable statement from the examples in the Old Test., the rendering of Sept., Syr. and Chald. here, and the opinion of the Talmud (Bab., Nedarim 62 a) and the rabbinical writers. The fullest discussions are by J. D. Michaelis, Supplem. in Lex. Heb., and Gesenius, Thes. s. v. Our data are hardly sufficient to enable us to speak with certainty of the original meaning of the word.Tr.]
The list of officers (2Sa 8:16-18) is here appended to the statistical-historical account of Davids wars in order to conclude the history of Davids royal rule at its culmination with a glance at the internal administration of the kingdom. It can no more be conclusively decided from this that the Editor here incorporates into his account a [different] history of David (Thenius) than in the similar passage, 1 Samuel 14. It is a list of the high officers of state that stood by him in the internal administration of the kingdom at the moment when he had secured it against the enemies roundabout, and extended it by victories over them, and could now undisturbed give attention to its internal strengthening and organization. The list in 2Sa 20:23-26, on the contrary, gives the list of officers as it stood in his last days after the internal shocks that his government had sustained.
b. Ch. 9 Davids magnanimous conduct towards Mephibosheth. As Mephibosheth was five years old at Sauls death (2Sa 4:4), and now had a young son (2Sa 5:12), what is here related cannot be put immediately after Davids removal to Jerusalem or Ishbosheths murder (2 Samuel 4) (as Then., would do on account of Davids words, is there left any of Sauls house? which might indeed have been spoken with reference to that murder), but belongs to a later period, when David had secured his kingdom within and raised it to its zenith by external wars. These words indicate that David after long wars was had now found a time of quiet to attend to internal affairs, among the most important of which must have been the fulfilment of his covenant of friendship with Jonathan. The narrative shows how he fulfilled Jonathans request (1Sa 20:15), and his own answering promise with royal grace and magnanimity.
2Sa 9:1 Davids question: Is it so that there is yet any one left to29 Sauls house? presupposes that he had made inquiry and gotten information thereof, and now wished to assure himself of what he had heard. He had perhaps some time before accidentally heard of the concealed abode of the unfortunate last scion of Sauls house in a remote place (2Sa 9:5). The words: That I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake refer to Jonathans words, 1Sa 20:14-15 (show me the mercy of the Lord, etc.).30
2Sa 9:2. A former servant of Saul, Ziba, gives exacter information of the person and the place. [Kitto in Daily Bib. Ill. thinks it improbable that David knew any thing of the existence of a son of Jonathan, or that he would recognize him under his altered name (Mephibosheth instead of Meribbaal); Ziba was probably known to some of Davids officers and hunted up by them.Tr.] In Davids question to him (2Sa 9:3): Is there no one, etc., that I may show him the mercy of God? the term mercy or kindness (2Sa 9:1) is more exactly defined as a kindness such as God Himself shows; and this agrees again with Jonathans mention (1Sa 20:14) of the kindness of God, which he begs David to show to him and his house. [Others understand it of kindness in God, out of reverence for God, for Gods sake (Keil), or take the expression as merely a superlative one = very great kindness (Patrick), others combine these three views, and this is better; kindness shown from an indwelling in God will be pure and great kindness such as God shows.Tr.] According to Zibas information [2Sa 9:3-4] Jonathans lame son is in Lodebar in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel. Lodebar ( , in 2Sa 17:27 ) was therefore across the Jordan near Mahanaim and Rabbath-Ammon, perhaps Lidbir,31 Jos 13:26. According to this account Machir was a respected and propertied man, who had taken charge of Mephibosheth after Jonathans death. [See 2Sa 17:27-29.Tr.]
2Sa 9:6-8. Meeting of David and Mephibosheth.Mephibosheth does reverence to David as his king with such tokens of fear that David is obliged to encourage him: Fear not.It was oriental custom, that rulers, and especially those of a new dynasty, should slay all the relations of a predecessor. David relieves him of this fear by declaring: 1) that he would show him kindness for his father Jonathans sake; 2) would restore to him all Sauls landthat is, his private estate at Gibeah (comp. 1 Samuel 9), which had passed into the possession either of David or of remote kinsmen of Saul (Mephibosheth had therefore hitherto been a poor man, dependent on others), and 3) would take him during his life into his house and to his table. Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually.Mephibosheth, overwhelmed by this exhibition of royal grace, testifies his gratitude by gestures (bowed himself) and by words wherein he confesses himself unworthy of such great goodness. The comparison of the dead dog indicates what is lowest and most despicable, comp. 1Sa 24:15. [Grove (Art. Mephibosheth in Smiths Bible Dictionary): These early misfortunes [loss of parents, lameness, poverty] threw a shade over his whole life, and his personal deformity seems to have exercised a depressing and depreciatory influence on his character.Tr.]
2Sa 9:9-13. Mephibosheth put in possession of Sauls estate and admitted to Davids house and table.Davids transaction with Ziba suggests that the latter resided at Gibeah, on the land of Sauls family, and stood in some relation to the family, perhaps that of steward. David 1) informs him that he has restored to Mephibosheth all the property of Saul and of his house. I have given them to thy masters sonson here=grandson, as above (2Sa 9:7) father=grandfather; 2) commissions him (2Sa 9:10) to cultivate the land for him, entrusts him with the management and control of the property. The bring is to be understood of storing into the barns or also of delivery at Jerusalem (Thenius), the latter according to Josephus and Ewald, 303 e. That the son of thy master may have bread and eat it refers not to Mephibosheths son (Micha 2Sa 9:12), as has been supposed in order to avoid the apparent contradiction of Davids statement that Mephibosheth is to eat at his table; there is really no contradiction, since this last statement merely means that Mephibosheth himself is to have the honor of daily eating at Davids table, while these words relate to the general support of the house and family of the so highly honored son of Davids friend. [On the text see Text. and Gramm.Tr.] The statement: Ziba had 15 sons and 20 servants serves to explain the commission: Cultivate the land thou and thy sons and thy servants and to show that Ziba was in condition with his family and servants to manage so large an estate. Something considerable could therefore be made for Mephibosheth (Thenius). 2Sa 9:11 in its two partsZibas declaration that he would perform Davids command, and the statement of Mephibosheth eating at Davids tablecorresponds to the two parts of 2Sa 9:10. The words: And Mephibosheth eats at my table as one of the kings sons cannot be taken as Davids (Clericus, De Wette [Eng. A. V.]), since David would then have said the same thing three times, and there would in general be no reason for such a reply to Zibas words. They are rather to be regarded as spoken by Zibanot, however, as a rejoinder in the sense: If he will live with me, he will be treated as a kings son (Grotius), but as a repetition of Davids word, attached to the as my lord has commanded (2Sa 9:10) with the expression of joyful astonishment and the consequent addition: as one of the kings sons! Ziba, in affirming that all that the king has ordered shall be done, repeats in reference to Mephibosheth his verba ipsissima. This explanation may be preferred to the assumption of a wrong reading here, namely, my table, for Davids table, Sept. (Thenius, Keil), or thy tables (= thy table, Bttcher), partly because the text is not to be altered without pressing necessity, partly because in that case the statement that Mephisbosheth ate at Davids table would be repeated immediately afterwards (in 2Sa 9:13). [For another view of the text see Text. and Gramm.Tr.]
2Sa 9:12. [Mephibosheth was about 13 years old when David fixed his abode in Jerusalem; how old he was now would depend on the chronological position of chap. 9, which cannot be fixed with certainty. The Heb. word () here rendered young is indefinite as to age; for Michas descendants see 1Ch 8:34 sq.;1Ch 9:40 sq.Tr.] The house of Ziba were servants; Vulg. served. Thenius, in view of 2Sa 9:10, would read the Particp. serving (). In any case, the constant servitude of Zibas whole household to Mephibosheth is indicated, while the latter as lord of the land dwelt at Jerusalem as companion of Davids family in the house and at the table.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The picture of Davids royal power and glory in contrast with the poor, crippled son of Jonathan, the last scion of Sauls fallen house, comes out in greater splendor, the deeper the latter humbles himself before him and trusts himself to his favor. In his noble conduct to Mephibosheth David demonstrates the friendship that he had sworn to Jonathan.
2. The truly pious and God-fearing man not only shows kindness of God in so far as Gods kindness impels him to show such merciful love as God does, whereby he proves himself in truth a child of God, but it is the merciful love of God Himself that dwells in his heart and works therefrom; for he that lives in fellowship with God receives into his heart through the Holy Ghost the love that is in God, and lives and moves in this love.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
[2Sa 8:15-18. Taylor: In the minds of most readers of the Bible the name of David, king of Israel, is associated mainly with military prowess, poetic genius, and personal piety; and only on the rarest occasions do we hear any reference made to his administrative ability. Yet in this last quality he was at least as remarkable as in any one of the others; and great injustice is done to him if we leave out of view the eminent services which he rendered to his country by the exercise of his governmental and organizing faculties. More than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished for the tribes of Israel.Tr.]
Chap. 9. How true, compassionate love of ones neighbor should be exhibited, is shown by Davids conduct towards Mephibosheth. 1) This love does not suffer the neighbors need to come to it, but searches out and goes after the need; 2) It does not suffer itself to be determined by selfish aims, but does its duty in faithfulness and impelled by Gods mercy for Gods sake; 3) It brings to the neighbors heart, when filled with trembling anxiety and fear, consolation and peace by the words, Fear not; 4) It lifts up the neighbor from his wretchedness and want, by restoring to him what he had lost without fault, and by making him share in the enjoyment of its own blessings, assigned it by God.
How a man after Gods heart, amid experiences of divine goodness and faithfulness, should show the mercy of God towards his fellow-man: 1) By faithfully discharging the duties of friendship; 2) In case there has been enmity, by requiting evil with good; 3) By rendering to one on whom Gods counsel has inflicted misfortune, the words and deeds of humble and helpful love.
The exercise of merciful love is an evidence that one has himself experienced the divine mercy; for this mercy Isaiah , 1) Its source, 2) Its motive, 3) Its example.The mercy of God is that which is shown in God and for Gods sake, Luk 6:30. (Berl. Bible.)
2Sa 9:1. Starke: To poor children whose parents have deserved well of us we should do good in return. Wuert. Bib.: When harm has been done one, and his enemy is no longer present, he should not avenge himself on his posterity, but should forget the wrong, and, if possible, should do good to the children and posterity of the man who wronged him (Mat 5:44).[Henry: David had too long forgotten his obligations to Jonathan, but now, at length, they are brought to his mind. It is good sometimes to bethink ourselves whether there be any promises or engagements that we have neglected to make good; better do it late than never. Scott: Those who have much in their power should sedulously inquire after opportunities of doing good; for frequently the most deserving objects of our compassion are concealed by modesty and patient resignation.Tr.]
2Sa 9:2-3. S. Schmid: All our good works, even works of mercy, must be done for Gods sake.Starke: Our mercy should be ordered according to Gods mercy.
2Sa 9:5. Starke: A Christian should not only love in word, but also in deed and in truth (1Jn 3:18).
2Sa 9:6-7. Cramer: Treat orphans as a father, and thou shalt be as a son of the Most High (Sir 4:10).Wuert. Bible: When parents are pious, their children after their death enjoy the fruit of it (Exo 20:6; Psa 112:1-2).
2Sa 9:7. Berl. Bible: Believers should earnestly take care to show all possible loving service to the children of those whom they have loved in the Lord, since we can then do nothing better than to remind such children of their parents grace, that they may follow them in faith and piety.Schlier: Still is it a good thing for children if they have God-fearing parents, and still for long years may children enjoy the good their parents have done. The piety of parents is worth more than much money and goods.[Cowper:
My boast is not that I deduce my birth
From lions enthroned, and rulers of the earth;
But higher far my proud pretensions rise
The son of parents passed into the skies.Tr.]
2Sa 9:9. Hall: There is no more certain way to glory and advancement than a lowly dejection of ourselves. 2Sa 9:11-12. Osiander: Stewards should serve their lord not with eye-service, but with all fidelity (Eph 6:6; Col 3:22).
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa 8:1. We leave this obscure word untranslated. Erdmann renders it the bridle of the mother, but the Heb. never means mother; so Philippson: the bridle of the metropolis (capital city). The ancient VSS. are discordant and unsatisfactory: Chald. has the fastening of the Ammah, Vulg. the bridle of tribute, Syr. and Arab, render a proper name Ramath-Gamah (which some translate the height of the rush), Aquila gives the bridle of the aqueduct or (according to another edition) the bridle of the ell, Symmachus the authority of tribute, while the Sept. reading suggests that their text contained the stem or . These renderings show the perplexity of the translators; the Rabbinical translation stream or aqueduct (so perhaps Chald.) is improbable, and the rendering tribute equally without authority (=), while the reading in Chron. Gath and her daughters is an explanation, not a translation, if it be not a different form of the same original text. In this uncertainty it seems better to leave the words untranslated, as in Eng. A. V. Perhaps we have here a proper name, possibly a corruption of the text of Chronicles.Tr.]
[2][2Sa 8:2. Sept. has two lines to kill and two to save, and Vulg. gives one line to each division (and so the Syr. in Waltons Polyglot, followed by Arab., but Lees Syr. text agrees with the Heb.); these are changes from desire for symmetry.Tr.]
[3][2Sa 8:3. Erdmann and many others prefer this form Hadadezer to the form in Chron., Hadarezer (which is found in all the ancient VSS. except Chald., and in many good Heb. MSS. and EDD.) on the ground that Hadad is the name of a Syrian sun-god and occurs in many other proper names; but Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., p. 101) says that the name of the Syrian king in 1Ki 20:1 is not Benhadad, but Ben-hadar, which the Assyrian writes Binhidri; Schrader translates the name (the god) Bin is exalted. If this be correct, the reading here is probably Hadarezer, as in Chron.Tr.]
[4][2Sa 8:3. Our text is here to be preferred to that of Chron. (2Sa 18:3). Erdmann renders to re-establish his power, nearly as Eng. A. V. But the phrase here used always means to turn ones hand either literally (as 1Sa 14:27) or figuratively, and either from () a thing (Eze 18:17) or to or against a thing ( in Exo 4:7 in Amo 1:8); here, as not the enemy against whom, but the place in which the effort is made is meant the prep. in () is used; he went to put his hand, direct his attack in or at the river.Tr.]
[5][2Sa 8:3. The word Euphrates, not in the text, is supplied by the Masorites in the margin, and is found in many MSS. and EDD.; its insertion in the Heb. is unnecessary, since the river means the Euphrates.Tr.]
[6][2Sa 8:4. The Heb. here reads: 1700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen; Eng. A. V. divides the first number and introduces chariots in order to account for their mention at the end of the verse (after 1Ch 18:4); Erdmann adopts the whole of the reading of Chron. 1000 chariots, 7000 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen (so also Sept. and then). But Wellhausen objects to this that the at the end is used in a general sense, including the horses of the horsemen,inasmuch as after all the only are houghed, there remain only 100 chariot-horses and not also the riding-horses. Still, as the author may here have chosen to leave out the riding-horses altogether, this objection would not be decisive; but it is in favor of our text that, while not impossible, it is not so easy as that of Chron.Tr.]
[7][2Sa 8:5. Syr. and Arab. read badly Edom and Damascus.Tr.]
[8][2Sa 8:7. The versions render this word () variously, apparently guessing at its meaning from the connection. As Thenius points out, the etymology (from a verb meaning to be hard or strong) and some of the passages where it occurs (as Jer 51:11) favor the meaning armour the rendering shield is now more commonly adopted.Tr.]
[9][2Sa 8:8. The probability seems to be in favor of the reading Tebah.Tr.]
[10][2Sa 8:10. The better reading is probably Hadoram (as in Chron.), with which compare the Hadar-ezer above.Tr.]
[11][2Sa 8:12. Some MSS. and Sept., Syr., Arab. read Edom, a change of one letter only in the Hebrew, and this better suits the connection, where this name is followed by Moab, etc., Zobah appearing at the end.Tr.]
[12][2Sa 8:13. As Syria was not near the valley of salt, this text is manifestly corrupt. We may either read Edom for Syria (so Sept. and Chron.) or insert the clause and smote Edom after Syrians (so Erdmann). The former course is the simpler, and avoids the difficulty of accounting for the omission of any reference to Syria in Chronicles. The Heb. words for Syria () and Edom () differ very slightly.Tr.]
[13][On this phrase see Text. and Gramm. For various explanations see Pooles Synopsis and Bocharts Hieroz. II. p. 225.Tr.]
[14][See Art. Zobah in Smiths Bib. Dict.Tr.]
[15][As in Psa 72:8 : from the river to the ends of the earth (south of Egypt), and so 1Ma 7:8. As the Nahar is the Euphrates, so the Yeor is the Nile.Tr.]
[16][See notes on 2Sa 10:16.Tr.]
[17][The permanent and deep calamity portrayed in this Psalm makes it extremely difficult, if not quite impossible to refer it to the time of David. There is great room for doubt also as to the Davidic origin of Psalms 60. See the Comms. of Delitzsch and Perowne on Psalms for discussions of this point.Tr.]
[18][The mills of God grind late the fine flour, say the Jewish Sibylline Oracles; or as a late Greek writer has it, The mills of the gods grind late, but grind fine.Tr.]
[19][2Sa 8:17. The supposition that our text has here inverted the names seems to be justified by the whole history, which shows no other priest in Davids time by the side of Zadok but Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. Some, however (Bp. Patrick, Wordsworth), suppose that the chief-priest Abiathar is not here named, but the two subordinate priests are given. This is possible, but not probable, because we have here a list of the chief officers of David, With our Heb. text are 1Ch 18:16; 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6. Sept., Vulg., Chald., while Syr. and Arab. have the inversion hero proposed. Erdmann unnecessarily supposes a historical error in the text.Lit.: were priests, the Art. being omitted because they were the only priests (high-priests), as above recorder and below scribe.Tr.]
[20][2Sa 8:17. It seems impossible to decide certainly between this form of the name and those of Chron. (Shavsha), 2Sa 20:25 (Sheya and Sheva) and 1Ki 4:3 (Shisha).Tr.]
[21][2Sa 8:18. The Prep. over () is here properly supplied by Eng. A. V., which, however, incorrectly renders the following (which is to be rejected) by both.Tr.]
[22][2Sa 8:18. So Chron.; others render: counsellors. For the renderings of the verb () in the ancient versions and lexicons, see Gesen., Thes. s. v. Gesenius himself holds that all other meanings of the word are derived from the notion of priest; but while the radical meaning must be held to be obscure, the connection of the use of the noun undoubtedly favors the rendering of Eng. A. V. here, and in 2Sa 20:23-26 and 1Ki 4:2-6. The verb in Isa 61:10 also presents difficulty.Tr.]
[23][2Sa 9:6. On the form of this name, in which the last element was originally Baal, and the reason for the change see on 2Sa 4:4.Tr.]
[24][2Sa 9:10. So all the ancient VSS. except Chald.; the of the Heb. is therefore to be omitted as destroying the syntax, since there is now no object for the verb bring (Eng. A. V. inserts the fruits). Further, some Greek VSS. cited in Montfaucons ed. of Origens Hexapla read: and thou shalt bring bread to the house ( instead of ) of thy lord, and this reading has also been proposed by Bttcher (independently, it would seem, as he does not mention the Greek) and approved by Thenius. The external evidence is distinctly against this reading (it is found only in some anonymous Greek versions), but the internal evidence strongly favors it; for, as Bttcher remarks, the following clause, affirming that Mephibosheth will eat at the royal table, would naturally contrast him with some other person or persons in this clause. The passage would then read thus: thou and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring food to the household of thy master, and they shall eat; and Mephibosheth [himself] shall eat at my table. We might then put for , but it is not necessary, since (house) may take a verb in the Sing. The change of to in copying would be easy, especially as the phrase: son of thy master, is found near, and the error, if it be an error, must have come in very early.On the other hand our present Heb. text () is favored by the similar phrase elsewhere used in this narrative, and the contrast above referred to, while natural, cannot be said to be absolutely necessary. Bttchers emendation may therefore be said to be highly probable, but not absolutely certain.Tr.]
[25][2Sa 9:11. This phrase is supplied by Eng. A. V. on the supposition that these are the words of David, and so Bp. Patrick. Erdmann and others refer the words to Ziba. But it is not probable that David would here repeat his former declaration after Ziba had assented to everything; and in Zibas mouth the words are inappropriate, whether he means his own table (Philippson), or quotes the kings phrase: my table (Erdmann). It is better to regard the phrase as the statement of the narrator. Bib. Com., taking it so, retains the present text and renders: so Mephibosheth ate at my table, etc., regarding David himself as the narrator, which, however, is hard and unexampled. Following Sept. and Syr. we might read. and Mephibosheth ate (= was eating) at the kings table, etc. The word king () may have fallen out through error of eye on account of its occurrence at the end of the verse, or the my table may have been repeated from 2Sa 9:11. To this emendation it is not a sufficient objection that the same phrase would thus be employed by the narrator in 2Sa 9:13; for in 2Sa 9:11 it describes the conclusion of the immediate arrangement made by the king, while in 2Sa 9:13 it concludes the whole account of Mephibosheths position and circumstances, as for a similar reason the statement about his lameness is repeated in 2Sa 9:13.Tr.]
[26] shortened from =, the latter, along with , a second name of the same person.
[27][The word welsh means foreign, and the Germans applied the name to Italians, as the Saxons did to the Cymry.Tr.]
[28][Bttcher omits these two words, and (after the Sept.), renders Benaiah was counsellor, introducing instead of Krethi and Pelethi; but this view has little in its favor.Tr.]
[29]The Dat. is not periphrasis of the Gen. (Keil), nor to be changed into from (), the house (Then.), but indicates appertainment to.
[30][On this speech of Jonathan see the corrected Eng. translation and translators notes.Tr.]
[31][This word is variously read and understood; Eng. A. V. Debir.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter continues the history of David, and is directed to that part of his character which represents the amiableness of his mind, in his kindness towards the house of Saul. Finding, on enquiry, that Jonathan had left a son behind him, David searcheth him out, makes suitable provision for him, and sets him at his own table.
2Sa 9:1
(1) And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?
It should seem by the expression, Is there yet any left of the house of Saul? that he had before this been showing kindness to his family. Indeed, it would otherwise imply inattention in David, instead of kindness; for many years must have now passed since his accession to the throne. No doubt, he was not established in the kingdom for many years after the death of Saul, in consequence of Ish-bosheth’s pretensions to the kingdom: but, after all Israel anointed David king at Jerusalem, and he had gone forth in the destruction of Israel’s enemies, as related in the preceding chapter, David seems to have paid an early attention to the wants of Saul’s house.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
David’s Treatment of Mephibosheth
2Sa 9
THE chapter opens with a question which we should have thought at one period of our study to have been utterly impossible. There is a most subduing melancholy in the inquiry. The voice sounds as if it were being uttered in a great sepulchre. The king’s own sweet music is lost in that atmosphere. The question sounds hollow, dismal, like a poor voice struggling in a cave of wind. “Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul?” What do we remember of Saul? What but greatness and splendour? He was the first king of Israel; his name was famous; his warriors were victorious; his house was based upon broad and deep foundations, and the roof of it seemed to darken heaven. How great his pomp! How infinite his circumstance! Now the question is asked: “Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul?” Can such a house die? Are there influences at work which can crumble the pyramids? “I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away,” a very subtle suggestion of an infinite effect operating continually in human affairs. Not, He was destroyed, torn to pieces, struck by seven thunderbolts, overwhelmed by the aggregated forces of heaven; But, He passed away like a shadow as silently, as suggestively. Nor need we dwell upon the wickedness of Saul in applying this feature of transitoriness to our own circumstances. We remember the disobedience of Saul, and the penalty which fell upon the king; but, apart altogether from mere rebellion or disloyalty to Heaven, it is written upon all earthly things that they are doomed, that they must fade away, that kings and mean men pass on in the same eternal procession. If questions of this kind were not asked, the heart might sometimes at least secretly wonder whether God be not really partial to the rich and strong and great. He seems to spare the tempest from their roof, and to turn away the wind when it would strike their flocks or their lives. But it is not so. With God there is no respect of persons. The lesson to us is this that however sturdy our physical power, however large our public place, however deep our pecuniary resources, we too must decay and pass on. What are we to leave behind us? We can leave much: we can so live that the world will be the poorer for our going. It is there the lesson comes with great power, and yet with ineffable graciousness.
“That I may shew him kindness” ( 2Sa 9:1 ). Once leave David to himself, and he blossoms into wonderful grace of character. He never began a war. David was no aggressor. The shepherdly heart was David’s he began at the sheepcotes, and he never left them as to all high moral pastoral solicitude and love. He was often in war, but always challenged, provoked, defied. Other kings have sprung from their thrones and said, Whom can we fight today? This man sits still on his throne and says, To whom can I shew kindness? In the next chapter he will hear of a man who has lost his royal father, and he will say, “I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me.” Let some men alone and then in very deed their life runs out in kindness. They sometimes indeed turn aside to do things that are not wise and good; still, they are ruled by fine high sentiment, which makes one rather mourn than curse their degradation. Not that it is to be excused. A man may add a little to his own respectability by pronouncing judgment on the errors and sins of David. But remember that again and again when the hand of pressure is taken from him he wants to be a shepherd, to do acts of kindness, to go out after that which is lost until he find it. David always saw where another chair could be put to the banqueting-table. He observed how much food was taken away from the table that might have been consumed there by necessity, could that necessity have been discovered and urged by hospitable welcomes to partake of the feast. Wonderful human nature! sometimes so hideous that we are ashamed to belong to it. There are chapters in the Bible we cannot read aloud, and that even when we are alone we fly through rather than peruse: there are others we would read all day, and cause the sun to stand still that we might finish the tale of eloquence. This double aspect must be surveyed and realised by any who would attempt to estimate the full compass and proper value of that mysterious term Human Nature.
But can Saul or Jonathan have left any man to whom kindness can be shown? Their sons will be wealthy. The inheritance of such men must be a boundless estate. Quite a sad thing is it to be in such circumstances that nobody can do us a kindness; and sadder still to be supposed to be in such circumstances when in reality we are not. We are effusive in our kindness to people who are lying in the street; but there are many men of really radiant face, and merry life, and joyous, happy, witty speech would be glad of the help of a little child’s hand. They are the men who are to be inquired about. Persons are to be glad that the question may be put to them, Where are such men? They will require to be found at twilight, for they shrink from noonday, and their gloom would make midnight a darkness impenetrable. We lose so much when we so rise in life as to think we do not need any man’s solicitude or help. Better be poor than be so foolishly proud. He who does the kindness receives the larger benefit. It is more blessed to give than to receive. These are the profound maxims of Christian doctrine which every man can put to a practical test Then who would refuse kindness even from the poorest? Take it, take it gladly take it all. I say not that to-morrow you may not in some way “fetch a compass” which will never be suspected as to its action, and place tenfold more in the poor giver’s hands. If a child offer you anything, take it gladly, lovingly, as if you had been waiting for it all your life and now seized the chance with great thankfulness. What you are to do afterwards your own heart will tell you.
“For Jonathan’s sake.” It is an honest word. Not” for Saul’s sake”: there are some memories we cannot honour; but “for Jonathan’s sake”: there are some memories we can never forget. How the past lives and burns! We can never repay, in the sense of being equal with, any man who ever did us kindness. Kindness is not to be repaid, in the sense of being discharged, struck off the book of memory, and no longer constituting a pious recollection. Gratitude always says, There is room for another little flower, there is space for another genial demonstration of solicitude and sympathy. Men who suppose they have paid their benefactors are never to be trusted. We can only pay by instalments. Justice may draw a line, gratitude stretches out a horizon. If this is so amongst men of right spirit, what is it in relation to Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church, who bought the Church with his blood, and redeemed it by his unspeakable priesthood? In relation to him nothing has been given whilst anything has been withheld. We cannot pay for our salvation; silver and gold have no place in the region opened by that infinite word: they are terms unknown.
Nothing could be done for Jonathan: he had passed away; but there is always the next best thing to be done. Blessed are they whose quick ingenuity is inspired to find out the next best thing. Who does not long to have his father and mother back again, at least for one whole summer day, that he might load them with proofs of gratitude and love? They had such a weary time of it; they were but poor; they never saw splendid cities, or fine sights, or heard noble music, or looked upon things great but from a distance; they were always in the field ploughing, in the market place bartering, or in the sick-chamber suffering. To have them back one day, month, year, a whole round year! We should live in their delight and find heaven in their contentment. Yet see to it that this sentiment, so pure, like the dew of the morning, be critically examined. The value of it will be shown by what is done now to those who are alive. We cannot do the departed any good, for they have passed beyond the human touch; but we can do deeds to the poor, the ignorant, the out-of-the-way, the suffering, which will be a happy memorial to those we have lost. Take some poor child, open its way in life, and when you have done so set up in your heart’s memory a stone bearing the inscription, “Sacred to the memory of a loving parent.” So write the epitaph of the dead, and the writing shall never be obliterated. What we have to make up in this way! There are aspects of life, when we look in this direction, which simply appal us. We did not know at the time how neglectful we were. We took life roughly: the days came and went, and we paid but little heed to their inner story of detail; now that we have thought the matter over, our hearts are sore, because we see a thousand places where we might have been filial, tender, grateful, helpful, good, according to the measure of God’s goodness.
“Then king David sent….” ( 2Sa 9:5 ). What has David to do with such matters now? He is the king. Why should kings stoop to look after obscure subjects? Does not elevation destroy responsibility? Does not a throne excuse from human solicitude and pity? Does not a great public position exonerate a man from care for those he has left behind? The man struggles up through the king: there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding. David was first a man, then a shepherd, then a king; and in proportion as he was fit to be king he cared nothing for his kingship. Only they are overwhelmed with office who are unworthy of it The man knows within himself whether he can drive six-in-hand, whether he can control circumstances, whether he can “mount the whirlwind and direct the storm.” David was worthy of his throne, and greater than his throne: he was a poet, and who can confer any favour upon a poet that will make him feel proud of mere investiture and prerogative? It is impossible. Let us keep our eyes steadfastly upon the humanity of David. He was so much of a man that he often got wrong as a man. It is a terrible thing to be too much a man. Better be limited, be just barely weight, scrupulously measured: fewer devils will assail us, fewer hells will open at our feet to swallow our ardent and all but uncontrollable life. It may be pious to sit in judgment upon David’s errors, but it is at least human to remember David’s goodness.
Mephibosheth was worthy, too, of his father. He quietly accepted his degradation. He was not one of the men who had a grievance and was continually fomenting the people in order to have that grievance remedied. There was no little philosophy in Mephibosheth. He saw how history had gone; he recognised Providence in events, and he had rest in proportion as he had true piety. There are many men in obscurity who ought not to be there when looked upon from a certain point of view. They could easily establish a grievance, and bring an accusation against public policy or social justice. Mephibosheth waited until he was sent for. Joseph only got wrong in one instance, then hardly wrong; at the time we almost rejoiced in it, for it showed him to be a man after all, and not an angel the time when he said to the prisoner who was about to be discharged, “When thou comest into thine office, remember me.” He ought not to have said that. An interpreter of dreams should not be indebted to the butler of a king. Yet it is well when great men turn aside from their greatness but for one little inch, for then we can take hold of them and cry, “Brothers are we.” Mephibosheth waited until he was sent for, without asking anybody to plead for him with king David. Blessed are they who can accept their fortunes, and who can call fate by the name of Providence. The great, the eternal truth underlying all this is, that there comes a time when sonship rises above accident. Mephibosheth had come to that happy time. He was Jonathan’s son. True, he was lame; true, he was in an obscure position; true, he had counted himself as little better than a dead dog: but there came a time when sonship was the principal fact of his life. So it shall be in the great search which God makes in his universe for the obscure and the lost, the woebegone and the friendless. He will recognise his own image; he will remember his own creation; the very remembrance of this indeed is the explanation of the quest for lost humanity. We are still children. We are indeed broken down, but the fragments are majestic, the ruins are grand. Christ has come to seek and to save that which was lost. “Ho, every one that thirsteth,” saith he, “come ye to the waters, and drink.” It is said of him everywhere, “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” So he does, and when he breaks their bread he shows his Deity.
Prayer
Almighty God, we bless thee for all uplifting of heart; its meaning is more than we can now express. We thank thee for all religious desire: for the tender longing of the heart for further light, for deeper peace and for tender communion with others. This is the miracle of grace in the heart of man. We are dissatisfied, because of the image in which we are made, with all things that are merely of the earth and of time. We can receive more than earth can give; the whole firmament is too small for us: we would see beyond, even into the higher skies where the brighter stars burn. This cometh forth from the Lord of hosts. We do not die as the beasts die; we die in hope: being rooted in the Christ and identified with all the mystery of his cross, we feel, we know, that death is not stronger than Christ; we are assured, though we cannot explain all the reason of the assurance, that we are more than earth, that we were not meant for time alone; there is a purpose divine in our very feebleness, and our infirmity shall not disguise the greatness of thy purpose respecting us. We are weighed down by many burdens. Sometimes we are befooled by our very tears, and think that tears are walls through which no man can see, barriers and boundaries, the end of things. Yet sometimes our tears are as instruments through which we can see far and read all the higher writing which now concerns us; then we bless God for our tears because they have been the medium of revelation to the soul. We would that all our life, poor, short as it is, might be spent in high uses, so that when the time of vision comes we may behold the purpose and see the answer to the mystery, and accept the destiny which grace has provided for ransomed and trustful souls. Let thy blessing be upon us in the perusal of thy word; make it a new word to us, old as eternity, yet new as our present need, far back in the infinite solitude of thine own nature, yet round about us and within us in tender and familiar companionship and conference. Thus we shall live with the patriarchs and with the prophets, with the minstrels and the apostles of Christ; and we shall know that law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, yet that Moses and Christ are one, and the song in heaven is the song of Moses and the Lamb. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXI
DAVID’S KINDNESS TOWARD JONATHAN’S SON; BIRTH OF SOLOMON; FAMILY TROUBLES; THE THREE YEARS OF FAMINE
2Sa 5:13-16
Our present discussion commences with 2Sa 9:1-13 , David’s kindness toward Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth. When Jonathan’s child was five years old, there came to his mother’s home an account of the death of the father on the battlefield of Gilboa, and as the nurse that carried him was frightened and ran with the five year old child, she stumbled and fell, or let the child fall, and it crippled him for life. Jonathan had acquired a very considerable estate. The subsequent history referring to Mephibosheth will appear in a later chapter. David’s kindness to Mephibosheth will give us the conclusion of the history. It certainly is a touching thing that in this connection David remembers the strong tie of friendship between him and Jonathan, and upon making inquiry if there be any left of Jonathan’s house) he finds that there is one child, this crippled son, and he appoints Ziba, a great rascal, by the way, as we learn later, to be the steward of the estate, the rente of the estate to be paid to Mephibosheth, and Mephibosheth to eat at the king’s table. The closing paragraph, 2Sa 5:13 , “So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and he was lame on both his feet.” Spurgeon takes this for a text, and preaches a remarkable sermon on it. He makes it in a sense illustrate the imperfect saint, the lame feet representing the imperfection, continually feasting at the table of his king. That is the manner in which he spiritualizes it, and by which he illustrates the great privilege of a saint to eat continually at the table of his Lord, to sup with him and be with him.
The next point is the birth of Solomon, the fourth son of Bathsheba. He received two names: “Solomon,” which means “peace,” and “Jedidiah,” which means the Lord’s “beloved,” and an announcement was made by the prophet that this child should be the successor of David.
The next paragraph tells about the family of David, and has an important bearing upon the subsequent history of Absalom. Let us give special attention to this record of David’s family. We have names in the Bible of seven of his wives. There were others not named. We have the names of nineteen sons and one daughter. They were the children of his regular wives. He had a good many other daughters not named. Then he had a number of children by his concubines. So we have the names of seven wives and twenty children. There were more wives and more children, but these are enough. I suppose he did not have names enough to go around.
As introductory to the next chapter, which is on Absalom, note that four of these sons became very important in the history. Amnon, the first son, and the son of his first wife, Ahinoam, will figure in the Absalom chapter. The third was Absalom, but his mother was Maacah, the daughter of Tairnai, king of Geshur. Geshur is located in the hills of Bashan. These people were left there contrary to the divine law; that is the law first violated. God told them not to permit any Canaanites to remain in the Promised Land, but we learn in Jos 13:13 that the Geshurites were allowed to remain. Another law was, as you learned from Deu 7 , that the Israelitish people should not marry into these tribes. David violated that law by marrying the daughter of the king of Geshur. So there are two violations of the law in connection with Absalom. Absalom was half Geshurite and half Israelite. The next son of any particular note was the fourth son, Adonijah. We come to him later. His mother was still a different woman, about whom we do not know anything in particular. The next son is Solomon, the tenth son. The first son of importance in the history is Amnon; second important in history (the third son) Absalom; third son important in history by a different mother is Adonijah; and the fourth important son (the tenth son) Solomon. The law in Deuteronomy says that if they should select a king, he should not multiply wives; there is the third law violated. So, in going back to the past violations of the law of God, the evils of polygamy are manifest in David’s history. There would necessarily be jealousies on the part of the various mothers in their aspirations for their sons. It is said that every crow thinks its nestling is the whitest bird in the world) and every mother thinks her child E Pluribus Unnm. She is very ambitious for him) and she looks with a jealous eye upon any possible rival of her child. These four sons Amnon) Absalom, Adonijah, and Solomon, all illustrate the evils of polygamy.
Yet another law was violated. Kings now make marriages for State reasons; for instance, the prince of England will be contracted in marriage to some princess of France, or a princess of England contracted in marriage to a prince of Sapin) like Phillip II. Through these State marriages some of the greatest evils that have ever been known came upon the world) and some of the greatest wars. When David married the daughter of the king of Geshur, there was a political reason for it; he wanted to strengthen himself against Saul, and that gave him an ally right on the border of the territory held by Saul. We will find Solomon making these political marriages, marrying the daughter of the king of Egypt, for instance. That is the fourth law violated, all in connection with Absalom. I name one other law, a law which included the king and every other father, that his children should be disciplined and brought up in the fear and admonition of God. That Eli did not do, and David did not do. The violation of that law appears in the case of Absalom.
In running comment on our text we next consider from page 138 National Calamities, 2Sa 21:1 : “And there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David sought the face of the Lord.” In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses in his farewell address sets before the people, so clearly that they could not possible misunderstand, that famines and pestilences are God’s messengers of chastisement; that if they kept God’s law they should be blessed in basket and store, but if they sinned he would make the heavens brass above and the earth iron beneath.
This famine resulted from a drought. When the drought first commenced, no particular attention was paid to it, except that everybody knew that it meant hard times. The second year and still no rain, no crops, no grass, and it began to be a very serious matter. When the third year came, it became awful, and men began to ask what was the cause of it, and they remembered God’s law that when they sinned against him, he would send famine and pestilence upon them. David determines to find out the cause, so he goes before the Lord and asks him the reason of this terrible chastisement on the land, and the answer is given in our text: “And the Lord said, It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.”
Let us look at that case of Saul. Saul was king of Israel; David had been anointed to succeed him, and there was sharp jealously between David and Saul, particularly upon Saul’s part, and he was seeking methods to strengthen himself. One thing that a king needs, or thinks that he needs, in order to strengthen himself with his adherents, is to have places to give them fat offices, estates to bequeath to them. Saul, being a poor man himself, looks around to see how he can fill his treasury and reward his followers, particularly the Benjamites, and right there in the tribe of Benjamin live the Gobeonites. After the fall of Jericho, one of the Canaanitish tribes determined to escape destruction by strategy. So they sent messengers to Joshua in old travel-worn clothes, with old bread in their haversacks, as if they had been a long time on their journey. They met Joshua and proposed to make a covenant with him, and he, judging from their appearance and from the rations they carried, supposed that they must have come a long way and were, therefore, not people of that country, entered into a solemn covenant with them. They thus fooled him and the princes of Israel swore an oath before God that they would maintain their covenant with the Gibeonites. Very soon the fraud practiced was found out, and while they could not, for their oath’s sake, kill these people, they made them “hewers of wood and drawers of water” in other words, servants. They let them remain in the land in that servile position, a kind of peonage state. These Gibeonites had been living there, holding their land, yet servants of the people for about 400 years, uncomplainingly submitting to their position, but on account of the oath made by Joshua, retaining their possessions.
Saul, as I said, looked around to find resources of revenue and said to himself, “Suppose we kill these Gibeonites and take what they have.” And he and his sons, “the bloody house of Saul,” made an attack upon these people and took everything that they had in the world and divided it up among the Benjamites. Saul afterwards boasted of it. He said, “What has David to offer you, and who will give you estates, as I have given you estates?” This act upon his part, (and his family assisted him in it,) was unprovoked, cold-blooded, murderous, and confiscatory, with reference to their property, upon a people that had been faithful as servants for 400 years. And even up to this time in David’s reign these people were yet deprived of any redress.
God did not overlook that wrong. He holds communities responsible for community sins, nations responsible for national sins, and just as he sent a plague upon the children of Israel on account of Achan, so he sent this famine upon Israel, because in the nighttime this poor, poverty-stricken people, who had been defrauded of home and property and almost destroyed by: the “bloody house of Saul,” prayed unto God. God hears such cries. Whenever a great national injustice is done, as Pharaoh did to the Israelites in Egypt, retribution follows, and as the Spaniards did to the Indian tribes whom they subjugated, particularly in Cuba, there came a day when the thunder of American guns in Santiago avenged upon Spain the wrongs that Cuba had borne for 400 years. “There is no handwriting in the sky that this people is guilty of a great inhumanity or national wrong, and therefore I will send a pestilence,” and he sends it and leaves them to inquire the cause.
He sent this famine, and the third year men began to inquire as to its cause, and God answered by pointing out this sin. If that is the cause this nation must remain under the scorching fire of that drought until expiation is in some way made for that sin. David sent for the remnants of the Gibeonites and acknowledged that this wrong had been done to them, and that they, as remnants of the multitude that had been slain by Saul, had a right to blood revenge; so David said to them, “I will do what you say to right this wrong.” They said the children of the man that did this shall die; he himself is out of the way, but they are living. ” ‘The bloody house of Saul,’ seven of them, must be given up to be put to death as we think fit and where we think fit, so that compensation may be made. They must be gibbeted, crucified, and they must remain there in Gibeah, Saul’s home, and the scene of the crime that he committed; they must remain there until the offense is expiated.”
David declined to let any of Jonathan’s sons help pay that penalty. He exempted Mephibosheth, who was eating continually at his table, and who, doubtless, judging from the character of Jonathan, had nothing to do with this grievous crime. He selected two sons of Saul’s concubine, Rizpah. She was a very beautiful woman, and after Saul’s death there came very near being a civil war about her. She occasioned disturbances between Abner and Ishbosheth, who was then king. She had two sons, one named Mephibosheth, the younger one, and the older one, named Armoni. Her two sons and the five sons of Merab (not Michal, as the text has it) were taken by in Gibeonites to Gibeah, Saul’s home, put to death and then gibbeted, after they had been put to death by crucifixion, or put to death and then crucified. “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This execution occurred about the time of the passover, and the bodies had to hang there until it was evident that God has removed the penalty. The rain did not come until October, about the time of the last feast, so these bodies hung there six solid months. Rizpah took her shawl, or cloak, and made a kind of a booth out of it, and resting under it, she stayed there six months and kept off carrion birds and beasts of prey from these bodies two of them her children all day and all night long in her mother love, wishing that the curse could be lifted from the bones of her children; wishing that the disgrace could be removed; wishing that they might be taken down and have an honorable sepulture. Six months after she took that position it rained, the drought was broken, the famine stopped, and the sin was appeased. David heard how this mother had remained there and it touched his heart. He had the bodies taken down and also had the bones of Saul and Jonathan brought from Jabeshgilead, and accorded to all an honorable burial.
What this woman did has impressed itself upon the imagination of all readers of the Bible. The undying strength of a mother’s love! It impressed itself upon the mind of an artist, and a marvelous picture was made of this woman fighting off the carrion birds and jackals. It appealed to the poet, and more than one poem has been written to commemorate the quenchless love of this mother. A mother’s love suggested by the case of Rizpah is found in an unpublished poem by N. P. Willis. He represents the famine as so intense that the oldest son snatches a piece of bread from a soldier’s hand and takes it to his mother, and the youngest son is represented as selling his fine Arab horse for a crust of bread and bringing it to his mother. When I was a schoolboy at old Independence, our literary club had a regulation that every member should memorize at least one couplet of poetry every day and recite it. I memorized a great many. I remember my first two. The first one was The man that dares traduce because he can With safety to himself is not a man. The second one was In all this cold and hollow world There is no fount of strong, and deep, and deathless love Save that within a mother’s heart,
Dore, who illustrated Paradise Lost , Dante’s Inferno, and the Bible, was a wonderful artist. He had 45,000 special sketches and paintings. Perhaps in the Dore gallery of Bible illustrations this picture appears. The artist puts in his picture seven crosses; on one a carrion bird has alighted, and others are coming, and peeping out of the rocks are the jackals gathering to devour these bodies, and there is Rizpah frightening away the birds and jackals. It is a marvelous picture.
QUESTIONS
1. Rehearse the story of Mephibosheth, and David’s kindness to him. Who preached a sermon on 2Sa 9:13 ?
2. What great king was born just at this time, what his names, and the meaning of each?
3. How many wives had David, and how many children?
4. What four sons of David became important in history, what five violations, in connection with Absalom, of the law of Moses, and what the evils of polygamy in David’s case?
5. What national calamity just now, its cause, and how ascertained?
6. Rehearse the story of the Gibeonites.
7. What principle of God’s judgments here set forth?
8. How was this offense expiated?
9. Who were exempted, and why?
10. How did Rizpah show her mother-love in this case, and its impress upon the world?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Sa 9:1 And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?
Ver. 1. And David said. ] Tandem aliquando, long and last good Jonathan’s posterity is thought on and inquired after. Perraro grati reperiuntur. It was much that David, so thankful a man to God as his psalms testify, should be so forgetful of his most faithful friend, and of the covenant of God betwixt them. This is by some accounted to be one of the chief errors of his life.
That I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake.] We must also see where Jesus our fast friend hath any receivers; that since our goodness extendeth not to him, we may show him kindness in his poor people, who are his seed, and do prolong his days on earth. Isa 53:10 Psa 16:3 And herein be nimble, since
“ Gratia, ab officio, quod mora tardat, abest. ”
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 Samuel
DAVID AND JONATHAN’S SON
2Sa 9:1 – 2Sa 9:13
This charming idyl of faithful love to a dead friend and generous kindness comes in amid stories of battle like a green oasis in a wilderness of wild rocks and sand. The natural sweetness and chivalry of David’s disposition, which fascinated all who had to do with him, comes beautifully out in it, and it may well stand as an object lesson of the great Christian duty of practical mercifulness.
I. So regarded, the narrative brings out first the motives of true kindliness. Saul and three of his four sons had fallen on the fatal field of Gilboa; the fourth, the weak Ishbosheth, had been murdered after his abortive attempt at setting up a rival kingdom had come to nothing. There were only left Saul’s daughters and some sons by a concubine. So low had the proud house sunk, while David was consolidating his kingdom, and gaining victory wherever he went.
But neither his own prosperity, nor the absence of any trace of Saul’s legitimate male descendants, made him forget his ancient oath to Jonathan. Years had not weakened his love, his sufferings at Saul’s hands had not embittered it. His elevation had not lifted him too high to see the old days of lowliness, and the dear memory of the self-forgetting friend whose love had once been an honour to the shepherd lad. Jonathan’s name had been written on his heart when it was impressionable, and the lettering was as if ‘graven on the rock for ever.’ A heart so faithful to its old love needed no prompting either from men or circumstances. Hence the inquiry after ‘any that is left of the house of Saul’ was occasioned by nothing external, but came welling up from the depth of the king’s own soul.
That is the highest type of kindliness which is spontaneous and self-motived. It is well to be easily moved to beneficence either by the sight of need or by the appeals of others, but it is best to kindle our own fire, and be our own impulse to gracious thoughts and acts. We may humbly say that human mercy then shows likest God’s, when, in such imitation as is possible, it springs in us, as His does in Him, from the depths of our own being. He loves and is kind because He is God. He is His own motive and law. So, in our measure, should we aim at becoming.
But David’s remarkable language in his questions to Ziba goes still deeper in unfolding his motives. For he speaks of showing ‘the kindness of God’ to any remaining of Saul’s house. Now that expression is no mere synonym for kindness exceeding great, but it unfolds what was at once David’s deepest motive and his bright ideal. No doubt, it may include a reminiscence of the sacred obligation of the oath to Jonathan, but it hallows David’s purposed ‘mercy’ as the echo of God’s to him, and so anticipates the Christian teaching, ‘Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.’ We must receive mercy from Him before our hearts are softened, so as to give it to others, just as the wire must be charged from the electric source before it can communicate the tingle and the light.
The best basis for the beneficent service of man is experience of the mercy of God. Philanthropy has no roots unless it is planted in religion. That is a lesson which this age needs. And the other side of the thought is as true and needful; namely, that our ‘religion’ is not ‘pure and undefiled’ unless it manifests itself in the service of man. How serene and lofty, then, the ideal! How impossible ever to be too forgiving or too beneficent! ‘As your heavenly Father is,’-that is our pattern. We have not shown our brother all the kindness which we owe him unless we have shown him ‘the kindness of God.’
II. The progress of the story brings out next the characteristics of David’s kindliness, and these may be patterns for us. Ziba does not seem to be very communicative, and appears a rather unwilling witness, who needs to have the truth extracted bit by bit. He evidently had nothing to do with Mephibosheth, and was quite content that he should be left obscurely stowed away across Jordan in the house of the rich Machir 2Sa 17:27 – 2Sa 17:29. Lo-debar was near Mahanaim, on the eastern side of the river, where Ishbosheth’s short-lived kingdom had been planted, and probably the population there still clung to Saul’s solitary representative. There he lived so privately that none of David’s people knew whether he was alive or dead. Perhaps the savage practice of Eastern monarchs, who are wont to get rid of rivals by killing them, led the cripple son of Jonathan to ‘lie low,’ and Ziba’s reticence may have been loyalty to him. It is noteworthy that Ziba is not said to have been sent to bring him, though that would have been natural.
At any rate, Mephibosheth came, apparently dreading whether his summons to court was not his death-warrant. But he is quickly reassured. David again recalls the dear memory of Jonathan, which was, no doubt, stirred to deeper tenderness by the sight of his helpless son; but he swiftly passes to practical arrangements, full of common-sense and grasp of the case. The restoration of Saul’s landed estate implies that it was in David’s power. It had probably been ‘forfeited to the crown,’ as we in England say, or perhaps had been ‘squatted on’ by people who had no right to it. David, at any rate, will see that it reverts to its owner.
But what is a lame man to do with it? and will it be wise to let a representative of the former dynasty loose in the territory of Benjamin, where Saul’s memory was still cherished? Apparently, David’s disposition of affairs was prompted partly by consideration for Mephibosheth, partly by affection for Jonathan, and partly by policy. So Ziba, who had not been present, is sent for, and installed as overseer of the estate, to work it for his new master’s benefit, while the owner is to remain at Jerusalem in David’s establishment. It was prudent to keep Mephibosheth at hand. The best way to weaken a pretender’s claims was to make a pensioner of him, and the best way to hinder his doing mischief was to keep him in sight.
But we need not suppose that this was David’s only motive. He gratified his heart by retaining the poor young man beside himself, and, no doubt, sought to win his confidence and love. The recipient of his kindness receives it in characteristic Eastern fashion, with exaggerated words of self-depreciation, which sound almost too humble to be quite sincere. A little gratitude is better than whining professions of un worthiness.
And how did Ziba like his task? The singular remark that he had ‘fifteen sons and twenty servants’ perhaps suggests that he was a person of some importance; and the subsequent one that ‘all in his house were servants to Mephibosheth’ may imply that neither they nor he quite liked their being handed over thus cavalierly.
But, however that may be, we may note that common-sense and practical sagacity should guide our mercifulness. Kindly impulses are good, but they need cool heads to direct them, or they do more harm than good. It is useless to set lame men to work an estate, even if they get a gift of it. And it is wise not to put untried ones in positions where they may plot against their benefactor. Mercifulness does not mean rash trust in its objects. They will often have to be watched very closely to keep them from going wrong. How many most charitable impulses have been so unwisely worked out that they have injured their objects and disappointed their subjects! We may note, too, in David’s kindliness, that it was prompt to make sacrifice, if, as is probable, he had become owner of the estate. The pattern of all mercy, who is God, has not loved us with a love which cost Him nothing. Sacrifice is the life-blood of service.
III. The subsequent history of Mephibosheth and Ziba is somewhat enigmatical. Usually the former is supposed to have been slandered by the latter, and to have been truly attached to David. But it is at least questionable whether Ziba was such a villain, and Mephibosheth such an injured innocent, as is supposed. This, at least, is plain, that Ziba demonstrated attachment to David at the time when self-love would have kept him silent. It took some courage to come with gifts to a discrowned king 2Sa 16:1 – 2Sa 16:4; and his allegation about his master has at least this support, that the latter did not come with the rest of David’s court to share his fortunes, and that the dream that he might fish to advantage in troubled waters is extremely likely to have occurred to him. Nor does it appear clear that, if Ziba’s motive was to get hold of the estate, his adherence to David would have seemed, at that moment, the best way of effecting it.
If we look at the sequel 2Sa 19:24 – 2Sa 19:30 Mephibosheth’s excuse for not joining David seems almost as lame as himself. He says that Ziba ‘deceived him,’ and did not bring him the ass for riding on, and therefore he could not come. Was there only one ass available in Jerusalem? and, when all David’s entourage were streaming out to Olivet after him, could not he easily have got there too if he had wished? His demonstration of mourning looks very like a blind, and his language to David has a disagreeable ring of untruthfulness, in its extreme professions of humility and loyalty. ‘Me thinks the cripple doth protest too much. David evidently did not feel sure about him, and stopped his voluble utterances somewhat brusquely: ‘Why speakest thou any more of thy matters?’ That is as much as to say, ‘Hold your tongue.’ And the final disposition of the property, while it gives Mephibosheth the benefit of the doubt, yet looks as if there was a considerable doubt in the king’s mind.
We may take up the same somewhat doubting position. If he requited David’s kindness thus unworthily, is it not the too common experience that one way of making enemies is to load with benefits? But no cynical wisdom of that sort should interfere with our showing mercy; and if we are to take ‘the kindness of God’ for our pattern, we must let our sunshine and rain fall, as His do, on ‘the unthankful and the evil.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
kindness = grace, favour, or lovingkindness.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 9
In chapter nine David sought to discover if there were any left from the house of Saul. Jonathan and David had made a friendship pact between them that they would do good, and show kindness unto each other, and to each other’s descendants forever. So now that David is established, he seeks to find out if there are any left from Saul’s house that he might honor, and they might keep this pact that he had made with Jonathan. He was told concerning Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth. Now Mephibosheth was only five years old when his father Jonathan was killed in battle with his grandfather Saul, when they battled against the Philistines at Mount Gilboa. When his nurse heard that the Philistines had taken Jonathan, Saul in battle, she was fearful. She grabbed this little five year old son of Jonathan’s, Mephibosheth, and sought to flee. As she did, she dropped him and broke both of his legs. Not being set properly, he became a cripple.
And so it was told David that Mephibosheth was yet alive. So David called to have Mephibosheth brought into him. And when Mephibosheth came in he bowed down, and did obeisance to David. David said, Don’t be afraid, I want to actually honor you seeing I made this pact with Jonathan. And he said, I want to restore to you all that belonged to the house of Saul, all of the properties, the houses and the vineyards, and every thing that belonged to the family. I want to restore them to you. And you are to eat meat at my table from now on ( 2Sa 9:3-10 ).
He was to become a part of the entourage that ate with the king. So David showed great kindness for Jonathan’s sake, and for the vows and all that he had made with Jonathan.
Then David took one of the servants and he made this servant and his family the servants of Mephibosheth, and Ziba with his fifteen sons and twenty servants [were given the orders to take care of his crops and to bring in the harvest, and to just watch over all that belonged to him.] ( 2Sa 9:10 ).
So David showed unto Mephibosheth great honor, and was extremely gracious unto him. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
There is an exquisite tenderness about the story here recorded. David’s love for Jonathan was still fresh. One can easily imagine how in the days of his growing prosperity the king would often think of the former strenuous times and of his friend’s loyalty to him under circumstances so full of stress and peril.
For David the house of Saul, which had done him so much harm, was redeemed by his love for Jonathan; and he instituted an inquiry whether any were left of this house to whom he might show kindness for the sake of his friend.
The inquiry resulted in the finding of Mephibosheth, whose very lameness was tragic and pathetic, in that it had been caused by the flight of his nurse on the awful day of Jezreel, when his father and grandfather had fallen together.
To him the king restored the lands of Saul, and sat him as an honored guest at his own table. David’s own account of his action was that he desired to “show kindness of God unto him.” This declaration recalls the words of the covenant made between him and Jonathan long before, in which his friend had charged him to show him “the kindness of the Lord,” and also that he should show this same kindness to his house forever.
In all this David appears as a man after God’s own heart. The common attitude of human nature would not permit such action. It is ever the kindness of God which heaps favors on representatives of enemies.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Kindness for Jonathans Sake
2Sa 9:1-13
This poor cripple at Lodebar never supposed that David would show him favor. Did he not belong to the rejected house of Saul? What could he expect from one whom his grandfather had hunted like a partridge on the mountains? Besides, his lameness made him unfit for court-life. We, like him, are the children of an apostate race; we have neither beauty nor worth to commend us. We may class together those two sentences: What is thy servant, that thou shouldst look upon such a dead dog as I am? and, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord, 2Sa 9:8 and Luk 5:8.
But Mephibosheth had been included in a covenant. He might be unaware of it, but David could not forget, 1Sa 20:14-16. For the sake of the beloved Jonathan, David treated his son as a blood-relation. Nothing in the course of events could alter the sacred word that David had sworn to his departed friend. Our own case is similar. We were chosen in Christ before the world began, predestined to be sons, included in the covenant between the Father and our Surety. Let us join with Paul in Eph 1:3.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
6. David and Mephibosheth
CHAPTER 9
1. Mephibosheth brought to David (2Sa 9:1-6)
2. Grace and mercy shown to him (2Sa 9:7-13)
The story of Mephibosheth is the first thing mentioned after the government of David had been fully established. Typically it reveals the gospel in a beautiful way, and dispensationally the kindness of God which will be manifested in the coming kingdom. Mephibosheth is a type of the sinner and the condition which he is in. He was helpless, being lame of both feet. How he became lame is found in 2Sa 4:4. He fell and became lame, a helpless cripple. It reminds us of the fall of man and the helpless condition into which sin has put man. Therefore he could not come to David. He had to be carried into the kings presence. The sinner cannot come of himself to the Saviour; He has to seek him out. And David wanted to show him the kindness of God for Jonathans sake. Thus the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man hath appeared (Tit 3:4). God for Christs sake shows His great kindness to sinful man. Mephibosheth means shame out of the mouth; when he hears from Davids lips what kindness was prepared for him he confessed with his mouth his own shame and nothingness. What is thy servant that thou shouldst look upon such a dead dog as I am? And what words of grace came from Davids lips! Surely the kindness of God is here fully made known. He is lifted from his low place of shame to take a place at the Kings table as one of the Kings sons. It is the kindness of God as made known in the gospel of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. He takes us out of our shame and makes us one of His sons. So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually at the kings table; and was lame on both feet. When the kingdom has come the King will show such grace and kindness to the poor and needy (Isa 11:1-5; Psa 72:1-4).
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
kindness
A lovely picture of salvation by grace.
(1) What grace is — kindness to a helpless one for another’s sake, 2Sa 1:1-3; 1Jn 2:12.
(2) Grace gives the highest place, 2Sa 1:11. Eph 1:1-6.
(3) Grace keeps the saved one, 2Sa 1:13; Joh 10:28; Joh 10:29.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
show him: 2Sa 1:26, 1Sa 18:1-4, 1Sa 20:14-17, 1Sa 20:42, 1Sa 23:16-18, 1Ki 2:7, Pro 27:10, Mat 10:42, Mat 25:40, Mar 9:41, Joh 19:26, Joh 19:27, Phm 1:9-12, 1Pe 3:8
Reciprocal: Gen 40:14 – show Jos 2:14 – when the Lord Rth 2:20 – hath not 1Sa 18:3 – made a covenant 1Sa 20:15 – thou shalt 1Sa 23:18 – General 2Sa 9:7 – for I will 1Ch 19:2 – I will show Pro 17:17 – General Pro 18:24 – that hath Isa 32:8 – the liberal Phm 1:10 – my son
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
KINDNESS TO THE LIVING FOR THE SAKE OF THE DEAD
Kindness for Jonathans sake.
2Sa 9:1
I. We should never forget those who have been kind to us.Even if the persons have gone beyond our reach, we should still remember the kindness. Such memories keep our hearts warm in this worlds cold winter. Davids inquiry here shows something very beautiful in his heart. He had not forgotten the friend of his youth. He was now king of all Israel, firmly established on his throne, loved and honoured, and very prosperous. The house of Saul had been completely overthrown and was now in dishonour. These facts make Davids acts all the more beautiful. Elevation too often causes men to forget the kindness of their lowly days, the very kindness, ofttimes, to which they owe their promotion. We should never forget a kindness.
II. Friendships deeds are not lost.It may only be after many days that the bread cast on the waters returns to feed him who cast it there. Jonathan himself never received much return for his beautiful devotion to David. Indeed it was very costly friendship to him. But years after Jonathan was dead one of his children received the benefit and blessing of his fathers faithful friendship for David. Young people do not know how many favours and kindnesses come to them for the sake of their parents or other ancestors. We should never lose the chance to do a kind deed to any one. Besides being a duty of love which we ought to pay, a kind act is also the dropping of seed which will grow into a plant of beauty and good. Some day, years hence, it may come back in a blessing to one of ours.
III. Davids treatment of Mephibosheth was very gracious and beautiful.Mephibosheth was not an attractive person. He was sadly deformed. He was unable to take his place with those who were active in life. There is evidence that he was also a weak character. He was cringing and cowardly. It was not a pleasure to David to have him about his court and at his table. But for Jonathans sake all this was overlooked and covered up. This showed Davids generosity as well as his gratitude. The incident may be used to illustrate Gods treatment of us. We are unworthy and unattractive to Himsinners, our life marred. But we are received into His favour, taken into His family, given an inheritanceall for Jesus sake.
IV. In the after-story of David we have another illustration of the return to kindness.When David was driven away from his home by Absalom, and compelled to flee for his life, he was received by Machir, Mephibosheths friend, across the Jordan. In his home he found refuge, shelter, and entertainment. Thus Davids generous kindness to Jonathans son prepares kindness for David himself. It is often so. We do not know what we are doing when we are showing loves sympathy and helpfulness to some friend or neighbour. Some day it may come back to us many fold.
Illustrations
(1) It is necessary to read 1Sa 18:3; 1Sa 20:14-15; 1Sa 20:42, in order to understand the strong inducement which prompted David to make the inquiry with which this chapter opens. Friendship is a very sacred thing; next to God it is the most sacred and precious thing on earth or in life. It is the mark of a craven and miserable soul to be careless of, or indifferent to, the claims of human love. At any cost we must be true to the end, not only to the living but the dead.
(2) Mephibosheth ate at the royal table, and in this is a beautiful example of what God does still for His lame children who cannot establish their right to aught, but who daily feed on His gracious bounty. Because of the eternal covenant, the lame take the prey. Our very weakness and helplessness are our strongest argument with God. What He has done, He will do. All your days may be as this, and much more abundant, because of Gods infinite resources. O my soul, it is indeed well with thee. Thou hast as much as thou needest, and more also. Thou art as one of the Kings sons. Thou canst see the Kings face, and eat with Him daily!
(3) The wars of David occupy but a small space in the history of his reign. An act of kindness toward the son of his early friend Jonathan, is told at greater length than the battles and triumphs of these numerous wars. Of his own accord, and in remembrance of his vows of friendship, he caused inquiries to be made for any of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness.
(4) Who has such a claim on our love as the orphan? Davids kindness to Mephibosheth is in harmony with the spirit of the whole Jewish law in its treatment of the fatherless. And wherever the Gospel of Christ has gone forth, its first care has been to build the orphanage not less than the hospital, and to act as a parent to orphaned children. In this it works in the spirit of the great Father of all, Whose love depends not on our merits, but is equal to all our needs. Let the orphans be our first care. And let us try to share with them the many and great privileges of our Christian homes.
(5) A good many of us show tardiness in performing our kindnesses. Some of us never get the kindness done at all. We wait till the friend is dead, and then we send flowers for his coffin. But it would be better to send the flowers beforehand, while he lives to enjoy them. Is there any one waiting now somewhere in the shadow for us to come to show to him the kindness of God? Is there a child of some one now dead who befriended us, now needing a friend? Should we not repay to the living the debt we owe to the dead?
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Mephibosheth, a Type of Saving Grace
2Sa 9:1-13
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
The story of Mephibosheth is most fascinating. It has a backward look, as we remember the espousals of Jonathan to David. Let us mark this first of all:
1. The espousals of David and Jonathan. The hearts of these two men were knit together as real lovers. They clave to each other. They made vows the one to the other. They did more,-they proved the sincerity of their love by their continued fidelity. Words are cheap and easily spoken, and sometimes they are no more than passing flatteries. Deeds prove love.
2. The hatred of Saul toward David. Saul became envious of David because of his slaughter of the giant, Goliath; and also because the women ascribed to David the slaying of ten thousands, and to Saul of but thousands. This hatred of Saul’s never changed the heart of Jonathan, Saul’s son, toward his beloved friend. Jonathan even warned David of Saul’s intent on his life, and delivered him from the snares that Saul had set for David’s death.
We need more of the Jonathan type of love. We need to love through difficulties and obstacles, that humanly, are unsurmountable.
3. The reward of an undying love. David did not fail to requite Jonathan’s love. After Jonathan was dead in battle, David proved the reality of his love in his kindness toward Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son. In this kindness David proved himself a true man, for the man he brought to his own table, although Jonathan’s son, was also Saul’s grandson and he was the heir to Saul’s throne.
We trust that many abiding truths will be brought later as the story is studied as a whole.
I. SHOWING KINDNESS FOR JONATHAN’S SAKE (2Sa 9:1)
Saul, David’s enemy, and the seeker of David’s life, is dead in battle. Jonathan, David’s friend, is also dead. David is now enthroned in Saul’s stead, and is king over Israel. The Philistines who had slain Saul had been defeated by David. Peace was now secured, and David turned his attention toward strengthening his kingdom, and making his reign a blessing to his subjects.
1. Mark how David sought to be kind to the house of Saul. David did not enquire if there were any left of the house of Jonathan. It was toward Saul, the one who had so often tried to kill him, and who had forced him to dwell an exile from home and country, whom he desired to favor.
In this David was following in the footsteps of One who had forgiven him so great a debt. He had been by nature a sinner against God, and yet God had been kind to him, and had washed away his sins, and blotted out his transgressions.
2. Mark how David wanted to show kindness to Saul’s house for Jonathan’s sake. He remembered the love which Jonathan, Saul’s son, had shown to him. He remembered his pledge to Jonathan, “Thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house forever.”
Sacred trysts should not be neglected. God has not been unmindful of His pledges to us, which He made in His Son. For Christ’s sake He has saved us with a most glorious salvation. All of this will appear as the lesson proceeds.
II. SHOWING THE KINDNESS OF GOD (2Sa 9:3)
When Ziba, a servant of the house of Saul was called, king David spoke, saying, “Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may shew the kindness of God unto him?”
1. David’s kindness was not natural to his flesh. He called his kindness, “The kindness of God,” as much as to say, “My kindness to Saul’s household is prompted by the Spirit of the Living God who dwells in me.”
Here is a great truth. We need not boast our noble and godlike deeds as though they emanated from within our own being. Our comeliness is His comeliness, placed upon us. Our goodness, and our gentleness, and our kindness, is that which we possess through the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which makes us loving toward our enemies.
2. David’s kindness toward Saul was in fact a true picture of God’s kindness toward us. Herein we have one of the Bible’s best definitions for “grace.” Grace is God’s kindness toward the sinful, the ungodly. Grace is favor that is unmerited. Grace is goodness that is undeserved. Grace deals with us while we are yet sinners. It is unfathomable and incomprehensible.
To love the lovely, and to be kind to those who have been kind to us, is not the kindness of God as manifested in grace. Grace was the kindness of God in providing salvation for the hell-deserving. Grace is the kindness of God in leading to life and light and love for evermore those who are worthy of eternal death.
III. MEPHIBOSHETH AT LODEBAR
Ziba told David that Jonathan had a son, named Mephibosheth, who was lame in both of his feet. This son dwelt in the house of Machir in Lodebar.
1. Mephibosheth dwelt in Lodebar. Lodebar means, “the place of no pasture.” That is where all sinners dwell. Sin impoverishes us. Sin robs us of our rights and riches. The wicked, for a while, may prosper, but how are they cut down in a moment and brought into darkness and despair! It is their latter end that causes us to ponder. To them is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
2. Mephibosheth was lame in both of his feet. When a child, he was made lame when his nurse dropped him, as she carried him, running away from David’s victorious march. Lame from boyhood-lame, for ever lame. The sinner is lame, and cannot get to God unaided and unsought. He is helpless to bring back to himself the restoration of all that he has lost in Adam’s sin. He is helpless because he cannot lift his feet from the miry clay of his evil deeds and place them upon the rock, Christ Jesus. He cannot save himself from sin, neither can he save himself unto eternal life.
IV. DAVID SENT AND FETCHED HIM (2Sa 9:5)
We may draw many lessons along the line of grace, from this act of David.
1. David sent messengers to Mephibosheth. God has sent us to the world. We are commissioned to go into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature.
Christ Himself was sent into the world; and before He left He said to the disciples, “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.” How can people believe in Him of whom they have not heard; how can they hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent.
Across the sands went David’s ambassadors to Mephibosheth. Let us also go.
“Can we, whose souls are lighted with wisdom from on high;
Can we to souls benighted, the Lamp of God deny?”
2. David fetched Mephibosheth. Fetched him from Lodebar, fetched him to the king’s palace. He did not bid him come, he brought him. The shepherd went into the wilds and found the sheep which was lost, and then he put him on his shoulders and brought him home.
Joseph sent wagons to bring his aged father, Jacob, to Egypt. To Israel of old God said, “And even to your old age I am He; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.”
God still bears us in His arms.
V. MEPHIBOSHETH REACHES DAVID (2Sa 9:6)
The Scriptures are silent about the journey from Lodebar to King David’s palace. The events are included in one word, “fetched.” Not so the events when Mephibosheth arrived at the palace.
1. Mephibosheth fell on his face. Here is the right attitude for a subject receiving great favor from his king; here, also, is the right attitude for a sinner seeking favor from his God.
We need more of humiliation and of contrition. We need a deeper sense of our own sin, on the one hand, and a deeper conception of God’s holiness and greatness, on the other hand. It is the broken and the contrite heart that God will not despise.
2. Mephibosheth did reverence. We should not worship men, but we should worship God. We need to see in God the high, and the holy, the eternal One. Mephibosheth realized both the greatness of king David and his clemency. He knew that David had the power to slay him, and the power to keep him alive. He knew that David had the power to confiscate all the goods which belonged to the house of Saul, or the power to restore all to him, as an act of grace. Therefore we marvel not that he did him reverence.
VI. DAVID’S ABOUNDING GRACE. (2Sa 9:7)
1. Restoring to Mephibosheth what he had lost in Saul. Not only did David show kindness unto the house of Saul but he also said, “I will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father.”
When the Lord saves us, He puts us back into the place from which Adam fell. Indeed, all we lost in Adam we regain in Christ. There is, however, more for us than this. God goes David one better, He lifts us up far above what we lost in Adam; He gives us sonship and heirship with Christ forevermore. Heaven itself with all its riches and marvels of glory is included in the salvation which God wrought out for us through His Son and our Saviour.
2. Granting to Mephibosheth a seat at his table. David said to Jonathan’s son, “Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually.” It must have been a wonderful thing to have come from Lodebar and from the place of fear and be housed in Jerusalem in the place of security. Few people had the privilege of eating bread continually at David’s table, but Mephibosheth had that privilege; and yet, Mephibosheth was of the house of Saul.
We have here exactly what God accords to us; only, once more, God goes David one better. David took Jonathan’s son to live with him. Jesus Christ said, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” He also said, that both He and the Father would come unto us and make their abode with us. David did not go to Lodebar to dwell with Mephibosheth. Our Lord, however, does dwell with us in our Lodebar. There is a deeper meaning here. Ultimately God will take us out of this wilderness and we shall be for ever with the Lord. As David received one of Saul’s sons, so are we to be received into eternal habitation and eat for ever at the Lord’s table.
VII. MEPHIBOSHETH’S SERVANTS (2Sa 9:9-11)
Here is something worth your while. The King called Ziba and said, “Thou therefore, and thy sons, and thy servants, shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits, that thy master’s son may have food to eat.”
Is there an analogy for us in all of this? After the Lord has saved us and caused us to eat at His table as one of the King’s sons, does He, moreover, furnish us with servants to watch over us and to serve us?
Let us quote you a verse from Hebrews, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” The angels are our servants. They encamp round about those who fear the Lord and they deliver them.
AN ILLUSTRATION
In speaking of the grace of God made manifest in David’s kindness towards Mephibosheth, we are overwhelmed with amazement. It is simply impossible for us to fathom it all, and to grasp the height, and the depth, and the length, and the breadth of God’s grace toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
We were crossing the Amazon River one hundred miles at sea. When the Captain of our steamer told us that such was the case, we demurred, saying, “It is impossible to cross the Amazon a hundred miles from the South American shore line.” He reminded us, however, that the Amazon four thousand miles from where we stood on board his ship, lying as it did between Ecuador and Bolivia, was one mile wide; and, that at its mouth it was one hundred miles wide, carrying millions of tons of fresh water per second into the bosom of the Atlantic.
The Captain told us if we did not believe the water was fresh, that we could draw up a bucket with a rope, and taste the water. After he had told us this we thought of another river, the River of Grace, that flows from the throne of God and passes hard by every sinful heart. We knew that, with our little tin cup, drinking from the Amazon we could quench our thirst, but we could never drain the river dry. So it is with the Grace of God. Multiplied millions have drunk and have been satisfied, and yet the river flows on full and free.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
2Sa 9:1. And David said, Is there any left of the house of Saul Having ended the wars in which he had been engaged, and settled his kingdom and court, and enjoyed a short interval of peace and tranquillity, like a gleam of sunshine in the intermittings of a storm, he now begins to consider what private obligations he was under, especially to the house of Saul, and above all to Jonathan. His prosperity had, hitherto, in no degree overset him; on the contrary, the blessings God had bestowed upon him appear to have been followed by an increase of gratitude and love to his divine benefactor, and zeal for his glory. These pious dispositions had lately given birth to a resolution of building a most magnificent temple to Gods honour. And he had already made a noble provision for the work. Religion was his first care, and friendship now became his second. He recollected the strong and solemn ties thereof between him and Jonathan, confirmed by the most sacred oaths and engagements; and his present retirement from the hurry and din of war left him at leisure to reflect upon, and take proper measures to fulfil them. That I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake He does not say, Is there any left of the house of Jonathan? for he seems to have had no idea that he had left any son or descendant; but thought his kindness and obligation were to pass to the next of his kindred. As for Mephibosheth, he was very young and obscure, and probably concealed by his friends, lest David should cut him off, according to what had been the usual practice of princes in like cases.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
REFLECTIONS.When princes are in adversity they can be familiar with their faithful friends; but on being elevated to the throne, and thronged with the cares of government, they are apt to leave them neglected and almost forgotten. Davids virtues were however of a superior character. The moment he had returned from a succession of victories, and while crowded with the congratulations of a faithful people, he enquired whether any remained of the house of Saul. He remembered the covenant he had made with Jonathan and with Saul, and that God was the witness of every compact.
David also was mindful of his covenant, though it would be deemed null and void by all his court, because of the seven years resistance and damage occasioned to the kingdom by the opposition of Ishbosheth and Abner. What magnanimitywhat generositywhat benevolence in the Lords anointed!
David gave Mephibosheth all the lands of Saul, and his house, not only when they had been fairly forfeited by the long and injurious revolt; but when David had a numerous race of princes to provide for, as well as victorious relatives and generals, who would require establishments correspondent to the services they had rendered the king. Happy were Israel in the virtues of their sovereign. Every man who had contracted a disadvantageous covenant with his neighbour, and every guardian of the orphan might learn of him how to conduct himself with equity and honour.
While David treated Mephibosheth as a prince and a son, he was kind also to Ziba, a faithful servant in the house of Saul, and invested him with a rental of the fruits, and the management of all the estates. This man must have been either an alien, or a Hebrew servant, who would not at the expiration of seven years leave his masters house; for he was not made free on the death of Saul. Thus David did for Mephibosheth more than he did for his own sons. On reading this high example of virtue, such as became the best of kings, we cannot but be reminded how faithful and disinterested we ought to be in friendship, and kind to the neglected orphans of those to whom we once owed esteem and love. Yea more; we cannot but be reminded how Christ has loved us, and promised us the kingdom, though we have rebelled against him, and are utterly unworthy of his regard. We eat bread at the kings table, enjoy the glory of his victories, and the protection of his arm. Happy Mephibosheth: thy father Jonathan still lives in the kindness of David, who inherits all the virtues of thy illustrious sire.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 Samuel 9. David shows Favour to Meri-baal (J).David, asking as to survivors of the house of Saul, hears of Meri-baal (2Sa 4:4*); he bestows upon him Sauls private estates, and gives him the status of a royal prince at his court.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
When David’s kingdom was established, he was not infatuated with his self-importance, as many men would be. Some would be inclined to get rid of every possible challenger of his position, particularly those of the house of Saul, who had reigned before him.
In contrast to this, David desired to show kindness to someone of the house of Saul who remained living (v.1). He proposed this “for Jonathan’s sake,” whose attachment to David was not to be forgotten. This history is a beautiful picture of the gospel of the grace of God, and reminds us of God’s showing kindness to sinners “for Jesus’ sake.” A servant of Saul’s house is found, named Ziba (v.2), whom David asks if there is one left of Saul’s family to whom he may show the kindness of God.
Ziba knew of one son of Jonathan, lame on both his feet (v.3). We have read of him before in 2Sa 4:4, which tells us that he was crippled through a fall. This is spiritually true of all mankind. Because of Adam’s fall, all his children have inherited his crippled, sinful condition. The man, Mephibosheth, was living at Lo Debar (meaning “no pasture”) (v.4), in other words, a place of desolation with typically no food for the soul. We have all been at one time in this place, needing the grace of God.
The meaning of Mephibosheth’s name is “shame out of the mouth.” When the gospel of grace is preached, it is this “shame out of the mouth” that people usually strongly resist. They justify themselves rather than confessing the shame of their sinful condition. Their unseemly pride becomes the great hindrance to their being sinful condition. Their unseemly pride becomes the great hindrance to their being saved. When Mephibosheth was brought before David he did not act with the bold defiance of human pride, but fell before him prostrate (v.6). This is the only becoming attitude for anyone to assume before the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. David addressed the cripple man by name, and he answered, “Here is your servant.” No doubt he was afraid, when summoned into the king’s presence, that he might even be put to death. Similarly, when we who know we are sinners are called to face our Creator, we are fearful of the eternal consequences. Just as Mephibosheth did not know the heart of David at first, so a guilty sinner does not at first realize how great is the love of God in Christ Jesus.
David immediately sets him at ease, telling him not to fear, and adding, “I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father’s sake, and will restore to you all the land of Saul your grandfather; and you shall eat bread at my table continually” (v.7). What a lesson for us is this, that God is not only merciful in forgiving our sins, but in over abounding grace He enriches every believer with far more than he could ever imagine he would receive! He “has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3)
When David announces to Mephibosheth the many kindnesses he would show him, the response of Mephibosheth is just what is to be expected from everyone who comes to the Lord Jesus for salvation. Do we fully echo the words of Mephibosheth, “What is your servant, that you should look upon such a dead dog as 1?” A dog is unclean: being dead it is corrupt. Both things are true of us in our natural sinful condition.
The man who was virtually destitute is given abundant riches. David instructs Ziba, Saul’s servant, to care for the land that Mephibosheth is given as an inheritance (v.9). Ziba in fact had 20 servants of his own, so that all would be well cared for, with the fruit of the land rendered to Mephibosheth in its due time. But not only were his needs to be met: he was to have the privilege of eating continually at David’s table. The Lord Jesus does not only supply what is necessary for us: He desires our company in fellowship with Him. He is not only kind to us: He loves us. Mephibosheth ate at the kings table “like one of the king’s sons” (v.11).
Verse 12 informs us that Mephibosheth had a young son named Micha, and that all who lived in the house of Ziba were servants to Mephibosheth. Then verse 13 reminds us again that Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table continually, indicating that this is something that should engage our special attention. Again also it is mentioned that he was lame in both feet. Though the grace of God blesses us with innumerable blessings, this does not mean that all our health problems will disappear, as Paul was reminded when he prayed for relief from his “thorn in the flesh” (2Co 12:7-9) when the Lord answered him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” The lame feet also illustrates the fact that the flesh remains in us while we live on earth. However, some one has well observed that when Mephibosheth ate at David’s table, his feet would be hidden from view under the table. So long as we are honestly enjoying communion with the Lord Jesus, the flesh will not show itself.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
9:1 And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for {a} Jonathan’s sake?
(a) Because of my oath and promise made to Jonathan, 1Sa 20:15.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
A. David’s Faithfulness ch. 9
The story of David’s kindness to Mephibosheth (ch. 9) helps to explain David’s subsequent acceptance by the Benjamites. It also enables us to see that the writer returned here to events in David’s early reign.
"It is, in my personal opinion, the greatest illustration of grace in all the Old Testament." [Note: Swindoll, p. 169.]
If Mephibosheth was five years old when Jonathan and Saul died on Mt. Gilboa (2Sa 4:4), he was born in 1016 B.C. When David captured Jerusalem in 1004 B.C., Mephibosheth was 12. Now we see Mephibosheth had a young son (2Sa 9:12), so perhaps he was about 20 years old. People frequently married in their teens in the ancient Near East. So perhaps the events of chapter 9 took place about 966 B.C.
David’s kindness (Heb. hesed, loyal love, 2Sa 9:1; 2Sa 9:3; 2Sa 9:7) to Jonathan’s son, expressed concretely by allowing him to eat at David’s table (2Sa 9:7; 2Sa 9:10-11; 2Sa 9:13), shows that David was, at the beginning of his reign, a covenant-keeping king (cf. 1Sa 20:14-17; 1Sa 20:42). This was one of David’s strengths. [Note: Leo G. Perdue, "’Is There Anyone Left of the House of Saul . . . ?’ Ambiguity and the Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (October 1984):67-84, presented an interesting study of the complexity of David’s character.] His goodness to Mephibosheth was pure grace, entirely unearned by Saul’s son. Yet the story is primarily about loyalty.
It is doubtful that the Ammiel mentioned in 2Sa 9:4 was Bathsheba’s father (cf. 1Ch 3:5), though this is possible. Lo-debar (lit. no pasture) was about 10 miles northwest of Jabesh-gilead in Transjordan and 10 miles south of the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee). David provided for Mephibosheth’s needs in Jerusalem, but Ziba and his family cultivated Mephibosheth’s land and brought the produce to David. Thus the produce of his land paid the cost of Mephibosheth’s maintenance. The writer may have stressed the fact that Mephibosheth was lame (2Sa 9:3; 2Sa 9:13) to remind us of the sad fate of Saul’s line because of his arrogance before God. Mephibosheth physically had trouble standing before God and His anointed.
"Given David’s loathing for ’the lame and the blind’ since the war against the Jebusites (2Sa 5:6-8), one is brought up short by his decision to give Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth, ’lame in both feet’ (2Sa 9:3; 2Sa 9:13), a permanent seat at the royal table. . . . Is David willing to undergo such a daily ordeal just in memory of his friendship with Jonathan, as he himself declares, or as the price for keeping an eye on the last of Saul’s line? Considering David’s genius for aligning the proper with the expedient, he may be acting from both motives." [Note: Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, p. 255. James S. Ackerman, "Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Ananysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2," Journal of Biblical Literature 109:1 (Spring 1990):43; Perdue, p. 75; John Briggs Curtis, "’East is East . . .,’" Journal of Biblical Literature 80:4 (1961):357; and David Payne, p. 197, shared the same opinion.]
The sensitive reader will observe many parallels between Mephibosheth and himself or herself, and between David and God. As Mephibosheth had fallen, was deformed as a result of his fall, was hiding in a place of barrenness, and was fearful of the king, so is the sinner. David took the initiative to seek out Mephibosheth in spite of his unloveliness, bring him into his house and presence, and adopt him as his own son. He also shared his bounty and fellowship with this undeserving one for the rest of his life because of Jonathan, as God has done with us for the sake of Christ (cf. Psa 23:6).
"On the whole it seems very likely that in this instance David’s actions benefited not only Mephibosheth but served also the king’s own interests." [Note: Anderson, p. 143.]
In what sense can the affairs recorded in this chapter be considered part of David’s troubles? We have here one of David’s major attempts to appease the Benjamites. As the events of the following chapters will show, David had continuing problems with various Benjamites, culminating in the rebellion of Sheba (ch. 20). Not all of David’s troubles stemmed from his dealings with Bathsheba and Uriah.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XII.
DAVID AND MEPHIBOSHETH.
2Sa 9:1-13.
THE busy life which King David was now leading did not prevent memory from occasionally running back to his early days and bringing before him the friends of his youth. Among these remembrances of the past, his friendship and his covenant with Jonathan were sure to hold a conspicuous place. On one of these occasions the thought occurred to him that possibly some descendant of Jonathan might still be living. He had been so completely severed from his friend during the last years of his life, and the un-fortunate attempt on the part of Ishbosheth had made personal intercourse so much more difficult, that he seems not to have been aware of the exact state of Jonathan’s family. It is evident that the survival of any descendant of his friend was not publicly known, and probably the friends of the youth who was discovered had thought it best to keep his existence quiet, being of those who would give David no credit for higher principles than were current between rival dynasties. Even Michal, Jonathan’s sister, does not seem to have known that a son of his survived. It became necessary, therefore, to make a public inquiry of his officers and attendants. “Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” It was not essential that he should be a child of Jonathan’s; any descendant of Saul’s would have been taken for Jonathan’s sake.
It is a proof that the bloody wars in which he had been engaged had not destroyed the tenderness of his heart, that the very chapter which follows the account of his battles opens with a yearning of affection – a longing for an outlet to feelings of kindness. It is instructive, too, to find the proof of love to his neighbour succeeding the remarkable evidence of supreme regard to the honour of God recently given in the proposal to build a temple. This period of David’s life was its golden era, and it is difficult to understand how the man that was so remarkable at this time for his regard for God and his interest in his neighbour should soon afterwards have been betrayed into a course of conduct that showed him most grievously forgetful of both.
This proceeding of David’s in making inquiry for a fit object of beneficence may afford us a lesson as to the true course of enlightened kindness. Doubtless David had numberless persons applying for a share of his bounty; yet he makes inquiry for a new channel in which it may flow. The most clamorous persons are seldom the most deserving, and if a bountiful man simply recognizes, however generously, even the best of the cases that press themselves on his notice, he will not be satisfied with the result; he will feel that his bounty has rather been frittered away on miscellaneous undertakings, than that it has achieved any solid and satisfying result. It is easy for a rich man to fling a pittance to some wretched-looking creature that whines out a tale of horror in his ear; but this may be done only to relieve his own feelings, and harm instead of good may be the result. Enlightened benevolence aims at something higher than the mere relief of passing distress. Benevolent men ought not to lie at the mercy either of the poor who ask their charity, or of the philanthropic Christians who appeal for support to their schemes. Pains must be taken to find out the deserving, to find out those who have the strongest claim. Even the open-handed, whose purse is always at hand, and who are ready for every good work, may be neglecting some case or class of cases which have far stronger claims on them than those which are so assiduously pressed on their notice. And hence we may see that it is right and fitting, especially in those to whom Providence has given much, to cast over in their minds, from time to time, the state of their obligations, and think whether among old friends, or poor relations, or faithful but needy servants of God, there may not be some who have a claim on their bounty. There are other debts besides money debts it becomes you to look after. In youth, perhaps, you received much kindness from friends and relatives which at the time you could not repay; but now the tables are turned; you are prosperous, they or their families are needy. And these cases are apt to slip out of mind. It is not always hard-heartedness that makes the prosperous forget the less fortunate; it is often utter thoughtlessness. It is the neglect of that rule which has such a powerful though silent effect when it is carried out – Put yourself in their place. Imagine how you would feel, strained and worried to sleeplessness through narrow means, and seeing old friends rolling in wealth, who might, with little or no inconvenience, lighten the burden that is crushing you so painfully. It is a strange thing that this counsel should be more needed by the rich than by the poor. Thoughtlessness regarding his neighbours is not a poor man’s vice. The empty house is remembered, even though it costs a sacrifice to send it a little of his own scanty supplies. Few men are so hardened as not to feel the obligation to show kindness when that obligation is brought before them. What we urge is, that no one should lie at the mercy of others for bringing his obligations before him. Let him think for himself; and especially let him cast his eye round his own horizon, and consider whether there be not some representatives of old friends or old relations to whom kindness ought to be shown.
To return to the narrative. The history of Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son, had been a sad one. When Israel was defeated by the Philistines on Mount Gilboa, and Saul and Jonathan were slain, he was but an infant; and his nurse, terror-stricken at the news of the disaster, in her haste to escape had let him fall, and caused an injury which made him lame for life. What the manner of his upbringing was, we are not told. When David found him, he was living with Machir, the son of Ammiel, of Lo-debar, on the other side of the Jordan, in the same region where his uncle Ishbosheth had tried to set up his kingdom. Mephibosheth became known to David through Ziba, a servant of Saul’s, a man of more substance than principle, as his conduct showed at a later period of his life. Ziba, we are told, had fifteen sons and twenty servants. He seems to have contrived to make himself comfortable notwithstanding the wreck of his master’s fortunes, more comfortable than Mephibosheth, who was living in another man’s house.
There seems to have been a surmise among David’s people that this Ziba could tell something of Jonathan’s family; but evidently he was not very ready to do so; for it was only to David himself that when sent for he gave the information, and that after David had emphatically stated his motive – not to do harm, but to show kindness for Jonathan’s sake. The existence of Mephibosheth being thus made known, he is sent for and brought into David’s presence. And we cannot but be sorry for him when we mark his abject bearing in the presence of the king. When he was come unto David, “he fell on his face and did reverence.” And when David explained his intentions, “he bowed himself and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look on such a dead dog as I am?” Naturally of a timid nature, and weakened in nerve by the accident of his infancy, he must have grown up under great disadvantages. His lameness excluded him from sharing in any youthful game or manly exercise, and therefore threw him into the company of the women who, like him, tarried at home. What he had heard of David had not come through a friendly channel, had come through the partisans of Saul, and was not likely to be very favourable. He was too young to remember the generous conduct of David in reference to his father and grandfather; and those who were about him probably did not care to say much about it.
Accustomed to think that his wisest course was to conceal from David his very existence, and looking on him with the dread with which the family of former kings regarded the reigning monarch, he must have come into his presence with a strange mixture of feeling. He had a profound sense of the greatness which David had achieved and the honour implied in his countenance and fellowship. But there was no need for his humbling himself so low. There was no need for his calling himself a dog, a dead dog, – the most humiliating image it was possible to find. We should have thought him more worthy of his father if, recognizing the high position which David had attained by the grace of God, he had gracefully thanked him for the regard shown to his father’s memory, and shown more of the self-respect which was due to Jonathan’s son. In his subsequent conduct, in the days of David’s calamity, Mephibosheth gave evidence of the same disinterested spirit which had shone so beautifully in Jonathan, but his noble qualities were like a light twinkling among ruins or a jewel glistening in a wreck.
This shattered condition both of mind and body, however, commended him all the more to the friendly regard of David. Had he shown himself a high-minded, ambitious youth, David might have been embarrassed how to act towards him. Finding him modest and respectful, he had no difficulty in the case. The kindness which he showed him was twofold. In the first place, he restored to him all the land that had belonged to his grandfather; and in the second place, he made him an inmate of his own house, with a place at his table, the same as if he had been one of his own sons. And that he might not be embarrassed with having the land to care for, he committed the charge of it to Ziba, who was to bring to Mephibosheth the produce or its value.
Every arrangement was thus made that could conduce to his comfort His being a cripple did not deprive him of the honour of a place at the royal table, little though he could contribute to the lustre of the palace. For David bestowed his favours not on the principle of trying to reflect lustre on himself or his house, but on the principle of doing good to those who had a claim on his consideration. The lameness and consequent awkwardness, that would have made many a king ashamed of such an inmate of his palace only recommended him the more to David. Regard for outward appearances was swallowed up by a higher regard – regard for what was right and true.
It might be thought by some that such an incident as this was hardly worthy of a place in the sacred record; but the truth is, that David seldom showed more of the true spirit of God than he did on this occasion. The feeling that led him to seek out any stray member of the house in order to show kindness to him was the counterpart of that feeling that has led God from the very beginning to seek the children of men, and that led Jesus to seek and to save that which was lost. For that is truly the attitude in which God has ever placed Himself towards our fallen race. The sight to be seen in this world has not been that of men seeking after God, but that of God seeking after men. All day long He has been stretching forth His hands, and inviting the children of men to taste and see that He is gracious. If we ask for the principle that unifies all parts of the Bible, it is this gracious attitude of God towards those who have forfeited His favour. The Bible presents to us the sight of God’s Spirit striving with men, persevering in the thankless work long after He has been resisted, and ceasing only when all hope of success through further pleading is gone.
There were times when this process was prosecuted with more than common ardour; and at last there came a time when the Divine pleadings reached a climax, and God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake to the fathers by the prophets, spake to them at last by His own Son. And what was the life of Jesus Christ but a constant appeal to men, in God’s name, to accept the kindness which God was eager to show them? Was not His invitation to all that laboured and were heavy laden, ”Come unto Me, and I will give you rest”? Did He not represent the Father as a householder, making a marriage feast for his son, sending forth his servants to bid the guests to the wedding, and when the natural guests refused, bidding them go to the highways and the hedges, and fetch the lame and the Wind and any outcast they could find, because he longed to see guests of some kind enjoying the good things he had provided? The great crime of the ancient Jews was rejecting Him who had come in the name of the Lord to bless them. Their crowning condemnation was, not that they had failed to keep the Ten Commandments, though that was true; not that they had spent their lives in pleasing themselves instead of pleasing God, though that also was true; but that they had rejected God’s unspeakable gift, and requited the Eternal Son, when He came from heaven to bless them, with the cursed death of the cross. But even after they had committed that act of unprecedented wickedness, God’s face would not be wholly turned away from them. The very attitude in which Jesus died, with His hands outstretched on the tree, would still represent the attitude of the Divine heart towards the very murderers of His Son. “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men toward Me.” “Unto you first, God, having raised up His Son Jesus, hath sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”
Here, my friends, is the most glorious feature of the Christian religion. Happy those of you who have apprehended this attitude of your most gracious Father, who have believed in His love, and who have accepted His grace! For not only has God received you back into His family, and given you a name and a place in His temple better than that of sons and daughters, but He has restored to you your lost inheritance. “If children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.” Nay, more. He has not only restored to you your lost inheritance, but He has conferred on you an inheritance more glorious than that of which sin deprived you. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last day.”
But if the grace of God in thus stretching out His hands to sinful men and offering them all the blessings of salvation is very wonderful, it makes the case of those all the more terrible, all the more hopeless, who treat His invitations with indifference, and turn their backs on an inheritance the glory of which they do not see. How men should be so infatuated as to do this it were hard to understand, if we had not ample evidence of it in the godless tendencies of our natural hearts. Still more mysterious is it to understand how God should fail to carry His point in the case of those to whom He stretches out His hands. But of all considerations there is none more fitted to astonish and alarm the careless than that they are capable of refusing all the appeals of Divine love, and rejecting all the bounty of Divine grace. If this be persevered in, what a rude awakening you will have in the world to come, when in all the bitterness of remorse you will think on the glories that were once within your reach, but with which you trifled when you had the chance! How foolish would Mephibosheth have been if he had disbelieved in David’s kindness and rejected his offer! But David was sincere, and Mephibosheth believed in his sincerity. May we not, must we not, believe that God is sincere? If a purpose of kindness could arise in a human heart, how much more in the Divine heart, how much more in the heart of Him the very essence of whose nature is conveyed to us in the words of the beloved disciple – “God is love”!
There is yet another application to be made of this passage in David’s history. We have seen how it exemplifies the duty incumbent on us all to consider whether kindness is not due from us to the friends or the relatives of those who have been helpful to ourselves. This remark is not applicable merely to temporal obligations, but also, and indeed emphatically, to spiritual. We should consider ourselves in debt to those who have conferred spiritual benefits upon us. Should a descendant of Luther or Calvin, of Latimer or Cranmer or Knox, appear among us in need of kindness, what true Protestant would not feel that for what he owed to the fathers it was his duty to show kindness to the children? But farther back even than this was a race of men to whom the Christian world lies under still deeper obligations. It was the race of David himself, to which had belonged “Moses and Aaron among His priests, Samuel with them that called on His name,” and, in after-times, Isaiah and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel; Peter, and James, and John, and Paul; and, outshining them all, like the sun of heaven, Jesus of Nazareth, the Saviour of men. With what models of lofty piety has that race furnished every succeeding generation! From the study of their holy lives, their soaring faith, their burning zeal, what blessing has been derived in the past, and what an impulse will yet go forth to the very end of time! No wonder though the Apostle had great sorrow and continual heaviness in his heart when he thought of the faithless state of the people, “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God”! Yet none are more in need of your friendly remembrance at this day than the descendants of these men. It becomes you to ask, “Is there yet any that is left of their house to whom we may show kindness for Jesus’ sake?” For God has not finally cast them off, and Jesus has not ceased to care for those who were His brethren according to the flesh. If there were no other motive to induce us to seek the good of the Jews, this consideration should surely prevail. All did the world requite its obligation during the long ages when all manner of contumely and injustice was heaped upon the Hebrew race, as if Jesus had never prayed, “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.” Their treatment by the Gentiles has been so harsh that, even when better feelings prevail, they are slow, like Mephibosheth, – to believe that we mean them well. They may have done much to repel our kindness, and they may appear to be hopelessly encrusted with unbelief in Him whom we present as the Saviour. But charity never faileth; and in reference to them as to other objects of philanthropic effort, the exhortation holds good, “Let us not be weary in well-doing; for in due season we shall reap if we faint not.”
Such kindness to those who are in need is not only a duty of religion, but tends greatly to commend it. Neglect of those who have claims on us, while objects more directly religious are eagerly prosecuted, is not pleasing to God, whether the neglect take place in our lives or in the destination of our substance at death. “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good mc: sure, pressed down and shaken together and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again.”