Poole on 2 Samuel 19:29, 30: The Restoration of Mephibosheth? (Part 2)

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

Verse 29:[1]  And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matters?  I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land.

[Why speakest thou any more? ‎לָ֛מָּה תְּדַבֵּ֥ר ע֖וֹד דְּבָרֶ֑יךָ]  So that why speakest thou any more, or still, thy words? (Septuagint, Jonathan, Munster, Pagnine, Montanus, Martyr); why dost thou speak out, etc.? (Junius and Tremellius), that is to say, I accept thine excuse; it is not necessary to go on at greater length before me (Junius).  Let what things thou hast spoken suffice (Arabic).  What is the need of more words? (Tigurinus, Vatablus, Menochius).  The manner of speech indicates that a longer speech had come between, perhaps with Ziba being present, and with himself, as he was able, repelling his lies and calumnies (Menochius).  The sense:  He was not able to bear a prolix excuse.  The case of Ziba appeared probable to him (Martyr).  David responds to him harshly, and he was more inclined to believe Ziba (Munster).

Why speakest thou any more of thy matters?  For as Ziba was present, so doubtless he was not silent, but said and did what he could to make good his former charge; which must needs occasion many words before the king.  And the king was not now at leisure for long debates, and therefore makes an end of the matter.

[What I have said is fixed, ‎אָמַרְתִּי]  I have said (Septuagint, Jonathan, Munster, Pagnine, Montanus, Vatablus).  I have made a pronouncement (Syriac, Tigurinus).  But I have already declared (Arabic); I decree (Castalio), that is, the sentence stands (Vatablus).  I say.  An Enallage of tense (Piscator). 

I have said, to wit, within myself; I have considered the matter as far as now I can, and upon the whole am come to this resolution, wherein I expect that thou and he do both acquiesce.  Or, I do now say; I pronounce this sentence in the cause.

[Thou and Ziba divide the possessions, ‎אֶת־הַשָּׂדֶה׃]  The fields (Pagnine, Vatablus), that is thy paternal inheritance (Vatablus).  That is to say, I am unwilling to retract my entire sentence, but only partly; each of you shall have half (Estius).  Question:  What is to be thought of this deed of David?  Response 1:  [Some defend it.]  Certain interpreters think that that tenants-right was restored to Ziba, concerning which 2 Samuel 9:10 (Grotius).  [Hence they translate ‎אָמַרְתִּי, I had declared (Junius and Tremellius).]  That is to say, I revoke the latter sentence, whereby I adjudged thine estates to Ziba, 2 Samuel 16:3, 4; and I revive the former sentence set forth in 2 Samuel 9:10, whereby I had made him a tenant sharing in the fields of Mephibosheth (Malvenda out of Junius).  On account of the specious arguments of Ziba, David doubted whether he ought to believe him or Mephibosheth (certain interpreters in Lapide).  When I consider David’s liberal character, I judge rather, that with a liberal hand he offset that loss of Mephibosheth in another respect (Sanchez out of Tostatus, Tirinus).  Response 2:  Others think that David sinned (thus the Hebrews in Grotius, Munster, Lyra, Estius, Menochius, Lapide, Martyr).  Ziba deserved hanging, not half of the goods (Estius).  Since he had accused his Lord of treason, etc., and could not prove it, he was obliged by the law of retaliation to suffer the punishments of traitors.  But David does not touch Ziba with so much as a word, but treats the wicked servant the same as the holy man (Martyr).  David readily perceived that no fault adhered to Mephibosheth, both from his dirt and filth long ago contracted, and from the silence of Ziba standing at a distance, and not contradicting, as it is gathered from verse 17 (Tirinus out of Sanchez, Lapide).  He had condemned Mephibosheth without hearing him, believing [the calumny of his servant].  Servants, according to civil laws, except in certain cases, are not heard, indeed are not tortured to give evidence against their masters, because many offenses are wont to pass between lords and servants (Martyr on verse 26).  David was unwilling to rescind the decree in 2 Samuel 16:4 in every respect, either, 1.  On account of shame (Tirinus).  Lest his error be too obvious (Grotius, similarly Lapide):  Anger, often troublesome to its patron, condemns as guilty:  even if the truth is brought to the eyes, he loves and upholds the error, Seneca’s Concerning Anger 1:16 (Gataker).  Or, 2.  because he held the excessive means of Mephibosheth suspect (Grotius).  Or, 3.  so that he might not appear ungrateful to Ziba (Tirinus).  But the king ought then to compensate Ziba’s services from another source, not from the goods of Mephibosheth.  David was forgetful of the things due to Jonathan.  Thus it is wont to happen, that more recent services cause the old to be forgotten.  Or, 4.  from prejudice; he had conceived a twisted opinion of Mephibosheth, which Mephibosheth was not able to root out by his own speech.  David indulges Ziba excessively; here he is too harsh:  in the former case he pardons the impious; here he oppresses the good.  He was a man; Saints often slip:  no pains are to be taken, that we might defend him (Martyr).  God had regard to this sin, when He divided the kingdom of Rehoboam (Hebrews in Grotius and in Munster).  But Scripture assigns other causes to that matter (Vatablus).  Others observe, that David did not punish Ziba, because he was forbearing all on account of the joy of the day (certain interpreters in Menochius).  David appears to have violated the promise given to Jonathan[2] (Lapide).

Thou and Ziba divide the land:  the meaning is either, 1.  The land shall be divided between thee and him, as it was by my first order, 2 Samuel 9:10; he and his sons managing it, and supporting themselves out of it, as they did before, and giving the rest of the profits thereof to thee.  And to this the following words may well enough be accommodated, Yea, let him take all, to wit, to his own sole use.  Or, 2.  The right and profits of the land shall be equally divided between you.  It seems a very rash and harsh sentence, and very unbecoming David’s wisdom, and justice, and gratitude to Jonathan; and Ziba seems to have deserved death for falsely accusing his master of treason, rather than a recompence.  But the whole transaction of the matter is not here set down.  Possibly Ziba might bring plausible pretences to justify his accusation; and it might be pretended that Mephibosheth neglected the trimming and dressing himself only in policy, and that for a season, till David and his family had destroyed one another by their civil wars, and given him a fit opportunity to take the crown.  So that David might really be at a loss what to determine.  And Ziba had given proof of his affections to David by an act of kindness which could not be without hazard to himself, 2 Samuel 16:1, 2, which Mephibosheth had not done.  And possibly this was only a present sentence, and David resolved to examine things more thoroughly when he had more leisure, and then to make a more full and final determination of the business; which also he might do, though it be not here recorded; for we must not think that nothing was done and said about such things but what is mentioned in Scripture.  Besides, Ziba being a powerful man, and the crown not yet firmly fixed upon the king’s head, David might think fit to suspend his final sentence till a more convenient season, and not now to provoke him too much by taking away all his estate from him at once, but to proceed against him by degrees.  Howsoever, this is certain, we cannot pass a right judgment upon this action of David’s, unless we understood all the circumstances of it, which we cannot pretend to do.

Verse 30:[3]  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.

[Let him take even all, etc.]  He, seeing David troubled, thought that he would be appeased by a gentle speech; what David gave to him with the left hand, he received with right.  He was considering that perhaps God was punishing the sins of Saul in his posterity, and so in himself (Martyr).

Let him take all, etc.:  I am contented to lose all, being fully satisfied with the happiness of seeing my dear and dread sovereign restored to his crown, and truth and peace returned to his kingdom.

[1] Hebrew:  ‎וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ לָ֛מָּה תְּדַבֵּ֥ר ע֖וֹד דְּבָרֶ֑יךָ אָמַ֕רְתִּי אַתָּ֣ה וְצִיבָ֔א תַּחְלְק֖וּ אֶת־הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃

[2] See 1 Samuel 20:15, 16.

[3] Hebrew:  ‎וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מְפִיבֹ֙שֶׁת֙ אֶל־הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ גַּ֥ם אֶת־הַכֹּ֖ל יִקָּ֑ח אַ֠חֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֞א אֲדֹנִ֥י הַמֶּ֛לֶך בְּשָׁל֖וֹם אֶל־בֵּיתֽוֹ׃ ס