was as old as the jealousy between these tribes and Judah, which did not commence with the division of the kingdom, but was simply confirmed thereby into a permanent distinction. Shimei's prayer for the forgiveness of his sin was no more a proof of sincere repentance than the reason which he adduced in support of his petition, namely that he was the first of all the house of Joseph to come and meet David. Shimei's only desire was to secure impunity for himself. Abishai therefore replied (2Sa 19:21), “Shall not Shimei be put to death for this (זאת תּחת, for this, which he has just said and done), because he hath cursed the anointed of Jehovah?” (vid., 2Sa 16:5.). But David answered (2Sa 19:22), “What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah (cf. 2Sa 16:10), for ye become opponents to me to-day?” שׂטן, an opponent, who places obstacles in the way (Num 22:22); here it signifies one who would draw away to evil. “Should any one be put to death in Israel to-day? for do I not know that I am this day king over Israel?” The reason assigned by David here for not punishing the blasphemer as he had deserved, by taking away his life, would have been a very laudable one if the king had really forgiven him. But as David when upon his deathbed charged his successor to punish Shimei for this cursing (1Ki 2:8-9), the favour shown him here was only a sign of David's weakness, which was not worthy of imitation, the more especially as the king swore unto him (2Sa 19:24) that he should not die.David's conduct towards Mephibosheth admits still less of justification.
Verse 24
Mephibosheth, the son, i.e., grandson, of Saul, had also come down (from Jerusalem to the Jordan) to meet David, and had not “made his feet and his beard,” i.e., had not washed his feet or arranged his beard (עשׂה, as in Deu 21:12), and had not washed his clothes - all of them signs of deep mourning (cf. Eze 24:17) - since the day that the king had gone (i.e., had fled from Jerusalem) until the day that he came (again) in peace.
Verse 25
2Sa 19:25“Now when Jerusalem (i.e., the inhabitants of the capital) came to meet the king,”[1]
David said to him (i.e., to Mephibosheth, who was
- ↑ Dathe and Thenius propose to alter ירוּשׁלים into מירוּשׁלים (from Jerusalem), from a simple misunderstanding of the true meaning of the words; for, as Böttcher has observed, the latter (from Jerusalem) would be quite superfluous, as it is already contained in the previous ירד. But Böttcher's emendation of בּא into בּאה, because Jerusalem or the population of Jerusalem is a feminine notion, is equally unnecessary, since towns and lands are frequently construed as masculines when the inhabitants are intended (vid., Ewald, §318, a.). On the other hand, the rendering adopted by the lxx, and by Luther, Michaelis, and Maurer, in which ירוּשׁלים is taken as an accusative in the sense of “when Mephibosheth came to Jerusalem to meet the king,” is altogether wrong, and has been very properly given up by modern expositors, inasmuch as it is at variance not only with the word ירד, but also with 2Sa 16:3 and 2Sa 9:13, where Mephibosheth is said to have lived in Jerusalem.
