Original Meaning

David Searches for a Descendant of Saul (9:1–5)

IN THE ANCIENT Near East, the family of a king replaced by a usurper did not generally expect to receive kindness. In fact, new dynasties were routinely accompanied by bloodletting among the family of the old order.4 This is the way the new king solidified his power.5 This background is precisely what makes David’s treatment of Mephibosheth so surprising, because it comes immediately after the section most focused on consolidation of power in David’s hands. David draws a line at Saul’s family, beyond which he will not cross.

The connections between this chapter and chapter 8 are often overlooked. The opening phrase “David asked” means we have immediately returned to the historian’s preferred means of narration (dialogue) after a long set of speeches (ch. 7) and a chronicle summary (ch. 8).6 This compounds the problem created by the tendency among most interpreters to overemphasize the importance of chapter 9 as the beginning of an original “Court History” and thus with little relationship to the preceding chapters.

As we have seen often in this commentary, the historian responsible for 1-2 Samuel is skilled at relating a text thematically to the immediately preceding text. So here the military summary provided in chapter 8 fulfills the words of Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:15: “Do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the LORD has cut off every one of David’s enemies from the face of the earth.” Chapter 8 makes it clear that Yahweh has indeed cut David’s enemies off, giving him victory wherever he went and providing the promised “rest” for the land. So now is the time for David to keep the covenant he and Jonathan established.

This opening paragraph contains numerous semantic links to Jonathan’s covenant with David (1 Sam. 20:8, 14–17, 42). Primary among them is the importance of showing (lit., doing) “kindness” (ḥesed). This term has theological significance throughout the Old Testament, denoting the life-sustaining grace of God bestowed on humans and making it possible to have a loving relationship with him. More generally, “kindness” characterizes covenant relationships, whether between God and humans or simply among humans; therefore it can be translated in many ways: grace, loyalty, faithfulness, love, mercy, goodness.7 What makes ḥesed an act of “kindness” is often the fact that one member in the relationship is in a position to render help or aid to the other, who is for one reason or another in need and unable to help or aid the other.8 Such help is performed simply because of the deep and enduring relationship between the two covenant partners, which in the case of David and Jonathan was sealed in a formal covenant in 1 Samuel 20 (see v. 42). The need for ḥesed is particularly emphasized in situations where its performance is in question, where it seems unnatural, or where circumstances in the future may render it unlikely.

So Jonathan spoke prophetically when he charged David to show kindness faithfully to his family in that future day when Yahweh would give him rest from all his enemies (1 Sam. 20:15). Our text is further linked to Jonathan’s earlier speech by the reference to “the ḥesed of God” in 9:3 (NIV “God’s kindness”). Jonathan had asked for the “kindness of Yahweh” (NIV “unfailing kindness like that of the LORD”) in 1 Samuel 20:14, which is probably an expression of the superlative: the greatest possible kindness.9 So now David seeks to show the kindness of God to Saul’s house.

The significance of these semantic links is to signify beyond doubt that David is now fulfilling his covenant obligation to Jonathan. Jonathan’s prophetic-like words have become a reality. Saul is dead; Jonathan is dead. God has silenced all David’s and Israel’s enemies in the neighboring territories. Now is the time for David to remember his old friend and to act benevolently toward Jonathan’s family. This requires ḥesed because all expectations—indeed, the cultural momentum—is toward proper revenge.

We may question David’s sincerity and his motives for showing kindness to Mephibosheth.10 There can be no question that it is safe to elevate and bless him, because as a cripple Mephibosheth poses no threat to David personally or to David’s rule, even though he is the only remaining descendant of King Saul.11 Perhaps David is attempting to solidify the otherwise tenuous unity between northern Israel and southern Judah by incorporating into his royal household the vestiges of the Saulide dynasty, so popular among the northern tribes. Or perhaps this act of kindness is simply a desperate attempt to ease David’s guilt-ridden conscience, assuming he somehow has felt responsible for the end of Saul’s line.

But all such hypothetical and psychological speculation takes us beyond the message of 1-2 Samuel, which are clear in explaining David’s motives at critical junctures. He was resolutely loyal to Saul himself, even after Saul set himself squarely as a bitter enemy who wanted David dead (1 Sam. 24:5–6). His friendship with Jonathan was unalloyed, pure companionship, and David refused to take advantage of or abuse Jonathan. As far as the text is concerned, David’s motives are singularly focused on Jonathan; his reasons for showing kindness now are simply “for Jonathan’s sake” (9:1, 7).12

David Shows Kindness to Mephibosheth (9:6–13)

Bridging Contexts

THE MEANING OF KINDNESS. One potential obstacle to interpreting this passage for today is the word “kindness,” which the NIV uses consistently for the three occurrences of ḥesed (all on the lips of David, 9:1, 3, 7). As we have seen, this is a perfectly adequate translation, but the English connotations are much weaker than the Hebrew (see above). For example, in English “kindness” carries no such covenantal connotations as is clear from the connections of our text with 1 Samuel 18, 20, and 23, in which David and Jonathan swore to remember each other in covenant faithfulness. To interpret the text for today, we will have to go beyond the implications of our English translations in order to make this point clearly.

David had accepted a covenant obligation regarding Jonathan. Once he is firmly established as king, he is obligated to be merciful to Jonathan’s family. This passage shows that David wastes no time. Immediately after Yahweh has granted victory (ch. 8), David seeks out the remaining children of Saul in order to show them mercy. His benevolence to Mephibosheth surpasses his obligation to allow the unfortunate royal scion merely to stay alive. His “kindness” shows David to be a man of generosity, integrity and faithfulness, a “man of his word.”

Looking at the literary context. Another potential obstacle occurs when we fail to consider the literary context sufficiently. I have emphasized the connections between this chapter and the rest of 1-2 Samuel. But these connections are subtle enough to miss in a casual reading, in which case we will miss the point of our unit. Most of the texts in this portion of 2 Samuel have been devoted to David’s spectacular reign: his rise to the throne, his consolidation of power, the building of a new capital and palace, and the divine promises for an eternal dynasty. This chapter on Mephibosheth is transitional in that it leads us to reflect one final time on Saul and his failed rulership, but it also anticipates and provides important background for future events in 2 Samuel (16:1–4; 19:24–30). In the remainder of this section, I will seek to draw out more implications of this contextual reading.

From the outset Ziba emphasizes Mephibosheth’s crippled condition, probably because he fears David might kill any remaining descendants of Saul (9:3, not an unfounded fear in light of 21:1–14). Ziba wants David to understand that it would be unlikely (or impossible?) for Mephibosheth to lay claim to the throne for the sake of his grandfather (thereby posing a threat to David). After all, Mephibosheth is dependent on Ziba entirely for his livelihood. The narrator returns to this point for added emphasis at the close of our text (9:13): “and he was crippled in both feet.” This detail directs us back to 2 Samuel 4:4, where we first learn of Jonathan’s son and the reason for his physical impairment. Mephibosheth’s nurse dropped him when he was five years old in the panic following the deaths of his father and grandfather.

But all of this directs us further back to that fateful battle at Mount Gilboa and Saul’s ignoble death (1 Sam. 31), and beyond that to his visit with the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28). Mephibosheth himself is a casualty of Saul’s failures. His very presence in our text recalls the failure of Israel’s first king and highlights the pitiable end of his progeny. Saul does not even have a suitable heir for his estate, much less his kingdom.19 Once the estate is given to Mephibosheth, it still requires caretakers because Mephibosheth himself is unable to maintain it.

In other words, Saul’s grandson is not only incapable of posing a threat to David’s new kingdom, he is even incapable of caring for himself (2 Sam. 9:10). Thus Samuel’s prophecy against Saul has been fulfilled (1 Sam. 13:14): “Your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.” In 2 Samuel, Saul’s descendants gradually disappear until the only remaining trace is the pitiable Mephibosheth, who is graciously sustained at David’s table.

By contrast, King David keeps moving from glory to glory. At this point in our story, he has fulfilled every promise and been granted every blessing. It is through David that Yahweh is making Israel the nation they have hoped to be all along and the nation that Yahweh can use in turn to bless the world. Thus, this passage contributes to the theme: What sort of man may serve suitably as king in Israel? Mephibosheth may not serve as king, for he is a continuation of Saul’s line.20 But David is ideal as king! His faithfulness to Jonathan moves him to be generous to Mephibosheth. His magnanimity goes far beyond any political benefits he may have received from having Mephibosheth in his court. He is lavish in his love for Jonathan, making his generosity appropriate. This is the character Israel wants and needs in its kings.

From this point forward in 2 Samuel, the book will continue to address the question about who may serve suitably as king. So far that question has been answered positively: David is the kind of person who may rule. But we will soon encounter negative answers: not Mephibosheth, not David when he acts like a typical ancient Near Eastern despot, not Amnon, not Absalom, and so on.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

INTEGRITY. I once taught in a seminary that took a survey of the ecclesiastical administrators in all its constituent denominations. The school was hoping to do a better job preparing and training pastors for the denominations we were serving. We were planning to use the results of the survey to make curricular changes or to consider which topics needed more attention in ministerial education. At one point in the survey the seminary asked what the church leaders thought was the single most important characteristic needed in its pastors.

The answer we received surprised us. An overwhelming majority of the church administrators said the most needed trait was integrity. But the answer was not only surprising; I think we were a little disappointed as well. We were hoping to add something to our curriculum or perhaps improve some neglected aspect in our courses to produce better pastors and serve our constituent denominations more effectively. But we had to face the fact: Integrity is not something you can teach in a classroom. We can attempt to model it more persuasively, but we cannot include “integrity” as an assessable course objective in our syllabi.

The church leaders struck a nerve. They had put their finger precisely on the pulse of their churches and identified the problem of the church today. Perhaps a long string of distasteful and unfortunate failures in the evangelical church have merely made us feel the need more acutely. But the fact remains, integrity is all too often missing in our leadership. We have an integrity crisis in the North American church today.

It is easy enough to give a formal dictionary definition of integrity: “the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity.” However, this hardly exhausts the significance of David’s actions in this unit. By integrity as illustrated here, I mean the determination to do what one believes is right even when there is no compelling reason to act rightly beyond the sheer “rightness” of the act. Scholars often debate about David’s motives for his kindness to Mephibosheth. But as we have seen, this is not the concern of the text. Ziba and Mephibosheth himself expect anything but grace from the king, and they both appear to be surprised by the extent of David’s generosity. Though there may have been modest benefits for David to allow Mephibosheth to live, he is motivated in this text solely by his commitments to Jonathan. Even though Jonathan is dead, the king faithfully keeps covenant.

(Ab)use of power. Another secondary theme that keeps recurring in the books of Samuel is the use and abuse of power. You and I are tempted to “show kindness” and to keep our covenant commitments only when it is convenient to do so or when it shows particular promise of return. In the workplace, in schools, dare I say even in the church, we tend to keep covenant with those who will repay us in some way. Such calculated covenant faithfulness manifests our falseness more than our integrity.

In this text, David serves as an example because he keeps covenant and shows mercy to someone who cannot advance his own causes.21 Unlike Saul, who abused (or attempted to abuse) his royal power, David uses power in this passage in a way consistent with his calling as shepherd of God’s flock. As such, he also anticipates his greater Son, who will never use power for self-aggrandizement but only for the advancement of his Father’s kingdom. Unfortunately, David will not always represent such an example of the use of power, as we will soon see.

The following prayer from Africa is an appropriate way to tie these themes together.

You asked for my hands

that you might use them for Your purpose.

I gave them for a moment,

then withdrew them, for the work was hard.

You asked for my mouth

to speak out against injustice;

I gave you a whisper that I might not be accused.

You asked for my eyes

to see the pain of poverty;

I closed them, for I did not want to see.

You asked for my life

that you might work through me.

I gave you a small part, that I might not get ‘too involved’.

Lord, forgive me for my calculated efforts to serve you

only when it is convenient for me to do so,

only in those places where it is safe to do so and

only with those who make it easy to do so.

Father, forgive me,

renew me,

send me out

as a useable instrument

that I might take seriously

the meaning of your cross!22

Original Meaning

David Shows Kindness to Mephibosheth (9:6–13)

AS WE HAVE seen, the name “Ish-Bosheth” was most probably a euphemistic substitution for Ish-Baal, “Man-of-Baal,” referring to the Canaanite fertility god Baal.13 Likewise, Mephibosheth’s name is probably a substitution for Merib-Baal, though the substitution is far from obvious because of an additional phonemic change, raising questions about the reasons for such a change.14 The original name may have meant “Baal contends,” and most scholars assume the current form Mephibosheth meant “One who scatters shame.”15

Regardless of what Mephibosheth may have hoped, it can hardly be good news for him to be summoned to the royal palace. David brings him from obscurity in Lo Debar and identifies him as the son of Jonathan and grandson of Saul (9:6). In the central and pivotal section of our text (9:7),16 David begins by alleviating his visitor’s fears. Where Mephibosheth may have expected execution, he receives grace. The king will not only permit Mephibosheth to live, but he will show kindness to him for Jonathan’s sake.

That kindness takes the form of two blessings. (1) David will give him the property of Saul’s estate, making Mephibosheth a wealthy man instantly. He has apparently been dependent on the generosity of others, but now he becomes the holder of wealth-producing property.17 Ziba’s entire family will be needed to maintain and care for Mephibosheth’s estate (9:9–10). (2) David grants the privilege that was lost to Mephibosheth when Saul and Jonathan were killed, that is, the right to eat at the king’s table. The fact that this provision is granted for “always” (tamid) probably indicates that this is a permanent “pension” for Mephibosheth—one that grants honor and respect.18

Bridging Contexts

Bridging Contexts

THE MEANING OF KINDNESS. One potential obstacle to interpreting this passage for today is the word “kindness,” which the NIV uses consistently for the three occurrences of ḥesed (all on the lips of David, 9:1, 3, 7). As we have seen, this is a perfectly adequate translation, but the English connotations are much weaker than the Hebrew (see above). For example, in English “kindness” carries no such covenantal connotations as is clear from the connections of our text with 1 Samuel 18, 20, and 23, in which David and Jonathan swore to remember each other in covenant faithfulness. To interpret the text for today, we will have to go beyond the implications of our English translations in order to make this point clearly.

David had accepted a covenant obligation regarding Jonathan. Once he is firmly established as king, he is obligated to be merciful to Jonathan’s family. This passage shows that David wastes no time. Immediately after Yahweh has granted victory (ch. 8), David seeks out the remaining children of Saul in order to show them mercy. His benevolence to Mephibosheth surpasses his obligation to allow the unfortunate royal scion merely to stay alive. His “kindness” shows David to be a man of generosity, integrity and faithfulness, a “man of his word.”

Looking at the literary context. Another potential obstacle occurs when we fail to consider the literary context sufficiently. I have emphasized the connections between this chapter and the rest of 1-2 Samuel. But these connections are subtle enough to miss in a casual reading, in which case we will miss the point of our unit. Most of the texts in this portion of 2 Samuel have been devoted to David’s spectacular reign: his rise to the throne, his consolidation of power, the building of a new capital and palace, and the divine promises for an eternal dynasty. This chapter on Mephibosheth is transitional in that it leads us to reflect one final time on Saul and his failed rulership, but it also anticipates and provides important background for future events in 2 Samuel (16:1–4; 19:24–30). In the remainder of this section, I will seek to draw out more implications of this contextual reading.

From the outset Ziba emphasizes Mephibosheth’s crippled condition, probably because he fears David might kill any remaining descendants of Saul (9:3, not an unfounded fear in light of 21:1–14). Ziba wants David to understand that it would be unlikely (or impossible?) for Mephibosheth to lay claim to the throne for the sake of his grandfather (thereby posing a threat to David). After all, Mephibosheth is dependent on Ziba entirely for his livelihood. The narrator returns to this point for added emphasis at the close of our text (9:13): “and he was crippled in both feet.” This detail directs us back to 2 Samuel 4:4, where we first learn of Jonathan’s son and the reason for his physical impairment. Mephibosheth’s nurse dropped him when he was five years old in the panic following the deaths of his father and grandfather.

But all of this directs us further back to that fateful battle at Mount Gilboa and Saul’s ignoble death (1 Sam. 31), and beyond that to his visit with the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28). Mephibosheth himself is a casualty of Saul’s failures. His very presence in our text recalls the failure of Israel’s first king and highlights the pitiable end of his progeny. Saul does not even have a suitable heir for his estate, much less his kingdom.19 Once the estate is given to Mephibosheth, it still requires caretakers because Mephibosheth himself is unable to maintain it.

In other words, Saul’s grandson is not only incapable of posing a threat to David’s new kingdom, he is even incapable of caring for himself (2 Sam. 9:10). Thus Samuel’s prophecy against Saul has been fulfilled (1 Sam. 13:14): “Your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.” In 2 Samuel, Saul’s descendants gradually disappear until the only remaining trace is the pitiable Mephibosheth, who is graciously sustained at David’s table.

By contrast, King David keeps moving from glory to glory. At this point in our story, he has fulfilled every promise and been granted every blessing. It is through David that Yahweh is making Israel the nation they have hoped to be all along and the nation that Yahweh can use in turn to bless the world. Thus, this passage contributes to the theme: What sort of man may serve suitably as king in Israel? Mephibosheth may not serve as king, for he is a continuation of Saul’s line.20 But David is ideal as king! His faithfulness to Jonathan moves him to be generous to Mephibosheth. His magnanimity goes far beyond any political benefits he may have received from having Mephibosheth in his court. He is lavish in his love for Jonathan, making his generosity appropriate. This is the character Israel wants and needs in its kings.

From this point forward in 2 Samuel, the book will continue to address the question about who may serve suitably as king. So far that question has been answered positively: David is the kind of person who may rule. But we will soon encounter negative answers: not Mephibosheth, not David when he acts like a typical ancient Near Eastern despot, not Amnon, not Absalom, and so on.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

INTEGRITY. I once taught in a seminary that took a survey of the ecclesiastical administrators in all its constituent denominations. The school was hoping to do a better job preparing and training pastors for the denominations we were serving. We were planning to use the results of the survey to make curricular changes or to consider which topics needed more attention in ministerial education. At one point in the survey the seminary asked what the church leaders thought was the single most important characteristic needed in its pastors.

The answer we received surprised us. An overwhelming majority of the church administrators said the most needed trait was integrity. But the answer was not only surprising; I think we were a little disappointed as well. We were hoping to add something to our curriculum or perhaps improve some neglected aspect in our courses to produce better pastors and serve our constituent denominations more effectively. But we had to face the fact: Integrity is not something you can teach in a classroom. We can attempt to model it more persuasively, but we cannot include “integrity” as an assessable course objective in our syllabi.

The church leaders struck a nerve. They had put their finger precisely on the pulse of their churches and identified the problem of the church today. Perhaps a long string of distasteful and unfortunate failures in the evangelical church have merely made us feel the need more acutely. But the fact remains, integrity is all too often missing in our leadership. We have an integrity crisis in the North American church today.

It is easy enough to give a formal dictionary definition of integrity: “the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity.” However, this hardly exhausts the significance of David’s actions in this unit. By integrity as illustrated here, I mean the determination to do what one believes is right even when there is no compelling reason to act rightly beyond the sheer “rightness” of the act. Scholars often debate about David’s motives for his kindness to Mephibosheth. But as we have seen, this is not the concern of the text. Ziba and Mephibosheth himself expect anything but grace from the king, and they both appear to be surprised by the extent of David’s generosity. Though there may have been modest benefits for David to allow Mephibosheth to live, he is motivated in this text solely by his commitments to Jonathan. Even though Jonathan is dead, the king faithfully keeps covenant.

(Ab)use of power. Another secondary theme that keeps recurring in the books of Samuel is the use and abuse of power. You and I are tempted to “show kindness” and to keep our covenant commitments only when it is convenient to do so or when it shows particular promise of return. In the workplace, in schools, dare I say even in the church, we tend to keep covenant with those who will repay us in some way. Such calculated covenant faithfulness manifests our falseness more than our integrity.

In this text, David serves as an example because he keeps covenant and shows mercy to someone who cannot advance his own causes.21 Unlike Saul, who abused (or attempted to abuse) his royal power, David uses power in this passage in a way consistent with his calling as shepherd of God’s flock. As such, he also anticipates his greater Son, who will never use power for self-aggrandizement but only for the advancement of his Father’s kingdom. Unfortunately, David will not always represent such an example of the use of power, as we will soon see.

The following prayer from Africa is an appropriate way to tie these themes together.

You asked for my hands

that you might use them for Your purpose.

I gave them for a moment,

then withdrew them, for the work was hard.

You asked for my mouth

to speak out against injustice;

I gave you a whisper that I might not be accused.

You asked for my eyes

to see the pain of poverty;

I closed them, for I did not want to see.

You asked for my life

that you might work through me.

I gave you a small part, that I might not get ‘too involved’.

Lord, forgive me for my calculated efforts to serve you

only when it is convenient for me to do so,

only in those places where it is safe to do so and

only with those who make it easy to do so.

Father, forgive me,

renew me,

send me out

as a useable instrument

that I might take seriously

the meaning of your cross!22