| 7. Linguistic Exegesis The clause opens with velo avah {וְלֹא אָבָה | wə-lō ʾāḇāh} ‘and not was willing,’ framing the outcome as a decision of divine will rather than inability. The infinitive phrase lehashchit {לְהַשְׁחִית | lə-hašḥîṯ} ‘to destroy’ expresses intended action, while et beit David {אֶת־בֵּית דָּוִד | ʾeṯ-bêṯ Dāwîḏ} marks the threatened object, the dynastic “house.” The motive is introduced by lemaan haberit {לְמַעַן הַבְּרִית | lə-maʿan habbərîṯ} ‘for the sake of the covenant,’ and the relative clause asher karat ledavid {אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת לְדָוִד | ʾăšer kāraṯ lə-Dāwîḏ} specifies the covenantal commitment; although lamed can mean ‘to/for,’ with karat {כָּרַת | kāraṯ} it functions idiomatically for “making a covenant with” someone. The final segment vekaasher amar latet lo nir {וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָמַר לָתֵת ל֥וֹ נִיר | wə-ḵaʾăšer ʾāmar lāṯēṯ lô nîr} ties the preservation of David’s house to Yahweh’s spoken promise, with vekaasher {וְכַאֲשֶׁר | wə-ḵaʾăšer} carrying an explanatory sense (“as/since He said”). The metaphor nir {נִיר | nîr} ‘lamp’ communicates continuing legitimacy and continuity of the royal line, reinforced by the duration phrase kol-hayamim {כָּל־הַיָּמִים | kōl-hayyāmîm} ‘all the days.’ |