Parakalein

I recently read a comment on a Biblical story that troubled me.  What troubles me was that the passage was only partially quoted.  We all can see things differently and being open to that can make a difference in the world. Was this a mistake in judgment? Is this the cause of David's kingdom being divided or is this the result of David learning and receiving discernment? No one is always right.

In II Samuel 9-20, there are several accounts of Absalom's conspiracy to overthrow David.  David had discovered that Mephibosbeth was a handicapped grandson of Saul and so David afforded him protection of the kingdom and the inheritance of Saul.  Mephibosbeth, crippled in both feet, had responded with "eternal loyalty" to David.  David had honored him with his grandfather's (Saul) inheritance. Ziba a servant of Saul's household was given to him.  Later on when a conspiracy arose and David fled Jerusalem, Mephibosbeth handicap made it difficult to leave so Ziba pledged to go in his stead and represent his desire to flee with David to him.  When David say Mephibosbeth was not with him and asked him he gave this response, "He is staying in Jerusalem, ...because he thinks that the kingdom of his grandfather will be restored to him."(16:3).  David then awards all that Mephibosbeth had to Ziba.  Later after the conspiracy was over and David returned to Jerusalem, Mephibosbeth approached David and David asked him why he had not accompanied him.  Mephibosbeth answered "My Lord, since your servant is lame, I said I would have my donkey saddled and would ride on it so I can go with the King. But Ziba, my servant betrayed me to you" (19:24).  David declared that the wealth of Saul would be shared equally by Ziba and Mephibosbeth (19:25).  Mephibosbeth responded, "Let him have everything, now that my king has arrived safely home" (19:26)

The interpretation by some is that David lost his kingdom due to his not standing against Ziba's betrayal and returning everything to Mephibosbeth.  As I read this story and looked for later details of this action, I found no account that the wealth was ever split.  David had made mistakes and had learned many hard lessons during this time (II Samuel 9-20). I do not think this was one of them. This is about "collective wisdom". Finding a way to discern who is truthful then acting accordingly.  Like David's lesson at the hand of Nathan. Truthfulness is discernible when the heart is right.

In this instance, I think David said he would divide the inheritance, which obviously was important to Ziba, to see Mephibosbeth reaction. It was not a final determination.  It may have been to discern truth and loyalty.  He was discerning Mephibosbeth's heart. When David said he would divide the wealth between the two of them, it was to watch the response.  The person who told the story, quoted Mephibosbeth's response:  "Give it all to him".  That sounds like an angry response. The implication is that the statement revealed that David could not put the words of the betrayer out of his head and believed them to at least some degree.  This would be an error. David had learned to be discerning from having poor discernment. He had let his emotions rule his judgement but no this time.That is not the whole truth as Mephibosbeth added that he was just glad that David was home.  Had he respond with accusations of unfairness and injustice it would say one thing to the King.  He chose to respond with, "give him everything, I have no ill feelings toward him and am simply glad you are well and have returned to Jerusalem".  Kindness and benevolence were revealed in his heart and David acted accordingly.  Whose interpreter is correct?  Mine gives some credit to David's growth curve. For me the whole phrase is more important than a part of the phrase.  Parsing phrases creates splits in understanding. Adding words can do the same.  Honestly I see the words I added to make it seem, I am right.  Being open to see that, keeps my heart open to my colleague.  For me it is interesting that years later Solomon would demonstrate this same wisdom to determine who was the real mother. He had no intention of cutting the child in two just ordered it to see the heart. The woman who was willing to have the child cut in two was not the mother but the one who was willing to give him up, was the true mother.  Solomon discerned true loyalty by this wise judgment. David discerned true loyalty by this wise judgment.

Often times we think we know what a person has done by the words they say. Sometimes our biases effects our perception.  By looking closer we can discern a deeper truth. David's kingdom was divided, true.  It was due to poor judgments, true.  That this particular judgment was the catalyst for the division of the kingdom is divisive.  I am not saying, it was a wise decision. I am saying it was wise to present it to discern a better decision.

David like all of us, had made lots of bad decisions that had created divisions.  But to interpret this statement as a cause of his divided kingdom is to miss the larger point.  Loyalty and truth are sometimes hard to discern but there is a way to test the heart, to know the heart.  This is the wisdom of discernment in action, a matter of the heart.

May God grant all of us discerning hearts and minds.  This is a gift that will keep on giving.

PS  When I began to blog this I was going to mention the person with whom I disagreed.  Discernment had me realize I did not have to do that to make my point. There are always two ways to look at anything which is really the most important point.  What is the most beneficial, to the most people, is an act of discernment.