| 14. Linguistic Exegesis Lihyot {לִֽהְיוֹת | li-hyôt} ‘to be’ introduces a purpose clause with mamlakhah {מַמְלָכָה | mam-la-khah} as the implicit subject. The adjective shephalah {שְׁפָלָה | she-pha-lah} specifies the desired low condition. Lə-vil-tî {לְבִלְתִּי | lə-vil-tî} ‘in order not to’ governs hitnasse {הִתְנַשֵּׂא | hit-na-sêʾ} ‘to exalt itself,’ forming a negative purpose clause. Lishmor {לִשְׁמֹר | liš-môr} ‘to keep’ with et {אֶת־ | ʾet} marks berito {בְּרִיתוֹ | bə-rî-tô} ‘his covenant,’ where the masculine singular suffix refers to the ruling entity’s treaty obligations. The final infinitive leamdah {לְעָמְדָהּ | lə-ʿam-dāh} ‘so that it might stand’ indicates the intended result of stability. The chain of infinitives links humility, treaty faithfulness, and enduring stability. |