24 30. Mephibosheth’s meeting with David<\/p>\n
24<\/strong>. had neither dressed his feet<\/em>, &c.] The neglect of his person, the unwashed feet, the untrimmed moustache, the soiled garments, were outward signs of extreme grief. Cp. ch. 2Sa 12:20<\/span>; Eze 24:17<\/span>. The Sept. adds “nor trimmed his nails,” after “dressed his feet” (see Deu 21:12<\/span>), but the words are perhaps only a duplicate rendering of the Hebrew.<\/p>\n beard<\/em> ] Properly moustache.<\/strong> The word occurs elsewhere only in connexion with the custom of covering the upper lip or moustache in mourning. See Lev 13:45<\/span>; Eze 24:17<\/span>; Eze 24:22<\/span>; Mic 3:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n Beard – <\/B>The moustache, the beard of the upper lip. The fact related in this verse tends to clear Mephibosheth from the suspicion of unfaithfulness to David.<\/P> <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:24-30<\/span><\/p>\n Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mephibosheth an enigma of motive<\/strong><\/p>\n And Mephibosheth, also, the son <\/strong>of Saul, came down to meet the king. Our too otiose English is unjust to Mephibosheth; or else it has taken Mephibosheths infirmity in his feet much too seriously. Mephibosheth was not so crippled in his intellect, at any rate, as to stay in Jerusalem till the king came home. He was too eager for that to congratulate the king on his victory. We all know how the mind overmasters the body, and makes us forget all about its lameness on occasions. And Mephibosheth was at the Jordan all the way from Jerusalem almost as soon as Shimei himself. Four hundred years before, just at the same place, when the inhabitants of Gideon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai, they did work wilily, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles old and rent and bound up, and old shoes and clouted upon their feet, and old garments upon them, and all the bread of their provisions was dry and mouldy. And Joshua said, Who are ye, and whence come ye? And they said, From a very far country thy servants are come, because of the name of the Lord thy God. And Joshua made a league with them, to let them live; and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. And all that about Joshua and the Gibeonites came back to Davids mind when he saw Mephibosheth lifted down off his ass. For Mephibosheth had not dressed his wooden feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes for grief, so he said, from the day that the king departed. Nor had he taken time to-day to make himself decent for such a journey, such was his joy that the king was coming back again to Jerusalem, Yes, but what came of thee that morning, Mephibosheth? asked David. I looked for thee. I was afraid that in the overthrow some evil had befallen thee. Thou art not able to bear arms for me; but thy father so strengthened my hands in God that to have seen the face of his son that morning, and to have heard thy voice would have done for me and for my cause what thy father did. My lord, said Mephibosheth–but the tale was as lame as the tale-bearer. Ziba had stolen his ass just as he was mounting him to come with the king–and so on. David did not stoop to ask whose ass this was that Mephibosheth had got saddled so soon this morning. Say no more, Mephibosheth, said David, as he saw Jonathans son crawling so abjectly before him. Dr. Kitto complains of Davids tart answer to Mephibosheth. But if David was too tart, then with what extraordinary and saintly sweetness Mephibosheth received the over-tartness of the king. Let Ziba take all my estates to-day forasmuch as nay lord the king is come again in peace to his own house. No, there was nothing cripple in Mephibosheths intellects. Mephibosheth was a philosopher, says Dr. Parker. I find no defect of his wits in Mephibosheth, says honest Joseph Hall. And the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lords oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan, the son of Saul. (A. Whyte, D. D<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Self-interest the parent of ingratitude<\/strong><\/p>\n In poor Mephibosheths case, it would seem as if his early and lifelong infirmity, taken along with the hopeless loss of his brilliant prospects, had all eaten into his heart till he became the false, scheming creature that David found him out to be. Hephaeston loved Alexander, while Craterus loved the king. And Jonathan was like Hephaeston in this, that he loved David at all times, whereas his son Mephibosheth resembled Craterus in this, that he preferred David on the throne to David off the throne. Jonathan strengthened Davids hand in God in the wood of Ziph; but Mephibosheth, like another classical character, fled the empty cask. How Mephibosheths heart had overflowed with gratitude to David when the royal command came that he was to leave Machirs house:in Lo-debar, and was henceforth to take up his quarters in the kings house in Jerusalem! All Mephibosheths morosity and misanthropy melted off his heart that day. But such was Mephibosheth at the bottom of his heart that, as he continued to eat at Davids table, Satan entered into Mephibosheth and said to him in his heart that all this was by original and Divine right his own. All this wealth, and power, and honour, and glory. But for the bad fortune of his fathers royal house on Mount Gilboa, all this would to-day have been his own. Ingratitude, says Mozley, is not only a species of injustice, it is the highest species of injustice. And the ingratitude of Mephibosheth grew at Davids table to this high injustice, that he waited for both David and Absalom to be chased out of Jerusalem, that, he might take their place. There is no baser heart than an ungrateful heart. And it was Mephibosheths ungrateful heart that prepared him for the baseness that he was found out in both at the flight of David and at his victorious return.<\/p>\n The virtues were invited once<\/p>\n To banquet with the Lord of All: On earth they never once had met.<\/p>\n Dean Milman says that the writings both of Tacitus and Dante are full of remorse. And it is, as I believe, in our own remorse that we shall find the true key to Mephibosheths heart. When a government goes out of power, when a church is under a cloud, when religion has lost her silver slippers, and when she walks in the shadow of the street, and when any friend has lost his silver slippers–then we discover Mephibosheth in ourselves, and hate both him and ourselves like hell. And commentators have taken sides over the case of Mephibosheth very much as they have found that contemptible creature skulking in themselves, and have had bitter remorse on account of him. I am full of self-love, fear to confess Thee, or to hazard myself, or my estate, or my peace . . . My perplexity continues as to whether I shall move now or not, stay or return, hold by Lauderdale, or make use of the Bishop. I went to Sir George Mushets funeral, where I was looked at, as I thought, like a speckled bird . . . Die Dom.<\/em><\/p>\n I find great averseness in myself to suffering. I am afraid to lose life or estate. Shall I forbear to hear that honest minister, James Urquhart, for a time, seeing the stone is like to fall on me if I do so? And then our modern Mephibosheth has the grace to add in his diary, like the book of judgment: A grain of sound faith would easily answer all these questions:–I have before me Mr. Rutherfords letter desiring me to deny myself. And though you will not easily believe it; the author of that letter himself has enough of Jonathans crippled and disinherited son still in himself to give a tang, and more than a tang, of remorse to some of his best letters. Oh, if I were free of myself! Myself is another devil, and as evil as the prince of devils. Myself! Myself! Every man blames the devil for his sins, but the house and heart devil of every man is himself. I think I shall die still but minting and aiming to be a Christian man! This, then, is the prize for finding out that enigma of motive, Mephobosheths hidden heart. This is the first prize, to receive of God the inward eye to discover Mephibosheth in our ourselves. (A. Whyte, D. D<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mephibosheth <\/strong> . . . had neither dressed his feet nor trimmed his beard.<\/strong>—<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Regard for personal appearance<\/strong><\/p>\n There is a very suggestive story told of Napoleon when his army was in dire need, retreating from Moscow in 1813. The soldiers were ragged, dirty, starved, and unkempt, and it seemed to be impossible to present the smart and orderly appearance which usually characterises troops on the march. But in the very heart of their necessity one of the generals came before Napoleon one morning as nearly attired as if for parade. The Emperors commendation was instant: My General, he said, you are a brave man! Napoleon was a man of the keenest and clearest insight, and he could read a character through a trifle. He knew perfectly well that a man who put care and energy and precision into a courtesy would not be lacking upon the field. Is not the story suggestive of the finer characteristics of the Christian life? Real Christian heroism manifests itself in trifles. How do we finish our speech? Into what kind of dress do we put our courtesies? In what form and manner does our service express itself? Are we as scrupulous and painstaking when little demand is made upon us, as we are amid the crises and heavier battles of life? Christian heroism is not only an affair of great conflicts, it also manifests itself on those smaller occasions when so many people relax both effort and desire. (Hartley Aspen<\/em>.)<\/p>\n Verse 24<\/span>. Neither dressed his feet<\/B><\/I>] He had given the fullest proof of his sincere attachment to David and his cause; and by what he had done, amply refuted the calumnies of his servant Ziba.<\/P> <\/p>\n The son of Saul, <\/B>i.e. the grandson, 2Sa 9:3<\/span>,6<\/span>. <\/P> Had neither dressed his feet; <\/B>by cutting his nails, and by washing his feet, which was usual in those hot climates, and very refreshing; and therefore now neglected, as becoming a mourner. <\/P> Nor trimmed his beard; <\/B>but suffered it to grow very long and disorderly, as was usual with many persons in a forlorn or mournful state. <\/P> Nor washed his clothes; <\/B>his linen clothes. This and the former were signs that he was a true and obstinate mourner, that laid aside his usual refreshments; and they are here mentioned as evidences of the falsehood of Zibas former relation concerning him, 2Sa 16:3<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 24-30. Mephibosheth . . . came downto meet the king<\/B>The reception given to Mephibosheth was lesscreditable to David. The sincerity of that prince’s grief for themisfortunes of the king cannot be doubted. <\/P> He had neither dressed hisfeet<\/B>not taken the bath, <\/P> nor trimmed his beard<\/B>TheHebrews cut off the hair on the upper lip (see on Le13:45<\/span>), and cheeks, but carefully cherished it on the chin fromear to ear. Besides dyeing it black or red colors, which, however, isthe exception, and not the rule in the East, there are various modesof trimming it: they train it into a massy, bushy form, swelling andround; or they terminate it like a pyramid, in a sharp point.Whatever the mode, it is always trimmed with the greatest care; andthey usually carry a small comb for the purpose. The neglect of thisattention to his beard was an undoubted proof of the depth ofMephibosheth’s grief. The king seems to have received himupbraidingly, and not to have been altogether sure either of hisguilt or innocence. It is impossible to commend the cavaliertreatment, any more than to approve the partial award, of David inthis case. If he were too hurried and distracted by the pressure ofcircumstances to inquire fully into the matter, he should havepostponed his decision; for if by “dividing the land” (2Sa19:29<\/span>) he meant that the former arrangement should be continuedby which Mephibosheth was acknowledged the proprietor, and Ziba thefarmer, it was a hardship inflicted on the owner to fix him with atenant who had so grossly slandered him. But if by “dividing theland,” they were now to share alike, the injustice of thedecision was greatly increased. In any view, the generous,disinterested spirit displayed by Mephibosheth was worthy a son ofthe noble-hearted Jonathan.<\/P><\/p>\n And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king<\/strong>,…. Not down to Jordan, but Jerusalem; when the king was come thither, he came from his own dwelling to the king’s palace; he is called the son of Saul, though he was his grandson, and grandsons are sometimes called sons; though in the Septuagint it is, the son’s son of Saul; and the Syriac and Arabic versions are, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul:<\/p>\n and had neither dressed his feet<\/strong>; had not cut his nails, as the Septuagint adds, his toenails; or rather had not washed his feet, as the Targum paraphrases it; which was frequently done in those countries, partly for refreshment, and partly to remove the filth of them contracted by walking barefooted, or only with sandals; as also because of the ill smell of them, which was offensive:<\/p>\n nor trimmed his beard<\/strong>; or shaved his upper lip, and took no care that the hair of his chin should be in any order; otherwise that was never shaved, to do it would be contrary to the law in Le 19:27<\/span>;<\/p>\n nor washed his clothes<\/strong>; his linen clothes, his shirts, or any other that used to be washed; or “whitened” them, as the Targum, he had not sent them, his woollen clothes, to the fuller, to get out the spots, and whiten them. All these were tokens of mourning, and showed him to be a sincere mourner for the king’s departure, and the trouble he was in, since it was so long continued:<\/p>\n from the day the king departed, until the day he came [again] in peace<\/strong>; which must be a considerable time, and therefore he must be in a most sordid and rueful condition.<\/p>\n David’s conduct towards Mephibosheth admits<\/em> still less of justification. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:24<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Mephibosheth, the son, i.e., grandson, of Saul, had also come down (from Jerusalem to the Jordan) to meet David, and had not “made his feet and his beard,”<\/em> i.e., had not washed his feet or arranged his beard ( , as in Deu 21:12<\/span>), and had not washed his clothes – all of them signs of deep mourning (cf. Eze 24:17<\/span>) – since the day that the king had gone (i.e., had fled from Jerusalem) until the day that he came (again) in peace. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:25<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> “Now when Jerusalem<\/em> (i.e., the inhabitants of the capital) came to meet the king,”<\/em> <\/p>\n (Note: Dathe and Thenius propose to alter into ( from<\/em> Jerusalem), from a simple misunderstanding of the true meaning of the words; for, as Bttcher has observed, the latter ( from<\/em> Jerusalem) would be quite superfluous, as it is already contained in the previous . But Bttcher’s emendation of into , because Jerusalem or the population of Jerusalem is a feminine notion, is equally unnecessary, since towns and lands are frequently construed as masculines when the inhabitants are intended (vid., Ewald<\/em>, 318, a.). On the other hand, the rendering adopted by the lxx, and by Luther, Michaelis, and Maurer, in which is taken as an accusative in the sense of “when Mephibosheth came to Jerusalem to meet the king,” is altogether wrong, and has been very properly given up by modern expositors, inasmuch as it is at variance not only with the word , but also with 2Sa 16:3<\/span> and 2Sa 9:13<\/span>, where Mephibosheth is said to have lived in Jerusalem.)<\/p>\n David said to him (i.e., to Mephibosheth, who was with the deputation from the capital which welcomed David at the Jordan), “Why wentest thou not with me, Mephibosheth?”<\/em> David was justified in putting this question after what Ziba had told him concerning Mephibosheth (2Sa 16:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:26<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Mephibosheth replied, “My lord king, my servant hath deceived me: for thy servant thought I will have the ass saddled and go to the king; for thy servant is lame.” If we understand as signifying that Mephibosheth had the ass saddled by a servant, and not that he saddled it with his own hands, the meaning is obvious, and there is no ground whatever for altering the text. is certainly used in this sense in Gen 22:3<\/span>, and it is very common for things to be said to be done by a person, even though not done with his own hands. The rendering adopted by the lxx and Vulgate, “Thy servant said to him (the servant), Saddle me the ass,” is not true to the words, though correct so far as the sense is concerned.<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:27-30<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> “And he (Ziba) slandered thy servant to my lord the king.” Mephibosheth had not merely inferred this from David’s words, and the tone in which they were spoken, but had certainly found it out long ago, since Ziba would not delay very long to put David’s assurance, that all the possessions of Mephibosheth should belong to him, in force against his master, so that Mephibosheth would discover from that how Ziba had slandered him. “And my lord the king is as the angel of God,” i.e., he sees all just as it really is (see at 2Sa 14:17<\/span>); “and do what is good in thy sight: for all my father’s house (the whole of my family) were but men of death against my lord the king (i.e., thou mightest have had us all put to death), and thou didst set thy servant among thy companions at table (see 2Sa 9:7<\/span>, 2Sa 9:11<\/span>); and what right or (what) more have I still to cry (for help) to the king?” The meaning is, “I cannot assert any claims, but will yield to anything you decide concerning me.” It must have been very evident to David from these words of Mephibosheth, that he had been deceived by Ziba, and that he had formed an unfounded prejudice against Mephibosheth, and committed an act of injustice in handing over his property to Ziba. He therefore replied, in evident displeasure (2Sa 19:29<\/span>), “Why talkest thou still of thine affairs? I have said, thou and Ziba shall divide the field?” to which Mephibosheth answered (2Sa 19:30<\/span>), “He may take the whole, since my lord the king has returned in peace to his own house.” This reply shows very clearly that an injustice had been done to Mephibosheth, even if it is not regarded as an expression of wounded feeling on the part of Mephibosheth because of David’s words, but, according to the view taken by Seb. Schmidt and others, as a vindication of himself, as said not to blame the king for the opinion he had formed, but simply to defend himself. But this completely overthrows the opinion held by Thenius and O. v. Gerlach, that David’s words in 2Sa 19:30<\/span> contain nothing more than a revocation of his hasty declaration in 2Sa 16:4<\/span>, and a confirmation of his first decision in 2Sa 9:7-10<\/span>, and are to be understood as signifying, “Let everything be as I settled it at first; hold the property jointly,” inasmuch as Ziba and his sons had of course obtained their living from the produce of the land. Moreover, the words “thou and Ziba divide the land” are directly at variance with the promise in 2Sa 9:7<\/span>, “I will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father,” and the statement in 2Sa 9:9<\/span>, “I have given unto thy master’s son all that pertained to Saul, and to all his house.” By the words, “I have said, thou and Ziba divide the land,”<\/em> David retracted the hasty decree in 2Sa 16:4<\/span>, so as to modify to some extent the wrong that he had done to Mephibosheth, but he had not courage enough to retract it altogether. He did not venture to dispute the fact that Mephibosheth had really been calumniated by Ziba, which was placed beyond all doubt by his mourning during the whole period of David’s flight, as described in 2Sa 19:24<\/span>. There is no ground for Winer’s statement, therefore, that “it is impossible now to determine whether Mephibosheth was really innocent or not.” <\/p>\n 24 And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came again<\/I> in peace. 25 And it came to pass, when he was come to Jerusalem to meet the king, that the king said unto him, Wherefore wentest not thou with me, Mephibosheth? 26 And he answered, My lord, O king, my servant deceived me: for thy servant said, I will saddle me an ass, that I may ride thereon, and go to the king; because thy servant is<\/I> lame. 27 And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king is<\/I> as an angel of God: do therefore what is<\/I> good in thine eyes. 28 For all of<\/I> my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king: yet didst thou set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table. What right therefore have I yet to cry any more unto the king? 29 And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land. 30 And Mephibosheth said unto the king, Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come again in peace unto his own house.<\/P> The day of David’s return was a day of bringing to remembrance, a day of account, in which what had passed in his flight was called over again; among other things, after the case of Shimei, that of Mephibosheth comes to be enquired into, and he himself brings it on.<\/P> I. He went down in the crowd to meet the king<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 24<\/span>), and as a proof of the sincerity of his joy in the king’s return, we are here told what a true mourner he was for the king’s banishment. During that melancholy time, when one of the greatest glories of Israel had departed, Mephibosheth continued in a very melancholy state. He was never trimmed, nor put on clean linen, but wholly neglected himself, as one abandoned to grief for the king’s affliction and the kingdom’s misery. In times of public calamity we ought to abridge our enjoyments in the delights of sense, in conformity to the season. There are times when God calls to weeping and mourning, and we must comply with the call.<\/P> II. When the king came to Jerusalem (since he could not sooner have an opportunity) he made his appearance before him (v.<\/I><\/span> 25<\/span>); and when the king asked him why he, being one of his family, had staid behind, and not accompanied him in his exile, he opened his case fully to the king. 1. He complained of Ziba, his servant who should have been his friend, but had been in two ways his enemy; for, first, he had hindered him from going along with the king, by taking the ass himself which he was ordered to make ready for his master (v.<\/I><\/span> 26<\/span>), basely taking advantage of his lameness and his inability to help himself; and, secondly, he had accused him to David of a design to usurp the government, v.<\/I><\/span> 27<\/span>. How much mischief is it in the power of a wicked servant to do to the best master! 2. He gratefully acknowledged the king’s great kindness to him when he and all his father’s house lay at the king’s mercy, v.<\/I><\/span> 28<\/span>. When he might justly have been dealt with as a rebel, he was treated as a friend, as a child: Thou didst set thy servant among those that did eat at thy own table.<\/I> This shows that Ziba’s suggestion was improbable; for could Mephibosheth be so foolish as to aim higher when he lived so easily, so happily as he did? And could he be so very disingenuous as to design any harm to David, of whose great kindness to him he was thus sensible? (3.) He referred his cause to the king’s pleasure (Do what is good in thy eyes<\/I> with me and my estate), depending on the king’s wisdom, and his ability to discern between truth and falsehood (My lord the king is as an angel from God<\/I>), and disclaiming all pretensions of his own merit: “So much kindness I have received above what I deserved, and what right have I to cry any more unto the king?<\/I> Why should I trouble the king with my complaints when I have already been so troublesome to him? Why should I think any thing hard that is put upon me when I hitherto been so kindly treated?” We were all as dead men before God;<\/I> yet he has not only spared us, but taken us to sit at his table.<\/I> How little reason then have we to complain of any trouble we are in, and how much reason to take all well that God does!<\/P> III. David hereupon recalls the sequestration of Mephibosheth’s estate; being deceived in his grant, he revokes it, and confirms his former settlement of it: “I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 29<\/span>), that is, Let it be as I first ordered it (ch.<\/I><\/span> ix. 10<\/span>); the property shall still be vested in thee, but Ziba shall have occupancy: he shall till the land, paying thee a rent.” Thus Mephibosheth is where he was; no harm is done, only Ziba goes away unpunished for his false and malicious information against his master. David either feared him too much, or loved him too well, to do justice upon him according to that law, Deu 19:18<\/span>; Deu 19:19<\/span>; and he was now in the humour of forgiving and resolved to make every body easy.<\/P> IV. Mephibosheth drowns all he cares about his estate in his joy for the king’s return (v.<\/I><\/span> 30<\/span>): “Yea, let him take all,<\/I> the presence and favour of the king shall be to me instead of all.” A good man can contentedly bear his own private losses and disappointments, while he see Israel in peace, and the throne of the Son of David exalted and established. Let Ziba take all, so that David may be in peace.<\/P><\/p>\n Mephibosheth Exonerated, vs. 24-30<\/strong><\/p>\n Mephibosheth came down to the river to meet the king also, <\/em>in a most deplorable condition. Out of concern for David and his exile Mephibosheth had neglected his personal hygiene all the time he was gone. He had not washed his feet, not trimmed his beard, nor bathed, nor put on clean clothes in all the time. This should have been convincing proof that Ziba had dealt in the big lie in his accusations.<\/em><\/p>\n Amazingly it appears that David did not receive Mephibosheth at all when he came down to meet him. <\/em>But he did get an audience with the king after they had come to Jerusalem. At that time David questioned him why he had not accompanied him in the flight. He immediately laid the blame to the deceitfulness of Ziba, who had also slandered him to the king. It had been his intent, he said, to saddle an ass so he could ride and come with David, for he was lame and could not waLu But though he had been slandered by Ziba, Mephibosheth still held the king in angelic esteem for all the graciousness which had been shown him, though all the family of Saul might have been as dead men in his sight. But David had been so merciful as to give Mephibosheth a place at the king’s own table. Mephibosheth felt he had no right to complain to the king, for he had received mercy beyond what he deserved, according to the times (cf. Lu 7:7).<\/em><\/p>\n David’s response is enigmatical. <\/em>It is not possible to know whether he doubted the truth of Mephibosheth’s explanation. On the face of it, it would seem that he did. He refused to consider the matter further, except to say that Ziba and Mephibosheth should settle it between them. It may be suggested that David may have reconsidered his first assignment of the land to Mephibosheth and decided that Ziba was not properly recognized since he had for many years cared for the land. Or it may be that David, having told Ziba the land should be his, did not feel he should go back altogether on his word, so he divided the land between them.<\/em><\/p>\n (24) Came down to meet.<\/strong>The obvious meaning of this is that Mephibosheth came down from the high land of Jerusalem to meet the king in the Jordan valley, and in this case the following verse should be translated, And it came to pass when Jerusalem (meaning its inhabitants, with Mephibosheth among them) was come to meet the king. Some writers, however, prefer to keep 2Sa. 19:25<\/span> as it is, and to suppose that during the rebellion Mephibosheth had taken refuge on his ancestral estate near the heights of Gibeah, and that he came thence to Jerusalem to meet David. In either case the signs of deep mourning used by Mephibosheth from the day the king departed were an evidence of his loyalty. The word for beard <\/em>is used only for the moustache. THE MEETING WITH MEPHIBOSHETH, 2Sa 19:24-30<\/span>.<\/p>\n 24<\/strong>. <\/strong> Mephibosheth <\/strong> Who had been basely slandered by his servant. See 2Sa 16:3<\/span>. His appearance gave ample evidence of the strongest attachment and devotion to the interests of David.<\/p>\n David Discovers The Truth About Mephibosheth ( 2Sa 19:24-30<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n When we remember how shocked David must have been after his betrayal by his own beloved son we can understand why he now found it difficult to trust anyone who might do him hurt and undermine his position. And he was aware that any descendant of Saul was certainly in a position to do that. Thus when he met up with Mephibosheth, who had not accompanied him on his flight, and who had been charged by Ziba as having designs on the throne, we can appreciate why he was wary. On the one hand Mephibosheth’s excuse, when he heard it, appeared to be genuine, but on the other Ziba’s arrival with provisions had gladdened his heart at a time when he needed it, and he had furthermore also given him wholehearted support on his return. Who then was telling the truth? The writer clearly plumps for Mephibosheth, but we can see why it was difficult for David to decide. So he took what appeared to be the politically wise course, divide and rule. In other words he divided up the large inheritance of Saul so that neither of the two ended up by being too powerful. That way they could both be more easily contained, and could yet still be content. And as Mephibosheth presumably continued to live at court and eat at the king’s table it really made little difference to him personally how much land he had. <\/p>\n Analysis. <\/p>\n a <\/strong> And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came home in peace (2Sa 19:24<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And it came about, when he was come to Jerusalem to meet the king, that the king said to him, “Why did you not go with me, Mephibosheth?” And he answered, “My lord, O king, my servant deceived me, for your servant said, ‘I will saddle me an ass, that I may ride on it and go with the king,’ because your servant is lame. And he has slandered your servant to my lord the king, but my lord the king is as an angel of God. Do therefore what is good in your eyes” (2Sa 19:25-27<\/span>). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> “For all my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king, yet you set your servant among those who ate at your own table. What right therefore have I yet that I should cry any more to the king?” (2Sa 19:28<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And the king said to him, “Why do you speak any more of your affairs? I say, You and Ziba divide the land” (2Sa 19:29<\/span>). <\/p>\n a <\/strong> And Mephibosheth said to the king, “Yes, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come in peace to his own house” (2Sa 19:30<\/span>). <\/p>\n In ‘a’ Mephibosheth went to meet the king and greeted him, and in the parallel he rejoices that he has come home in peace. In ‘b’ Mephibosheth goes into detail about his affairs, and in the parallel David calls on him not to speak further about his affairs. Centrally in ‘c’ Mephibosheth expresses his perpetual gratitude towards the king for his goodness to him and his house. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:24<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came home in peace.’ <\/p>\n Mephibosheth, heir of the house of Saul, also ‘came down’ to meet David. Since the day that David had departed from Jerusalem he had neither washed and dressed his feet, trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes. This had been in order to indicate deep mourning (compare Eze 24:17<\/span>), and would have rendered him ritually unclean (Exo 19:10<\/span>; Exo 19:14<\/span>). It was a brave attitude to have taken up, for had Absalom discovered what he was about he might well have been executed. It revealed therefore that his distress was genuine. <\/p>\n “Until the day he came home in peace.”<\/strong> We are probably to understand from this that once he had learned that David had arrived back in peace he did all that was necessary in order to prepare himself for meeting the king. He would not come before the king in his unkempt condition. <\/p>\n Some, however, consider that he did come down to the Jordan in that condition in order that David might be aware of his deep distress. They then translate 2Sa 19:25<\/span> as ‘when Jerusalem (i.e. the people of Jerusalem) came to meet the king’. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:25<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And it came about, when he came to Jerusalem (or ‘when Jerusalem came’) to meet the king, that the king said to him, “Why did you not go with me, Mephibosheth?” ’ <\/p>\n On Mephibosheth’s arrival before the king, David questioned him as to why he had not accompanied him on his flight. Before passing judgment on him he wanted his testimony from his own mouth. <\/p>\n Depending on whether we translate as ‘when he came to Jerusalem to meet the king’ (compare 2Sa 10:14<\/span>), or as ‘when Jerusalem (i.e. the people of Jerusalem) came to meet the king’ (both are possible), will depend whether we see Mephibosheth as meeting David at the Jordan or in Jerusalem. Ziba may well have sought to prevent him from coming to the Jordan, and with his lameness he was very much dependent of others. On the other hand the ‘came down’ of verse 24 might be seen as suggesting the descent to the Jordan. We do not, of course, know where Mephibosheth was living at this time. In his state of mourning he would not have wanted to be too near Absalom, and he may well not have wanted to depend on Ziba who had betrayed him. Thus he may have taken shelter with trustworthy friends on his own lands. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:26<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And he answered, “My lord, O king, my servant deceived me, for your servant said, ‘I will saddle me an ass, that I may ride on it and go with the king,’ because your servant is lame.” ’ <\/p>\n Mephibosheth then explained that he had in fact wanted to accompany the king, but that Ziba had deceived him. He had seemingly ordered him to saddle his ass for him to ride on, because being lame in both feet he could not walk. But it was apparent that Ziba had not only failed to do so but had also left without him, leaving him helpless to do anything. How Ziba had treated him once he had taken possession of the property (if Ziba did so immediately), we are not told. He had to some extent been at Ziba’s mercy, although he no doubt had his own servants who would have looked after his welfare (Ziba, however, may even have made that difficult). Knowing that Ziba had betrayed him he may well in fact have taken shelter with trustworthy friends. That may indeed have been part of the reason for Mephibosheth’s more physical expressions of regret. <\/p>\n On the other hand Ziba may have continued to act as his steward. He would not have wanted to make any great show of taking over the property while Absalom was still king, for it would have branded him as a traitor, and he would anyway probably have been unable to prove to anyone that David had given him the Saulide lands. Thus we cannot be sure what precisely the situation was. The writer simply does not tell us. The likelihood must be that he was ‘lying low’ and awaiting David’s return, while ensuring that the lands were maintained. Then he could claim his ‘rights’. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:27<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> And he has slandered your servant to my lord the king, but my lord the king is as an angel of God. Do therefore what is good in your eyes.” <\/p>\n Mephibosheth then explained that Ziba had simply been telling lies about him. He assured the king, however, that he was open for the king to do what he liked with him, for he knew that he was ‘as an angel of God’, knowing everything (compare 2Sa 14:17<\/span>). <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:28<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> For all my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king, yet you set your servant among those who ate at your own table. What right therefore have I yet that I should cry any more to the king?” <\/p>\n He humbly acknowledged that David had previously treated him better than he deserved (in terms of the thinking of those days) for as the direct heir of Saul he could only have expected to be executed. Instead David had not only spared him, but had given him a place at the king’s table as one of the honoured in the land. So, he asked, what right then had he to plead for any further favours? <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:29<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And the king said to him, “Why do you speak any more of your affairs? I say, You and Ziba divide the land.” ’ <\/p>\n David’s reply suggested that he accepted Mephibosheth’s version of events. “Why do you speak any more of your affairs?” probably meant, ‘you have said enough, I believe you.’ (Some, however, see it as a curt refusal to listen to any more because David felt guilty). But he obviously found himself in a dilemma. Ziba had unquestionably risked his own life by supporting David at a difficult time (for had Absalom found out what he had done he would have been executed), and he had also been one of the first to greet David’s return, giving him the full support of his household. Furthermore David was very much aware that he himself had given his word, allotting the lands of Saul to him. A king’s word could not easily be broken. On the other hand he now recognised that he had been unfair to Mephibosheth who appeared to be innocent, and that he had originally promised Saul’s lands to Mephibosheth. So he took the course of appeasement. His decision was that they would share the lands. Neither would then dare to express disagreement lest they lose what they had gained. And both would still be well provided for, for Saul’s lands must have been extensive. David’s hope appears to have been to keep them both ‘on side’ and reasonably satisfied. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:30<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And Mephibosheth said to the king, “Yes, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come in peace to his own house.” ’ <\/p>\n Mephibosheth’s reply was in fact a polite acceptance of the king’s decision, made in true oriental fashion. We can compare how Ephron the Hittite had replied to Abraham ‘I will give you the land, — the land is worth 400 shekels of silver, what is that between me and you?’, when what he really meant was, ‘400 hundred shekels of silver is the price that I want for the land’ (Gen 23:11<\/span>; Gen 23:15<\/span>). What Mephibosheth was really saying was, ‘I accept your decision, for what do the lands mean in comparison with the return of the king in peace to his own palace?’ <\/p>\n Mephibosheth certainly comes best out of the incident, but it is probably unfair to criticise David too much. He had after all been caught in a dilemma through no fault of his own, and was now trying to be fair to all. We may feel that he should have seen through Ziba’s deception from the start, but we need to remember that it happened at a time when he was still reeling from the treachery of his own son. At such times common sense is often lacking. <\/p>\n David’s Treatment of Mephibosheth and Barzillai<\/p>\n v. 24. And Mephibosheth, the son of Saul<\/strong> (in the wider sense, since lie was his grandson) came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes,<\/strong> all evidences of deepest mourning, signs of his sincere, faithful attachment to the house of David, from the day the king departed until the day he came again in peace. <\/p>\n v. 25. And it came to pass, when he was come to Jerusalem to meet the king,<\/strong> when the inhabitants of Jerusalem went down in a body to welcome David, Mephibosheth being in the procession also, that the king said unto him, Wherefore wentest thou not with me, Mephibosheth?<\/strong> This question was prompted by Ziba’s slander, 2Sa 16:3<\/span>. <\/p>\n v. 26. And he answered, My lord. O king, my servant<\/strong> (Ziba) deceived me, he had injured him by lies, betrayed his confidence; for thy servant<\/strong> (Mephibosheth) said, I will saddle me an ass,<\/strong> Ziba being ordered to do this, that I may ride thereon, and go to the king; because thy servant is lame,<\/strong> he could not have joined the procession afoot. <\/p>\n v. 27. And he<\/strong> (Ziba) hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king,<\/strong> as Mephibosheth had meanwhile found out; but my lord the king is as an angel of God,<\/strong> to know and to do what justice required in this case; do, therefore, what is good in thine eyes. <\/p>\n v. 28. For all my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king,<\/strong> who might, according to Oriental custom, have put them all to death upon his accession to the throne; yet didst thou set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table,<\/strong> 2Sa 9:7<\/span> to 2Sa 10:13<\/span>. What right, therefore, have I yet to cry any more unto the king?<\/strong> Being without rights, he willingly subjected himself to any order which the king might give. <\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
They came–the great ones rather grim,
And not so pleasant as the small.
They talked and chatted oer the meal,
They even laughed with temprate glee;
And each one knew the other well,
And all were good as good could be.
Benevolence and Gratitude
Alone of all seemed strangers yet;
They stared when they were introduced<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n