2 SAMUEL 19
JT The crisis is over now. It is an instructive period, and it challenges our hearts as to how we stand in a crisis; whether we prove loyal to Christ, or otherwise. We have Shimei coming in to make much of David now; but from the sequel he never really judged his disloyalty at the outset. Then we have Mephibosheth and Barzillai. Mephibosheth had been slandered. It is for us to see whether there is the evidence of his genuine loyalty in the facts given here. That is what we have to consider first of all, also whether his report of the matter bears the stamp of righteousness and truth, and whether there is the evidence of truth in the inward parts. There was not that with Shimei.
Ques Does he represent the remnant that goes through? He is one of the household of Saul, [p. 204] a Benjaminite; over against Shimei who was also a Benjaminite.
JT Quite so. It is a question of whether Mephibosheth bears the character of a subject of mercy. There is a definite suggestion of mercy; now it is a question of whether he bears that out. The Spirit of God gives us the thing just as it is. What can we see in it? I think we saw clearly enough what was in Shimei.
CAM I suppose we can test our own ability to judge persons by the judgment we have of these cases. Do you not think after a conflict there is often lack of intelligent judgment of one another?
JT Quite so. One often says that one has a judgment about everybody he is acquainted with. I suppose everybody that knows me has a judgment about me. It is right we should have a judgment of one another; not in a jealous or critical way, but based on love as linked together and as obligated to serve each other.
AFM Mephibosheth says Ziba deceived him.
JT The most spiritual man among us is liable to be deceived. I think Mephibosheth’s personal appearance must have struck David. This man would not give the impression that he was attempting to steal the kingdom. David would say inwardly, I have been deceived about this man. That is one thing that stands out here. He does not go the whole way in his mind to justify Mephibosheth but his mind is changed?
Ques Would his appearance be in his favour?
JT It was in his favour. It would help David in his judgment of him in this crisis. There is no evidence here that he is rivalling the king; nor does it look as if his appearance were gotten up for a purpose. It really reflects the state of his soul.
Rem There was the evidence of fasting in his [p. 205] appearance.
JT He does not make any show while the king is rejected. Everything for him hinges on David. It applies to ourselves now while Christ is absent; we are not to make a show in this world. I think David must have been somewhat staggered when he saw Mephibosheth. When you get face to face with a true brother whom you have judged unfairly your mind changes instinctively. The impression produced is different from what you have heard.
Ques Why does he still appear to be uncertain?
JT It does not seem as if he was really satisfied inwardly. I have always thought that. “Why speakest thou any more of thy matters?” verse 29. That is a poor thing to say. Was Ziba’s story right or wrong? That should be the first thing for David to decide. David here represents any of us — uncertain when we should be certain. David’s weakness lay in listening to the story without another witness. He took one man’s testimony against a man that deserved every consideration.
Rem Mephibosheth raised an issue here.
JT He plainly states he was slandered. It is really David’s matter now.
RWS Mephibosheth apparently lives a day at a time. David is in rejection, and it says, “Now he had neither washed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came again in peace”, verse 24.
JT It is David’s matter now. He had heard things about this man that were evidently untrue. Was he defective? He listened to a story and accepted it without adequate testimony, and now he is in a dilemma. But he is making the most of it; he is making a compromise. He says, “Thou and Ziba divide the land”, verse 29. That is not a satisfactory state of things. Ziba is not fit for fellowship; he is a slanderer for personal gain. The injured man is typically a Christian, a believer, a spiritual man.
[p. 206] It is a serious thing to put those two on the same footing. The fault is with David. We have to go back to that to get the true position. He is the responsible man. He has misjudged Mephibosheth, who is now before him, and David is implying that he has made a mistake as to him. The Spirit of God leaves the facts before us for us to decide as to them.
Ques Is objective knowledge intended to give us conscious knowledge?
JT It works that way. The Spirit works in us according to what is presented to us. As soon as I come in contact with a man who is right, he is sure to affect me if I am spiritual.
Ques Do you think Mephibosheth caused David to feel somewhat reproachful of himself? He was not now acting in the beneficent way in which he had earlier dealt with him.
JT Mephibosheth throws him back on the mercy he had shown him in the past. He says in verse 28: “For all my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king; and thou didst set thy servant among them that eat at thine own table. What further right therefore have I? and for what should I cry any more to the king?” He is throwing David back on that. It is manifest that Mephibosheth is in the full meaning of it. David is the one that had exercised the grace toward him; and now the king’s mind is changed — clearly through no proved good cause.
Rem In verse 25 it says, “And as soon as Jerusalem came to meet the king, the king said to him, Why didst thou not go with me, Mephibosheth?”
JT His mind is evidently never clear as to this matter. In these cases of judgment, if I begin with a wrong principle and accept a charge without testimony, I may be damaged personally.
AR Suppose there are no witnesses?
JT It is a question of discernment as [p. 207] to the person; but no charge should be received without full testimony.
AR The lack of witnesses would require more spirituality.
JT That is the case here. It is now for David to judge. He received a damaging report against this brother without adequate testimony. Did he ever recover from it?
Rem Mephibosheth was not a party to it.
JT The onus was on Ziba; but it was on David, too. He has to face this matter.
ANW Would it not appear that there is good material in Mephibosheth?
JT He is not affected by the remissness of David; but the whole position is beclouded. If I were there I might listen to the king; it looks as if the king did not become clear. Thus a brother is damaged, but not before God. David is damaged more than he.
ABP Are there two features developed here, or indicated as being of vital value in the testimony: on the one hand, a consciousness of being shown mercy, and on the other hand, a readiness to be misunderstood and not to make personal matters an issue? Are those two features seen in Mephibosheth?
JT Quite so. It is not the time for him to take the matter up with Ziba. The point here is David coming up to his capital. It is a question of whether the fellowship is going to be affected permanently by what has happened. David is representative of the responsible element. He has made a mistake, as to this point he has started wrongly, and now he is suffering.
FSC Does not David lack care in what he says? He says to Ziba, “Behold, thine are all that pertained to Mephibosheth”, 2 Samuel 16:4. Here he makes a compromise without investigation.
JT He is in the presence of a spiritual man. You can see Mephibosheth has not changed his mind [p. 208] at all. He mentions the grace David had shown him; he has not changed his mind about David at all. “Let him even take all, since my lord the king is come again in peace to his own house”, verse 30. There is morally a greater man before David than he is himself at the moment. It is the same man we get in chapter 9; he is affected by grace, and by David personally.
ABP Does not the great end in view regulate everything? It is the day that David is brought back to his capital. And so today, if we have in mind what God is bringing in in view of the rapture, everything is regulated by that.
JT David is everything here; but morally Mephibosheth is greater. Mephibosheth has retained his primary impressions. He holds to them. You hold to your primary impressions; they give character to you. You never lose sight of them. He never lost sight of that, nor of David’s grace to him and his greatness personally and officially.
AR If a matter comes up where there are no witnesses, would Deuteronomy 19:17 help us, standing before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges? David is lacking in judgment.
JT Quite so. We must be very careful about making accusations without two or three witnesses. But then the priests and judges decide. No one should make an incriminating accusation without witnesses. You might make an accusation individually which is fully corroborated by something else; that would be valid, but no single accusation by one witness should be accepted. Mephibosheth comes down alone; he is not looking for any support from anybody.
FSC Do you think David could have found witnesses had he wanted to?
JT Well, he raised the question “as soon as Jerusalem came to meet the king”. Did he assume that Ziba’s charge was known to be true? There is no evidence that he made enquiry or that any information was furnished.
ANW Say another word about individual evidence.
JT If you are a witness to a thing at a given time and I am a witness to it at another time, there are two witnesses.
CAM Would not the fact that Mephibosheth takes his very lowly place serve to show us that in taking a low place in such circumstances we can leave the results in the Lord’s hands?
JT The king could easily have said, Mephibosheth is right, but he did not say that. David began wrongly. The word ‘down’ is to be noted in this chapter.
JTJr “Down” is in verse 16, too. I suppose we might have the appearance, of going down to Gilgal, but with no inward contrition of heart.
TNW Should not Mephibosheth have washed in view of the great occasion of presenting himself to the king?
JT I should not think so. I think the point is that up to this moment he had maintained this attitude.
APT Mephibosheth really intended to go with David. He says, “My lord, O king, my servant deceived me; for thy servant said, I will saddle me the ass, and ride thereon, and go with the king; for thy servant is lame. And he has slandered thy servant to my lord the king”, verse 26.
JT He does not insist on anything. He just states the bare facts. You are struck with the simple way he states everything. He says, Ziba slandered me; and it was true.
ABP David, because of his position, settles the thing one-sidedly; Mephibosheth being spiritual does not settle [p. 210] it.
JT It is settled in Scripture for the spiritual mind. The unspiritual might say, Well, maybe there is some good cause for what David did, he must have had a reason. But the Spirit puts the facts down that we might see that this is a real man. I believe David was checked when he saw him; he would think. This is not the man I was led to believe he was.
JH You mentioned the thought of wavering; it is distressing to see a man wavering in a crisis.
JT It is. Mephibosheth briefly lays the whole matter before David; there is nothing hidden in what he says. He is presented to us in chapter 4 and in chapter 9. He has a special place in this book. He is presented as a subject of grace — one who valued it and who expressed it. The enemy would becloud him. He is now under a cloud in David’s mind, but throughout the history of the testimony the spiritual, I believe, have regarded him as a true man. The man is not changed; had the spirit of ingratitude and rebellion been in Mephibosheth he would have possessed some marks of it, but the record indicates none.
JTJr He does not assert his own rights. “What further right therefore have I?” verse 28. When you see the assertion of one’s rights you may be sure there is not self-judgment.
JT His answers to the king and his attitude generally betoken uprightness and fidelity to the king. Indeed the statement by the Spirit in verse 24 and his own statement in verse 30 plainly show his loyalty to David. The whole matter is false; that is the point. None of us ought to be affected by such testimony as that of Ziba against Mephibosheth.
The most spiritual are the ones the devil is particularly aiming at.
Rem Mephibosheth would probably suffer for some time in his spirit on account of David’s slight.
JT I think that whilst the person who is persecuted [p. 211] suffers, the persecutor suffers more. It is a question, whether David really ever overcame the effect of this effort of Satan. He saves Mephibosheth later, but now he puts him on the same level as Ziba.
Ques Mephibosheth says, “Let him even take all, since my lord the king is come again in peace to his own house”. I was wondering if Mephibosheth was considering for God and was taking His anointing of David into account.
JT He was. How do you regard Christ? Christ was rejected, and He is coming back. We are on the eve of it now. What a great thing it will be when He comes back! Mephibosheth had been as a son at the king’s table; he lived, in type, as we ought to live, that is in the assembly, not in mere external things.
RWS Praying for the “secret service” to be successful!
ABP Is not the truth of sonship really designed to liberate us from mere public positions? You were saying that the recent depression, under the hand of God, really served that purpose; but is not the truth of sonship also doing it?
JT Quite so. Everything for us now centres in the coming of the Lord. What does it matter about the public position, in that sense? Another feature is the inwardness of the position; he is a son at the king’s table. He never loses sight of grace. Family relationship is coupled with grace in Ephesians.
AM Evidently Ziba never looked for David’s return.
JT He did not wish it. He was a man like Joab; thinking of himself. Selfishness is often exposed by these crises.
Now we must look at verse 35. Here is another picture for us. I am afraid a great many of us would say that that was a fine speech that Barzillai made.
[p. 212] But there is the want of real spiritual inwardness in his speech.
Rem He is governed by tradition. He wanted to be buried with his father and mother.
JT It is the constitution of the man, how he had been brought up. He will treat you well; but he is not concerned about the heavenly side of the truth. He will receive you and entertain you, but he will not go to Jerusalem to be with the king there — and be maintained by the king.
CAM He wears out. He confessed that he was worn out.
JT It is a testing period after a crisis. Can I see the thing just as it is now?
APf Would he be like Jonathan? Jonathan went back to the city.
JT Very much like him; he never left his father’s house.
RWS Can a constitutional defect be remedied?
JT I think so, but it is rare, especially in old age. God is seeking to set us all up for heaven. This is not an Ephesian saint. I think Mephibosheth is, he gets the sense of grace and sonship. Barzillai knows nothing about that; typically he does not go on to Colossians and Ephesians.
Rem In verse 31 he seems to be moving in the right direction. But the king’s words are too testing, “Pass thou over with me”.
JT He makes what would be to many a reasonable excuse. But the desire of a spiritual man is to be with Christ where He is.