1 Samuel 25:22

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.

Ver. 22. So and more also do God unto the enemies of David,] i.e., To David’s self, say some, whom yet he was loath to curse, by an euphemismus: 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, and that but now and then, and for some cause.

If I leave of all that pertain to him.] So rough and rash was David in a resolution of revenge:

“ Tantae ne animis coelestibus irae? ”

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}

Any that pisseth against the wall.] Dog or cat, as we say: Canem in hoc oppido non relinquam, I will not leave a dog alive in this town, said Aurelian, the emperor, concerning Tyane, which had shut her gates upon him. {a}

{a} Vopiscus, in Aureliano.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 David’s 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! David’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Meaning by this proverb, that he would destroy both small and great.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 22. So and more also do God] 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, c.

Any that pisseth against the wall.] This expression certainly means either men or dogs, and should be thus translated, if I leave-any male and this will answer both to men and dogs, and the offensive mode of expression be avoided. I will not enter farther into the subject: Bochart and Calmet have done enough, and more than enough; and in the plainest language too.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(22) So and more also.—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 God’s anger for the broken vow visited even David’s enemies, as distantly connected with him, how much more the guilty oath breaker himself? (This was Raschi’s explanation for a similar expression in Jonathan’s oath, 1Sa_20:16.) “A superstitious feeling probably lay at the root of this substitution of David’s enemies for himself, when thus invoking a curse” (Dean Payne Smith, in the Pulpit Commentary). 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (1Sa_3:17). 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.

if I leave … any, &c.] David vows that he will exterminate the family and not leave a single man alive. Cp. Deu_20:13.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

So and more also do God unto the enemies of David,.... Give them as much health and prosperity, as much wealth and riches, as Nabal has, and much more:

if I leave of all that pertain to him, by the morning light, any that pisseth against the wall; 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"that know knowledge,''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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The enemies, is left out in some editions of the Septuagint. But David wishes all evils to himself, though, to avoid the ominous expression, he specifies his enemies, if he do not punish Nabal. --- Leave. David certainly sinned in his designs against Nabal and his family, as he himself was afterwards sensible, when he blessed God for hindering him from executing the revenge he had proposed. (Challoner) --- All. Chaldean, "any one who is come to the use of reason." Syriac and Arabic, "the least thing hanging upon the wall." I will destroy the guilty, and plunder all the valuable effects. (Calmet) --- But the Hebrew, Septuagint, &c., agree with the Vulgate and the meaning is, either that every man, or that every dog, and even the meanest things, should be enveloped in the general ruin. (Haydock) --- The manners of men vary, but those of dogs are always the same. Hence, it is more generally supposed that this expression (Calmet) denotes that even dogs shall be exterminated, and consequently other things for which Nabal would have a greater affection. (Haydock) --- Aurelian being irritated against the inhabitants of Thiane, swore, "I will not leave a dog in this town;" which all people explained as if he meant to leave nothing alive in it. But being afterwards moved with compassion at the distress of the people, he executed his threat literally, and killed all the dogs. (Vopisc.) See 3 Kings xiv. 10., and xv. 29., and xxi. 21., and 4 Kings v. 6. (Bochart, Anim. ii. 55.; Delrio, adag. 184.) (Calmet) --- The unhappy Geddes translates, "a dog," to avoid the indelicate allusion. It would have been well if he had allowed himself no greater liberties! (Haydock) --- The Hebrew mashtin, may denote a shepherd’s or a mastiff dog. (Menochius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Unto the enemies of David, i. e. Unto David himself. But because it might seem ominous and unnatural to curse himself, therefore by a figure called euphemismus, instead of David, he mentions David’s enemies. See 1Sa 20:16. The words may be thus rendered:

So and more also let God do for (the Hebrew lamed 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.

Any that pisseth against the wall, i.e. any of the males, for they only do so; and of them this phrase is manifestly understood, 1Ki 14:10; 21:21; 2Ki 9:8; and men not wholly barbarous have generally spared women in such cases.

Quest. Why then was Abigail so much concerned and afraid?

Answ. 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 David’s threatening till she came to him.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. Any that pisseth against the wall — 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. 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 is meant. More plausibility attaches to the explanation of Ephraem Syrus, Vatablus, and others, that the expression characterizes a dog. But it seems clear from 1Ki_14:10; 1Ki_16:11, 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 and persons of the lowest class. 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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Enemies of David - That is, unto David himself. But because it might seem ominous to curse himself, therefore instead of David, he mentions David's enemies. 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.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Even one dog. Targum Yonoson renders, 'one possessing intelligence,' one who sets the walls of his heart. Another explanation is, 'even a dog whose manner is to urinate against a wall.'

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.