1Sa 25:21 | KD | STEP | and contain a circumstantial clause introduced parenthetically to explain what follows: but David had said, Only for deception (i.e., for no other purpose than to be deceived in my expectation) have I defended all that belongs to this man (Nabal) in the desert, so that nothing of his was missed, and (for) he hath repaid me evil for good. God do so to the enemies of David, if I leave , etc.; i.e., “as truly as God will punish the enemies of David, so certainly will I not leave till the morning light, of all that belongeth to him, one that pisseth against the wall.” This oath, in which the punishment of God is not called down upon the swearer himself (God do so to me ), as it generally is, but upon the enemies of David, is analogous to that in , where punishment is threatened upon the person addressed, who is there made to swear; except that here, as the oath could not be uttered in the ears of the person addressed, upon whom it was to fall, the enemies generally are mentioned instead of “ to thee .” There is no doubt, therefore, as to the correctness of the text. The substance of this imprecation may be explained from the fact that David is so full of the consciousness of fighting and suffering for the cause of the kingdom of God, that he discerns in the insult heaped upon him by Nabal an act of hostility to the Lord and the cause of His kingdom. The phrase בּקיר משׁתּין, mingens in parietem , is only met with in passages which speak of the destruction of a family or household to the very last man (viz., besides this passage, 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 16:11; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 9:8), and neither refers primarily to dogs, as Ephraem Syrus, Juda ben Karish, and others maintain; nor to the lowest class of men, as Winer, Maurer, and others imagine; nor to little boys, as L. de Dieu, Gesenius , etc., suppose; but, as we may see from the explanatory clause appended to 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 9:8, to every male ( quemcumque masculi generis hominem: vid., Bochart, Hieroz . i. pp. 776ff., and Rödiger on Ges. Thes . pp. 1397-8).

‏ 1 Samuel 25:21

1Sa 25:21-22 1Sa 25:21 and 1Sa 25:22 contain a circumstantial clause introduced parenthetically to explain what follows: but David had said, Only for deception (i.e., for no other purpose than to be deceived in my expectation) have I defended all that belongs to this man (Nabal) in the desert, so that nothing of his was missed, and (for) he hath repaid me evil for good. God do so to the enemies of David, if I leave, etc.; i.e., “as truly as God will punish the enemies of David, so certainly will I not leave till the morning light, of all that belongeth to him, one that pisseth against the wall.” This oath, in which the punishment of God is not called down upon the swearer himself (God do so to me), as it generally is, but upon the enemies of David, is analogous to that in 1Sa 3:17, where punishment is threatened upon the person addressed, who is there made to swear; except that here, as the oath could not be uttered in the ears of the person addressed, upon whom it was to fall, the enemies generally are mentioned instead of “to thee.” There is no doubt, therefore, as to the correctness of the text. The substance of this imprecation may be explained from the fact that David is so full of the consciousness of fighting and suffering for the cause of the kingdom of God, that he discerns in the insult heaped upon him by Nabal an act of hostility to the Lord and the cause of His kingdom. The phrase בּקיר משׁתּין, mingens in parietem, is only met with in passages which speak of the destruction of a family or household to the very last man (viz., besides this passage, 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 16:11; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 9:8), and neither refers primarily to dogs, as Ephraem Syrus, Juda ben Karish, and others maintain; nor to the lowest class of men, as Winer, Maurer, and others imagine; nor to little boys, as L. de Dieu, Gesenius, etc., suppose; but, as we may see from the explanatory clause appended to 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 9:8, to every male (quemcumque masculi generis hominem: vid., Bochart, Hieroz. i. pp. 776ff., and Rödiger on Ges. Thes. pp. 1397-8).