Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 Samuel 19:24 - 19:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
David's conduct towards Mephibosheth admits still less of justification.
2Sa 19:24
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,” i.e., had not washed his feet or arranged his beard (עָשָׂה, as in Deu 21:12), and had not washed his clothes - all of them signs of deep mourning (cf. Eze 24:17) - since the day that the king had gone (i.e., had fled from Jerusalem) until the day that he came (again) in peace.
2Sa 19:25
“Now when Jerusalem (i.e., the inhabitants of the capital) came to meet the king,”
(Note: Dathe and Thenius propose to alter יְרוּשָׁלַיִם into מִירוּשָׁלַיִם (from Jerusalem), from a simple misunderstanding of the true meaning of the words; for, as Böttcher has observed, the latter (from Jerusalem) would be quite superfluous, as it is already contained in the previous יָרַד. But Böttcher's emendation of בָּא into בָּאָה, 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, §318, a.). On the other hand, the rendering adopted by the lxx, and by Luther, Michaelis, and Maurer, in which יְרוּשָׁלַיִם 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 יָרַד, but also with 2Sa 16:3 and 2Sa 9:13, where Mephibosheth is said to have lived in Jerusalem.)
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?” David was justified in putting this question after what Ziba had told him concerning Mephibosheth (2Sa 16:3).
2Sa 19:26
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 אֶחְבְּשָׁד 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. חָבַשׁ is certainly used in this sense in Gen 22:3, 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.
2Sa 19:27-30
“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); “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, 2Sa 9:11); 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), “Why talkest thou still of thine affairs? I have said, thou and Ziba shall divide the field?” to which Mephibosheth answered (2Sa 19:30), “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 contain nothing more than a revocation of his hasty declaration in 2Sa 16:4, and a confirmation of his first decision in 2Sa 9:7-10, 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, “I will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father,” and the statement in 2Sa 9:9, “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,” David retracted the hasty decree in 2Sa 16:4, 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. There is no ground for Winer's statement, therefore, that “it is impossible now to determine whether Mephibosheth was really innocent or not.”