What is the context?
Mephibosheth comes to meet David, having neglected his feet, mustache and clothing throughout the king’s absence. David asks why he did not accompany him. Mephibosheth says that Ziba deceived him when he wanted a donkey prepared and then slandered him.
He recalls David’s kindness in giving him a place at the royal table and submits the matter to the king. David ends the discussion by ordering that he and Ziba divide the land. Mephibosheth answers that Ziba may have it all, since David has returned safely.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Wesley reads Mephibosheth’s neglected appearance as mourning that supports his account of loyalty. The scene gives him the opportunity to answer the accusation David accepted in 2 Samuel 16:1–4.
Wesley and Gill understand the division as returning to the earlier arrangement in which Ziba works the estate and shares its proceeds. The BSB states David’s ruling directly without explaining all its practical terms. The narrative also gives no further hearing in which Ziba answers the charge of slander.
Henry emphasizes Mephibosheth’s joy at the king’s return. Whatever happens to the land, his final words place David’s safety above winning the dispute. That is the loyalty his reply expresses.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.