What is going on with Mephibosheth in 2 Sam. 16?

[Jash Comstock]

I am having trouble understanding what is going on in 2 Sam. 16 with the interaction with David and Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth. Ziba brings David donkeys, bread, etc.. When David asks Ziba where Mephibosheth is, he answers "“Behold, he remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give me back the kingdom of my father.’” (verse 3) What all is going on here? Is Mephibosheth siding with Absalom in hopes of restoring to himself the kingdom? What changed from his attitude of understood worthlessness in chapter 9?

 

[Romans922]

I expounded this once before and said the following (hopefully it will be helpful):

Now it looks on the surface that Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth (Saul’s son) who David gave land and servants to, it looks like on the surface that Ziba is being very generous and kind to David. And says that Mephibosheth has basically rebelled against the king. So David gives all of Mephibosheth’s land to Ziba. But later on we learn in chapter 19 that the land is returned to Mephibosheth, which shows that Ziba had truly deceived and manipulated King David. Ziba was pro-David, but at the same time greedily he was seeking to deceptively gain from Mephibosheth’s physical frailties.

Remember Mephibosheth was lame, he couldn't come, that's what appears to be dealt with in ch.19.

 

[Jash Comstock]

I expounded this once before and said the following (hopefully it will be helpful):

Now it looks on the surface that Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth (Saul’s son) who David gave land and servants to, it looks like on the surface that Ziba is being very generous and kind to David. And says that Mephibosheth has basically rebelled against the king. So David gives all of Mephibosheth’s land to Ziba. But later on we learn in chapter 19 that the land is returned to Mephibosheth, which shows that Ziba had truly deceived and manipulated King David. Ziba was pro-David, but at the same time greedily he was seeking to deceptively gain from Mephibosheth’s physical frailties.

Remember Mephibosheth was lame, he couldn't come, that's what appears to be dealt with in ch.19.

So in 2 Sam. 21 when David chooses not to execute Mephibosheth, is it because he realizes that Mephibosheth wasn't a rebel?

 

[Jack K]

I think we are supposed to believe Mephibosheth later on, in chapter 19, when he says Ziba tricked him. Mephibosheth was loyal to David, as shown by the fact that he had not groomed himself (which would have been necessary for one aspiring to a political position) while David was gone. This is the proof of his loyalty. He'd been mourning, not plotting.

Mephibosheth's loyalty is a nice picture of what happens to a former enemy who is taken in and treated like a son; eating daily, for years, at the king's table. Such a man's heart warms toward the king. He comes to love the king himself, not what he can get from the king. (Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 19:30, regarding the land given Ziba: "Oh, let him take it all, since my lord the king has come safely home.") It is the same with us who have been taken in by the King whom David foreshadowed. By feasting daily at his table and knowing his love for us, we come to love him above all else.

Now... as for David's response to Mephibosheth's explanation in chapter 19, that's a more puzzling matter. Did David doubt Mephibosheth's story? Did he just not care at that point? Was he in a mood to be generous to all, even those who'd betrayed him or lied to him? I lean toward that final explanation, but am unsure.

 

[py3ak]

I think Ziba was rewarded for his loyalty to and assistance of David; while Mephibosheth was believed not to be a rebel, and excused for not following the king because of his lameness. We dislike Ziba for lying about a good man and being an opportunist; but it often happens that supporting the winning side does result in temporary rewards.

 

[Jack K]

I think Ziba was rewarded for his loyalty to and assistance of David; while Mephibosheth was believed not to be a rebel, and excused for not following the king because of his lameness. We dislike Ziba for lying about a good man and being an opportunist; but it often happens that supporting the winning side does result in temporary rewards.

Hmm... now you've given me yet another reasonable, inteligent explanation of David's action. I hate that there are so many plausible explanations, because it seems to end up distracting from a passage I otherwise think is quite beautiful. Rats! But thanks. That helps... I suppose.

 

[ClayPot]

I essentially agree with what is written above. I've always understood it as Ziba taking advantage of Mephibosheth's lameness to ingratiate himself to the king, knowing the Mephibosheth wouldn't be able to prevent him. In my mind, it sort of reminds of the Amalekite in 2 Sam 1 who said that he had been on Mount Gilboa and slayed Saul when Saul requested it. He lied in order to win the the favor of (almost) King David--but in that case, it cost the Amalekite his life! Ziba was much more fortunate.

 

[ChariotsofFire]

I think Ziba was rewarded for his loyalty to and assistance of David; while Mephibosheth was believed not to be a rebel, and excused for not following the king because of his lameness. We dislike Ziba for lying about a good man and being an opportunist; but it often happens that supporting the winning side does result in temporary rewards.

Hmm... now you've given me yet another reasonable, inteligent explanation of David's action. I hate that there are so many plausible explanations, because it seems to end up distracting from a passage I otherwise think is quite beautiful. Rats! But thanks. That helps... I suppose.

David was able to keep his Word, at least in part, from 2 Sam 16:4.
Then the king said to Ziba, “Behold, all that belonged to Mephibosheth is now yours.” And Ziba said, “I pay homage; let me ever find favor in your sight, my lord the king.”

Gill says:
"I have said, thou and Ziba divide the land; revoking his last grant to Ziba, which gave him all that belonged to Mephibosheth, ( 2 Samuel 16:4 ) ; he established his first decree, that Ziba should have half the profit of the land for tilling it, and the other half be given to Mephibosheth; he did not choose to punish Ziba for slandering his master, being inclined to clemency and mercy, and determined to show no severity at that time; and might be in some fear of Ziba, being a considerable man, lest he should raise a new insurrection, if he bore hard upon him; besides, he might have a large share in his affection, having made a present to him in the time of his distress, and was one of the first that came to meet him upon his return, ( 2 Samuel 19:17 ) ( 2 Samuel 16:1 2 Samuel 16:2 ) ."

 

[py3ak]

I think Ziba was rewarded for his loyalty to and assistance of David; while Mephibosheth was believed not to be a rebel, and excused for not following the king because of his lameness. We dislike Ziba for lying about a good man and being an opportunist; but it often happens that supporting the winning side does result in temporary rewards.

Hmm... now you've given me yet another reasonable, inteligent explanation of David's action. I hate that there are so many plausible explanations, because it seems to end up distracting from a passage I otherwise think is quite beautiful. Rats! But thanks. That helps... I suppose.

I very much like your view of Mephibosheth and the analogies you draw; I think those stand firm on either tack regarding Ziba.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

David and Mephibosheth is a pretty picture(type/shadow) of Jesus and the church. When we were sinners, fallen in the world, we were lame, and unable to come to Him. God, through Jesus, did everything necessary to bring us to Himself, and we now, eat daily from the King's table. Read and see how this picture unfolds.

 

[Eoghan]

Today's lame get a motability car courtesy of Arnold Clark and the taxpayer. Mephibosheth did have access to a horse - no?