Jerusalem’s Affliction a Punishment for her Guilt

v. 1. How is the gold become dim! How is the most fine gold changed! losing its splendor and color. The stones of the Sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street, or, “The hallowed stones are cast forth at all street corners,” with utter disregard of their costliness. The two expressions together are a picture of the holy people of the Lord, consecrated to be a kingdom of priests unto the Lord.

v. 2. The precious sons of Zion, all its inhabitants, noble by virtue of the Lord’s selection, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, of little or no value, the work of the hands of the potter! readily shattered in pieces for their sins.

v. 3. Even the sea monsters, the great mammalian animals of the ocean, or “the jackals of the desert,” draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones, thereby giving some evidence of motherly feeling; the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness, whose want of affection for their young is referred to also Job 39:16. This point of cruelty has been reached also by the Jewish mothers, so that they have abandoned the natural feelings of motherhood.

v. 4. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst, there being no nourishment for infants; the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them, since no one was left to distribute food, even if the supply had not been exhausted.

v. 5. They that did feed delicately, being very choicy in the selection of the viands which loaded down their tables, are desolate in the streets, without homes and without food as well; they that were brought up in scarlet, borne on couches of the finest crimson material, embrace dunghills, fortunate in finding so much as a rubbish-heap for their weary limbs.

v. 6. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, the catastrophe coming upon the city with great suddenness, and no hands stayed on her, it was not necessary for any human hands to be active in her destruction, since the Lord Himself brought the calamity upon her. The fate of Jerusalem was more terrible than that of Sodom because her guilt was greater. Thus Sodom, for instance, was spared the slow tortures of hunger and pestilence by the suddenness of the punishment which ended her existence.

v. 7. Her Nazarites, her princes or rulers, separated from the rest of the people by virtue of the dignity of their office, were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, or “corals”; their polishing was of sapphire, beautiful in form.

v. 8. Their visage, now that the calamity has come upon them, is blacker than a coal, than blackness, or soot; they are not known in the streets, because their appearance is so dreadfully altered; their skin cleaveth to their bones, on account of the excessive loss of flesh which they had suffered; it is withered, dry and yellow; it is become like a stick, without sap and vigor.

v. 9. They that be slain with the sword are better, more fortunate, than they that be slain with hunger, because they were not obliged to suffer the agonies of a slow death; for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. Such was the fate of the men, of the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem; far more pitiful was that of the women.

v. 10. The hands of the pitiful women, of those who were tenderhearted and merciful, from whom one might have expected a different behavior, have sodden their own children, in an abhorrent and almost unexplainable form of cannibalism; they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people, during the siege of Jerusalem. Cf Deu 28:57. Thus the extremity of the case influenced even delicate and kind-hearted women to commit such horrible crimes.

v. 11. The Lord hath accomplished His fury, fulfilling the designs of His wrath; He hath poured out His fierce anger and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof, the reference being to the total destruction of the city by the punishment of Jehovah. Thus the Lord proved Himself a holy and a jealous God, who was bound to visit the iniquity of the sinners upon them.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

THE SUFFERINGS OF JERUSALEM; NO CLASS IS EXEMPT. EDOM‘S TRIUMPHING.

EXPOSITION

Lam 4:1

How is the gold become dim! the stones of the sanctuary, etc. “Alas for the sad sights of the capture of Jerusalem! The most fine gold has lost its brilliance now that the fire of Nebuzar-adan (2Ki 25:9) has passed over it, and the precious stones, consecrated to Jehovah, have been cast out into the open street!” Not that the latter part of this description can have corresponded to literal fact. None of the hallowed jewels would have been treated with such indifference. The expression must be as figurative as the parallel one, “to cast pearls before swine,” in Mat 7:6. The precious stones are the “sons of Zion,” who are compared to “fine gold” in Mat 7:2, precisely as they are in Zec 9:16 (comp. Zec 9:13,” Thy sons, O Zion”) to “the stones of a crown.” They are called “stones of the sanctuary,” in allusion, perhaps, to the precious stones employed in the decoration of the temple according to 1Ch 29:2 and 2Ch 3:6. But we may also translate hallowed stones, which better suits the figurative use of the phrase. Those, however, who adopt the literal interpretation, explain “the stones of the sanctuary” of the hewn stones of the fabric of the temple, which are described as “costly” in 1Ki 5:17. But how can even a poet have represented the enemy as carrying these stones out and throwing them down in the street? On the other hand, in an earlier lamentation we are expressly told that the young children “fainted for hunger in the top of every street” (Lam 2:19).

Lam 4:2

The precious sons of Zion; i.e. not merely the nobility, but the people of Judah in general. It is needless (as the literal interpreters of Lam 4:1 are compelled to do) to alter b’ne (sons) into batte (houses) or ‘abne (stones). The comparison of men to potters’ vessels is familiar to the Hebrew writers (comp. Isa 22:24; Isa 45:9).

Lam 4:3

The sea monsters; rather, the jackals (tannin, the Aramaic form of the plural for tannim). Cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. So in Job (Job 39:14-16) it is said of the ostrich that she “leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers.” The description is literally true, if we add a detail not mentioned by the sacred poet. The eggs destined for hatching are deposited in a nest hole scratched in the sand, but there are other eggs laid, not in the sand, but near it, to all appearance forsaken. These eggs, however, are not exposed in simple stupidity, though they do often fall victims to violence. “They are intended for the nourishment of the newly hatched young ones, which in barren districts would at first find difficulty in procuring food”.

Lam 4:4

Breaketh it unto them. The Jewish bread, consisting of round or oval cakes.

Lam 4:5

They that did feed delicately, etc. i.e. luxuriously. The rendering has been disputed, but without sufficient ground. “They that did eat at dainties,” i.e. pink at their dainty food, is forced. The Aramaic mark of the accusative need not surprise us in Lamentations (comp. Jer 40:2). Brought up in scarlet; rather, borne upon scarlet; i.e. resting upon scarlet-covered couches. The poet speaks of adults, not of children.

Lam 4:6

The punishment of the iniquity… the punishment of the sin. This is a possible rendering (see Gen 4:13; Zec 14:19), but the renderings, “the iniquity,” “the sin? are preferable, and yield a finer meaning, viz. that the punishment having been so severe, the guilt must have been in proportion. And no hands stayed on her. To make the picture of sudden destruction more vivid, the poet alludes to the ordinary circumstances of the capture of a city, the “hands” of a fierce soldiery ever “whirling” a destroying sword. Comp. “the swinging of the hand of Jehovah Sabaoth, which he swingeth against it” (Isa 19:16).

Lam 4:7

Her Nazarites; rather, her eminent ones (just as Joseph is called n’zir ekhav,”eminent among his brethren”). The rendering of the Authorized Version is lexically possible, but is intrinsically improbable. The Nazarites constituted too small a portion of the Jewish people to receive so prominent a place in the elegy. Rubies; rather, corals. Their polishing was of sapphire; literally, their shape was (like) a sapphire. But the point in which the sapphire is compared to the bodies of the princes is evidently not the outline of its form, but its gleaming brilliant appearance; so that the Authorized Version is substantially correct.

Lam 4:8

Their visage is blacker than a coal; rather, their appearance is darker than blacknessone of the hyperboles which seem to indicate that the poem was not written at the very moment of the calamity described (comp. Job 30:30). Not known in the streets. Another point of contact with the Book of Job (Job 2:12). Their skin, etc. Again we must compare the lamentations of Job (Job 19:20; Job 30:30). Psa 102:5 may also be quoted; for the second half of the verse is toe short unless we insert “to my skin” before “to my flesh.”

Lam 4:9

The miserable condition just now described maintains a sad pre-eminence even when compared with the fate of the slain in battle. And why! For these pine away (literally, melt away), stricken through (with the pangs of hunger). The Authorized Version takes the subject of the second half of the verse to be the famished. But it is, perhaps, more natural to take it to be those wounded in a battle, to whom the expression, “stricken through,” is actually applied in ch. 37:10; 51:4. In this case the line had better be rendered thus: For those pine away, stricken through, leaving the fruits of the field (which they no longer need). The word rendered “pine away” would be particularly applicable to those who perished from loss of blood.

Lam 4:10

The pitiful women. Strange contrast between the compassionate nature of woman (comp. Isa 49:15) and the dread horrors of this moral as well as physical catastrophe (comp. note on Lam 2:20).

Lam 4:11

Hath accomplished means here, not “hath finished,” but “hath poured out in full measure,” as in the song of Moses Jehovah declares that he will “spend his arrows upon them”the Hebrew verb is the same as here (Deu 32:23). To show the completeness of Zion’s ruin it is compared to a fire which hath devoured the (very) foundations thereof.

Lam 4:12

The kings of the earth, etc. And yet Jerusalem had been taken twice before its capture by Nebuchadnezzar (see 1Ki 14:26; 2Ki 14:1-29 :131. How is the language of the second part to be accounted for? It will help us to an answer if we observe that the later Jews seem to have acquired an exorbitant confidence in their national future ever since the Book of Deuteronomy had become as it were canonical in the reign of Josiah. “The temple of Jehovah” was ever in their mouths (Jer 7:9), and the strong outward regard paid to the directions of the Law seemed to them to justify their believing in the fulfilment of its promises. And, in fact, the grand deliverance of Jerusalem in the reign of Hezekiah might, even without this misunderstanding of Deuteronomy, have inspired a firm faith in the security of Jerusalem. A sacred poet had already, on the occasion of that deliverance, declared of the holy city that “God upholdeth the same forever” (Psa 48:8), and also (in verses 4, 5) used the same hyperbole as the author of this lamentation to express the wide reaching interest felt in the fortunes of Jerusalem.

Lam 4:13

For the sins of her prophets, etc. Instead of connecting this verse by a comma with the following, we should rather view it as a unit in itself, and understand at the beginning, “All this hath happened” The sins of the prophets and priests are mentioned together by Jeremiah (Jer 6:13; Jer 23:11), as well as by Isaiah (Isa 28:7). But we are nowhere else told that the spiritual leaders of the people, in these closing years of the Jewish state, were guilty of shedding innocent blood, unless this is to be inferred from the incident related in Jer 26:7, etc.

Lam 4:14

They; i.e. the prophets and priests. Wandered as blind men. The leaders of the people are blinded by ignorance, for they know not the only true way of averting calamity, and by passion, for they have not that “eye” of the soul (Mat 6:22, Mat 6:23) which alone enables a man to see the good and the right course for himself individually, The” wandering,” or, rather, “staggering” (comp. Psa 107:27, Authorized Version), however, may also refer to the panic stricken condition of those self. deceived deceivers when overtaken by God’s punishment; comp. “wine of reeling” (Authorized Version, “astonishment”), Psa 60:3; also the prophecies in Deu 28:28, Deu 28:29; Jer 23:12. The doubt is whether “have wandered” refers to some period before the final catastrophe, or to the consternation produced by that awful surprise. The latter view seems the more probable. They have polluted themselves, etc. Their acts of violence have been continued to the very end of their term of power. Their garments are still stained with blood when the summons to depart into exile reaches them.

Lam 4:15

They cried unto them, etc. As they leave the city they are pursued by the maledictions of those whom they have oppressed. It is unclean. The cry with which the leper was directed to warn off passengers, lest they should become infected (Le 13:45). There may be an allusion to this, but, though commonly accepted, the view is not certain, as the” leper” in the present case is not the person who raises the cry, but those who meet him. When they fled away and wandered. The clause is difficult. If the text is correct, Keil’s explanation may perhaps pass, “When they fled away, (there) also they wandered,” alluding to the “wandering” ascribed to them with a somewhat different shade of meaning in the preceding verso. In any case there ought to be a fuller stop than a comma after “touch not,” which words close the first of the two parallel lines of which the verse consists. But very probably “when” (Hebrew, ki) is an intrusion, and we should begin the second line thus: “They fled, they also wandered about.” They said among the heathen, etc. Even in their place of exile they found no rest (comp. Deu 28:65). This is better than understanding “the heathen” (literally, the nations) to mean “the Chaldean army,” and the place of sojourn prohibited to be Jerusalem.

Lam 4:16

Hath divided them; i.e. hath scattered them, like “l will divide them in Jacob” (Gen 49:7).

Lam 4:17

As for us, our eyes, etc.; rather (correcting the reading of the first word), Our eyes were still wasting away (as we looked) for our help in vain. To the very last the Jews leaned on “that broken reed,” Egypt (Isa 36:6); how vain that hope would be Jeremiah had already told them (Jer 37:7, Jer 37:8). In our watching; i.e. earnestly and continually; or, on our watchtower.

Lam 4:18

They hunt our steps, etc. Realistic attempts to explain this line have not been wanting, but seem unsuccessful. The Chaldeans were either within the city or without. If within, they would not need literally to “hunt the steps” of the Jews; if without, they had not war engines adequate to shooting the inhabitants at some distance. Probably the expressions are metaphorical; they are similar to those used in Lam 3:52, immediately after which we meet with such a purely poetical phrase as, “They have cut off my life in the pit [Authorized Version, ‘dungeon’], and cast a stone upon me” (see note on Lam 3:52-56).

Lam 4:19

Swifter than the eagles of the heaven. Jeremiah, or his imitator, repeats the figure which occurs in Jer 4:13. There is probably no special reference to the circumstances of the capture of Zedekiah (Jer 39:4, Jer 39:5); the escape of many fugitives would be similarly cut off.

Lam 4:20

The breath of our nostrils. The theocratic king was the direct representative of the people with Jehovah, and to him the promises of 2Sa 7:1-29. were conveyed. He was also, in a sense, the representative of Jehovah with the people. His throne was “the throne of Jehovah” (1Ch 29:23). A similar conception of the king was generally prevalent in antiquity. Most of all among the Egyptians; but, even in imperial Rome, we find Seneca (‘De Clementia,’ 2Sa 1:4, quoted by Archbishop Seeker, in Blayney) declaring, “Ille (Princeps) est spiritus vitalis, quem haec tot millia (civium) trahunt.” For the Jewish, or Old Testament, conception, see Psa 28:8, where “his people” and “his anointed” are used almost synonymously. Was taken in their pits. A figure from hunting (comp. Lam 1:13; Psa 7:15). The fate of Zedekiah is referred to. Among the heathen; better, among the nations. The rendering of the Authorized Version suggests that the Jews hoped to preserve at least a qualified independence under their own king, even after their captivity.

Lam 4:21

Rejoice and be glad. An ironical address to Edom, who is bidden to enjoy her malicious triumph, but warned that it will be but short lived. How ungenerously the Edomites behaved at the fall of Jerusalem we are repeatedly told (see on Jer 49:7). In the land of Uz. As to the situation of Uz, see on Jer 25:20. The cup; one of Jeremiah’s images (see Jer 25:15).

Lam 4:22

The punishment of thine iniquity or, thy guilt (see on Lam 4:6). The prophet speaks with the confidence of faith, and sees the guilt wiped away, and the danger of a future captivity removed by the purification which the Jewish national character has undergone. He will discover thy sins. God is said to “cover over” sins when he remits their punishment, and to “discover” them when he punishes them (comp. Job 20:27, Job 20:28).

HOMILETICS

Lam 4:1, Lam 4:2

Fine gold dimmed.

Gold is a precious metal, partly because it is less liable to corrode than other metals. It will not rust like iron nor even tarnish like silver. For fine gold to be dimmed is for it to undergo exceptionally severe treatment. Such was the treatment of the gold of the temple after the Chaldean siege of Jerusalem. Josephus describes how the gold glittered on the temple walls in his day; and doubtless the effect of the earlier temple’s splendour must have been similarly dazzling. But when covered with the dust of a ruined city, smoked with its fires, neglected and defiled, this fine gold would lose its brilliancy. In the dimming of the brightness of the temple mourning patriots saw an illustration of the shame that had come over the nation, and especially of the degradation of the noblest of the citizens of Jerusalem. But whenever rich gifts and graces of God are corrupted we may echo the same lament, “How is the gold become dim!”

I. FINE GOLD IS DIMMED WHEN NOBLE GIFTS OF NATURE ARE PUT TO BASE USES. Nature is wealthy with precious things that in themselves and in the eye of God are purely good. The beauty of earth and sea, the wonder of natural forces, the delicate organizations of plant and animal, all things created by the hand of God, are fine and fair and worthy. And these things are given us as our heritage. Science opens to our use many a secret treasure house. Art and manufactures result from the appropriation of natural resources. But how often are they degraded by being turned to the service of evil, in constructing instruments of war, in ministering to luxurious self-indulgence, in pampering intemperate appetites, etc.!

II. FINE GOLD IS DIMMED WHEN RARE TALENTS ARE WASTED OR ABUSED. Intellectual ability, artistic taste, gifts for music, philosophy or science, stored knowledge, refined culture, natural genius, and educational acquisitions are like fine gold. Yet this gold may be dimmed:

1. When the gifts and acquirements are idly neglected. Noble promises disappoint the beholder with a miserable failure. Even so coarse a sin as drunkenness has its victims among the sons of genius. When sensuality, sordid love of money, self-satisfied conventionality, feverish worldly ambition, or any other low pursuit draws the soul away from the high vocation marked out for it by its own peculiar gifts; the fine gold is dimmed.

2. When the talents are prostituted to low ends. The gold may be used, but, instead of adorning a temple, it decorates a voluptuary’s banquet hall. The evil use of it degrades the precious metal. Great endowments are too often similarly degraded. They are used for ill. The painter, unlike Fra Angelico, who, working on his knees and for God, made the exercise of his art an act of worship, forsakes his ideal to please the low tastes of his patrons. The writer neglects truth to flatter the popular cries of the day. The philosophic genius absorbs his mental gifts in mercenary calculations. Thus the fine gold is dimmed.

III. FINE GOLD IS DIMMED WHEN YOUTH IS ILL SPENT. For youth is the golden age of life. If not in liberty and ease, for the yoke must then be fitted to the shoulders, still, in freshness, vigour, and opportunity, it is like the morning going forth in its strength, bright as gold. But when the promise of childhood is belied by the performance of manhood, how is the fine gold become dim! Young men who have not yet lost the bloom of first innocence should beware of the fatal temptations which threaten to cast the beauty and purity of their souls into the mire. We all have an opportunity to begin life well. Some fine gold is then bestowed upon every soul. Let us see to it in these early years that the treasure of a good conscience before God end man is not lost.

IV. FINE GOLD IS DIMMED WHEN A CHRISTIAN FALLS INTO SIN. The graces of the spiritual life are as finest gold. God counts his people as his jewels (Ma Lam 3:17). Rare, and bright, and beautiful, glorious and golden in the sunlight of God’s love, is the character of true saintliness. There is no beauty comparable to the beauty of holiness. But alas I when the saint trails his white robe in the foul ways of sin and casts the pearls that adorn him to the swine, how is all the glory and beauty degraded! Nothing more repulsive than a fine garment besmirched with filth; it is far worse than the beggar’s rags, to which dirt seems natural The fallen Christian defiles himself and dims his gold and brings shame on the Name of Christ by his sin.

V. FINE GOLD IS DIMMED WHEN THE CHURCH IS CORRUPTED. Like Jerusalem of old, the bride of the Lamb should be all-glorious with grace and goodness. The golden perfection of humanity should characterize this society and make it a worthy kingdom of heaven upon earth. But how often has the fine gold been dimmed, in pagan additions to primitive Christianity, in superstitions of the dark ages, in cruelties and immoralities of the Middle Ages, in Catholic prejudice and Protestant bitterness, in the arid rationalism of Germany and the worldly conventionalism of England!

Lam 4:3, Lam 4:4

The violation of maternal instincts.

I. MATERNAL INSTINCTS ARE AMONG THE MOST WIDESPREAD AND DEEP–SEATED ORDINANCES OF PROVIDENCE.

1. Widespread. They are shared by the lower animals as well as by human beings. The fiercest monsters are careful of their cubs. The most stupid know how to tend and rear their offspring. Roaming jackals of the desert have their lairs where they give suck to their little ones. The varied fields of animal life all bear evidence to this wonderful instinct. It is seen among all races of men. Brutal degraded classes, untrained savages, fierce warlike people, all possess it.

2. Deep-seated. These instincts are far deeper than any merely social tendency. They are strong and vital as appetites. The mother feels for her child as for part of herself. Many desires and habits will be abandoned before these instincts will fail. They outlive virtue and principle and dwell still in the vicious.

II. THE VIOLATION OF MATERIAL INSTINCTS IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE EVENTS.

1. In proportion to the profound and almost universal character of these instincts is the outrage on nature itself that the violation of them involves. We judge of an influence by the forces it has to overcome. It must be very strong if it can conquer great resistance. To conquer such resistance as that offered by the maternal instincts the evil influence must be powerful indeed. Therefore the violation of these instincts must be a proof of a most exceptionally energetic force of evil. Lady Macbeth must have sold herself to a very demon of ambition before she could unsex herself enough to say

“I have given suck, and know
How tender ’tis to love the babe that milks me:
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn, etc.”

2. Moreover, the fatal effect of the violation of maternal instincts is another proof of the terrible evils of the corruption that can make it possible. These instincts are essential to the very continuance of life on our globe. Creatures that come into the world with so much feebleness as is the case with human beings would perish were they not protected in infancy by the wonderful passionate care of maternity.

III. THAT MUST BE A FRIGHTFUL CALAMITY WHICH CAN LEAD TO THE VIOLATION OF MATERNAL INSTINCTS. Such was the calamity of the siege of Jerusalem. Then hunger and despair led parents to neglect their children. The worst mad violation of maternal instincts had been anticipated in a siege of Samaria, when a mother devoured her own child (2Ki 6:24-29). Such things have been done since. They force us to realize the barbarous cruelty of war which some would hide beneath its foolish pomp and pageantry. They also make us see the evil of extreme misery. There is a point beyond which suffering ceases to be beneficial. It then becomes a positive curse. It tears up the very roots of the most precious growths of nature. It drives to worse moral degradation than luxury tempts to, though in the eyes of a merciful God the guilt cannot be regarded with so much wrath where the misery that urges to it is so pitiable. Therefore it should be the work of the Christian philanthropist to remove physical wretchedness, not only for its own sake, but also as one of the first means for preventing crime and vice.

Lam 4:5

Reverses of fortune.

I. REVERSES OF FORTUNE ARE NOT UNCOMMON. It is not only in the rare case of a protracted siege, when at last rich and poor both suffer from the severities of famine, that we may see some who once fed delicately wandering desolate in the street. All who have gone down into the haunts of the very poor and have investigated the severest cases of wretchedness know how many of the most abject paupers have enjoyed wealth and luxury in former years. Even in an orderly society such as our own the number of these violent reverses of fortune is appalling. Let no one boast of his assured comfort.

II. REVERSES OF FORTUNE ARE MOST PAINFUL. We rarely miss what we have never known. There is, therefore, much mitigation to the hardness of the lot of those who are born in the most miserable circumstances, arising from the fact that they have never experienced anything better. But the greatest distress is in coming down from affluence, comfort, and honour to poverty, distress, and shame.

III. REVERSES OF FORTUNE ARE FREQUENTLY MERITED. We must beware of the error of Job’s friends. The innocent may and often do suffer from a most grievous succession of calamities. Still, those three men had much to say for their view. Their mistake was in making it universal in its application. It is rarely that the seed of the righteous man has to beg for bread. Good men may have a humble lot and sometimes may have to suffer considerable loss. But usually the greatest degradation and misery follows the folly or sin of the sufferer. Probably the one vice of intemperance is the cause of more than half the cases of the very worst reverses of fortune.

IV. REVERSES OF FORTUNE SHOULD EXCITE PECULIAR COMMISERATION. The happy and prosperous should look out for such cases. The most sad among them are often the hardest to find. They hide in shame and misery. Especially when the degradation is moral it becomes a Christian work to seek to restore the fallen. The Son of man came, not so much to preserve the prosperous nor to raise those who had never known better things, as to seek and to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, i.e. those who had once been privileged and had fallen from their first estate.

V. REVERSES OF FORTUNE DO NOT JUSTIFY LOSS OF FAITH IN GOD. They tempt men that way. “Curse God, and die,” a voice whispers into the ear of the despairing man. But it is the voice of folly as well as of sin. For:

1. We must expect to be governed in many mysteries by the great and all-wise God. It may be rational to disbelieve in the existence of God; but it cannot be rational to believe that he is, and yet to doubt his wisdom or goodness.

2. The reverse is often due to the fault of the sufferer.

3. It may be overruled for his good.

VI. REVERSES OF FORTUNE MAY BE REVERSED. So was it in Job’s case; the end of the patriarch’s life was even brighter than the beginning of it.

1. This may happen on earth. In suffering we are too ready to lose heart. We paint the future in dark shades manufactured solely from present experiences. But there are more resources in the world than we dream of.

2. It will surely come in the next world to all who trust in God. Then the second reverse will be as joyous as the first was miserable. For the same principle will apply in both cases, and the great change will heighten the sense of the new condition. Happy are they who, in Christ, though suffering and despised, are looking forward to this glorious reverse of their present dark fortunes.

Lam 4:12

Incredible calamities.

Not only had Jerusalem believed herself invincible, But she had been so long preserved in safety and so signally delivered in extreme danger, as in the Assyrian invasion when Hezekiah was king, that neighbouring nations had come to look upon her as secure from harm, and to regard such calamities as those which came in the wake of the Chaldean invasion as incredible. There are men whose condition in the eyes of the world is as safe as that of Jerusalem was to the kings of the earth, and who nevertheless may fall into a greater ruin than the overthrow of Jerusalem.

I. THE CAUSES OF POPULAR DISBELIEF IN APPROACHING CALAMITIES.

1. Self-confidence. Jerusalem believed herself to be safe. Proud in the favour of Heaven, she scorned to fear danger. This attitude of assurance impressed her neighbours. They thought there must be good ground for such loud bravado, or they did not think but simply acquiesced in the opinion of herself which the boastful city published abroad. Thus does the world often take men at their own estimates of themselves, not troubling to test these partial verdicts.

2. Previous security. Jerusalem seemed to bear a charmed life. She had braved many a fierce storm. The enemy had swept up to her very gates. But there they had been flung back by mysterious interventions of Providence. So the world believes in the prosperity of the prosperous. She indolently takes for granted that what has been will be.

II. THE FOLLY OF POPULAR DISBELIEF IN APPROACHING CALAMITIES.

1. Insufficient evidence. The grounds of this notion are irrational. It is foolish to take people at their self-valuation; but it is more foolish for the people thus accepted to take the popular voice, which is only the echo of their own vanity, as a justification for it. And when the past security engenders confidence, they who do not know what subsequent changes of circumstances have taken place cannot reasonably give security for its continuance.

2. Ignorance of the real sources of prosperity and danger. The heathen kings knew not the God of Israel. They knew nothing of the secret of Jerusalem’s safety in the days of her prosperity, nor did they see the sure presages of her ruin, Worldly men, who do not understand wherein the safety of a soul consists, are poor judges of that soul’s prospects.

III. THE DANGER OF POPULAR DISBELIEF IN APPROACHING CALAMITY. Though it is foolish it is influential, because it is readily accepted as an agreeable solace to fear. Thus Jerusalem was deluded by the flattery of her neighbours. When there is a general opinion that all is well it is hard for individual souls to see and feel their danger. In a condition of worldly ease the prophet of repentance is opposed by the mocking indifference of popular opinion, and souls are lulled to sleep with a hollow security that says, “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace. The antidote to this dangerous anodyne of conscience must be sought in the Word of God, which speaks of judgment, and warns us to flee from the wrath to come for refuge where only safety can be found, not in the flattery of our neighbours, but at the cross of Christ.

Lam 4:14

Blindness.

The prophets and priests are so dismayed that they wander through the streets of Jerusalem like blind men; No doubt the confused movement of these men as they run to and fro, not knowing whither to turn, is the chief idea in the mind of the poet. But the image of blindness by which he illustrates it is suggestive of the secret of their confusion. They were, indeed, as blind men because spiritual blindness had seized on them.

I. THE MEN WHO WERE BLINDED. Priests and prophets.

1. Blindness would be least excusable in these men. They were not like the illiterate, nor even like the mass of the laity. Priests were trained in traditional lore, and prophets had access to new fountains of truth.

2. Blindness would be most dangerous in these men. They assumed the position of “men of light and leading.” The world was made to believe that whoever else might be in darkness these teachers were fully illuminated. Their blindness was most fatal because they were “blind leaders of the blind”

II. THE CHARACTER OF THEIR BLINDNESS. It was spiritual. These teachers had all their senses and faculties. They could see the standards and chariots and hosts of the invader, They could measure his forces and calculate his movements. They had intellectual as well as physical eyesight. But they could not see the hand of God in the whole transaction. They failed to discern that moral condition of the nation which had called the judgment of Heaven down upon its head. They were quite at sea as to the future. They did not understand the Divine purpose of the chastisement; and they were helpless when called upon to guide their followers in the great emergency. When the wolf broke into the fold the shepherds were hopelessly confounded. So must it be with all unworthy guides. The moment of need will discover their worthlessness.

III. THE CAUSE OF THIS BLINDNESS. Sin (see Lam 4:13). Priests and prophets had shed the blood of the just. Gross abuse of power and tyrannous violence were iniquities enough to blunt the spiritual vision of the most gifted. This is one of the most terrible fruits of sin. It always tends to deaden conscience and darken the eye of the soul. We must do right if we would see truth. It is not only sensuality, passion, and gross worldliness that debase the soul beyond the power of perceiving higher things, but more spiritual sinspride, bigotry, self-will, etc.also blind it. Purity of heart is essential to clearness of vision.

IV. THE EFFECT OF THIS BLINDNESS. “They wandered as blind men in the streets.” Darkness of vision leads to confusion in action. We must see clearly that we may walk straightly. A confused conscience will make an uncertain will. Practical truth is not merely a subject for discussion in the seclusion of the study. It is a necessary chart to guide our course by. When the seeing and teaching of this is at fault all life is thrown into helpless disorder.

V. THE CUBE FOR THIS BLINDNESS. This is not suggested here. It is not the function of Lamentations to console and heal. But there is a remedy. For Christ came to “open the blind eyes” (Isa 42:7). He is “the Light of the world,” and all who follow him shall not walk m darkness, but shall have the light of life” (Joh 8:12).

Lam 4:15

Contamination.

So horrible is the condition of Jerusalem after the siege that men regard the holy city as an unclean place, like a haunt of lepers or an abode of. the dead. They cry, “Go aside! Unclean! Go aside! go aside!” as they would to one who incautiously approached too near to one of these banned spots. The dread of contamination is a natural testimony to the instinct for purity; but it is often sadly perverted, for while no feeling should be more related to truth and fact, it happens that no feeling is more subject to artificial, conventional regulations. We need to inquire what are the true causes of contamination and how real contamination may be avoided.

I. WHAT ARE THE TRUE CAUSES OF CONTAMINATION? It is uncleanness that defiles. The primitive notion of uncleanness is connected with material thingsthe dirt that soils a garment, etc. Then disease which is loathsome and offensive, and death with its attendant corruption, are felt to be defiling. But to the soul true defilement can only come from what is morally impure. As Christ teaches, it is internal not external (Luk 11:38-40). Jerusalem, when in her prosperity she abandoned herself to idolatry and immorality, was more unclean than when she lay in ashes a charnel house of slaughtered citizens. Yet no man cried, “Unclean!” in the prosperous times. The degradation was thought to be defiling, while the sin which led to it was connived at. This mistake is common in various forms. The criminal with the brand of punishment upon him is shunned, while the far more vicious man who has contrived to keep himself safe is courted. Parents fear the corruption of manners which their children may contract by mingling with social inferiors, and yet permit them to mix with far more corrupt society if only the rank of it be higher than their own. Many people lock with contempt on certain kinds of honest business, who will engage in pursuits of very questionable morality without compunction. Thus some regard trade as degrading and betting as gentlemanly. They would be ashamed to be connected with a shop; they have no shame in their connection with the turf. We want a healthier conscience, that will declare no honest pursuit to be dishonourable and no immoral one to be respectable simply because patronized by rank and fashion.

II. HOW IS REAL CONTAMINATION TO BE AVOIDED? Granted that we know what things are defiling and can distinguish them from the objects of conventional ostracism; how are we to behave ourselves in regard to the unclean things? We are to avoid contact with them. But here a difficult question arises. As Christians we are to be the salt of the earth. It is our mission to purify the impure. But if we shun it, how can we change it? If we neglect politics because we see politicians to be acting dishonourably, and business because we wish to avoid tricks of trade, and society because we must escape the corrupting influences of unwholesome amusements and scandalous conversation, shall we not be handing over politics, business, and society to the unchecked influence of evil? The answer to this question seems to be that the departure must be in spirit and from the spirit of those things that are degrading. We are not to flee bodily. We may do so in vain. For the corruption of the world may pursue the hermit to his cell and torment his mind with evil imaginations in the desert. But if we forsake all sympathy with the unclean our soul cannot be touched by it. Thus Christ ate and drank with publicans and sinners and passed through their foul atmosphere without defilement. Especially if the object is to do good we may be sure that the consciousness of a mission and the cleansing influence of Christian charity will prevent contamination. Thus a pure minded Christian woman is able to go into the haunts of vice on an errand of mercy and return scatheless as the snowdrop that lifts its head from the impure soil.

Lam 4:22

The end of punishment.

Here is a gleam of prophetic hope. From doleful lamentations the poet is able to look forward and see the end of the sad desolation of Jerusalem.

I. PUNISHMENT HAS AN END. Nothing is everlasting but God, and the life which God gives and the goodness of that life. Evil, darkness, pain, and death are temporal phases of being. This may seem to many an unjustifiably dogmatic statement. Text for text we may find passages of Scripture to support it and to contradict it. It is when we take into account the drift of the whole Word of God, the character of God therein revealed and the purposes of punishment and of all dark facts of providence as far as these purposes are made known to us, that we are led more and more to believe in the victory and duration of the blessed and the overthrow and cessation of the evil phases of experience.

II. THE END OF PUNISHMENT IS DETERMINED BY ITS OBJECT. What is the object of punishment? This may be manifold.

1. It is not the satisfaction of vengeance in One who is wronged. For

(1) such a satisfaction could only be required by sinful human passion, never by the good will of God; and

(2) if such a satisfaction were required, it would not be punishment, which is quite another thing.

2. It is partly the deterring of possible offenders. In so far as law must be vindicated for the sake of its future observance the punishment must be severe, but not beyond that point.

3. It is chiefly for the restoration of the offender. This was the reason given for the terrible calamities that overwhelmed the guilty city of Jerusalem. Human punishment under criminal laws is so far a failure that the primary end of it is rarely achieved. But with God’s all-wise government it is held in view and mainly aimed at. Therefore the punishment is called “chastisement.” What is required of chastisement is that it should be sufficient. For it to be endless would be to defeat its object. Moreover, it does not require to be measured by the offence alone. Even if it were so measured it need not be everlasting, since no finite being can commit an infinite sin. But it is measured by the change required to be wrought in the guilty person.

III. THE PROSPECT OF THE END OF PUNISHMENT SHOULD HELP US TO BEAR IT. God sends chastisement on earth. And he does not except any from itat all events he does not except Christians, for “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.” If there were no hope to the chastised, and punishment were a sign of being cast off forever by God, we might well sit down in sullen despair. But there is encouragement in the thought that it is temporary, is working our good, and may be lightened and shortened by prompt repentance and patient submission.

IV. THE GUILTY AGENTS OF PUNISHMENT WILL BE PUNISHED. Edom had triumphed over Jerusalem. Edom was to have her sin discovered and punished when Jerusalem was restored. So Babylon’s doom was promised (Isa 13:1-22.). Satan, the great enemy of souls, may be used as an instrument for our chastisement. But his day of doom is drawing near. Then he can torment us no more.

V. CHRIST PUTS AN END TO PUNISHMENT. It is not necessary that we should endure our punishment to the end. If we had to do so where would the end be? The awful prospect would shut out all view of any end, whatever we might reason about its far off certainty. But Christ has accomplished for us by his suffering and sacrifice a work of redemption which will save with full, free, and immediate pardon all who repent and trust in him.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

Lam 4:1

The gold dimmed.

Present adversity brings to mind, by force of contrast, the prosperity of bygone days. The Hebrew prophet of sorrow might well recall the golden days of old.

“A poet’s crown of sorrow is remembering happier things.”

His touching and poetic language affords

I. A LESSON OF HUMAN MUTABILITY. The exclamation reminds us of those oft-quoted words, Ilium fuit! Troy was, but is no more! The proudest cities have crumbled into ruins, the most splendid palaces have mouldered into dust.

II. A LESSON WHAT PRECIOUS THINGS MAY TURN TO VILE. The homes of kings, priests, and prophets, were possessed by the brutal soldiery; the city of David and Solomon resounded with the ferocious cry of the Chaldeans. Sin can bring the brightest and the most glorious of human societies and institutions into decay and contempt.

III. A LESSON THAT SACRED THINGS MAY BE PROFANED. “The stones of the sanctuary” were flung about. The very temple of Jehovah became a ruin, the sacred solemnities came to an end, and the voice of the priests and the Levites ceased in the precincts. Sin can rust even the fine gold.

IV. A LESSON OF THE UNSPARING ENMITY OF MAN. The Chaldeans were not deterred by any consideration from carrying out their wrath to the bitterest extremity. The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Vae victis! is an old cry.

V. A LESSON AS TO THE EXACTING NATURE OF DIVER RETRIBUTION. The hand was the hand of the Chaldean, but the judgment was the judgment of God. When men rebel against him, no human power or splendour can preserve them from his righteous indignation and just retribution.T.

Lam 4:2

Precious sons…fine gold,become earthen pitchers.

The prophet’s appreciation of the proper dignity and value of his nation was naturally very exalted; in proportion were his sorrows and humiliation when his country rebelled against the Lord, and became, in consequence, a prey to the despised and hated foreigner. The reflections are applicable, not to Judah only, but to all the sinful and rebellious among men; for there is no escape from the action of the moral law, from the chastisement of the righteous Judge.

I. THE TRUE VALUE AND PROPER DIGNITY OF MAN. Comparable to “fine gold” in beauty, preciousness, and use, is our humanity when in the state designed by the Creator, free from the corroding rust of sin, and minted and stamped with the image and superscription of the Most High.

II. SIN INVOLVES CHASTISEMENT, AND CHASTISEMENT BRINGS DISGRACE. The striking contrast between gold, fine and solid, on the one hand, and “earthen pitchers” on the other hand, is a pictorial and effective representation of the change which took place in Judah. A holy nation, a kingdom of priests, the chosen of the Eternal, was reduced to the level of the poorest, meanest tribe vanquished and despoiled by an unsparing enemy. Here, as so often, the chosen nation was an emblem of humanity. For though man be by nature the sublimest of God’s creatures, when he is abandoned to sin and all its consequences he sinks below the level of the brutes.

APPLICATION. Only Divine grace and power can restore the beauty and dignity of which sin has robbed humanity. The gospel of Christ transforms the earthen pitcher into the fine gold of the sanctuary.T.

Lam 4:3-5

The horrors of famine.

A more graphic, a more terrible picture than this of the misery of a captured, starved, and desolated city, no pencil could paint. If the circumstances of the famine-stricken population of Jerusalem are portrayed with too literal a skill and with too sickening an effect, it must be borne in mind that the description is not that of an artist, but of a prophet, and that the aim is not merely to horrify, but to instruct, and especially to represent the frightful consequences involved in a nation’s sin and apostasy.

I. PHYSICAL SUFFERINGS ARE DESCRIBED. If the condition of the wretched citizens be examined, they are seen to be afflicted with all physical evils, e.g. with hunger and want, with emaciation and feebleness of body, with homelessness, squalor, and filth, with pestilence and death.

II. MORAL DEGRADATION IS DENOUNCED. A siege, the sack of a city, have sometimes called out exalted self-sacrifice and heroism; but they have sometimes been the occasion of the bursting forth into flame of the vilest passionsof avarice, cruelty, selfishness, and lust. In this passage we observe an atrocious exhibition of selfish indifference to the pains and necessities of others, and especially a display of cruelty towards children which contrasts with the parental instincts and tenderness of the brutes. To so low a level does sin bring human nature.

PRACTICAL LESSONS.

1. In plenty and peace let men cherish gratitude.

2. Let those who are prosperous commiserate the famine-stricken and the victims of war.

3. Let generous provision be made for the wants of the destitute.T.

Lam 4:12

The impregnable taken.

The natural position of Jerusalem was such as to mark it out for a stronghold, as to invite its possessors to fortify it and to deem themselves invincible. When David conquered it by daring and valour, he made it the metropolis of the nation. Succeeding king strengthened the walls and completed the fortifications, so that Jerusalem became one of the strongest fortresses of the ancient world. And at this time Nebuchadnezzar had only taken the city after a siege extending through a year and a half.

I. THE IMPRESSIVE CONTRAST.

1. One such contrast was upon the surface and obvious to every eye. The mighty and apparently invincible was vanquished and desolated.

2. Another contrast was apparent to the mind of the observing and reflecting: the city favoured by God himself was abandoned, spoiled, and desolated. If Jehovah had not gone out of the gates, the Chaldeans could not have entered in.

3. The contrast was one universally amazing and astounding. “The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed it.”

II. THE INSPIRED EXPLANATION OF THIS CONTRAST. It was not chance, it was not “the fortune of war,” it was not the consequence of some political machinations, some military strategy, that the proud city of Zion fell into the hands of the foreign conqueror. Unfaithfulness and rebellion against God were the true explanation. The Lord only forsakes those who forsake him. All men, all nations, endure chastisement for sin. Blessed be God! in the midst of wrath he remembers mercy.T.

Lam 4:13, Lam 4:14

The degradation of the prophets and the priests.

There is a somewhat obscure reference in this passage to some incidents which took place during and after the siege of Jerusalem. The book of Jeremiah’s prophecies casts some light upon the language of his lamentations. It is evident that the offices of priest and prophet were vilely abused at this period of Judah’s degradation, that the prophets prophesied in false and flattering words, that the priests burned incense to idols, that both professions were debased to selfish ends, and that both were accountable to a very large extent for the calamities of the nation. No wonder that prophets and priests became the objects of national detestation, that Jew and alien alike shunned and hated them.

I. THE NOBLEST OFFICES, WHEN MISUSED, BECOME THE GREATEST CURSE. The priests were “holy unto Jehovah;” the prophets were the commissioned ministers of the All-wise, and they spake his words to men. But when they retained their name, but lost the spirit and the moral authority attaching to their position, they misled and oppressed their countrymen. Alas for the nation whose leaders in Church and state are selfish and corrupt! they who should be an honour and a blessing become then a disgrace and a curse. Let the great and the consecrated take warning, and watch and pray.

II. WHEN SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL LEADERS ARE DEBASED THEIR INFLUENCE UPON A NATION IS MOST DELETERIOUS AND DISASTROUS. “Like priest, like people,” says the old proverb. In modern communities it is observable that the journalists and the clergy have amazing power in giving a tone to public life. Where these are corrupt the very spring of a nation’s life are poisoned; all classes are affected by the influences which are potent for harm as they had otherwise been for highest good.

III. THE UNFAITHFULNESS OF THE LEADERS BRINGS PENALTIES AND CALAMITIES UPON THE PEOPLE. The constitution of human society is such that one must needs suffer for another. As the sins of the prophets and the iniquities of the priests had no small share in bringing about the ruin of Jerusalem, so a corrupt literature and a selfish clergy will bring any nation, however powerful, into misery and contempt.T.

Lam 4:17

Vain help and hope.

When Jerusalem was besieged by the Chaldeans its inhabitants seem to have looked for assistance from their Egyptian neighbours. This was a policy and an expectation displeasing to Jehovah, who ever taught his people to rely, not upon an arm of flesh, but upon the eternal King of righteousness. In verse the prophet pictures the attitude of the Jews as day after day they strained their weary eyes to catch some glimpse of an approaching deliverer. How striking a picture of the folly and vanity of those hopes which man fixes upon his fellow man!

I. THE DISTRESSED AND HARASSED NATURALLY HAVE RECOURSE TO HUMAN AID. As the Jews looked now to Assyria and again to Egypt for allies and helpers, so the children of men have recourse to human counsellors, philosophers, and saviours to deliver them from the perplexities and sorrows and fears to which human nature is always subject.

II. IT IS PROVIDENTIALLY APPOINTED THAT EXPERIENCE SHOULD CONVINCE MEN OF THE VANITY OF ALL HUMAN HELP. When application after application fails to bring relief, when hope after hope is disappointed, then, and perhaps not until then, men learn how vain is the help of man, and perceive the wisdom of the advice, “Put not your trust in man, or in the son of man, in whom is no help.”

III. GOD INTENDS BY SUCH DISCIPLINARY EXPERIENCE TO DRAW HIS PEOPLE TO HIMSELF. When the eyes are dim and weary with looking earthward for deliverance, then they may be lifted heaven, ward. And when the help of man is sincerely acknowledged to be vain, then the help of God is at hand.T.

Lam 4:18

The end is come!

The progress of the enemy’s works, the approach of the enemy’s forces, the frequency of the enemy’s assaults, all tended to dishearten the citizens of the besieged Jerusalem. The prophet represents the discouraged and dismayed citizens as gazing with terror upon the assailants and their strategy, and exclaiming in despair, “Our end is come!” The dealing and the discipline of God with the souls of the disobedient and rebellious may well awaken the same conviction and elicit the same cry.

I. THE END OF OUR OWN RESOURCES. It is sometimes only when men have tried what is in their power, have done their best to solve their spiritual difficulties and to make their way secure, that, convinced of their own insufficiency, they admit themselves to be altogether in the wrong.

II. THE END OF OUR RESISTANCE TO OUR FOES. Men strive to carry on the conflict in their own strength, and they strive in vain. “Wearied in the greatness of their way,” convinced that they are no match for the spiritual enemy, they may confess that, left to themselves, they cannot conquer, they cannot withstand.

III. THE END OF ALL OUR HOPES OF DELIVERANCE. Those hopes may have buoyed up for days and years; but when they have issued only in disappointment how can the discouraged do other than at last forever abandon them?

IV. THE END OF OUR REBELLION AGAINST GOD. If this be the effect produced by long experience of the wretchedness and the futility of such hostility, there will be reason for gratitude. They who lay down the weapons of rebellion shall receive mercy and experience deliverance.T.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG

Lam 4:1, Lam 4:2

Fallen reputation.

I. THE WEIGHT OF THIS REPUTATION. The position of the people was comparable to gold in its glitter and attraction. Gold has its use and iron has its use, and we may be glad we have both; but if one of these two had to be given up, it would certainly be the gold. Iron means immensely more in modern civilization than gold. But if frequency of mention is to count for anything, gold was much more valued among the Israelites than iron, and being so, it had a large place in the symbolisms of the tabernacle service and in the splendours of Solomon’s temple. Hence any one with a high reputation might very well be compared to gold. People run after such a one even as they do after gold. There is a time when the crowd are not contented to speak well of a man; they must praise him extravagantly, using the language of superlatives, and showing that their standard, if standard it can truly be called, is far from an ideal one.

II. THE CHARACTER OF THE REFUTATION. Had Israel ever been worthy of this comparison with fine gold? On what was the comparison based? It is to be feared that it rested very much on mere appearance. Remember the saying, “All that glitters is not gold.” Jehovah had made Israel to glitter by taking it out from among the nations and making it the object of great demonstrations of his power. But, so to speak, this was only gilding over the impure and incoherent mass of common humanity with a coating of pure gold for a certain purpose. The men and women who made up Israel were at heart like men and women elsewhere. But by giving them a certain outward splendour God furnished a symbol of that true golden nation which is made up from individual believers in him.

III. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUTATION. The gold becomes dim. The comparison was once to gold out of which vessels for honour are made, beautifully shaped and decorated. But now the comparison is to the common clay out of which the potter makes his cheap and fragile ware. And yet, after all, if gold be a standard of preciousness, these sons of Zion were indeed comparable to it; only the gold is in the unpurified state, mixed very intimately with baser elements that take away the use and glory of the gold. Man in his best natural state may have his reputation lifted too high; in his worst natural state that reputation may sink too low; but when God takes the natural man in hand and renews, purifies, and disciplines him, then it will be seen that the most splendid and pleasing of visible objects is only a feeble hint of that glory wherewith God has chosen to glorify his own children.Y.

Lam 4:3, Lam 4:4

Natural affection gone.

I. NOTE AN UNFAVORABLE CONTRAST WITH THE LOWER CREATION. Everything is to be estimated according to its nature. It matters little what the seamonster here stands for. It is sufficient to know that some fierce destructive creature is thought of. Truly there is a vast difference between the brutes whose very nature it is to destroy in order that they may live, and man who never looks more worthy of his position in the scale of being than when he is doing his very best to preserve life, risking even his own life for this end. And yet even in the most savage brutes there is natural affection. To stoop to a very common sight, what is more suggestive of some of the deep mysteries of existence than to see a cat one moment patiently suckling its own young, and the next moment stealthily and silently making its way to spring on some defenceless bird? If, then, it is put into the nature of these fierce creatures thus to care for their young, what care is it not right to expect from man, the highest creature whom we know? There is hardly any limit to what he can do for his offspring in the way of guarding its weakness and developing its power; and yet how negligent he can become! The lower creation puts him to shame. Jeremiah here speaks of cruelty, but we do well to remember that there is a thoughtlessness, an indolence, and a selfishness which are productive of as bad effects as any cruelty can produce. More evil, it has been truly said, is wrought from want of thought than from want of heart.

II. WHAT IT IS THAT PRODUCES THIS CONTRADICTION TO NATURE? Generally stated, it is the stress of circumstances that does it. “The daughter of my people” would not have become cruel if her life had gone on in its ordinary way. But all at once the supplies that have been so regular become uncertain, and at last virtually stop. The cruelty, if in such circumstances it may be truly called so, is an involuntary one. And yet it is not involuntary in this sense, that the state of things was altogether unpreventable. The famine came from disobedience to God. We are not left to make a superstitious inference as to this connection. It is stated on authority. It were presuming far too much to trace a connection between particular suffering and particular wrong doing, but where the connection between particular wrong doing and particular suffering is made perfectly plain, we shall be very foolish if we do not take heed to it. Whatever wrong thing we do will have some evil consequences, and we know not hew soon they may come, how widely they may spread, and how much suffering and difficulty they may bring to the innocent.Y.

Lam 4:5

Social revolution.

I. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE INSTABILITY OF HUMAN SOCIETY. We may consider it either as the instability of wealth or the instability of rank. It shows how no class of the community is able to say that, whatever happens in the way of stress or destitution, it will keep right. Men build up societies in which rank comes from the accumulation of wealth or the exercise of power that is in a man by nature. But these human societies thus built up cannot reckon on permanence. Greed is excited on the part of others, and the higher a man has risen the lower he may fall.

II. THE ILLUSTRATION HERE SHOULD MAKE US CONSIDERATE OF THOSE IN HIGH POSITION. The high are of necessity the few. Their position is seen from the outside and from a distance. What we do see is very likely to mislead us, for our eye lights on outward splendour and the appearance of much leisure and the ability to do very much what one likes. But the many journals and memoirs that have been published revealing the inner life of courts and titled circles show that human beings may be none the less miserable because the misery is gilded over. Our pity may be needed at any moment for the man of rank and privilege. Whatever the outward differences may be, the inward heart is the same, and that must have its sorrows, its disappointments, and its perils.

III. WE ARE TAUGHT THE NEED OF CAUTION IN GLORIFYING HUMAN CIVILIZATION. What many people reckon to be the highest civilization needs material wealth in great profusion to keep it up. There must be classes to paint pictures, carve statuary, and give long periods of time to the elaboration of artistic conceptions, whatever they may be. And what a satire on all this it is to recollect how fragile and fading some of these art treasures have proved! The ignorant and narrow minded undervalue these things, but then it is also possible to over value them, to get so occupied with them as to forget the deepest things of humanity, the things that endure. The civilized, refined, natural man may be good, but how much better is the spiritual man, even though he be rude in speech and full of error in his tastes! Truly we may say, he that is least among spiritual men is greater than the highest of attainments among natural men.Y.

Lam 4:6

The sin of Sodom.

God was doing nothing new or indefensible in allowing Jerusalem thus to be wasted and humiliated. The Israelites had in their possession illustrations more than one of how great sin had been followed by great suffering. Jeremiah quotes Sodom, and he might have said something about Egypt when God visited it with the plagues. We must not, of course, press too literally the statement that the sin of Jerusalem was greater than that of Sodom. The prophet’s aim is simply to insist that no sin could have been greater than that of Jerusalem. If it was a right and a necessary thing that Sodom should be so suddenly visited, so completely overwhelmed, then assuredly no complaint could be made against the severe treatment experienced by Jerusalem. Indeed, relatively, Jerusalem might think itself very well off. If the height on which Jerusalem stood had sunk in another Dead Sea, there would have been no ground for complaint. No impartial Israelite, looking at the privileges of Israel, considering how much it had been instructed and warned, and how patiently it had been dealt with, could do anything but confess that on the whole it had been mildly visited. We must, however, be careful here not to attribute anything arbitrary to God. We shall naturally be very much perplexed if we allow ourselves to think that, though Sodom’s sin was less than Jerusalem’s, yet it received a greater punishment. It is only by a figure that we talk of communities being punished. Punishment is strictly an individual thing. Communities may suffer, and the suffering will be according to the needs of God’s government at the time. The cities of the plain were utterly swept away, that the rest of the world might not become as bad as they were. These visitations have to be looked on somewhat in the light of surgical operations. One patient in the hospital needs to have a limb amputated that the whole body may be saved. Another can have his body saved without the loss of a part of it.Y.

Lam 4:9

Sword and hunger.

I. WORSE THINGS THAN WAR. Better, says the prophet, to be swiftly slain in battle than have the slow and gnawing death of hunger. None worthy the name of Christian can but appreciate and admire the zeal, devotion, and self-abnegation of those who toil incessantly in the things that make for peace. War is so dreadful an evil that hardly too strong things can be said against it. And one of the strong things said is with respect to the immense suffering produced by war. Yet after all there is a great deal that deceives imagination here. Suffering is crowded into a small space, and puts on a horrible aspect, and thus it looks huger than it is, and so when we are appalled at the continuance in the world of great wars full of carnage, we shall do well to recollect that war is by no means the worst of things so far as power of inflicting suffering is concerned. Evidently the prophet saw starvation as a more horrible thing than war. It may, of course, be said the war was the cause of the famine, and very likely it was, but then, what was the cause of the war? Good men in their enthusiasm come in with all sorts of ready remedies for great evils, not sufficiently considering how one evil is connected with another, and how the stopping up of one channel may only fill other channels all the more. Who can dry up the fountain of all evil?that is the question.

II. THE DREADFUL ACCOMPANIMENTS OF FAMINE. IS there anything worse than the carnage of a battlefield? Yes; the pangs of a multitude slowly dying of starvation, There is death from disease, death from decay, death of the strong man in full health from violence; but worse than any surely is this slow torment of hunger. What an instance of the rigid way in which law binds us down, unless there be some Divine reason for interfering with the operations perceptible to us! He who intervened to feed the five thousand and the four thousand could have intervened to keep these wretched women from laying their hands on their own children for food. What necessity was there in the one case which there was not in the other? Some there must have been, though we may fail to grasp it as a whole. Doubtless if we could only see clearly it would then become manifest that there is no lack in the giving of food, but that it is we who lack wisdom in developing and distributing what is given.Y.

Lam 4:12

A seeming impossibility achieved.

I. THE VALUE OF A REPUTATION. Jerusalem had a far spread reputation for security. It was a reputation, too, which prevailed among those with whom it was desirable it should prevail, namely, the kings of the earth. A reputation for security is to a certain extent an element in security, and what we have to do is to let it have its just value. For instance, in a world where solicitations to evil abound it is well if those who have all the inclination to tempt us nevertheless say in their hearts that we are beyond such temptations, and therefore it would be mere waste of time to attack us. Jerusalem had probably escaped many sieges through this far-spread feeling.

II. THE CAUSES OF THIS REPUTATION. Here is the value of history. A tradition springs up that Jerusalem is impregnable. Failures in attacking it are contrasted with successes in attacking other places. It is not that any particular invader fails, but different nations and different commanders. Furthermore, the people of Jerusalem come to accept what seems an unquestionable privilege. If it has come to be a foregone conclusion among their enemies that their city is impregnable, how much more may they themselves rest in such a conclusion! But what had made this conclusion possible? Was it the position of Jerusalem? No doubt this counted for something, for other walled places beside Jerusalem have had the reputation of being able to defy all attack. The great thing, however, was the purpose of God that Jerusalem should stand against its enemies. To him must be laid the origin of this wide and deep feeling. He who had been as a shield to the individual warrior became as a high and fenced wall to the city. Jerusalem is the contrast to Jericho. Well defended Jericho can be made to fall without any visible force, and Jerusalem can be made to stand against the most furious accumulations of the heathen.

III. THE WORTHLESSNESS OF MERE REPUTATION. Reputation by itself is always to Be looked upon with caution. If we would have reputation to be a valuable element in judgment, it must be by asking in whose voice the reputation lies. The voice of the multitude, the voice that takes up a cry and as it were transmits an echo, what is it worth? The people of Jerusalem had come to rest in the comfortable feeling that their city was reckoned impregnable. Do not let our safety rest in what other people think about us. If our safety is not of God, if it does not rest in trusting him and obeying him, then sooner or later that will happen to us in our life which happened to Jerusalem. The walls of our life will be broken down, our most precious treasures taken away, our hearts made desolate.Y.

Lam 4:13

Shedding the blood of the just.

Consider

I. THE THING THAT IS DONE. It is not merely that life is taken away; nor is it even that murder is committed. It would be bad enough if even the most wicked of men were maliciously slainslain, not because of his wickedness, but because of some evil motive on the part of the slayer. But here those who are slain are just men, and slain because they are just. All they needed in order to live on was to fall in with prevailing and popular iniquities. Instead of this, they set their faces against the multitude that are doing evil. They must, as a matter of necessity to their own consciences, say and do things which are a continual exasperation to the wicked. They do not mean to exasperate, they may be in the spirit of their life most meek, gentle, and unaffected; but all this will avail nothingthe wicked are bound to pick a quarrel with them, even as the wolf in the fable picked a quarrel with the lamb. And let it be observed that shedding the blood of the just is only the climax of the persecuting treatment which the just must be ready to experience. The wicked are often quite willing to stop short of the climax if they can gain their ends by something less. Not all at once do they proceed to the shedding of blood. It is well for those who, if they be indeed Christians, are assuredly to be reckoned among the just to remember what they have to number among the possibilities of their endeavour to live a truly righteous life. No mere human civilization will ever secure the just man from the risk of having to lose his life for his righteousness.

II. THOSE WHO DO IT. Once again, as so often, the prophet and priest stand forth in a shameful revelation. Their life is so contrary to their office. The prophet whose force should have come from the strong righteousness of his heart within and be directed straight against all evil doers, is found ranging himself with the wicked and making evil put on the semblance of good. And as for the priest, he does holy things with his hands and offers sacrifices for sin, while those whose lives are a continual protest against sin he hates and strives to slay. Not that we must reduce the prophet and the priest here spoken of to the level of vulgar murderers. Doubtless, in many instances, they persuaded themselves they were right and doing God service. Fanaticism and class feeling, where each one blows the flame of his neighbour’s zeal, will urge men on to the greatest atrocities. There may be no danger, most likely there will be no opportunity, that we should go as far as these prophets and priests, but we need to guard against having their narrow spirits in our hearts. We may not shed the blood of the just, but nevertheless we may do much to hinder and trouble them.Y.

Lam 4:20

A disappointed confidence and a desecrated sanctity.

There seems to be indicated in these words a great attachment to the kingly office and a great confidence in it. It is the same spirit continuing and probably intensified which caused the people ages before to demand a king. And is it not thus suggested to us what a deep feeling there is in the human heart to have some one individual to look up to as having rule over us? “The right Divine of kings” is a principle which more than once in history has been seen pushing itself to disastrous issues, but that is no reason for asserting that “the right Divine of kings” is an absurdity. It is only an absurdity when a weak fallible mortal holds himself, by virtue of his ancestry and kinship, to have little less than absolute control over multitudes of his fellow men. The question is not whether kingship is right, but who shall be the king. And especially does this need to be recollected among the changing forms of government so perceptible in modern times. Now that despotisms are tending to limited monarchies, and limited monarchies becoming more limited, and extensions being made of republican territory, it is more than ever important to insist on the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven. Not without deep reason does the proper government for man stand before us in the New Testament as a kingdom. The collective wisdom of mankind can only be at best a puzzling mixture of knowledge and ignorance, prudence and rashness. Blessed is he who feels that the real Anointed of the Lord is the proper Being to guide. Under his shadow we can live the true life in that safety of the spirit which is of far more moment than that mere external safety from the Gentiles, which counted for so much in the esteem of the Israelite of old. In no pits has the Lord Jesus Christ ever been taken.Y.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Lam 4:1. How is the gold become dim! &c. “How is the glory of the temple obscured! The sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold, now lies in the ruins.” Some think that the prophet here alludes to the princes and chief persons of the country. See the next verse, and Psa 119:83.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Lamentations 4

Zions guilt and punishment graphically described by an eye-witness, [or the sufferings of the people of all grades and ranks of society.W. H. H.]

The Song consists plainly of four parts [or sections], Lam 4:1-6; Lam 4:7-11; Lam 4:12-16; Lam 4:17-20; and a conclusion, Lam 4:21-22

PART I. Lam 4:1-11

Sect. I. Lam 4:1-6

Lam 4:1. How doth gold become dim!

The choice gold change its color!
The hallowed stones are cast forth
At the head of every street.

Lam 4:2. The noble sons of Zion,

Who are equal in value to the purest gold,
How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers,
The work of the hands of the Potter!

Lam 4:3. Even jackals drew out the breasts,

They suckled their whelps.
The daughter of my people became cruel,
Like ostriches in the wilderness.

Lam 4:4. The tongue of the sucking babe cleaved

To the roof of his mouth for thirst:
Young children asked bread.
There was no one to break to them.

Lam 4:5. They that fed on dainties

Perished on the streets:
They that were borne on scarlet
Embraced heaps-of-dirt.

Lam 4:6. For greater was the iniquity of the daughter of my people

Than the sin of Sodom,
Which was overthrown as in a moment
And no hands came against her.

Sec. II. Lam 4:7-11

Lam 4:7. Her princes were purer than snow,

Whiter than milk,
They were more ruddy in body than corals;
Their forma sapphire.

Lam 4:8. Their visage became darker than blackness:

They were not known in the streets:
Their skin cleaved to their bones,
It became dry like a stick.

Lam 4:9. Happier were those slain by the sword

Than these slain by famine,
Those pierced-ones, whose lives gushed forth
While yet there were fruits of the field.

Lam 4:10. The hands of tender-hearted women

Cooked their own children;
They became food for them
In the ruin of the daughter of my people.

Lam 4:11. Jehovah fulfilled His fury;

He poured out His fierce wrath.
And He kindled a fire in Zion,
And it consumed her foundations.

ANALYSIS

[The first elegy related especially to the city of Jerusalem; the second, to Zion and the holy places; the third, to the sufferings of the prophet, as a representative of the spiritual Israel; this fourth elegy, relates to the sufferings of the people generally, embracing all classes.W. H. H.]

The two parts, comprising the first-half of the chapter, Lam 4:1-11, correspond with each other, both in matter and form. In the first part, Lam 4:1-6, is described the sad fate of the sons of Zion, noble scions of the noblest lineage (Jer 2:21). A contrast is presented, not only between their great worth and their pitiable fortune, but also between the fate that befell them, who constituted the living treasure of Zion, and the fate of its material wealth, Lam 4:1-2. Then is described the harrowing grief, caused by the sufferings of little children, which could not possibly be relieved, Lam 4:3-5. Finally this part closes with the general remark, that Zions guilt, if inferred from these facts, had been even greater than Sodoms, Lam 4:6.

In the second part, Lam 4:7-11, the Poet first describes the noble appearance and character of the Princes of Judah, and then, in striking contrast, the frightful wrongs they had endured, Lam 4:7-9; a description which evidently constitutes a parallel to that contained in Lam 4:1-2. So, also, parallel to what was said of the children in Lam 4:3-5, is what we read on the same subject in Lam 4:10; only what is here said in Lam 4:10, constitutes a climax to what was related in Lam 4:3-5. The second part, like the first, ends with a general remark; Zion has suffered the full measure of Divine wrath, Lam 4:11.

Lam 4:1-2

1How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of 2the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:1. , see Lam 1:1., Hophal only here; elsewhere only Kal occurs, and that only twice, Eze 28:3; Eze 31:8. If the signification of , demanded by the context in Eze 28:3, is latere,and in Eze 31:8, is obscurare, then it naturally follows that the signification of the Hophal here is obscurari; though it is not yet clearly apparent how this meaning agrees with the idea of accumulation (Sammelns), which lies in the words . [Henderson; to congregate, Arabic, texit, obstruxit, as clouds, when collected, do the heavens; hence to grow, or make dark, obscure the lustre of anything. LXX .]. With respect to its Aramaic form, see Lam 3:12; 2Ki 25:29; Ecc 8:11. [Blayney: Twenty-five MSS. and one edition read .] The word has the signification of alium, diversum esse.mutari,only in later Hebrew, Est 1:7; Est 3:8; Mal 3:6; and that in accordance with the Chaldaic, which often uses in this sense, Dan 3:27; Dan 5:9; Dan 6:18., is not found in Jer.; it stands in parallelism with in Job 31:24; Pro 25:12; it is used with , Son 5:11. [The Sept. have , not because they read , but because they were unwilling to repeat the word gold. Rosenmueller.]

Lam 4:2. . In Jer. only in Jer 15:19. only here. The expression seems to be taken from Job 28:16; Job 28:19, where we read of wisdom . () is tollere, pendere. [Jerome translates amicti auro, which Calvin prefers. The value, and not the appearance is evidently meant, (Owen); it is the explanation of , precious.W. H. H.] from , secernere, purgare, does not occur in Jer.; yet see Jer 10:9. The article generalizes the meaning.Jer. never uses the Niphal ., Jer 13:12; Jer 48:12., Jer 19:1; Jer 32:14. The construction with , as Isa 29:17; Psa 106:31. Elsewhere, after that with which the comparison is made is indicated by ,, or the simple nominative., frequent in Jer 10:16; Jer 18:2-4; Jer 19:1; Jer 19:11; etc. [No occasional use of a new word can invalidate the presumption created by the use of the image of a potters vessel, that Jeremiah was the author of this poem.W. H. H.]The expression , occurs here only.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:1. How. That this song also begins with this exclamation () is a strong argument for the identity of the author. It is in the highest degree improbable that different authors not only composed alphabetical songs on the same subject, but also began them with the very same word. How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!How may gold become black, the precious treasure change its color? The correct understanding of this verse depends on the understanding of the next verse and its relation to this verse. Thenius would substitute in Lam 4:2, houses of Zion for sons of Zion ( instead of ). Without dwelling on the fact, that not the least critical evidence for such a change of the text is offered, the context affords sufficient evidence against it: for not only would houses equal in value to gold be an exaggerated hyperbole, but it is evident from the antithesis involved in the expression the work of the hands of the potter, and also from the subject of the parallel verses 79, that men are intended. But if we retain the reading sons of Zion, and if the meaning is that the sons of Zion regarded as precious, are equal in value [comparable] to gold, then it is obvious in what sense gold and precious stones are spoken of in Lam 4:1. It is not of the fate of the Temple-gold and Temple-walls that he speaks [Calvin, Boothroyd, Noyes, and seemingly Wordsworth]; but the Poet asks how is it possible that noble gold should lose its brightness, that the precious stones should be thrown upon the street? Thus, says he, has it happened to the sons of Zion, who are such jewels. And thus, what never happened in the case of material treasures and jewels, has occurred in the case of these living, metaphorical jewels. We take, then, Lam 4:1, as a question, relating to what was likely to happen according to the usual course of things. This is involved in the use of the imperfect tense in the Hebrew verbs [, etc.), which refer to matters not yet completed as, it was becoming dim or obscured, etc. In any other sense the perfect tense would have been necessary. Nor can these imperfects be referred to the work of destruction while in course of execution (Thenius); for it would certainly be very singular to represent the Jews as saying, whilst the work of destruction was going on, How is now the gold in the Temple blackened by the smoke! How now are the stones of the Temple-wall rolled down! Those, over whose heads everything was going to pieces, could not be thinking of such minute and particular details as these. Rather, in the form of a question, what had never before been known to happen, is here affirmed. [The form is interrogative, only so far as the interjection of surprise suggests a question as to the possibility of an event, else unparalleled. The construction is the same as in Lam 1:1, How sitteth solitary the city that, etc.! So here, How doth gold become dim! That the reference is to men, and not to literal gold and jewels, is the opinion of Blayney, Henderson, Rosenmueller, Gerlach and others. Gerlach: Since the chapter contains not one word (unless here) of the destruction and robbery of the Temple and palaces, but describes especially what befell the men, rather than the edifices of the city, (which latter theme had already been exhaustively discussed in chap. 2), therefore the first verse must not be taken literally and explained of the Temple and its ornaments (Chald., Maurer, Kalkar, Thenius; see Lam 1:10). It is rather to be taken figuratively, either generally of the fall of all that was high and valuable in Israel, of which particular instances are cited in what follows, or, as Michaelis and Rosenmueller have preferred, specifically, as explained by the following verse, which interprets the gold and holy stones of Lam 4:1, by the sons of Zion, whilst the words are thrown down at all the street-corners, find their explanation in the more detailed description of Lam 4:5. Besides, this designation of the sons of Zion as stones of holiness (), has an analogy in the stones of a crown (, precious stones) in Zec 9:16. From this it appears, how unauthorized is the presumption (Michaelis, Rosenmueller), which would perceive in the expression, stones of holiness, a reference to the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest and, therefore, a designation of the Priests (whilst the gold denotes the people generally, and the precious ore [fine gold] the Princes), or would understand the words stones of holiness as referring directly to the stones on the breast-plate of the High Priest (Maurer [Noyes], see Bellermann, Urim u. Thum, S. 21. With the Israelites, thrown about dead on the streets, on account of their sins,the holy stonesregarded as symbols of the peoplewill, at the same time, be scattered about at the corners of the streets.) The literal interpretation of the stones as the stones of the walls of the Sanctuary, by Thenius and Neumann, [Calvin, Boothroyd, etc.], (in which case the words should be ), is controverted by the improbability of their being scattered about through all the streets of the city,an opinion, which is not made more acceptable by the conjecture of Thenius, that all the streets of the city terminated near the Temple in an open square, for in any case the expression would then be very strongly hyperbolical.W. H. H.]Become dim.The signification of the verb (, obscurari), is to be taken, not in the sense of a momentary effect, but of a continuous obscuration. For not a superficial and transient, but a deep and abiding depravation is affirmed in Lam 4:2, of the goldlike sons of Zion. What is said, then, is this, How can gold lose its bright lustre, and become dull, tarnished, black?[How. The repetition of the how in the English version is as unnecessary here as in Lam 1:1.The most fine gold.The Hebrew word for gold here is not the same Hebrew word used in the preceding clause. Broughton has supplied the lack of an English equivalent by retaining the Hebrew word: How is the gold dimmed! how is the pure cethern changed! The Hebrew word () has been variously derived and interpreted. Three explanations have received the sanction of high authority (see LangesComm., Son 5:11). It has been derived from , to hide, to hoard, hence esteemed precious. So Barnes, Job 31:24. Dr. Naegelsbach seems to adopt this sense. The English version also by using the superlative most fine gold. But if the word itself meant precious gold, the addition of the adjective , good, would be superfluous. It has been derived, again, from in the supposed sense of being solid, dense, hence massive gold: so Blayney, the best massy gold. Others derive it from =, to shine, to glitter, and explain it of some very valuable kind of metal like gold (so Gerlach the costly ore, or metal, Erz); or of a particular kind of gold that shines and sparkles, genus auri fulgentis, a micando (FuerstsConcordance). This last meaning seems to agree best with the sense here, the use of the word in Son 5:11, and the very peculiar use of the verb in Jer 2:22. According to Rosenmueller, Chaldeaus rendered it , splendor, the Syriac and Jerome, color.Changed, faded or changed its color. Gerlach: This can only denote a change of color, or loss of brightness, since the gold could not be changed in its substance. W. H. H.]The stones of the Sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. Thrown down are the stones of the sanctuary [stones of holiness, or consecrated stones] at the corners of all the streets. The expression stones of the sanctuary ( ), is found only here. By itself it might properly denote the stones of the Temple walls, particularly since these are also called costly stones ( ), 1 Kings 5:31 (1Ki 5:17); Jer 7:9-11. But who would take the trouble to carry these away and pour them out in the corners of the streets? What Thenius says of the concentration of the principal streets at the foot of the Temple hill, is very problematical. Besides, the connection requires the sense of precious stones: for with such, not with wall-stones, however excellent, are the Sons of Zion compared as precious (), and precious stones ( ), are often named, as here, in connection with gold, 2Sa 12:30; 1Ki 10:2; 1Ki 10:10-11. In regard to the use of precious stones in the Sanctuary, they were not only attached to the garments of the High Priest (Exo 28:9; Exo 28:17-20; Exo 39:6; Exo 39:10-13), but they were employed for ornamenting the Temple itself (2Ch 3:6; 1Ch 29:2). Who would pour out such valuable stones in the corners of all the streets, that is to say, in the first corner one happened to come to? Even the enemy did not do that. Yet this thing happened to the sons of Zion though they were most precious jewels.

Lam 4:2. The precious sons of Zion,Zions sons, the noble ones (, comp. , honorable women, Psa 45:10 (9)). That we are to understand here by the sons of Zion, the nobility of the people [Calvin, Henderson], I do not believe. The expression is too comprehensive, and nothing prevents our understanding the following predicates of the chosen people generally,1 who were in their totality a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6). The Princes are spoken of for the first time in the second part, Lam 4:7-11, which constitutes throughout the climax of the first part.Comparable to fine gold, who are equal in value to gold [lit., those who are weighed with pure gold. Henderson: As what is weighed is estimated according to the contents of the opposite scale, the verb came to be employed in the sense of comparing one thing with another. Comp. Job 28:16; Job 28:19.]Fine gold, , is pure, solid gold. [This is still another Hebrew word for gold, indicating its quality. Broughton anglicizes it, Fesse ore, as he does in Lam 4:1, which he calls cethern. Blayney: the purest gold.W. H. H.] They are estimated by the gold, that is to say, their value is represented by a mass of gold, the weight of which is equal to their own. The expression is figurative.How. [The repetition of this word , is forcible. It serves to connect this verse with Lam 4:1, and to continue and complete the sentence begun with the same word in Lam 4:1. It shows that one idea of horror and amazement pervades the whole sentence, and hence that the gold, choice gold, and hallowed stones, of Lam 4:1, are identical with the precious sons of Zion, in Lam 4:2.W. H. H.].Are they esteemed as earthen pitcherspotsherd-pitchersthe work of the hands of the potter! [Wordsworth: As Jeremiah himself had represented them to be shattered in pieces for their sins, Jer 19:10. 11. Gataker: As bottles of sherd, or earthen stuff, so Jer 19:1; Jer 19:10; as things of no repute or worth, 2Co 4:7. See Jer 22:28. Gerlach: The point of comparison is the worthlessness of the material out of which they are made, see Isa 45:9.]

Footnotes:

[1][Gerlach would narrow the meaning down to the little children referred to Lam 4:3-4, and explains their being called precious, comparable to gold, by passages in which children are represented as of more value than any other gift of God, Gen 15:2; Gen 30:1; Psa 127:3. There is no necessity for this. It is much more natural to take these two introductory verses as embracing a general description of the humiliation of the whole people. The verses that follow give us the details of the picture, with reference to particular classes of people.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:3-5

3Even the sea-monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: 4the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst; the young 5children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets; they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dung-hills.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:3.[ (Kri, ). Sea-monsters, E. V., Boothroyd: sea-calves, E. V. marg.: dragons, Broughton, Blayney, Owen; serpent, Calvin; jackals, Henderson, Noyes, Fuerst, Lex.: wolves, Gerlach: wild-dogs, Thenius.], never used in Jeremiah, is used of pulling off the shoe, in Deu 25:9-10; Isa 20:2. The sense of drawing, seems to lie at the foundation of this root (see Hos 5:6). Whether a second root (from which comes , one equipped, a warrior) may be affirmed, or whether the original identity of both may be established, we cannot now stop to inquire., mamma, Jeremiah never uses [because he never had occasion to speak of the female breasts or teats.W. H. H.]Of the verb , Jeremiah uses only once the Participle , Jer 44:7, in a substantive sense. [The only time Jeremiah in his prophecies had occasion to speak of a suckling, or make any allusion to a mothers nursing a child at the breast, he uses the participle of the verb . What verb then would Jeremiah have been more likely to use in this place?W. H. H.], young-one [whelp], is found once in Jeremiah, in the form , Jer 51:38, see Nah 2:13.. See Lam 2:11; Lam 3:48.. The verb to be or become must be supplied. See Ewald, 217 d, a. (Jeremiah uses only , Jer 6:23; Jer 30:14; Jer 50:42) is the cruel one, Job 30:21. We would expect the feminine form: but that is never used, and, besides, the masculine form seems intended to convey the idea of unwomanly, unmotherly; it is as if it were said, Zion has become a hardened man. . The Masorites connect the two words and read . It is true that occurs only here (elsewhere the ostrich is called , the daughter of screeching, Mic 1:8; Job 30:29, etc.). Yet the Kri is to be approved of. For, on the one hand, the separation could easily happen by mistake; and, on the other hand, , as the Ktib has it, gives no satisfactory sense. It must be translated, For criers (Heuler) in the wilderness (are they.) To supply here is difficult, and who are the criers in the wilderness? The children, or (as others prefer) their parents? [Forty-five of Kennicotts MSS., and seventy-seven of De Rossis, and most of the early printed editions of the 15th century, according to Henderson and Gerlach, have , without any reference to another reading, Neumann, in support of the Ktib, would understand by the crying ones (Heulenden) the wild beasts of the wilderness, as the Venetian Greek, (Gerlach).W. H. H.]

Lam 4:4. . The same phrase is found in Job 29:10; Psa 137:6; comp. Jer 22:16 (Jer 22:15); Eze 3:26, where is used.Jeremiah uses never [because he never had occasion to, not happening ever to speak of the palate, or roof of the mouth.W. H. H.]. twice, Jer 13:11; Jer 42:16 : once, Jer 44:7 : frequently, Jer 5:15; Jer 9:2; Jer 9:4; Jer 9:7, etc.: once for , Jer 48:18.. See Lam 1:5; Lam 2:19; Jer 6:11; Jer 9:20 (Jer 9:21)., a scribal variety for , as Mic 3:3; see Isa 58:7; Jer 16:7.

Lam 4:5. is frequently constructed with (Exo 12:43-45; Lev 2:11; Jdg 13:16), but nowhere except here with . Bttcher urges the , and translates admitted to dainties, or directed to dainties [ having a local sense, as 2Sa 9:7, or Job 12:8. See Thenius]. Thenius supposes the allusion to be rather to the external surroundings of delicate food, than to the food itself. But it is not apparent how can mean to admit, to direct, or how can denote something around. If is to be explained as a Hebraism, then we must adopt a pregnant construction, and regard as dependent on an omitted verb of craving after, longing for. See Pro 23:3; Pro 23:6, , comp. Jer 24:1. To eat after dainties would, then, be the same as seeking to eat such. Our book, however, was written at a time when an Aramaic expression cannot surprise us. Besides, there is found in Jeremiah an undoubted example of this Aramaic , as a nota accusativi, Jer 40:2. [Note this as a mark of Jeremiac authorship, that is a set-off, at least, against many of the trivial exceptions to his style.W. H. H.] See Ewald, 277, e. [Gesenius Gr., 151, e. It is a solecism of the later style, when active verbs are construed with , instead of the accusative, as , Lam 4:5.Gerlach takes the whole expression adverbially, nach Herzenslust assen, they ate according, to their hearts desire.W. H. H.]. See Gen 49:20; 1Sa 15:32; Pro 29:17. , Jer 51:34, is composed of and (Psa 36:9 (8); 2Sa 1:24.. See Jer 4:9; Eze 4:17, where the word is used as here of persons. is the technical word for the nurture of children: see , Num 11:12; Isa 49:23; 2Ki 10:1; 2Ki 10:5; Est 2:7 : , Rth 4:16; 2Sa 4:4. The fundamental meaning seems to be to carry, support, raise up; see a column, ,, the one who erects a building, the architect. are then gestati, see Isa 60:4. Jeremiah uses Niphal, Jer 15:18; Jer 42:5, and Hiphil, Jer 12:6; Jer 40:14, but only in an ethical sense. does not occur in Jeremiah.The word occurs only here. The plural in 1Sa 2:8; Psa 113:7; Neh 2:13; Neh 3:13-14; Neh 12:31. The signification is undoubtedly dirt (Koth). For its derivation, see Ewald, 186, e; Olsh., 211, a.The verb , Jeremiah uses in no form. Piel is to embrace.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:3. Lam 4:1-2, describe the misfortunes of Zion from a theocratic point of view; Lam 4:3-5 show how terrible they were, as seen from a natural point of view, by describing the pitiable misery of the poor children: see Lam 1:5; Lam 2:11-12; Lam 2:19-20. Even the sea-monsters (marg. sea-calves) [jackals, or wolves] draw out [drew-out] the breast, they give [gave] suck to their young ones. That the Hebrew word translated sea-monsters, , here stands for = jackals (see Jer 9:10 (Jer 9:11); Jer 10:22; Jer 14:6, etc.), was an opinion of the Masorites, which many of the moderns have adopted from the Syriac. In fact, is the Aramaic plural ending (see Olsh. 111 b), which would not be surprising here. , as a singular (see Jer 51:34) is bellua maritima (see Gen 1:21), which is defined at one time as a dragon, at another as a whale, at another as a crocodile, at another as a serpent (comp. Exo 7:9-10; Deu 32:23; Psa 74:13, etc.). That the sea-monsters draw out for use the teats, which are contained in the breasts as in bags or sheaths, Bochart (in the Hierozoicon, tom. 3 p. 777, ed. Rosenmller) authenticates, by many evidences, as a fact known to the ancients. There is on this account, therefore, no reason for departing from the sense indicated by the text. [There are, however, several other reasons for regarding this word as an Aramaic plural for jackals or for wolves (Gerlach), which belong to the same family. These are, 1. The plural forms of the verbs (drew out, gave suck) and of the suffix (their young-ones), which would require instead of , if sea-monsters were intended. 2. The fact that is used of the whelps of lions, bears, dogs, and animals of similar species. 3. The authority of the Masorites. 4. The frequent occurrence of Aramaic forms in Jeremiahs writings. 5. The agreement of so many versions and commentators, ancient and modern. 6. The probability that jackals, wolves, or animals of that description, would occur to the mind of the Prophet in connection with the events of which he speaks. There was nothing to suggest the monsters of the deep, and the comparison, if referred to them, seems forced and far-fetched. But as the Prophet recalls the consequences of the destruction of Jerusalem, as he remembers how the foxes even now had possession of the mountain of Zion, Lam 5:18, he cannot forget how hungry beasts of prey had revelled in the land, and prowled about the deserted villages and even the streets of Jerusalem itself. Even those beasts had shown the instincts of natural affection at least. And hence the natural contrast between them and the mothers, who, before the beasts appeared on the scene, forsook their own babes and refused to give them nourishment. It should be observed here that the verbs in this verse and in all the following description are in the past time. The Prophet is describing what had happened; not what was then transpiring. This use of the perfect tense shows that he was referring, not in the abstract, to what it is in the nature of jackals to do, but in the concrete, to what had been actually observed of them. Even (the is emphatic) jackals, that infested the depopulated country, drew out their breast, etc.The expression drawing out the breast is suggested by the common habit of women in drawing out the breast from the covering robe and presenting it to the child; a mulieribus lactantibus, qu laxata veste mammam lactanti prbent (Junius, quoted by Gerlach).W. H. H.]The daughter of my people is become cruel, [became cruel. Lit. was turned into a cruel one (Gataker), see Job 30:21. Calvin says: The daughter of my people is come to the cruel one, for the people had to do with nothing but cruelty, He, then, does not accuse the people of cruelty, that they did not nourish their children, but on the contrary, he means that they were given up to cruel enemies. But the preceding part of this verse and what follows in Lam 4:4-5, and especially in the climax presented in Lam 4:10, require the sense given in our English version, in which the versions agree with great unanimity. The Prophet gives us a frightful instance of the effect of suffering and starvation. Mothers became more unnatural than jackals or hyenas that suckle their young; and forsook their babes, not merely to avoid the sight of pains they could not alleviate, but to escape the exhausting demands upon their own waning strength,nay, the mania induced by extreme suffering destroyed their affection for their childrenW. H. H.]Like the ostriches in the wilderness. In reference to the want of feeling towards its young in the ostrich, Thenius refers to OkensNatural History (vii. s. 655, ff.). See Bochart, Hieroz. P. II. L. II. cap. 14, pag. 824; cap. 17, pag. 854 seqq. ed. Rosenm.Winer R. W. B. s. v. Strauss. Job 39:13-17. [On the least noise or trivial occasion she forsakes her eggs or her young ones, to which perhaps she never returns: or if she does, it may be too late either to restore life to the one, or to preserve the lives of the others. Agreeably to this account, the Arabs meet sometimes with whole nests of these eggs undisturbed; some of them are sweet and good, others are addled and corrupted; others again have their young ones of different growth, according to the time, it may be presumed, they may have been forsaken of the dam. They often meet with a few of the little ones no bigger than well-grown pullets, half-starved, straggling, and moaning about, like so many distressed orphans, for their mother. (ShawsTravels, quoted by Noyes). The Arabs call the ostrich the impious or ungodly bird, on account of its neglect and cruelty towards its young, (Barnes on Job 39:13).]

Lam 4:4. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth [cleaved] to the roof of his mouth for thirst. See Job 29:10; Psa 137:6, comp. Psa 22:16 (Psa 22:15); Eze 3:26.Young children ask [asked] bread [see Lam 2:11-12], and no man breaketh it unto them [and there was no one to break to them].

Lam 4:5. They that did feed delicately, they that ate dainties [or, fed on dainties, Calvin, Blayney, Boothroyd, Henderson, Noyes].Are desolate in the streets, perish [perished] on the streets, [i.e. by starvation, while seeking in vain for food.W. H. H.]They that were brought up in scarlet, they who were carried on crimson [carried on cloths, or borne on couches of scarlet, crimson, or purple color, made of costly materials of Tyrian dyes.W. H. H.] Scarlet, the red dying material, got from the cochineal worm; see Exo 16:20; Isa 1:18.Embrace dunghills, embrace the dirt [embraced dirt-heaps, the heaps of dirt, refuse (rubbish, FuerstsLex.), lying in the streets of the city.W. H. H.] To embrace the dirt (see Job 24:8, embrace the rock) can only mean to have it between the arms, which is done by them who lie in the dirt. Sterquilinea arripiunt, et super ea veluti toto corpore incumbunt, ut fame confecti cibum inde eruant. (They eagerly grasp the dunghills, stretched out upon them, as it were at full length, that, dying of hunger, they may thence seize their food).Pareau. [The idea of seeking food in the dirt-heaps of the city streets, confuses the two very distinct members of this verse. Little children, who had been fed on delicacies, perished in the streets while vainly seeking food; and thus, those, who had been borne on costly couches covered with the richest goods, lay now dying, with outstretched hands embracing, as it were, the heaps of filth in the city streets. To embrace the dust is a familiar image in all languages: to embrace the dirt-heaps of an oriental city, so proverbially filthy, intensifies the figure. The whole description is highly poetical.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:6

6For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:6. The expression is taken from Gen 19:25 ( , comp. Jer 20:16, and , Deu 29:22; Isa 13:19; Amo 4:11; Jer 50:40). is derived, not from , but from (so derived apparently by the Sept. and Syr.). The latter denotes to relax, to be powerless, Jdg 16:7; Isa 57:10; it can also very well be said of the hands, and there is no necessity of resorting, by any artificial method, to a modification of the idea of gyrare. In reference to this word, see Jer 5:3. Jer. uses the Kal of , Jer 5:27, and the Hiphil, Jer 48:26; Jer 48:42. is frequent with him, Jer 2:22; Jer 3:13; Jer 13:22; etc., see Lam 2:11. often in Jer 16:10; Jer 17:13; etc. also, Jer 4:20; Jer 18:7; Jer 18:9. occurs only here; yet see , Num 16:21; Num 17:10; Psa 13:19.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:6. With this verse the Poet concludes the first part of his Song. This verse corresponds to Lam 4:11, which constitutes a similar conclusion. In both cases the Poet draws a general inference from the preceding particular facts, which he had related in detail. In this verse the inference is, that the guilt of Zion was proved to be greater than the sin of Sodom.For the punishment of the iniquity (marg. For the iniquity) of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom.And the guilt of the daughter of my people was greater than the sin of Sodom. I cannot agree with those who take and in the sense of the punishment of sin. This sense is not capable of proof. In all the cases appealed to for this purpose (Gen 4:13; 1Sa 28:10; 2Sa 16:12; Isa 5:18; Psa 31:11), on more exact examination, their original meaning of sin, guilt, appears to be their real meaning. And this is true in reference to , for which some would justify the sense of pna peccati, from the passages Num 32:23; Isa 40:2; Zec 14:9. See Drechsler on Isa 5:18. In = was greater, lies, then, the thought, it being allowable to infer the cause from the effect, that Zions guilt is shown to be greater than was the sin-guiltiness (Sndenschuld) of Sodom. There is certainly in the vav before a causal intimation. For it amounts to the same thing, as far as the sense is concerned, whether I infer the effect from the cause with the words and so, or the cause from the effect with the word for. This causal use of the vav, moreover, is sufficiently established; see Psa 7:10; Psa 60:13; Psa 95:5; Pro 23:3; Gen 22:12; Jer 16:12; Jer 23:36; Jer 31:3; Isa 39:1; Hos 4:4; Hos 6:4; etc. See my Gr. 110, 1. [The Vav cordinates the proposition with what precedes in the relation of cause to effect. These things were so, for the sin was greater, etc. As the vav is here the initial letter, the stress laid upon it shows the masterly manner in which the author of the poem often makes the acrostic, which in common hands would be constrained and merely artificial, contribute to the spirit and force of the sentiment. This is true, whether we take the words discussed, in the sense of sin or the punishment of sin; but the fact that it is emphatic is an argument in favor of the sense in which Dr. Naegelsbach construes it, and this added to the doubt whether and ever do mean the punishment of sin, may decide us in favor of his translation. The other translation gives good sense and fits in admirably with the context, and is adopted without hesitation by all the English versions and commentators (except Wordsworth), and by Calvin and Gerlach. Yet Calvin says: If any one prefers the other version, I will not contend, for it is not unsuitable; and hence also a most useful doctrine may be drawn, that we are to judge of the grievousness of our sins by the greatness of our punishment; for God never exceeds what is just when He takes vengeance on the sins of men. Then His severity shows how grievously men have sinned. Thus, Jeremiah may have reasoned from the effect to the cause, and declared that the people had been more wicked than the Sodomites. Nor is this unreasonable; for the Prophets everywhere charged them as men who not only equalled but also surpassed the Sodomites, especially Ezekiel (Eze 16:46-47). Isaiah also called them the people of Gomorrah, and the kings counsellors and judges, the princes of Sodom (Isa 1:9-10). This mode of speaking is then common in the Prophets, and the meaning is not unsuitable. The Sept. translates both words ; the Vulg. one iniquitas, the other peccatum.W. H. H.].That was overthrown as in a moment. Sodoms guilt was great, and the punishment decreed for it corresponded to the greatness of its sin: it was destroyed instantaneously by fire falling from Heaven (see Gen 19:25), whereby its punishment was proved to be supernatural and divinitus immissa [sent from God]. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31). [Blayney: Sodom was destroyed by a sudden act of God, which the Prophet thinks preferable to lingering and wasting away with disease or want, as was the case in Jerusalem during the long siege]And no hands stayed on herand no hands became slack (relaxed) thereby. That Sodom was destroyed, not by the hands of men, but by the hand of God alone, is a fact that is emphasized as giving intensity to the severity of its punishment. Yet, our Poet would say, the fate of Jerusalem was still more terrible, because its guilt was greater than Sodoms. With what propriety this could be affirmed, is easily comprehended. For there had not been on the part of Sodom and Gomorrah such fulness of manifestation of the long-suffering love of God, as in the case of Jerusalem, (see Jer 7:13; Jer 7:25; Jer 11:7; Jer 25:4; Eze 16:46-48; Isa 1:10; Mat 11:23-24). But if it be asked, in what respect Jerusalems fate had been more dreadful than that of Sodom, the answer, it seems to me, is contained in the =as in a moment. Sodoms sufferings in death were brief: there were no starving children, no mothers who cooked their children. Jerusalems sufferings were long and protracted, whereby was produced that horrible crime! Eversio Sodom fuit instar subit apoplexi, eversio autem Hierosolym fuit instar lent tabis [the overthrow of Sodom was a kind of sudden apoplexy, but the overthrow of Jerusalem was a kind of slow consumption], says Frster. [Dr. Naegelsbach has not made his sense of this difficult clause very apparent. It seems hardly credible that should mean thereby (dadurch). If the verb is derived from , instead of , the translation of either Blayney or Owen, is to be preferred. Blayney translates nor were hands weakened in her, referring to the suddenness of the destruction, and forming a parallelism with the preceding clause, overthrown as in a moment. Owen translates, and not wearied against (or over) her were hands, and says, This is substantially the Sept. and Syr. Grotius says that the meaning is, that Sodom was destroyed not by human means, that is, not by a siege as Jerusalem had been. Wordsworth: And no hands were weary on her. No human hands were wearied by destroying her, but she was suddenly consumed by the hand of God. If we accept of the usual derivation of the verb from , then the translation of Thenius may be commended for its simplicity, and is supported by the dual form of =hands, and no one in her wrung the hands. But, as Gerlach shows, the dual form is constantly used for the plural (see , all hands, Isa 13:7), and the verb is used with of the object, of brandishing the sword against the cities of Ephraim (Hos 11:6): we may, therefore, understand the sense to be, and no hands (i.e., human hands) were wrung round (or brandished) against it, mens hands were not brought against, it. This seems to correspond with Dr. Naegelsbachs interpretation, and is the sense generally adopted. Boothroyd: Without the hands of men. Henderson: And no hands attacked her. Noyes: Though no hands came against her.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:7-9

7Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were 8more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets; their skin cleaveth to their 9bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick. They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:7.. The word occurs only in Job 15:15; Job 25:5; and in Hiph., Job 9:30. does not occur in Jeremiah. [Yet , Jer 7:29, is a remarkable coincidence in the use of language, if means crowned-ones, as Dr. Naegelsbach suggests.W. H. H.], Jer 18:14.The verb , splendidum esse, nitere, is found only here. The adjective in Jer 4:11. in Jeremiah only in the phrase , Jer 11:5; Jer 32:22.Kal is found only here. The sense without doubt is to be red, reddish. The same meaning adheres to the derived conjugations, Pual (Exo 25:5; Exo 26:14; Exo 35:7; Exo 35:23; Neh 2:4), Hiph. (Isa 1:18), Hithpael (Isa 1:18). The word does not occur in Jeremiah. (in Jer 8:1; Jer 20:9; Jer 23:9) stands here as pars pro toto. See Pro 15:30; Pro 16:24; and , Psa 139:15. [Blayney absurdly translates, They were ruddier on the bone, and thus explains, In the preceding line the whiteness of their skin is described; in this their flesh, which was red underneath towards the bone, marking their high health.] (see Eze 1:26; Eze 10:1) does not occur in Jeremiah.

Lam 4:8.. Jeremiah uses the Hiphil, only once, Jer 13:16. occurs only here (see , Jer 2:18). [The translation of Blayney, duskier than the dawn, and of Henderson, darker than the dawn, would require us to read , and then the comparison could only be with the darkness of the very early dawn, and would be an awkward figure at that.W. H. H.]. See Jer 11:16., Niph. of , see Pro 26:24; Job 34:19. In Jeremiah Piel is found, Jer 19:4, and Hiphil Jer 24:5., firmiter adhrere, only here., see Lam 3:4. , see Jos 9:5. In Jeremiah the verb is often found, Jer 23:10; Jer 50:38, etc. The adjective he never uses. is frequent in Jer 2:20; Jer 3:6; Jer 3:9; Jer 3:13, etc.

Lam 4:9.For the meaning of , see Lam 3:26.The expression , is found in Jer 14:18, but is especially frequent with Eze 31:17-18; Eze 32:21-31. relativum, see Lam 2:15.. The word is found in Jeremiah only in Jer 49:4, and then in another sense. Here it must evidently denote the dissolving of life, i.e., the lingering dying of the starving. The word does not, indeed, occur elsewhere in this sense, for everywhere else it stands for the virile flux or female menses, or for confluence or abundant flowing together ( , Exo 3:8, etc.), or for copious water-floods (Psa 78:20; Psa 105:41; Isa 48:21). But the connection absolutely requires us to take the idea of flowing, which the word undoubtedly has, in this modification of it. Pareau, also, with propriety, calls attention to the closely related word , tabescere (Jer 31:12; Jer 31:25, Psa 88:10). He also shows that in the Latin a similar affinity exists between tabescere and liquescere. For as Seneca at one time says (Epist. 26) incommodum summum est minui et deperire et, ut proprie dicam, liquescere, so he says another time, (Medea, 4:590), in rivos nivibus solutis sole jam forti, medioque vere tabuit Hmius. [See critical notes below.]. Jeremiah uses the word twice, Jer 37:10; Jer 51:4, and both times the Part. Pual.The expression is found in Deu 32:13; comp. Eze 36:30; Isa 27:6; Jdg 9:11. does not occur in Jeremiah, but does, Jer 4:17; Jer 18:14. , here, cannot possibly have the positive sense of giving out, failure, or that of positive causality. It must rather be taken in its negative sense, away, far from, without. See Lam 4:18; and Jer 48:45; Job 11:15; Job 21:9. See my Gr., 112, 5 d.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:7-11. The plan of this part [which may be regarded a the antistrophe to Lam 4:1-6.W. H. H.] is exactly similar to that of Lam 4:1-6. It begins with a description of what the Princes of Zion had to suffer. This description corresponds evidently to what was said generally of the sons of Zion, Lam 4:1-2, of whom the Princes are the flower. But Lam 4:7-9 form a climax to Lam 4:1-2, which appears in the fact that what is said of the Princes of Zion, in Lam 4:8-9, surpasses what is said of the sons of Zion in the last clause of Lam 4:2. Lam 4:10 corresponds in a similar way with Lam 4:3-5, what was said there, being surpassed here. Lam 4:11, finally, corresponds with Lam 4:6; for like it, Lam 4:11 contains a definite, comprehensive and inferential conclusion.

Lam 4:7. Her Nazaritesher Princes. That here cannot denote the Nazarites is evident, not so much from the description which is given of them, for that would be very suitable to a Samson for instance, as from the fact that the Nazarites were a more fraction of the whole people, too scattered and numerically insignificant to be mentioned here with such particularity. Rather as they [the Nazarites] were said to be coronati, crowned ones, from their unshorn hair [see Num 6:19, =his crown is shaven off of him; , the unshorn hair, or crown, Jer 7:29.W. H. H.], so the Poet here calls the Princes crowned ones [see , to encircle, hence , a crown, diadem or chaplet.W. H. H.] from the golden crown, which they wore. It is true this is a poetical expression, which is not of frequent occurrence; for we can only compare Gen 49:26 (Deu 33:16), where Joseph is called , the crowned one among his brothers. It is, besides, very apparent that the Poet was required to select a subject, to which the brilliant predicates, which he heaps up in Lam 4:7, would be appropriate. [Gataker gives the same meaning and derivation to the word, and refers to Nah 3:17, , thy crowned ones, or honorable ones. It seems more likely, however, that the word designates Princes or nobles, not from any allusion to their being crowned, which is not obvious, but because they constituted a separate and distinguished class of persons, were set apart, for honorable offices, as the Nazarites were for strictly religious services (non voto sed dignitate separati;Noldius, quoted by Gerlach). So Calvin explains the word in Gen 49:26, and Blayney and Gerlach here. Boothroyd translates nobles. Noyes, princes. Henderson retains the word Nazarites.W. H. H]Were purermore shining [glistening, glnzender]. The word in Job 15:15; Job 25:5, represents the brightness of the heavens and the stars.Than snow. The comparison with the glistening white snow is found also in Psa 51:9 (7); Isa 1:18.They were whiter than milk. [Purer than snow, whiter than milk, according to ordinary Bible usage, are beautiful metaphors for innocency of character and life. Here, however, they refer entirely to physical appearance, the resplendent beauty of their complexion, as is plain from what follows: not of their garments, as some have imagined, but of their bodies, as is evident from the antithesis in the next verse.W. H. H.]They were more ruddy in body than rubies (Rthlicher strahlten sie am Leibe als Korallen), their body was of a more reddish hue than corals. Red on white is the normal color of the human complexion, the prime-color of beauty, Son 5:10; Lam 4:7, says Delitzsch, Psychol., p. 75. [Calvin, understanding Nazarites as intended, supposes that their red color was a mark and evidence of Gods favor as in the cases of the Hebrew children recorded in Daniel. We know that the Nazarites abstained from wine and strong drink: hence abstinence might have lessened somewhat of their ruddiness. For he who is accustomed to drink wine, if he abstains for a time, is apt to grow pale; he will then lose almost all his color, at least he will not be so ruddy; nor will there appear in his face and in his members so much vigor as when he took his ordinary support. Jeremiah, in short, teaches us that the blessing of God was conspicuous in the Nazarites, for He wonderfully supported them while they were for a time abstinents. This necessity of appealing to a possible miracle may itself create a doubt, if Nazarites are here referred to at all. That in such a corrupt state of society as existed, at that period of their history, among the Jews, there were many who assumed the vows of the Nazarite, is doubtful. There is no allusion to the existence even of Nazarites among the people at this time, in either the prophetical or historical books. But that there was not only such a class, but that they were so remarkable for their piety and so acceptable to God, that God gave them such evidences of His favor as were bestowed on Daniel and his brethren, making them conspicuous among men by their personal beauty, especially by the ruddiness of their complexion, we cannot believe. And it would be incredible and horrible that upon that particular class the heaviest judgments descended, as is related in the next verse. If we infer from their personal beauty, in Lam 4:7, that they were special favorites of Heaven, we must conclude, from the transformation of their appearance into that of ugliness, in Lam 4:8, that they were also special objects of Divine wrath. The two things do not agree. This alone proves that Nazarites are not intended. The description of their personal appearance, which could only apply to Nazarites, by some such forced construction as requires Calvin to invoke the aid of a miracle, is entirely appropriate to that class of the nobility represented by the Princes, who lived delicately and luxuriously, and whose faces, not embrowned by exposure to the weather, nor seamed and roughened by a life of hardship, were flushed and shining from the effects of high living, and whose persons beamed and glistened, as it were, from the care bestowed upon them, and the pains taken to beautify and adorn themselves. Perhaps the idea conveyed by the Hebrew verbs of the glistening quality of their white and red complexion, may be due to the then prevailing use of unguents.W. H. H.]Rubies, corals, . Concerning this word, which occurs besides in Job 28:18; Pro 3:15; Pro 8:11; Pro 20:15; Pro 31:10, opinions are much divided. The translations are entirely at variance: Sept. , Symm. , Chald. lapides pretiosi, Syr. sardinus, Jerome, ebur antiquum. Among the moderns, Bootius (animadv ss., IV. 3), whom J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Maurer and Thenius [Henderson, Noyes, Gerlach, Fuerst] follow, maintains the signification to be corals; against which Bochart (Hieroz. P. ii., L. V., Cap. 6, 7, ed., Rosenm., Tom. 3, pag. 601 seqq.) contends for pearls. His opinion is especially maintained by Pareau (not on this passage, but in his remarks on Job 28) and supported with new arguments. Leyrer also (in Herz.R.-Enc. XI., p. 399) is inclined to adopt this side. The decision is difficult. Corals agree best with the context, since the existence of reddish pearls is too slightly established, and the meaning of glistening for the Hebrew is entirely hypothetical.Their polishing was of sapphire, a sapphire was their form.Their polishing, their form, Ger. Gestalt; Fr. taille; Lat. forma, figura [Eng. mien, general appearance]. The word (, from Lam 3:54) occurs in this sense only here. In the description of Ezekiels temple it is used of the northern porch, Jer 41:12-15; Jer 42:1; Jer 42:10; Jer 42:13. [Blayney, after Braunius (see Pictorial Bible), taking the word from to divide, or intersect, translates, their veining was the sapphire; alluding to the blue veins appearing through the white and red complexions. So Boothroyd and Adam Clarke. This would be either a mark of beauty, or an intimation of the bloated condition of the luxurious and pampered nobility. In either case, the sense is good, and is recommended by the fact that snow, milk and corals indicate color, and therefore sapphire, too, would naturally suggest the characteristic color of that gem. , however, would more likely indicate the cutting of a gem, and hence its form, taille, and in case of the sapphire, which is next in hardness to the diamond, its brilliancy of appearance. Gerlach: The words are not to be understood of color (as of the veins showing through, or of the garments, as Cant. 28:18), but, on account of the characteristic , excisio, taille, of the perfect shape, the consummate beauty of bodily form (Krperbau). Sapphire was their form (Gestalt), that is to say, so beautiful and without fault, as if they were a polished image made out of precious stone.W. H. H.] White as milk and snow, red as corals, and shining as sapphire, is the appearance of the nobles as here described. This seems to constitute a climax to Lam 4:1-2 : for the Poet evidently, in Lam 4:7, paints with gayer and more variegated colors.

Lam 4:8. In glaring contrast with Lam 4:7, he now describes what has befallen the nobles in consequence of the great catastrophe.Their visagetheir appearance [so Blayney, Henderson, Owen, Gerlach: their countenance, Noyes: their visage, Broughton, Boothroyd].Is [was, or became. The verbs are all in the past tense. So Gataker and Owen render them. The Prophet is still looking back to what had taken place, though now to a time posterior to that indicated in Lam 4:7. He is describing the change that took place in the appearance of the nobles, while the city was still standing, and they were seen in the streets.W. H. H.] Blacker than a coal.darker than blackness [so marg. E. V., Calvin, Boothroyd, Gerlach, Wordsworth. Broughton and Noyes, like the E. V. Vulg., Rashi, Kimchi, black coals. Sept., soot. Owen suggests darker than Sihor, or the river Nile, see Jer 2:18.] They are not [were not] knownrecognizedin the streets. See Lam 4:5. The sense is, in their houses they might perhaps be recognized, but not on the streets.Their skin cleaveth [cleaved] to their bones. See Job 19:20; Job 30:30.It is withered, it is become like a stickit is [it became] dry as wood. [The English versionit is witheredarose from taking the adjective dry, for the verb to dry. No other English version has it so.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:9. This verse enters into close connection with Lam 4:8. Here it is declared that the miserable condition described in Lam 4:8, is the consequence of starvation; and at the same time, the reflection is made that death by hunger is more dreadful than death by the sword.They that be slain with the sword, are better than they that be slain with hunger; Happier are they who are slain by the sword, than they who are by hunger slain [Happier were the slain by the sword, than the slain by the famine. Translating the words in the past time, removes them from the category of a moral or psychological reflection, and restores the harmony of the style as a poetical description of actual events. It reminds us, too, that the nobles suffered from the sword, as well as by famine. They who died quickly by means of the sword were more fortunate than those who suffered a lingering death by starvation. So in Lam 4:6, the Prophet regards, for similar reasons, the destruction of Sodom as less severe and terrible than that of Jerusalem.W. H. H.]For these pine awaymarg., flow out,stricken through for want of the fruits of the fieldWho pine away pierced in the heart for want of the fruits of the field. This clause declares two things in reference to those slain by the sword ( ), and those slain by hunger ( ), one in which they agree, and one in which they differ. 1. That wherein they agree; they are both pierced through (). 2. That wherein they differ; those that starve, melt away, that is to say, they die slowly, whilst with the others, death is quickly ever.

[The Versions and commentators accept generally the translation given above of the last clause of this verse. Yet there are serious objections to it, and cogent reasons for adopting a different rendering. 1. It is taken for granted that the relative must refer to the last subject mentioned, those slain or killed, by hunger. It is more grammatical to refer it to the principal subject of the preceding clause, which is those slain by the sword, regarding the sentence as only begun in the first clause and finished in the second. The words , than those killed by famine, could be transposed to the end of the verse without changing the grammatical construction in the least, (though it would mar the rhythm and the poetical paronomasia), and this shows that they are entirely subordinate to the main idea. 2. A meaning is forced upon the verb , of melting or pining away, as descriptive of a slow death, which it has in no other place in Scripture. In the only place where it has been supposed to have the meaning of dissolving, Jer 49:4, Dr. Naegelsbach himself says it has not that sense (see gram. note above), and if it has, it would imply rather a sudden, mysterious disappearance, than a slow and prolonged dissolution. The affinity between the Latin words tabescere and liquescere, brought forward by Pareau, and confirmed by a quotation from Seneca, which has been repeated by nearly every commentator since, even last of all by Gerlach, is of no force whatever; not only because the usage of Latin thought and expression is of no authority in Hebrew; but because liquescere, the fundamental idea of which is to become liquid, to melt, has a natural affinity to tabescere, to melt gradually, be dissolved and hence, metaphorically, to waste or pine away, while , the fundamental idea of which is to flow out or gush out, has no natural affinity to , even if the fundamental idea of is to melt, and certainly no affinity to in the only senses in which it is used in the Hebrew Bible, of pining away, or being distressed with sorrow or fear. On the other hand, the only sense in which the word is elsewhere used, as when it is applied to the sudden and violent gushing out, or rapid overflowing of water, see Psa 78:20; Psa 105:41; Isa 48:21; Exo 3:8, admirably describes the death of those whose lives flowed away as the blood gushed from their hearts, pierced with a sword. 3. The future form of the verb , is entirely ignored. It may be difficult, with our different modes of thought, always to detect the purport of a change in the Hebrew tenses, but it is quite certain that these changes are never purposeless; and here, where a future is suddenly thrust in among preterite tenses, it must have an important bearing upon the meaning intended. What the force of the future here is, depends on the subject of the relative and of the verb. If that subject is those slain by the famine, , then the future may have an optative sense; these would have flowed out having been pierced, i.e., they would have preferred to die by the sword. But if, as is more likely, the subject is those slain by the sword, , then the future has the sense in which Jeremiah so often uses it, of the historical imperfect, and then, too, the relative , has its more proper sense of those who; Happier were those slain by the swordthose who gushed out having been pierced, i.e., who died instantly as the blood gushed out of their hearts. 4. A metaphorical meaning is thrust upon =being or having been pierced, which the word can hardly bear, namely, pierced with the sharp pains of hunger. The word is only used of being pierced through bodily with some sharp weapon, as a sword or spear. It is never used metaphorically, not even in Zec 12:10; Zec 13:3, which have been appealed to; nor yet in Pro 12:18, where the piercings of a sword are compared to wounds inflicted by a wicked tongue, for even there the word derived from our verb is used in the literal sense of bodily piercings, made by a sword. The word might, it is true, in our text, be an instance of bold, audacious metaphor. But when there are so many other reasons for taking it in its literal sense, we may spare ourselves the task of justifying a metaphorical one. 5. The preposition , is taken in an unusual sense. Calvin and others construe it blindly,pierced through by the fruits of the earth, and explain that all the productions of the earth took vengeance on this wicked people, by refusing the usual supply. This is too extraordinary a personification of the fruits of the earth to be allowable, and it is a strange thing to charge a crime on an agent that has no existence. We would rather adopt the opinion of Jarchi who explained that their death was caused by the weeds and roots with which, in their hunger they had filled themselves, though it is something new to call weeds and roots, fruits of the earth. The usual explanation is, that they died for want of the fruits of the earth. It is doubtful it can be explained in any such sense, as Dr. Naegelsbach seems to concede, when he says it can only be taken in the sense of away, far from, without. There is less difficulty with this word, if we understand the clause in the sense expressed by the Septuagint, , they were driven away, having been pierced, from the fruitful fields. So Chaldus: Those fled away, when they were pierced, from the, products and fruits of the field, i.e., they were full and satisfied, since they were pierced when their bellies were full of food; and J. D. Michaelis, who, suddenly pierced, forsook the rich fruits of the, earth (on which they dwelt). This explanation really contains the idea expressed by Blayneys translation, those, being thrust through, pass away before the fruits of the field, i.e., they pass away at one stroke, before the means of subsistence fail, and so experience not the misery of wanting them. Dathe supposes a direct comparison between the suddenness of their death and the proverbial withering of the grass. Quicker yet than the mown grass, they vanished who were pierced with the sword. This idea of their dying before the famine came, throws additional light on the use of the future tense in , lit., they were gushing forth from the fruits of the field. The last clause of the verse is a more specific statement of what is said in the first clause. Happier were those who fell by the sword, than those who starved to death, especially those who being pierced through, died while yet there were supplies of food in the city. This is the idea I have endeavored to express in the new translation. Boothroyds translationFor those pierced past away, but these for want of the fruits of the field, would require a new text.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:10

10The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:10. (see Ewald, 164, a; Olsh., p. 412, f) is . . According to the sense it seems to denote, not the external habits of life, as and (Deu 28:56), but the inner habitus, softness and tenderness of feeling. The etymology favors this, see and .The verb does not occur in Jeremiah. is found in Jeremiah once, Jer 31:20., according to Fuerst, a secondary form of , Psa 69:22 (Olsh., p. 417), is found only here. More properly it should be taken, with Ewald (see 165 c), Maurer, Olshausen, for the Inf. Piel, see ,, Isa 6:13; Psa 49:15.The form Jeremiah never uses. . See Lam 2:11.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:10. This verse exactly corresponds, with respect to its subject, to Lam 4:3-5, and constitutes in relation to those verses a climax. For whilst Lam 4:3-5 speak of the pining away of the children, here the yet more terrible fact is told that mothers consumed their own children.The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children.The hands of tender-hearted women cooked their own children.They were their meat in the destructionthey were food for them in the ruinof the daughter of My people. The Poet would say, that the complication of feelings and sensations, caused by their terrible calamity, hurried away even tender-hearted women to the commission of this most horrible crime. See Lam 2:20. [Henderson: Compare 2Ki 6:28-29; Lev 26:29; Deu 28:56-57. For a most graphic description of such a horrible scene, see Josephus account of the siege under Titus, Bell. Jud. cap. X. 9.]

Lam 4:11

11The Lord hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:11., Jer 9:15; Jer 14:12; Jer 26:8, etc. See Lam 2:22., see Lam 2:4. , see Lam 1:12.. All existing forms of this root are very frequent with Jer 2:15; Jer 9:9; Jer 9:11; Jer 17:27, etc. Jeremiah never uses. See Exo 30:4; Exo 13:14; Amo 1:4; Amo 1:7; Amo 1:10; Psa 137:7, etc.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:11. This verse closes the second part of the Poem, in a way entirely similar to that in which Lam 4:6 closes the first part. In both there is placed in our hand, as it were, a measuring rule, that we may be able to measure the extent, and the significance of the catastrophe which has befallen Zion. Only in Lam 4:6 is indicated the measure of the greatness of Zions guilt, but here the measure of the Divine wrath. [The remarkable correspondence between Lam 4:1-11, which Dr. Naegelsbach has so skilfully developed, is argument enough for rejecting the arrangement of Gerlach, who assigns Lam 4:11 to the second general division of the Poem.W. H. H.].The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion and it hath devoured the foundations thereof.Jehovah fulfilled His wrath, He poured out (die Glut seines Zornes) His hot anger, and kindled a fire in Zion that consumed her foundations. [Gerlach remarks that the foundations of the city were not literally destroyed, but that this denotes in a general way that the city was razed to the ground. This is explicitly said of Zion, or the sacred part of the city, with special reference to the Sanctuary, which was completely destroyed. See Deu 32:22; Jer 21:14; Jer 7:20. We may regard this as a prophecy of a future destruction that was to come on Zion, when not one stone should be left upon another; or, if not a prophecy, at least an instructive commentary on the causes which led to that catastrophe, and on the catastrophe itself as the result of the wrath and fiery indignation of Jehovah God, accomplishing the threatening of His holy word.W. H. H.]

Part II4:1222

Sect. III. Lam 4:12-16

Lam 4:12. The kings of the earth believed not,

Nor all the inhabitants of the earth,
That an oppressor and enemy would come
Into Jerusalems gates.

Lam 4:13. On account of the sins of her Prophets,

The crimes of her Priests,
Who shed in the midst of her
Blood of the righteous.

Lam 4:14. They stumbled like blind men through the streets,

Defiled with blood
So that men could not
Touch their garments.

Lam 4:15. Away! unclean! men cried to them, away! away! touch not!

When they fled away, they still stumbled,
Men said among the heathen,
They shall not longer tarry.

Lam 4:16. The anger of Jehovah scattered them;

He will no longer look upon them.
Men showed no favor to priests,
They had no compassion for elders.

Sect. IV. Lam 4:17-22

Lam 4:17. As for us, our eyes failed, still looking

For our vain help:
On our watch-tower we watched
For a people that could not save.

Lam 4:18. They hunted our steps

That we could not go in our streets.
Our end drew near, our days were fulfilled,
Yea, our end was come!

Lam 4:19. Swifter were our pursuers

Than the eagles of heaven;
On the mountains, they chased us;
In the wilderness, they lay in wait for us.

Lam 4:20. The breath of our nostrils, the Anointed of Jehovah,

Was taken in their pits,
Of whom we said,
Under his shadow will we live among the nations.

Lam 4:21. Exult and be glad, daughter of Edom,

That dwellest in the land of Uz,

To thee, also, shall the cup pass over,
Thou shalt be drunk and make thyself naked.

Lam 4:22. Consumed is thy guilt, daughter of Zion,

No longer does He make thee captive.
He visits thy guilt, daughter of Edom,
He uncovers thy sins.

ANALYSIS

Part third, Lam 4:12-16, treats of the causes of the terrible catastrophe. What even the heathen had not deemed possible, Lam 4:12, had been brought about by the sins of the prophets and priests, especially by their blood-guiltiness, Lam 4:13, in consequence of which they had been proscribed by their own countrymen, and not only so, but even in foreign countries they had been chased from place to place, and scattered and treated in the worst manner, without respect to age or condition, Lam 4:14-16. Part fourth describes the failure of the hope resting on Egyptian help, Lam 4:17; for the Chaldeans, in order to prevent the flight of the king, kept the most careful watch, whereby this means of escape was prevented, Lam 4:18; when, nevertheless, the flight was at last attempted and frustrated by the rapid pursuit, the only hope the fugitives still cherished, to be able to live among a foreign people, in the enjoyment of freedom, at least, under the shadow of their own king, was destroyed, Lam 4:19-20. The last two verses, 21, 22, which constitute the conclusion of the whole, contain a short address to Edom, which, on account of its malevolent joy at the downfall of Zion, is forewarned of a similar fate, whilst in the same connection, the prospect is exhibited to Zion of the remission of her guilt and an end of her captivity.

Lam 4:12-16. This third part contains an exposition of the causes of the punishment inflicted. What had been regarded, even among the heathen, as impossible, namely, that the gales of Jerusalem should be entered by force, Lam 4:12, this the godless priests and prophets, by their bloody cruelly, had rendered possible, Lam 4:13. Thus they became an object of abhorrence to Israel and to the heathen, Lam 4:14-15, so that, tolerated nowhere, they were scattered abroad and compelled to suffer the hardest of fates, Lam 4:16.

Lam 4:12-16

12The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of 13 Jerusalem. For the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests that have 14 shed the blood of the just in the midst of her. They have wandered as blind men in the streets, they have polluted themselves with blood, so that men could not 15 touch their garments. They cried unto them, Depart ye; it is unclean; depart, depart, touch not: when they fled away and wandered, they said among the heathen, 16 They shall no more sojourn there. The anger of the LORD hath divided them; he will no more regard them: they respected not the persons of the priests, they favoured not the elders.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:12.The Hiphil of , once in Jer 12:6., Jer 25:20.[ . The , omitted by Kri, and by some MSS and Masoretic editions, and by Sept., is expressed in Syr., Chald. and Vulg. Blayney]. is found in Jeremiah only in the critically suspected passages Jer 10:12; Jer 51:15. The phrase is found verbatim Psa 33:8, comp. Psa 24:1; Psa 98:7.Jeremiah never uses in the singular, see Jer 1:5; Jer 1:7; Jer 1:10. is used in connection with , as here, in Est 7:6. , Jer 1:15; Jer 17:19; Jer 17:21; Jer 17:27; Jer 22:19.

Lam 4:13.. See Jer 4:14; Jer 6:6; etc., and remarks on Lam 3:45.The expression, , occurs only here: elsewhere it is always said , e.g. Deu 21:8; 2Ki 24:4, or , Jer 22:17, or , Jer 19:4.

Lam 4:14.Jeremiah uses once, Jer 14:10. See Zep 1:17., once in Jer 31:8. [Blayney and Owen take as participle Pual of to rouse or excite.]. See Lam 4:5; Lam 4:8. . The words are taken from Isa 59:3. , softened from (Lev 26:11; Lev 26:15; Jer 14:19). With reference to form, blended of Niphal and Pual, see Olsh. 275, Ewald, 132, b., Delitzsch, Is. p. 566 [Greens Gr., exceedingly defiled, 83, c. 2, 122, 2]. is found in Jeremiah only in the sense of loosening, redeeming; see Lam 3:58.The construction of with the finite verb is equivalent to the same with the Infinitive, Lam 1:14. See Lam 3:3; Lam 3:5; Est 8:6; my Gr. 95, g. rem. is frequent in Jeremiah, see Jer 3:5; Jer 18:6; Jer 20:7, etc. in Jer 4:10; Jer 4:18; Jer 12:14, etc., Jer 10:9.

Lam 4:15. in Jer 5:23; Jer 15:5, etc. in the Singular, never in Jeremiah: he uses only once , Jer 19:13. [If he could use the plural only once, why not the singular only once?W. H. H.]In the words the Poet seems to have in mind Isa 52:11, where the same words are used, only they are addressed, not to the unclean, but to the clean. (kindred to ,, but occurring in this signification only here) is not found in Jeremiah. [Gerlach derives from , which Jeremiah does use in its Aramaic form, and in same sense as here, Jer 48:9,W. H. H.], see , Psa 95:9.Jeremiah uses frequently in Jeremiah 42-44. (see Jer 42:15; Jer 42:17; Jer 42:22, etc.)Hiphil is found in the Prophet only once, Jer 31:12, whilst it occurs in this chapter three times, Lam 4:15-16; Lam 4:22.

Lam 4:16. (Hiphil occurs in Jeremiah only once in a passage critically doubtful, Jer 37:12) is to scatter, as Gen 49:7. With regard to its singular number, see my Gr. . 105, 6., see Lam 4:15., see Lam 1:11.The phrase , elsewhere very frequently (see Deu 10:17; 2Ki 5:1; Job 13:10; Psa 82:2; Pro 18:5; Isa 3:3; Mal 2:9; comp. Lam 5:12), is not found in Jeremiah.Of Jeremiah uses the Niphal only once, Jer 22:23.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:12 skilfully introduces the exposition of the causes of what had happened, since the presumption, entertained even by the heathen, that it was impossible for any human enemy to take Jerusalem by force, was disproved (zur Foliegegeben wird) by the sad reality.The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believedhad not believedthat the adversary and the enemy should have enteredthat an oppressor and enemy would comeinto the gates of Jerusalem. It is clear that this verse contains a hyperbole. For Jerusalem had been captured more than once before the days of Nebuchadnezzar (see 1Ki 14:26; 2Ki 14:13-14; 2Ch 33:11; 2Ki 23:33-35). In spite of this fact, the opinion that it could not be taken by force may have prevailed among the heathen, but hardly to the extent which the Poet here seems to ascribe to it. [Not only was Jerusalem regarded as well-nigh impregnable, because it was strongly fortified by nature and art; but there was a prevailing sentiment among men that it was under the special protection of the Almighty. The heathen idolaters knew to their cost that the God whom the Jews worshipped was a God of great power. They believed that the city of Jerusalem and its Temple were under the special protection of that God. The discomfiture of Sennacheribs army in the days of Hezekiah at the very gates of Jerusalem, and the prolonged siege of the city by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar, were well calculated to deepen the impression that the God of the Jews would not suffer the city to be taken. To this sentiment the Prophet here refers. What he says is pregnant and inferential. He assumes that to be true, which even the heathen believed, that the city could not be taken unless God gave it up to destruction. Gods giving it up to destruction implied that the city was guilty of great and heinous sins; and without pausing to state an inference so patent, the Prophet proceeds at once to specify the particular sins which led to a catastrophe that had astonished the kings of the earth and all the inhabitants of the world. He thus condenses several thoughts into one expression;what even heathen had not expected had happened, and was evidence to all the world of the horrible wickedness, which must have provoked God to forsake His people! There is no reason, therefore, for the suspicion that the Prophet indulged in poetical exaggeration, even if Jerusalem had been captured more than once before the days of Nebuchadnezzar. In point of fact, however, this last assertion may be questioned. There is no clear evidence that Jerusalem had ever before fallen into actual possession of a heathen enemy. There is no evidence at all that it had ever been taken by assault. On the occasions referred to in 2Ch 33:11 and 2Ki 23:33-35, it does not appear that the city of Jerusalem was actually occupied by the enemy, or even visited by them, and there is no intimation whatever of its being attacked and taken by arms. From the account given in 2Ch 12:4-9, we would infer that Rehoboam bought peace by giving up the treasures of the city: and that if he surrendered the city at all, he did so without waiting for battle. Josephus declares that Shishak took the city without fighting (Ant. B. viii. Lam 10 3)and that this was the only time it ever was taken before Nebuchadnezzar (Jewish War, B. vi. Lam 10 1). But there is no positive evidence that the Egyptians actually took possession of the city. The account of the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and Arabians, 2Ch 21:16-17, is very brief and vague. If the kings house which they rifled, was the palace in Jerusalem, it does not follow that the whole city fell into their possession, or that it was taken by assault. Joash, king of Israel, 2Ch 25:21-24, undoubtedly took possession of the city and dismantled and destroyed its defences. But Joash was not a heathen king, neither did he take the city by assault. Having already defeated the armies of Judah in the field, he seems to have met with no resistance at all before the walls of Jerusalem.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:13. Ewald takes Lam 4:12-13, as a question. Would the kings of the earth. believe, that the enemy and oppressor had entered the gates of Jerusalem only on account of the sins of her prophets. who shed blood . in the midst of her? The objections to this are: 1. The negative particle, , Lam 4:12, is not the same as the interrogative particle . Should we take it as intended for = is not, an affirmative answer would be expected. 2. Ewald is obliged to insert, between Lam 4:12-13, an only which is not in the text, for he perceives that the heathen might be shaken in the opinion referred to, by a general apostacy of the people, but not by the apostacy of particular individuals.Meier and Kalkar, on the other hand, connect Lam 4:13-14, and take the verb = they wandered, in Lam 4:14, as predicate of the principal proposition. But in this case the people must be regarded as the subject, which contradicts the whole context. We must, therefore, regard Lam 4:13, with Thenius and most others, as an exclamation; or, as Maurer does, supply a =this came to pass, after Lam 4:13.Foron account ofthe sins of her prophets and [there is no conjunction in the Heb.] the iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her. See Jer 26:7-24, where it is manifest that the chief guilt of the blood of the martyrs rested on the priests and prophets. Compare Jer 6:13-15; Jer 23:11-15, with Jer 2:34; Jer 7:6; Jer 19:4; Jer 22:3; Jer 22:17; Eze 22:25-29; 2Ch 36:14. [Gataker: Not that the people were not faulty, as well as either of these, in those wicked pranks and practices that were then committed; but that these were foremost and forwardest ring-leaders and encouragers of them unto those wicked courses, which they should have reproved in them, and from which they should have endeavored to restrain them. Calvin: He mentions one kind of sins, that they shed the blood of the righteous in the midst of Jerusalem. They had no doubt led the people astray in other things, for they flattered their vices and gave loose reins to licentiousness; but the Prophet here fixed on one particular sin, the most grievous; for they had not only, by their errors and false doctrines and flatteries, led away the people from the fear of God, but had also obstinately defended their impiety, and by force and cruelty repressed their faithful teachers, and put to death the witnesses of God; for by the righteous or just he no doubt means the prophets. For what Jerome and others say, that blood had been shed because false teachers draw souls to perdition, is frivolous and wholly foreign to what Jeremiah had in view; for the word righteous cannot be applied to those miserable men who were ensnared to their own ruin. Then Jeremiah, after having denounced the sin of the prophets and the iniquity of the priests, mentions the savage cruelty which was as it were the summit of all their vices.]

Lam 4:14. They have wandered as blind men in the streets, they have polluted themselves with blood.They staggered as blind (men) through the streets, defiled with blood. [Wandered. The verb is more frequently used in the sense of staggering, reeling (so Gerlach), or stumbling (Broughton, Noyes), than in any other, and this sense is very appropriate to the uncertain motion of blind men, who are not much addicted to wandering about the streets.W. H. H.].As blind men. The idea cannot be cdium perpetrandarum insatiabili cupiditate occcati [blinded by insatiable desire to commit murders], as Rosenmueller would have it; for they have in fact already shed blood and therefore it is added that they were defiled with blood. Rather, they are, as it were, drunk with the blood they have already shed, and in this drunkenness they go along as if blind, not observing whom they may chance to touch with their blood-stained clothes.So that men could not (marg. in that they could not but) touch their garmentswhen one could not [i.e. lawfully] touch their garments.So that (Ewald, Thenius). cannot be so rendered. It stands before the whole negative sentence, as before a single word. This sentence contains a statement, on the subject of Levitical cleanness, with respect to the uncleanness they contracted by the contamination referred to. Thus: They staggered in a condition in which it was not lawful for any one to touch them. [Gerlach, whose explanation agrees with that just given, except that for no sufficient reason he renders the verbs in the present tense, has more accurately expressed the sense of the original, than, perhaps, any other commentator. According to the whole drift of the chapter, which describes the consequences of the judgment with respect to particular classes and conditions of the people, the following verses present a description of the judgment inflicted on the wicked Prophets and Priests, but not a mere fragment of the history of the late siege. This opinion is confirmed by the very first words of Lam 4:14 (they stagger as if blind), which denote elsewhere, as a comparison with Deu 28:28-29; Jer 23:12; Isa 29:9; Isa 59:10 shows, the effect of Divine punishment. * * The Prophets and Priests should be the eyes of the people; they have become blind and stagger about helplessly (rathlos und hlflos) as blind men do; thus has Gods hand smitten them on account of their sins. The evil marks of their sins they carried about with them openly, so that all the world could recognize them and avoid their touch, lest they should become themselves unclean.Other translations and interpretations have been given, all involving great difficulties. Blayneys is unique. They ran frantic through the streets, they were stained with blood; such as they could not overpower, they touched their clothes. The meaning is, that if they could no otherwise harm those they met with in the streets, they defiled them by touching their garments. This, besides the impossible translations, is open to the objection (that may be made to Rosenmuellers and Boothroyds glosses, who represent the Prophets and Priests, blinded by passion, seeking for blood), namely, that the prophets and priests shed the blood of the just, not by raving through the streets, sword in hand, but in a more secret way, by instigating their agents (Noyes).W. H. H.]

Lam 4:15. They cried unto them, Depart ye (marg. ye polluted); it is unclean; depart, depart, touch not:Away! unclean one! they cried to them,away! away! touch not! Who calls [ = depart ye,begone, or away!]? Not the murderers, as is evident from the words they cried [i.e. men cried] unto them [for the pronoun must refer to the murderers.W. H. H.]. Thenius thinks, those who met together may have called out thus to each other. But (to them) cannot mean one another. It might, indeed, be taken in the sense of de iis [concerning them], as Pareau prefers, with an appeal to Psa 3:3; Psa 87:5, etc. But then the second half of the verse, in which those murderers suddenly appear as fugitives, is deprived of its appropriate explanation. I take the words then as a call addressed to the murderers. According to Lev 13:45, the lepers were required to call out to those meeting them, ,, [unclean, unclean!]. The same cry is here addressed to those, who, without reflecting on their uncleanness, stagger about on the streets, as if blind, amongst those walking there. [Wordsworth: The Priests and Prophets, who, in their spiritual pride, formerly said to others, Come not near to me; I am holier than thou (Isa 65:5), shall be loathed by others, as being polluted by blood, and men shall cry to them tm! tm! (unclean! unclean!)words which the leper was obliged to cry out, in order to keep others from him (Lev 13:45). The singular number (unclean) is here used, in order to connect the words with that cry of the leper]. But this cry = away!depart ye!is addressed to them most urgently, and so repeatedly that they recognize themselves as proscribed, andare compelled to flee. The threefold repetition of , away! seems to me to indicate, that not merely immediately after the murders, but persistently all contact with them as with unclean persons was avoided. Thus they were, as was said, proscribed.When they fled away and wanderedwhen they had fled away they continued fugitively wandering about [for] they said among the heathen, They shall no more sojourn thereit was said among the heathen, They shall not longer tarry. Now that they had fled, yet even in a foreign land they found no rest. Thenius, most unnecessarily and very awkwardly, supposes a flight to the Chaldeans, who had separated these outlaws without affording them a permanent place of abode () and carried them away into captivity to various different places. But those enemies of Jeremiah, who hated him so bitterly and persecuted him, especially on account of his constant admonition to submit themselves to the Chaldeans (see Jeremiah 37, 38), certainly did not themselves go over to the Chaldeans. Rather, it is only indicated here, in a general way, that those outlaws might have fled to heathen nations. But if they had, the words (also they wandered) show that their (wandering) did not end with their (flight). If they had fled, also they wandered about, that is to say, if they on their flight, after manifold wanderings, thought that they had found at some particular place a secure retreat, then men said even there among the heathen, they shall not tarry longer. They are then driven away even from there. This so plainly reminds us of the restless and fugitive wanderings of Cain, the first murderer, that we take for granted that the Poet had Gen 4:12-14 ( ) in his mind. [If in Lam 4:14 means they staggered, as men smitten by God with judicial blindness, it seems necessary to give it the same meaning in Lam 4:15. The sense is explained by the judicial use of the word as expressive of Gods judgments; see Lam 4:14. Gerlach: When they fled away, they have likewise staggered about, which, on account of the evident reference to (they staggered) in ver 14, must mean that they staggered about as helplessly as they did before in the city; and were avoided in the same way. For if they would escape the scorn of their own people by a hasty departure from them, yet the nations, from whom they sought a hospitable reception (), would refuse it to them. Men said, They shall no longer remain as guests; see Deu 28:65-66 : and among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:16. The anger (marg. face) of the Lord hath divided themJehovahs countenance has scattered them. Thus the Poet describes what is known to him of the actual condition of those outlaws, in consequence of their banishment. They could not even remain together, but must be scattered. By the expression the face of Jehovah, the scattering is traced back to Jehovah as its cause, who had not lost sight of them, but had directed upon them His countenance inimically. See Psa 34:17 (16). [See also Lev 17:10; Psa 21:10 (9). In the latter passage the words in the time of Thine anger, are literally in the time of Thy face. There may be an allusion here to Jer 16:17-18, For Mine eyes are upon all their ways; they are not hid from My face, neither is their iniquity hid from Mine eyes. And I will first recompense their iniquity and their sin double. When God forgives our sins, we may say, Thou hast cast all my sins behind Thy back, Isa 38:17. But when He punishes them, we are compelled to say, We are consumed by Thine anger, and by Thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before Thee, our secret sins in the light of Thy countenance. Psa 90:7-8.W. H. H.]He will no more regard them. The verb is future, . The Poet predicts for the scattered ones, that there will be no more favorable change of Jehovahs mind towards them.They respected not the persons of the priests, they favoured not the elders.The priests found not forbearance, the elders found no compassion [or, we may translate more literally as E. V. understanding that the subject of the verbs are the heathen, or men generally; and the wicked murderous priests and elders are the objects of the verbs. God has irretrievably cast them away; and men scorn and injure them.W. H. H.] Men deal with them without regard to their condition or age.

Lam 4:17-20

17As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have 18 watched for a nation that could not save us. They hunt our steps, that we cannot19 go in our streets: our end is near, our days are fulfilled; for our end is come. Our persecutors are swifter than the eagles of the heaven: they pursued us upon the20mountains, they laid wait for us in the wilderness. The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the LORD, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:17. [Kri, ]. The form is a monstrosity. For, 1. never stands in the plural with suffixes. 2. If we suppose that the suffix is joined to , then it should be written or . 3. The suffix form is entirely abnormal. The only possible analogy would be , Eze 1:11, according to which would be contracted from . But on what does the plural suffix depend? To meet this difficulty the Masorites read . [So Calvin, while we were yet standing: Blayney, Henderson, Owen, while yet or still we existed. Blayney conjectures that the final is a corruption, not of a single , but of two , the latter of which ought to be prefixed to , where by its conversive force, it not only clears the passage from all difficulty, but brings the text into a perfect agreement with the LXX., Syr. and Vulg. Versions.] But here also the difficulty remains that the suffix would be joined to . Olshausen ( 222, g.) on this account assumes that stands for , and that the Ktib is the result of an error in writing. The latter seems to me also probable: only I believe that the feminine ending of the suffix is correct, and that the before was occasioned by the immediately following . The word then had the sound originally of (1Ki 1:22). , as a proposition, with a predicate to be supplied, is it is true also abnormal, even if only the idea of being is supplied. Yet the sense is pertinent. She, that is to say Jerusalem, still stood. We may refer for the grammatical construction to Jer 40:3. [This is Rosenmuellers explanation. But there is no particular reference to the city in the whole preceding part of the Song; and neither the city nor Zion is in the mind of the writer or the reader. If then we adopt the reading , the explanation of Thenius is certainly to be preferred, Whilst this was or happened,namely, the incident just related with reference to the fugitives. But Gerlach is of the opinion that can be taken as suff. 3 pers. fem. plur. referring to the eyes. He refers to an analogous case in Psa 73:5, in , and explains its occurrence here as influenced by sympathy with and a desire to distinguish the suffix from the singular form in , 1Ki 1:22. Then the translation is Yet our eyes wasted themselves in looking for our help. So Broughton, Even yet our eyes are spent at our vain help, and Noyes, Still did our eyes fail, looking for help in vain. The same sense may be retained if we adopt the Kri, adhuc nos (sc. conficimur) vel potius oculi nostri conficiunter (Gerlach). Yet if the Kri is adopted, the lit, translation would be, as yet we, see Jos 14:11. The fact that this is the initial word, gives to it an emphasis, both accurately and felicitously expressed in the English Version, As for us still our eyes failed looking for our vain help.W. H. H.] . See Lam 2:11., in Jer 37:7. For the construction of , see my Gr. 63, 4, g. [The possessive pronoun, as a suffix, may come between a noun and the word qualifying it, and then the pronoun and qualifying word are to be expressed together: our help of vanity = our vain help. See Naegels. Gr.W. H. H.] in Jer 16:19; Jer 10:3; Jer 10:8; Jer 2:5, etc. is . . , in Jer 6:17; Jer 48:19., Jer 11:12; Jer 14:9; Jer 42:11, etc. See also , Jer 2:11. Yet Isa 45:20 seems to have been especially in the Poets mind, where it is said .

Lam 4:18.Concerning , see Lam 3:52. With reference to the signification insidiare, lying-in-wait for, see Mic 7:2; Pro 6:26, and the nearly related , 1Sa 24:12. The reading , which some Codices have after the analogy of Pro 4:12; Job 18:7, gives a less suitable sense. [The change of into may have been suggested by the difficulty of interpreting the former in accordance with its proper signification of seizing, catching or obtaining by hunting. See Notes below.W. H. H.], in Jeremiah once, Jer 10:23. [Blayney: The LXX. instead of seem to have read , our little ones. Here again is a change of the text suggested, doubtless, by the difficulty of hunting (or seizing upon as prey) the footsteps.W. H. H.]For the construction of see , Lam 4:9., Jer 5:1; Jer 48:38, etc., see Lam 3:57. . The expression is elsewhere used of filling up the measure of the days of ones life, see Jer 25:34; 1Ch 17:11. , Jer 51:3, comp. Amo 8:2; Eze 7:2-6.

Lam 4:19.. The Prophet uses the adjective in Jer 2:23; Jer 3:9; Jer 46:6. , see Jer 1:3.The phrase occurs only here: yet see Pro 23:5; Pro 30:19. is properly speaking to glow with heat, to burn, Psa 7:14; Eze 24:10. Then it is used in the transferred sense of hot pursuit, and indeed at first with (as it were, burning after one) Gen 31:36; 1Sa 17:53. Only in this place is the word construed directly as transitive with the Acc. of the object. Jeremiah never avails himself of the word, very frequent in Jer 2:2; Jer 2:6; Jer 3:2, etc., see Jer 3:10.

Lam 4:20.The expression is not found in Jeremiah; but, founded on Gen. 7:27, in Exo 15:8; Psa 18:6 (2Sa 22:16); Job 4:9; comp. Son 7:9. is not found in Jeremiah. See 1Sa 24:6-7; 1Sa 24:11; 1Sa 26:9; 1Sa 26:11; 1Sa 26:16; 1Sa 26:23; 2Sa 1:14; 2Sa 1:16; 2Sa 19:22; 2Sa 23:1., Jeremiah uses frequently. See Jer 51:56; Jer 38:28; Jer 48:1, etc., (comp. , Pro 23:10) is found, besides here, only in Psa 107:20., Jer 6:4; Jer 48:45.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:17-20. With few but telling strokes the Prophet here sketches a picture of the events which constitute the last stadium of the great catastrophe, ending with the imprisonment of the king. He describes how they in Jerusalem had placed their last hope on Egyptian help, which was not realized, Lam 4:17. Then, omitting all that had reference to the capture of the city itself, he passes over to the flight of the king, which he describes so graphically, that we are obliged to regard him as a participator in the events he narrates. He describes how they were so closely watched, that soon all hope of escape forsook them, Lam 4:18. With extraordinary celerity they were pursued, Lam 4:19, and the king was imprisoned. With that, their last hope, the hope that they might live under his shadow, in the enjoyment at least of liberty, even if among foreign people, was frustrated, Lam 4:20.

Lam 4:17. As for us, our eyes yet failed for our vain help.Yet stood she! Our eyes longed after our vain help. She, that is to say Jerusalem, still stood, exclaims the Poet with emphasis, and thus transports us into the historical event of which he treats. [For the reasons stated above in Textual and Grammatical Notes, the correct translation seems to be, Still did our eyes fail looking for our vain help. Literally, Still our eyes exhausted or spent themselves (looking) for our vain help.W. H. H.] The Poet describes here the yearning long-cherished hope of Egyptian help. The retreat of the Chaldean army (Jer 37:5) had greatly strengthened that hope. But it proved delusive. Instead of the Egyptian army, the Chaldeans were soon seen again approaching the city (Jer 37:8; Jer 34:22). [Our vain help.Calvin: There is an implied contrast between empty and fallacious help and the help of God, which the people rejected when they preferred the Egyptians.]In our watchingon our watch-tower [so Blayney, Boothroyd, Henderson, Noyes, Gerlach, DavidsonLex.,FuerstLex.]We have watched for a nation that could not save uswe watched for a people that helps not [or will not help (Gerlach), or, may not, i.e. cannot save.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:18. They hunt our steps, that we cannot go in our streetsThey watched our steps that we could not go on our streets.Ewald understands the first half of the verso as referring to an edict of the Egyptian king, which prohibited the refugees who were in Egypt from carrying on traffic of any kind with Palestine. This was considered, and not without reason, the harshest measure that could be imposed upon them. But we have not the least knowledge of any kind of trade with the markets of Palestine at the time of its depopulation, or of any prohibition of visiting those markets. Besides, it is not at all probable that the Jews, who had fled to Egypt, impelled by fear of the Chaldeans, would have had any desire to go back again within the reach of the power of the Chaldeans. Then, too, this thought in this connection seems an excessively awkward [putting last first]. Thenius and Vaihinger [Blayney, also] understand these words of the besieging towers, whence the streets were bombarded and so walking in them was prevented. I will not deny that from these towers (see remarks on Jer 52:4-5) the city might be watched. But to refer the words that we could not walk in the streets to the bombardment of the streets, seems to me a singular notion. We are not to suppose that the besieging machines of the ancients carried cannon. [Remembering how narrow the streets of oriental cities are and how protected, often, by the buildings projecting over them, it is obvious that no besieging towers could so command the streets as to expose the citizens to the aim of the enemies weapons.W. H. H.] We read in Jer 52:7-8, And all the men of war fled, by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the kings garden: (now the Chaldeans were by the city round about;) and they went by the way of the plain. But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him. See 2Ki 25:4-5. From this description it appears, 1st. That Zedekiah with his men of war endeavored to escape secretly, and did so escape by a flight at night from a gate situated on the west side of the city, 2d. That the Chaldeans sought to prevent his escape. This is evident from their surrounding the city, as well as from the secret flight and immediate pursuit. It is also obvious, a priori, that Nebuchadnezzar was near at hand for the very purpose of getting possession of the person of the king. Now does not our passage answer exactly to all this? All the steps of the beleaguered citizens were observed, so that they could not go upon their streets unhindered. I do not understand =streets of the country roads. But I believe that the passages leading out of the city, as for example the way between the walls, can be classed with the =streets. [The verb rendered hunt,, means (see remarks on Lam 3:52), not merely to hunt, but to take by hunting, not merely to lay snares (Noyes), but to ensnare or take in snares. It clearly has this meaning, it seems to me, both in Mic 7:2 and Pro 6:26. The word rendered streets,, means the streets of a city, as is plainly evident here from the expression our streets., in our own streets, can only mean the streets of our city, and that no out of the way passages between the walls, but streets that were common property, and which they were accustomed to walk in. Our text then can only mean that those who appeared on the streets were at once arrested. Zedekiah and his army were not captured in the streets, but far away from the city. It is obvious, therefore, that neither this verse, nor the following one, refers particularly to the flight and capture of Zedekiah and his army. It relates to a time posterior to that event. The city was already in possession of the Chaldeans: the enemy had entered into the gates of Jerusalem (Lam 4:12). which did not occur till one month after Zedekiahs capture. The Prophet having announced in Lam 4:11, that the Divine wrath was accomplished, and Zion consumed with fire to the very foundations thereof, goes back in Lam 4:12-16, to attribute this event to the sins of the prophets and priests, and to show how they were abhorred and punished,then in Lam 4:17, he tells us, how those that were left in the city continued to the very last to hope for Egyptian aid,in Lam 4:18, that they could not escape from the city, for they were captured the moment they appeared in the streets,in Lam 4:19, that those who did manage to escape from the city, were pursued and captured, whether they fled to the mountains or the desert,and Lam 4:20, declaring that their king was already a prisoner, recognizes the fact that the kingdom is destroyed and their independent nationality is at an end. With all this the last half of Lam 4:18 harmonizes; when they found that the Egyptians did not come, and that they were wholly in the power of the Chaldeans, then it was evident that their end was near, their days fulfilled,yea, their end had actually come! We translate the first half of the verse, therefore, They hunted our steps, or they ensnared our steps, that is, they were on the watch for us and caught us as a wily trapper watching the steps of his game, so that we could not go in our streets.W. H. H.]Our end is near, our days are fulfilled; for our end is come. [Our end approached, our days were fulfilled, for (or yea, ja, Gerlach) our end arrived, or was actually come. There is no change of tense from the first half of the verse.W. H. H.] These are the ipsissima verba of the fugitives, which describe most graphically how they felt, when they observed that their flight was discovered. Since many survived those days, among others the king and the Poet himself, it is evident that these words are to be interpreted, not of what happened, but of what they feared would happen. Besides, the second half of the verse, composed of two members, is climacteric; for in the first, the end is indicated only as near, but in the second as come, and therefore the measure of life as fulfilled. [These words were not the words of fugitives, for reasons given above. They may have been the words of the would-be fugitives, those who would have escaped from the city if they had not been arrested in the streets of the city. It is better, however, to regard them as the words of the Prophet. The Egyptians did not come to the rescue. Escape from the city was impossible. Then, says he, our end approached, the days of our national existence were accomplished, yea our end actually arrived, when the city was consumed with fire, and the people transported to Babylon.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:19. Our persecutors areour pursuers wereswifter than the eagles of the heaven. The image of the eagles is taken from Jer 4:13, where it is said of the enemy from the north his horses are swifter than eagles. See 2Sa 1:23. Their apprehension proves to be well founded. The pursuit was begun instantly and with the greatest energy.They pursued us upon the mountains, they laid wait for us in the wilderness.On the mountains they chased us, in the wilderness they were on the watch for us [Gerlach:laid snares for us.] It is to be observed that the way from Jerusalem to Jericho, at first over heights (beginning with the Mount of Olives) leads directly down into the plain of the Ghr. See the full description of this road in Ritters Geography, 15:1, pp. 485 ff. Let the suffixes of the first person be carefully observed in this whole narration of the flight of the king, Lam 4:18-20. Would not one, who knew of the facts only by hear-say, have used the third person?2 And does not the first person show, as also the animated clearly defined particulars do, that he himself had participated in the fight from that fierce pursuit? [Granting that the flight and pursuit of the king are here intended, there is surely nothing in the description that necessarily implies the presence of the author with the king. But we have seen above that this verse cannot relate to the flight and capture of the king. The Prophet is simply relating the fate of the people and confirming his declaration that their end, as a people, a nation, had come, Lam 4:18. The Egyptians did not arrive for their relief. Those who ventured into the streets were seized and made prisoners. Those who managed to escape were hotly pursued or fell into ambushes carefully prepared in view of their flight. They were now hopeless and helpless. And to crown all, their king was a prisoner, Lam 4:20, and even if they could escape from their pursuers, they could not rally around his sacred person and preserve their independent sovereignty in some foreign land. Thus in very truth their end had come, which is the point the Prophet has in his mind.W. H. H.]

Lam 4:20. The breath of our nostrils. [Owen: A kingdom cannot exist without a king. Hence the king may be said to be the breath or the life of the body politic.]the anointed of the Lordof Jehovahwas taken in their pits[Calvin:in their snares.Broughton:was caught in their trap.]Of whom we said, under his shadow[or, according to Owen and Noyes,under whose shadow, we said,]see Isa 30:2-3; Hos 14:8 (7); Eze 31:17.We shall live among the heathen[the nations,Calvin, Broughton, Boothroyd, Owen, Noyes, Gerlach. Blayney: To live among the nations, probably means to exist in a national capacity or as one among them.] It is not the purpose of the Poet to sound the praises of the king. The literal meaning of the words and the connection: utterly refute the idea, adopted by the Chaldaic, Raschi and many modern commentators, that this refers to the pious Josiah, whom Jeremiah, according to 2Ch 35:25, glorified in a song of lamentation. The King here meant can only be Zedekiah. He was a weak, but a good-natured king. He resembled Louis XVI. of France. Like him he may also have been well-beloved. But the principal point was that he was king, and especially the theocratic king. Seneca says (de Clementi, Lam 1:4, according to a quotation of Pareaus), Ille (princeps) est spiritus vitalis, quern hc tot millia (civium) trahunt [he (the sovereign) is the vital breath, which so many thousands (of citizens) inhale]. Much more the theocratic king, the Lords anointed, the bearer of the promises (2 Samuel 7.) was a living pledge of the continuance and prosperity of the people. See Psalms 28., especially Lam 4:8, and Delitzsch on that place. We can see, besides, from the words of whom we said, etc., what plan with reference to the future was entertained by the fugitive Jews. They hoped to escape to a friendly heathen nation, and there gathering around their king as their shield and security of a better future, pass their days at least in freedom. [Wordsworth: It has been objected by some, that the Lamentations could not have been written by Jeremiah on the occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem, because such words as these, could not be applied to such a vicious king as Zedekiah. But such an objection as this betrays an ignorance of the nature of true loyalty, as taught by Almighty God in the Old Testament, as well as in the New. He teaches us to distinguish the person of the sovereign from his office, and to venerate his authority as from God (Rom 13:1-7), whatever may be his personal character. Even Saul was the Lords Anointed, and was revered and bewailed as such by David. See on 1Sa 26:8; 1Sa 26:11; 1Sa 26:16; 1Sa 26:23; 2Sa 1:14; 2Sa 1:16. And our blessed Lord and His Apostles teach us to obey a civil ruler, as Gods deputy and vicegerent, in all things not unlawful, although that ruler may be a Tiberius (see on Mat 22:21) or a Nero (see on Rom 13:1-7; Tit 3:1; 1Pe 2:13). Calvin: God made David king, and also his posterity, for this end, that the life of the people might, in a manner, reside in him. As far then as David was the head of the people, and so constituted by God, he was even their life. The same was the case with all his posterity as long as the succession continued. But we must observe that these high terms in which the posterity of David were spoken of, properly belong to Christ only; for David was not the life of the people, except as he was the type of Christ and represented His person. Then what is said was not really found, in its fullest significance, in the posterity of David, but only typically. Hence the truth, the reality, is to be sought in no other but in Christ. And we hence learn that the Church is dead, and is like a maimed body, when separated from its Head. In short, Jeremiah means that the favor of God was, as it were, extinguished when the king was taken away, because the happiness of the people depended on the king, and the royal dignity was as it were a sure pledge of the grace and favor of God; hence the blessing of God ceased, when the king was taken away from the Jews. We shall live, they said, even among the nations under the shadow of our king; that is, Though we may be driven to foreign nations, yet the king will be able to gather us, and his shadow will extend far and wide to keep us safe. So the Jews believed, but falsely, because by their defection they had cast away the yoke of Christ and of God, as it is said in Psa 2:3. As then they had shaken off the heavenly yoke, they in vain trusted in the shadow of an earthly king, and were wholly unworthy of the guardianship and protection of God.]

Footnotes:

[2][Is this question well put by one who regards the third Song as the composition of author than Jeremiah himself?W. H. H.]

Lam 4:21-22

21 Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz: the cup also shall pass through unto thee; thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself22 naked. The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion; he will no more carry thee away into captivity: he will visit thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom; he will discover thy sins.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lam 4:21.. For the form see Jer 10:17. [May we recognize a peculiarity of Jeremiah in this form?W. H. H.], see Lam 1:21., Jer 25:15; Jer 25:17; Jer 25:28; Jer 49:12; Jer 51:7, etc. The expression is peculiar to this place., inebriari, Jer 25:27; Jer 48:26; Jer 51:7; Jer 51:39; Jer 51:57.Hithp. of only here. Jeremiah uses the verb in no form. Perhaps there lies in an allusion [ironical?] to that of the Edomites, Psa 137:7.

Lam 4:22.The perfects in this verse indicate, that the Poet transfers himself into the future, in such a manner that he sees what is yet future, as if it were actually transpiring before him., see Lam 4:6., frequent with Jer 1:3; Jer 6:29; Jer 24:10, etc. The phrase occurs only here.Jeremiah uses Hiphil of very often, Jer 20:4; Jer 22:12, etc.: also the Piel, see Jer 2:14, where the construction with also occurs., Jer 5:9; Jer 5:29; Jer 25:12, etc. The phrase is a characteristic of the Pentateuch, Exo 20:5; Exo 34:7; Lev 18:25; Num 14:18; Deu 5:9 : yet it is also found in Jer 25:12; Jer 36:31.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Lam 4:21-22. In conclusion the Poet addresses a word of threatening to Edom, in the midst of which a word of comfort addressed to Zion, renders the severity of the threatening still more impressive. That the Edomites most maliciously rejoiced in the destruction of Jerusalem, and even contributed towards it, we know from Psa 137:7; Eze 25:12; Eze 35:15; Eze 36:5. See remarks on Jer 49:7-22, to which the ironical , rejoice and be glad, here refer.

Lam 4:21. Rejoiceexultand be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz. Whether this refers to an extension of the dominion of Edom that existed at that time, or at an earlier period, or whether it merely refers to such an extension in a general way, is very questionable. Ewald (on this text and Gesch. d. B. Isrl. IV. S. 9) is of the opinion, that, Nebuchadnezzar had extended the dominion of the Edomites in the land of Uz far to the north-east. But this position of the land of Uz [north-east of Idumea] is very problematical. See remarks on Jer 25:20. At all events, the words are most easily explained if the dwelling in the land of Uz is regarded as an evidence of success and a cause for rejoicing on the part of Edom. The historical accounts are too sparse to enable us to ascertain anything on this subject with certainty. See Carl von Raumer, Eastern Palestine and the land of Edom, in BerghausAnnals, 1830, Vol. I pp. 563, 564. [Broughton: From Esay to the Herods Edom hated Jacob, and no less than ten prophecies are against them, as Barbinel noteth upon Obadias Calvin: The Idumeans, above others, had manifested hostility to the chosen people. And the indignity was the greater, because they had descended from the same father, for Isaac was their common father; and they derived their origin from two brothers, Esau and Jacob. As, then, the Idumeans were related to the Jews, their cruelty was less tolerable; for they thus forgot their own race, and raged against their brethren and relatives.].The cup also shall pass through unto theealso to thee shall the cup pass over. [Calvin: He employs a common metaphor; for adversity is denoted in the Scripture by the word cup; for God, according to His will, gives to drink to each as much as He pleases. Nor does He allow any one either to reject the cup offered, or to throw away the wine, but He constrains him to drink and to exhaust to the very dregs as much as He gives to each to drink. Hence it is for this reason that the Prophet says now that the cup would pass over to the Idumeans; for we know that, shortly after, they were subdued by the Chaldeans, with whom they had before been united. But when they had by their perfidy fallen off from their treaty, they were in their turn punished].Thou Shalt be drunken. Thou shalt get drunk. [By drunkenness here we are to understand that judicial infatuation (Blayney) which leads to all sorts of shame and self-injury, and exposes its subject to the cruel mercies of his enemies.W. H. H.].And shalt make thyself naked. Drunkenness and denudation, intoxication and shame go together: see Gen 9:21; Hab 2:15-16.

Lam 4:22. The punishment of thine iniquity (marg. simply, Thine iniquity) is accomplished.Blotted out is thy guilt [or we can translate Dr. Naegelsbachs translation, Thy debt is paid, Getilgt ist deine Schuld. Gerlach: thy guilt is at an end. All the English translators, except Owen, take in the first member of the verse as the punishment of iniquity, and in the second member as iniquity itself. Owen translates the word iniquity in both members, but explains the first as meaning punishment: to complete iniquity, he says, can here mean no other thing than to complete the punishment due to it. It is an awkward confusion of terms and injures the antithesis between the two members of the verse to put two meanings on this one word. We are, doubtless, to take the word in both clauses in the sense of guilt, desert of and liability to punishment, and understand the whole verse as intended in a prophetical and anticipatory sense. The exile the Jews were now suffering would exhaust, as it were, the demands of justice against them; and in view of this the Prophet says, Thy guilt is blotted out, or cancelled, or at an end. Wordsworth: Rather, thy sin (see Lam 4:6) is accomplished, completed and taken away; and for this use of the verb ™ here, see Lam 3:22; Jer 6:29; Jer 44:12; where it is rendered by consumed, and Gesen. 867.W. H. H.].He will no more carry thee away into captivityhe will not banish the longer [lit. he will not add to banish thee. This does not imply, as many commentators seem to apprehend, a promise that God would never again send the Jewish nation into captivity. But it means only that their present exile should not be prolonged beyond the limit determined by their guilt. It involves rather a promise of a return to their own land, when their iniquity was thus cancelled by the punishment received.W. H. H.]He will visit thine iniquityHe visits thy guilt. See Lam 1:8.O daughter of Edom, he will discoverhe uncoversthy sins. The two halves of the verse correspond to each other: each of them has the name of a nation for its central point; to the , finished or cancelled is thy guilt, of the first half, corresponds the , he visits thine iniquity, of the second; and to the , to banish thee, of the first half, corresponds the , uncovers, of the second. [This is more apparent in Hebrew, because the last two words referred to are derived from the same verbal root. Some have attempted to make the correspondence complete by giving the same sense to both these words. Thus Boothroyd translates the first he will no more expose thee, and the second he will expose thy sins. But the Hiphil form of the first phrase will not allow us to translate it in the same sense as the Kal form of the second word, nor does the Hiphil ever seem to be used in any other sense than that of leading away, causing to go away, driving away, or carrying captive. Henderson, on the other hand (Blayney and Owen give the same sense), translates the first phrase he will no more hold thee captive, and the second he will carry thee away captive because of thy sins, which agrees with the marginal reading in our English Bible. But the Kal might mean to go away into captivity, but cannot have the Hiphil sense of carrying away. More than this, the grammatical construction would require us to understand that he made their sins captive instead of their persons. And more than all the Hebrew phrase is constantly used in the sense of uncovering sins, for the purpose of exposing them to contempt, rebuke and punishment. For these reasons it seems necessary to acquiesce in the translation above given.Wordsworth: He hath uncovered the sins of Edom; and hath covered those of Israel.W. H. H.]

Note on Authorship.3 It seems to me that this Song contains some hints in reference to its author that are worthy of consideration. 1. The brilliant descriptive sketch of the Princes of Judah, given by the Poet in Lam 4:7, should be considered. 2. He charges the blame of the prodigious misfortune entirely to the Priests and Prophets, Lam 4:13-15 (see also Lam 2:14), whilst it appears from Jeremiah that the secular leaders of the people [die weltlichen Grossen] were not less guilty. See Jer 2:26; Jer 5:5; Jer 5:25-28; Jer 23:1-2; Jer 34:19; Jeremiah 37, 38; Jer 44:17. His way of putting things conveys to us the impression, that the author may have been an accomplished member of the lay aristocracy, possessed of great love for his own particular order. 3. This conclusion is favored by the fact, as he gives us very plainly to understand, that he was one of the companions of the king in his flight, Lam 4:17-20. It would seem then, that he was one of the polished and well-disposed Princes belonging to the Court of the King. Was he, perhaps, that Seraiah, who was the son of Neriah and brother of Baruch (Jer 51:59)? [The arguments here indicated have been already sufficiently answered. It remains only to say, 1. That Jeremiah was fully equal to a much fuller and more brilliant description of the princes, than that contained in Lam 4:7, both from his personal knowledge of the court, and his imaginative, poetical and rhetorical abilities, as exhibited in his book of Prophecies. 2. The author, even supposing him to be one of the Princes, can not be charged with the criminal partiality of attempting to throw a veil over the sins of his own peers. While Lam 4:13 charges special guilt on Prophets and Priests, as also Jeremiah (himself both Prophet and Priest) does; yet the whole people are represented as given up to sin, like the inhabitants of Sodom of old, Lam 4:6; and the , with which Lam 4:6 begins, shows that the secular nobility, represented in Lam 4:5 as those who fed delicately and were brought up in scarlet, suffered the punishment of their own iniquity. If it could be shown that the book of the prophecies of Jeremiah, written by a Prophet and Priest, sought to extenuate the guilt of those two classes and to lay the blame chiefly on the secular nobility, then there might be some show for the argument that this Book of Lamentations, which lays the onus of the guilt on Prophets and Priests, was not written by Jeremiah. But the very opposite of this is true: and in Jer 26:7-24, the Prophet actually represents the Princes as resisting the conspiracy of the Prophets and Priests, to put him to death. Who then would be more likely to show a preference for the Princes, to the other two orders alluded to, than Jeremiah himself? In fact, however, no such preference is shown. 3. Lam 4:17-19 do not and cannot describe the flight and capture of the king and his army. If it were possible to interpret them of those events, we must decide that they are anything but graphic, and have none of the characteristics which would mark the report of an eye-witness of those events and a participator in them. Only an author capable of the brusque personation of Jeremiah in the third chapter, by the abrupt introduction of I am the man, could possibly be guilty of such an awkward and preposterous absorption of the king, princes, and all the men of war in his own person, by tumbling them all into the narrative condensed into the single pronoun us, without any other announcement or the slightest intimation of the rank, character and numbers of those who now appear upon the scene. As Dr. Naegelsbach can accept the absurdity involved in the idea that Jeremiah was not the author of the third chapter, he can be pardoned for the absurdity involved in the idea, that the us, in Lam 4:17 of this chapter, means king Zedekiah and his companions in flight, including all the men of war. But where are the graphic features of the description, die er so anschaulich beschreibt, dass man sich fast genthigt sieht, ihn fr einen Theilnehmer derselben zu halten, i.e., that there is no escape from the conclusion that the writer was a participant in the scenes he describes? Where are the allusions to the facts that they escaped under cover of the night, by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the kings garden, that all the men of war went with the king and that when the king was taken the army was scattered from him (2Ki 25:3-5; Jer 52:6-8)? On the other hand, here are facts inconsistent with those referred to that they were on their watch-towers, watching for help, not attempting escape, Lam 4:17, and that they could not go in the streets without being arrested by those who hunted their steps, Lam 4:18, involving the idea that the city was already in possession of the enemy,whereas, before the enemy were actually in the city, Zedekiah and his army made a secret and unobserved escape, and were not pursued till after they had gone completely round the walls of the city from west to east and were on their way to the plains of Jericho. Finally: it should be observed that the completeness of the Poem requires us to interpret these last verses of the events that followed the capture of the king. They describe the last scene in the catastrophe, the feelings and the fate of the people, remaining in the city, when the Chaldeans took possession of it and proceeded to their work of plunder, violence and destruction. And it is written just as we would suppose Jeremiah, who was found in imprisonment by the Chaldeans, at that time, and who actually witnessed what he describes, would have written it.W. H. H.]

Footnotes:

[3][This note, appended to the introduction to the chapter by the author, has been transferred to the end of the chapter by the Translator, in order to preserve the connection unbroken.W. H. H.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Lam 4:1. If the violation of a material Temple, such as that of Jerusalem formerly was, is so sad and sorrowful a spectacle; how much more sad and sorrowful would be the violation of spiritual temples, such as the bodies of Christians? Yet they are violated by other crimes against conscience, as well as especially by fornication and murders (1Co 6:15-20). But woe to such a violator! For he in turn shall be destroyed by the just judgment of God (1Co 3:16-17). Frster.

2. Lam 4:1-2. The children of Zion are here denoted as of noble extraction, and on that account compared to precious metals and precious stones, which never could become so black and vile, as to be thrown into the corners of the streets as worthless. Israel was in fact the nobility of the human race. For the heathen are nothing else than the homo communis, the ordinary natural man, without higher life-power. But Israel, as the chosen people, represented the power of the higher and eternal life, though only typically. Therefore it represents only, as it were, the lower nobility, or nobility in the lowest degree. Yet this is always a real nobility. The meanest Jew carries about with him to this day, in his crooked nose, a diploma of nobility, which elevates him above all the nobility of our modern European aristocrats, for he is thereby legitimatized as a son of Abraham. But what is this and all other kinds of nobility of the earthly highborn, compared to the nobility of those born again of Christ through the Word and Sacrament? Nothing but dung, as Paul decides, who in Php 3:8 tears his theocratic patent of nobility into shreds. For all that springs from the earth, is perishable, corruptible, subject to bondage (Gal 4:23-25); but what comes from Heaven, is incorruptible, eternal, glorious, truly free (Gal 4:26). Before that absolute nobility, moreover, all earthly distinctions vanish away; here is neither Jew nor Greek, here is neither bond nor free, here is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). And on this account the Apostle speaks such earnest words against those who violate their Christian nobility (1Co 3:16-17; 1Co 6:14-16).

3. Lam 4:1-2. We are here reminded that there is no greater happiness on earth, than when Churches and Schools are built, in which Gods pure word is preached and His worship duly and rightly observed; as on the other hand, there can be no greater evil than when all these are destroyed, wherefore Jeremiah here mourns first of all and most of all over such a destruction. And although Churches are not adorned with gold and silver, as the Temple at Jerusalem was, yet Gods word and Divine worship rightly performed are more than all silver, gold and fine gold. To which purpose David says, The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, Psa 12:7 (3): The law of Thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver, Psa 119:72. Therefore we should look to it, that we do not by despising the divine word forfeit such a precious treasure, as did the Jewish people; on the contrary, loving Gods word and observing diligently a pure worship and by the maintenance of pure doctrine, we should look to it, that the precious gold does not grow dim nor the fine gold lose its lustre. Wrtemb. Summarien.

4. Lam 4:2. The Jews excelled in three respects: in profound and accurate knowledge of God (Psa 147:20); secondly, in the beauty of a virtuous life (Sir 44:6); thirdly, in careful observance of a pure worship (1Ma 4:43). Thomas Aquinas, in Ghisler., p. 176.

5. Lam 4:2. Sons of Zion, to wit of that looked-for city, which the Lord hath built, that it may be seen in its glory,sons of the supernal Jerusalem, which is free, our mother; illustrious by the dignity of their condition; clothed in the primest gold, by their likeness to God. How then have we, who have become esteemed as earthen vessels, degenerated from these [Sons of Zion] into these vile and fragile bodies! Bernhard v. Clairv. in Ghisler., S. 177.

6. Lam 4:2. Let men of noble rank regard this as said to themselves, lest, because they are likened to gold on account of the celebrity of their family, they grow proud and imperious, but rather let them be persuaded to remember, that they are in the hands of the celestial potter (Sir 33:13), who can easily transmute gold into earthen vessels, yea, and break these up into pieces (Psa 2:9). Frster. [Scott: The glory of outward distinctions and privileges may soon be obscured: Sin tarnishes the beauty of the most excellent gifts; and when the Lord leaves churches or nations, their glory is departed. But that gold tried in the fire which Christ bestows, will never be taken from us; not can its excellency be diminished.]

7. Lam 4:3-4. [Scott: Extreme necessity has a tendency to render the heart callous and unfeeling: they who have improperly indulged their children when in prosperity, have often been most regardless of them in distress: and the human species has frequently been found more cruel and insensible, than the most ferocious and stupid of the irrational creatures.]

8. Lam 4:5. Per quod quis peccat, per idem punitur et ipse, that in which a man sins is the means of his punishment. Frster. [Henry: It is the wisdom of those who have abundance, not to use themselves too nicely, for then hardships, when they come, will be doubly hard, Deu 28:56.].

9. Lam 4:6. As the grace afforded us in the manifestation of the word of God is greater than that given to the inhabitants of Sodom, so is our impenitence more heinous, and severer punishment on that account is to be expected. So Christ clearly shows in Mat 11:20-24. Verily! we should not despise this thunder-clap; for it certainly applies to us, who are richly endowed with the gospel, but do not walk consistently with it or worthily of it, but its daily invitations, inducements, and warnings are given to the wind; thus, as the Prophet Jeremiah here says, The iniquity of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom, that was suddenly overthrown. Egid. Hunnius. The sin of the people called of God is always the greatest, because it has most abused the revelation of God. Therefore is its punishment also worse than that of Sodom, which was suddenly destroyed, without suffering long torments from barbarous enemies. God often chastises us here longer than He does the heathen; but He does it to spare us the punishment which is eternal. Diedrich.

10. Lam 4:6. We are admonished here, that as there is disparity of punishments, so is there disparity [in the heinousness] of sins. Hence the paradox of the Stoics, who esteemed all sins equal, is shown to be false. Frster. The iniquity of the Jewish people was rendered greater than the sin of the inhabitants of Sodom, because the latter transgressed only the law of nature, while the former transgressed both natural and written law. Rhabanus in Ghisler., p. 185.

11. Lam 4:7-8. This is an instructive example of the perishable and transient nature of all merely earthly splendor. What is there in all the beauty, wealth, and pomp of the young noblemen and their wives and daughters! Can there be a finer picture of the aristocrats condition than we read here in the seventh verse? Is not the difference between the common race of man and the nobly bred placed here before our eyes in the distinctest manner? Yet, it is seen from Lam 4:8, that if our Lord God has only hung the bread-basket above their reach, the bodies of princes make no better show than those of burghers and peasants. From which we learn that there is no essential difference between them.

12. Lam 4:7. Kings and Princes, their courts and courtiers appear, now-a-days, just the same as they were long ago portrayed in Davids Psalms, in the Ecclesiastes and Proverbs of Solomon, and in the Wisdom of Sirach. What we say of them now in German, Latin, or French, is just what was said long ago in Hebrew or Syriac. Doctor Leidemit, p. 43.

13. Lam 4:9. Four principal judgments are especially enumerated by the Prophet Ezekiel in his fourteenth chapter; namely War, Famine, Pestilence, and Wild-beasts. Of these, Famine is by no means the least, but by far the greatest and most severe, so that here, in the Lamentations, it is said, That it may have been better for those killed by the sword than for those who perished through hunger. But this is not meant of hunger that happens by chance, or is the result of natural causes alone, but we must regard scarcity and starvation as Gods rod (Deu 28:23-24). Egid. Hunnius.

14. Lam 4:10. If mothers cooked their children, this was an unnatural crime, only to be explained as the effects of blind madness. But had not Israel also, against its better nature, forgotten the Heavenly Father (Isa 1:2-4)? [Henry: This horrid effect of long sieges had been threatened in general, Lev 26:29; Deu 28:53, and particularly against Jerusalem, in the siege of the Chaldeans, Jer 19:9; Eze 5:10. I know not whether to make it an instance of the power of necessity, or of iniquity; but as the Gentile idolaters were justly given up to vile affections, Rom 1:26, so these Jewish idolaters, and the women particularly, who had made cakes to the queen of Heaven, and taught their children to do so too, were stript of natural affection, and that to their own children. Being thus left to dishonor their own nature, was a righteous judgment on them for the dishonor they had done to God.]

15. Lam 4:11. The Lord accomplished His fury upon Jerusalem, when her wickedness was full, just as the sins of the Amorites were, when they were destroyed (Gen 15:16) He did, indeed, pour out (effudit) the fire of His indignation, but it was only when she (Jerusalem) had abandoned herself (se diffudit) to the commission of all sorts of vices and crimes; and He devoured her foundations, when she had refused to accept the foundation, which is Christ. Truly she rejected Him, the precious, square stone, laid at the foundation of our whole structure: Who, when He saw this same unhappy Jerusalem, wept over her, saying, that in her not one stone should be left upon another (Mat 24:2). Paschasius in Ghisler., p. 192.

16. Lam 4:11. [Calvin: Prayer. Grant, Almighty God, that as Thou showest by Thy Prophet that, after having long borne with Thine ancient people, Thy wrath at length did so far burn as to render that judgment above all others remarkable,O grant that we may not, at this day. by our obstinacy or by our sloth, provoke Thy wrath, but be attentive to Thy threatenings, yea, and obey Thy paternal invitations, and so willingly devote ourselves to Thy service, that as Thou hast hitherto favored us with Thy blessings, so Thou mayest perpetuate them, until we shall at length enjoy the fulness of all good things in Thy celestial kingdom, through Christ our Lord. Amen.]

17. Lam 4:12. The Holy Ghost here teaches us that there is on earth no city so secure, no kingdom so powerful, no stronghold so impregnable, that it may not be destroyed by sins and unrighteousness (as by the strongest batteringrams, Cramer). On that account, to trust in strongholds is idle, and is rebuked and condemned by the Holy Ghost. Egid. Hunnius. The heathen princes themselves had not before this believed that such a calamity could happen to Jerusalem, for they regarded it with a certain feeling of awe, because they had an inward testimony that the true God had prepared there a place for His manifestation. Diedrich.

18. Lam 4:13. The Holy Spirit further teaches us here what a corrupt condition ensues in the whole spiritual theocracy, when those quit the right path of the only true, genuine service of God, who should most of all keep to it, namely, the teachers among the people, who should be to them those whose lips should preserve instruction, and out of their mouth should be sought the law of the Lord of Sabaoth. When they let Gods word and pure instruction slip, the people are well-nigh done for. Then follow all the preposterous things which Jeremiah here indicates by the mention of false Prophets and bloody-minded Priests. Egid. Hunnius. [Calvin: This passage teaches us that Satan has from the beginning polluted the sanctuary of God, by means even of sacred names; for the prophetic office was honorableso also was the sacerdotal. God had established among His people the priesthood, which was, as it were, a living image of Christ: there was then nothing more excellent than the priesthood under the Law, if we regard the institution of God. It was also a singular blessing that God promised that His people should never be without Prophets. As then Prophets and Priests were two eyes, as it were, in the Church, the devil turned them to every kind of profanation. This example then reminds us how much we ought to watch, lest empty titles deceive us, which are nothing but masks or specters [phantoms]. When we hear the name of Church and pastors, we ought, reverently to regard the office as well as the order which has proceeded from God, provided we are not content with naked titles, but examine whether the reality also corresponds. Thus, we see that the whole world has, for many ages, degenerated from true religion; under what pretext? even this,that those who led astray miserable souls boasted that they were the vicars of Christ, the successors of the apostles, so that they still arrogantly boast of these titles, and are inflated with them. But we see what happened in the time of Jeremiah. Prophets and Priests had destroyed the very Church of God.Wordsworth: This sin of the Priests and Prophets of Jerusalem, who conspired against Jeremiah, and slew other servants of God, reached its height when they murdered the Just One; see the words of Christ, Mat 23:31; Mat 23:37; and of the first martyr, Act 7:52; and of St. Paul, 1Th 2:15; and those of James the Just, who himself was murdered by them at Jerusalem, Jam 5:6.]

19. Lam 4:13-15. Thence follows the most pernicious corruption, and from that again the persecution of the really true doctrine and of its faithful followers and servants. This is always the way and character ecclesi malignantium, that is to say, of the congregation and faction of malicious hypocrites, inquisitors and conspirators, that they, from perverted love for their preconceived error and prejudice, are excited and inflamed by instigation of the evil spirit with such bitter hatred against pure doctrine and its faithful defenders, that they begin to maintain their error with fist and sword, and to persecute the churches of God, and thus sprinkle themselves with the blood of the righteous, to shed which they incite others, and give them counsel and help thereto. Further, as those priests, in Jeremiahs time, covered over and adorned all their falsehoods and tyranny with the pretence of the succession and of the titles and names of the church, on which account they cried out against Jeremiah, Templum Dei, Templum Dei, here is the Temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the Temple of the Lord Jer 7:4; and, again, Jer 18:18, Come, let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet; so in our day, the constant everlasting cry, with the Pope and his crowd, that they shout against us, isChurch, Church, Church! The Pope cannot err in the faith and articles of religion, for he is a successor of St. Peter, and sits in his chair. Yet the church of God is not so bound to the external succession or order but that those, who certainly were in the orderly external succession of the Levitical priesthood, established by God Himself, in Jeremiahs time, and also in Christs, wandered far, far away from the truth, and those who sat in Moses seat, namely the Scribes and Pharisees, became the bitterest enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His chosen, holy church (Matthew 28). What then may not happen in the case of the Pope, who can, without difficulty, prove that God in the New Testament proposes to have a Pope who shall exalt himself over all, but in fact, through St. Paul, has designated such a Primate of the Papacy as an unfailing sign of the Antichrist? (2Th 2:3-4). Egid. Hunnius.

20. Lam 4:13-14. Such to-day are the sanguinary priests of Rome, and especially the Jesuits, who wish to be esteemed priests . Hence those famous emblems of theirs (Jesuit in Censura Coloniensi, Fol. 136): If Luther had been removed before his fortieth year by fire or sword, or if others were removed from the midst of us, the whole world would not be confounded by such abominable dissensions. In accordance with these sentiments are those of Andrew Fabricius Leodius, Counsellor of the Princes of Bavaria, in his Preface to the Harmony of Augustines Confessions, Let our most mighty emperor gird his sword upon his thigh, and subdue these heretics, the most pernicious enemies of the Christian name. The shedding of Lutheran blood is useful, for by that means the members are preserved entire. Frster.

21. Lam 4:13-14. When God has in view the purification and reformation of an ecclesiastical constitution, dependence is, least of all, to be placed on Theologians by profession, and their assistance and support, or even only their comprehension and assent. When the economy of the Old Testament came to an end, the Priests and Scribes were the bitterest enemies and persecutors of Jesus and His doctrine, the stupidest in the whole world to understand the Scriptures which testified of Him. Huss and other witnesses for the Truth, were adjudged to the funeral-pile, not by the laity, but by their own colleges and professional associates. How was it in this respect in Luthers time? The Princes and laity were always more just, more tolerant, more easily convinced of the truth, more prepossessed in its favor, than the Bishops, the Scholars and the clergy generally. Doctor Leidemit, p. 44.

22. Lam 4:15. [Henry: They upbraided the corrupt Priests and Prophets, with their pretended purity, while they lived in all manner of real iniquity. You were so precise, you would not touch a Gentile, but cried, Depart, depart, stand by thyself, I am holier than thou, Isa 65:5. Thus the prosecutors of Christ would not go into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled. But can you now keep the Gentiles from touching you, when God has delivered you into their hands? When you fly away and wander, these serpents will not be charmed or enchanted no, they will not respect the persons of the priests, nor favor the elders.Scott; The wickedness of those who are by office engaged to support religion, and yet betrary her interests, is the great cause of national judgments, and of the ruin of flourishing churches: especially when they have shed the blood of the just in the midst of them. They who have thus polluted their garments, have commonly been recompensed in the same way; and rendered an execration even to the vilest of mankind.]

23. Lam 4:17. Hence appears the truth of Davids apothegms in Psa 118:8-9; Psa 146:3-4; with which accords Jer 17:5; as well as the Son of Sir 6:7-9, where, on the margin, Luther wrote these beautiful rhymes,

Freunde in der Noth
Gehen 25 auf ein Loth.
Sollts ein harter Stand sein,
Gehen 50 auf ein Quintlein. Frster.

Pious people should, according to this, avoid putting their trust in men, as a great sin and a species of idolatry, and all the more because all such trust in men leads us into danger, finally disappoints us and covers us with shame. For men either wish not to help us, or when they are willing they cannot, or when they promise it, they do not keep their promise, for their very nature is vanity. Hence David takes occasion to dissuade us from trusting in men or gazing after them, when he says in Psalms 62, Men are only vanity; men of high degree are wanting, they weigh less than nothing, whatever they may be. Egid. Hunnius.

24. Lam 4:18. Here occurs a proof text concerning the fatal end and period of affairs, which is decreed, as our text bears witness, to cities and nations,nay to all things in the universe (Ecclesiastes 3, Sir 14:20), but above all to individual men (Job 14, Psa 139:16). That end depends indeed on the foreknowledge of God, but not simply and absolutely on that foreknowledge, but as that foreknowledge is directed with regard to second causes, especially with reference to piety and impiety, as is attested both by the promises of God, such as that added to the fourth [fifth] commandment (Eph 6:2-3), and by His threatenings, Ps. 55:24 (23). Hence it appears, that the end of human life is not so definitely ordained as by fate, because it can be prolonged by the practice of piety, and shortened by the practice of impiety. Frster.

25. Lam 4:19. [Calvin: When the hand of God is against us, we in vain look around in all directions, for there will be no safety for us on mountains, nor will solitude protect us in the desert. As, then, we see that the Jews were closed up by Gods hand, so when we contend with Him, we in vain turn our eyes here and there; for, however, we may for a time entertain good hopes, yet God will surely at last disappoint us.]

26. Lam 4:20. In the Sept. the verse reads: The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord was taken in their destruction ( ), of whom we said, In his shadow will we dwell among the nations. Jerome translates, The Spirit of our mouth, Christ the Lord, was taken in our sins, to whom we said, In thy shadow will we dwell among the nations. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that this passage was regarded by the ancients generally as one of the most decided Messianic prophecies. This text, says Ghisler., was very frequently quoted by the early Fathers, and was interpreted by their common consent of Christ the Son of God. A collection of the various patristical expositions may be found in Ghisler. They make chiefly a threefold use of the text. 1. Tertullian proves from it against Praxeas (cap. 14), that the Father could in no sense have been a facies [form or manifestation] of the Son, but, on the contrary, the Son was a facies [manifestation] of the Father. 2. They recognize in this passage a clear prediction of the sufferings of Christ. Thus, for example, Theodoret says, Let the Jews say, Whom does the word of prophecy call Christ? Who of those called Christs by them, whether king, or prophet, or priest, has been named Lord ()? But they could not point to such an instance, although they made use of much falsehood. It is evident, therefore, that the Prophet foretold as the Saviour and our Lord (), Him who has been taken by them through the destruction of their impiety. [Theodoret adapts his language to that of the Septuagint (see above), .W. H. H.] 3. But they find also the calling of the Gentiles predicted in this text. Origen, particularly, says this (Hom. on Son 2:3) with reference to Luk 1:35, If, therefore, the overshadowing of the Most High attended the conception of His (Christs) body, it is reasonable that His shadow shall give life to the Gentiles.

27. Lam 4:20. The question arises, how could these titles (Messiah, breath of the peoples nostrils, shadow), apply to the wicked king Zedekiah? They apply to him, not by reason of his personal character, but 1st, by reason of his office, which ought to have been, and was expected by the Hebrews to be what these titles import. 2d. By reason of the Antitype, of whom David, with his posterity, in his kingly office was a type. But who is this Antitype? Our Lord Jesus Christ, the son of David according to the flesh (2 Timothy 2, Romans 1), that anointed one of the Lord (Luk 2:26), whose breath is in His nostrils (Isa 2:22), and who is our shadow against the heat of Gods wrath (Isa 25:4), and to whom the Lord God gave the throne of His Father David (Luk 1:32-33). Magistrates are here admonished both of the authority and the functions of their office. They, too, can be called by that name of authoritythe anointed of the Lord. And the functions of their office are, that they may be, by their counsel and efficient aid, the breath of the nostrils,and such a shadow as that prefigured in the tree in Dan 4:7-9 (1012). Frster.

28. Lam 4:21. Here is a proof-text concerning , rejoicing in the misfortunes of others, from which crime Christians, of all men, should be furthest removed. For those who delight in the misfortunes of others, stripped of all humanity, no longer imitate the tastes and dispositions of mankind, but those of the devil. Frster.Cup. Frster remarks here that the figure of a cup is used metaphorically in three ways. 1. Cup denotes the misfortune of the righteous as well as that of the ungodly, Psalms 75, 2. It denotes the good or bad fortune of the righteous, Psalms 116; Mat 20:22; Mat 23:39; Mar 10:38; Joh 18:11. 3. It denotes the misfortune of the ungodly, Isa 51:17; Isa 51:22; Jer 25:15; Lam 4:21; Eze 23:31; Hab 2:16; Rev 14:10; Rev 16:19.

29. Lam 4:21. We learn from this that God has filled their certain measure of trouble for all men, and He lets the cup pass round and no one is overlooked, as it is written in Psalms 75, The Lord has a cup in His hand and fills it full of strong wine, and pours out from the same, but the ungodly must drink up the dregs. That is, the pious must also drink of the cup of wormwood, sorrow and pain. But Christ has presented for them the foretasted cup of such a bitter, sour potion, and with the wood of His cross has made sweet and tolerable for His own to drink the bitter waters of Mara, as is beautifully and figuratively represented in Ez. 15:2325. But the ungodly must at last taste the lees and dregs of Gods wrath, which potion constitutes their final and utter ruin. Egid Hunnius.

30. Lam 4:22. He will no more carry thee away into captivity. Here it is, indeed, averred, that the Lord would not after this again cause the people to remove from the land, which certainly seems to conflict with the prolonged exile which the Jews at this day are enduring. But the answer is easy and obvious, from the rule commonly accepted by Theologians: All Gods promises are to be understood as having the condition of penitence annexed to them. Frster.

31. Lam 4:21-22. Zions punishment will sometime have an end, because God in spite of all His judgments upon His people, will yet fulfil His kingdom; the punishment of Edom, on the contrary, and of all maliciously disposed worldly powers, is eternal and without hope. Heathendom, as such, cannot be regenerated, notwithstanding all Gods judgments; it can only perish, because it has not Gods word. But the greater is Gods punishment of His people, the more sure is His plan for their salvation. That same Christ, who said, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me, and sweat blood, yet most certainly was and continued of His own accord and by His own act in the bitterest agony of death and in the deepest humiliation, and He has brought to light our eternal victory, for as many of us as abide in faith on His word, however helpless at present we may be in ourselves. Christ is our life and our strength. Diedrich.

32. Lam 4:22. [Calvin: Prayer. Grant, Almighty God, that as Thou seest that at this day the mouths not only of our enemies, but of Thine also, are open to speak evil,O grant that no occasion may be given them, especially as their slanders are cast on Thy holy name; but restrain Thou their insolence, and so spare us, that though we deserve to be chastised, Thou mayest yet nave regard for Thine own glory, and thus gather us under Christ our Head, and restore Thy scattered Church, until we shall at length be all gathered into that celestial kingdom, which Thine only-begotten Son our Lord has procured for us by His own blood. Amen.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

1. Lam 4:1-6. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans an example of Gods great and impartial righteousness. 1. Israel was among the nations, what gold is among the metals and precious stones are among minerals, Lam 4:1; Lam 2:2. But the sin of Israel was greater than the sin of Sodom, Lam 4:6. 3. Therefore the punishment of Israel was severer than that of Sodom, Lam 4:3-5.

2. Lam 4:7-11. The relation of spiritual hunger to physical. 1. The relation as it should be. a. Both are sanctioned, Mat 6:11; Mat 6:32; 1Ti 6:8. b. But spiritual exigency should have the preference. Mat 6:33; Mat 4:4; Mat 16:5-12; Joh 6:27; Joh 6:32-35. 2. The relation as it should not be, Luk 16:19-31. 3. The consequences of the perversion of the right relation, a. With regard to physical hunger, Lam 4:7-11. b. With regard to spiritual hunger, Amo 8:11-12; Rev 2:5.

3. Lam 4:12-16. The warning, which John Baptist gave to the Jews, Begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father (Luk 3:8), concerns all persons and communities, in this day, who believe that they are assured of their Divine vocation. How well grounded this warning was, could be shown at that time by a reference to the first destruction of Jerusalem. Let us avail ourselves of the same fact in order to impress the solemn truth, that no Divine vocation can save us from eventual destruction. For, 1. Israels vocation was (a) attested by the promises given to the Patriarchs; (b), confirmed by many proofs of actual Divine interposition in their behalf: (c), recognized even by the heathen. 2. This vocation was not unconditional, as carnal Israel imagined. 3. The non-fulfilment of the conditions, for which the Priests and Prophets were chiefly guilty, ensured as a consequence the judgment of the first destruction. Conclusion: What befell Israel, the natural olive tree, may much more readily befall that which is only an engrafted branch (Rom 11:12) of the same.

4. Lam 4:12-16. The great responsibility of those possessed of spiritual authority. 1. The duty is imposed upon them, of directing the people by word and example to keep the conditions on which the Divine promises have been given. 2. To them belongs the guilt, if by their neglect, the people find the curse instead of the blessing.

5. Lam 4:17-19. Human help is useless. For, 1. It, is by itself, impotent. 2. Those who depend upon it, (a), experience the pain of disappointed expectation; (b), they come to a terrible end.

6. Lam 4:20. The reciprocal duties of rulers and subjects. 1. The duties which subjects owe to their rulers. It is to be observed, that the Prophet, in this text confers an honorable title on the ungodly king Zedekiah, that he calls him the Anointed of the Lord, and here a beautiful lesson is taught us, with what respect we should regard and speak of our superiors and rulers, and honor in them the office, which God has conferred upon them, even if in personal character they are wicked and ungodly. 2. The duties which rulers owe to their subjects. Let them remember that their office, in the words of the Prophet should be, next to God and under God, a refuge under whose shadow their poor subjects may live. Egid. Hunnius

7. Lam 4:21-22. The reciprocal relation of those who suffer and those who take pleasure in the sufferings of others. 1. That one, who first has suffering, will afterwards have joy, if he bear his suffering in the right way. 2. That one, who first has malicious pleasure in the sufferings of others, will at last have sufferings himself, (a), because he has calumniated God by the presumption that He was not influenced by love in His punishments; (b), because he has been destitute of love to his neighbor and thereby has provoked against himself the sentence of retaliation (Mar 4:24).

8. Lam 4:22. [Henry: 1. An end shall be put to Zions troubles. The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion. The troubles of Gods people shall be continued no longer, than till they have done the work for which they were sent. 2. An end shall be put to Edoms triumphs. He will visit thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom. It is spoken ironically in Lam 4:21, Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom. This is a good reason why we should not insult over any who are in misery, because we ourselves also are in the body. But those who please themselves in the calamities of Gods church, must expect to have their doom, as aiders and abettors, with them that are instrumental in those calamities. Sooner or later, sin will be visited and discovered.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.

CONTENTS.

The fallen and sorrowful state of Zion is made the subject of lamentation through the greater part of this Chapter. Towards the close the punishment of Edom is threatened.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter! Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick. They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people.

Never was the desolation of a kingdom mourned over with more awakened and heart-felt sorrow, than what is here done of Zion. The Prophet seems to have his whole soul going out in the most dejected state of lamentation. He takes notice of all the objects of distress, which might be supposed to call up mourning. He contrasts her former state of joy with the present dejection; and then, having raised up all the finer feelings in the view, describes the deplorable situation of misery in all its aggravated circumstances. The images are very strong. They that were fed delicately, were desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet, embraced dunghills. Yea, even the tender mother was found to have sodden her own children to abate the cravings of hunger! But amidst these strong descriptions of misery, I beg the Reader to take yet more especial notice of one, in the case of the Nazarites, which, from the connection with Him who was the One great Nazarite, and to whom the whole order acted but as types, demands our attention , the more. everything that is said here of the purity of the Nazarite, could only be said so in relation to Jesus. He, and He only, was pure, and holy, and harmless, and undefiled. The Church bare testimony to this, when she said, my beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand, Son 5:10 . Hence Matthew was commissioned to tell the Church, that the great reason intended from Christ’s dwelling in Nazareth was, that he might be called a Nazarene, that is, the great Nazarite. Mat 2:23 . Thus the passage read with an eye to Christ, will be, her Nazarites in Him were purer than snow, but in themselves their visage was blacker than a coal. Recollect what Isaiah saith of Jesus, when bearing the sins of his redeemed his visage was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men, Isa 52:14 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Dimming of the Gold

Lam 4:1

Not changed in a moment, but changed imperceptibly. It evil things would only come at specified times, we should know how to prepare for them and to defend ourselves against them. Had the strong man known at what hour the thief would come, he would not have suffered his house to be broken through. But we cannot tell the time, nor the way, nor the speciality of the attack, nor the exact scope that will be taken by the enemy. “What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” It would seem as if life needed continual culture. Nature seems to teach us this, in so far as it is under our control. We cannot let a day go by in neglect without suffering loss, or being conscious of some change for the worse. The garden will not stand still. If you say, “Leave the garden to the laws of nature,” the laws of nature will choke your garden, filling it with weeds, causing it to live with life not agreeable to you. So with your own person; so with everything round about you. Every day must have its own washing, cleansing, sweeping, watching. Life would seem to be set in circumstances necessitating continual critical and religious inspection and culture. This illustration can be carried all round the circle of life, and made to preach to us a great and powerful discourse. We cannot live one day in negligence, things slip down so suddenly and completely. The change, too, is written upon the man. It matters not how skilful the dissimulation, how perfect even to exquisiteness of management the whole hypocrisy, the evil nature will sign itself in unmistakable tokens upon the face and upon the manner of the man who succumbs to evil. He will not change in a moment; you will begin to wonder what has taken place in his thought of you and his relation to you; you will examine yourself to know if the reason be in you. He is not so punctual as he used to be, or regular; not so vivacious; not marked by that abandonment of perfect confidence which used to characterise his intercourse. He is more suspicious, more difficult to deal with, less easy to please. What is it that has taken place in the man? The revelation is there at present in dim characters and symbols, but it will grow into fuller expression and leave no doubt as to the origin of the change which you have watched with dislike. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!”

We might so far alter the obvious meaning of the text as to lay great stress upon the meaning of the word “How” as if it involved a mystery rather than declared the fact. How is it pos sible? It is gold, but it is dim; it is fine gold, but it is changed how has it been done? Marvellous is the history of deterioration. The late Archbishop Trench in his most instructive little book upon “Words” has shown this in a very vivid manner in the matter of certain expressions and phrases which have gradually but completely changed their meaning in English speech and intercourse. Some of the instances given by Dr. Trench are of a striking character. He quotes the word “innocent.” What could be more beautiful in its original application? A word of gold, yea, of fine gold, indicating beauty of character, simplicity of spirit, incapability of double-mindedness or ambiguity of thought and intent; all so plain, so pure, so straightforward. How is the word now employed in many cases? It is now used to indicate, the Archbishop tells us, people who have lost mental strength, or people who never had mental strength; weak-minded people; even those who are little short of imbeciles are described as “innocent” those having no longer any responsibility; having out-lived the usual obligations of life or never having come under them; persons from whom nothing may be expected. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” A change of that kind does not take place on the surface; changes of that sort have history underneath them as their cause and explanation; the soul has got wrong in order to allow a word like that to be perverted from its original beauteousness. Another instance he gives is the word “silly.” Originally the word silly meant holy. He quotes a poet who describes the Saviour as “that harmless, silly Babe,” meaning “that harmless, holy Babe,” the word, with a little variety of form, being used today in the German nation with the same old meaning of holy. But now what does it mean? Frivolous, senseless, pithless, worthless. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!”

This is not a trick in merely vocal transition; underneath this is a sad moral history. Even words may indicate the moral course which a nation has taken. So with many other words. We find the change upon the gold even in the matter of speech. But why say “even in the matter of speech”? as though that were of secondary importance. The speech is the man. “The Word was God,” and the word is man. We must not trifle with language, or endeavour to deceive ourselves by using soft words in place of hard ones. That is an evil game to play. It shows that already the heart has lost its jointing and true setting in God, and is abroad seeking for excuse, inventing palliations, and trying by tampering and conjuring with language to give a new view to moral nature, to moral action. Watch! Be careful even about the very words you use. Choose the very hardest word you can when speaking of wrong-doing, and do not deceive yourselves. I would say involving myself most of all in the great application of the sentiment Do not seek by a mere wizardry in the use of words to soften the accusation which ought to be addressed to every wrong-thinker and wrongdoer.

I will quote one more instance from the Archbishop’s book. It is of another kind, but strikingly illustrates the uses to which the highest dignities may be dragged. The greatest of all the orators of his day was Cicero; and now the man in Italy who can show you over galleries of art and describe glibly what you see is called a “Cicerone,” a follower, a descendant of Cicero, a talker, a chatterer, a man who can amuse you and partly inform you, or otherwise entertain you, by long speeches about paintings and statuaries and things curious and historical. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” That ragged, ill-kept man, chattering about things he does not know, has come from the mere fluency of his speech to be called a little Cicero. It is thus that we trace many a declension, and thus we may trace many an apostasy in our own case. Unhappy phrases we have altered to fine euphemistic speeches, which fail to strike between the eyes the crimes which we ought to abhor.

What is true of words is true also of merely social manners. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” How different you are now in some of your social relations from what you used to be! We need not go into detail of a special and vivid kind, but every man will supply his own illustration of the point towards which we direct attention. How civil we used to be; how courteous; how prompt in attention; how critical in our behaviour; how studious not to wound! What delicate phrases we used; what gracious compliments we paid! How we endeavoured to incarnate the very spirit of courtesy and chivalry! “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” How rough we are, and brusque! How blunt and we call our bluntness frankness! How positive, stubborn, self-willed, resolute, careless of the interests of others! What off-handed speeches we make! What curt answers we return! Where is the old gallantry, the old gentlemanliness, the fine old courtesy? “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” perhaps not changed upon one side more than upon the other, but still changed; the old patience buried, the old forbearance done away with; questions that could be asked in earlier times with ease and directness have now to be almost smuggled into conversation in order to extract information needful for the proper upholding and direction of the household. The gold has become dim. No suspicion is thrown upon the original character and value of the gold; but it has become dim. It is not enough to say, “It is still gold,” it is the dimness we are speaking about in this immediate connection. It will not do to set ourselves up in righteousness and sterling honour and unquestionable veracity, and say, “We are as golden as ever.” What about the dimness? the change of surface? Who can tell what that dimness may lead to? And the more sure you are of the gold, the more careful you ought to be of the dimness. What if that dimness should so deepen and extend as to lead some persons to question the reality of the gold? In these matters we must as Christian men be careful, thoughtful, watchful, critical. There is nothing little that concerns the integrity and the fulness of Christian character.

What is true of words and of manner is also true of the high ideals with which we began life. Let us be thankful for ideals. We cannot always live up to the ideal, but we can still look at it and cherish it; and from our uplifted ideal we may sometimes draw healing when we have been beaten by some flying fiery serpent whose bite has flung us in agony upon the ground for a while, like worsted and mortally wounded things. We cannot have ideals too lofty, too pure, too heavenly. Be ye holy as your Father in heaven is holy; be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect Behold the real lying in the dust; see the divinely ideal shining with infinite lustre in the skies. “Aim high; shoot afar, higher than he who means a star than he who means a tree.” Let this wisdom of George Herbert be carried up into all our relations. We cannot strike the star, but the arrow goes the higher for the point is was aimed at. What ideals we used to have! Who dares bring back to memory all the ideals with which he started life? Where are they? “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” When I for I will speak thus in the first instance upon narrow grounds wished to become a preacher of the eternal Word, how lofty was the ideal! how devoted was to have been the life! how long and agonistic the prayers! how ardent the appeal! every sermon a sacrifice, every call delivered through the learning of God. “I am determined not to know anything among men, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” “God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Do I not thus quoting my own early ideal and purpose touch the experience and the pensive recollection of every minister of the Cross? “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” What deference to the customs of the times! What fear of offending men! What study to win the approbation of all! What resource to unhappy and unholy expedients in order to keep men together in unbroken consolidation, lest any evil-speaker should charge the preacher with want of public success. What a desire to accommodate the prayer and the sermon to the regulation hour of conventional impatience! What fear of striking directly and heavily! What temptation to be hard upon the absent, but to let the present go free from the scorching fire of divine criticism, and the appalling judgment of the eternal righteousness.

What is true of the minister is true also of nearly all other men. What a life yours was to have been in business! I think I see you now, when a fair-faced boy, without a wrinkle on your bonnie brow, how you said that when you began life in business, you would show how business was to be done: there should be no moral blot upon any stationery upon which you wrote; everything should be exact, liberal, just; you would endeavour to found a model business. Bless God for the boyish fancy that wants to found “model” things! I would not curb the boy who was going to be a model preacher, a model merchant, a model politician, or a model anything else that was really healthy and good. You used to like the word “model”; we used to detect it in your speech frequently, and point it out, and wonder when you would use it next. You would be a model man of business model in punctuality and regularity in payment; in all the relations involved in active commerce. Where is the ideal now? It is thirty years ago since you spoke thus about your model life; produce your books, let us see your record; what have you done in that span of a generation? You will not show the books? I know why. You turn my attention away from the record to the latest news from Egypt and Ireland. I understand. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” But is it gold still? Be sure: you may have substituted the clay for the gold; you may have bartered away the fine gold for stones without value. I will not press the impeachment, for it cannot be urged in your direction without coming with added recoil in the direction which I myself occupy. What an ideal of home-life you used to have! You remember when you walked between the green hedges in the springtime among blossoms and singing birds, you used to remark upon the life which other people were living in the house such querulous lives, so discontented, so ill-kept, so wanting in natural and proper discipline, and you used to say that when you had a house of your own, it should be as beautiful outside as inside; all its windows should, morally and socially, look towards the south and the south-west, and the house should be full of music, and though you could not afford expensive pictures, yet whatever you had, even in the way of a little engraving, it should be of the very best thing of its kind, and you said that by a little giving and taking and little concession that a home might be made into a kind of heaven. I remember your sweet words; they were beautiful: how have they been realised? I have not been in your house for the last fifteen years: how are you going on now? Do not speak aloud; answer mentally: how is your house? It is not a big one, but is it a beautiful one? It is not full of riches that can be sold by auction, but is it full of the wealth of the soul and the mind and the heart? Is Love the spirit of the house? Is the good old altar standing just where it was? Is the big family Bible still the centre of the house and the chief of its riches? Do not answer me: answer yourself, answer God. But may we not say of some family life? “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!” The meals are no longer sacramental; the sleep is no longer prefigurative of true rest, out of which shall come physical and moral recruital and preparation for the next day’s fight; the front door is no longer so high or so wide, nor does it swing back so easily upon its hinges as used to be the case in the early time. Everything is wrong now: the old armchair is never in its former place, the fire is always dull, and stir it as you will you cannot get back the old glow and the old hospitable warmth. Everything is out of place, and everybody but you is to be blamed. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!”

Then what a church-life you were going to live all of us. When we entered the church, what a model career we were going to complete! We were going to be gentle, courteous, true-minded, large-hearted; we were never going to take offence at anything; we were never going to listen with the ears of criticism, but with the inner ears of necessity, appreciation, penitence, and thankfulness; we were going to do everything in our power to make the church we attended such a place as was hardly to be found in any other part of the globe; we would not curl our nostrils even if an ill-dressed person came and sat next us in the pew; we were never going to complain of anything; the minister we were going to hold up in prayer and to sustain in love; our faces were to become bright at his coming, and the answer to his appeals was to be instantaneous and complete. How is it now? You remember the poor person that wanted to come into your pew, and you pointed her to the other end of the church. How is it now? Any critical remarks? Any desire to show your supernatural quickness in detecting mistakes and want of continuity in the discourse? Any little self-idolatrous pranks and antics of a kind unworthy of the holy Church of God? Any unkind and bitter little speeches about other people? Do not say “Yes.” I ask questions. Oh! may the answer be such that you may not have to say, “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!”

Let me add to the criticism the gospel which says, We may every one begin again. I feel as if I had spoken a great warm truth that will go into every home, every church, and there do its gracious work. Brothers, fellow-breakers of the ideal we started with, common criminals, we may every one begin again. What say you to that gospel opportunity and gospel challenge? Let each say, “I will arise and go to my Father”; let each one say, “I will arise and go to my ideal, and say, I have wounded thee, dishonoured thee, fallen infinitely short of thee in every particular. I am no more worthy that thou shouldst be associated with my poor name.” We may begin again. We have finished this immediate page that is now under our hands, and now we may turn over a new leaf white as snow, no trace of the bad writing upon it. We may begin at the very top, and write, line by line, down to the finis, without an erasure, a mistake, a blot, a blur. O brother! thy life’s new page is now laid before thee, take heed how thou writest thereupon! At the end the best writer amongst us will have to say, “What is writ is writ; would it were worthy!’

The Incredible Things of Life

Lam 4:12

We are reminded by these words that there are many things in life quite incredible. On hearing them we say they cannot be true; reason is offended, feeling is revolted, the whole man almost instinctively rises to say, No; that report is impossible: “The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.” This was not the opinion of the inhabitants of the world only, in the lay sense men who knew nothing about fortifications and strong positions and strategical defences; people who simply looked upon the outside and said, Behold, that is invincible and that is impregnable. Such might have been a layman’s opinion, but the opinion was shared by “the kings of the earth” the mighty men, the soldiers; men who knew the weight and value of every stone in the fortress; and “The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem” gates so high, gates so strong, gates welded for resistance, locked as with thunder and lightning they were not to be taken; they were not pasteboard gates, they were not portals of straw; they were meant to resist the world; and the impression made upon the world was that they were irresistible kings said so, and soldiers and laymen, and the unanimous opinion of mankind in that day and place was that Jerusalem was impregnable. Report to those people that Jerusalem can be taken, and they instantly receive the suggestion with disdain; they do not consider it worth while to answer such a thought: it is incredible, impossible, absurd; kings would not listen to it, and as for all other men, long ago they made up their minds that Jerusalem could resist any stroke of earth, and would yield only to the artillery of heaven. Very proud and haughty was Jerusalem, so much so that she fell into a mocking vein when her enemies approached her gates; she did not care to fight, it was enough to snort, to laugh, to puff enough to wave the hand in easy defiance. Jerusalem had counted her enemies, and had reckoned up their strength; and she sat down to her feasting and her piping and her dancing, and said, Let the mad men rave, they but bruise their own knuckles. When the enemy came nearer, Jerusalem indulged herself in great boasting and taunting. She would not bare her arm; she would but show a finger, and that the least. When the enemy was quite near she put upon her walls all her blind men, and all her little children, and all her cripples the very meanest, poorest, weakest of the population, and through them she said, When you have struck down these soldiers we will find you another relay; first beat the blind, first kill the cripples, and when you have got rid of these military persons you shall find there is strength behind them. And she laughed, she shook with laughter; she went back to her feasting, filled the goblet, kept the dance well up, and was secure in her pride.

“The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.” But the enemy did enter! They hanged her princes by the hand; the faces of the elders were not honoured. They took the young men to grind, and the children fell under the wood. There was no elder in the gate; and the young men were taken from their music. The joy of the heart of Jerusalem ceased, and the dancing was turned into mourning; the crown fell from her head. Thus things that are incredible do happen. That which is held to be impossible often becomes quite easy. See Jerusalem; learn from history; do not let the facts of time go for nothing. Why do men waste history? Why do men pay no heed to that which is written as with a pen of iron on the tablet of Time? But history us lost upon most of us, If we were wise, the first two chapters of Ecclesiastes would save us from all experiments in the direction of attempting to find heaven in earthly things and eternity in the little moment of time. But who believes the testimony of Solomon? He swept the whole ground, drove madly throughout the whole line of the curriculum; and when he had done he said, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” But who believes him? Who does not leap upon the same steed, run the same career, and come to mourn the same fate? Let us understand therefore, at the very outset of this study, that the “impossible” is not impossible, the incredible may come to be true, that which revolts the sense and shocks the feeling may become a commonplace of life. Let us illustrate this.

All the neighbourhood, all the friends and acquaintances, would not have believed that the great rich man to whom scores were mean and hundreds trifles could have come to beg his bread. But it is possible. Riches take to themselves wings and flee away. Certainly, such an issue seems to be quite incredible. Were the man entrenched behind units, tens, hundreds, we should think but little of it, for they constitute but a poor cobweb security; but he goes into higher figures thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and sometimes the word “million” does not seem to be too great a word for his boastful lips. He can thrust his arm into gold, and fasten it there, so that he cannot move in the golden prison. He delights in this. He says to his soul, “Thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease; never heed domestic politics, or foreign politics, near or distant complications of states and empires; soul, be glad!” All the neighbours, friends, acquaintances, bankers, and men in the city would not have believed that that man would some day come with a suppliant’s crouch and a beggar’s appeal to ask an alms. Take heed! It is right to be rich, very rich, but it is wrong for the riches to be master of the man; hold them so that coming or going they never interfere with prayer, with faith, with charity, with noble, generous love; they are servants, helpers, great assistants in the philanthropic cause: hold them so, and you never can be poor. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” The Lord will stain the pride of all glory, “I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away” a contemptuous phrase “he passed away” glided off, secretly departed: “yea, I sought him” I asked the wind whither he had flown, and the wind had no reply; I dug for his roots, and there were none; he had been living all the time upon nothing, and he vanished like smoke. Why not learn from history? Why not pause and consider, and put things wisely and solidly together, and say, These things are but for a moment; for a moment’s use they are invaluable, but as securities, towers, defences, rather let me entangle myself in some elaborate cobweb, and trust to that against God’s lightning and thunder.

Who would believe that the great strong man, whose every bone is, as it were, wrought iron, should one day be glad of the help of a little child? How humbling I how instructive! The man was an athlete. He lived a life of discipline. How erect! how energetic! how lithe! how gleesome always by the very redundance of life! Headache? He never knew the meaning of the term; he had heard of it by the hearing of the ear, that is all. Weariness? He was as energetic at the close of day as at the beginning; the sun in his course could not wear out that man’s abounding strength. One day that same man, all steel and iron, will want the help of a little child to lead him over the road. Impossible! It is a fact. You may accost him, and ask him if he remembers the time when he could have lifted a man in each hand and felt he was not doing anything in particular as an exercise of strength; and with a hollow laugh he will say, Ay, I remember! How now? the sinews melted, the bones no longer iron, the great frame bent down, the sunken eyes peering for a grave. What did this? Ill-conduct? No. Wastefulness of strength and energy? No. What did it? Silent, insidious, mighty Time. Who calculates that element in making a reckoning? Who ever calculates the main forces that shape and direct and determine life? On what slate of what calculator can be found such words as Time, Spirit, God? Let me see the slate, and I will read it to you; and this is the writing of “rational” men! “Reports, telegrams, policies, actions of governments, the sharp practice of knaves add these up, to what do they total? To this chance, and to that I am left.” Beware! Do not play the fool. Set down upon your slate one word, and that includes all God. We live and move and have our being in God. “Seek first the kingdom of God.” “Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth,” not only in the physical and natural sense, but at the beginning of every enterprise; in the youth-time of every endeavour, in the morning ere the dew be exhaled by the sun. Then old age will have a beauty all its own. Then ask the old man if he remembers the days of his riotous strength, and he says, Yes; but I have a nobler health in view; that was a strength that could be worn out, a strength that seemed to defeat itself; its very victories were failures; but now, “if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” Strength? There was not a horse that could beat me, there was not an eagle that could go more quickly, nay, there was not a little bird in the hedge that could sing more sweetly or get across space more rapidly; it was animal strength, all good so far as it went, and most valuable in some directions; but the soul is now strong, the spirit is mighty; I seek a country out of sight, “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God”; I shall soon “shuffle off this mortal coil,” and stand in the strength and majesty of immortal power. Do not, therefore, trust to your great bodily strength and your great material resources; Jerusalem trusted to these things, and Jerusalem was overthrown. Servants ruled over Jerusalem; they gat their bread with the peril of their lives, because of the sword of the wilderness; their skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible famine. Learn betimes; be wise in anticipation.

Who could believe that a man of great capacity and great judgment in all earthly things should come to be unable to give a rational opinion upon the affairs of the day? Once the man was an oracle. People differed from his judgment with reluctance; however stubborn in their own opinions, when he spoke to the contrary they began, inwardly at least, to falter; their pride might keep them from ostensible recognition of what he said, but in their hearts they felt that a deadly blow had been struck at their own conceptions and line of judgment. He was made to be a counsellor. He saw things at once, and saw the whole of them. His was no little field of vision; his eyes were made to read horizons; he heard things other people did not hear; he omitted nothing from his calculations; and, to repeat, when he gave his conclusion they were hardy men who ventured to differ from him. Were I to say that such a man will come to be unable to write his own name, to read his own letters, to understand the correspondence of his own children, you would meet the suggestion with a kind of gracious disdain. Impossible! say you. How godlike in reason! How all but infinite in faculty! He will be to the last bright as a star. What if he stumble at noonday? What if he forget his own name? What if he cannot tell where his own house is? and what if they who trusted him aforetime so implicitly should say, Poor soul! he is gone; it is no use looking in that quarter for wisdom or direction; his genius is dead; alas! but so it is? If that be so, why should we not learn from that fact, and work while it is called day, for the night cometh wherein no man can work? Redeem the time, buy up the opportunity, knowing that our brightest genius shall be eclipsed, our strongest sagacity shall lose its penetration, and our judgment shall halt for the judgment of others. Why pretend to be wise when we have lost our wisdom? and why seek light when there is none? What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch Now is your day. We want to hear you now. Your voice is pleasant to us, your judgment gives us strength, your suggestions are inspirations; when you speak you speak light; God be thanked for your companionship and co-operation. Lay up against the day of evil, ere “the golden bowl be broken.” Be now useful, attentive, and spend and be spent for the good of others.

And have we not often been shocked in another direction, worst of all? The instances now stated are but introductory to that which is greatest, saddest of all. To be told that some men will fail morally is a statement not to be entertained for one moment. The foundations would be destroyed. Who of us cannot name men who, if they were to fail in moral completeness, in probity, in honour, in truthfulness, would shake Society to its base? They are the trustees of Society; they are the very stewards of honour, the very bankers and custodians of the world’s most precious wealth. To be told that their reputation, so brilliant, hides a character corrupt, is to shock our moral sense and to rouse us to indignant repulsion of the base and infamous slander. What! every word a hollow word, every action a selfish calculation, every attitude part of a fraud and conspiracy, every generous deed a new bid for self-promotion, signatures forsworn, bonds broken, by such men? Never! It is impossible, incredible; the suggestion is born of the pit. We are right in so saying. Have no faith in men who cannot be fired into godly anger when they hear great reputations assailed and when they see great characters slurred and defamed. At the same time let us learn from history. Great men have fallen from high moral excellence. He the unnamed “the starry leader of the seven” fell from heaven. Some angels “kept not their first estate.” We remember these things, not to turn them into instruments of cruel and unrighteous criticism upon men, but to teach ourselves that boasting is dangerous, presumption is fatal. “Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe”; never let me go out alone; always make me put my hand in thine, great Father, mighty God. That is the spirit in which to live. The moment we trust in ourselves the staff is broken; the moment we think we can do anything of ourselves that is essentially good and noble, we have severed the connection between earth and heaven, and the communication being interrupted, all the disastrous issues must eventuate. Let us, then, be wise. Rich men have become poor; strong men have become weak; capable men have become imbecile; men of high moral excellence have fallen from the heavens in which they shone like guiding stars. With these wrecks before us, what is our course of wisdom? To consider them; to weigh carefully what has been done; to remember that we are but dust; to consider our estate, how frail it is. Let us trust under the wings of the Almighty, let us live within the shadow of his presence, let us be hidden in his pavilion; then, come weal, come woe, our end will be heaven: say ye to the righteous, It shall be well with him, however black the immediate cloud, however storm-laden the immediate outlook.

The principle admits of being turned in many directions, but we have endeavoured to keep steadily by the line of the text itself; still, who can resist the gracious temptation to remark very briefly upon the fact that there are things incredible on the other side which will come to pass? Who would believe that the child of a poor couple, who kept no servant, who had to light their own fire, should stand up one day before kings, and be honoured by them for deeds of valour, for conquests of wisdom, for attainments of knowledge as scholars, adventurers in perilous lands, explorers? Who could believe that such children could rise from such roots? Take heart! One of the most learned books of the day in its own sphere, and the most useful of books for its own purpose, was written by a lad who had to study his Latin grammar under a street-lamp. He had no candle, he had no money to buy a light; so there in the open street under the flickering lamplight, he learned what Latin he first acquired. Impossible! A fact. Turn such “impossibilities” into the realities of life, and God bless you.

Who would believe that a Carpenter and the Son of a carpenter should save the world? Do we not know his father and mother? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence hath this Man his wisdom, since he never learned letters? Yet there is something about him we cannot deny, as to high quality and great strength of mind; he certainly is a wonderful Person; and he grows and his influence extends, and he says he will have the heathen for his inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. The old Hebrew saints were full of music concerning him: he was to come down like rain upon the mown field, like showers that water the earth; kings were to fall down before him, and gold and incense bring. We say, Impossible! for the cause is not equal to the effect. No more it is it we limit it within the four visible points; but God is in it, the purpose of Heaven is in it, and the Lord’s oath is that he, Christ, shall reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet This is indeed impossible, with a cross for a subject, a dying man for a theme, a crucified malefactor for a hero, that such results should accrue. Within these points the judgment is right, but truly this Man was the Son of God. His words do marvellously come to pass. We believe that Jesus Christ “shall reign where’er the sun does his successive journeys run.” In this faith we live, and labour, and hope; and we ask no other faith in which to die.

Prayer

We want to feel thy nearness, thou living Spirit. Thou knowest how much there is to bow us down to the earth, and how little there is to lift us up into heaven: our hope is in thyself, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Give us one glimpse of heaven; may we detect in the winter wind one odour from the garden of God. Save our souls in the hour of darkness; thou hast all the stars, thou canst command them to shine upon us; we know thou wilt not leave our souls to die in darkness. Thou hast given unto us thy Son, thine only Son. He tasted death for every man, he made the Cross the way to heaven: because thou hast given him thou wilt not withhold anything from us that is good for our souls. This is oar assurance, this is our daily song. Come then to us in the deep valley, in the faraway paths, and come to us in the wilderness; whilst thou dost commune with our hearts we shall know thy presence by their burning love. We bless thee for thy wondrous care; the very hairs of our head are all numbered; the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord; though he fall he shall not be utterly cast down: thou art the Light of the good; thou art the strength of them that put their trust in thee. How glad shall the Christian heart be from day to day! It is nearing the heavenly land, it is rich in promises, and we know that thou art able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think. Give us the joy of our faith; clothe us in this holy hour with the gladness of them that live in God. Help us to live this little life wisely and well. It is but a span long, the last inch will soon run off, and then we shall see the light, then we shall have the answer la life’s mystery. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XIII

JEREMIAH’S LAMENTATIONS

Lamentations 1-5

We will now take up a brief survey of the book of Lamentations. This book belongs to the third division of the Old Testament, known as the Writings, the Greek Hagiographa. The book of Lamentations is grouped with four other small books and these five are known by the Jews as the Meghilloth. These five books are Songs of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. They are read at special seasons of the year by the Jews, and the book of Lamentations was read, and is still read, on the anniversary of the fall of Jerusalem, which occurred on the ninth day of the fourth month of their year, corresponding to about our August 9. For 2,200 or 2,300 years this book has been read in their assemblies at this time. Not only has it been read, but it has also been quoted by thousands and tens of thousands of Jews who tarry at the Jewish wailing place in Jerusalem. It has voiced the sorrow of the Jewish people over the destruction of their city and its Temple for more than 2,000 years. It will continue to do so until the Jews are brought to Christ and realize that there is no need for the Temple and the ritual; that these were done away by Jesus Christ.

Tradition says that shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, when Jeremiah was partly free, he sat down in a quarry, a few miles north of Jerusalem near the road to Damascus, and there composed these lamentations. The authorship of Jeremiah has been questioned by the critical school, but this tradition goes back as early as the third century before Christ, and the Septuagint Version says at the beginning of this book that Jeremiah wrote these words. The book itself is an elegy on the fall of the city of Jerusalem. Its theme is the destruction of the city and it voices the dismay and sorrow that fell upon the nation at that awful event.

A fine example of an elegy in modern literature is Gray’s Elegy Written in a Country Church Yard. Lamentations is also an elegy but composed by a prophet, and as such it has been rather unpopular, is seldom read, seldom used, and seldom preached from.

The form of the book which is not brought out in the translation, is that of an acrostic poem, except the last chapter. The first letter of the first Hebrew word in each verse begins with a corresponding letter in the Hebrew alphabet. There are twenty-two verses each in Lamentations 1-2. In Lam 3 , sixty-six verses, a multiple of twenty-two. In the fourth, twenty-two. In the fifth, twenty-two.

Now, in Lam 1:1 , the first word begins with the first Hebrew letter of the alphabet. In Lam 1:2 the first letter of the first word is the second Hebrew letter, and so on through the alphabet. Lam 2 is the same. In Lam 3 , the three first lines begin with the first letter, and the second group of three lines begins with the second letter, and so on to the end of that chapter.

The writer chose the word which contained the right letter at the beginning of that word. In many cases it was doubtless a difficult task. Some can hardly imagine Jeremiah taking the time to do that, and yet it is the tradition that he did. It seems to them that his state of mind would hardly lend itself to such a mechanical arrangement of his verse and his thought, but the book is before us, and the tradition is that Jeremiah wrote it, and we must take it as it is. Lam 5 is not written in the acrostic form. The first four chapters only are thus arranged.

Now, the style, or form of the verse, is peculiar. The Hebrews had a form of verse, or stanza, which they used to express sorrow and which is called “the lament,” or “the dirge.” The form of the stanza is this: The first line is of average length, the second line a little shorter; also the next verse, or stanza, has the first line longer than the second, and so on all through the poem, which gives a peculiar funeral dirge effect to their song with a pathetic and melancholy cadence as they repeat it.

I call attention here to a few of these. Notice in Lam 1:1 : How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! She is become as a widow, that was great among the nations) She that was a princess among the provinces is become tributary!

Thus, a large part of the poem has that peculiar, pathetic, melancholy, dirge like cadence which expresses, perhaps more accurately than any other form of poetry could express, the feeling that animated the hearts of those people.

The following is an outline of the contents:

I. The desolation and misery of Jerusalem (Lam 1Lam 1Lam 1 ).

1. The poem bewails the solitude and desertion of the city; her people are in exile, the enemy has seized her treasures, her glory is departed (Lam 1:1-11 ). Almost every point of view from which one can look at it is given; almost every possible expression of feeling and emotion are brought out here.

2. The city herself declares the severity of the affliction (Lam 1:12-16 ). Lam 1:12 is regarded as a messianic expression in Handel’s Messiah, and may be likened unto the suffering of Jesus Christ. It is the voice of the city expressing itself through the prophet, calling attention to the unparalleled sorrow through which it has passed.

3. She acknowledges Jehovah’s righteousness and prays for retribution upon her foes (Lam 1:17-22 ).

II. Jehovah’s anger with his people (Lam 2Lam 2Lam 2 ).

1. The stress is laid on the causes of the suffering. Jehovah is her enemy; he has cast off his people, his land, and his sanctuary. That is brought out in Lam 2:3 and others. As in other verses of the poem, he turns the kaleidoscope of his imagination upon the awful event and presents it in almost every phase (Lam 2:1-9 ).

2. The agony of the people in the capital, the contempt of the passers-by, and the malicious triumph of her foes (Lam 2:10-17 ). Here is doubtless one of the most terrible pictures of a siege to be found in all literature. He speaks about the virgins of Jerusalem; then he speaks about his own sorrow, then about the young children, the babes starving and crying to their mothers for bread and wine.

3. The nations are invited by the prophet to entreat Jehovah on behalf of its dying children. It responds in the prayer of Lam 2:18-22 .

III. The nation’s complaint and its ground of consolation (Lam 3Lam 3Lam 3 ).

1. They bewail their calamities (Lam 3:1-20 ). Here he seems to call up every phase of it, and uses almost very figure to describe suffering. This section is paralleled in almost every line with some statement of Job where he describes his sufferings. I call attention to Lam 3:19 : “Remember mine affliction and my misery, the wormwood and the gall.” This is the origin of that expression, Sinners whose love can ne’er forget, The wormwood and the gall.

2. They console themselves by the thought of God’s compassion and the grace he may have in the visitation (Lam 3:21-39 ). Here we have some jewels in this poem. Lam 3:22 is one: “It is of Jehovah’s loving-kindnesses that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.” That means that they are not totally consumed because of the mercy of Jehovah. Jeremiah had said that he would not make a full end, because “his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.” A man who could write that after going through the horrors through which Jeremiah passed, while he was looking upon the deserted city, his own loved capital, has achieved one of the greatest victories of faith that man can possibly achieve.

Everything had been taken away from Jeremiah except his life and God. He had nothing. Then he said, “The Lord is my portion,” i.e., “He is enough for me.” Another beautiful expression is Lam 3:27 : “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.” This is a fine saying and contains a fine philosophy.

3. The people are invited to confess their guilt and turn to God in penitence (Lam 3:40-54 ). Here we seem to be reading out of Jeremiah’s own experience. This passage expresses how Jeremiah felt when he was put down into that dungeon, but they did not cut off his life.

4. He becomes more hopeful (Lam 3:55-57 ).

5. A confidential appeal for vengeance on the nation’s foes (Lam 3:58-66 ). That is Jeremiah still. Almost every time he is under persecution and affliction he calls for vengeance.

IV. Zion’s past and present contrasted (Lam 4Lam 4Lam 4 ).

1. The former splendor, and present humiliation of Zion and its inhabitants (Lam 4:1-11 ). He contrasts first, the gold that has become dim, the pure gold that is changed. Then the precious sons of Zion are mentioned. Their condition at present is contrasted with their condition in the past. “The daughter of my people” is also mentioned and her condition in the past contrasted with the present. “Become cruel like an ostrich in the wilderness.” The infant, the nursing child, is different now. “Its tongue cleaveth to the roof of its mouth for thirst.” They that have been reared up in scarlet, now embrace the dunghills, searching for some morsel to appease the pangs of hunger. Her mothers are also contrasted with their past condition.

2. Priests and prophets are so stained by guilt that they find no resting place even among the heathen (Lam 4:12-16 ). Lam 4:13 : “Because of the sins of her prophets and iniquities of her priests that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her.” As a result of that they wander as blind men in the streets; they are polluted with blood. Men cannot touch their garments; they say, “Depart ye, unclean, depart! depart! touch not.” When they fled away and wandered, men said among the nations, “They shall no more sojourn here.” They were so vile that even the heathen nations spurned them.

3. The people cannot escape their pursuers. Egypt has disappointed them, and Zedekiah, the anointed of Jehovah, has failed (Lam 4:17-20 ). Zedekiah, the anointed of the Lord, was captured by the Chaldeans and treated as if he were little more than an animal.

4. Though Edom may triumph for awhile, Israel’s punishment will be completed and the cup will be passed to the foes (Lam 4:21-22 ). There is sarcasm here: “The cup shall pass through unto thee also; thou shall be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked.”

V. The nation’s appeal for Jehovah’s Compassionate Regard (Lam 5Lam 5Lam 5 ).

(As we said, this chapter of the poem is not acrostic; is a little different from the other chapters; and may have been written later, a few years after the people had been in exile.)

1. He calls upon Jehovah to consider the affliction of the people, indicating the nature and severity of that affliction (Lam 5:1-18 ). Here, again, over and over in a great many different ways and fashions and forms and figures he reiterates the same sad truths and presents the same great sorrows. In Lam 5:7 he voices the sentiments of the people that are suffering, both those in the city and those in exile. The complaint was heard by Ezekiel away off in Babylonia! Our fathers sinned, and are not; And we have borne their iniquities. That cry and complaint both Jeremiah and Ezekiel had to meet and answer. It was the cry that the people had to suffer for the sins of their fathers, and of which they were innocent. See Eze 18 .

2. Zion’s desolation brings to his mind, by way of contrast, the thought of Jehovah’s abiding power, and on the ground of this he repeats his appeal for help (Lam 5:19-22 ).

This is the greatest elegy ever written, though it begins in the greatest heights of confidence at the end.

Jeremiah was an ardent patriot, one of the greatest patriots of history. The Hungarian patriot, Kossuth, was worldfamed, but no Kossuth loved his country and suffered more for it than Jeremiah, no Garibaldi ever fought and bled for his nation with truer heart than did this prophet, and no George Washington ever fought and prayed and worked and toiled more than did Jeremiah for his land. But even Jeremiah could not stay the inevitable; he could not save Jerusalem. Savonarola could not save Florence, nor could Kossuth save his country.

Jeremiah was a statesman-prophet, a prophet to the other nations as well as to Israel. He did not confine himself to the narrow realm of his own little nation and country; he saw what was going on throughout all the world and saw God’s hand in history. He was bigger than his people. He took in all the known world in his horizon. He foresaw what was coming and he gave advice to all the nations.

His nature was deeply emotional. No man had greater tenderness of heart than Jeremiah; no man could sympathize more with his people. No man could be more overpowered with sorrow over their sins and their destruction. He even prayed that his eyes might be a fountain of tears, pouring forth their grief and sorrow and if possible wash away the sins of the people. Some of the greatest depths to be found in all human experiences are to be found in Jeremiah. He was the most human and most outspoken of all the prophets. He was not afraid to lay bare his heart. He allows us to see down into its very depths. He laments, he complains, he even complains to Jehovah, and writes his complaints in the inspired Word. He calls for vengeance upon his foes. He feels like accusing God for having called him into the prophetic work. When in the depths of despondence, he curses the day he was born, and actually censures his mother for having brought him forth. He even considers the question of quitting the ministry altogether. He was like a weaned child that has its struggle and cries, but by and by it rests upon its mother’s bosom. So in the latter part of Jeremiah’s life he is at rest, calm and patient. He has had his fight and is quiet. How human he was!

His nature was one of surpassing strength. It is generally considered that one of the fundamental things in Jeremiah’s character was weakness. The fact that when he was called to the ministry he said, “I cannot speak, I am a boy, I am only a youth,” does not mean that he was fundamentally weak. It is not a sign of weakness, that a man has a sense of weakness when called to such a work. The keener our sense of weakness, the stronger we are, because it makes us feel our dependence upon God, and we go to him for strength and he is with us and helps us by his Spirit.

Jeremiah was a strong man, one of the strongest the world has ever known from the moral point of view. He never shrank from his duty, even when it brought him face to face with death. There was a fire within him which burned, and when it burned Jeremiah spoke forth, no matter what it cost. The word of God was the very essence of his being. He even tried to prevent the inevitable, and fought for forty years against it the inevitable, that Judah should perish. He has been described as “a figure cast in brass, dissolved in tears,” which expresses better, perhaps, than any other statement, his character. Though all the world was against him he never flinched, he never shrank, he maintained a consistent attitude all that period of nearly fifty years, and never failed.

His prophetic insight was of the profoundest kind. No man saw deeper into humanity than Jeremiah. He was the first man to say, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?” He got a vision of the higher moral truths of the new dispensation of Jesus Christ, and in his prophecy of the new covenant he reaches greater heights than any other prophet. He saw true religion as no other man had seen it. His grasp of truth was so deep that he became absolutely dependent upon God, and was satisfied to lean on him alone because his people were against him. He was a sublime optimist. His prophecy of the restoration is sufficient comment upon that. He saw the better age clearer than any other prophet; he pictured a better covenant, a new dispensation.

His emotional nature is shown in his literary style, which is free from many adornments, has a great many common figures in it and does not compare with the beauty of Isaiah, nor with the finished and literary elegance of Ezekiel. It expresses his emotional nature. He repeats, he has many favorite phrases. At times he is poetic and there are in the book of Jeremiah a great many passages that are classic and immortal. His style resembles that of the book of Deuteronomy, the highest type of hortatory eloquence, for Jeremiah was influenced mightily by the Book which was discovered in the early part of his career.

From being the most despised of all the prophets, he came to be considered the greatest of all. In the book of 2 Maccabees where Judah is in doubt and difficulty, there appeared to him in vision a man, resplendent in beauty, magnificent in physique, with excellent glory beaming from his countenance. He gives to Judah a golden sword with which to smite his foes. It was Jeremiah. This is only a legend, but it shows the estimation in which he was held. When Jesus Christ came preaching and teaching, the people knew not who he was; some said he was John the Baptist, some said he was Elijah, some said he was Jeremiah. They never mistook him for Ezekiel, Isaiah, or Daniel.

He, in several respects, resembled Jesus Christ:

1. Both appeared at a similar crisis in the history of Israel forty years before the end of the nation and the Temple.

2. Both were persecuted for predicting the fall of the ceremonial institutions and the ritual.

3. Both were at variance with the accepted orthodoxy of the time, and were regarded as heretical and dangerous.

4. Both showed that there could be a religion without a Temple and ritual, and thus saved religion in the downfall of these institutions.

5. Both made the way open for a positive statement of new doctrine.

6. Both suffered most at the hands of the religious leaders of the time.

7. Both lived lives of seeming failure, and died at the hands of their countrymen.

8. Both might have the words of Isaiah applied to them (Isa 53:3 ): “A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.” Also to both may be applied Lam 1:2 : “Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is brought upon me.”

QUESTIONS

1. To what division of the Old Testament does this book of Lamentations belong, how is it grouped, and what its special uses by the Jews?

2. What the testimony of tradition and the Septuagint concerning its authorship, what its theme, what its character as literature, and what its artistic features?

3. What can you say of its style, or form of verse? Illustrate.

4. Give the outline of the book.

5. What can you say of Jeremiah as a patriot?

6. What of him as a statesman?

7. What of his emotional nature?

8. What of him as human?

9. What of his strength of nature?

10. What of his prophetic insight?

11. What of his optimism?

12. What of his style?

13. What of his rank among the prophets? Illustrate.

14. What of his resemblances to Christ?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Lam 4:1 How is the gold become dim! [how] is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.

Ver. 1. How is the gold become dim.? ] How by way of wonderment again, as Lam 1:1 . – q.d., Quo tanto scelere hominum, et qua tanta indignatione Dei? a What have men done, and how hath God been provoked, that there are such strange alterations here all on the sudden? By gold, and fine gold, here understand the temple overlaid by Solomon with choice gold; or God’s people, his spiritual temple, who had now lost their lustre and dignity.

The stones of the sanctuary are poured out. ] Come tumbling down from the demolished temple.

a Pet. a Figueir.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Lamentations Chapter 4

Lam 4:1-11 .

It is impossible to view this sorrowful plaint of the prophet as merely historical. Nothing which had ever occurred in the way of disaster or humiliation at all approached the picture of desolation here described. The Spirit of prophecy is therefore forecasting the horrible abyss that awaited the beloved but guilty people.

“How the gold is become dim! the most fine gold is changed! The sacred stones are thrown down at the top of every street! The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how they are esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter.” Who could say that God screened or spared the iniquity of Israel? The most exalted in rank, dignity, and office were those who made their affliction most conspicuous. Could the most obdurate conscience in Jerusalem doubt whose hand had inflicted such reverses, whatever the instrument employed?

Hence the prophet, as he is growingly solemn in his glances at the uttermost distress, so is he calm but the more complete in setting it forth. It is as it were the evil all out, the leper white from head to feet, whose very extremity assures of God’s opportunity to interfere both for the Jew and against the adversaries more especially such as ought to pity Jerusalem in the day of her calamity.

That the Chaldean foe should be bitter in reproach and cruel in punishment was not wonderful; but alas! the chosen nation’s cup was not full of the indignity they must drink till they were the bitterest, out of sheer want and woe, against their own kin. “Even the dragons [or jackals] draw out the breast, they suckle their young: the daughter of my people [is] cruel like the ostriches in the wilderness.” It is of the last bird we read in Job 39:14-17 , “which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast way break them. She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear; because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.”

The sense seems to me certain, though one may not say indisputable, seeing that so sensible a commentator as Calvin contrives to extract a different meaning. He understands the clause to mean that the daughter of the people had come to a savage or cruel one; and hence that whelps of serpents were more kindly dealt with than the Jews. The people had to do with nothing but cruelty, there being no one to succour them in their miseries. Thus the force would be, not that the people are accused of cruelty in not nourishing their children, but that they were given up to the most relentless of enemies. But I see no force in his reasoning which appears to be founded on unacquaintance with the Hebrew idiom, the masculine gender being used for emphasis where formally we might have expected the feminine, as not infrequently happens. Hence there is no real ground for going on with the allusion to the ostrich, as if the prophet meant that the Jews were so destitute of every help that they were banished into solitary places beyond the sight of men.

The true meaning is far more expressive and sets forth the awful state of the Jews, when not enemies only but those who should have been their own tenderest protectors were destitute of feelings found in the fiercest brutes, and only comparable for heartlessness to creatures of the most exceptional hardness and folly. Such were the mothers of Salem in the outpouring of Jeremiah’s grief.

Accordingly in verse 1 he pursues the case. “The tongue of the suckling cleaveth to its palate for thirst; infants ask bread – none breaketh [it] for them.” Such was the pitiable state of children from the tenderest days upward. Was it any better with their elders? “They that fed daintily perish in the streets; they who were brought up on scarlet embrace dung hills.” (Ver. 5.) Parents and other adults were famishing and dying of hunger, and this gladly as it were on the dunghill instead of the splendid couches on which they used to recline when weary of pleasure itself.

Next the prophet draws out the proof that the vengeance under which the people were worse than that of Sodom, especially in this, that the notorious city of the plain was overwhelmed in a sudden blow of destruction, whereas that of Jerusalem was prolonged and most varied agony. “For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.” (Verse 6.) The “hands” of man added to the soreness of the Jewish chastening: Sodom was dealt with by God without any human intervention. Compare the feeling of David when he brought to the verge of ruin the people whom God had entrusted him to feed. (2Sa 24:13 , 2Sa 24:14 .)

Nor does any consecration to God avail to shelter: so complete the ruin, so unsparing the vengeance let loose on every class and every soul. “Her Nazarites were brighter than snow, they were whiter than milk; they were more ruddy in body than rubies (or coral), their cutting (shape) of sapphire. Their aspect is darker than dusk, they are not known in the streets; their skin cleaveth to their bones, it is dried up like a stick.” Nothing availed in presence of these searching desolating judgments. The blessing which was once so marked on those separated was now utterly and manifestly fled, yea, wretchedness as under His ban had taken its place. And so truly was it so, that he proceeds to show how but a choice of ills awaited the Jew, a violent death or a life yet more horrible. “Happier the slain with the sword than the slain with hunger; because these pine away pierced through for the fruits of the field,”* i.e., for the want of them. For it is very forced to take it as Calvin does, pierced through by the fruits of the earth, as if the productions of the earth became swords.

So obliterated were all traces of compassion or even natural feeling that, as we are next told, “the hands of pitiful women boiled their children; they became their food in the destruction of the daughter of my people.” (Ver. 10.) Nothing could account for such barbarity but that which he adds immediately after (ver. 11): “Jehovah hath spent his fury; be hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion which hath devoured her foundations.” What can be more thorough than to devour foundations? So it was declared of God against Jerusalem for their heinous sins. Impossible to escape His hand stretched out against His own: how deep their sin and vain to deny it!

Lam 4:12-22 .

Verse 12 introduces a new topic, which gives remarkable vividness to the prophet’s picture of Jerusalem’s desolation. It was not the king of Judah who was surprised at the taking of his capital, but the kings of the earth who treated it as incredible that they could force it; it was not the Jews merely who fondly dreamt that their city was impregnable, but all the inhabitants of the world gave up the hope as vain. “The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.” (Ver. 12.)

This prepares the way for a fresh exposure of the real causes of Jerusalem’s ruin. Their sins were so glaring, where they where most odious and offensive, that God must have denied Himself if He had not brought His people down to the dust and scattered them to the ends of the earth. “Because of the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her, they wandered blind in the streets, they were defiled with blood, so that men could not touch their garments.” (Ver. 13, 11.) The greater the privilege in having such servants of Jehovah, the more distressing that they should pollute His name and people.

There is no reason that I know for Calvin’s version of the last clause of verse 14: “They were defiled with blood, because they could not but touch their garments.” It seems indeed an ungrounded departure from the common and correct translation, both in giving the reason where it should be rather a statement of consequence, and in needlessly supposing a particle which brings in a very different idea. Nor do I see any just meaning in what results; for where would be the force of saying that they were defiled with blood because they could not but touch their garments? One could understand pollution from such contact, but hardly with blood from it. As the clause stands in the common version, the import appears to be that wandering blindly in the streets they defiled themselves in the worst way possible, with blood, so that their very garments must pollute any who might touch them. So universal was the defilement of the holy city that the clothes of the inhabitants could not be touched without contamination to others. There was as it were a fretting leprosy in the whole body politic. “Depart, unclean, they called out to them; depart, depart, touch not. So they flee away and also wander. They say among the nations, they shall dwell no more [there].” Thus most graphically does the prophet show that the exile of the Jew from the land was inevitable and of another character from an ordinary deportation of a people through the cruelty of a conqueror or the jealousy of an ambitious rival nation. It was in vain for the Jews to flatter themselves that it was God employing them for a season as a missionary people: God will send them forth; a few preparatorily to the kingdom, and when it is set up yet more largely as a nation. But here it is a people once holy, now profane, not honoured in a gracious service and a grave trust, but punished for their dishonour of His law and sanctuary, and hence outcasts so ignominious that they flee themselves like lepers, proclaiming their own defilement and misery. So complete is the ruin that among the nations it is said, They shall no more sojourn in their land and city.

But this is an error. Impossible that God should be defeated by Satan, good by evil, in the long run. Appearances in this world ever give such expectations; and unbelieving man is as ready to credit them as to doubt God. But in the midst of judgment God remembers mercy; and therefore the more unsparing He might be, the more assuredly He would turn again with deliverance for His own name’s sake. “The face [i.e. anger] of Jehovah hath divided them, he will no more regard them: they respected not the faces of the priests, they spared not the elders.” (Ver. 16.) Undoubtedly their overthrow was complete, and the contempt of the enemy so much the better because their success was beyond their own hopes; for there had ever been a lurking fear that God would avenge their wrongs and once more espouse the cause of His people. But now that He gave them up to the will of His adversaries, their pleasure, was to wound them to the quick in the persons of the most honoured sons of Zion.

And what could the prophet say in extenuation? He could only add here another heavy fault: “As yet for us [i.e., while we yet remained], our eyes failed for our vain help; on our watchtowers we watched for a nation that could not save us.” (Ver. 17.) They turned with longing desires after Egypt against the Chaldeans, instead of turning to God in repentance of heart, spite of reiterated warning from His prophets not to trust in an arm of flesh, least of all in that broken reed.

But no: sentence was passed by God, incensed with the unwearied evils of His people; and the fiercest of the heathen were let loose as executors of His wrath upon them. “They hunted our steps, so that we could not walk in our streets; our end was near, our days were fulfilled, for our end had come. Our persecutors are swifter than the eagles of the heaven: they pursued us upon the mountains, they laid wait for us in the wilderness.” (Ver. 18, 19.) No mountain was steep, no desert lonely, enough to protect the guilty fugitives. It was God who was punishing them by means most just, yet to them most painful, for their revolt from Himself.

Alas! the remnant returned from Babylon have only added another and incomparably worse sin in the rejection of the Messiah and the refusal of the gospel, so that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

But even then how lamentable the desolation! “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Jehovah, was taken in their pits, of whom was said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen.” (Ver. 20.) It is of course Zedekiah who is alluded to. They had hoped in his office, whatever his demerits personally, forgetting that all the honour God bestowed on it was in view of Christ, who alone shall bear the glory. But their hearts were in the present, not really for Messiah; and they had only to lie down disappointed in sorrow.

Did Edom then taunt their fallen brother in the day of his distress? Indeed they did it with murderous treacherous hatred too. Hence the apostrophe of the prophet. “Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked. The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion; he will no more carry thee away into captivity: he will visit thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom; he will discover thy sins.” (Ver. 21, 22.) Did they say in the day of Jerusalem, Down with it, down with it to the very foundation? They too must be brought to shame. If the Chaldean swept the holy land, the daughter of Edom must await no less when her day came to be carried away captive for her sins.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

This chapter, like Lamentations 1 and Lamentations 2, is an acrostic: the twenty-two verses commencing successively with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

gold . . . most fine gold . . . fine gold. Figure of speech Anabasis, which is lost in Authorized Version rendering, which should be “gold . . . fine gold . . . pure gold”.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 4

The fourth lamentation:

How is the gold become dim! the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter! Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, and they give suck to their young ones ( Lam 4:1-3 ):

The mammals in the sea nurse their little ones.

the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches of the wilderness ( Lam 4:3 ).

Now, the ostrich totally forsakes its eggs. It lays its eggs and leaves them; it has nothing to do with the raising of its kids, just has no concern. Doesn’t even know the eggs ever hatched and doesn’t really care if the egg ever hatched. It just lays its eggs in the sand and that’s it, forgets all about them. If they make it, they make it on their own. The mother ostrich has no mothering instincts. But the mammals in the sea nurse the little ones. But the daughter of my people, the young mothers in Jerusalem had become like ostriches in that they weren’t concerned with their offspring anymore.

The tongue of the nursing child cleaves to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask for bread, and no man breaks it unto them. They that did feed delicately ( Lam 4:4-5 )

Those that used to dine at Gulliver’s

are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, because at least they were overthrown in a moment [they were destroyed], no hands stayed on her ( Lam 4:4-6 ).

Theirs was an instant death. That is much better than death by starvation.

Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire ( Lam 4:7 ):

The young men who had made their commitments, the Nazarite vows to God, but now,

Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin is cleaving to their bones ( Lam 4:8 );

They’re like walking skeletons.

it is withered, it is become like a stick. They that are slain with the sword are really better off than those that are slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for the want of the fruits of the field. The hands of the pitiful women have boiled their own children: and they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people. The LORD has accomplished his fury, he has poured out his fierce anger, he has kindled a fire in Zion, and it has devoured the foundations thereof. The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem ( Lam 4:7-12 ).

It was thought to be impregnable. It sits there on the hill with the walls around it. They thought that the city was impregnable. The inhabitants of the earth would never have believed that Jerusalem could be taken. And yet it is now destroyed.

For the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her, They have wandered as blind men in the streets, they have polluted themselves with blood, so that men could not touch their garments. They cried unto them, Depart ye; it is unclean; depart, depart, don’t touch: when they fled away and wondered, they said among the heathen, They shall no more sojourn there. The anger of the LORD hath divided them; he will no more regard them: they respected not the persons of the priests, they favored not the elders. As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save us. They hunt our steps, that we cannot go in the streets: our end is near, our days are fulfilled; for our end is come. Our persecutors are swifter than eagles of heaven: they have pursued us on the mountains, they laid wait for us in the wilderness. The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the LORD, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen. Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom [that is their perennial enemy], that dwells in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shall make thyself naked. The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion; he will no more carry thee away into captivity: he will visit thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom; he will discover thy sins ( Lam 4:13-22 ).

So Edom is rejoicing, but just wait, yours is coming. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Lam 4:1-11

Judgments against the ungodly inhabitants of Judah

(Lam 4:1-11)

How is the gold become dim! [how] is the most pure gold changed! The stones of the sanctuary are poured out at the head of every street. The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter! Even the jackals draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: The daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: The young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: They that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. For the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom, That was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands were laid upon her (Lam 4:1-6).

A people once viewed as gold for value in the eyes of God were now considered worthless earthen vessels. Mothers did not take care of their children, and so they were compared to the ostrich that lay its eggs and left them to hatch and fend for themselves. Judah s sins were greater than that of Sodom s, and so her punishment is greater. Sodom was destroyed mercifully by Jehovah God in a moment whereas Judah suffered day in and day out with famine, pestilence, and sword. Judah’s children were filled with thirst and hunger until death set in.

Her nobles were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk; They were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was as of sapphire. Their visage is blacker than a coal; They are not known in the streets: Their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick. They that are slain with the sword are better than they that are slain with hunger; For these pine away, stricken through, for want of the fruits of the field. The hands of the pitiful women have boiled their own children; They were their food in the destruction of the daughter of my people. Jehovah hath accomplished his wrath, he hath poured out his fierce anger; And he hath kindled a fire in Zion, which hath devoured the foundations thereof (Lam 4:7-11).

The health of Judah was gone. They were withered away in hunger, and their skin clung tightly to their bones for want of food. Mothers took their own children and boiled them in pots for food. Such acts indicate that Gods wrath has been poured out upon the people for their gross sin.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The fourth poem is for the most part a dirge of desolation, which nevertheless ends in a song of hope. Jeremiah first described the disaster in Zion, declaring that it all arose as the result of the sin of the people, which was greater than that of Sodom. He then described the degradation of the people. From the perfection of health her nobles have degenerated into men on whom the stamp of an unutterable disease is clearly set.

All this has resulted from the sins of the prophets and the iniquities of the priests. Those who have guided men in the purity of their lives were blind and polluted to such an extent that the people held them in contempt, cried after them, “Unclean,” and besought them to depart. The prophet then proceeded to deal with the folly of the men who had sought help from the nations, describing the useless looking of the eyes for help, and then the remorselessness of the enemies who hunted and pursued them to death. He ended with a satirical address to Edom, calling upon her to rejoice, but declaring that the cup should pass to her also, and a final word of hope for Zion in that the punishment of her iniquity was accomplished.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Chapter 4 – THE FINE GOLD BECOME DIM

Of a deeply spiritual character is the grief expressed in the lament of the fourth chapter. It is not now the temporal sorrows of the people of Judah and Jerusalem that occupy the prophet’s mind, but their unhappy estate as away from God and no longer a testimony for Him in the earth. The past and the present stand out in vivid contrast. In days gone by, what grace has been manifested in them! Now, alas, how utterly fallen have they become!

“How is the gold become dim! How is the most fine gold changed! The stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion , comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!” (v.1-2). Failure has characterized every dispensation since Eve reached forth her hand and took of that which God had forbidden. “Man being in honour, abideth not, but is as the beasts that perish.” Every fresh trial vouchsafed by God to man has but given occasion for the further manifestation of the incurable evil of his heart. Under conscience, from Adam to Noah, corruption and violence filled the earth. Under government, from Noah to Abraham, he forsook the true Governor of the universe; and not liking to retain God in his knowledge, worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator. Under promise and law, from Abraham to Christ, he violated every precept and broke every pledge; and at last, his awful course of wilfulness and rebellion culminated in the crucifixion of the Prince of Life. Under grace, the present dispensation of the Holy Spirit, he has turned that very grace into lasciviousness, and corrupted every truth committed to the Church.

If the long period from Abraham to Christ be subdivided into the numerous sections into which it readily falls, then each of them becomes a witness to the same sad failure. The days of the patriarchs witnessed the treachery of the sons of Jacob, and the resultant descent into Egypt . The wilderness was a forty years’ record of God’s faithfulness and man’s unreliability. The days of the Judges but confirmed the same story; while the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel emphasized still more the deceitfulness of the human heart. From time to time God wrought in power and grace, giving revival and blessing; but soon the people wearied of His law, and gave themselves up to doing their own pleasure, “till there was no remedy,” and Assyria and Babylon swallowed up the favoured people.

“Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our admonition.” Israel ‘s history has often been duplicated by that of the professing Church; for “as in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man.” Only, in Christendom, the corruption has been even more detestable and the departure from God even more glaring. He, blessed be His name, has never left Himself without witness; and, as in the past dispensation, so in this, has ever and anon worked in power bringing about special awakenings, thus rousing those who were sleeping among the dead to renewed activity and true-hearted judgment of what they saw His Word condemned. But how soon the manifested energy of the Spirit declines, because of a settling back into the old ways, or worse ones, of the next generation. What is predicted of Israel in Jos 24:13 has had its counterpart again and again down through the centuries since the ascension of the Lord Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit. “And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord that He had done for Israel .” But the generations following soon relapse into formality and worldliness. The fine gold soon becomes dim, and the freshness of early days passes away. Yet it need not be so. If careful to maintain a good conscience before God; if watchful as to the first beginnings of departure from the place of communion; above all, if prayerful and dependent, the dew of youth need never be lost: or, if so, it will be but to give place to the more mature grace of a Spirit-filled old age. This is equally true of movements as of individuals; only the difficulty there is greater, because movements are composed of individuals, and only by each unit going on with God can the mass do so.

In Judah ‘s case it had, as has been made solemnly patent, become far otherwise. “The precious sons of Zion , comparable to fine gold,” were esteemed as earthen pottery. The glory had departed. There was no power to nourish the young. “The daughter of my people,” complains Jeremiah, “is become cruel like the ostriches in the wilderness,” who leave their offspring to shift for themselves. In vain the children cried for bread; no man gave to them; while the tongue of the babe cleaved to the roof of its mouth for thirst (v.3-4). Unspeakably sad is the state of God’s people when their assemblies are not like nurseries where new-born babes and young saints can find nourishing food such as is suitable for them. It is to be feared the needs of the lambs are often forgotten; and, alas, oftener still there is nought to feed them with because all is parched and dry. If older saints are living for the world, it is small wonder that the babes languish and succumb at last to the withering influences about them, so far as their joy and testimony are concerned.

Because of their own famished condition, the mothers of Judah could not nourish their children. “They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets; they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills” (v.5); so that their punishment seemed to be even greater than that of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment, while with Judah the agony was long continued.

“Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire; their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick” (v.7-8). In order to understand what the prophet refers to in these verses, it is necessary that one be somewhat familiar with the law of the Nazarite as given in Numbers 6.To many of our readers this edifying portion of Scripture is familiar; but as it may not be so to some of them, it may be profitable to turn aside for a little to consider what is there set forth.

The Nazarite, as his name implies (from a root, meaning to separate), was one who was in a special sense separated to the Lord his God. All Israel were redeemed to be the people of God but all were not Nazarites. All Christians, however, as Nazarites, are called unreservedly to devote themselves to the Lord. It is to every saved one that the apostle addresses himself when he writes, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable (or, intelligent) service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Rom 12:1-2). It will be seen that actually this is far from being true of all believers, nor perhaps of any of them at all times. The Lord Jesus was the true Nazarite, separated to God from His lowly birth to His death of shame upon the tree. We are called undoubtedly to “follow His steps;” but it is sad indeed to realize how few maintain the Nazarite character.

There were three chief things in which the Nazarite of old was peculiar. (1) In Num 6:3-4, it was written, “He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink.” It is clearly specified that he was to partake of no product whatever of the vine tree, “from the kernels even to the husk.”

(2) In v.5 we read, “All the days of the vow of his separation there shall come no razor upon his head.” He was to let the locks of hair grow long like those of a woman.

(3) Again, in v.6 we are told, “All the days that he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall come at no dead body.” It is particularly stated that he was not in this respect to make himself unclean even for his father, his mother, or any of his kin.

Each command has a distinct lesson in it, Wine, in Scripture, symbolizes joy (Jdg 9:13; Psa 104:15). The Nazarite must forego it. This world cannot minister to the joy of those who walk with God. Many Christians seem never to learn this. But such is the fact; and the sooner it is learned the better. The Nazarite is not without joy; but his are deeper, purer joys than this world’s vines can offer. The wine of earth may stimulate and excite the fancy, thereby causing a thrill of pleasure for the moment; but it can never produce that deep-toned joy which characterizes the one who, like Enoch, walks with God. “The joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh 8:10), but it comes down from heaven. No plant of this sin-cursed scene produces it, Secondly, the Nazarite allowed the hair of his head to grow. According to 1 Cor.11, long hair is the proper covering for the woman, telling of her place of subjection in the present order of things since the fall (Gen 3:16; 1Co 11:4-15). If the man has long hair, it is a shame unto him; but it is a glory to the woman, for “her hair is given her for a covering.” The long hair speaks, then, of the place of dependence. In the Nazarite we see one who has voluntarily surrendered what man would call “his rights” and his independence in order to be wholly in subjection to God. The Lord Jesus is the great exemplar in this, as in all else, for He could say, “I came not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.” This was the more remarkable in Him, as He was the only man who ever had title to do His own will: but He voluntarily surrendered that title; and humbling himself, became the dependent Man in the fullest sense. In the same way must the man of God lay aside his own thoughts and inclinations to make the will of the Lord supreme in his life.

Thirdly, the Nazarite was not to be defiled by the dead. So the believer who would devote himself to the Lord is called upon to walk apart from all the defiling influences of this scene. Hearing the word of Jesus, “Let the dead bury their dead, follow thou Me,” it should be his to turn aside at once from everything that would grieve the Holy Spirit and dull his spiritual sensibilities, in order to be the Lord’s alone. It is quite possible to be a Nazarite at times, and not at others. The balance of the chapter shows the solemn result of defilement. If brought into contact with death, all the days of his separation that went before would be lost, because his separation had become defiled (v.9-12). He could only be restored to that place of special blessing and privilege, as well as of responsibility, by bringing the prescribed offerings, which set forth the cross and the Holy One who hung there.

Not until the days of his separation were over, was he to shave his head and be free to eat or drink of the fruit of the vine. For the believer this will only be when the wilderness journey is over and the glory is entered. Then, with the Lord who loved us, we shall drink the new wine in the Father’s kingdom, where pure joys, unsullied by sin, shall be the portion of our hearts forever.

Having before us the truth which the Spirit of God would impart concerning the Nazarite, we turn to the 7th and 8th verses of our chapter with a tender and sad interest. The past days of devotion to God are contrasted with the awful failure of their present condition. “Her Nazarites were purer than snow: .their visage blacker than a coal.” How terrible the declension! Judah ‘s godliest and goodliest sons, once her proper pride, are now unknown in the streets, so changed are they by famine and pestilence. Their lot was even harder than that of those who had been slain with the sword, for “these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field” (v.9). There is no hint of intentional defilement on the part of the Nazarites; but the dead were everywhere, and to escape becoming unclean thereby would have been impossible: they share in the afflictions of the nation of which they form a part. In a still deeper sense is this true of those who, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, are members of the Church, the Body of Christ. “If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it.” The sin of Christendom is, in a way, our common sin; we are all in our measure accountable for its failure. It becomes us, therefore, not to spend our time pointing out for reprobation, or holding up to ridicule, the evils and follies into which our fellow-members may have fallen. Rather be it ours to confess our share in its sin and consequent ruin, and look to God for His mercy for revival and blessing.

In Jerusalem ‘s distress, the fearful predictions made by Moses (Deu 28:56-57; Lev 26:29) were again fulfilled, as they had been on several occasions in the past (2Ki 6:26-29). When “the hands of the pitiful women” could thus be stretched forth against their poor starved children, it is clear that the famine had done its worst (v.10). Therefore the next verse declares that “the Lord hath accomplished His fury; He hath poured out His fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion , and it hath devoured the foundations thereof. The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy could have entered into the gates of Jerusalem .” But it was “because of the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of her priests, who have shed the blood of the righteous in the midst of her” (v.11-13). In His righteous anger God had brought Zion to the lowest depths, else, what could the nations have done against her?

It will be remembered that in Jer 5:1 the Lord promised to pardon the city if even one person was found in it who executed judgment and sought the truth. One might wonder there were not to be found in Jerusalem a few righteous ones, as in a former day were found in Sodom; but, alas, they had all been slain or driven away by these ungodly priests and false prophets. A new translation, which we follow here, will make the following verses plainer: “It is for the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of her priests, who have shed the blood of the righteous in the midst of her. They wandered about blind in the streets, they were polluted with blood, so that men could not touch their garments. They cried unto them, Depart, unclean! Depart, depart, touch not! When they fled away and wandered about, it was said among the nations, They shall no more sojourn there. The face of Jehovah hath divided them; He will no more regard them. They respected not the persons of the priests, they regarded not the aged” (v.13-16). The false prophets and false priests had put the just to death, or driven them into banishment. These faithful men “had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth” (Heb 11:36-38). God’s witnesses were despised and hated by the very people to whom they sought to minister. Isaiah, according to Jewish tradition, was sawn asunder. Elijah’s life was sought by Jezebel and Ahab; Obadiah had to hide the prophets of the Lord in a cave; Amaziah endeavoured to intimidate Amos (Amo 7:12-13); Jeremiah was imprisoned on several occasions, and would have been left to die in the pit but for Ebed-melech; Baruch’s life was declared forfeited. Thus, in a later day, Stephen could ask, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before the coming of the Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers” (Act 7:52). In rejecting those sent of God they rejected the Sender: therefore the woes that had come upon them.

Egypt is evidently referred to in v.17, as a “nation that could not save us.” To the last Zedekiah and his ministers counted upon help from Pharaoh, but in vain. God had said that Egypt was a bruised reed, and so it proved to be.

The keen eye of the ever-present Babylonians they could not escape. The steps of the men of Judah were noted. They did not dare show themselves in the streets. Their persecutors were “swifter than the eagles of the heaven:” on the mountains and in the plains they pursued or laid wait for them (v.18-19). The king had been captured, despite his effort to escape with a few devoted retainers. “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen (or, nations)” (v.20). Not till the true “Anointed of the Lord” comes, will there be a ruler under whose shadow His people can dwell in perfect security.

Edom had rejoiced in the day of Judah ‘s calamity. The cup should soon pass to her. She must be made drunken and naked because of her exultation in the downfall of the city of God , and her manifold iniquities (v.21). The punishment of the daughter of Zion was accomplished. Restoration in place of captivity should soon be her portion, but Edom ‘s judgment was just about to begin. “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

CHAPTER 4 The Departed Glory and the Cup of Shame

This new lament begins with a description of the former glory of Zion and its present wretchedness; the glory is departed:

How is the gold become dim! The most pure gold changed! The stones of the sanctuary are poured forth at the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion, just like fine gold– How are they now esteemed like earthen pitchers: the work of the potters hands! Even the jackals draw out the breast, giving suck to their young– The daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst. The young children ask bread, no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feel delicately are desolate in the streets. They that were brought up in scarlet embrace dung hills.

What degradation and shame! The Lord had called Zion to be like the pure gold, precious and glorious. In his beautiful parable, Ezekiel speaks thus of Jerusalems glory: Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen and silk and broidered work, thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil; and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper in a kingdom Eze 16:13. The gold is become dim, the pure gold changed. Instead of the linen and silk there is sackcloth and ashes; instead of the flour, the honey, and the oil, there is want and famine. When the golden-glory departed from Zion, then the Lord revealed that Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold, the starting point of the times of the Gentiles. The glory had departed and Zion had to drink of shame and want to the full on account of her sins (Lam 4:6). And what a contrast now between what the Nazarites and nobles of the nation were once and what they are now. They were purer than snow, whiter than milk, and now they are blacker than coal. They were ruddy in body; and now their skin cleaveth to their bones. What a horrible transformation sin had wrought! Sin is a robber; sin brings its wages. It robs of glory and gives nothing but suffering, shame and death. All that God had spoken long ago, the very curses generation after generation had read in the book of the law Deu 28:56-68; Lev 26:29, had come upon them. The kings of the earth, the inhabitants of the world, knew that Jerusalem was unconquerable, for the Lord of all the earth was Zions King and Lord. What no earthly power could have done, to enter Jerusalem and spoil the city, the Lord had done, on account of the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her. Jerusalem was built again. Once more after the seventy years the city was restored, the temple rebuilt. Then the just One came, the Messiah of David, the Lord of Glory. They shed the blood of the just One, and now, as Lam 4:14 says, They wander about blind.

And Edom! She had rejoiced at Zions overthrow, even as Gentiles have despised Israel. But there is judgment in store for the nations, mercy for Israel, when the punishment is accomplished. He will no more carry thee away into captivity.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

How is the gold: 2Ki 25:9, 2Ki 25:10, Isa 1:21, Isa 14:12, Eze 7:19-22

the stones: Lam 2:19, Jer 52:13, Mat 24:2, Mar 13:2, Luk 21:5, Luk 21:6

Reciprocal: Deu 28:16 – in the city 1Ki 14:27 – made 2Ch 12:10 – shields of brass 2Ch 36:19 – they burnt Psa 42:4 – When Psa 89:44 – Thou Isa 1:22 – silver Isa 14:4 – golden city Isa 63:18 – our Jer 2:21 – into the degenerate Jer 7:14 – as Jer 48:39 – How is it Lam 1:1 – How doth Lam 1:9 – came Lam 2:4 – he poured Lam 4:8 – they Eze 22:18 – brass Mic 1:6 – and I will pour Nah 3:10 – at Hag 1:4 – and

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Lam 4:1. The materials named in this verse have a somewhat figurative meaning. The passage denotes the loss by Jerusalem of her glory.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Lam 4:1-2. How is the gold become dim How is the glory of the temple obscured! The sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold, (2Ch 3:8,) now lies in ruins; and the stones of it are not distinguished from common rubbish. It is probable that the prophet, in these words, alluded to the priests, princes, and chief persons of the country, who, though they might have been compared to the pillars, or corner-stones of that sacred building, yet were now involved in the same common destruction with the meanest of the people. The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold Those that in honour and worth exceeded others as much as fine gold doth other metals, are now disgraced and set at naught.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Lam 4:1-2. How is the gold, zahab, so called because of its superior lustre to other metals, now become dim. Gold does not oxidize, and scarcely receives a tarnish; yet the rulers and priests have degenerated into base mixtures; and so much so, as to be vile as the potters vessels.

Lam 4:3. Even the sea-monsters, tinnin, draw out the breast. Our elder critics, less acquainted with natural history, read dragons, serpents of the larger species. But as whales are assuredly of the mammalia class, and give suck to their young, our version appears to be correct. The balna, or whale, is the largest species of living beings which sport in the seas. One was caught in Greenland ninety feet in length; one in the south seas, where they are less disturbed, a hundred and six feet. Even the careless ostriches will cover up their eggs in the sands, and leave them to be hatched in the sun; but now, during the horrors of famine, even mothers become unnatural.

Lam 4:7. Her Nazarites were purer than snow, whiter than milk, more ruddy than rubies, as described in Lev 6:1. And if men looked so well who drank no wine, what need have we of tobacco and gin? These debilitate the constitution, and destroy our national character: ruin in every form attends their train.

Lam 4:8. Their visage is blacker than a coal. When the bile can form no chemical combination with the aliments for want of food, the absorbent vessels convey it to the blood, which turns the aspect to a sable hue; so that a man can scarcely know his brother.

Lam 4:12. The kings of the earth, deeming Jerusalem an impregnable city, could not believe that the Chaldeans could have forced her gates. Of what use are walls to a great city? If fifty thousand men cannot defend it, walls, by the calamities of the siege, do but augment the vengeance of the assailants.

Lam 4:13. For the sins of her prophets, ever the first to persecute the true prophets, and to shed the blood of the just, the city was delivered to the enemy. Read their deeds, as recorded in 2Ch 24:20. Jer 5:11. Mat 23:35.

Lam 4:18. They, the Chaldean cavalry, hunt our steps on the mountains. They are swifter than eagles, leaving no hopes of escape, while they search the whole land for spoils and for food. They spare neither virgin, nor hoary age, nor the sucking child.

Lam 4:21. Rejoice and be glad, oh daughter of Edom. These are words of consummate irony; for the sword in three or four years would be at her gates. Jer 47:7. It is not wise to rejoice at a neighbours calamity; for we know not how soon it may be our own case.

REFLECTIONS.

How dreadful are the horrors of famine. This is the final argument with an impregnable fortress to surrender. The soldier loses all his courage when he comes to fight with death. Why then should sinners be at war with omnipotence? The mountains are no defence, neither can the caverns afford retreat.

In the fall of Jerusalem, we see the instability of all worldly glory. Davids house loses the crown; the fine gold becomes base by deteriorations; the holy temple, once the glory and boast of the whole earth, now in flames.

He builds too low, who builds beneath the skies. YOUNG.

Let us then build on Christ the rock of ages, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Jeremiah boldly names the cause of Zions fall. It was the sins of her false prophets, and prophets mostly of the sacerdotal order. They misused and killed the prophets of the Lord, 2Ch 36:16; and polluted the sanctuary, which pollutions could not be purged but by the blood of the culprits. Thus the aged oak begins to decay first at the heart. It is a bitter complaint of Peter Jurieu, that the persecution of the French protestants was undertaken at the particular solicitations of the clergy; and the visitations on that order resembled those which befel the house of Aaron. How wonderful are thy judgments, oh Lord!

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Lamentations 4. The Fourth Lament.This has less literary finish than Lam 4:3, and it has also less spiritual value. It lacks much of the saints whom one seems to see in Lam 4:1, and we miss the love of worship that appears to be breathed in 2. The keenest pang felt in this fourth chant is in behalf of the suffering king of Judah. If we are right in thinking that it dates from about 60 B.C., then we may say that it was penned by a Sadducee, some strong supporter of the Maccabean, or new David dynasty. Hence we may explain the bitter spite which at the close it flings at the Edomites, or Idumeans, the Herods who displaced the Maccabeans, having got their power by base trafficking with the Romans. In versification the chant is of its own sort. It is in pentameters, as in Lam 4:1, Lam 4:2, and Lam 4:3; but the stanzas have only two lines each, while the others had always three. It is an alphabetic acrostic, as before; and while the characteristic letter stands at the beginning of the first line only, yet in the second or Beth stanza, with a Beth as initial of its first line, the initial of the second line is an Aleph, and the initial of the second line of the third or Gimel stanza is a Beth. The scholastic writer seems to have been trying to invent a new feature: he does not, however, persist in it very far. Again, the Pe stanza (Lam 4:16) is set before the Ayin (Lam 4:17) as in chs. 2 and 3: perhaps it was the same writer that composed all three, and the order of these letters may have been a dialectical peculiarity of his home region.

The chant is one long wail for Zion, with a short parenthesis (Lam 4:13-16) laying the blame of all the woes upon prophets and such priests as are of the prophetic party. This would agree with the theory of authorship by a Sadducee or courtier, for these Sadducees disliked the prophets. The song bewails one class of the people after another: in Lam 4:1-4, mothers are starving, and are deserting their children as the ostrich deserts its eggs; in Lam 4:5 f. the ruin of the nobles has been more sudden and awful than that of Sodom, where there was not time to writhe the hands before death silenced all; Lam 4:7-10, the princes, once all beauty, are now all defaced. It were better to be stabbed to death than to starve. In Lam 4:10 the second reference to mothers who are eating their children may mean that even princesses are doing this. Then Lam 4:11 f. laments Yahwehs fury and His act of bringing enemies into Zion, as too strange a thing for anyone in all the world to believe. The parenthesis (Lam 4:13-16) blaming prophets and priests, looks on these as moral lepers, filthy beyond any pity: it is some comfort that it is Yahweh Himself who sends them wandering out and away as pariahs. In Lam 4:16 is an interesting use of the Face of Yahweh (mg.) as a substitute for Yahweh Himself: this was very common in the later days.

Lam 4:17-20 recounts the sorry tale of the expected help, which never came. Just so was Aristobulus treated by the Romans. The song tells how the desired cohorts became the most cruel destroyers: they have spied our every footstep, and, swifter than eagles, they have hunted us into the mountains. This seems like an allusion to the Roman standards. And These, these, cries the singer, drove our dearest one, our hope, our King, the Anointed of Yahweh out into the Idumean wilds to be caught in their snares. Just thus does Josephus tell us that Aristobulus trusted Edom for protection: but there he was trapped, for Edom was in league with his foes (see Josephus, Ant. xiv. 13). The use of the word Anointed for the king of Judah suggests a late date: the term is scarcely used in the earlier literature. In late Pss. it becomes very common. Note also that the writer would probably avoid using the word king, lest the Roman rulers should be jealous of such a seeming aim at setting up an independent royalty. A fierce curse on Edom (i.e. Idumea) closes the Lament; and this is sharpened to the utmost by the claim that the sin of Judah shall be altogether forgotten, when it is seen contrasted with the sad baseness of Idumea. In Lam 4:21 there is a word too many: omit the land of, rather than (with LXX) Uz.

Ere we leave the chant, let us notice that the customary translations in AV, RV, etc., miss the fine shadings which Heb. writers could put into their verb-forms: so Lam 4:1 should be How is gold going to grow dim? Even fine gold shall be dimmed! The writer was expecting worse things than he had yet seen.

Lam 4:9 should run, Well off were those who were stabbed with the sword: better off than those stabbed by hunger. For they were going to pine away, riddled through and through. On the other hand, events that are actually past are meant in Lam 4:22, Thy waywardness is complete (done with), O Judah; but He has now also looked in on thy waywardness, O Edom; He has uncovered whatever hid thy faults.

Finally, this singer (a Hasmonean courtier, shall we say?) or this Sadducee is scarcely a saint; nor is he quite one of the ordinary people. He has a deep sorrow for the governmental troubles of Judah; and, having seen much past evil, he fears that much more is to come. He clings to the old faith that David shall never lack a true successor to sit upon his throne. He hungers for this token of Yahwehs promised, trysted Presence: he expects it in spite of all the woe. He too is waiting for the Consolation of Israel. But would he trust Him who came?

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

4:1 How is the {a} gold become dim! [how] is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out at the head of every street.

(a) By the gold he means the princes, as by the stones he understands the priests.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

A. Conditions during the siege 4:1-11

This section of the poem consists of two parallel parts (Lam 4:1-11). The Judahites had become despised (Lam 4:1-2; Lam 4:7-8), and both children and adults (everyone) suffered (Lam 4:3-5; Lam 4:9-10). This calamity was the result of Yahweh’s punishment for sin (Lam 4:6; Lam 4:11).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The first description of siege conditions 4:1-6

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

This lament resumes the characteristic "How" introduction (cf. Lam 1:1; Lam 2:1). The gold and precious stones that had decorated the temple no longer served that function. Jeremiah compared the precious inhabitants of Jerusalem (cf. Exo 19:5-6) to gold and gems. They now lay in the streets of the city defiled and dead.

"For those who esteemed themselves as high-quality gold, the kind of experience which reduced them to the level of base metal in the opinion of their enemies was of harrowing psychological and spiritual proportions." [Note: Harrison, Jeremiah and . . ., p. 232.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CONTRASTS

Lam 4:1-12

IN form the fourth elegy is slightly different from each of its predecessors. Following the characteristic plan of the Book of Lamentations, it is an acrostic of twenty-two verses arranged in the order of the Hebrew alphabet. In it we meet with the same curious transposition of two letters that is found in the second and third elegies; it has also the peculiar metre of Hebrew elegaic poetry-the very lengthy line, broken into two unequal parts. But, like the first and second, it differs from the third elegy, which repeats the acrostic letters in three successive lines, in only using each acrostic once at the beginning of a fresh verse; and it differs from all the three first elegies, which are arranged in triplets, in having only two lines in each verse.

This poem is very artistically constructed in the balancing of its ideas and phrases. The opening section of it, from the beginning to the twelfth verse, consists of a pair of duplicate passages-the first from verse one to verse six, the second from verse seven to verse eleven, the twelfth verse bringing this part of the poem to a close by adding a reflection on the common subject of the twin passages. Thus the parallelism which we usually meet with in individual verses is here extended to two series of verses, we might perhaps say, two stanzas, except that there is no such formal division.

In each of these elaborately-wrought sections the elegist brings out a rich array of similes to enforce the tremendous contrast between the original condition of the people of Jerusalem and their subsequent wretchedness. The details of the two descriptions follow closely parallel lines, with sufficient diversity, both in idea and in illustration, to avoid tautology and to serve to heighten the general effect by mutual comparisons. Both passages open with images of beautiful and costly natural objects to which the elite of Jerusalem are compared. Next comes the violent contrast of their state after the overthrow of the city. Then turning aside to more distant scenes, each of which is more or less repellent-the lair of wild beasts in the first case, in the second the battle-field-the poet describes the much more degraded and miserable condition of his people. Both passages direct especial attention to the fate of children-the first to their starvation, the second to a perfectly ghastly scene. At this point in each part the previous daintiness of the upbringing of the more refined classes is contrasted with the condition of degradation worse than that of savages to which they have been reduced. Each passage concludes with a reference to those deeper facts of the case which make it a sign of the wrath of heaven against exceptionally guilty sinners.

The elegist begins with an evident allusion to the consequences of the burning of the temple, which we learn from the history was effected by the Babylonian general Nebuzar-adan. {2Ki 25:9} The costly splendour with which this temple at Jerusalem was decorated allowed of a rare glitter of gold, such as Josephus describes when writing of the later temple; gold not like that of the domes of St. Marks, mellowed by the climate of Venice to a sober depth of hue, but all ablaze with dazzling radiance. The first effect of the smoke of a great conflagration would be to cloud and soil this somewhat raw magnificence, so that the choice gold became dull. That the precious stones stolen from the temple treasury would be flung carelessly about the streets, as our Authorised Version would seem to suggest, is not to be supposed in the case of the sack of a city by a civilised army, whatever might happen if a Vandal host swept through it. “The stones of the sanctuary,” {Lam 4:1} however, might be the stones with which the building had been constructed. Still, even with this interpretation the statement seems very improbable that the invaders would take the trouble to cart these huge blocks about the city in order to distribute them in heaps at all the street corners. We are driven to the conclusion that the poet is speaking metaphorically, that he is meaning the Jews themselves, or perhaps the more favoured classes, “the noble sons of Zion” of whom he writes openly in the next verse. {Lam 4:2} This interpretation is confirmed when we consider the comparison with the parallel passage, which starts at once with a reference to the “princes.” {Lam 4:7} It seems likely then that the gold that has been so sullied also represents the choicer part of the people. The writer deplores the destruction of his beloved sanctuary; and the image of that calamity is in his mind at the present time; and yet it is not this that he is most deeply lamenting. He is more concerned with the fate of his people. The patriot loves the very soil of his native land, the loyal citizen the very streets and stones of his city. But if such a man is more than a dreamer or a sentimentalist, flesh and blood must mean infinitely more to him than earth and stones. The ruin of a city is something else than the destruction of its buildings; an earthquake or a fire may effect this, and yet, like Chicago, the city may rise again in greater splendour. The ruin that is most deplorable is the ruin of human lives.

This somewhat aristocratic poet, the mouthpiece of an aristocratic age, compares the sons of the Jewish nobility to purest gold. Yet he tells us that they are treated as common earthen vessels, perhaps meaning in contrast to the vessels of precious metal used in the palaces of the great. They are regarded as of no more value than potters work, though formerly they had been prized as the dainty art of a goldsmith. This first statement only treats of insult and humiliation. But the evil is worse. The jackals that he knows must be prowling about the deserted ruins of Jerusalem even while he writes suggest a strange, wild image to the poets mind. {Lam 4:3} These fierce creatures suckle their young, though not in the tame manner of domestic animals. It is singular that the nurture of princes amid the refinements of wealth and luxury should be compared to the feeding of their cubs by. scavengers of the wilderness. But our thoughts are thus directed to the wide extent, the universal exercise of maternal instincts throughout the animal world, even among the most savage and homeless creatures. Startling indeed is it to think that such instincts should ever fail among men, or even that circumstances should ever hinder the natural performance of the functions to which they point with imperious urgency. Although the second passage tells of the violent reversal of the natural feelings of maternity under the maddening influence of famine, here we read how starvation has simply stopped the tender ministry which mothers render to their infants, with a vague hint at some cruelty on the part of the Jewish mothers. A comparison with the supposed conduct of ostriches in leaving their eggs suggests that this is negative cruelty; their hearts being frozen with agony, the wretched mothers lose all interest in their children. But then there is not food for them. The calamities of the times have staunched the mothers milk; and there is no bread for the older children. {Lam 4:4} It is the extreme reversal of their fortunes that makes the misery of the children of princely homes most acute; even those who do not suffer the pangs of hunger are flung down to the lowest depths of wretchedness. The members of the aristocracy have been accustomed to live luxuriously; now they wander about the streets devouring whatever they can pick up. In the old days of luxury they used to recline on scarlet couches; now they have no better bed than the filthy dunghill. {Lam 4:5}

The passage concludes with a reflection on the general character of this dreadful condition of Israel. {Lam 4:6} It must be closely connected with the sins of the people. The drift of the context would lead us to judge that the poet does not mean to compare the guilt of Jerusalem with that of Sodom, but rather the fate of the two cities. The punishment of Israel is greater than that of Sodom. But this is punishment; and the odious comparison would not be made unless the sin had been of the blackest dye. Thus in this elegy the calamities of Jerusalem are again traced back to the ill-doings of her people. The awful fate of the cities of the plain stands out in the ancient narrative as the exceptional punishment of exceptional wickedness. But now in the race for a first place in the history of doom Jerusalem has broken the record. Even Sodom has been eclipsed in the headlong course by the city once most favoured by heaven. It seems well-nigh impossible. What could be worse than total destruction by fire from heaven? The elegist considers that there are two points in the fate of Jerusalem that confer a gloomy pre-eminence in misery. The doom of Sodom was sudden, and man had no hand in it; but Jerusalem fell into the hands of man-a calamity which David judged to be worse than falling into the hands of God; and she had to endure a long, lingering agony.

Passing on to the consideration of the parallel section, we see that the author follows the same lines, though with considerable freshness of treatment. Still directing especial attention to the tremendous change in the fortunes of the aristocracy, he begins again by describing the splendour of their earlier state. This had been advertised to all eyes by the very complexion of their countenances. Unlike the toilers who were necessarily bronzed by working under a southern sun, these delicately nurtured persons had been able to preserve fair skins in the shady seclusion of their cool palaces, so that in the hyperbole of the poem they could be described as “purer than snow” and “whiter than milk.” {Lam 4:7} Yet they had no sickly pallor. Their health had been well attended to; so that they were also ruddy as “corals,” while their dark hair glistened “like sapphires,” But now see them! Their faces are “darker than blackness.” {Lam 4:8} We need not enquire after a literal explanation of an expression which is in harmony with the extravagance of Oriental language, although doubtless exposure to the weather, and the grime and smoke of the scenes these children of luxury had passed through, must have had a considerable effect on their effeminate countenances. The language here is evidently figurative. So it is throughout the passage. The whole aspect of the lives and fortunes of these delicately nurtured lordlings has been reversed. They tell their story by the gloom of their countenances and by the shrivelled appearance of their bodies. They can no longer be recognised in the streets, so piteous a change have their misfortunes wrought in them. Withered and wizen, they are reduced to skin and bone by sheer famine. Sufferers from such continuous calamities as these fallen princes are passing through are treated to a worse fate than that which overtook their brethren who fell in the war. The sword is better than hunger. The victims of war, stricken down in the heat of battle but in the midst of plenty, so that they leave the fruits of the field behind them untouched because no longer needed, are to be counted happy in being taken from the evil to come.

The gruesome horror of the next scene is beyond description. {Lam 4:10} More than once history has had to record the absolute extinction, nay, we must say the insane reversal, of maternal instincts under the influence of hunger. We could not believe it possible if we did not know that it had occurred. It is a degradation of what we hold to be most sacred in human nature; perhaps it is only possible where human nature has been degraded already, for we must not forget that in the present case the women who are driven below the level of she-wolves are not children of nature, but the daughters of an effete civilisation who have been nursed in the lap of luxury. This is the climax. Imagination itself could scarcely go further. And yet according to his custom throughout, the elegist attributes these calamities of his people to the anger of God. Such things seem to indicate a very “fury” of Divine wrath; the anger must be fierce indeed to kindle such “a fire in Zion.” {Lam 4:11} But now the very foundations of the city are destroyed even that terrible thirst for retribution must be satisfied.

These are thoughts which we as Christians do not care to entertain; and yet it is in the New Testament that we read that “our God is a consuming fire”; {Heb 12:29} and it is of our Lord that John the Baptist declares: “He will throughly purge His threshing-floor.” {Mat 3:12} If God is angry at all His anger cannot be light; for no action of His is feeble or ineffectual. The subsequent restoration of Israel shows that the fires to which the elegist here calls our attention were purgatorial. This fact must profoundly affect our view of their character. Still they are very real, or the Book of Lamentations would not have been written.

In view of the whole situation so graphically portrayed by means of the double line of illustrations the poet concludes this part of his elegy with a device that reminds us of the function of the chorus in the Greek drama. We see the kings of all other nations in amazement at the fate of Jerusalem. {Lam 4:12} The mountain city had the reputation of being an impregnable fortress, at least so her fond citizens imagined. But now she has fallen. It is incredible! The news of this wholly unexpected disaster is supposed to send a shock through foreign courts. We are reminded of the blow that stunned St. Jerome when a rumour of the fall of Rome reached the studious monk in his quiet retreat at Bethlehem. Men can tell that a severe storm has been raging out in the Atlantic if they see unusually great rollers breaking on the Cornish crags. How huge a calamity must that be the mere echo of which can produce a startling effect in far countries! But could these kings really be so astonished, seeing that Jerusalem had been captured twice before? The poets language rather points to the overweening pride and confidence of the Jews, and it shows how great the shock to them must have been since they could not but regard it as a wonder to the world. Such then is the picture drawn by our poet with the aid of the utmost artistic skill in bringing out its striking effects. Now before we turn away from it let us ask ourselves wherein its true significance may be said to lie. This is a study in black and white. The very language is such; and when we come to consider the lessons that language sets forth with so much sharpness and vigour, we shall see that they too partake of the same character.

The force of contrasts-that is the first and most obvious characteristic of the scene. We are very familiar with the heightening of effects by this means, and it is needless to repeat the trite lessons that have been derived from the application of it to life. We know that none suffer so keenly from adversity as those who were once very prosperous. Marius in the Mamertine dungeon, Napoleon at St. Helena, Nebuchadnezzar among the beasts, Dives in Hell, are but notorious illustrations of what we may all see on the smaller canvas of everyday life. Great as are the hardships of the children of the “slums,” it is not to them, but to the unhappy victims of a violent change of circumstances, that the burden of poverty is most heavy. We have seen this principle illustrated repeatedly in the Book of Lamentations. But now may we not go behind it, and lay hold of something more than an indubitable psychological law? While looking only at the reversals of fortune which may be witnessed on every hand, we are tempted to hold life to be little better than a gambling bout with high stakes and desperate play. Further consideration, however, should teach us that the stakes are not so high as they appear; that is to say, that the chances of the world do not so profoundly affect our fate as surface views would lead us to suppose. Such things as the pursuit of mere sensation, the life of external aims, the surrender to the excitement of the moment, are doubtless subject to the vicissitudes of contrast; but it is the teaching of our Lord that the higher pursuits are free from these evils. If the treasure is in heaven no thief can steal it, no moth or rust can corrupt it; and therefore, since where the treasure is there will the heart be also, it is possible to keep the heart in peace even among the changes that upset a purely superficial life with earthquake shocks. Sincere as is the lament of the elegist over the fate of his people, a subtle thread of irony seems to run through his language. Possibly it is quite unconscious; but if so it is the more significant, for it is the irony of fact which cannot be excluded by the simplest method of statement. It suggests that the grandeur which could be so easily turned to humiliation must have been somewhat tawdry at best.

But unhappily the fall of the pampered youth of Jerusalem was not confined to a reversal of external fortune. The elegist has been careful to point out that the miseries they endured were the punishments of their sins. Then there had been an earlier and much greater collapse. Before any foreign enemy had appeared at her gates the city had succumbed to a fatal foe bred within her own walls. Luxury had undermined the vigour of the wealthy; vice had blackened the beauty of the young. There is a fine gold of character which will be sullied beyond recognition when the foul vapours of the pit are permitted to break out upon it. The magnificence of Solomons temple is poor and superficial in comparison with the beauty of young souls endowed with intellectual and moral gifts, like jewels of rarest worth. Man is not treated in the Bible as a paltry creature. Was he not made in the image of God? Jesus would not have us despise our own native worth. Hope and faith come from a lofty view of human nature and its possibilities. Souls are not swine; and therefore by all the measure of their superiority to swine souls are worth saving. The shame and sorrow of sin lie just in this fact, that it is so foul a degradation of so fair a thing as human nature. Here is the contrast that heightens the tragedy of lost souls. But then we may add, in its reversal this same contrast magnifies the glory of redemption-from so deep a pit does Christ bring back His ransomed, to so great a height does He raise them!

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary