22<\/strong>. unto the enemies of David<\/em> ] In the usual oath-formula the swearer invokes divine vengeance upon himself (1Sa 20:13<\/span>), or upon the person adjured (1Sa 3:17<\/span>). And so the Sept. here; “So God do to David.” “The enemies of David” may possibly be an euphemism, introduced by a corrector who was unwilling to let David invoke vengeance upon himself for an oath which he afterwards broke. Comp. the note on 1Sa 20:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n if I leave any<\/em>, &c.] David vows that he will exterminate the family and not leave a single man alive. Cp. Deu 20:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n The concluding phrase denotes the utter destruction of a family, and is rightly explained to mean every male, perhaps with the idea, down to the very meanest member of the household.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 22<\/span>. So and more also do God<\/B><\/I>] Nothing can justify this part of David’s conduct. Whatever his provocation might have been, he had suffered, properly speaking, no wrongs; and his resolution to cut off a whole innocent family, because Nabal had acted ungenerously towards him, was abominable and cruel, not to say diabolic. He who attempts to vindicate this conduct of David is, at least constructively, a foe to God and truth. David himself condemns this most rash and unwarrantable conduct, and thanks God for having prevented him from doing this evil, 1Sa 25:32<\/span>, c.<\/P> <\/P> Any that pisseth against the wall.<\/B><\/I>] This expression certainly means either men<\/I> or dogs<\/I>, and should be thus translated, if I<\/I> leave-any male<\/I> and this will answer both to men<\/I> and dogs<\/I>, and the offensive mode of expression be avoided. I will not enter farther into the subject: Bochart<\/I> and Calmet<\/I> have done enough, and more than enough; and in the plainest language<\/I> too.<\/P> <\/p>\n Unto the enemies of David, <\/B>i. e. Unto David himself. But because it might seem ominous and unnatural to curse himself, therefore by a figure called euphemismus<\/I>, instead of David, he mentions Davids enemies. See 1Sa 20:16<\/span>. The words may be thus rendered: <\/P> So and more also let God do for<\/B> (the Hebrew lamed<\/I> being very oft so used) the enemies of David, i.e. let God work for them, and give them as much prosperity and success as Nabal hath hitherto had. Or, let God utterly destroy their enemies; and especially myself, the chief of them, if I do not destroy this man. <\/P> Any that pisseth against the wall, <\/B>i.e. any of the males, for they only do so; and of them this phrase is manifestly understood, 1Ki 14:10<\/span>; 21:21<\/span>; 2Ki 9:8<\/span>; and men not wholly barbarous have generally spared women in such cases. <\/P> Quest.<\/B> Why then was Abigail so much concerned and afraid? <\/P> Answ.<\/B> Partly from humanity, and the horror of so general and dreadful a slaughter of her family and nearest relations; and partly because when the sword was once drawn, she knew not where it would rest, nor whether she should escape; for she knew nothing of this limitation of Davids threatening till she came to him. <\/P> <\/p>\n So and more also do God unto the enemies of David<\/strong>,…. Give them as much health and prosperity, as much wealth and riches, as Nabal has, and much more:<\/p>\n if I leave of all that [pertain] to him, by the morning light, any that pisseth against the wall<\/strong>; which is generally understood of a dog, that he, would not leave him so much as a dog: but it is better, with Ben Gersom, to interpret it of the males in his house, himself, his sons, and servants; and so the Targum paraphrases it of reasonable creatures, of such<\/p>\n “that know knowledge,”<\/p>\n or are knowing and understanding creatures; it seems to have been towards the evening; of the day when David was marching towards Nabal’s house, designing to fall upon him and his, amidst their jollity that night, and cut them all off before morning. This must be imputed to the sudden and violent passion David was thrown into when off his guard, through the necessity he was in, the disappointment he met with, and the opprobrious language he was treated with; but in this his conduct was not as it used to be, and as it was towards Saul his enemy. Nor is his rage and passion to be vindicated, or the rash vow he made to destroy Nabal and his family; his crime, though great, yet not to be published with death; his ingratitude and insolence deserved resentment, but were not capital crimes worthy of death, and especially of the destruction of his whole family; the Jews indeed make him to be guilty of treason, in that he knew that David was anointed king, and yet both abused him, and disobeyed his commands, and therefore being guilty of overt acts of treason, he and his were deserving of death; but David was not yet king.<\/p>\n (22) So and more also.<\/strong>This is an unusual variation of the common form of imprecation, God do so to me and more also, if, &c, &c. The Syriac and Arabic Versions, followed by some commentators, instead of enemies of David, read his servant David. The LXX., as usual, boldly cuts the knot by leaving out the word of difficulty, and reads David simply, omitting enemies. But there is no doubt that the Hebrew text here is correct. The words signify David himself. If Gods anger for the broken vow visited even Davids enemies, as distantly connected with him, how much more the guilty oath breaker himself? (This was Raschis explanation for a similar expression in Jonathans oath, 1Sa. 20:16<\/span>.) A superstitious feeling probably lay at the root of this substitution of Davids enemies for himself, when thus invoking a curse (Dean Payne Smith, in the Pulpit Commentary<\/em>). <\/em>Bishop Wordsworth here draws a good lesson on the non-obligation to keep a solemn oath, taken perhaps in a moment of undue excitement, and instances the evil example of Herod Antipas, who considered himself bound to carry out to the bitter end his rash oath to the daughter of Herodias, though it involved the death of John the Baptist, his former friend.<\/p>\n 22<\/strong>. <\/strong> Any that pisseth against the wall <\/strong> Here this proverbial expression first occurs, and we give the reader the several opinions on it. Bochart, Rodiger and Keil understand by the phrase a male person. <\/em> But it is a sufficient objection to this opinion that in the East, men perform this office of nature in a sitting posture. And were this objection removed, there is no apparent reason for characterizing men generally by this term. For similar reasons we regard as unsatisfactory the opinion that a little boy <\/em> is meant. More plausibility attaches to the explanation of Ephraem Syrus, Vatablus, and others, that the expression characterizes a dog. <\/em> But it seems clear from 1Ki 14:10<\/span>; 1Ki 16:11<\/span>, and some other passages, that persons are intended; and Jahn, Furst and others have well inferred that, from being primarily applied to dogs, which are thus fittingly characterized, the expression was at length used of slaves <\/em> and persons of the lowest class. <\/em> Thus the phrase would be used contemptuously of an enemy whom one designed utterly to exterminate. He would cut off an entire household, even to the lowest, most insignificant, and contemptible member. Compare marginal references.<\/p>\n 1Sa 25:22<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>So and more also do God unto the enemies of David<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> If we put all circumstances together, though David’s passion, and oath to destroy Nabal and servants, are not to be vindicated; though the resolution was cruel, and the oath a rash and wicked one, yet it must be allowed, that the provocation given him was very great. The last clause of this verse is rendered by the French, I will leave to Nabal nothing that belongs to him, from man even to dog.<\/em> <\/p>\n 1Sa 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that [pertain] to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.<\/p>\n Ver. 22. So and more also do God unto the enemies of David,<\/strong> ] i.e., <\/em> To David’s self, say some, whom yet he was loath to curse, by an euphemismus:<\/em> and so the Septuagint rendereth it. This was a rash vow, and not usual with David. We may say as much, and more, in excuse of it, as the historian doth of King Alphonsus, that he never swore any oath but by his father’s bones; Et quidem rarenter et ob causam,<\/em> and that but now and then, and for some cause. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n If I leave of all that pertain to him.<\/strong> ] So rough and rash was David in a resolution of revenge: <\/p>\n “ Tantae ne animis coelestibus irae?<\/em> ”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Men do in anger they know not what; such a smoke it raiseth; like as when fire is put to wet straw and filthy stuff. “Cease therefore from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.” Psa 37:8 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Any that pisseth against the wall.<\/strong> ] Dog or cat, as we say: Canem in hoc oppido non relinquam,<\/em> I will not leave a dog alive in this town, said Aurelian, the emperor, concerning Tyane, which had shut her gates upon him. a<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Vopiscus, in Aureliano.<\/p>\n God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4. <\/p>\n any, &c. = any male. <\/p>\n So and more: Nothing can justify this conduct of David, which was rash, unjust, and cruel in the extreme. David himself condemns it, and thanks God for being prevented from executing this evil – 1Sa 25:32-34. 1Sa 3:17, 1Sa 14:44, 1Sa 20:13, 1Sa 20:16, Rth 1:17 <\/p>\n if I leave: 1Sa 25:34 <\/p>\n any that pisseth: etc. This seems to have been a proverbial expression among the Israelites; and may with the utmost propriety be read “any male.” 1Ki 14:10, 1Ki 16:11, 1Ki 21:21, 2Ki 9:8 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 5:4 – to do evil 1Sa 25:37 – had told him 2Sa 3:9 – So do God 2Sa 12:5 – David’s 2Ki 6:31 – God do so Pro 15:1 – grievous Ecc 7:9 – hasty Mat 14:9 – the oath’s 1Co 13:4 – vaunteth not itself<\/p>\n 1Sa 25:22. So and more also do God unto the enemies of David That is, unto David himself. But because it might seem ominous to curse himself, therefore, instead of David, he mentions Davids enemies: see 1Sa 20:16. The meaning seems to be, that he wishes God might bless his enemies, and pour evil upon himself, if he did not destroy Nabal and all the males of his family before the morning. But is this the voice of David? Can he speak so unadvisedly with his lips? Has he been so long in the school of affliction, and learned no more patience therein? Lord, what is man? And what need have we to pray, Lead us not into temptation! Davids wrath, though perhaps justly moved, here carried him to a pitch that, if executed, would have filled him with remorse, sorrow, and shame, as it could by no means have been reconciled to the laws of that God who was his defender, and whom alone he confided in for support under, and deliverance out of, his troubles. In which laws, too, he was well instructed, and therefore ought to have been governed by them, and not by his furious resentment.<\/p>\n 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that [pertain] to him by the morning light any that {h} pisseth against the wall.<\/p>\n (h) Meaning by this proverb that he would destroy both small and great.<\/p>\n So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that [pertain] to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 22. unto the enemies of David ] In the usual oath-formula the swearer invokes divine vengeance upon himself (1Sa 20:13), or upon the person adjured … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 25:22”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7895","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"