2 Samuel 19:16-30
And Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite, which was of Bahurim, hasted and came down with the men of Judah to meet king David. And there were a thousand men of Benjamin with him, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants with him; and they went over Jordan before the king. And there went over a ferry boat to carry over the king’s household, and to do what he thought good. And Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king, as he was come over Jordan; and said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. For thy servant doth know that I have sinned: therefore, behold, I am come the first this day of all the house of Joseph to go down to meet my lord the king.
But Abishai the son of Zeruiah answered and said, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the LORD’S anointed? And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel? Therefore the king said unto Shimei, Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him.
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 in peace. 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? 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 lame. And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king is as an angel of God: do therefore what is good in thine eyes. For all of 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?
And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land. 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.
MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): David’s soldiers furnished themselves with accommodations for their passage over this river, but, for David’s own family, a ferry-boat was sent on purpose.
THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): David did not suffer himself to be conducted home by a deputation from the tribe of Judah; for it appears “that there were a thousand men of the tribe of Benjamin under Shimei,” and also “half the people of Israel,” 2 Samuel 19:17,40.
THE EDITOR: Abishai, Joab’s brother, wanted Shimei slain as just he had wanted to behead him before, 2 Samuel 16:9. But to slay Shimei now, though he deserved it, when he brought a thousand men of Benjamin, the first of the tribes of Israel to come to David, would have been dangerous political folly.
MATTHEW HENRY: David rejected Abishai’s motion with displeasure: “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?” The less we have to do with those who are of an angry revengeful spirit, and who put us upon doing what is harsh and rigorous, the better. They were adversaries to his interest. If he should put to death Shimei, who cursed him, those would expect the same fate who had taken up arms and actually levied war against him, which would drive them from him, while he was endeavouring to draw them to him. Acts of severity are seldom acts of policy. The throne is established by mercy, Proverbs 20:28. Those that are forgiven must forgive. David had severely revenged the abuses done to his ambassadors by the Ammonites, 2 Samuel 12:31—that was an affront to Israel in general, and touched the honour of his crown and kingdom; but he easily passes by the abuse done to himself by an Israelite—this was purely personal, and therefore—according to the usual disposition of good men, he could more easily forgive it.
THE EDITOR: Ziba and his family also came with Shimei. But at Jerusalem, Mephibosheth truthfully informed him about Ziba’s deception when David fled Jerusalem, 2 Samuel 16:1-4. David had accepted Ziba as a righteous, loyal man at that time, accepting his word as truth, and he had awarded him all of Mephibosheth’s property. But now, without any further investigation, David restored half of Mephibosheth’s land, and would hear no more about it.
JOHN GILL (1697-1771): David 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 he might be in some fear of Ziba, being a considerable man, lest he should raise a new insurrection, if he bore hard upon him.
ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): David’s indulgence to this man is a blot in his character.
THE EDITOR: Those two incidents demonstrate David’s mindset at the time: he was hungry for peace, almost at any price. Mephibosheth had made a serious accusation: he claimed that Ziba had deceived him, and slandered him, and had lied to the king’s face. Perhaps David considered it a “Ziba said—Mephibosheth said” thing, without any credible corroborative evidence on either side. But Mephibosheth’s personal appearance suggested otherwise. So was David wise in rendering an instant judgment without diligently investigating the truth of it? It is the “honour of kings to search out a matter,” Proverbs 25:2; “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him,” Proverbs 18:13. Mephibosheth graciously accepted David’s verdict; but was it really a just resolution? David rescinded his earlier decision, but he rewarded Ziba’s deceit by letting it pass without demanding any repentance, or even an apology, and thus penalized Mephibosheth’s devoted loyalty by allowing Ziba’s slander to stand as a stain on his reputation. And why? For political peace.
JOHN GILL: “It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment,” Proverbs 18:5. Justice ought to be done without any respect to persons; to do otherwise is not only not good, but very bad, very sinful and criminal; it is contrary to law and justice; it is doing injury to men, and is repugnant to the will of God, and offensive to Him, Leviticus 19:15.
THE EDITOR: It is more evidence proving that David’s uneven administration of justice had been the main political grievance behind the widespread popular support for Absalom’s rebellion, and David’s earlier pardon of Amasa had done nothing to lay that to rest; it was one rule for the royal family, but a different rule for everyone else. Have we not seen a similar partiality, and justice tainted by political considerations in our own political leaders? “Moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there,” wrote Solomon, Ecclesiastes 3:16. But if David had sought God’s counsel, and had been guided by God’s Word, would he have made those mistakes? And the result of David’s carnal thinking was not peace; that immediately became clear when David went to Gilgal: “And, behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said unto the king, Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away, and have brought the king, and his household, and all David’s men with him, over Jordan?” 2 Samuel 19:41.
A. W. PINK (1886-1952): By the time that David had crossed the Jordan many of the elders and people of Israel came to bring back the king, only to discover they had been anticipated. The officers of Judah had taken the lead in this, and had failed to notify the ten tribes of their intentions. This omission was strongly resented, for those of Israel felt they had been slighted—yea, that a serious reflection was cast upon their loyalty to the king.
THE EDITOR: What was their real grievance in this accusation? Partiality. In this case, that charge was unwarranted, but entirely understandable, given their perception of past injustices. “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger,” Proverbs 15:1. However, the men of Judah’s angry offended tone did nothing to reassure the men of Israel that they would be treated fairly. “Because the king is near of kin to us, wherefore then be ye angry for this matter?” they said, “have we eaten at all of the king’s cost? or hath he given us any gift?” 2 Samuel 19:42.
A. W. PINK: How quick many are to take umbrage at the least seeming slight.
THOMAS COKE: It was a natural contest between greater power and nearer relationship; both claim a preference which both cannot have; which those of nearer relationship in this case should have yielded, both in point of prudence and affection—which the men of Judah did not. “And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than ye: why then did ye despise us, that our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king?” 2 Samuel 19:43.
JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): “All David’s men were with him”—and this made the men of Judah so bold and fierce. “The words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel.”
THE EDITOR: These were definitely not words of peace, nor the sounds of unity—thus, the carnal wisdom of political expediency failed miserably.
