Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Lamentations 2:1
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, [and] cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!
1. How ] See on ch. Lam 1:1.
the beauty of Israel ] possibly the Temple, as in Isa 64:2, or Jerusalem, but more naturally the illustrious ones of the nation (cp. “thy glory” in 2Sa 1:19), or even Israel as a whole, once high in the favour of Jehovah.
his footstool ] here again the Temple (cp. Eze 43:7 and perhaps Psa 99:5) may be meant, or the Ark, which is actually called God’s “footstool” in 1Ch 28:2 and probably in Psa 132:7.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
How … – Or, How doth ‘adonay cover. He hath east down etc. By Gods footstool seems to be meant the ark. See Psa 99:5 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lam 2:1-9
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in ms anger.
Chastisements
1. It is our duty to strive with ourselves to be affected with the miseries of Gods people.
2. The chastisements and corrections that God layeth upon His Church are most wonderful.
(1) The Lord will in His own servants declare His anger against sin.
(2) He seeth afflictions the best means to frame them to His obedience.
(3) His ways are beyond the reach of flesh and blood.
3. God spareth not to smite His dearest children when they sin against Him.
(1) That He may declare Himself an adversary to sin in all men without partiality.
(2) That He may reduce His servants from running on headlong to hell with the wicked.
4. The higher God advanceth any, the greater is their punishment in the day of their visitation for their sins.
(1) To whom much is given, of them must much be required.
(2) According to the privileges abused, so is the sin of those that have them greater and more in number.
5. The most beautiful thing in this world is base in respect of the majesty and glory of the Lord.
6. Gods anger against sin moveth Him to destroy the things that He commanded for His own service, when they are abused by men. (J. Udall.)
The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob.
Spoiled habitations
1. It is the hand of God that taketh away the flourishing estate of a kingdom (Dan 4:29).
2. As God is full of mercy in His long-suffering, so is His anger unappeasable when it breaketh out against the sons of men for their sins (Jer 4:4).
3. God depriveth us of a great blessing when He taketh from us our dwelling places.
4. There is no assurance of worldly possessions and peace, but in the favour of God.
5. God overthroweth the greatest strength that man can erect, even at His pleasure.
6. It is a mark of Gods wrath, to be deprived of strength, courage, or any other necessary gift, when we stand in need of them.
7. It is the sin of the Church that causeth the Lord to spoil the same of any blessing that she hath heretofore enjoyed.
8. These being taken away in Gods anger, teacheth us that it is the good blessing of God to have a kingdom, to have strongholds, munitions, etc., for a defence against their enemies.
9. The more God honoureth us with His blessings, the greater shall be our dishonour if we abuse them, when He entereth into judgment with us for the same. (J. Udall.)
He hath cut off in His fierce anger all the horn of Israel.–
Strength despoiled
1. Strength and honour are in the Lords disposition, to be given, continued, or taken away at His pleasure.
2. When Gods favour is towards us, it is our shield against our enemies; but when He meaneth to punish us, He leaveth us unto ourselves.
3. Though Gods justice be severe against sin in all men, yet is it most manifest in His Church, having sinned against Him.
(1) All mens eyes are most upon Gods Church.
(2) God doth declare Himself more in and for His Church than the world besides. (J. Udall.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER II
The prophet shows the dire effects of the Divine anger in the
miseries brought on his country; the unparalleled calamities of
which he charges, on a great measure, on the false prophets,
1-14.
In thus desperate condition, the astonishment and by-word of
all who see her, Jerusalem is directed to sue earnestly for
mercy and pardon, 15-22.
NOTES ON CHAP. II
Verse 1. How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud] The women in the eastern countries wear veils, and often very costly ones. Here, Zion is represented as being veiled by the hand of God’s judgment. And what is the veil? A dark cloud, by which she is entirely obscured.
Instead of Adonai, lord, twenty-four of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS., and some of the most ancient of my own, read Yehovah, LORD, as in La 2:2.
The beauty of Israel] His Temple.
His footstool] The ark of the covenant, often so called. The rendering of my old MS. Bible is curious: – And record not of his litil steging-stole of his feet, in the dai of his woodnesse. To be wood signifies, in our ancient language, to be mad.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger? It hath been formerly observed that great states and kingdoms are often in Scripture expressed under the notion of daughters, Psa 137:8; Isa 10:30; 47:1,5; Jer 46:1;1 Lam 4:21,22; the meaning is, How hath God obscured all the beauty and glory of the church and state of the Jews!
And cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel; that is, thrown them down from the highest pitch of glory and honour, to the meanest degree of baseness and servitude.
And remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger: the earth is called the Lords footstool, Isa 66:1; Mat 5:35; Act 7:49, but here plainly the temple is understood, called Gods footstool, 1Ch 28:2; and the whole temple seems rather to be understood than the ark, for we read of no indignity offered to the ark by the Chaldeans, more than to any other part of the temple; God had suffered the Chaldeans to burn the whole temple, and it may justly be doubted whether those other texts that mention a worshipping at Gods footstool, Psa 99:5; 132:7, be not to be understood of worshipping in the temple, for it was not the privilege of all the Jews to come so near the ark as to worship before that. The reason of the complaint is Gods permission of the Chaldeans to burn the temple. See Jer 52:13.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. HowThe title of thecollection repeated here, and in La4:1.
covered . . . with acloudthat is, with the darkness of ignominy.
cast down from heaven unto .. . earth (Mt 11:23);dashed down from the highest prosperity to the lowest misery.
beauty of Israelthebeautiful temple (Psa 29:2;Psa 74:7; Psa 96:9,Margin; Isa 60:7; Isa 64:11).
his footstoolthe ark(compare 1Ch 28:2; Psa 99:5;Psa 132:7). They once had gloriedmore in the ark than in the God whose symbol it was; they now feel itwas but His “footstool,” yet that it had been a great gloryto them that God deigned to use it as such.
Beth.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger,…. Not their persons for protection, as he did the Israelites at the Red sea, and in the wilderness; nor their sins, which he blots out as a thick cloud; or with such an one as he filled the tabernacle and temple with when dedicated; for this was “in his anger”, in the day of his anger, against Jerusalem; but with the thick and black clouds of calamity and distress; he “beclouded” r her, as it may be rendered, and is by Broughton; he drew a veil, or caused a cloud to come over all her brightness and glory, and surrounded her with darkness, that her light and splendour might not be seen. Aben Ezra interprets it, “he lifted her up to the clouds”: that is, in order to cast her down with the greater force, as follows:
[and] cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel; all its glory, both in church and state; this was brought down from the highest pitch of its excellency and dignity, to the lowest degree of infamy and reproach; particularly this was true of the temple, and service of God in it, which was the beauty and glory of the nation, but now utterly demolished:
and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger; to spare and preserve that; meaning either the house of the sanctuary, the temple itself, as the Targum and Jarchi; or rather the ark with the mercy seat, on which the Shechinah or divine Majesty set his feet, when sitting between the cherubim; and is so called, 1Ch 28:2.
r “obnubilavit”, Montanus, Vatablus; “obnubilat”, Cocceius.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Cause, Extent, and Greatness of Zion’s Calamities. | B. C. 588. |
1 How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger! 2 The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied: he hath thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of the daughter of Judah; he hath brought them down to the ground: he hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof. 3 He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about. 4 He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire. 5 The Lord was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces: he hath destroyed his strong holds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation. 6 And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest. 7 The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the LORD, as in the day of a solemn feast. 8 The LORD hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: he hath stretched out a line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying: therefore he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together. 9 Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars: her king and her princes are among the Gentiles: the law is no more; her prophets also find no vision from the LORD.
It is a very sad representation which is here made of the state of God’s church, of Jacob and Israel, of Zion and Jerusalem; but the emphasis in these verses seems to be laid all along upon the hand of God in the calamities which they were groaning under. The grief is not so much that such and such things are done as that God has done them, that he appears angry with them; it is he that chastens them, and chastens them in wrath and in his hot displeasure; he has become their enemy, and fights against them; and this, this is the wormwood and the gall in the affliction and the misery.
I. Time was when God’s delight was in his church, and he appeared to her, and appeared for her, as a friend. But now his displeasure is against her; he is angry with her, and appears and acts against her as an enemy. This is frequently repeated here, and sadly lamented. What he has done he has done in his anger; this makes the present day a melancholy day indeed with us, that it is the day of his anger (v. 1), and again (v. 2) it is in his wrath, and (v. 3) it is in his fierce anger, that he has thrown down and cut off, and (v. 6) in the indignation of his anger. Note, To those who know how to value God’s favour nothing appears more dreadful than his anger; corrections in love are easily borne, but rebukes in love wound deeply. It is God’s wrath that burns against Jacob like a flaming fire (v. 3), and it is a consuming fire; it devours round about, devours all her honours, all her comforts. This is the fury that is poured out like fire (v. 4), like the fire and brimstone which were rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah; but it was their sin that kindled this fire. God is such a tender Father to his children that we may be sure he is never angry with them but when they provoke him, and give him cause to be angry; nor is he ever angry more than there is cause for. God’s covenant with them was that if they would obey his voice he would be an enemy to their enemies (Exod. xxiii. 22), and he had been so as long as they kept close to him; but now he is an enemy to them; at least he is as an enemy, v. 5. He has bent his bow like an enemy, v. 4. He stood with his right hand stretched out against them, and a sword drawn in it as an adversary. God is not really an enemy to his people, no, not when he is angry with them and corrects them in anger. We may be sorely displeased against our dearest friends and relations, whom yet we are far from having an enmity to. But sometimes he is as an enemy to them, when all his providences concerning them seem in outward appearance to have a tendency to their ruin, when every thing made against them and nothing for them. But, blessed be God, Christ is our peace, our peacemaker, who has slain the enmity, and in him we may agree with our adversary, which it is our wisdom to do, since it is in vain to contend with him, and he offers us advantageous conditions of peace.
II. Time was when God’s church appeared very bright, and illustrations, and considerable among the nations; but now the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud (v. 1), a dark cloud, which is very terrible to himself, and through which she cannot see his face; a thick cloud (so that word signifies), a black cloud, which eclipses all her glory and conceals her excellency; not such a cloud as that under which God conducted them through the wilderness, or that in which God took possession of the temple and filled it with his glory: no, that side of the cloud is now turned towards them which was turned towards the Egyptians in the Red Sea. The beauty of Israel is now cast down from heaven to the earth; their princes (2 Sam. i. 19), their religious worship, their beauty of holiness, all that which recommended them to the affection and esteem of their neighbours and rendered them amiable, which had lifted them up to heaven, was now withered and gone, because God had covered it with a cloud. He has cut off all the horn of Israel (v. 3), all her beauty and majesty (Ps. cxxxii. 17), all her plenty and fulness, and all her power and authority. They had, in their pride, lifted up their horn against God, and therefore justly will God cut off their horn. He disabled them to resist and oppose their enemies; he turned back their right hand, so that they were not able to follow the blow which they gave nor to ward off the blow which was given them. What can their right hand do against the enemy when God draws it back, and withers it, as he did Jeroboam’s? Thus was the beauty of Israel cast down, when a people famed for courage were not able to stand their ground nor make good their post.
III. Time was when Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were strong and well fortified, were trusted to by the inhabitants and let alone by the enemy as impregnable. But now the lord has in anger swallowed them up; they are quite gone; the forts and barriers are taken away, and the invaders meet with no opposition: the stately structures, which were their strength and beauty, are pulled down and laid waste. 1. The Lord has in anger swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob (v. 2), both the cities and the country houses; they are burnt, or otherwise destroyed, so totally ruined that they seem to have been swallowed up, and no remains left of them. He has swallowed up, and has not pitied. One would have thought it a pity that such sumptuous houses, so well built, so well furnished, should be quite destroyed, ad that some pity should have been had for the poor inhabitants that were thus dislodged and driven to wander; but God’s wonted compassion seemed to fail: He has swallowed up Israel, as a lion swallows up his prey, v. 5. 2. He has swallowed up not only her common habitations, but her palaces, all her palaces, the habitations of their princes and great men (v. 5), though those were most stately, and strong, and rich, and well guarded. God’s judgments, when they come with commission, level palaces with cottages, and as easily swallow them up. If palaces be polluted with sin, as theirs were, let them expect to be visited with a curse, which shall consume them, with the timber thereof and the stones thereof, Zech. v. 4. 3. He had destroyed not only their dwelling-places, but their strong-holds, their castles, citadels, and places of defence. These he has thrown down in his wrath, and brought them to the ground; for shall they stand in the way of his judgments, and give check to the progress of them? No; let them drop like leaves in autumn; let them be rased to the foundations, and made to touch the ground, v. 2. And again (v. 5), He has destroyed his strong-holds; for what strength could they have against God? And thus he increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation, for they could not but be in a dreadful consternation when they saw all their defence departed from them. This is again insisted on, v. 7-9. In order to the swallowing up of her palaces, he has given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces, which were their security, and, when they are broken down, the palaces themselves are soon broken into. The walls of palaces cannot protect them, unless God himself be a wall of fire round about them. This God did in his anger, and yet he has done it deliberately. It is the result of a previous purpose, and is done by a wise and steady providence; for the Lord has purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion; he brought the Chaldean army in on purpose to do this execution. Note, Whatever desolations God makes in his church, they are all according to his counsels; he performs the thing that is appointed for us, even that which makes most against us. But, when it is done, he has stretched out a line, a measuring line, to do it exactly and by measure: hitherto the destruction shall go, and no further; no more shall be cut off than what is marked to be so. Or it is meant of the line of confusion (Isa. xxxiv. 11), a levelling line; for he will go on with his work; he has not withdrawn his hand from destroying, that right hand which he stretched out against his people as an adversary, v. 4. As far as the purpose went the performance shall go, and his hand shall accomplish his counsel to the utmost, and not be withdrawn. Therefore he made the rampart and the wall, which the people had rejoiced in and upon which perhaps they had made merry, to lament, and they languished together; the walls and the ramparts, or bulwarks, upon them, fell together, and were left to condole with one another on their fall. Her gates are gone in an instant, so that one would think they were sunk into the ground with their own weight, and he has destroyed and broken her bars, those bars of Jerusalem’s gates which formerly he had strengthened, Ps. cxlvii. 13. Gates and bars will stand us in no stead when God has withdrawn his protection.
IV. Time was when their government flourished, their princes made a figure, their kingdom was great among the nations, and the balance of power was on their side; but now it is quite otherwise: He has polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof, v. 2. They had first polluted themselves with their idolatries, and then God dealt with them as with polluted things; he threw them to the dunghill, the fittest place for them. He has given up their glory, which was looked upon as sacred (that is a character we give to majesty), to be trampled upon and profaned; and no marvel that the king and the priest, whose characters were always deemed venerable and inviolable, are despised by every body, when God has, in the indignation of his anger, despised the king and the priest, v. 6. He has abandoned them; he looks upon them as no longer worthy of the honours conveyed to them by the covenants of royalty and priesthood, but as having forfeited both; and then Zedekiah the king was used despitefully, and Seraiah the chief priest put to death as a malefactor. The crown has fallen from their heads, for her king and her princes are among the Gentiles, prisoners among them, insulted over by them (v. 9), and treated not only as common persons, but as the basest, without any regard to their character. Note, It is just with God to debase those by his judgments who have by sin debased themselves.
V. Time was when the ordinances of God were administered among them in their power and purity, and they had those tokens of God’s presence with them; but now those were taken from them, that part of the beauty of Israel was gone which was indeed their greatest beauty. 1. The ark was God’s footstool, under the mercy-seat, between the cherubim; this was of all others the most sacred symbol of God’s presence (it is called his footstool,1Ch 28:2; Psa 99:5; Psa 132:7); there the Shechinah rested, and with an eye to this Israel was often protected and saved; but now he remembered not his footstool. The ark itself was suffered, as it should seem, to fall into the hands of the Chaldeans. God, being angry, threw that away; for it shall be no longer his footstool; the earth shall be so, as it had been before the ark was, Isa. lxvi. 1. Of what little value are the tokens of his presence when his presence is gone! Nor was this the first time that God gave his ark into captivity, Ps. lxxviii. 61. God and his kingdom can stand without that footstool. 2. Those that ministered in holy things had been pleasant to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion (v. 4); they had been purer than snow, whiter than mile (ch. iv. 7); none more pleasant in the eyes of all good people than those that did the service of the tabernacle. But now these are slain, and their blood is mingled with their sacrifices. Thus is the priest despised as well as the king. Note, When those that were pleasant to the eye in Zion’s tabernacle are slain God must be acknowledged in it; he has done it, and the burning which the Lord has kindled must be bewailed but the whole house of Israel, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. x. 6. 3. The temple was God’s tabernacle (as the tabernacle, while that was in being, was called his temple, Ps. xxvii. 4) and this he has violently taken away (v. 6); he has plucked up the stakes of it and cut the cords; it shall be no more a tabernacle, much less his; he has taken it away, as the keeper of a garden takes away his hovel or shade, when he has done with it and has no more occasion for it; he takes it down as easily, as speedily, and with a little regret and reluctance as if it were but a cottage in a vineyard or a lodge in a garden of cucumbers (Isa. i. 8), but a booth which the keeper makes, Job xxvii. 18. When men profane God’s tabernacle it is just with him to take it from them. God has justly refused to smell their solemn assemblies (Amos v. 21); they had provoked him to withdraw from them, and then no marvel that he has destroyed his places of the assembly; what should they do with the places when the services had become an abomination? He has now abhorred his sanctuary (v. 7); it has been defiled with sin, that only thing which he hates, and for the sake of that he abhors even his sanctuary, which he had delighted in and called his rest for ever, Ps. cxxxii. 14. Thus he had done to Shiloh. Now the enemies have made as great a noise of revelling and blaspheming in the house of the Lord as ever had been made with the temple-songs and music in the day of a solemn feast, Ps. lxxiv. 4. Some, by the places of the assembly (v. 6), understand not only the temple, but the synagogues, and the schools of the prophets, which the enemy had burnt up, Ps. lxxiv. 8. 4. The solemn feasts and the sabbaths had been carefully remembered, and the people constantly put in mind of them; but now the Lord has caused those to be forgotten, not only in the country, among those that lived at a distance, but even in Zion itself; for there were none left to remember them, nor were there the places left where they used to be observed. Now that Zion was in ruins no difference was made between sabbath time and other times; every day was a day of mourning, so that all the solemn feasts were forgotten. Note, It is just with God to deprive those of the benefit and comfort of sabbaths and solemn feasts who have not duly valued them, nor conscientiously observed them, but have profaned them, which was one of the sins that the Jews were often charged with. Those that have seen the days of the Son of man, and slighted them, may desire to see one of those days and not be permitted, Luke xvii. 22. 5. The altar that had sanctified their gifts is now cast off, for God will no more accept their gifts, nor be honoured by their sacrifices, v. 7. The altar was the table of the Lord, but God will no longer keep house among them; he will neither feast them nor feast with them. 6. They had been blest with prophets and teachers of the law; but now the law is no more (v. 9); it is no more read by the people, no more expounded by the scribes; the tables of the law are gone with the ark; the book of the law is taken from them, and the people are forbidden to have it. What should those do with Bibles who had made no better improvement of them when they had them? Her prophets also find no vision from the Lord; God answers them no more by prophets and dreams, which was the melancholy case of Saul, 1 Sam. xxviii. 15. They had persecuted God’s prophets, and despised the visions they had from the Lord, and therefore it is just with God to say that they shall have no more prophets, no more visions. Let them go to the prophets that had flattered and deceived them with visions of their own hearts, for they shall have none from God to comfort them, or tell them how long. Those that misuse God’s prophets justly lose them.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LAMENTATIONS – CHAPTER 2
GOD’S ANGER AGAINST HIS REBELLIOUS PEOPLE
The deep sorrow manifested in this second lamentation is rooted in the recognition that the wrath by which Jerusalem and the temple have been overthrown was the very wrath of Jehovah. Israel’s age-long Defender has delivered her over to the righteous judgment which she has long deserved!
Ignoring the moral and spiritual obligations of her covenant relationship with Jehovah, Israel presumed that this position of high privilege was hers, irrevocably; though she rejected the lordship of her covenant-Lover – refusing His counsel and despising His reproof! (Pro 1:24-32). Thus, she has been delivered up to taste the bitter fruit of her own rebellion!
Since she has perverted His ordinances – despising and heaping shame on His “memorial name”, which He had chosen to place in Jerusalem -the Lord has stretched out His hand, in judgment, on the covenant-nation, just as He had previously stretched it out against their enemies.
Vs. 1-9: THE MANIFESTATION OF DIVINE HOSTILITY
1. God’s anger against Jerusalem is likened unto a covering cloud, (comp. Eze 30:18; Eze 32:7-8); in the day when it was poured out, neither her splendid temple (Isa 64:11), nor the ark of the covenant (1Ch 28:2; Psa 99:5; Psa 132:7), could afford any protection; from a position of high and heavenly privilege, she was cast down to the earth in crushing humiliation, (vs. 1; comp. Isa 14:12-15; Eze 28:14-16; Heb 10:26-31).
2. Without pity (vs. 17; 3:34), the judgment of Jehovah has consumed both the open villages and fortified cities of Judah (comp. vs. 5; Psa 21:9; Jer 13:12-14) – profaning both the king and kingdom that have refused to cooperate with His holy purpose concerning them, (vs. 2; comp. Psa 89:39-40; Isa 43:28).
a. The people whom the Lord called to be a “.kingdom of priests”, and a “holy nation” (Exo 19:5-6), have profaned themselves by gross wickedness and idolatry.
b. So, Jehovah had canceled their privileged status, withdrawn from them the relationship of covenant-fellowship with Himself (because they have broken His covenant), and reduced them to a position BENEATH that of the nations they had so desperately endeavored to imitate!
c. And, In the New Testament, a woe is pronounced upon Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum – where the mighty works of Jesus, so abundantly manifesting His messianic authority, did not lead to repentance and faith! (Mat 11:20-24).
3. In the fierceness of His anger, the Lord has cut off the horn (power, strength, or authority) of Israel, (Deu 33:17; Psa 75:10; Jer 48:25; Zec 1:18-21); withdrawing His outstretched hand Of judgment from Israel’s enemies (Psa 74:11), He has now stretched it out over the chosen nation (Isa 5:25) in such a way as to consume them by the fire of His indignation, (vs. 3; Isa 42:25; Jer 21:14; Th1:7-10).
4. In an anthropomorphic figure, Jeremiah likens God to a human enemy of the people who have long antagonized Him by their persistent idolatry, (vs. 4); in His anger He has so swallowed up the nation that mourning and moaning are multiplied in Judah, (vs. 5).
5. The Lord’s rejection of – the chosen people is most emphatically and impressively set forth in verses 6-9.
a. His destruction of the temple, causing feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten, rejection of king and priest, casting off of His altar and repudiation of His holy place – all dramatically demonstrate that outward rituals cannot avert divine judgment upon a presumptuous and ungrateful people who stubbornly reject the covenant-love of Jehovah and refuse the obligations of high privilege!
b. Verse 7 describes the horrifying pillaging of Jerusalem and the temple complex, as the shouts of the enemy are heard within her walls.
c. By metonomy, the “wall” stands for the whole of Zion (Jerusalem); as a builder carefully “measures” for the quality construction of an edifice, so, the Lord is very PRECISE in assuring its TOTAL DEMOLITION! (comp. Mat 24:2; Mar 13:2; Luk 19:44; Luk 21:6); the entire passage is one that assumes the ultimate triumph of divine righteousness, (Isa 42:24; comp. Rom 3:25).
d. There remains for Judah NOT THE SLIGHTEST SYMBOL OF SECURITY, (vs. 9; comp. Jer 49:31; Psa 147:13); her priests being led captive into the nations, there is no instruction in the law of her God (comp. Eze 7:26); nor do her prophets receive any visions from the Lord.
e. Isn’t it strange that the word of the Lord is most highly valued when it is NOT AVAILABLE? (comp. 1Sa 28:6; 2Ch 15:1-3; Mic 3:5-7; Amo 8:11).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
The Prophet again exclaims in wonder, that an incredible thing had happened, which was like a prodigy; for at the first sight it seemed very unreasonable, that a people whom God had not only received into favor, but with whom he had made a perpetual covenant, should thus be forsaken by him. For though men were a hundred times perfidious, yet God never changes, but remains unchangeable in his faithfulness; and we know that his covenant was not made to depend on the merits of men. Whatsoever, then, the people might be, yet it behooved God to continue in his purpose, and not to annul the promise made to Abraham. Now, when Jerusalem was reduced to desolation, there was as it were all abolition of God’s covenant. There is, then, no wonder that the Prophet here exclaims, as on account of some prodigy, How can it be that God hath clouded or darkened, etc.
We must, however, observe at the same time, that the Prophet did not mean here to invalidate the fidelity or constancy of God, but thus to rouse the attention of his own nation, who had become torpid in their sloth; for though they were pressed down under a load of evils, yet they had become hardened in their perverseness. But it was impossible that any one should really call on God, except he was humbled in mind, and brought the sacrifice of which we have spoken, even a humble and contrite spirit. (Psa 51:19.) It was, then, the Prophet’s object to soften the hardness which he knew prevailed in almost the whole people. This was the reason why he exclaimed, in a kind of astonishment, How has God clouded, etc. (148)
Some render the words, “How has God raised up,” etc., which may be allowed, provided it be not taken in a good sense, for it is said, in his wrath; but in this case the words to raise up and to cast down ought to be read conjointly; for when one wishes to break in pieces an earthen vessel, he not only casts it on the ground, but he raises it up, that it may be thrown down with greater force. We may, then, take this meaning, that God, in order that he might with greater violence break in pieces his people, had raised them up, not to honor them, but in order to dash them more violently on the ground. However, as this sense seems perhaps too refined, I am content with the first explanation, that God had clouded the daughter of Zion in his wrath; and then follows an explanation, that he had cast her from heaven to the earth. So then God covered with darkness his people, when he drew them down from the high dignity which they had for a time enjoyed. He had, then, cast on the earth all the glory of Israel, and remembered not his footstool
The Prophet seems here indirectly to contend with God, because he had not spared his own sanctuary; for God, as it has been just stated, had chosen Mount Sion for himself, where he designed to be prayed to, because he had placed there the memorial of his name. As, then, he had not spared his own sanctuary, it did not appear consistent with his constancy, and he also seemed thus to have disregarded his own glory. But the design of the Prophet is rather to shew to the people how much God’s wrath had been kindled, when he spared not even his own sanctuary. For he takes this principle as granted, that God is never without reason angry, and never exceeds the due measure of punishment. As, then, God’s wrath was so great that he destroyed his own Temple, it was a token of dreadful wrath; and what was the cause but the sins of men? for God, as I have said, always preserves moderation in his judgments. He, then, could not have better expressed to the people the heinousness of their sins, than by laying before them this fact, that God remembered not his footstool
And the Temple, by a very suitable metaphor, is called the footstool of God. It is, indeed, called his habitation; for in Scripture the Temple is often said to be the house of God. It was then the house, the habitation, and the rest of God. But as men are ever inclined to superstition, in order to raise up their thoughts above earthly elements, we are reminded, on the other hand, in Scripture, that the Temple was the footstool of God. So in the Psalms,
“
Adore ye before his footstool,” (Psa 99:5😉
and again,
“
We shall adore in the place where his feet stand.” (Psa 132:7.)
We, then, see that the two expressions, apparently different, do yet well agree, that the Temple was the house of God and his habitation, and that yet it was only his footstool. It was the house of God, because the faithful found by experience that he was there present; as, then, God gave tokens of his presence, the Temple was rightly called the house; of God, his rest and habitation. But that the faithful might not fix their minds on the visible sanctuary, and thus by indulging a gross imagination, fall into superstition, and put an idol in the place of God, the Temple was called the footstool of God. For as it was a footstool, it behooved the faithful to rise up higher and to know that God was really sought, only when they raised their thoughts above the world. We now perceive what was the purpose of this mode of speaking.
God is said not to have remembered his Temple, not because he had wholly disregarded it, but because the destruction of the Temple could produce no other opinion in men. All, then, who saw that the Temple had been burnt by profane hands, and pulled down after it had been plundered, thought that the Temple was forsaken by God; and so also he speaks by Ezekiel, (Eze 10:18.) Then this oblivion, or not remembering, refers to the thoughts of men; for however God may have remembered the Temple, yet he seemed for a time to have disregarded it. We must, at the same time, bear in mind what I have said, that the Prophet here did not intend to dispute with God, or to contend with him, but, on the contrary, to shew what the people deserved; for God was so indignant on account of their sins, that he suffered his own Temple to be profaned. The same thing also follows respecting the kingdom, —
(148) The verb here is in the future tense, and the clause might be thus rendered, —
Why should the Lord in his wrath becloud the daughter of Sion?
And if ישבה, in Lam 1:1, be in the future tense, as it may be, that clause may be rendered in the same way, —
Why should sit alone the city that was full of people?
Then follows here, as in the former instance, a description of what had happened to Sion, —
He hath cast from heaven to earth the glory of Israel, And not remembered his footstool in the day of his wrath.
At the same time, the clauses may both be rendered as proposed in a note on Lam 1:1, and the tenses of the verbs be preserved. The verb here is clearly in the future tense, and the verb in the former instance may be so; and the future in Hebrew is often to be taken as the present, as the case is in Welsh.
How this! in his wrath becloud does the Lord the daughter of Sion!
—
Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE PROPHETS LAMENTATIONS
Lamentations 1-5
WE are quitting the Book of Jeremiah, but not the Prophet, and we are leaving the greater volume of Jeremiah, not because we have exhausted it nor because we have touched even its high points in passing. But having promised our readers forty volumes on the whole Bible, we are beginning to realize the extremely limited discussion we can give to the Books that remain, and yet stay within the number of volumes agreed upon with the publisher.
Jeremiah should have at least another volume similar in size to this, and LAMENTATIONS alone should claim five chapters instead of one.
However, we hope in this discussion to get before you the essential suggestions of this volume. It is correctly supposed to have come from the pen of the great Prophet. Modern criticism, to the contrary, will but poorly impress those students of Biblical history who know that in the septuagint version this volume was introduced in the following words:
And it came to pass that after Israel had been carried away captive Jeremiah sat weeping and lamented this lament of Jerusalem.
Three hundred years, then, before Christ, the scholars had no doubt whatever that these five chapters, constituting the volume of LAMENTATIONS, were from Jeremiah, and voiced his exceeding sorrow at the sight of his people conquered and carried away into captivity. The Prophet had lived to see his direst predictions fulfilled, and to deeply grieve the fact that his warnings to Judah and Israel had been disregarded and the day of judgment had come.
In order to present something like a birds eye view of the Book, we have elected to discuss it under four heads:
The Complete Subjugation, The Conquering Sin, The Consequent Sorrow, and, The Comforting Assurance.
THE COMPLETE SUBJUGATION
The Prophet views this subjugation as a true loyalist might be expected to see it. He looks upon it as it is related to Jerusalem, as it has affected the land of Judah, and as it has depressed the spirits of the people.
As it related to Jerusalem!
How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! how is she become as a widow! she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!
She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks: among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her: all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies (Lam 1:1-2).
The first thing that affects and profoundly moves Jeremiahs feelings is the city itself. He loved Jerusalem. Either a man is very unpatriotic or else the metropolis, in which he has elected to live, is very unattractive if he does not come to love it.
When one goes to London and listens to the roar of that great city and looks on its narrow crowded streets, endures its ever-repeated rains and its almost endless fogs, he may wonder that any one loves London; but speak a word against it to a Londoner and you will speedily learn that London holds a large place in his heart.
Think of New York or Chicago, over-grown, bestial, dirty; and yet practically all New Yorkers and most Chicagoans have an abiding affection for their city.
Jerusalem even in Christs day was far from a Minneapolis in beauty; but Christ loved it and wept over it.
A citizen who has no affection for the place of his residence is a poor patriot, and the citizen who is not grieved when his city is subjugated to the vicious, has no right to a residence in it, and even less to its protection of either his person or property.
As it affected the land!
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude: she dwelleth among the heathen, she findeth no rest: all her persecutors overtook her between the straits (Lam 1:3).
This also is the voice of the patriot. His interest exceeds municipal limitations. They reach to the limits of the state. It is not enough to be a good Minneapolitan; it is absolutely essential to be a good Minnesotan, and a loyal American. We sing sometimes:
My country! tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing:
Land where my fathers died!
Land of the Pilgrims pride!
From every mountain side
Let freedom ring!
If we are true patriots, we will find even more pleasure in the second verse:
My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills.
Like that above.
Jeremiah was equally concerned for the spirit of his people, and he wrote:
The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to the solemn feasts: all her gates are desolate: Her priests sigh, her virgins are afflicted, and she is in bitterness. * *
Her beauty is departed: her princes are become like harts that find no pasture (Lam 1:4-6).
It is a pathetic picture. To this good hour, America has never learned the meaning of this Scripture. Our people have never been subjugated; in our wars we have never been defeated, much less carried away captive to slave in other lands; and these lamentations are but superficially understood of us.
When the Russian-Japanese war of some years since was on, the great Russian general Stoessel, seeing that their defeat was imminent, since the Japanese had already occupied Keekwan Mountain and Q. fort and heights south of the forts, wired to the Czar: I now bid you all good-by forever. Port Arthur is my grave! For days following he fought on against impossible odds. Says the correspondent of the Associated Press: The hospitals are now in the rake of the Japanese fire. The wounded who can leave, are doing so. They can be seen in the streets on heaps of debris, exposed to the bitterly cold weather, and some staggering back to the front defying the Japanese and desiring death. They know that the stock of ammunition is about out, and that they are in the relentless grasp of the enemy.
When General Stoessel ordered them to fight they answered, We cant fight: we have nothing left with which to fight. Our men cannot move. They sleep, standing. They can see nothing but bayonets at their breasts. Their morale is gone! They were doomed and they knew it.
When a day like that breaks over a people, hopelessness takes possession.
Thats what Jeremiah saw, and thats the ground of his grief, and this Book is the expression of it. But Jeremiah saw another thing, namely,
THE CONQUERING SIN
He knew why these disasters had come. For months and years he had predicted them. But like the warning of Lot to his children in Sodom, he had seemed to them as one that mocked, and as it was sin that necessitated that Sodomic flame, so sin had fruited again and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Judahs transgressions were a multitude.
For the Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of Her transgressions (Lam 1:5).
Sin is like a pestiferous seed. It has great ability to multiply itself. Give Johnson grass a single start and it is with the greatest possible battle that you can keep it from taking the entire field. Let one seed from the Scotch thistle fall into good soil, and in a few years you will be fighting this enemy of fields on a thousand acres.
There is in Australia, a weed called the Australian weed, the seed of which, if sown in the water, multiplies with such rapidity that it soon chokes the flow of the stream itself.
Such a seed is sin! People of America are wondering about the increase of crime and are attempting to account for it in various and sundry ways, but there is nothing mysterious involved. Sin produces sin, and concerning its children, there is no practice of birth control, and its kind rapidly increases; so the life giving streams of decency are being choked by its fungus growth. The current of law is being turned out of its course and the fountain of righteousness itself is being clogged.
The character of sin also increases. Mild sins are somehow able to give birth to malignant ones. Jerusalem hath grievously sinned (Lam 1:8), was the lament of the Prophet. Thats always the result. A little sin to begin with; a grievous sin to end with.
A while ago a very popular modernist minister of New York told his shallow and admiring audience a very palatable thing, namely, Sin and hell have now been put in the museum! If so, then the museum itself is safe no longer.
It is quite interesting to go to the Smithsonian Institute and look on those magnificent specimens that Mr. Roosevelt and his sons and other Nimrods have brought to earth, and finally by the aid of the taxidermist placed in apparent life, but perfect death, before the public gaze.
If, however, the day should come when suddenly those great and ferocious beasts became as intensely alive and voraciously alive, as are sin and hell, I should want to be a long remove from the museum.
Down in Brazil there is a vine called the Matador or murderer. Its slender stem, very harmless looking at first, creeps along the ground until it strikes a tree, when it at once begins to climb the side of the same and throws out tendrils and takes deep hold, embracing the tree at a thousand points. Up and up it goes until the topmost limb, though it be a hundred feet away, is within its embrace and then a writer says, As if in triumph over its victim, this parasitic vine brakes into a huge beautiful blossom, as if joyfully conscious of victory, for that tree is doomed, and from its height above the same the vine scatters its seeds far and near to undertake, at another point, until whole forests are helpless victims within its deadly grasp. Such is the conquest of sin!
It leaves its victim destitute of sympathy. Listen to Jeremiah,
Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me? (Lam 1:12).
This is Judahs lament when once she realizes that she is doomed, and the neighbor nations do not care. It is hard for any man or woman to be treated with contempt, but it is hardest for that man who has held the high position, and for that woman who has known the greatest beauty and charms. Such had been Judahs experience. She had been princess among the nations, and now none so poor as to do her reverence.
We may imagine that Germany was embarrassed when the war ended in her defeat, but that embarrassment was as nothing to the embarrassment of this time, when the creditor nations look upon her with contempt because she does not, and perhaps cannot, meet her pledged obligations. Anything is easier to bear than public contempt.
As we saw in our last sermon, self respect is difficult when popular respect has departed. The stricken demands sympathy and to withhold it from them is to crush them!
Do you remember that, in the Marble Faun, Hawthorne presents poor Miriam conscious of her guilt, and yet craving the sympathetic and loving touch of a friend? In her loneliness and remorse, that was her mightiest need. In Hilda she hoped, but alas, Hilda, in her purity and Phariseeism, turned from Miriam as from some contaminating thing, and as she went, walked on Miriams heart, and, with a high and doubtless haughty look in her eyes, crushed the same.
If there is one lesson that we poor mortals need to learn above another, it is the God-like compassion for another, compassion for the poor, tenderness for the sick, and even sympathy for the sinful. The cruelest men in the world are the priests and levites that pass by on the other side; to whom the sight of suffering is naught, and in whom sense of brotherhood is not.
But I am dwelling too long on this first chapter, and consequently must only touch those that remain. We can do this by studying next the
CONSEQUENT SORROW
It was felt most deeply by the Prophet himself.
The third chapter is the expression of it. It is too lengthy for reading. I will leave it to you for your quiet hour.
It opens in such a way as to indicate the deeps of Jeremiahs soul.
I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath.
He hath led me, and brought me into darkness, but not into light.
Surely against me is he turned; he turneth his hand against me all the day.
My flesh and my skin hath he made old; he hath broken my bones.
He hath builded against me, and compassed me with gall and travail.
He hath set me in dark places, as they that be dead of old.
He hath hedged me about, that I cannot get out: he hath made my chain heavy.
Also when I cry and shout, he shutteth out my prayer.
He hath inclosed my ways with hewn stone, he hath made my paths crooked.
He was unto me as a bear lying in wait, and as a lion in secret places.
He hath turned aside my ways, and pulled me in pieces: he hath made me desolate (Lam 3:1-11).
It is almost uniform for a sinful people to imagine that the Prophet among them is the one man exempt from sorrow. They think that because he warns, he has a conscious superiority, and that he never desires or deserves any sympathy. On the contrary, the Prophet suffers more than the people to whom God hath sent him. When Jesus Christ, the Prophet of Prophets, looked on Jerusalem He saw them happy when His heart was heavy; He saw them giddy with mirth when His heart was broken; He saw them given to frivolity while He was in the mountain in prayer, bedewing the sides of the same with His tears.
Their sin was not only His sorrow, it was also His suffering. Campbell Morgan, speaking of Jeremiah, says, It would have been easy for him to miss the persecution, and the prison. A modification of his message by accommodation to the desire of the princes, a softening of its terrible roughness, even a general denunciation of sin, a mild discourse upon their falsity of their hopes from Egypt, and the certainty of the victory of the Chaldeans; any of these changes would have saved him. Yet he never faltered, but steadily, in spite of the anger of men, spoke what God had given him to say. This brought upon him the suffering described.
This has been repeated in all ages. In the days of the Old Scotch Covenanters a wee laddie, one Jamie Douglas, for refusing to play traitor to the truth was one day held over a steep and rough precipice by a brutal soldier, and given the option of disloyalty or death. Looking up into the face of the man, with eyes bright with the light of true heroism, he said, Drop me down, then, if ye must; tis neer so deep as hell!
In this sorrow his people share.
It is of the Lords mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not (Lam 3:22).
He changes from the personal I to the plural we.
It is of the Lords mercy that we are not consumed.
Let us search and try our ways (Lam 3:40).
Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God (Lam 3:41).
We have transgressed and have rebelled (Lam 3:42).
Thou hast made us as the off scouring and refuse in the midst of the people (Lam 3:45).
Here he identifies himself with the people, and the people with himself. No man liveth unto himself. We cant even suffer alone. Had it been so, Moses would have suffered even unto death for Israels redemption; had it been so, Jeremiah would gladly have gone to the cross for Judah. Only Christ is. the adequate substitute. He alone can stand in the sinners stead. On Him only can God lay the iniquity of us all.
This leads also to an additional thought.
This judgment was divinely visited.
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 (Lam 4:11).
People wonder sometimes why God judges sin; why God executes wrath against iniquity; why God punishes the sinner. If it were not so, what a world! We are fast coming to the time when judgment against sin is no longer popular. The superficial thinking, the unbiblical thinking, the shallow reasonings of men are fast ruining and wrecking the world. We have almost as many parole boards as we have police courts, and most of them sit quite as constantly. Some of our Governors in recent years have granted more reprieves than all the judges of the state rendered convictions and what is the productthe land is filled with violence! Lawlessness is triumphant; banditry is the biggest of American businesses; murder is almost as common as birth. If the nations continue they will have to turn and learn again from God, re-establish law, and visit sin with judgment.
But from this unpalatable train of thought we turn to the prophetic conclusion:
THE COMFORTING ASSURANCE
God is always a compassionate God. Jeremiah didnt forget that fact, but in his sorrow he reverts to it and says,
It is of the Lords mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not.
The Lord is good unto them that wait for Him, to the soul that seeketh Him (Lam 3:22; Lam 3:25).
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word;What more can He say than to you He hath saidTo you who for refuge to Jesus have fled.
Fear not, I am with thee; O be not dismayed!I am thy God, and will still give thee aid;Ill strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand, Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.
When through the deep waters I call thee to go,The waters of sorrow shall not overflow;For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.
The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose I will not, I will not desert to his foes;That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,Ill never, no never, no never forsake.
Gods ears are ever open to penitent cries. Jeremiah says,
I called upon Thy Name, O Lord, out of the low dungeon.
Thou hast heard my voice: hide not Thine ear at my breathing, at my cry.
Thou drewest near in the day that I called upon Thee: Thou saidst, Fear not (Lam 3:55-57).
How like God! This Old Testament truth is beautifully illustrated in the New Testament story of the publican who would not lift up so much as his eyes to Heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner, and he went down to his house justified.
With broken heart and contrite sigh,A trembling sinner, Lord, I cry;Thy pardoning grace is rich and free:O God be merciful to me.
I smite upon my troubled breast,With deep and conscious guilt oppressed;Christ and His Cross my only plea;O God, be merciful to me!
Far off I stand with tearful eyes,Nor dare uplift them to the skies;But Thou dost all my anguish see:O God, be merciful to me!
And when redeemed from sin and hell,With all the ransomed throng I dwell;My raptured song shall ever be,God hath been merciful to me.
Gods power is adequate for salvation.
Turn Thou us unto Thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old (Lam 5:21).
He alone is our hope.
Down in Illinois some years ago there was a cave-in in a coal mine. Sixty men were imprisoned hundreds of feet deep; but there was a small opening left between where they stood and the mouth of the cave. Fred Evans, a little boy, who was his mothers lone support, stood at the mouth of the cave when the foreman said, Fred, you are probably small enough to make it through this hole and carry down a pipe-line to the men and if you can do it you can save the lives of those men, for through it we can pump them fresh air and send them milk and water with which to sustain them. Will you try?
Without a moments hesitation, the little lad said, I will do my best, Sir!
Taking the line, he started on the long six hundred foot crawl. Again and again the line ceased to move, and the people without were filled with fear lest he had struck an impassable place or more probably still, coal or stone had fallen on him. But after a minute it would pick up again and by and by there came back through the tube the glad announcement that Fred had arrived.
For a whole week milk and water and air went through that tube to the men and Fred, and the whole sixty of them were eventually reached by the men and saved.
Gov. John R. Tanner, then Governor of Illinois, hearing of the deed of heroism sent for the lad. Youngster, said the Governor, the state of Illinois wants to recognize your pluck. What can we do for you? To which the lad finally answered after a bit of embarrassment, I would like to learn how to read.
The result was that he received a fine education free from the state of Illinois, and today he is a successful man.
Hear me! When we were caught, not in the accidental cave in a coal mine, but in the consequence of our own conduct; when the sentence of death against sin had been justly passed, Gods Son carried to us the life line. It cost Him, not the long anxious moments of Freds crawl, but rather the cruelties of the Cross, the shedding of the last drop of His precious Blood; but He failed not, and by that Blood we are redeemed.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
EXEGETICAL NOTES.
() Lam. 2:1. The poet sees nature as if it were in commotion. A storm-cloud piles up over Jerusalem, shrouding with its gloom even the most commanding summit. But it is not the swirls of an inanimate force which he perceives, nor yet the rush of human passion in an army of cruel men, it is the Supreme Ruler who hath His way in the whirlwind, and the storm of anger and strife, and the clouds of disaster are the dust of His fect. How doth the Lord in His anger; anger is the acting quality which impresses its aspect on the writers mind, as is shown by his frequent references to ittwice here, and in Lam. 2:3; Lam. 2:6; Lam. 2:21-22, cf. Lam. 2:2 : cover with a cloud the daughter of Zion. Under this expression, and the similar ones which follow, daughter of Judah, daughter of Jerusalem, is included inhabitants of all classes; no principle but that of poetic license apparently regulating the employment of either name. The storm-cloud has swept across the land which was called the glory of all lands, and He has cast down from heaven those arrow-like lightnings which have scathed, discomfited, and overthrown unto the earth the glory of Israel. The election of Israel to be the covenant people of the living God had given it a position as high above that of all other peoples as the heavens are higher than the earth, and this position was represented by a visible shrinethe Temple. It was the holy and beautiful house where our fathers praised Thee, and now it was burned up with fire. Nor did He recall any past manifestations of His presence to stay His hand from working: He has not remembered His footstool; the footstool of our God is closely associated with the ark of the covenant (1Ch. 28:2; Psa. 99:1; Psa. 99:5). The Cherubim stood over the cover of the ark, the mercy-seat, and as God sitteth between the Cherubim, His feet would be on the ark, yet He let this holiest of holy things be destroyed in the day of His angerthe day which broke amid the sounds of Divine justice going to punish evilthe great day of Jehovah, which Zephaniah predicted a day of wrath a day of wasteness and desolation a day of clouds and thick darkness. The poet could not have better expressed to the people the heinousness of their sins than by laying before them this fact, that God remembered not His footstool in the day of His anger (Calvin).
() Lam. 2:2. Faint adumbrations of the concomitants of a storm still flit across the field of vision. As a sweeping torrent the Lord has swallowed up, and has not spared, all the habitations of Jacob, including all sorts of country residences, and pasture-lands where men like Jacob may dwell in tents and feed flocks; all unfortified and unprotected places, as distinguished from fortresses in following parallel line: He has thrown down in His wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; the whole military power has gone under, also the governing power he has cast to the earth, thus making them lick the dust and be trod upon by passers-by; He has profaned the kingdom, the royal house, and its princes: similarly it is said (Psa. 89:39), Thou hast profaned His crown [casting it] to the groundthe crown of His anointed, whom he had cast off and rejected (Psa. 89:38). The tenor of Bible-teaching is to the effect that men by sin affect the materials which they use, and so not only the sinners themselves, but their dwellings, their goods, their plots of ground, their munitions, their governments, are scourged by the wrath of God, in order to purify them from the pollution which has been infiltrated into them by human guilt.
() Lam. 2:3. Three forms of disaster are specified. He has cut off in fierce anger every horn of Israel: the horn being used as a symbol of strength or power, then all that was regarded as a strength to the life of Israel, whether warlike men or arsenals of offensive and defensive weapons, has perished. Power of resistance is removed. He has drawn back His right hand from the face of the enemy; He does not pluck it out of His bosom to help His people, and to impede and rout the foes in their attacks. Aid is withheld. And He has burned in Jacob like a blazing fire, devouring round about: His anger, as it were, kindled a conflagration which has consumed all it touched. Consequent on strength gone and help refused, there is blank devastation.
() Lam. 2:4. If a human enemy has wreaked his vengeance on Israel, the Lord Himself has turned to be their enemy, and fought against them as an armed man. He has bent His bow as an enemy standing, [as to] His right hand, as an adversary. This ambiguous phrase seems to convey the idea that the Lord, like a man of war, had taken a hostile attitude and operation, so that He has slain all that was pleasant to the eye, everything esteemed was deprived of their qualities to please. On the tent of the daughter of Zion He has poured out as fire His fury. Jerusalem as the dwelling-place of its inhabitants has been searched and scorched with the spirit of justice and spirit of burning.
The preceding highly metaphorical expressions are suggestive; they show that the poet saw, what the men of his day, what the men of later days have failed to see aright, that the course of human life is aglow with the devouring fire of the holiness of God. The light of Israel is for a fire and his Holy One for a flame. Jews might have felt that the Chaldeans and others had made their land as a desolate wilderness; we might feel that, when we are worsted in the struggle for life, our environment has been unfavourable to us. Our eyes are holden, and we do not perceive that the righteousness of God is the grand factor in all defeats, all crashes, all panics, all losses; using bad things, as fuel is used, to produce a fierce heat which shall eat away all that is burnable. Not only on the other side of death is the unquenchable fire scorching sin; that fire is kindled and burning here and now. No screen can ward off the indignation of the just and holy Lord; the ashes of ruined fortunes, reputations, impurities, self-seekings, prove that the breath of the Lord has kindled a fire to run through human society as intense, as overwhelming as a stream of liquid lava. For our God is a consuming fire.
() Lam. 2:5. Hostilities were continued in other methods. The Lord has become as an enemy, has swallowed up Israel; the national is submerged. This is indicated by material evidence; He has swallowed up all her palaces, the great houses of the daughter of Zion; He has destroyed all His strongholds, the fortified places which had been garrisoned by the people, and He has multiplied in the daughter of Judah moaning and bemoaning. Two words, which are derived from the same Hebrew root, and similar in sound, express the manifold and intense sorrows which had been experienced.
HOMILETICS
THE FIERCENESS OF THE DIVINE ANGER
(Lam. 2:1-5)
How weird and sad is the lonely wail of the night-wind! How depressing the monotony of the sobbing sea! How heart-rending the ceaseless moan of the helpless sufferer! All the varying cadences of melancholy seem gathered up and interpreted in the sorrowful monody of the tender-hearted prophet. It is still the voice of lamentation that we hear: the strain, like the theme, is the same. From his elevated rocky grotto Jeremiah overlooked the ruined city, and it seemed impossible for him to turn away his gaze from the scene of destruction that fascinated while it distressed him. In this chapter he describes, with vivid realism, the harrowing circumstances connected with the siege and taking of the city. By a lofty flight of prophetic imagination he descries the awful form of the Almighty hovering over Jerusalem, wreaking vengeance on the obstinate and rebellious citizens. In this paragraph we learn that the fierceness of the Divine anger
I. Is a terrifying reality. The Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down the beauty of Israel (Lam. 2:1). The darkening cloud that portends the approaching storm fills the stoutest heart with alarm, and all nature cowers with fear under the crash of the dreadful thunder. The prophet sees the Divine anger settling upon Jerusalem like a dark thunder-cloud, and breaking in a tempest, by which the Temple is levelled to the ground. It is not the cloud that led the Israelites from bondage to freedom, but a cloud of wrath sent to punish for the aggravated abuse of that freedom. The cloud no longer guides and protects; it is now charged with the thunderbolt of retribution. The anger of God is all the more terrible when manifested towards those who once enjoyed His favour and compassion.
II. Is irresistible in its destructiveness (Lam. 2:1-5). The beauty of Israel is deformed, her pride humbled, her strength paralysed, her city reduced to ashes, and her strongholds and inhabitants are remorselessly swept away. Nothing can withstand the Divine power, and when that power is exerted in anger, it makes short work of the most formidable opposition. Storm, earthquake, fire, war, and all the forces of the universe, obey the bidding of the Divine Word. The enemies of God will be completely overthrown by the fierceness of His anger (Exo. 15:7; Psa. 2:2-5; Psa. 21:8-10; Psa. 79:6; Isa. 10:6; Jer. 10:25; Nah. 1:2; 1Th. 2:16).
III. Intensifies the misery of its victims. He hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation (Lam. 2:5). When our miseries come upon us from our enemies, we are not surprised; it is what we expected. When we can trace them as the direct result of our own folly and sin, we know they are deserved, and we strengthen ourselves to endure them as philosophically as we can; but when the truth dawns upon us that God is against us, and it is His hand that smites us, we are startled at the discovery, and our distress is unspeakably increased. It is a bitter ingredient in the sufferings of the disobedient to know that he has provoked the anger of the God of love. The suffering Christ turns away for us the fierceness of the Divine anger.
LESSONS.
1. Persistency in wrong-doing rouses the Divine anger.
2. When the Divine anger is manifested, it works terrible havoc.
3. Timely repentance averts the worst consequences of the Divine anger.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Lam. 2:1-2. The storm of the Divine wrath: I. Overshadows the city whose sins call for vengeance. How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger (Lam. 2:1). II. Shatters the sanctuary where worship has been profaned. Cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger (Lam. 2:1). III. Destroys the homesteads and fortresses of a rebellious people. The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob. He hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah (Lam. 2:2). IV. Dishonours the government that ignores the claims of righteousness. He hath polluted (profaned, made it common or unclean) the kingdom and the princes thereof (Lam. 2:2).
Lam. 2:3. The defences of a nation: I. Exposed to the ravages of the enemy when the Divine protection is withdrawn. He hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy. II. Deprived of their strength when assailed by the Divine anger. He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel. III. Utterly destroyed by the wrath evoked by national sins. He burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about.
Lam. 2:4-5. Jehovah as an enemy: I. Formidable to all who obstinately resist him. He hath bent his bow like an enemy. He stood with his right hand as an adversary (Lam. 2:4). II. Works terrible destruction. Slew all that were pleasant to the eye. He poured out his fury like fire. He hath swallowed up Israel (Lam. 2:4-5). III. Means augmented distress to those he punishes. He hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation (Lam. 2:5).
ILLUSTRATIONS.Neglect incurs wrath. As the mariner takes the first wind to sail, the merchant the first opportunity of buying and selling, and the husbandman the first opportunity of sowing and reaping, so should young men take the present season, the present day, which is their day, to be good towards the Lord, to seek Him and serve Him, and not to put off the present season, for they know not what another day, another hour, another moment may bring forth. That door of grace that is open to-day may be shut to-morrow; that golden sceptre of mercy that is held forth in the Gospel this day may be taken in the next day; that love, that this hour is upon the bare knee, entreating and beseeching young men to break off their sins by repentance, to return to the Lord, to lay hold on His strength and be at peace with Him, may the next hour be turned into wrath.Brooks.
Plutarch writes of Hannibal, that when he could have taken Rome he would not, and when he would have taken Rome he could not. Many in their youthful days, when they might have mercy, Christ, pardon, peace, heaven, will not; and when old age comes on they cannot, they may not. God seems to say, as Theseus once said, Go and tell Creon, Theseus offers thee a gracious offer. Yet I am pleased to be friends if thou wilt submitthis is my first message; but if this offer prevail not, look for me to be up in arms.
Whatever account you have to settle with God, settle it now. There are two nows in Scripture which should never be separated. One stands out in the brightest rays, the other retires into deep shadows. Now is the accepted time. Now they are hid from Thine eyes.Vaughan.
Judgment a surprise. There are sometimes some sad awakenings from sleep in this world. It is very sad to dream by night of vanished joys, to revisit old scenes and dwell once more among the unforgotten forms of our loved and lost; to see in the dreamland the old familiar look, and to hear the well-remembered tones of a voice long hushed and still, and then to awake with the morning light to the aching sense of our loneliness again. It were very sad for the poor criminal to wake from sweet dreams of other and happier daysdays of innocence, hope, and peace, when kind friends and a happy home and an honoured or unstained name were his; to wake in his cell on the morning of his execution to the horrible recollection that all is gone for ever, and that to-day he must die a felons death. But inconceivably more awful than any awakening which earthly daybreak has ever brought shall be the awakening of the self-deluded soul when it is roused in horror and surprise from the dream of life to meet Almighty God in judgment!J. Caird.
Temporary storms. It is a dark and cloudy day for you. A storm has burst upon you; but you remember how, after the storm, the bow is set in the cloud for all who look above to the Hand that smites them. The storm has come, and now we must look up and wait and watch in prayer and faith for the rainbow of promise and comfort.Ministering Children.
Prolonged misery. When water takes its first leap from the top, it is cool, collected, uninteresting, mathematical; but it is when it finds that it has got into a scrape, and has further to go than it thought for, that its character comes out; it is then that it begins to writhe and twist, and sweep out zone after zone in wilder stretchings as it falls, and to send down the rocket-like, lance-pointed, whizzing shafts at its sides, sounding for the bottom.Ruskin.
There is mercy in every storm. Every stroke of the rod is but the muffled voice of love; every billow bears on its bosom, and every tempest on its wing, some new and rich blessing from the better land. If the Lord were to roll the Red Sea before us and marshal the Egyptians behind us, and thus, hemming us in on every side, should yet bid us advance, it would be the duty and the privilege of faith instantly to obey, believing that, ere our feet touched the water, God in our extremity would divide the sea and take us dryshod over it. If for a moment we leave the path, difficulties throng around us, troubles multiply, the smallest trials become heavy crosses, the heart will sicken at disappointment, the Spirit be grieved, and God disappointed.Winslow.
Goodness a nations defence. Abijahs goodness was towards the Lord; his goodness faced the Lord; it looked towards the glory of the Lord. It is recorded of the Catanenses that they made a stately monument to two sons who took their aged parents upon their backs and carried them through the fire when their fathers house was all in a flame. These young men were good towards their parents; but what is this to Abijahs goodness towards the Lord? He was good in the house of Jeroboam, who made all Israel to sin; yet Abijah, as the fishes which live in the salt sea are fresh, so, though he lived in a sea of wickedness, he retained his goodness towards the Lord. They say roses grow the sweeter when planted by garlic. They are sweet and rare Christians indeed who hold their goodness and grow in goodness where wickedness sits on the throne. To be wheat among tares, corn among chaff, and roses among thorns, is excellent. To be a Jonathan in Sauls court, an Obadiah in Ahabs court, an Obedmelech in Zedekiahs court, and an Abijah in Jeroboams court, is a wonder, a miracle. To be a Lot in Sodom, an Abraham in Chaldea, a Daniel in Babylon, a Nehemiah in Damascus, and a Job in the land of Uz, is to be a saint among devils. The poets affirm that Venus never appeared so beautiful as when she sat by black Vulcans side. Gracious souls shine most clear when they are set by black-conditioned people. Stephens face never shone so angelically, so gloriously in the church where all were virtuous, as before the council where all were very vicious and malicious. So Abijah was a bright star, a shining sun in Jeroboams court, which for profaneness and wickedness was a very hell.
A substantial fence has been erected enclosing the relic of the Covenanters stone on the summit of Duns Law. On this historic spot the standard of the Covenanting army under General Leslie was planted, and on the stone a copy of the National League and Covenant signed by the resolute leaders on the 6th June 1639. At one time the stone was prominently seen, but it is now so much reduced by the chipping and hacking of Vandalic visitors as to be scarcely visible above the green sward. Scotland has good reason to be proud of the brave exploits of its ancestors, who, whatever their failings, were men of earnest purpose, and fought for those principles of right and justice which helped to make possible the national life of to-day. The records and memorials of their deeds should be a constant stimulus to imitate their noblest qualities. Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.The Scottish Pulpit.
Satan an enemy: but what of Jehovah? Satan is the enemy of every saint, and he is an indefatigable enemy. He never tires in his temptations to ensnare souls to destroy them. He walketh about seeking whom he may devour. This denotes his main object is to ruin the souls of men, and that he does it in a deliberate, calm, systematic way. He walks about observing times, places, circumstances, charactersall with a view to devour. He does as a lion, to whom he is compared. Observe his gentle tread, his fiery, searching eye, his subtle plans, his secret ambushes, his hidden schemes, his concealed name, nature, and character; and when he spies one of whom he can take advantage, see how the lion-nature is developed in the rush, the pounce, the seizure, the tearing, the destruction. But what must it be to the sinner to find an enemy in Jehovah?
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
A BROKEN PEOPLE
Lam. 2:1-22
In content, form and theology chapter 2 is a continuation of chapter 1. Like chapter 1, the second chapter is also a national lament but the focus here is on the entire nation rather than just on the city of Jerusalem. The poem is in acrostic form which is almost identical to that used in the first chapter except that the sixteenth and seventeenth letters of the Hebrew alphabet are transposed. Since this transposition does not interrupt the train of thought it must be viewed as intentional rather than accidental as suggested by some commentators. The same phenomenon occurs again in chapters three and four. Theologically this chapter again emphasizes the fact that Judahs punishment came as a result of sin and that the punishment was entirely justified. In Lam. 2:1-10 the prophet describes the divine judgment upon his people. In Lam. 2:11-16 he expresses his sincere sympathy for his people in their sufferings. He exhorts them to present their case before God (Lam. 2:17-19) and sets the example for them by offering a model prayer on their behalf (Lam. 2:20-22).
I. THE PROPHETS DESCRIPTION OF THE JUDGMENT UPON HIS PEOPLE Lam. 2:1-10
TRANSLATION
(1) How sad that the Lord in His anger has covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud! He has cast down from heaven to earth the glory of Israel! He did not remember His footstool in the day of His anger. (2) The Lord has swallowed up without mercy all the inhabitants of Jacob. He has cast down in His wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah, bringing them to the ground. He defiled the kingdom and her princes. (3) He has cut off in His burning wrath all the horn of Israel. He has withdrawn His right hand in the face of the enemy. He has burned like a flaming fire in Jacob consuming all around. (4) He has bent his bow like an enemy, standing with His right hand like a foe. He has slain all that were pleasant to the eye. In the tents of the daughter of Zion he has poured out his wrath like fire. (5) The Lord has become like an enemy, swallowing up Israel. He has swallowed up her palaces, destroyed his strongholds. He has caused mourning and lamentation to increase in the daughter of Judah. (6) He has torn down His tabernacle like that of a garden, destroying His meeting place. The LORD has caused solemn assembly and sabbath to be forgotten in Zion. In His fierce indignation He has repudiated both king and priest. (7) The LORD has scorned His altar, disowned His sanctuary. He has given into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces. They made noise in the house of the LORD as on the day of an appointed feast. (8) The LORD determined to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion. He stretched out the measuring line; He did not withdraw His hand from devouring. He has caused the rampart and wall to lament; they languish together. (9) Her gates have sunk into the earth; He has destroyed and broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the nations where there is no law; even her prophets have not been able to find a vision from the LORD. (10) The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground in silence; they cast dust upon their heads having put on sackcloth. The maidens of Jerusalem have brought their heads down to the ground.
COMMENTS
It is striking the way the prophet emphasizes in Lam. 2:1-10 that the destruction of his people was an act of divine judgment. In spite of the fact that God administered the stroke against Judah the prophet is not bitter. He knows that the judgment was proper and appropriate in view of the terrible sin of his countrymen. The detailed account of these verses points to the fact that the writer was an eyewitness to the catastrophe which he describes. The first ten verses of chapter two should be read with the warning of Heb. 10:31 constantly before the reader: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Jeremiah almost exhausts the possibilities of human language in describing the burning wrath of a holy God against His apostate people. A great cloud of calamity settled down over the daughter of Zion in the day of His wrath. Like a star falling from the heavens so the glory of Israel fell to earth that day. God did not even spare His own footstool, the Temple or perhaps the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. It is possible that the phrases daughter of Zion, glory of Israel, and His footstool are to be regarded as progressive phrases designating the nation as a whole, the city of Jerusalem and the Temple or alternatively, Jerusalem, the Temple and the ark of the covenant. The Lord has consumed the dwelling places and destroyed the strongholds of His people. He has caused the princes of the land to be profaned i.e., captured, mutilated, and slain by ungodly forces (Lam. 2:2). He has cut off the horn (power) of Israel by withdrawing His powerful right hand of defense as the enemy approached. He has caused the territory of Jacob to be put to the torch (Lam. 2:3). After the capture of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. the city was burned to the ground (Jer. 52:13).
Judean resistance to the Chaldean onslaught of 587 B.C. was useless from the start because the real adversary was none other than God Himself. Through the instrumentality of Nebuchadnezzars soldiers the divine archer drew His bow against Jerusalem and slew all that were pleasant to the eye i.e., the finest young men of the Judean army. Even in the tent of the daughter of Zion (the Temple) He poured out His fiery wrath (Lam. 2:4). It is none other than the Lord who has caused all the destruction and death and resulting lamentation in the land (Lam. 2:5). He has not hesitated in destroying His tabernacle, His meeting place, any more than a gardener might destroy a watchmans booth when the harvest season was over. The mockery of Judahs festivals and sabbaths He has brought to an abrupt halt. Even the kings and priests, normally spared the indignities of war, have felt the blast of divine indignation and judgment (Lam. 2:6). How can the Lord allow the sacred city to be so humiliated? Because the Lord has scorned His altar and disowned His sanctuary. It takes more than outward ritual to prevent divine judgment. The Lord has turned the city over to the enemies of Judah. A shout has been heard in the precincts of the Templenot the shout of joyous worshipers but of looting enemy soldiers (Lam. 2:7).
The destruction of Jerusalem was no afterthought; it had been predetermined by God. The Lord had marked off the city for destruction with a measuring line. The outer defenses of the city, the rampart and wall, had fallen to the enemy after incessant bombardment (Lam. 2:8). The heavy gates of the city and the powerful beams which secured them during siege have been battered to the ground. Zions king and princes are in exile among the heathen who know not the law of God. The prophets are without vision (Lam. 2:9). The sagacious elders of Jerusalem have no advice or counsel to offer. They sit silently with sackcloth about their loins and dust upon their head as a sign of bitter mourning. The bright young maidens of Judah hang their heads in remorse (Lam. 2:10).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
II.
(1) How hath the Lord . . .The second dirge follows the pattern of the first, opening with a description of the sufferings of Jerusalem, (Lam. 2:1-10), and closing with a dramatic soliloquy spoken as by the daughter of Zion (Lam. 2:11-22).
The image that floats before the poets mind is that of a dark thunder-cloud breaking into a tempest, which overthrows the beauty of Israel, sc. the Temple (Isa. 64:11), or, as in 2Sa. 1:19, the heroes who defended it. The footstool is, as in 1Ch. 28:2; Psa. 99:5, the ark of the covenant, which was involved in the destruction of the Temple. The Lord is, as before, Adonai, not Jehovah.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE JUDGMENT, Lam 2:1-10.
1. Covered The original is a denomination from the noun for cloud, so that the literal rendering is, How doeth the Lord becloud with a cloud the daughter of Zion! God’s anger settles down on Jerusalem like a dark thundercloud. By daughter of Zion (and beauty of Israel) Jerusalem is meant, containing, as it did, the “holy and beautiful house,” the temple, and the ark, which was his footstool.
Cast down Not, as some have suggested, by the launching of a thunderbolt, but rather as a star is cast down from heaven.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Lord’s Anger Is Revealed In The Destruction Of Jerusalem ( Lam 2:1-9 ).
In these verses we have a description of how in His ‘anger’ (antipathy towards sin) the Lord has brought destruction on Judah and Jerusalem both politically and religiously. He is seen as the cause of the Babylonian activity. It is a reminder to us that behind what often seems to be the meaningless flow of history God is at work.
Lam 2:1
(Aleph) How has the Lord covered the daughter of Zion,
With a cloud in his anger!
He has cast down from heaven to the earth,
The beauty of Israel,
And has not remembered his footstool,
In the day of his anger.
In the first five verses of this chapter all the activity is seen as that of ‘the Sovereign Lord’ acting against those who were once His people. In this first verse a threefold activity is depicted. The Sovereign Lord has:
Covered the Daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger.
Cast down from Heaven to earth the Beauty of Israel.
Not remembered His Footstool in the day of His anger.
Many commentators have seen all three of these activities as referring to Jerusalem or Israel; the daughter of Zion covered with a storm-cloud, the beauty of Israel cast down from Heaven to earth, His footstool not remembered by the Lord. But a glance at the following verses throws this interpretation into doubt, for they demonstrate that it is the prophet’s usual practise in this lament to speak of three different, if parallel things, not the same thing three times. Thus we must view this interpretation with suspicion.
The first statement is clear. The Sovereign Lord has, in His anger, covered the daughter of Zion (Jerusalem) with a storm-cloud. This is the very opposite to the way in which, in earlier days, YHWH had manifested Himself in a cloud. That had been protective, indicating His presence with them. Now the swirling storm-cloud is seen to be one of judgment and fierce anger.
He has ‘cast down the Beauty of Israel from Heaven to earth’. This phrase is descriptive of a fall from high honour, even from god-likeness, as we see by its use of the King of Babylon in Isa 14:1, and of Tyre in Eze 28:14; Eze 28:17. But to what does ‘the Beauty of Israel refer? The concept of beauty is elsewhere:
1). Referred to the Temple (Psa 96:6; Isa 60:7; Isa 64:11).
2). Referred to Israel/Judah’s royal house (compare2Sa 1:19; Zec 12:7).
3). Referred to Jerusalem itself (Isa 52:1). See Lam 2:15. Compare in this regard how Babylon is called “the beauty of the splendour of the Chaldeans” in Isa 13:19.
If we take it as 3) it would certainly fit in as a parallel to ‘the daughter of Zion’, but, as we have already suggested, in this lament the prophet does not tend to use such exact parallels. Thus we would rather expect the daughter of Zion, the beauty of Israel, and the Footstool to refer to three different things.
Considering 2). reference to Judah’s king as ‘the Beauty of Israel’ (as in 2Sa 1:19; Zec 12:7) and being cast down from Heaven to earth would certainly tie in with the parallel of the King of Babylon who made exalted claims about his status and was also to be cast from Heaven to earth (Isa 14:12-15), and it is quite possible that Zedekiah may have been aping the Babylonian New Year ritual in which this was enacted. Reference to the king may also be seen as a good parallel to the Ark, if we take the Ark as His footstool, something specifically stated in 1Ch 28:2, for both the King and the Ark represented YHWH’s kingship. Furthermore a star falling from Heaven could certainly be seen as signifying a bad end for a ruler (for star = ruler compare Num 24:17; Dan 8:10). And certainly the king was seen by Jerusalem and the prophet in an exalted sense, being described in terms of ‘YHWH’s Anointed’, the very breath of their nostrils (Lam 4:20), making clear his importance in their eyes. As the Davidic king and the Anointed of YHWH, the one on whom Israel’s hopes rested, he could well be described as the beauty of Israel. In contrast it is difficult to see either the Temple or Jerusalem as being cast down from Heaven to earth (unless we see the idea as metaphorical of their splendour being cast down from Heaven, but there is no example of this elsewhere). What is also significant is that the king and his princes, and their fate, are stressed in the immediately following verses (see Lam 2:2; Lam 2:6) demonstrating that they were in the prophet’s mind as he wrote. It would appear to us therefore that the Beauty of Israel was the Davidic king, whose status was beautiful, but who was brought low by the Lord.
It was the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH that was mainly seen as YHWH’s footstool (1Ch 28:2; compare Psa 99:5). This was presumably because it was seen as the place where YHWH manifested Himself on earth, as He sat on His throne in Heaven whilst His feet rested on the ark. Though hidden behind the curtain in the tabernacle/temple the Ark was the means by which, through their high priest, Israel felt that they could directly meet with God. And that ark was now to be ‘not remembered’ by Him, something apparent when it was either destroyed or carried off to Babylon. It had become simply a treasure and would no longer be able to fulfil its function. What had been sacred for so long was now to be seen as irrelevant.
If we accept these suggestions we see the verse as indicating that Jerusalem had been covered by His storm-cloud, as His anger rested on it; the membership of the Davidic royal house had been cast from Heaven to earth (removed from its high status and profaned – Lam 2:2), because it had been disobedient to YHWH and could therefore no longer represent Him; and the Ark had become ‘not remembered’ because it had been carried off (or destroyed) and could no longer function.
It is, of course, possible, to see all three ideas as referring to the same thing, either Jerusalem itself (Isa 52:1), or the Temple, seen equally as ‘the daughter of Zion’, ‘the Beauty of Israel’ (see Isa 64:11) and ‘His Footstool’ (Psa 132:7; Isa 60:13), but the references are not specific and Psa 132:7 could equally apply to the ark, whilst the ‘casting down to earth’ makes this interpretation questionable. Given the prophet’s usual practise of speaking of three different but similar things, as explained above, this interpretation would seem to be very unlikely.
Lam 2:2
(Beth) The Lord has swallowed up and has not pitied,
All the habitations of Jacob,
He has thrown down in his wrath,
The strongholds of the daughter of Judah,
He has brought them down to the ground,
He has profaned the kingdom, and its princes.
Note here an example of what we have said above. The prophet refers to ‘the habitations of Jacob’ (the noun indicates rude habitations like those of a shepherd), ‘the strongholds of the daughter of Judah’ (referring to substantial cities), and ‘the kingdom and its princes’.
The word for ‘habitations’ is mainly used for the habitations of shepherds. Thus it would appear that what are initially seen as swallowed up by the invaders are the smaller towns and villages which were not ‘built up’ and were without walls, thus being easy targets. The larger towns and cities are covered by the idea of ‘strongholds’. They have been thrown down in His wrath. Indeed they have been brought down to the ground.
And at the same time ‘the kingdom, and its princes’ have been ‘profaned’, that is, have been rendered or treated as unclean and defiled, being treated as though they were an ordinary kingdom and ordinary princes and not YHWH’s chosen. In the case of the princes they have also been slain by the swords of profane men. There is a recognition here of the fact that the princes were seen to have had a special recognition by God as being His anointed princes, and this was especially so of the king who was YHWH’s Anointed (Lam 4:20). But that special recognition had not prevented the Lord from allowing them to be profaned by foreign swords or by equally foreign instruments for blinding.
The word for ‘kingdom’ could equally be translated ‘kingship’ on the basis of 2Sa 3:10 ; 2Sa 7:12-13; 2Sa 7:16. Note how in 2 Samuel 7 it parallels the idea of the throne of David. This would support the idea that in Lam 2:1 ‘the beauty of Israel’ was the Davidic house and throne.
Lam 2:3
(Gimel) He has cut off in fierce anger,
All the horn of Israel,
He has drawn back his right hand,
From before the enemy,
And he has burned up Jacob like a flaming fire,
Which devours round about.
Here the prophet makes clear how God accomplishes His work. He allows the evil of man free rein, withdrawing His protection from His people (drawing back His right hand). By this means He has cut off ‘all the horn of Israel’. The horn was the symbol of an animal’s power and strength, and when men wished to render it ‘harmless’ they cut off its horn. This was what YHWH had metaphorically done to Israel. Note the mention of ‘Israel’. The prophet saw Judah as representing Israel, and indeed it did so, for it contained a mixture of the ‘twelve tribes’, many of whom had fled or migrated from the north.
And the consequence was that ‘Jacob’ (Abraham’s grandson was called both Jacob and Israel) had literally been ‘burned up like a flaming fire’, as the fierce invaders had set light to its towns and cities. But the thought is wider than that of just literal fire. The prophet sees the ability of fire to eat up everything as the symbol of total destruction.
Lam 2:4
(Daleth) He has bent his bow like an enemy,
He has stood with his right hand,
And he has slain like an adversary,
All who were pleasant to the eye,
In the tent of the daughter of Zion,
He has poured out his wrath like fire.
The Lord is seen as being like an archer who picks off the enemy one by one, and a swordsman who slays with his right hand, in this case ‘all who were pleasant to the eye’ in Judah. This may refer to Judah’s young men and women in their prime, or it may refer to the royal house and the aristocracy. Or indeed to both. For His wrath is like a fire that devours all before it.
It would be possible to render this as ‘He has destroyed like an adversary all that was pleasant to the eye’, referring to the noble buildings, the treasures, and especially the Temple with its treasures. But the translation above fits the context better.
Lam 2:5
(He) The Lord is become as an enemy,
He has swallowed up Israel,
He has swallowed up all her palaces,
He has destroyed his strongholds,
And he has multiplied in the daughter of Judah,
Mourning and lamentation.
Woe betide the nation or the individual to whom the Lord becomes ‘as an enemy’. And that is what had happened to Jerusalem and Judah because of their disdain for His covenant and their love of false religion. In the city that He had set apart for Himself as a witness to the world, they had profaned His Name, and despised His covenant, giving a false message to the world. The result was that He had become their enemy and had swallowed them up, along with their palaces and their strongholds, and had filled the whole place with mourning, weeping and lamentation.
Lam 2:6
(Waw) And he has violently taken away his tabernacle as if it were of a garden,
He has destroyed his place of assembly,
YHWH has caused solemn assembly and sabbath,
To be forgotten in Zion,
And has despised in the indignation of his anger,
The king and the priest.
YHWH had done the unthinkable. Judah had been so sure that He would not allow His Temple to be destroyed (Jer 7:2 ff), but that is precisely what He had done. Judah had maintained the trappings of Yahwism, but their hearts had been set on other things. Now they were to see that their sacred Temple meant nothing to God if it was not filled with true worshippers. God does not honour buildings, or sites. He honours people. But not if they dishonour Him. And that is what Judah had constantly done.
And so YHWH had removed from them the trappings of their religion which they still considered as so important. He had violently taken away their Temple which was, in their eyes, His dwellingplace (tabernacle) with the same casualness as a man would remove a temporary shed from his garden when it had lost its usefulness. In those days ‘buildings’ erected in gardens were of a temporary and makeshift nature. He had destroyed the very place in which men had gathered to worship at their festivals. And the result was that the festivals and the sabbath were now ‘forgotten in Zion’. They were simply unobserved.
Furthermore He had dealt severely with ‘the king and the priest’. He has ‘despised them’, ignoring any demands that they might have thought that they had on Him. Note the assumption that the king had an important part to play in worship (as Eze 44:3; Eze 45:17; Eze 45:22-25; Eze 46:12 brings out of the then future king, however we interpret it). As the Davidic heir he was the ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek’ (Psa 110:4) and acted as intercessor on behalf of his people (compare 1Ki 8:22-53; 2Ki 19:20; 2Sa 8:18). What was forbidden to him was to perform the priestly office in offering sacrifices and incense, and entering the Holy Place. Thus both king and priest were necessary in worship.
So the whole point of this verse is that YHWH Himself has eradicated all the places and people involved nominally in worshipping Him. They had proved false, and instead of glorying in them He had therefore despised them and rooted them out. God wants no false or nominal religion.
Lam 2:7
(Zayin) The Lord has cast off his altar,
He has abhorred his sanctuary,
He has given up into the hand of the enemy,
The walls of her palaces,
They have made a noise in the house of YHWH,
As in the day of a solemn assembly.
Indeed the very altar had been cast off by Him, and He had abhorred His sanctuary, the two most sacred things in Jerusalem. He had wanted nothing to do with either and had handed them over to the enemy. The language is very forceful and emphasises the fact that even the holiest of things are nothing unless those who use and frequent them are genuine worshippers.
And at the same time He had handed over the walls of her palaces. The enemy had even been allowed to come into the house of YHWH, their voices ringing out with a similar noise to that heard at a solemn assembly, but instead of cries of worship it was the with the sound of their victory and their gloating over the treasures that they found.
Lam 2:8
(Cheth) YHWH has purposed to destroy,
The wall of the daughter of Zion,
He has stretched out the line,
He has not withdrawn his hand from destroying,
And he has made the rampart and wall to lament,
They languish together.
The catalogue continues. YHWH Himself has purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion. Jerusalem’s walls were to be levelled to the ground. YHWH had even measured them up in readiness, demonstrating the thoroughness with which He was carrying out His purpose. Both rampart and wall would be destroyed. They would lament and languish together. The thoroughness with which this was done by the Babylonians has been evidence in excavations in Jerusalem.
Lam 2:9
(Teth) Her gates are sunk into the ground,
He has destroyed and broken her bars,
Her king and her princes are among the nations,
Where the law is not.
Yes, her prophets do not find,
Vision from YHWH.
Finally He has dealt with the gates of Jerusalem. Her gates are sunk into the ground, buried in the rubble, and the bars which fastened them have been destroyed and broken. The city is defenceless. And meanwhile her king and nobles (the princes were dead) are scattered among the nations where His Law is not revered, and her prophets are silenced without any vision from YHWH. They have lost both the rule of the Law and the illumination of prophecy.
Of course the Law was being revered by those of the Dispersion who still held even more firmly to it, but it was only among themselves. It was ignored by outsiders.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Description of Jehovah’s Judgment
v. 1. How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion, v. 2. The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, v. 3. He hath cut off in His fierce anger all the horn of Israel, v. 4. He hath bent His bow like an enemy, v. 5. The Lord was as an enemy; He hath swallowed up Israel, v. 6. And He hath violently taken away His Tabernacle as if it were of a garden, v. 7. The Lord hath cast off His altar, v. 8. The Lord hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion, v. 9. Her gates are sunk into the ground, v. 10. The elders of the daughter of Zion,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
ZION‘S JUDGMENT IS OF GOD. LAMENTATIONS AND SUPPLICATIONS.
EXPOSITION
Lam 2:1
Hath the Lord covered; rather, doth cover. The daughter of Zion; i.e. Jerusalem. Cast down from heaven. Here and in Mat 11:28 we have a parallel to Isa 14:12, where the King of Babylon is compared to a bright star. “Cast down” whither? Into the “pit” or dungeon of Hades (Isa 14:15). The beauty of Israel; i.e. Jerusalem, exactly as Babylon is called “the proud beauty [or, ‘ornament’] of Chaldea” (Isa 13:19). His footstool; i.e. the ark (Psa 132:7), or perhaps the temple as containing the ark (1Ch 28:2; Psa 99:5).
Lam 2:2
Habitations; rather, pastures; The word properly means the settlements of shepherds in green, grassy spots, but here designates the country parts in general, distinguished from the “strongholds” of Judah. Hath polluted. So Psa 89:39, “Thou hast profaned [same word as here] his crown [by casting it] to the ground.” The wearer of a crown was regarded in the East as nearer to divinity than ordinary mortals; in some countries, indeed, e.g. in Egypt, almost as an incarnation of the deity. To discrown him was to “pollute” or “profane” him.
Lam 2:3
All the horn; rather, every horn; i.e. all the means of defence, especially the fortresses. He hath drawn back his right hand; i.e. he hath withdrawn his assistance in war. He burned against; rather, he burned up.
Lam 2:4
The beginning of the verse seems slightly out of order. And slew all that were pleasant, etc. The correct rendering is, And slew all that was pleasant to the eye: in the tent of the daughter of Zion he poured out his fury like fire. The Authorized Version (following the Targum) seems to have thought that the youth of the population alone was intended. But, though Ewald also adopts this view, it seems to limit unduly the meaning of the poet. By “tent” we should probably understand “dwelling,” as Jer 4:5, and often; Isa 16:5, “the tent of David;” Psa 78:67, “the tent of Joseph.”
Lam 2:5
Was as an enemy: he hath swallowed, etc. The threefold division of the verse is, unfortunately, concealed in the Authorized Version, owing to the arbitrary stopping. The grouping suggested by the Massoretic text is
“The Lord is become an enemy, he hath swallowed up Israel;
He hath swallowed up all her palaces, he hath destroyed all his strongholds;
And hath increased in the daughter of Judah moaning and bemoaning.”
The change of gender in the second line is easily explicable. In the first case the poet is thinking of the city; in the second, of the people of Israel. The rendering “moaning and bemoaning” is designed to reproduce, to some extent, the Hebrew phrase, in which two words, derived from the same root, and almost exactly the same, are placed side by side, to give a more intense expression to the idea.
Lam 2:6
Violently taken away; rather, violently treated; i.e. broken up. His tabarnacle; rather, his booth. “Tent” and “dwelling” are interchangeable expressions (see Lam 2:4); and in the Psalms “booth” is used as a special poetic synonym for tent when God’s earthly dwelling place, the sanctuary of the temple, is spoken of (so Psa 27:5; Psa 31:20; Psa 76:2). The Authorized Version, indeed, presumes an allusion to the proper meaning of the Hebrew word, as if the poet compared the sanctuary of Jehovah to a pleasure booth in a garden. It is, however, more natural to continue, as a garden, the sense of which will be clear from Psa 80:12, Psa 80:13. The Septuagint has, instead, “as a vine”a reading which differs from the Massoretic by having one letter more (kaggefen instead of kaggan). This ancient reading is adopted by Ewald, and harmonizes well with Isa 5:1, etc.; Jer 2:21 (comp. Psa 80:8); but the received text gives a very good sense. “Garden” in the Bible means, of course, a plantation of trees rather than a flower garden. His places of the assembly; rather, his place of meeting (with God). The word occurs in the same sense in Psa 74:3. It is the temple which is meant, and the term is borrowed from the famous phrase, ohel moedh (Exo 27:21; comp. Exo 25:22).
Lam 2:7
Her palaces; i.e. those of the daughter of Zion, especially “high buildings” (this is the true meaning of ‘armon) of the temple. They have made a noise, etc. Comp. Psa 74:3, “Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy place of meeting.” The passages are parallel, though, whether the calamities referred to are the same in both, cannot a priori be determined. The shouts of triumph of the foe are likened to the festal shouts of the temple worshippers (comp. Isa 30:29; Amo 5:24).
Lam 2:8
He hath stretched out a line. It is the “line of desolation” mentioned in Isaiah (Isa 34:11; comp. Amo 7:7; 2Ki 21:13). Such is the unsparing rigour of Jehovah’s judgments.
Lam 2:9
Are sunk into the ground; i.e. are broken down and buried in the dust. The Law is no more. The observance of the Law being rendered impossible by the destruction of the temple. Comp. this and the next clause with Eze 7:26.
Lam 2:10
They have cast up dust, etc. A sign of mourning (Jos 7:6; 2Sa 13:19; Job 2:12).
Lam 2:11
My bowels are troubled (see on Lam 1:20). My liver is poured upon the earth. A violent emotion being supposed to occasion a copious discharge of bile. The daughter of my people. A poetic expression for Zion or Judah.
Lam 2:12
Corn. Either in the sense of parched corn (comp. Le 23:14; 1Sa 17:17; Pro 27:22) or a poetic expression for “bread” (comp. Exo 16:4; Psa 105:40)
Lam 2:13
What thing shall I take to witness for thee? rather, What shall I testify unto thee? The nature, of the testifying may be gathered from the following words. It would be a comfort to Zion to know that her misfortune was not unparalleled: solamen miseris socios habuisse malorum. The expression is odd, however, and, comparing Isa 40:18, A. Krochmal has suggested, What shall I compare? The correction is easy. Equal; i.e. compare (comp. Isa 46:5)
Lam 2:14
Thy prophets. Jeremiah constantly inveighs against the fallacious, immoral preaching of the great mass of his prophetic contemporaries (comp. Jer 6:13, Jer 6:14; Jer 14:13-15; Jer 23:14-40). Have seen vain and foolish things; i.e. have announced “visions” (prophecies) of an unreal and irrational tenor. Comp. Jer 23:13, where the same word here paraphrased as “irrational” (literally, insipid) occurs. Discovered; i.e. disclosed. To turn away thy captivity. The Captivity, then, might have been “turned away,” if the other prophets had, like Jeremiah, disclosed the true spiritual state of the people, and moved them to repentance. False burdens. Suggestive references to these false prophecies occur in Jer 14:13, Jer 14:14; Jer 23:31, Jer 23:32 (see the Exposition on these passages). Causes of banishment. So Jeremiah, “They prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land.”
Lam 2:15
Clap hiss wag their heads. Gestures of malicious joy (Job 27:23) or contempt (Jer 19:8; Psa 22:7). The perfection of beauty; literally, the perfect in beauty. The same phrase is used in Ezekiel (Eze 27:3; Eze 28:12) of Tyre, and a similar one in Psa 1:2 of Zion.
Lam 2:16, Lam 2:17
On the transposition of the initial letters in these verses, see Introduction.
Lam 2:16
Have opened their mouth against thee. As against the innocent sufferer of Psa 22:1-31. (Psa 22:13). Gnash the teeth. In token of rage, as Psa 35:16; Psa 37:12. We have seen it (comp. Psa 35:21).
Lam 2:17
His word that he had commanded, etc. “Commanded,” i.e. given in charge to. Comp. Zec 1:6, My words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets.” Zechariah continues, in language which illustrates the foregoing words of this verse, “Did they not take hold of [overtake] your fathers;” where the persons spoken of as “your fathers” are the same as those who are represented by the speaker of the elegy. “In the days of old;” alluding, perhaps, to such passages as Deu 28:52, etc. The horn of thine adversaries. “Horn” has a twofold meaning”strength” or “defence” (comp. Deu 28:3), and “honour” or “dignity”. The figure is too natural to need explanation.
Lam 2:18
Their heart cried unto the Lord, etc. “Their heart” can only mean “the heart of the people of Jerusalem.” For the expression, comp. Psa 84:2, “My heart and my flesh cry aloud to the living God.” To avoid the rather startling prosopopoeia in the next clause, Thenius supposes a corruption in the group of letters rendered “wall,” and attaches the corrected word to the first clause, rendering thus: “Their heart crieth unto the Lord in vain; O daughter of Zion, let tears run down,” etc. Another resource, which also involves an emendation, is that of Ewald, “Cry with all thy heart, O wall of the daughter of Zion.” O wall, etc. The prosepopoeia is surprising, but is only a degree more striking than that of Psa 84:8 and Lam 1:4. In Isa 14:31 we find an equally strong one, “Howl, O gate.” Most probably, however, there is something wrong in the text; the following verses seem to refer to the daughter of Zion. Bickell reads thus: “Cry aloud unto the Lord, O virgin daughter of Zion.” Like a river; rather, like a torrent. Give thyself no rest. The word rendered “rest” means properly the stiffness produced by cold.
Lam 2:19
In the beginning of the watches. This would seem to be most naturally explained as referring to the first watch of the night. When most are wrapped in their first and sweetest sleep, the daughter of Zion is to “arise and cry.” Others explain, “at the beginning of each of the night watches;” i.e. all the night through. Previously to the Roman times, the Jews had divided the night into three watches (comp. Jdg 3:19). Pour out thine heart like water; i.e. give free course to thy complaint, shedding tears meanwhile. The expression is parallel partly to phrases like “I am poured out like water” (Psa 22:14), partly to “Pour out your heart before him” (Psa 62:8). In the top of every street; rather, at every street corner (and so Lam 4:1).
Lam 2:20
To whom thou hast done this; viz. to Israel, the chosen people. And children; rather, (even) children. The children are the “fruit” referred to. Comp. the warnings in Le 26:26; Deu 28:56; and especially Jer 19:9; also the historical incident in 2Ki 6:28, 2Ki 6:29. Of a span long; rather, borne in the hands. The word is derived from the verb renders to swaddle” in 2Ki 6:22 (see note).
Lam 2:22
Thou hast called as in a solemn day. The passage is illustrated by Lam 1:15, according to which the instruments of Jehovah’s vengeance are “summoned” by him to a festival when starting for the holy war. My terrors round about. Almost identical with one of the characteristic phrases of Jeremiah’s prophecies, “fear [or rather, ‘terror’] on every side” (see on Jer 6:25). Have swaddled; rather, have borne upon the hands.
HOMILETICS
Lam 2:1
God not remembering his footstool.
The ark was regarded as God’s footstool; and the temple in which the ark was kept was also sometimes called the footstool of God. When the temple was destroyed and the ark stolen, or broken, or lost, it looked as though God had forgotten his footstool. The symbolism of the ark and the ritual connected with it give a peculiar significance to this fact.
I. GOD NO LONGER REMEMBERS THE PLACE WHERE HIS PRESENCE WAS MOST FULLY MANIFESTED. The Holy Land, Jerusalem, the temple, the holy of holies, the ark,these are the sacred places, of increasing sanctity as the circle narrows, till the very footstool where God touches earth is reached.
1. The presence of God in our midst is no guarantee against the natural consequences of our misdeeds. On the contrary, if he is with us to protect in times of simple distress, he is with us as Judge to condemn when we fail and contract guilt.
2. The presence of God at one time is no guarantee of its permanence. The footstool may be God’s no longer if it prove unworthy of him. The Church which was once the temple of the Holy Spirit may become deserted by its heavenly Guest. That we enjoy the communion of God now is no reason for being confident that we shall not lose that privilege through unbelief or other sin.
3. We cannot assume that God will never reject us because he has once made use of us. The footstool may be supposed to have been used by God as of some service to him. Nevertheless it was discarded. If the servant of God proved unfaithful, his Master’s livery will not save him. He will be discharged and disgraced.
II. GOD NO LONGER REMEMBERS HIS MERCY SEAT. The footstool of God’s peculiarly manifested presence was also his mercy seat.. There the assurance of atonement was confirmed when the high priest entered with sacrificial blood and intercession. Yet even the mercy seat can be forgotten in the day of God’s anger. We trust that in wrath he will remember mercy. But there are clouds of anger too black for us to see the mercy that shines behind them.
1. The mercy which is in the heart of God is not to be regarded as nullifying his wrath. It is so represented by some who take one-sided views of the Divine character. But the All-merciful can be a consuming fire.
2. If God has once been merciful to us we may not conclude that he can never be angry with us. On the contrary, if we sin against light and love we provoke the greater wrath. The very fact that the footstool was privileged to be a mercy seat will aggravate the wrath which must be poured upon it when it is disgraced.
III. GOD NO LONGER REMEMBERS THE PLACE OF PRAYER, At the footstool of God the suppliant kneels pleading for deliverance, But his prayer is unheard. God may refuse to hearken to prayer. Where he is wont to stoop and listen to cry and sigh of burdened souls he may be regardless.
1. Impenitence will lead to God’s disregarding our prayer.
2. When wrath is necessary, the mere cry for escape must be unheard.
3. When chastisement is for our good, mercy itself will refuse to listen to the prayer for deliverance. The surgeon must disregard the cries of his patient. He must harden himself to save the sufferer.
Lam 2:4, Lam 2:5
The Lord as an enemy.
I. THE LORD MAY BECOME TO US AS AN ENEMY. We must not suppose the relations of God to those who forsake him to be purely negative. He cannot simply leave them to their own devices. He is a King who must needs maintain order and restrain and punish rebellion, a Judge who cannot permit law to be trampled underfoot with impunity, a Father who cannot abandon his children, but must chastise them in their wrong doing just because he is so closely related to them. Let it be well understood, then, that, in opposing ourselves to God, we run counter to a power, a will, an active authority. We provoke the anger of God. We do not simply strike ourselves against the stone, we cause the stone to fall upon us and grind us to powder.
II. NOTHING CAN BE MORE TERRIBLE THAN FOR THE LORD TO BECOME TO US AS AN ENEMY. The very thought of God as an enemy should strike terror into one who finds it is a fact.
1. God is almighty. It is at once apparent that the war must end in defeat for the rebel
2. God is just. Then he must be in the right with the great controversy. We must be fighting on the wrong side when we are fighting against God.
3. God is gracious. How fearful must be the wrong doing that provokes so kind a God to enmity!
4. God is our Father. Our Father become as our enemy! The unnatural situation proclaims its own horror. The nearness of God and his love to us make the fire of his wrath the more fierce. The wrath of the “Lamb” is more awful than the raging of him who goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.
III. GOD DOES NOT BECOME TO US AS AN ENEMY UNTIL WE HAVE PROVED OURSELVES TO BE ENEMIES TO HIM. He has no wish to quarrel with us. He is changeless in his constancy of righteousness and love. It is we who break the peace. The declaration of war between heaven and earth is always issued by the lower world. It is not necessary, however, that our enmity should be overt in order that God may be seen as an enemy. Secret alienation of heart, quiet neglect of God’s will, self-willed indifference to God, will constitute enmity. The fact that the enmity begins on our side will take away all excuse suggested by our feebleness in comparison with the greatness of God.
IV. THOUGH GOD MAY BECOME TO US AS AN ENEMY, HE WILL NOT REALLY BE AN ENEMY. He may act like an enemy, but he will not act in enmity. He will never hate the creature that he has made. His apparent enmity is very fearful because it results in actions of anger and punishment. Still behind all is the pitying heart of Divine love. God pities most when he strikes hardest.
V. THROUGH THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST GOD CEASES TO BE TO US AS AN ENEMY. Christ is our Propitiation. By the sacrifice of himself he makes peace. And he does not simply influence our hearts in reconciling us to God. There is a Godward aspect of the atonement. This is not to induce God to love us, since the love of God precedes and originates the very mission of Christ. But in the mysterious counsels of Divine wisdom the atonement of Christ is rendered necessary for the cessation of God’s inimical action (1Jn 2:1, 1Jn 2:2).
Lam 2:6, Lam 2:7
The rejected altar.
In the first elegy we read how the feasts are neglected by the people (Lam 1:4). Now we see that God himself has broken them up and cast off his altar. Thus we advance a stage in understanding the deplorable condition of Jerusalem. At first the human side only is seen and the visible facts are lamented over. Then the Divine side is discerned and the terrible cause of the cessation of the solemn festivals revealed. It is not simply that the people cease to present themselves before the altar. God has abandoned and rejected all the temple services.
I. HOW GOD REJECTS THE ALTAR, We must bear in mind that the altar belongs to God and that all the ordinances of worship are his. Religion is not merely human and subjective. It relates to God and it goes out of the human world reaching up to the Divine. There is scope, therefore, for God’s action in it. He may refuse his action. He may not hear the prayers, nor accept the offerings, nor employ the services, nor succour the needs of the worshipper. Then he rejects the altar. This is represented as being done with violence, destruction, and a Divine abhorrence. The desolation wrought by Babylon is traced up to the hand of God. So when our religious privileges are broken up by earthly means we should inquire whether God’s displeasure is behind the calamity. It is not necessarily. But it may be.
II. WHY GOD REJECTS THE ALTAR.
1. Because the worship is insincere. If we practise the forms of devotion without the heart of it our hypocrisy will only insult God.
2. Because the worshipper is corrupt. Thus was it with the Jews in Isaiah’s time. God says, “Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood” (Isa 1:14,Isa 1:15). So David says, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Psa 66:18).
3. Because the offering is unworthy. The Israelite was to bring his best to God. No blemished sacrifice would be accepted. If we give less than the best in our power we make an unworthy offering. If only spare time and superfluous money are offered to God, how can we expect him to receive such mean and niggardly service? He will have our brightest hours, our richest devotion, our hearts and lives and all, or he will take nothing.
III. WITH WHAT RESULTS GOD REJECTS THE ALTAR. When once the altar is rejected by God all sacrifice and service are vain. It matters little that the enemy throw down the stones of it. If it remains intact it is worthless. We may have full assemblies of people and rich and elaborate services and all the pomp and ceremony of worship; and it will be for nothing if God reject the worship. We think too little of this Divine side of religion. We are too much inclined to rest in the decorum and grace of becoming human forms of worship. Let it be known that the one end of worship is to reach God. If he is met by the soul, it matters little what means be used in worship. If he refuses to accept us, the form of worship is a mockery and a delusion,
Lam 2:9 (last clause)
No vision.
I. THE TEACHING AND VISION OF PROPHETIC TRUTH CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN RELIGIOUS LIFE. The writer laments the loss of teaching and vision as abnormal and disastrous. The vision of the prophets was not simply nor chiefly concerned with the distant future and recondite counsels of providence. It dealt with present facts and unveiled their true character. It guided in the present; and with regard to the uncertainties of the very near future. The humbler office of teaching was associated with it. The prophet, a seer of visions in private and on special occasions, was a teacher among his fellow men and under ordinary circumstances. It is important to see how essential the knowledge of truth is to a healthy spiritual life. Without it devotion becomes superstition. Religion is based on revelation. The school precedes the workshop. Teaching must prepare the way for service.
II. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN TEACHING AND VISION CEASE. The two may not fail exactly at the same time. But the stream will not flow long after the fountain is dried. The teaching that is continued after all inspiration has died out will be arid, formal, lifeless, unreal. Ideas will take place of facts, and words of ideas. Now, the vision, which is the starting point of all knowledge of truth, is intermittent. There have been ages fertile in prophecy and there have been barren ages. In the days preceding the ministry of Samuel “the Word of the Lord was rare, and there was no vision scattered abroad” (1Sa 3:1). After the roll of the Old Testament was complete, prophecy ceased. It revived in the apostolic age. Spiritual insight and Divine knowledge have been intermittent since then, sleeping in the dark ages, flashing out in the days of St. Bernard, dried up by the dreariness of scholasticism, swelling out in fresh energy with the Reformation, withering again at the end of the seventeenth century, and brightening once more from the close of the eighteenth. What shall be the next turn?
III. THE ABUSE OF PROPHETIC VISION AND TEACHING LEADS TO THE CESSATION OF THEM. The prophets prophesied falsely (Lam 2:14). They preached peace when there was no peace (Jer 23:17). As a penalty for their treason to their sacred trust of truth they lost the gift of spiritual vision. Disloyalty to truth warps our perceptions of truth. False living hinders true thinking. There is nothing which so deadens and blinds the spiritual faculties as indifference to truth. Beginning with telling a conscious lie, a man comes at last to accept falsehood without knowing it.
IV. THE REJECTION OF PROPHETIC VISION AND TEACHING ALSO LEADS TO THE CESSATION OF THEM. The people were as guilty as their teachers. They refused to hear truth and asked for pleasant words. They declined to obey the truth which they had heard. The penalty of disobedience to Divine truth will be the loss of that truth. If we refuse to go as the vision of God in our souls directs, that vision will fade out, leaving us no light of heaven, but only gloom or false lights of earth.
Lam 2:14
The vision of falsehood and folly.
Visions from the Lord have ceased (Lam 2:9). But the prophets continue to see visions of earthly limitation or even of diabolical delusion. These visions are false and foolish. Better have none than such.
I. PROPHECY IN ITS CORRUPTION SEES THE FALSE AND FOOLISH IN PLACE OF THE TRUE AND WORTHY.
1. The mission of prophecy is to see and declare wisdom and reality. The attractiveness of the teaching is a snare if the matter of it is vain. People naturally favour the pleasant utterance of pleasant things. Doctrines are sometimes chosen because they are liked rather than because they are known to be sound, or the style and language of the preacher are more heeded than the substance of his message. But, if we were in earnest, ugly truths would always be accepted in preference to specious falsehoods.
2. The corruption of prophecy substitutes falsehood and folly for truth and wisdom. This may be experienced unconsciously. The teacher may not know that he has fallen. It is not only that his tongue utters lies, his eye sees no truth. His vision is distorted and he knows it not. He is not aware that he sees men as trees walking. Nor does he know that his folly is not wisdom. The failing of spiritual vision and decay of wisdom are the more calamitous because they are unconscious. They are a sort of spiritual insanity.
3. The evil of the corruption of prophecy is in the widespread delusion and degradation that it produces. “Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee.” The prophet is a teacher as well as a seer. When the teacher errs the scholars are misled.
II. THE FAILURE TO DISCOVER INIQUITY IS A PROOF THAT A PROPHET‘S VISION IS FALSE AND FOOLISH.
1. A prophet is required to see human as well as Divine truth. It needs inspiration to read the secrets of the heart as much as to discover the mysteries of the unseen heavens or of the distant future. A prophet should be a discerner of spirits. If he cannot read the signs of the times he is a failure.
2. The failure to see iniquity is one especial evidence of perverted prophetic vision. The physician is first of all called upon to discover his patient’s disease. If he cannot detect this the rest of his work is of little use. Prophets may dream of the millennium and discourse of the celestial spheres; but so long as they are blind to the sins that men around them are perishing in, their primary mission must fail. Now, it needs a Divine inspiration rightly to see iniquity. Conventionality of thought leads to a complacent satisfaction with the normal state of the world, We must be out of it and above it to observe how it has fallen. The preacher who cannot see the sins of his age is worse than useless. He is a deluding flatterer. The individual man who is blind to his own sin has not the first ray of spiritual light which may guide him aright.
III. THE FALSE AND FOOLISH VISION OF PROPHECY DOES NOT RESTORE PROSPERITY, BUT ON THE CONTRARY IT DIRECTLY LEADS TO RUIN. By vainly promising pleasant things it brings disastrous ones. The false prophets opposed Jeremiah and said the Captivity would not come. By that very falsehood they helped to hasten it. Had they preached repentance and warned of wrath, the doom might have been averted. None prepare souls for ruin more certainly than smooth speaking flattering optimists. When danger is near, the warning prophet may be the deliverer of his hearers. If the preacher fail to produce conviction of sin he cannot lead to salvation in Christ. So long as men do not see their lost condition they are in danger of their soul’s ruin. To them a pleasant religion is a fatal religion. A Jeremiah, a John the Baptist, and a John Knox are the best friends of their generation.
Lam 2:16
The triumph of the foe.
I. THE TRIUMPH OF THE FOE OVER JERUSALEM. Strangers mock with scorn and derision, enemies vent their rage with hissing, gnashing of teeth, and a spiteful satisfaction that the day they have locked for has come. Why should these cruel feelings be roused against the prostrate city? Her previous condition must have provoked them.
1. Great prosperity. This excites envy in the less prosperous, and envy soon sours into hatred. Jealous and selfish natures have a positive pleasure in seeing the loss of special privileges in the more favoured, although that loss may bring no advantage to themselves.
2. High pretensions. Jerusalem claimed to be especially favoured and blessed by God. She looked down with scorn on her neighbours. Such an attitude was galling to them and led to an outburst of delight when the proud city lay grovelling in the dust. Contempt provokes enmity. No calamity receives less pity than the downfall of pride.
3. Reserved isolation. Jerusalem kept herself apart from other cities. She felt that she had a peculiar vocation. Such exclusiveness would excite dislike. The unsocial are unpitied. It may be that the separation is inevitable or conscientious. Still, it incurs not the least aversion.
II. THE TRIUMPH OF THE FOE OVER THE CHURCH. The fall of Jerusalem was the fall of the Church. The enemies of the Eternal rejoiced in the destruction of his temple and the scattering of his people. There are always adversaries on the look out for disaster in the Church of Christ. The evil spirit of the world is vexed and shamed by the standing rebuke of a pure Church. Corrupt men see in her an example contrasting with their own conduct and thereby condemning it. Thus there arise dislike and enmity. The shame of the Church is a relief to this worldly opposition. There have been times when the Name of God has been insulted through this evil pleasure of the wicked in the shame that the sin and failure of his people have brought upon his cause. Here is a motive for preserving the sanctity of the Christian Church. The loss of it will not merely involve suffering to the Church herself; it will encourage the foes of Christ by giving them the elation of victory, and it will dishonour his Name by making his work appear to fail.
III. THE TRIUMPH OF THE FOE OVER A SOUL. There are spiritual enemies watching forevery slip that a soul may make, enemies that are confounded by its growing purity and faithfulness, but rendered insolent and jubilant by its fall. Whenever we sin we afford a triumph to the evil one. We think that we are pleasing ourselves. But there must be some mistake or our sin would not give so much satisfaction to our enemy. The laugh of Mephistopheles should have been a warning to Faust. Perhaps the most stinging smart of future retribution will be the devilish glee with which the miserable lost soul will be welcomed into the place of darkness.
Lam 2:17
Ruin from God.
In the fifteenth and sixteenth verses we find strangers and enemies indulging in unseemly jubilation over the fall of Jerusalem. Now, we seewhat they do not seethat the cause of that fall was the direct action of God. This fact aggravates the dismay and wretchedness of the suffering city, for it signifies that her own King and Friend has brought about her ruinnot outsiders and antagonists. God himself has handed her over to the contempt and derision of the world. At the same time, the sight of God’s hand. in the calamity reveals the folly of the world’s triumph. How shallow and ignorant that appears to be directly the veil which covers the awful action of God is lifted! Man’s spite and malice sink into insignificance before the awful wrath of God, as the growling of beasts of the forest is drowned in the dread roar of thunder. The triumph of man is also shown to be misplaced. Man has not done the deed. He is but a spectator. This is a dread work of God. Let human passion be hushed before the solemn sight.
I. GOD BRINGS RUIN. This is a terrible statement. Looking at the particulars of the action itself, we see only the more of its horrors as we observe:
1. God does it deliberately. He devises itplans, considers, and calmly executes the ruin.
2. God does it in fulfilment of his Word. “In the days of old” the rain is threatened. The storm is long in brewing. An ancient promise makes the coming of it certain.
3. God does it by authority. He “had commanded” it. With all the authority and power of divinity over innumerable agents bending in perfect compliance to his will, God executes his solemn threat.
4. He does it destructively. He throws down. This shows violence and hurt.
5. He does it, to all human appearance, pitilessly. There is nothing visible that might mitigate the blow. No acts of mercy are seen to alleviate the misery.
6. He does it to the satisfaction of enemies. “He hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee,” etc. This is the most sure sign that the ruin is complete.
II. THE FACT THAT GOD BRINGS RUIN IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH HIS CHARACTER. It appears to be so, for it represents the Creator as a destroyer, and the God of love as a God of enmity. The difficulty should be examined. Then some light may break upon it.
1. The goodness of God makes him the enemy of all evil. He would cease to be good if he became universally complacent. As a righteous Judge he must condemn sin; even the Son of man, the Saviour of the world, had a mission of destruction. He came with fan to winnow out the chaff, and fire to burn it; he came to destroy the works of the devil.
2. God makes external ruin that he may produce internal salvation. He destroys the city that he may save the citizens. Jerusalem is overthrown in order that the Jews, through this chastisement, may be delivered from the ruin of their souls. So God breaks up a man’s home and wrecks his hopes and flings him on the ash heap of misery, in a merciful design to urge him to repentance and so to save the man himself.
3. God is more concerned with the goodness than with the pleasure of his creature. He certainly does not show the mild benevolence that characterizes some sanguine philanthropists. A safe house and abundance of bread are not the greatest things to be preserved, because pleasure and comfort are not the first requisites of the soul. Pain and loss may be blessings if they lead to purity and obedience. It is well for this life’s pleasure to be ruined if thereby the soul is saved for life eternal.
Lam 2:19
A cry to God in the night watches.
A fearful picture! Jerusalem is besieged. Famine is becoming fatal. Young children are seen fainting for hunger at the top of every street. The hearts of their parents are rent with anguish, as the little ones beg piteously of their mothers for food and drink (Lam 2:12), and none can be had, so that they swoon for very weakness. Suddenly a new turn is taken. The citizens have sunk down in sullen despair. Night has come like a cloak to cover the scenes of misery and death. Then a voice rings through the darkness, “Arise, cry out.” This voice bids all hearers pour out their hearts in prayer to God.
I. THE CRY IS TO GOD. Hitherto we have had nothing but doleful lamentations. The language has been that of hopeless grief and bitter reset. No relief has been found or even sought. But there is one refuge in the direst trouble, and now that refuge is remembered. When we can do nothing else we can cry to God, for he is near though hidden from view, and merciful though striking in wrath, and able to save though no way of escape seems possible. It needs some rousing of the soul thus to seek God. We must “Arise.” Spiritual lethargy is the worst consequence of sorrow. Let us beware lest our troubles paralyze our prayers. Prayer implies spiritual wakefulness.
II. THE CRY IS IN THE NIGHT.
1. The time when trouble seems most hopeless. It is in the night that the mourner weeps his most bitter tears.
2. The time of reflection. In lonely night watches the troubled soul has time for thought, and thought is then pain.
3. The time of earthly darkness. Then, perhaps, the spirit may feel most closely the nearness of the Father of spirits. The cry is to be in the beginning of the watcheseither at the first watch or at the opening of each of the three watches. Let prayer come first. Let us not waste time in lamenting before we seek relief from God.
III. THE CRY IS HEARTFELT AND CONFIDENTIAL. “Pour out thine heart like water before the face of the Lord.”
1. It comes from the heart. All real prayer must be the outcome of true and deep feelings.
2. It is a full and free confidence in God. The heart is poured out like water. This is in itself a relief. God expects our complete confidence and will hear prayer only when we give it to him.
3. It is no more than the pouring out of the heart before God. There is no definite request. Perhaps it is difficult to know how to ask for relief. Perhaps the grief is too overwhelming for any such thoughts of aid to be entertained. But it is enough that the whole trouble is poured out before God and left with him. Prayer is too often a dictating to God. It should be more of a simple confidence in God. It would be better if there were more confession and confidence, and less exact petition and definition of what God is to do in order to please us. We are to pour out our hearts and leave all with him. Then he will do the best for us.
4. In deep trouble heartfelt prayer is wrung out of the sufferer. Then he must be real. Sorrow melts the stony heart which has held itself in proud reserve, and thus it pours out itself like water. We have the example of Christ, whose agony passed into prayer, to urge us to find the relief of confiding fully in God.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
Lam 2:1
The anger of the Lord.
Men have fallen into two opposite extremes of opinion and of feeling with regard to the anger of the Lord. There have been times when they have been wont to attribute to the Eternal the passions of imperfect men, when they have represented the holy God as moved by the storms of indignation, as subject to the impulses of caprice and the instigations of cruelty. But in our own days the tendency is the contrary to this; men picture God as all amiability and forbearance, as regarding the sinful and guilty with indifference, or at all events without any emotion of displeasure. Scripture warrants neither of these extremes.
I. THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN GOD IS ANGRY WITH EVEN THE OBJECTS OF HIS SPECIAL FAVOUR. Jerusalem was the “daughter of Zion;” the temple was “the beauty of Israel;” the ark was God’s “footstool.” But as even human love is not necessarily or justly blind to the faults of those beloved, so the Lord is displeased with those whom he has endowed with peculiar privileges and blessings, when they are unmindful of his mercies and disobedient to his laws. “As many as I love,” says the Divine Head of the Church, “I rebuke and chasten.”
II. FROM THE HEARTS OF THE DISOBEDIENT GOD HIDES HIMSELF AS IN A CLOUD. When the sun is concealed behind a cloud, nature is chill, dull, and gloomy. The Lord is the Sun in whose light his. people find joy and peace; when he hides his face they are troubled, for no longer is it the case that they look unto him and are lightened. The heart and conscience of those who have offended God are overcast with spiritual gloom and unhappiness. So Israel found it; and there are none who have known the blessedness of God’s fellowship and favour who can bear without distress the withdrawal of the heavenly light.
III. UPON THE HEADS OF THE REBELLIOUS GOD HURLS THE BOLT OF HIS DISPLEASURE. The tempest long lowered over the doomed city; at last it broke in fury, and Jerusalem became a prey to the spoiler and was cast down to the ground. The prophet clearly saw, what in an age of ease and luxury men are prone to forget, that there is a righteous Ruler from whose authority and retributive power no state and no soul can escape. “God is angry with the wicked every day” Yet in the midst of wrath he remembers mercy, and the penalties he inflicts answer their purpose if they lead to submission and to sincere repentance.T.
Lam 2:6, Lam 2:7
Retribution in Church and state.
There are occasions when it is well to ponder seriously the calamities which befall a nation, to lay them to heart, to inquire into their causes, and to seek earnestly and prayerfully the way of deliverance, the means of remedy. “They that lack time to mourn lack time to mend.”
I. IT IS WELL TO LOOK THROUGH NATIONAL DISASTERS TO THE PROVIDENTIAL RULE WHICH ALONE FULLY EXPLAINS THEM. The ruin which overtook Jerusalem and Judah was wrought by the armies of the Chaldeans. But the inspired prophet saw in the Assyrian hosts the ministers of Divine justice. The sufferings of the Jews were not accidental; they were a chastening, a discipline, appointed by the Lord of hosts, the King of kings. The Eternal had a controversy with his people. They had not listened to his Word, and therefore he spoke to them in thunder.
II. THE POLITICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES OF A NATION ARE ALIKE RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL SINS. The kings and chiefs had sought their own honour and ease and prosperity, The priests and prophets had discharged their offices in a manner perfunctory and formal. Under their natural and appointed leaders the nation had erred, had lapsed into idolatry, into sensuality, into practical unbelief. Rulers had not ruled in equity; teachers had not taught with faithfulness and fearlessness. Like king, like subjects; like priest, like people. All were to blame, but those were most culpable whose responsibility was greatest.
III. CHURCH AND STATE ALIKE ENDURE THE PENALTIES OF TRANSGRESSION AND DISOBEDIENCE.
1. The picture of desolation, as regards the religious life of the people, is a very dark and dreary picture. The religious celebrations and festivals fall into neglect; the very sabbath is all but forgotten; the sacrifices cease to be offered upon the altar; the sanctuary is no longer the scene of sacred solemnities; the priests are despised.
2. The case is equally distressing as regards the political situation. The walls of the palaces are either broken down, or, instead of housing the princes of the land, afford quarters to the troops of the enemy. The royal family are consigned to humiliation and to scorn. And the temple and the city resound no longer With the praises of Jehovah, but with the brutal shouts of the Chaldean soldiery.T.
Lam 2:9
Law and prophecy suspended.
Judah was professedly and actually a theocracy. The form of government was a monarchy, but the true Ruler was Jehovah. Spiritual disobedience and rebellion were Judah’s offences; and it was the natural outcome of perseverance in these that the Lord should withdraw his favour, and leave his people to eat of the bitter fruit of their own misguided planting. And it was one consequence of the Divine displeasure that the highest privileges Jehovah had bestowed, the most sacred and precious tokens of his presence, should be for a season withdrawn. It is the climax, as Jeremiah conceives it, of Judah’s misfortunes, that “the Law is no more; her prophets also find no vision from the Lord.”
I. THIS TEMPORARY PRIVATION WAS OF LOCAL AND NATIONAL PRIVILEGES. It was so far as the Law was Jewish, that it ceased to be observed in Jerusalem. When the city was in the possession of heathen troops, when the temple was in ruins, when the priesthood was in disgrace, there was no possibility of observing the ordinances which the Law prescribed. The sacrifices and festivals came to an end. There were none to observe them and none to minister. And it was so far as the prophet was a functionary of the time and place, that he ceased to utter the mind of the Eternal. There were prophets of the Captivity; but Jerusalem, the true home of this noble class of religious teachers, knew their voice no more. For them was no vision which they might see in the ecstasy of inspiration, and depict in glowing colours before the imagination of the attentive multitude.
II. THE ETERNAL LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, THE EVER–LIVING WITNESS OF SPIRITUAL PROPHECY, CAN NEVER CEASE. The words, the commandments and prohibitions, the outward ordinances, might pass away for a season of Divine displeasure, might be absorbed in the fuller revelation of the gospel. But the principles of the moral law, .the obligations of unchanging righteousness, can never cease; for they are the expression of the mind and will of him whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. The vision may no longer be granted to the seer of Jerusalem; the city may stone her prophets or the Lord himself remove them. But every purified eye shall through all time behold God’s glory, and the ear that is open to truth and love shall not cease to recognize the still, small voice of Heaven.T.
Lam 2:13
Commiseration.
The spirit of the prophet deserves our warm admiration. Jerusalem, its king and its citizens, had treated him with injustice and indignities. But in the day when his predictions were fulfilled and the city was overwhelmed by disaster and humiliation, so far from boasting over her, Jeremiah regarded her state with profoundest pity. Observe in this verse
I. THE AFFECTIONATE AND ADMIRING LANGUAGE BY WHICH THE PROPHET DESIGNATES THE AFFLICTED CITY. Not a word of insult or of contempt, but, on the contrary, language evincing the deepest, the fondest interest. The population that had so despised his prophecy and had treated him so ill is here personified in language apparently more appropriate to times of prosperity. Jeremiah bewails the state of the daughter of Jerusalem, the virgin daughter of Zion.
II. THE TENDER COMMISERATION OF THE PROPHET WITH THE CITY‘S WOES.
1. He pronounces the sorrows of Jerusalem unequalled. It is a common mode of expressing sympathy to assure the afflicted that others have the same griefs and trials to endure. No such consolation is offered here; the prophet looks around in vain for a case so distressing. The breach is “great like the sea.” This is either a figure drawn from the vastness of the ocean, with which the great woe of Judah is compared; or it depicts the enemy as rushing in upon Jerusalem, as the sea in its fury makes a breach in the wall of a low lying territory, and, sweeping the defences away by irresistible force, creates a desolation, so that a waste of waters is beheld where villages and fruitful fields once smiled in peace and plenty.
2. He pronounces the sorrows of Jerusalem irremediable. A mortal wound has been inflicted, which no leechcraft can heal. If Jerusalem is again to flourish it must be by a revival from the dead. For nothing now can save her.
APPLICATION.
1. The captive city is a picture of the desolation and misery to which (sooner or later) sin will surely bring all those who submit themselves to it.
2. The commiseration shown by the prophet is an example of the state of mind with which the pious should contemplate the ravages of sin and the wretchedness of sinful men.
3. The gospel forbids despondency over even the most utter debasement and humiliation of man. “There is balm in Gilead; there is a Physician there.”T.
Lam 2:15
The glory and the shame of Jerusalem.
Contrast with misery escaped heightens the joy of the rescued and the happy; and, on the other hand, contrast with bygone prosperity adds to the wretchedness of those who are fallen from high estate.
I. THE BEAUTY AND RENOWN OF JERUSALEM IN ITS PROSPERITY. Into these many elements entered.
1. Its situation was superb. Nature pointed out the heights of Zion for a metropolis. Especially when beheld from the brow of Olivet the city impresses every traveller with admiration.
2. Its history and memorable associations. Won by the valour of David, adorned by the magnificence of Solomon, the home of heroes and of saints, this city possessed a fascination with which few cities of the earth could compare.
3. Its sacred edifice ranked alone, far above all the temples of the ancient world. Not that its architecture was commanding or beautiful in the highest degree; but. that its erection, its dedication, the presence of the Eternal, all lent an interest and a sacredness to the peerless building.
4. Its sacrifices and festivals, which were attended by hundreds of thousands of worshippers, were altogether unique.
II. THE DISGRACE OF JERUSALEM. This appears:
1. From its ruinous and almost uninhabitable condition,
2. From the slaughter or dispersion of its citizens.
3. From its degradation from its proud position as the metropolis of a nation.
4. From the hatred, scorn, and insults of its triumphant enemies.
APPLICATION. There is a day of visitation which it behoves every child of privilege and mercy to use aright. To neglect that day is surely to entail a bitter overtaking by the night of calamity and destruction.T.
Lam 2:18, Lam 2:19
The entreaty of anguish.
This surely is one of those passages which justify the title of this book; these utterances are “lamentations” indeed; never did human sorrow make of language anything more resembling a wail than this.
I. THE SOULS FROM WHICH TEARFUL ENTEATIES ARISE The true language of passionthis utterance is lacking in coherence. The heart of the people cries aloud; the very walls of the city are invoked in their desolation to call upon the Lord. Clearly the distress is that of the inhabitants of the wretched city, of those survivors whose fate is sadder than that of those who fell by the sword.
II. THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OCCASION THE ENTREATY.
1. Personal want, suffering, and distress.
2. The spectacle of the woes of others, especially of children. Literature has no more agonizing picture than this of the young children fainting and dying of hunger in every street.
III. THE BEING TO WHOM THE SUPPLICATIONS OF THE ANGUISHED ARE ADDRESSED. In such circumstances vain is the help of man. Upon whom shall Jerusalem call but upon the Lord, the King of the city, the great Patron and Protector of the chosen nation, who has forsaken even his own people because they have forgotten him, and in whose favour alone is hope of salvation?
IV. THE CHARACTER OF THE ENTREATY URGED.
1. It is sorrowful, accompanied by many tears, flowing like a river and pausing not.
2. Earnest, as appears from the descriptionheart, eyes, and hands all uniting in the appeal with imploring prayer.
3. Continuous; for not only by day, but through the night watches, supplications ascend unto heaven, invoking compassion and aid.T.
Lam 2:20
Consideration besought.
How truly human is this language! How real was the eternal Lord to him who could shape his entreaty thus! As if to urge a plea for pity, the prophet implores him who has been offended by the nation’s sins, who has suffered the nation’s misery and apparent ruin, to consider; to remember who Judah is, and to have mercy,
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CALL FOR CONSIDERATION.
1. Famine and the inhuman conduct to which famine sometimes leads.
2. Death by the sword,
3. The privation of those religious offices which are the centre and inspiration of the nation’s life.
4. The common suffering of all classes; prophet and priest, children and old men, virgins and youth, are alike overtaken by want, by wounds, by death.
II. THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH CONSIDERATION IS BEGGED FOR.
1. The main appeal is to Divine pity and benevolence.
2. The former mercies shown to Judah seem to be brought implicitly forward in this language. Israel has been chosen by God himself, favoured with privileges, delivered, protected, and blessed in a thousand ways. Will God cast off those in whom he has taken an interest so deep, for whom he has done so great things?
III. THE HOPE WITH WHICH CONSIDERATION IS ASKED. Hitherto the regard of God in recent events has been a regard of displeasure and of censure. But if the attitude of the stricken be no longer one of defiance, but of submission, it may be that the Lord will turn him again, will be favourable unto his afflicted people, will restore them to former prosperity, enriched with the precious lessons of their adverse experience.T.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Lam 2:1
The manifestation of Jehovah’s wrath with Israel.
It will be noticed that the words “anger” and “wrath” occur again and again in these first three verses. Figure is heaped upon figure in order to bring out the practical effects of this anger. We need not pursue these figures into detail; each of them speaks for itself. Let us rather notice
I. HOW THEY INDICATE THE EXTENT OF PAST FAVOUR. The very fact that, in order to show the character of Jehovah’s anger, such strong figurative expressions are possible proves that in former days there had been many indications of his complacency with Israel. Not that Israel had been really better in the past than in the present, but she had to be dealt with in a long suffering way, and the long suffering of Jehovah is a quality which shows itself by abundance of most positive favours. God looked upon Israel according to the bright possibilities of excellence that lie in human nature. Israel did sink very low, but that was because she had the capacity of rising very high. Thus God heaped upon Israel favours, as if to show that he would not entertain any doubt as to her willingness to respond to his requests. And so the black anger cloud resting on Israel’s present looks blacker still when contrasted with the Divine brightness and clearness of Israel’s past. God has cast down the beauty of Israel, and that casting is as from heaven to earth. That which God has not remembered in the day of his anger is something which he had reckoned useful to himself, even as the footstool is useful to the king seated on his throne. Thus the extent of present anger measures the extent of past favour.
II. HOW THESE FIGURES INDICATE THE REALITY OF JEHOVAH‘S WRATH. The very heaping up of these strong figures should make us feel very deeply that God’s wrath is not itself a figure. God’s anger is not to be reduced to a mere anthropomorphism. We are misled in this matter, because human anger is never seen without selfish and degrading elements. An angry man, in all his excitement and violence, is a pitiable sight, but nevertheless it is possible for a man to be angry and sin not. The man who cannot understand the reality of God’s anger will never comprehend the ideal of humanity. The sensitive musician would laugh to scorn any one who told him that, while he was pleased with harmony, he should not be disturbed by discord. Again and again Jesus was really and righteously angry, showing in this, not least, how he was partaker of the Divine nature. When we are m wrong ways and God is consequently against us, his opposition and displeasure must be shown in ways that cannot be mistaken.Y.
Lam 2:5
Jehovah reckoned as an enemy.
I. HOW FAR WAS THERE REALITY UNDER THIS APPEARANCE OF ENMITY? God might look like an enemy, but it did not therefore follow that he was one. But even if Jehovah behaved himself like an enemy, it must also be asked whether there was not a necessity that he should do so. If Israel had to say, “Jehovah acts as an enemy towards us,” Jehovah had to say, “My people act as an enemy towards me.” These people had now for a long time been travelling in the wrong way, and it was in the very nature of things that the more they advanced the morn opposition should multiply and become intensified. God not only appeared to be an enemy, but in certain respects he really was an enemy. He hated the evil that had risen to such a height among those whom he had taken for his own. Our love for evil is ever the measure of his hate of it; and the more determined we are to cling to it, the more his hostility will appear. God himself always keeps in the same path of law and righteousness and order. When we, according to our measure, follow in his footsteps, then real opposition there cannot be; but the moment we think fit to become a law to ourselves and do what is right in our own eyes, then inevitably he must oppose us.
II. THIS ENMITY WAS LARGELY IN APPEARANCE ONLY. When Israel said that Jehovah was as an enemy, they got their idea of enmity from the hostile proceedings of individuals and communities. But God cannot be the enemy of any man as men are enemies one to another. His motives are different and so are the results of all his opposition. One man forming hostile plans against another acts from malicious motives, or at all events from selfish ones. There is no basis of reason in what he does. He is not hostile to the lower in order that he may show himself friendly to the higher. Besides, we must not look merely at outward manifestations of enmity. There may be the deepest enmity and greatest power of inflicting injury where outwardly all looks harmless. Those who profess to be our friends and whom we reckon to be our friends may yet inflict worse injuries than all avowed enemies taken together. God is the true Friend of every man, however he may be thought at times to put on the appearance of an enemy.Y.
Lam 2:9
The prophetic office suspended.
There is something of a climax about this statement that the prophets find no vision from Jehovah. Jeremiah has already spoken of God destroying the outward resources and defences of Jerusalem. Next, he mentions the exile of the king and the chief men, and then, as if to hint that it was a still greater calamity, he tells us how the prophet had no longer anything to see or to say. He did well to magnify his own office; for no office could be more important than that of the man whom God chose to communicate needed messages to his fellow men. Observe
I. THE NATURE OF THE PROPHETIC OFFICE AS HERE INDICATED. A prophet was one who had a vision from the Lord. He was no prophet unless he could truly preface his address with “Thus saith the Lord.” And must there not be something of this kind still? With respect to Divine things, what can any of us say that shall have power and blessing in it unless as we speak of what God has made us see? The prophetic office has ceased, but who can doubt that there must be some permanent reality corresponding with it? and therefore we should ever be on the look out for men who have had visions from the Lord. All advances in the interpretation of Scripture truth must come by revelation from on high. Otherwise the most diligent searching ends in nothing but pedantry and verbosity.
II. NOTICE THE DEPRIVATION HERE SPOKEN OF. What does it mean? How is it to be looked upon as part of Jerusalem’s punitive visitation? The reply to this is that the institution of prophecy was part of the honour which Jehovah had put upon his people. The people could say that God was constantly raising up amongst them those whom he chose for a medium of communication. However unwilling they might be to listen to the real prophets, and however they persecuted them, still the fact remained that men like Jeremiah were rising again and again. For all we can tell, those whose written prophecies remain may have been a most minute portion numerically of the total company of the prophets. Now, if all at once the prophetic voice ceased or came at long intervals and with few words, this must have been most significant to those who had power to notice. It meant that God had little or nothing to say to the people. That he had communications with every individual willing to put himself in a right attitude there can be no doubt. Prophets who received nothing to give as a message would at the same time receive all they needed for their own edification and comfort, and now there is an abiding vision for all. God’s communications to us are not after the “sundry times and divers manners” mode referred to at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Spirit of God revealing the uplifted Christ makes every one of us a prophet to himself.Y.
Lam 2:10
The silence of the elders.
I. THEIR FORMER SPEECH. They are said to keep silence now; this, of course, suggests that silence had not been their former habit. Old men have a peculiar fight to speak, are often expected to speak, and can always plead that years have given them experience and many opportunities of observation, and with respect to these particular elders here it is not difficult to imagine what the topics and the manner of their former speech might be. For instance, imagine younger men going to them and asking what their opinion was as to the predictions of Jeremiah. They would not all have the same opinion, but many, it is to be feared, would make very light of what he said. Nor is it likely that they spoke of him in a very considerate way. The elders of Israel were, according to a national custom, largely the teachers of history. It was their business to tell their sons and their son’s sons the great things that had been done in the days of old. And we know how easy it is to remember only success and forget disaster. Jeremiah coming in with his denunciations and threatenings would exasperate the elders not least. The chances are that again and again they had given advice at the foundation of which lay their unbelief in Jeremiah. Besides this, they would be advisers in general, and in particular matters would often be right enough. Thus when they cast discredit on a prophet of Jehovah others would take up their words as words of authority and soberness.
II. THEIR PRESENT SILENCE. They neither speak of their own accord nor do they answer when addressed. They keep silence. It is the silence of grief, humiliation, wounded pride, and shame. The only thing they could say, if they did speak, would be to confess in the amplest manner their sins, their blunders, their egregious self-confidence. But in truth their very silence spoke as if with loudest voice. It was as if they said, “We abdicate any fight we have had to advise and lead. We admit to the full our responsibility in having done so much to bring disaster on the people.” Old age is not necessary to bring wisdom and insight into the problems of life. Jeremiah, who had gone out to prophesy when little better than a lad, was right, and old men with an egotistical and absorbed confidence in their own opinions were wrong. If we would avoid being stricken with a shameful silence in our old age, it must be by listening obediently in earlier years to far other voices than those which come kern the promptings of the natural man.Y.
Lam 2:12
The suffering of the children.
It must be noticed how the mention of the children follows on the mention of the elders. There is suffering at each extreme of life, and hence we are to infer that there is suffering all between. The eiders suffer in their way and the children and the sucklings suffer in theirs. The elders are bowed down with confusion, shame, and disappointment. The children know nothing of this, but they are tormented with the pangs of hunger; and what a pathetic touch is that which represents them as breathing out their little lives into the bosom of their mothers! The sins of the parents are being visited upon the children. It has often been represented as a monstrous iniquity that things should be put in such a light, but is it not an undeniable fact that the little ones suffer what they would not suffer if progenitors always did what was right? These children were not clamouring for dainties and luxuries. Corn and wine, the common food, the pleasant grape juice, what they had been used to and what all at once they began to miss. What is here said is a strong admonition to us to consider how the innocent and unsuspecting may be affected by our unrighteousness. All our conduct must affect others, and it may affect those who cannot lift a hand to avert ill consequences. The sufferings of children and infants, the immense mortality among them,these are things awful to contemplate; and yet nothing can be more certain than that the clearing away of prejudice and ignorance and hurtful habits founded on bare tradition would bring into child life that abundance of joy which a loving Creator of human nature meant children to attain. But even with all the suffering there are compensations. These hunger-stricken children cried for bread, and getting none they poured out their lives into their mothers’ bosoms; but they had no self-reproach. Remorse did not add another degree of agony to starvation. The suffering which touches the conscience is the worst, and the little ones escape it altogether.Y.
Lam 2:14
The share of the prophets in ruining Jerusalem.
I. WHAT THE PROPHET OUGHT TO BE. The prophet of those times was a man bound to say things having depth and substance in them. And though the prophet has ceased, so far as formal office is concerned, yet there are still Divine things to be seen, and, when seen, spoken about by those qualified to speak. There are the deep things of God to be penetrated and explored by those willing to receive the insight. The Holy Spirit of God, offered so abundantly through Christ, is a Spirit of prophecy to all who have it. They need no formal prophet, inasmuch as they have a word, living and piercing, to all who take a right relation towards it. God means us to be occupied with serious, substantial matters, so large and deep and fruitful that we shall never outgrow our interest in them. The heart of man in its meditating power was made for great themes. The heart can never be filled with mere trifles. That is good advice given to preachers of the gospel to speak most on the greatest themes, such as are set forth again and again in the Scriptures, and, whether these things be preached about or not, every individual Christian should think about them. For while we cannot secure the topics of preachers, the topics of our own thoughts depend upon ourselves. It is just those who concern themselves a great deal about dogmas who are also most interested in the details of life and conduct.
II. WHAT THE PROPHET MAY SINK TO BE. These prophets felt bound to magnify their office and say something. They ought to have spoken the truth; but for this they lacked inclination and perhaps courage. The next best thing would have been to remain silent; but then where would the prophet reputation have been? and, more serious question still with some, what would have become of the prophet emoluments? Hence we have here the double iniquity that the false was spoken and the true conceded. The prophets could only get credit for their falsehoods by a careful concealment of the truth. They had, as it were, to paste on truth a conspicuous label, proclaiming far and wide, “This is a lie.” This verse suggests how they had the common experience of one lie leading on to another. The true prophet said that the burden Israel had to bear and the exile into which it had to go arose from its iniquities. Whereas the false, or rather the unfaithful prophet, having set iniquity as the cause of trouble altogether on one side, could only go on inventing explanations which explained nothing. Eze 13:1-23. is a chapter which may very profitably be read in connection with this verse. The great lesson is to search for truth no matter with what toil, and keep it no matter at what cost.Y.
Lam 2:22
The completeness of Jehovah’s visitation.
I. THE COMPARISON BY WHICH THIS IS SET FORTH. “Thou hast called as in a solemn day.” At certain periods there were vast commanded gatherings of the people to Jerusalem. They came from far and wide and from all parts of the compass, and so, as they converged upon Jerusalem, they might be justly said to encircle it. And encircling it, they did so with a definite purpose. They were as far as possible from being a mere promiscuous crowd, in which each one could come and go at his own sweet will. At the centre of the circle stood Jehovah, giving the commandment to each which brought them all together. And we may infer from the use of the comparison here that the commandment must have been generally complied with. It was, indeed, a commandment not very hard to obey, requiring as it did mere outwardness of obedience. People living in quiet country places would be glad of the reason for occasional visits to Jerusalem. Well would it have been if the people had tried to carry their obedience a little further! if, when the solemn assemblies had gathered together, there had been in them the right spirit! A gathering of bodies is not so hard, but a gathering of hearts in complete union and sympathy, perfectly responsive to the will of God, who shall secure that?
II. THE ASSEMBLY OF TERRORS AT GOD‘S COMMAND. God called together the people, and they came; but when they came, instead of attending to God’s will, they pursued their own. But now God is represented as calling together all the agents that can inflict pain upon man and cause him terror; and they come with one consent, folding Israel round with an environment which cannot be escaped. There is no ultimate escape for the selfish, sinful man. He may get the evil day put off; he may find gate after gate opening, as he thinks, to let him away from trouble and pain; but in truth he is only going deeper and deeper into the corner where he will be completely shut up. God can surround us with providences and protections if we are willing to trust him. No other power can surround us with causes of terror. Our own hearts may imagine a menacing circle, but it only exists in imagination. If we seek the Lord he will bear us and deliver us from all our fears (Psa 34:4). But no one can deliver us from God’s just wrath with all who are unrighteous. That God who breaks the circle with which his enemies seek to enclose his friends, also makes a circle in which those enemies must themselves be effectually enclosed.Y.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Lam 2:1. The beauty of Israel “The temple and all its glory: and hath not spared the ark itself, the footstool of the Schechinah, which sat between the Cherubim, as on a throne.” See Mat 11:23.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Lamentations 2
Lamentation Of The Poet Over The Destruction Of Zion: [the Destruction Described And Attributed To Jehovah.W. H. H.]
[The first song expresses sorrow over the disgrace of the city: the second describes the terrors of the destruction of the city and Temple (Gerlach, Intr, p. 5), and connects them with the vengeance of God. In the first song, the city is the conspicuous object, and Zion and the holy places appear as accessories to her former honor and her present disgrace. In the second song, Gods personal agency in the calamities described is the controlling idea (see Lam 2:1-9; Lam 2:17; Lam 2:20-22), and the Temple or Zion, as the place of His habitation, is the prominent object, while the city appears only as the locality or scene of Zions former glory and the present cause of her deepest distress. The first words in each suggest the theme of each:How doth the city sit solitary! How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His wrath!1The chapter is composed of two sections: 1. Lam 2:1-10, a description of the judgment which the Lord had inflicted; 2. Lam 2:12-22 lamentations over this judgment. The similarity of the general structure of Song of Solomon 1, 2, their division into two almost equal parts, the first chiefly descriptive, the second more strictly composed of lamentations, is an evidence that they were written by one author, and help to compose one complete and symmetrical poem.W. H. H.]
PART I
Lam 2:1-10
Lam 2:1. How doth the Lord cover with a cloud, in His anger,
The daughter of Zion!
He, from Heaven, hath cast down to the ground
The glory of Israel,
He remembered not His footstool.
In the day of His anger.
Lam 2:2. The Lord swallowed up and spared not
All the habitations of Jacob:
He demolished in His wrath
The strongholds of the daughter of Judah:
He cast down to the groundHe polluted
The kingdom and its princes.
Lam 2:3. He broke in hot anger
Every horn of Israel.
He turned back His right hand
Before the enemy.
And He set Jacob on fire
As a flame of fire devoureth round about.
Lam 2:4. He bent His bow as an enemy:
He stoodwith His right hand as an adversary
And destroyed
All the delights of the eye.
In the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion
He poured out, as fire, His fury.
Lam 2:5. The Lord became as an enemy:
He swallowed up Israel;
He swallowed up all her palaces;
He destroyed all His strongholds:
And increased in the daughter of Judah
Mourning and lamentation.
Lam 2:6. And He laid waste as a garden His tabernacle:
He abolished His appointed solemnities:
Jehovah caused to be forgotten in Zion
Appointed solemnities and Sabbath days:
And rejected in His furious anger
King and Priest.
Lam 2:7. The Lord cast away with disdain His altar,
He abhorred His Sanctuary.
He gave up into the enemys hand
The walls of her palaces.
They shouted in Jehovahs house
As on a day of appointed solemnity.
Lam 2:8. Jehovah purposed
To destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion.
He stretched out a line:
He withdrew not His hand from devouring.
Then He caused rampart and wall to mourn;
They languished together.
Lam 2:9. Her gates have sunk into the ground:
He destroyed and broke her bars.
Her King and her Princes among the Gentiles
There is no law!
Her Prophets also
Find no vision from Jehovah!
Lam 2:10. The elders of the daughter of Zion
Sit on the ground,they are silent,
They throw up dust upon their heads,
They put on sackcloth.
The virgins of Jerusalem
Bow their heads to the ground.
ANALYSIS
In this song, as in the preceding one, the alphabetical construction interferes with the succession of the several steps and parts of the great drama in their regular order; yet, on close examination, some regard to the arrangement of events, with reference to their nature and occurrence, is observable. There is given, first of all, a comprehensive survey of the whole work of destruction, Lam 2:1-2. Then follows a brief recital of the events of the war, from its beginning to the capture of the city, Lam 2:3-4. Then is described the complete destruction of the Temple, the houses and the walls, by Nebuzaradan, four weeks after the capture of the city (see Jer 52:13-14), Lam 2:5-9 a. Thus far only the material objects of the destruction are spoken of. What follows relates the sufferings of the persons who were involved in the catastrophe. From Lam 2:9 b we learn the fate of the King, Princes and Prophets; in Lam 2:10 we see the elders and the virgins lamenting; in Lam 2:11 the Poet describes his own sufferings, etc. [Naegelsbach does not recognize the very obvious division of this chapter into two parts. Gerlach makes three sections, Lam 2:1-22.The first part naturally divides itself into two equal sections: Lam 2:1-5 contain a general description of the punishment of Zion; Lam 2:6-10 relate particularly to the destruction of Zion itself.W. H. H.]
Footnotes:
[1][In an alphabetical poem, where attention is directed to the initial letters, it may not be without significance that in Song of Solomon 1, 2, the initials of the first three words are similar, spelling , that may mean hated, despised, or an enemy. In [illegible] initials of the first four words of i. we have , enmity.W. H. H.]
2. Lam 2:1-2
1How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not 2his footstool in the day of his anger! The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied; he hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah: he hath brought them down to the ground: he hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:1.. From the verbal stem,, from which is , a cloud, only this single form occurs, and this is . . [. Gerlach: not with wrath (Ewald), but in His wrath, as similar expressions at the close of this ver. and in Lam 2:2; Lam 2:6; Lam 2:21-22, show.. See Intr. Ad. Rem. p. 32.]Only used in Hiph. and Hoph.; frequent in Jer 7:15; Jer 7:29; Jer 9:18; Jer 41:9, etc.. Accusative of place, in answer to the question, Whither? 1Sa 25:23; 1Ki 1:31; Isa 49:23; Amo 9:9; Oba 1:3; Psa 147:15; my Gr., 70, b. Jeremiah uses as accusative after verbs of going and coming very frequently, Jer 37:12; Jer 40:12; Jer 42:14; Jer 43:7, etc. , a corresponding word, is very frequent, with Jer 48:17; Jer 13:11; Jer 13:18; Jer 33:9., in same sense, Jer 31:20; Jer 15:15. , not found in Jer.Jeremiah never says . The only place in which he connects with the idea of a particular time, he says , Jer 18:23. The expression is found in Lam. only here and Lam 2:21-22.
Lam 2:2.. Jeremiah uses only Kal, and that only once, Jer 51:34. Piel in this chapter five times, Lam 2:2; Lam 2:5, bis, 8, 16, nowhere else in Lam.[. See Intr. Add. Rem. p. 32] . [Kri,. The asyndeton is much used in this species of verse at the half pause. Blayney.] Jeremiah uses the word , Jer 13:14; Jer 15:5; Jer 21:7; Jer 1:14; Jer 51:3. But to express the thought, which here represents, Jeremiah uses , Jer 20:16. [With all deference, the thought in Jer 20:16 is only analogous to the thought here, which is exactly expressed in the passages first cited. This is not to be overlooked In considering the peculiarities of Jeremiahs style and language.W. H. H.] occurs only here. [Blayney translates pleasant places, following the Sept., , and the Latin, omnia speciosa. Douay: all that was beautiful in Jacob. Though is used in this sense in the Piel, there is no clear case where the noun has this sense; it designates either dwellings, Psa 74:20; Psa 83:13, or pasture-grounds regarded as the dwellings of shepherds and their flocks, Amo 1:2; Jer 9:9; Jer 25:37; Psa 23:2; Psa 65:13. Fuerst translates it here unprotected, open cities, opposite of walled and fortified places.W. H. H.] Jeremiah uses frequently, Jer 1:10; Jer 24:6; Jer 31:28, etc.He uses only twice, Jer 7:29; Jer 48:30. . See Jer 1:8; Jer 5:17., Piel, occurs in Jer 16:18; Jer 31:5; Jer 34:16; comp. Isa 43:28. . Sept. has . They must have read as in Lam 2:9. The Syriac and Arabic read so also. Yet the authority of the Septuagint is much too precarious to change the reading of the text, which is also found in the Vulg. and Chal. Besides, it is much easier to explain how , at the time in sight at Lam 2:9, could originate from , than it would be to account for the reverse. in connection with (the suffix of which refers to the former) and with reference to and , is without doubt to be taken in the sense of royalty=kingship, regia potestas. Jeremiah uses the word in this sense, Jer 27:1; Jer 28:1. [Fuerst: dominion, reign, kingdom.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam 2:1. Howsee Lam 1:1hath the Lord covereddoth the Lord coverthe daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger. The Poet has evidently the image of a thunder-storm in his mind. The wrath of Jehovah envelops Zion in a cloud, out of which the destroying lightning (see next clause) descends upon her. [Wordsworth: The Lord hath poured out His fury on Zion, as in a tempest, and has dashed down her beauty as with lightning, and has not spared the Ark of His Sanctuary. Gerlach:in his wrath. The frequent repetition of this expression (see at the close of Lam 2:3; Lam 2:6; Lam 2:21-22) shows that this chapter is especially intended to exhibit the fury of the wrath of God against Jerusalem; as in the first chapter the repetition of the formula, indicating the absence of help and comfort, corresponds to the description of the extreme distress described in that chapter.] The expression daughter of Zion occurs Lam 1:6, and Jer 4:31; Jer 6:2; Jer 6:23.And cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel. To understand this it is necessary to determine first of all to whom the words from heaven refer. At the first glance they seem to refer to the object of the verb cast down. In that case the beauty of Israel would be in Heaven and from Heaven hurled down to the earth. But in what sense was the beauty of Israel in Heaven? To answer this, we must first know what is meant by the beauty or glory of Israel. The word in the original , by itself, could indicate the Temple which the Israelites called [lit., house of our glory; E. V., our beautiful house], Isa 54:10; comp. Isa 60:7; Isa 63:15; or, the ark of the covenant, in reference to which the daughter-in-law of Eli gave to her child the name of Ichabod, which is thus interpreted (1Sa 4:21-22), And she named the child Ichabod, [Marg.: where is the glory? or, there is no glory], saying, The glory is departed from Israel (because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father-in-law and her husband): and she said, The glory is departed from Israel; for the ark of God is taken. See Psa 78:61. The word is, however, in itself too abstract and general, and there is too little in the context to fix its definition, to allow us to say with confidence that it denotes in the concrete any particular object. We are obliged, therefore, to acquiesce in its general sense, and to understand by it the glory of Israel in general, especially all that distinguishes Israel as the chosen people before all peoples. All this is truly, by the destruction of the Theocracy, cast down to the ground. Should we now refer from Heaven to the object of the verb cast down, then we must take it figuratively, as expressing the height of the glory or beauty of Israel, which is thus denoted as towering up to Heaven. But Heaven is never used in this figurative sense in the Old Testament. The places which are cited as proving such a use of the word (Gen 11:4; Job 20:6; Isa 14:12; Dan 4:8; 2Ch 28:9; comp. Gen 4:10) are entirely irrelevant. In the New Testament only Mat 11:23; Luk 10:15 (and thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto Heaven, etc.) afford possible analogies for such a figurative use of this phrase. Therefore I believe (with Dathe, Kalkar and others) that from Heaven is to be referred to the subject of the verb cast down:the Lord from Heaven casts down the glory of Israel to the ground. This also suits admirably the idea expressed in the verb in the first clause, = to cover with a cloud, under which the image of a thunder-storm is suggested. From the Heavens the Lord, by a stroke of lightning, casts down the glory of Israel. From Heaven,. is often used in this sense. Jos 10:11; 2Sa 22:14; Gen 19:24; Exo 16:4, etc.And remembered not His footstool in the day of His anger. The ark of the covenant is explicitly called the footstool of Jehovah in 1Ch 28:2, where David says, I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God [and for the footstool. The conjunction and is exegetical, and the same with that is. So says Joseph Mede in his article on Psa 132:7, We will go into His tabernacle, we will worship at (towards,Mede) His footstool.W. H. H.]. The ark of the covenant may be so called, because He, who is enthroned upon the cherubim (2Sa 6:2; Psa 80:2; Psa 99:1) [see also 1Sa 4:4, which Mede translates sitteth upon the cherubims.W. H. H.], has the cover of the ark of the covenant [the mercy-seat] at His feet, wherefore it is also said, that the Lord speaks from above the mercy-seat,Exo 25:22; Num 7:89. Therefore, without doubt, the ark of the covenant is to be understood as the footstool, towards which worship is said to be directed in Psa 99:5; Psa 132:7. [Alexander: on Psa 99:5. Exalt ye Jehovah our God, and prostrate yourselves to His footstool.Bow down. (or prostrate) yourselves, as an act of worship. Not at His footstool, as the were place of worship, but to it, as the object, this name being constantly given to the ark, 1Ch 28:2; Lam 2:1; Psa 132:7; Isa 60:13. Even in Isa 66:1, there is allusion to the ordinary usage of the terms. The ark is here represented as the object of worship, just as Zion is in Isa 45:14, both being put for the God who was present in them. Calvin: The design of the Prophet is to show to the people how much Gods wrath had been kindled, when He spared not even His own sanctuary. For he takes this principle as granted, that God is never without reason angry, and never exceeds the due measure of punishment. As, then, Gods wrath was so great that He destroyed His own Temple, it was a token of dreadful wrath. * * He (the prophet) could not have better expressed to the people the heinousness of their sins, than by laying before them this fact, that God remembered not His footstool in the day of His anger.]The three members of the verse are so related to each other, that the first exhibits Zion as completely enveloped as it were in a thunder cloud, the second represents the glory of Israel as destroyed by the lightning, the third dwells especially on the fact, that the Lord had not so much as spared the holiest of holy things, the ark of the covenant.
[. Naegelsbach translates it verdunkelt;Gerlach,umwlkt;Hugh Broughton,beclouded.Owen, in a note to his translation of Calvin, observes that this verb is clearly in the future tense, and proposes to translate it, Why should the Lord in His wrath becloud the daughter of Zion? Then follows, he says, a description of what had happened to Zion, He hath cast from Heaven, etc.Scott seems to take the same view of the expostulatory character of the sentence, when he says, the prophet inquires, with mingled surprise and regret, how the Lord, the Author of her afflictions, could be induced thus to distress her? But it is better to take the verb in the sense of the present, How doth the Lord cover, etc., as Blayney, Boothroyd, Naegelsbach and Gerlach. The Poet assumes an ideal point of vision prior to the actual occurrence of the event, and so regards it as future. Yet while he speaks, the thing is done: and the description is completed in the past tense. The future as thus used in Hebrew, is best translated by the present in English. See GreensGr., 263, 5. The intermingling of different tenses in relation to the same subject, which is so frequent in poetry, foreign as it may be to our modes of thought, does not justify the conclusion that they are used promiscuously or without regard to their distinctive signification (Ib. note a.). If we accept Naegelsbachs idea of the thunder-cloud and the lightning, the use of the future in the first verb is very forcible. The Poet sees the cloud gathering, and while he looks, the lightning has flashed and the work of destruction is complete.Aben-Ezra, according to Rosenmueller, see also Calvin, explains the word to mean lifted up to the clouds. God exalted the daughter of Zion to the clouds, in His wrath, that He might cast her down from a greater height. For when one wishes to break in pieces an earthen vessel, he not only casts it on the ground, but he raises it up, that it may be thrown down with greater force (Calvin). We need some evidence better than this ingenious argument that the word can have this meaning.The Chald. and Syr., Gesenius in his Thes.,Maurer and J. D. Michaelis translate the word sprevit, contumelia vel opprobrio affecit, dishonored, disgraced, finding for this sense an analogy in the Arabic. The principal argument for this is, that he who is thrown down from Heaven is not surrounded with clouds. We answer 1. According to Naegelsbach above, from Heaven refers to the subject and not to the object of the verb cast down. 2. The figure of the thunder-cloud implies rather that the cloud covered the doomed City and Temple, and not that they were lifted up into the clouds. 3. There are two subjects expressed, as well as two verbs. Not the daughter of Zion, but the glory of Israel is cast down to the ground.Gerlach gives a poetical explanation to the first two clauses, Jerusalem is compared to a star, that once shone brightly, but was first clouded over and then thrown to the earth: and seems to imagine an allusion to Isa 14:12. But his beautiful star shines only in his fancy, and not in the text.
Lam 2:2. The Lord hath swallowed up.The Poet has in mind the idea of a yawning abyss. See Exo 15:12; Num 16:30-32; Num 26:10; Deu 11:6; Psa 106:17. [All the English versions translate the verb swallowed up, except Henderson (destroyed) and the Douay (The Lord hath cast down headlong, from Vulgate, precipitavit). Yet it seems manifest, from the use of the same word in Lam 2:5; Lam 2:8; Lam 2:16 (see also Hab 1:13; Isa 25:7-8; Isa 49:19; 2Sa 20:19), that the word is used merely to signify utter destruction, without intending to suggest, even in a figurative sense, the exact method of destruction, as by such a yawning abyss as is referred to in passages cited by Naegelsbach. Gerlach has destroyed, vertilgt,Calvin also, perdidit.W. H. H.]All the habitations of Jacob. The word rendered habitations includes the ideas of dwellings and pasture-grounds. It indicates the places where the Nomadic spread his tent and allowed his flock to graze. Hence the frequent phrase [lit. dwellings of pasture-land], Psa 65:13; Jer 9:9; Jer 23:10; Joe 1:19-20; Joe 2:22. And hath not pitied. See Lam 2:17; Lam 2:21; Lam 3:43. And spared not. [So the Sept. and Vulg. E. V. pitied, is most in accordance with the use of the word: yet the idea of sparing, in the exercise of mercy, is suggested by the order of the words in the original, The Lord swallowed up and spared not all the habitations of Jacob. So Calvin, Broughton, Gerlach.W. H. H.]He hath thrown downdemolished, in His wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah.The strongholds of Judah stand in antithesis to the habitations of Jacob; not only the open unprotected places, where the people dwelt among their pasture and grazing lands, but also the fortified cities were visited with destruction.The daughter of Judah, see Lam 1:15; Lam 2:5. The expression is very suitable, since only Judah still had any strongholds. See Jer 34:7.He hath brought them down to the ground: He hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof.He cast down to the ground, He polluted the kingdom and its princes. The expression , to bring down to the ground, is used very explicitly of fortified places in Isa 25:12; Isa 26:5, comp. Eze 13:14. Yet to refer it here to what precedes, results in a troublesome asyndeton. Then, too, the structure of the verse would be irregular, for the second idea and clause of the verse would have three lines or members, and the third only one. Finally, there is an idea in bringing down to the ground [or made to touch the ground; margin, E. V.], akin to that of pollution, which immediately follows. For majesty is polluted by being brought into contact with common dust. Compare Psa 89:40, , Thou hast profaned his crown, by casting it to the ground. [In favor of Naegelsbachs construction Isaiah 1. the absence of the conjunction. 2. The prevailing meaning of the verb followed by , to touch, to come in contact with. 3. The natural division of the verse. 4. The excellent sense. This construction is adopted by Rosenmueller, Ewald, Neumann, Blayney and Noyes. The only objections to it are 1, the application of the phrase brought down to the ground, in Isaiah, to the razing of fortified places; and 2, which is a stronger objection, the Masoretic punctuation.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:3-4
3He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming 4fire which devoureth round about. He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye it the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:3.. Only the Niph. is found in Jer 48:25; Jer 50:23.-, not in Jeremiah., Jer 48:45. , see Jer 21:14; Jer 46:14; Jer 50:32. Jeremiah always employs as the object of in this sense, or .
Lam 2:4. , Jer 9:2; Jer 46:9; Jer 1:14; Jer 1:19; Jer 51:3.There is no sufficient reason for questioning the pointing of as Part. Niph. It is in apposition with , [ is used of Gods coming in judgment in Isa 3:13; Psa 82:1. Its close connection by with the next verb should not be unobserved. He stood or set HimselfHis right hand as an adversaryand slew, etc.W. H. H.] Jeremiah never uses the Niph. , only the Hiph., Jer 5:26; Jer 31:21, and Hithp., Jer 46:4; Jer 46:14.The verb (see Lam 2:20-21; Lam 3:43), is scarcely current with Jeremiah. He uses only the Part. (Jer 31:21) and Inf. Kal. (Jer 15:3). [Lowth, Prelim. Dissert, on Isaiah, and Blayney supply after this verb -, every youth, from the Chaldee Paraphrase, to supply an apparent defect in metre.W. H. H.]The expression occurs only here.[The recurrence in Jeremiah of the figures of bending the bow and of pouring out fury as liquid fire (see Jer 4:4; Jer 7:20; Jer 21:12; Jer 42:18; Jer 44:6) may be regarded as evidences of authorship.W. H. H.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam 2:3-4. When it is here said that the Lord had broken the horn of Israel, then that He had deprived him of his right hand, then that He had kindled a fire in Jacob, and as an enemy had assaulted him, it is evident that a climax is intended. There is described first the deprivation of the power of resistance, then the deprivation of help, then the progress to positive hostility. Thenius sees in Lam 2:3-4 a full statement of all the incidents of the war, from the capture of the frontier fortresses to the taking of the city by storm. He understands, therefore, by the horn of Israel, those places of defence which were prominent, like horns, consequently frontier fortresses; hath drawn back his right hand, etc. describes the retreat of the Jewish armies to the capital; he burned against Jacob, etc., the effusion of the hostile troops over the land of which they were to become masters; he hath bent his bow, etc., the institution of siege; he stood with his right hand, etc., and slew, etc., the assault and storming of the city; he poured out his fury like fire, the capture of the city. Some of this hits the true sense, but not all. That horn should indicate the frontier fortresses, is artificial. It is to be considered, too, that the phrase is , all the horn [it may mean, however, every horn: the absence of the article makes this sense most probable.W. H. H.] To draw back the bow would not indicate the first attack of the city, for that attack was not made with arrows only. To stand with the right hand as an adversary does not mean to begin to fight with the right hand, and does not therefore describe an exclusively hand to hand fight. Certainly, as already remarked, the description advances from merely negative to directly positive hostility, but the latter is described, not by the successive steps of the siege, but according to the various andas far as practicablesimultaneous events of the achievement, wherein the most impressive event, representing, of course, the end, is placed last of all.
Lam 2:3. He hath cut offHe brokein his fierce angerin hot anger. See Exo 11:8; Deu 29:23; Isa 7:4; 1Sa 20:34; 2Ch 25:10. [The pronoun his supplied in E. V. is unnecessary, and weakens the sense. There is a rhetorical climax in the wordsanger,, Lam 2:1; wrath,, Lam 2:2; and heat of anger, or hot, fierce, furious anger, , Lam 2:3.W. H. H.]All the horn of IsraelEvery horn of Israel. See Jer 48:25; Ps. 75:11. According to constant usage, the horn is a symbol of power; see Psa 18:3; Psa 75:5-6, etc. [Calvin: We know that by horn is meant strength as well as excellency or dignity; and I am disposed to include both here, though the word breaking seems rather to refer to strength or power. Noyes: every horn, i.e., all her means of defence.]He hath drawn backHe bent backhis right hand from before the enemy. Does the pronominal suffix his, in , his hand, refer to Jehovah, or to Israel? Grammatically either is possible, and the sense in either case is substantially the same. The answer must depend on which interpretation best agrees with the usage of speech. The expression in full, as it is here, is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. It is worthy of remark that Jeremiah never uses = right hand, in a figurative sense. The word occurs in his book only once, Jer 22:24, and then in its literal sense. The only places that can be adduced as parallel to this place are, on the one side, Psa 74:11 (with reference, perhaps, to the expression a stretched-out arm,Exo 6:6, and elsewhere), and on the other side, Psa 44:11; Psa 89:43-44; comp. Isa 41:13. Whilst the first named passage distinctly expresses the thought that Jehovah draws back His hand, and that His right hand, the other passages declare that the Lord let the people or the edge of the sword fall back from before their enemy. It seems to me that in our passage the word , back, backward, standing in connection with , before the enemy, decides for the latter meaning. For in Psa 74:11 it is merely , thou withdrawest thy hand. Here the , backward, must change the sense. Drawing back the hand is merely the opposite of stretching it out ( ) and an act of volition consistent with the possession of strength. But falling back before the enemy is a symptom of weakness, which could not be asserted of the hand of Jehovah. As it is said elsewhere that Jehovah strengthens the right hand (Isa 41:13), or elevates it (Psa 89:43), so it can be said that He lets it fall back (as if it had become weak), and this falling back of the right hand is the same, as is elsewhere explained, as a falling back of the person generally (Psa 44:11), or of the sword (held by the right hand, Psa 89:44). [Owen (in a note on Calvin): Gataker, Henry, Blayney, and Henderson, consider the right hand as that of Israelthat God drew back or restrained the right hand of Israel, so that he had no power to face his enemies. But Scott agrees with Calvin; and favorable to the same view are the early versions, except the Syr., for they render the pronoun his own, suam; the Targ. also takes the same view. Had the word been hand, it might have been applied to Israel; but it is the right hand, which commonly means protection, or rather Gods power, as put forth to defend His people and to resist enemies. This is farther confirmed by what is said in the following verse, that God stood with His right hand as an enemy. See Psa 74:11. Gatakers argument, in Assemblys Annotations, on the other side, is very strongly put, and agrees in its main points with Naegelsbachs. Yet, for the following reasons, it seems necessary to stand by the versions and interpreters that refer the pronoun to God. 1. The pronoun usually belongs to the subject of the verb where its personal object, is not specified. By adhering to this rule, we would often escape uncertainty and confusion. 2. After such an introduction as in Lam 2:1, How hath the Lord done all this, and the subsequent use of His with reference to God (Lam 2:1, His anger, twice, His footstool; Lam 2:2, His wrath; Lam 2:4, His bow, His right hand, His fury, etc.), it certainly seems arbitrary and violent in this instance to refer it to another subject. 3. It is awkward, to say the least, to make his right hand in Lam 2:3 mean one thing, and in Lam 2:4 another. 4. Throughout this whole passage, Lam 2:1-10, the people of Israel are represented as passive objects of Divine wrath, and no allusion is made to the slightest activity on their part in resisting the instruments of wrath, as would be done here if his refers to Israel. 5. This makes excellent sense, and preserves the continuity of the thought, verging as usual towards a climax. God breaks off the horn of Israel, that they can no longer oppose their enemies; He bends back His own right hand, and thus withdraws His own opposition to those enemies; and while Israel lies thus helpless in themselves and deprived of Gods help, He pours down upon them the fiery fury of His own wrath, and becomes Himself like an enemy fighting against them. The bending back of His hand may be intended to express Gods resistance to His own merciful impulses towards His own people. He forcibly bends back the hand He had already stretched out in Israels behalf.W. H. H.]And he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round aboutAnd He set Jacob on fire, as a flame of fire which devours round about [i.e., He, as a flame of fire which consumes all around it, set Jacob on fire]. with of the object is so often used in the signification of setting on fire, then of consuming by fire (Num 11:1; Num 11:3; Isa 30:33; Isa 42:25; Isa 43:2; Jer 44:6; Job 1:16; Psa 106:18), that we may take it here unhesitatingly in the same sense. This, indeed, is the only admissible sense. For should we take in, Jacob,, in a local sense, we must still understand of the kindling of the fire, in which sense only is the Piel used (comp. Exo 35:3; Jer 7:18; Eze 21:4). Then, too, we see the force of the particle of comparison, , like a flame. Evidently the meaning is that the Lord had become to Jacob as a flaming fire. He had become so by kindling the consuming fire of war in the land. See Deu 32:22.
Lam 2:4. He hath bent His bow like an enemy. The Lord attacks Israel with all kinds of weapons: and so with the bow. Comp. Psa 7:13; Deu 32:23. [Calvin: Stating a part for the whole, he includes in the bow every other weapon. Kitto: The Hebraism for bow is like that for bread. As the latter includes all food, so does the former include all weapons. (Daily Bib. lll., Vol. 3, p. 295.)He stood with His right hand as an adversary. He stood at his right hand as an adversary. We cannot take his right hand as the subject of the verb ()erecta est manus ejus instar hostis (Kalkar) [His right hand stood erect like an adversary,Blayney]for neither does the verb mean to be erected, raised up, nor does its gender allow this construction. I think it also incorrect to take his right hand as the accusative of the instrument, as Thenius, Vaihinger and others do. For to stand with the right hand as an adversary is an unusually odd expression, with no example to sustain it. Ewald would give to the verb the meaning of taking aim at something. [So Henderson:He hath steadied His right hand like an adversary. The point of the comparison here is obviously that of the care taken by the archer to obtain a steady aim.] Ewald appeals to Psa 11:3, but the phraseology in that place is entirely different. I think that passages like Psa 109:6; Zec 3:1 illustrate this. In those places the enemy is represented as standing at the right hand. As it is said elsewhere that the friend and helper stands at the right hand, in order to support and strengthen the right hand (Psa 16:8; Psa 73:23; Psa 109:31; Psa 110:5; Psa 121:5; Isa 41:13), so it is also said that the enemy places himself at the right hand, in order, by hemming it in and weakening it, to overcome its resistance. That , his right hand, has to be taken as an accusative of place, is no objection (see my Gr., 70, c;Exo 33:8), though elsewhere a preposition is used (see the places above referred to, Psa 109:6; Zec 3:1 and Psa 45:10). [The ingenious reference of his right hand to Israel is peculiar to our author: though Chaldus, as quoted by Rosenmueller, adopts a similar construction, but with reference to the enemies of Israel:He has placed Himself at the right hand of Nebuchadnezzar, in order to assist him. Besides the absence of the preposition which this interpretation would seem to require, a very strong objection to it is the sudden change of person. For the principal reasons for supposing the right hand in Lam 2:3 refers to God, because God is the subject of the preceding clause, and no other person is specified, we believe the right hand in Lam 2:4 also refers to God; if his bow means Gods bow, and not Israels, then his right hand would naturally mean Gods, and not Israels, or Nebuchadnezzars, or any other persons. It is not necessary, however, to violate grammar by giving to the Niphal participle an active or perfect sense, as Ewald and others have done. We can translate literally thus: He stood, or was standing, or set HimselfHis right hand as an adversary. The ellipsis is characteristic of Hebrew poetry, and may be supplied by quoad, as to, or exegetically with, as in our version: He stood with His right hand as an adversary. Wordsworth: The Prophet first has a general view of the awful form of the Almighty, and then beholds His Right Hand putting itself forth as an enemy against Sion. Rosenmueller: He has placed Himself as regards His right hand, as if with it He would hurl at me a javelin. See Gerlach also.W. H. H.]And slew all that were pleasant to the eyeAnd destroyed all that charms or delights the eye. The delights of the eye (see Lam 1:7; Lam 1:10-11) are evidently those in whom the eyes of parents take the greatest delight, the virgins and the young men,Lam 1:18. [Calvin:He slew all the chosen men. It is better to take the verb , to kill, slay, metaphorically, as in Psa 78:47, for destroy (Henderson).W. H. H.]In the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion. If the daughter of Zion is the body of the inhabitants of Zion, then the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion is the dwelling-place of those inhabitants, i.e., the city. [These words are connected with what follows, not with the preceding clause: In the tabernacle of the daughter of Sion poured He out like fire His fury. So Blayney, Gerlach, Naegelsbach. Calvin prefers it. The Masoretic punctuation requires it.W. H. M.]He poured out His fury like fire. The figurative idea of the outpouring of wrath, conceived of as liquid fire, is found elsewhere in Lam 4:11; Hos. v: 10: Jer 6:11; Jer 10:25; Jer 42:18; comp. Jer 14:16. That the Poet would indicate the capture and destruction of the city, is clear.
Lam 2:5
5The Lord was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces; he hath destroyed his strongholds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:5., in Lam. only here and Lam 2:7. Often in Jer 6:5; Jer 9:20, etc.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
According to Jer 52:13-14 (see also 6, 12), four weeks after the capture, Nebuzaradan had burned the house of Jehovah, the house of the king, all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house, and destroyed the walls. To these facts Lam 2:5-9 a seem to refer, though they relate only to the destruction of the palaces, the holy places and the walls. [The particular description of destruction of holy places begins at Lam 2:6.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:5. The Lord was as an enemy.The Lord became as an enemy. This is specified, first of all, as the cause of these calamities. As an enemy, see Lam 2:4, and as a widow, Lam 1:1.He hath swallowed up (see Lam 2:2) Israel, He bath swallowed up all her palaces; He bath destroyed his strongholds.Israel, on the one part, and the palace and strongholds, on the other, are to each other as the people and the city. Palaces here, as remarked, seem to correspond to the kings house and all the houses of the great men, or every great house, in Jer 52:13. Strongholds, see Lam 2:2.He hath destroyed his strongholds, is a quotation from Jer 48:18. Commentators differ with respect to the suffixes in , her palaces, and , his strongholds. Some think the feminine suffix her refers to the daughter of Zion, Lam 2:4, the masculine suffix his to Israel. Others think that Israel itself may be conceived of, at one time as the name of the country, at another as the name of the city. [This is the opinion of Gerlach, who refers to a very similar instance in Hos 8:14, where the feminine suffix is attached to the same word as here, , her palaces, and where, as here the masculine would be expected.W. H. H.] J. D. Michaelis would read , palaces ofJehovah.Thenius conjectures that -, her, has been changed into , his, by the omission of a stroke of the pen. But all the commentators, so far as I see, have overlooked the fact that the last words are a quotation. In this way we easily explain the masculine suffix, which not only disagrees with her palaces, but violates the rule by which, every where else in the Lamentations, Zion is conceived of as a female person. The word is either a very old scribal error for , thy strongholds (yet the Sept. has ), or the Poet has chosen the suffix that best preserved the similarity of sound with the original text. He could do this in virtue of the greater freedom which prevails in the Hebrew with respect to denoting the gender. See my Gr., 60, 4. As in Eze 23:36-49, where Aholah and Aholibah are spoken of, the suffixes are constantly changed (see especially 2:46); so here also possibly, the suffixes are changed even after a masculine or feminine idea floated before the mind of the Poet. [The mere recurrence of two not very remarkable words in succession, can hardly be regarded as a quotation. But unfortunately there is in the present instance a dissimilarly which is very prejudicial to the idea of a quotation. Here we read ; in Jer 48:18 it is , and our author is obliged to suppose a possible scribal error, or to invent an auricular theory of quotation. It seems necessary here to adopt the opinion of those who, according to Rosenmueller, refer the masculine suffix to God and the feminine to the daughter of Zion. He swallowed up all her palaces, He destroyed His own strongholds. This is not to be discarded as a mere conjecture where every other mode of interpretation is purely conjectural. It is recommended by the arguments adduced for the explanation of his in Lam 2:3. It avoids the difficulty of supposing that pronouns of different genders refer to the same person. The her refers to the ideal person Israel, the daughter of Jerusalem. Her palaces are the habitations of the people. His own strongholds are the defences of Zion which is His habitation. Grammar and Rhetoric both commend this explanation.W. H. H.]And hath increased or multiplied in the daughter of Judah, see Lam 1:15, mourning and lamentation. The last words in the original are a beautiful paronomasia, borrowed from Isa 29:2, . [Henderson: Sorrow and sadness. Vitringa:Mror ac mstitia.Gerlach:Betrbniss und Trobsal.Naegelsbach:chzen und Krchzen], See Gen 1:2; , Job 30:10; , Eze 35:3.
Lam 2:6-7
6And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised, in the indignation of his 7anger, the king and the priest. The Lord has cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the Lord, as in the day of a solemn feast.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:6.The verb is found in Jer 22:3; Jer 13:22. for , see Crit. note below.The definite article in is in accordance with recognized philological usage. See my Gr., 71, 4 a. Drechsler, Is., Vol. 2., p. 203 n. [The definite article was used in comparisons because the Hebrew commonly conceived of the whole class of objects of which he spoke. See Greens Gr., 245, 5 d.W. H. H.], the first time is used of festival place (see Psa 74:8; comp. 1Sa 20:35), and then of the festival itself (see Lam 1:4). [See Crit. note below.]. This Piel form is found only here. It must be taken in the accusative sense. occurs in Jeremiah only in Jer 17:21-27, where the profanation of the Sabbath is referred to., in Lamentations only here; in Jer 14:21; Jer 23:17; Jer 33:24., in Lamentations only here; in Jer 10:10; Jer 15:17; Jer 50:25.
Lam 2:7. , three times in Lam 2:7; Lam 3:17; Lam 3:31, never in Jeremiah., see Lam 1:14 [Introd. Add. Rem. p. 32].. This verb is found only here and in Psa 89:40. [Blayney. renders it as Niph., His sanctuary is accursed, but conjectures from Sept., , the true reading may be , substituted for , He hath shaken off His Sanctuary. As the meaning could only be conjectured from the ancient versions (see Alexander, Psa 89:40), it is not improbable that the Sept. gave it the sense of . So Broughton, cast off, and Calvin, repulit vel rejecit procul ab animo suo. The fundamental signification of the verb is to reject, to repudiate. Fuerst gives the Piel sense, to cast down entirely, to repudiate, to reject. This agrees with the accepted translation of Psa 89:40. The sense of abhor, derived from a cognate Arabic root, would suit that place, as well as this; and is more agreeable to the corresponding word in the first clause, , if the fundamental idea of is to be foul, to stink, as Gesenius says, though Fuerst, with good reason, denies this. The idea of abhorring or of rejecting with disdain or disgust, is given to both these verbs by Naegelsbach and Gerlach. Naegelsbach translates, The Lord rejected with disdain His altar, He abhorred His sanctuary, and Gerlach just reverses the expressions, The Lord abhorred His altar, He rejected with disdain His sanctuary.W. H. H.], See Lam 1:10; Lam 2:20, twice in Jer 17:12; Jer 51:51., see 1Sa 23:20; Psa 31:9, is not found in Jeremiah. The only part of the verb he uses is the Pual, and that only once, Jer 13:19. [Naegelsbach translates this verb verschloss, shut up, see marg., E. V. He makes no remark upon its meaning. Fuerst regards to surround, enclose, Hiph. to shut up, and to flow out, Hiph. to deliver up, as entirely distinct verbs, and says that all attempts to unite their meanings must be regarded at failures.W. H. H.]. The connection requires us to understand this of the sanctuary, although no place can be cited in which is used of the Temple; for Jer 30:18, to which some appeal, is to be explained otherwise: See notes on that place. J. D. Michaelis would read, , palace of Jehovah. , see Jer 22:20.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[Lam 2:6-10 describe particularly the destruction of the holy places. Here God claims a special property. Everything is His. The emphatic use of the pronoun, shows that it is also significant in Lam 2:5, his strongholds as distinguished from her palaces.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:6. And He hath violently taken away His tabernacle (marg., hedge) as if it were of a garden.And He laid waste as a garden His tabernacle. The meaning of the verb is to use violence, to offer violence. To do violence to a garden is to lay it waste. The laying waste of a garden has these peculiarities; it is easily done, it is in some sense a crime against nature, and for that reason a garden laid waste is a revolting as well as a sad spectacle.But what is the meaning of the word , translated tabernacle (marg., hedge)? That it stands for , cannot be doubted constantly denotes that sort of (htte) hut, cot, bower, that is made of wicker-work [or plaited twigs, boughs], also lairs of beasts similarly constructed, Jer 25:38; Psa 10:9. [J. A. Alexander: The Hebrew word is commonly applied to any temporary shed or booth, composed of leaves and branches. But, according to Fuerst, the word is derived from =to protect, and means properly, the covering, protecting, screening thing (not a thing woven together out of branches) hence a covering, hat, tent; a covert, lair.W. H. H.] Then it denotes a house generally, and especially the holy tabernacle, Jehovahs house, Psa 76:3; as does also , Psa 18:12; Job 36:29 : comp. ; Amo 5:26.If now it is said, that the Lord hath done violence to His tabernacle as to a garden, the tertium comparationis, the point of the comparison, consists in the facility with which the end is accomplished and in the contrast between the proper condition of things and that which the laying waste has produced. As easily as one might root up plants, fell trees and plough the ground, has the Lord overthrown the firm walls of His sanctuary; and as sad and incomprehensible as the appearance of a devastated pleasure garden is the spectacle of the sanctuary in ruins. The comparison is the more apt, because the city of God, with her joyous fountains, springing from the dwelling-place of the Most High (Psa 46:5; comp. Psa 84:1-4), could with truth be called , Jehovahs garden (Isa 51:3), , a Paradise of glory (Sir 40:27). [On the whole, our English Version seems best to express the true sense of this difficult passage, and He hath violently taken away His tabernacle as if it were of a garden, i.e., as if it were but such a cottage in the garden as vinedressers were accustomed to build till the vintage was past. So Calvin. This interpretation involves a play on the word , as properly meaning a garden house, and also denoting Gods tabernacle.W. H. H.]He hath destroyed His places of the assembly.He destroyed His place of assembly (Festort). [So Henderson. Noyes:place of congregation.Blayney:His congregation. It is better (see note below), to translate, He abolished His appointed services, or solemnities.W. H. H.]The Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion.Jehovah exterminated [caused to be forgotten] in Zion festival [appointed times of Divine service] and Sabbath.The result of the destruction of the place for holding festivals is, that the festivals themselves can no longer be celebrated and are forgotten. By Zion, not Mount Zion, but the holy city generally is meant [on the contrary, in the strictest sense the holy places are intended.W. H. H.].And hath despised, in the indignation of His anger, the king and the priest.And rejected [so Fuerst also] in the fury of His wrath King and Priest. Since the festivals are no longer celebrated, those persons who were appointed to officiate in them, are by their omission removed from active service. That the kings belonged to this class of persons is evident, because they were, not only Gods representatives to the people, but also intercessors with God in behalf of the people. The Israelitish king (especially in the persons of David and Solomon) bore a certain priestly character, in that the king at the head of the people and in their name worshipped God and, on the other hand, brought back to the people the Divine blessing (2Sa 6:17-18; 1Ki 3:4; 1Ki 8:14-15, etc.; 1Ki 8:55-56, etc.; 1Ki 8:62-63, etc.; 1Ki 9:25; 1Ch 29:10-11, etc.;2Ch 1:6; comp. Eze 46:1-12). Oehler in Herz.,Real-Enc. VIII., pp. 12, 13.
. That this word stands for is evident, because, 1. and frequently are interchanged, especially in the later language (see and , 2Sa 1:22, and , and , Ges.Thes., p. 931. Ewald, 50 a). 2. We find in Exo 33:22 the verbal form for , and in Isa 5:5 for , Mic 7:4. 3. Since and occur only in the places cited, and is found only here, it would appear that these forms are not so much indications of an independent root , as merely different ways of writing . [When Gerlach says that never means htte, a cot, tent, or tabernacle, he overlooks Psa 76:3, where it undoubtedly describes the holy Temple as Gods tabernacle house or dwelling-place. To his argument that would be an unsuitable designation of the Temple, because if it means a house at all, it can only mean such a house as a cot or bower made of twisted branches of trees, it may be replied; 1. the Temple might be so called in allusion to the ancient tabernacle which was temporary and movable; 2. may be derived from in the generic sense of enclosing, and not in the particular sense of enclosing with a hedge or fence, as to weave. Indeed Gerlach seems to give up the very point for which he so ably contends, that cannot mean a house, when he gives it here the sense of an enclosure (Gehege) and applies it to the whole sacred enclosure, including of course the Temple. Henderson, also, translates the word His inclosure.W. H. H.] The Sept. translates [He tore up as if it had been a vine His tabernacle]. It would seem that Job 15:33 was in the mind of the translator, where it is said, [He shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, E. V. Ewald accepts (in his 3d ed.) the Sept. translation, and supposes , instead of , to be the true reading. To this Gerlach objects1. That cannot mean to tear up, to pull out; 2. The conjecture that may have existed in the text is unnecessary, since the Sept. translator may have interpreted as a vineyard and translated it by =a vine, as is translated by the Sept. in Lev 25:3-4.W. H. H.] The explanation of Pareau, Rosenmueller and Kalkar,et violenter abripuit sicut sepem horti sepem suam [Noyes:He hath violently torn away His hedge, like the hedge of a garden], according to which would be taken for , is not grammatically allowable, since such an omission of the governing word, after the particle of comparison, could only occur where the context necessarily required the word to be supplied,as, for example, when it is said, Isa 63:2, [thy garments like the garments of him that treadeth in the winevat], we supply the idea of before , because the garments could not be compared to the person of the man treading the wine-press. So Gen 18:11 and other passages which might be adduced here, are to be explained. See my Gr., 65, 3, note 103, 2. But in our passage there is no necessity for supplying before , because the laying waste of the house can very well be compared to devastation of a garden. The explanation of Thenius, He injured that which was, in respect to His house (, standing in an entirely subordinate relation), the garden, by which is meant the Temple courts, is altogether too artificial. If the courts could be called the garden of the Temple, for which, however, Thenius adduces no evidence, why did not the Prophet at once call it simply [Gerlach: The translation of Thenius,He injured as the garden of His tabernacle, i.e., that which was the garden with respect to His Tabernacle, speaking analogically (whereby the two courts surrounding the Temple-edifice and connected by terraces, would be designated, which might be poetically regarded as the garden belonging to the Palace of the King of Israel), requires to be taken in the construct case in spite of the articlean anomaly, for the justification of which (see Ewald, 290, d;Gesenius, 108, 2, n) something more is demanded than the remark, stands in an entirely subordinate relation, for in point of fact it absolutely determines the meaning of =the garden of His tabernacle.. This word occurs six times in Lam 1:4; Lam 1:15; Lam 2:6, bis, Lam 2:7; Lam 2:22. Our translators render it in five different ways, and in this verse, where it occurs twice, in two different senses. In Lam 1:4; Lam 2:6 they call it the solemn feasts; in Lam 1:15, an assembly; in Lam 2:6, places of the assembly; and the phrase , they translate in Lam 2:7, as in the day of a solemn feast, and in Lam 2:22, as in a solemn day. That the word could have such variety of meaning in such close connection is improbable. The word is derived from , to appoint. It means something fixed, determined upon, appointed. It is used in the sense of a set time, an appointed place, a time or place appointed for meeting together, especially for purposes of religious worship, and hence the regularly appointed and observed ordinances or services of worship. As connected with the assembling of the congregation for worship, it is not unlikely that the word acquired some ambiguity in its use, like our English word church, referring sometimes to time or place of service, sometimes to the people engaged in the service, and sometimes to the service itself. But we can always trace in the use of the Hebrew word its original signification of a set or appointed time, place or service: and never, perhaps, has it the simple unqualified meaning of an assembly, a congregation, a festive occasion. There is no necessity of ascribing to it so many significations in the Lamentations, and two entirely different meanings in two successive lines of this one verse. In Lam 1:15 it may have its primitive meaning of a set time. In Lam 2:7; Lam 2:22 the phrase may mean a day appointed, fixed upon, predetermined, for any especial occasion. In the other three places, where it occurs, it refers to the services appointed to be celebrated in the Temple. The reference is probably to the daily services of sacrifice, praise and prayer. The cessation of the annual feasts and greater festivals, which were of infrequent occurrence, would not be so remarkable as the abrupt and entire cessation of morning and evening prayer which had been observed, without intermission, for nearly five hundred years, or ever since the Temple was first consecrated.There is, therefore, no real difference in the use of this word in the Prophecies of Jeremiah and in the Lamentations.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:7. The Lord hath cast offThe Lord rejected with disdainHis altar,He hath abhorredHe abhorredHis sanctuary. The altar and sanctuary are recognized as the central points and chief places of Divine worship. By this it is obvious that , sanctuary, here must signify, not in its widest sense the Temple generally, which has been already sufficiently indicated by , tabernacle, and , place of assembly, Lam 2:6, but in its narrower sense the sanctutuary proper, the Temple which contained the Holy place and Holy of Holies. This sense best corresponds with [an altar, in the widest sense, or place where offerings are made.W. H. H.], for not the altar alone, but the holy place and the holy of holies were places of offering (Exo 30:1-10).He hath given upHe gave upinto the hand of her enemy the walls of her palaces. The connection requires us to understand by the walls of her palaces the walls of the sanctuary. [The altar is treated with contempt, the holy places are defiled, the edifice itself is given into the power of the enemy, and where we once heard the voices of a worshipping people, is heard now the wild clamor of heathen idolators.W. H. H.]They have made a noisethey shouted, or raised a cry or clamorin the house of the LORDin the house of Jehovahas in the day of a solemn feast [lit., like a daya time appointed, which can only refer to some regularly appointed festival of the church, and is here to be so translated, though we might render in conformity with Lam 2:6 and Lam 1:4; Lam 1:15, a day of appointed religious services, with reference, however, to the great festivals of the church.W. H. H.]. A clamor, loud as a festival jubilee, but of a different origin, and character, is heard in the temple. It is a festival for their enemies, not for Israel (Lam 1:15). At this feast Israel is the victim sacrificed. [ Wordsworth: a noise, a cry of jubilee. There is a contrast between the former shout, of festal joy of worshippers in the Temple, and the cry of exultation of the Chaldeans, Down with it! Down with it to the ground! Gerlach: (cry) is not to be understood, with Pareau and Rosenmueller, of the war-cry, but of the shouts of joy and triumph on the part of the enemy, as the comparison with the jubilee-festival shows (see Isa 30:29). See crit. note, Lam 2:6.]
Lam 2:8-9
8The Lord hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion; he hath stretched out a line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying: therefore 9he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together. Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars: her king and her princes are among the Gentiles: the law is no more; her prophets also find no vision from the Lord.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:8., often in Jer 2:30; Jer 4:7; Jer 36:29, etc.; in Lam. only here.. Jer 31:39, Kri.Kal of in Jer 12:11; Jer 14:2; Jer 23:10; Hiph. only in Eze 31:15 and here., not in Jer. is used in a precisely similar way in Jer 14:2.
Lam 2:9., Piel, in Lam, only here, in Jer. often, Jer 12:17; Jer 15:7; Jer 23:1; Jer 51:55., in Lam. only here and Lam 3:4, in Jer 43:13, comp. Jer 5:30., Jer 49:31; Jer 51:30., Jer 14:14; Jer 23:16.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam 2:8. The LORD hath purposedJehovah purposedto destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion. As has been remarked, we are explicitly informed, Jer 52:13-14; 2Ki 25:9-10, that four weeks after the capture of the city, Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the Temple, the houses and the city walls. Of the destruction of the walls the passages cited speak with special emphasis (Jer 52:14 and 2Ki 25:10), and all the army of the Chaldeans, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about.He hath stretched out a lineHe stretched out the measuring-line. The architect employs the measuring line in order to build correctly. Jehovah applies it in order to level the wall to the ground in the most literal manner. This figure substantially occurs in Amo 7:7-9; the expression first occurs in Isa 34:11; 2Ki 21:13 and Job 38:5 [see Zec 1:16. Gerlach: The use of the measuring line denotes that the destruction of the building will be executed with the same rigorous precision with which an architect carries out his preconceived plan. Michaelis explanation is too artificial; a line, as it were, designated the extent of the destruction, that the devastating punishment might be proportionate to the guilt. J. A. Alexander: on Isa 34:11. The sense of the metaphor may be, either that God has laid this work out for Himself and will perform it (Barnes), or that in destroying He will act with equity and justice (Gill), or that even in destroying He will proceed deliberately and by rule (Knobel), which last sense is well expressed in Rosenmuellers paraphrase, ad mensuram vastabitur, ad regulam depopulabitur, it is laid waste by measure, it is depopulated by rule. While the idea of the thoroughness and completeness of the work of destruction, as indicated by Gerlach, suits better here than any of the other explanations suggested above, and is undoubtedly included in the meaning of the words, yet the main thought is, that God Himself predetermined the extent of the destruction; Jehovah purposed it and Hestretched out a line to mark its beginning and its end. Human instruments were both incited and restrained by Him. It was a line stretched out, not after, but before the destruction, not to show its extent, but to define its limits, designed to point out what was to be destroyed (Owen).W. H. H.]He hath not withdrawn His hand from destroying (marg., swallowing up). He withdrew,or averted not, His hand, see Lam 2:3, from devouring, destroying, swallowing up, see Lam 2:2. [What He had designed, He executed. He withdrew not His hand till the full measure of destruction indicated by the line was complete.W. H. H.].Therefore He madeThen made Hethe rampart and the wall to lamentrampart and wall mourn. The two words, rampart and wall, are united as here in Isa 26:1. Rampart, (see 2Sa 20:15; Oba 1:20) is the pomrium, the circumvallation, or the smaller wall in front of the chief wall. [Fuerst: The outermost fence of fortifications, the glacis, the (outermost) rampart around the city walls, pomrium,, antemurale. In 2Sa 20:15 it is rendered in E. V. by trench. In Oba 1:20, not expressed in E. V., it means, according to Fuerst,a province..W. H. H.]They languished together. A prosopopia, as in the preceding expression, He made rampart and wall mourn, and in Lam 1:4. Comp. Lam 2:18-19.
Lam 2:9. [In Lam 2:1-8 the Lord executing His wrath has been constantly before us. Now the work is done: and in Lam 2:9-10, we are afforded a brief glance at the results, after the catastrophe was over.W. H. H.] The first part of this verse may be taken as a continuation and conclusion of the foregoing description; or as merely a recapitulation, by way of transition to what follows. If the latter is correct, then the gates are to be regarded as a part of the walls, and with the walls sunken into the ground. But, since the gates constituted the most important part of the walls, and were in fact the very centres of public life (see their use as Forums,Deu 21:19; Rth 4:1; 2Sa 19:9; 1Ki 22:10) and were moreover the keys to the city, we may regard them as representative of the city itself, and so understand the first part of Lam 2:9, as a comprehensive conclusion of the preceding description.Her gates are sunk into the ground. The sense of the verb by itself ( is not to sink down, but to sink into), as well as the prefix , shows that is not to the earth, but into the earth. The ruined gates sink into the earth, and on account of the accumulation of ruins are buried beneath the level of the ground. [Assem. Annot. The Jewish Doctors upon the place, out of their Talmudists, tell us strange stories of the gates of Jerusalem sinking down into the ground, that they might not come into the enemies power, because they were the work of Davids hands: and some of ours run as wildly wide another way, expounding it of the Priests and Judges that were wont to sit in the gates, see Lam 5:14. I conceive no more to be meant than that the gates were thrown down to the ground, and lying along there (such of them and such parts of them as had escaped the fire, Lam 1:4; Neh 1:3; Neh 2:3; Neh 2:13; Neh 2:17), were buried in the rubbish when the walls were demolished. See Neh 2:13-14; Neh 4:10. Gerlach: This is said of the gates because they were so completely destroyed (Pareau, Thenius,buried under rubbish), that no more trace could be seen of them than if they had sunk into the ground, not because (as Michaelis says) the gates overthrown by the enemy sunk into ditches dug under them.]He hath destroyed and broken.He destroyed and broke in pieces [literally and phonetically shivered,]her bars [the bars that, secured the gates, see Psa 107:16,W. H. H.].Her King and her Princesare among the Gentiles,the heathen. From this point the discourse relates to persons instead of things. If the king and princes were already among the heathen, then the transportation into exile had already taken place.The law is no morethere is no law, (Kein Gesetz ist mehr vorhanden). , law, may denote by itself the whole law, a particular part of the law, or the law as a rule of conduct, considered, however, subjectively with respect to the theory, i.e., as the matter of instrouction (institution, doctrina is in fact the fundamental meaning of the word). Add to this that , there is no law, may grammatically refer to the whole preceding sentence (there they cannot practise the law, Luther) [the King and Princes are among the Gentiles, where they cannot, observe the law]; or merely to , among the Gentiles (who have no divine revelation, Kalkar), [among the Gentiles who are without law , which would be a correct, translation of the Hebrew. Hugh Broughton gives this sense and refers to Rom 2:14, Her King and her Princes are among the heathen that have no law.W. H. H.]; or it may be taken as an independent proposition. If we compare such passages as Jer 18:18 ( , the law shall not perish from the priest), Eze 7:26 ( , but the law shall perish from the priest), Mal 2:7 ( , and they should seek the law at his mouth), we would incline to the opinion that , law, refers only to instruction out of the law and administration of the law by the priests. But why then are not the priests named? And have not the kings and princes, as judges and guardians of the legal order (Deu 17:8-20), their share in the administration of law? I believe, therefore, that while , there is no law, is to be taken, as an independent proposition, it is to be understood in the widest sense, as indicating that there was no longer any sort of administration (whether priestly or kingly) of the law. [Gerlach adopts the translation Her king and her princes are among the heathen without law, with Luthers explanation, referring the words without law to the whole preceding part of the sentence, Her king and her princes are among the heathen where they cannot observe the law, or enjoy it. A strong objection to this is that it transfers our thoughts and sympathies from the deplorable condition of Jerusalem, which is here the subject, of description, to the personal condition of her king and princes in a far distant land. Besides, the very structure of the sentence leads us to expect something directly relating to the daughter of Zion. When we are told that her king and her princes are among the heathen, we are prepared to hear of some evil resulting to her from their absence. What that evil result is, we are in fact informed if we understand the Poet to mean, that on account of the absence of her king and her princes, she is deprived of the law. This agrees substantially with Naegelsbachs interpretation, but he has erred in making two wholly independent sentences of what is really only one, though consisting of two poetical parts as the rhythmical structure requires. The correct translation isHer king and her princes among the heathenthere is no law. This is recommended by the two arguments which Gerlach very forcibly urges in favor of his rendering. 1. It is in accordance with the Hebrew accents, which Naegelsbach entirely ignores and violates, and which connect the words without law, or there is no law with what precedes. 2. This explanation, agreeing with the accents, is further recommended by the fact that the two last members of verse 9 describe the fate of those persons, standing to the city in the relation of Helpers and Counsellors or Comforters (her king and her prophets), of whose help and counsel, or comfort, the city had been deprived, even as (according to the first member of Lam 2:9) she had been deprived of the external means of protection. It is the deprivation of all these, formerly the medium of divine help, that the Poet mourns (see Hos 3:4; Hos 13:10; Isa 3:2), Gerlach. Another argument for the translation suggested is, that it renders a verb in the first part of the sentence unnecessary, or helps us at least readily to suply it. If we make two wholly independent sentences, as Naegelsbach does, then there is not in the whole book a similar instance of the omission of a verb: and, indeed, it is somewhat conjectural what verb ought to be supplied; the simple fact, that the king and princes are among the Gentiles, is not of itself and necessarily an evil, we must add to this another idea that they are exiled, or imprisoned, or disgraced, or suffering, or dying among the Gentiles. If, on the other hand, we read the two clauses as intimately connected and interdependent, as the accents imply, then the proper verb in the first clause, if indeed any verb is necessary, is suggested by the last clause, and the construction is not wholly unparalleled in the book. Her king and her princes among the nationsthere is no law, plainly means (Because), her king and her princes (are) among the nationsthere is (for her) no law. So in Lam 1:2. And her tears on her cheek, there is no comforter to her from all her lovers, means undoub edly, and her tears (are) on her check (because) there is no comforter, etc. In both cases the two clauses are related as cause and effect, and in both the use of the Hebrew , which contains in itself the verb to be, prevents what would be the case otherwise and what would be an anomaly in this book, the occurrence of a whole sentence without a single verb expressed. In the other instances in this book, in which our English translators have thought it necessary to supply the verb to be, its omission in the original is highly poetical and very expressive I. 4. And she is in bitterness, ( ), lit. and shebitterness to her, and Lam 1:20, for I am in distress, , lit. for trouble to me, are Hebrew idioms quite synonymous with the old English forms woes her, woes me! In Lam 1:22, for my sighs are many, and my heart is faint, lit. for many my sighs, to my heart sickness, the omission of the verb, while it does not mar the sense, intensifies the expression, when these words are read in their close connection with the preceding prayer. So in our text, the absence of the verb is due to the broken, rapid, vehement style of the poetry of passion; Her king and her princes among the heathenthere is no law. But if we take the first clause as a complete and separate statement of the mere fact that her king and her princes are among heathen, the omission of the verb must be regarded as a blemish and a carelessness of which the writer of the Lamentations is no where else guilty.The meaning of law, according to this interpretation is obvious. The law of the land, which was the law of God as especially revealed for the government of the Jewish theocracy, is no longer observed and administered, for its guardians and administrators, the king and the princes are in exile. All legal observances were swept away (Henderson.). The law, moral, ceremonial and judicial, as regarded its administration in Judea, was no more (Owen.).W. H. H.]Her prophets also find no vision from the LORD.Also her prophets receive no longer vision [revelation from God, divine communication] from Jehovah. These words have been taken as evidence that, the Poet, in the whole of the foregoing description, had in mind only the condition of the Israelites remaining in the land. But if Jeremiah received an answer to the question which he put to the Lord ten days after he asked it (Jer 42:4; Jer 42:7), then it could not be said that the prophets could receive no vision from the Lord. I believe, there, fore that the Poet here had in mind the great body of the people who had been carried into exile. Those who, with their king, princes and priests, were among the heathen, and on that account without law, were the ones who were also without prophets. [Not the people as such, whether in exile, or remaining in Judea, but the ideal person of the daughter of Zion (see Lam 2:1; Lam 2:4; Lam 2:8; Lam 2:10) is the subject of this description. That her gates were sunken into the ground and her bars broken into pieces, localizes the scene depicted in Jerusalem. It is, further, her king and her princes who are among the heathen, so that she is left without law. In strict reference to this mystical personage, representing the genius of the theocratic people mourning amid the ruins of Jerusalem, it is now added also her prophets find no vision from Jehovah. To suppose the Poet in the first clause of the verse to speak of Jerusalem, and in the two following clauses of the people in exile, is to cause an abrupt transition from one subject to another subversive of all unity of construction, and to cover with a cloud of rhetorical confusion, in addition to the cloud of Divine anger, the unique and beautiful conception of the daughter of Zion sitting solitary and forlorn, weeping, helpless and comfortless, amidst the ruins of the theocratic city. If, as Naegelsbach argues, it could not be said that the people remaining in the land were without vision from Jehovah, because Jeremiah received an answer to his question as related in Jer 42:4-7, much less may it be affirmed that the exiles were without vision from Jehovah, since at that very time Ezekiel was exercising his prophetical office in Babylonia. In point of fact, however, the time of which the Poet speaks is subsequent to the period referred to in Jer 42:4-7 : a time, not only succeeding the destruction of the city and the transportation of the mass of the people to Babylonia, but posterior to the flight of the fugitives to Egypt, carrying the Prophet with them, as is evident especially from Lam 4:17-20; Lam 5:6; Lam 5:9. At this time, doubtless, Jeremiah himself in Egypt, and Ezekiel and perhaps Daniel in Babylonia, and not improbably other prophets, whose names have not come down to us, were speaking to the people as moved by the Holy Ghost. How then could it be said that the prophets of the daughter of Zion found no vision from Jehovah, since whatever was spoken by a prophet of God, whether in Jerusalem or at any distance from it, was, according to our theocratic idea, intended for the whole church, however its members might be scattered? The answer is that her prophets found no vision from Jehovah which had for its object her deliverance from her present sorrows. Her material defences were broken down, her natural guardians and the administrators of her laws were in captivity, and her prophets had no word from the Lord for her relief, her help, her comfort. Indeed the words of her prophets at this time, as these very Lamentations show, while not without intimations of a future deliverance, destroyed every vestige of hope of any immediate interposition of God in her behalf. Jeremiah delivered no encouraging prophecies to the Jews after the city was destroyed. There is nothing in Ezekiel of an encouraging character, after this event was fully consummated, if we except the obscure visions relating to a remote future in the last chapters of his book. Daniel delivered no prophecy containing any promise of temporal blessing to the Jews, till towards the very close of the captivity. As Scott remarks, There seems to have been at this period a very peculiar suspension of that information and encouragement, which the prophets had for many ages been employed to communicate to the people. Except Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, no prophet is mentioned from the beginning to the end of the captivity, when Haggai and Zechariah were raised up. This chasm was an evident token of divine displeasure, and must have been a very sensible aggravation of the suffering endured by the pious remnant.
Lam 2:10
10The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground, and keep silence: they have cast up the dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves with sackcloth: the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:10. . See , Jer 14:2 [they lie mourning on the ground].The form (see Olsh., 143, d, 265 c) is not without analogies in Jeremiah, for he says , Jer 8:14; , Jer 14:17 [Fuerst makes thou word Niph., Davidson, Kal.] does not occur in Jeremiah [nor any equivalent for it.W. H. H.]. , see Jer 4:8; Jer 6:26; Jer 49:3., Jer 49:16; Jer 51:40.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam 2:10. To the dignitaries of the Theocracy there belonged two classes, in whose sorrow the grief of the people found its most eloquent expression,these were the elders and the virgins. See Lam 1:4; Lam 1:18-19. [These are now introduced as mourning over the devastated Zion, the absence of the law and of prophetical vision.W. H. H.]The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground and keep silence [lit. They sit on the ground, they keep silent, elders of daughter Zion]. The elders, formerly called together to give counsel, now are silent without any counsel to give. [They are speechless, not only counselless. They have no words even for sorrow. Small griefs are eloquent,great ones dumb (Clarke.)W. H. H.]They have cast up dust upon their headsthey sprinkle dust on their head. [Lit., They cast up, or throw up dust upon their head.] See Jos 7:6; Job 2:12; Eze 27:30.They have girded themselves with sackcloththey gird on [or put on] sackcloth [or sacks]The virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the groundThe virgins of Jerusalem sink to the earth their head. The virgins also, who were wont to be called officially to act as the mouth-piece of the people, when the feeling of general joy was to be expressed, now are dumb and hang down their heads to the ground.
PART II
Lam 2:11-22.
Lam 2:11. Mine eyes failed with tears,
My bowels were troubled,
My liver was poured on the ground,
For the ruin of the daughter of my people,
Because child and suckling fainted away
In the streets of the city!
Lam 2:12. To their mothers they say
Where is corn and wine?
Whilst they fainted as the wounded
In the streets of the city,
Whilst they poured out their soul
Into their mothers bosom.
Lam 2:13. What can I testify to thee?
What liken to thee, thou daughter of Jerusalem?
What compare to thee,
That I may comfort thee, daughter of Zion?
For great as the sea is thy ruin!
Who can heal thee?
Lam 2:14. Thy prophets predicted for thee
Falsehood and delusion,
And uncovered not thy guilt
To avert thy captivity.
But then they predicted for thee
False burdens and expulsions!
Lam 2:15. All that passed by the way
Clapped their hands at thee;
They hissed and wagged their head
At the daughter of Jerusalem.
Is this the city of which they used to say
Perfect in beauty,Joy of the whole earth?
Lam 2:16. All thine enemies
Gaped at thee with their mouth,
They hissed and gnashed the teeth;
They said,We have utterly destroyed
Yea, this is the day we have looked for
We have found [it]we have seen [it]!
Lam 2:17. Jehovah did what He purposed:
He fulfilled His word
That He commanded in the days of old.
He demolished and pitied not.
He made the enemy joyful over thee;
He exalted the horn of thine adversaries:
Lam 2:18. Their heart cried out unto the Lord.
O wall of the daughter of Zion,
Let tears run down like a river
Day and night,
Give thyself no rest,
Let not the daughter of thine eye cease.
Lam 2:19. Arisecry in the night
In the beginning of the night watches;
Pour out thy heart like water
Before the face of Jehovah:
Lift up thy hands to Him, for the life of thy young children,
That faint for hunger, at the head of every street.
Lam 2:20. See, Jehovah, and look!
To whom hast Thou done this?
Should women eat their fruit
Children whom they have nursed?
Should Priest and Prophet
Be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?
Lam 2:21. The boy and the old man
Lay on the ground in the streets.
My virgins and my young men
Fell by the sword.
Thou hast killedin the day of Thy wrath
Hast slainhast not pitied!
Lam 2:22. Thou callest together, as on an appointed day of solemnity,
My terrors from round about.
And there was not, in the day of Jehovahs wrath,
One that escaped or was exempt.
Those I have nursed and brought up
My enemy consumed them.
ANALYSIS
[These verses, strictly speaking, constitute the lamentation, for which the preceding description has prepared the way and furnished the theme.W. H. H.] In Lam 2:11 the Poet describes his own suffering, especially as produced by the terrible fate of the starving children and their mothers, Lam 2:12. In Lam 2:13-14 the Poet seeks to inform us of the extent, and, at the same time, of the moral cause, of their misfortunes. In Lam 2:15-16 he describes the malicious rejoicings of their enemies. In Lam 2:17 he draws attention to the fact that the great catastrophe was simply the punishment of disobedience, which God had long determined upon and predicted. Lam 2:18-19 are an exhortation to a prayer of wailing, addressed to the personified wall of Jerusalem [Zion]. To this exhortation Lam 2:20-22 are the response. So this chapter closes, like ch:1., with a sort of prayer, which, however, is not a direct prayer, but only upbraids God by asking how He could have permitted such horrible and outrageous crimes!
Lam 2:11-12
11 Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and 12 the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers bosom.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:11. , in Jer 14:6.The plural , only here and Psa 80:6. Jer. uses only the Sing., Jer 8:22; Jer 9:17; Jer 13:17; Jer 14:17; Jer 31:16.[The Niph. cannot have active sense, which Naegelsbach gives it, nor is this necessary to his interpretation of the passage.W. H. H.], the liver (never in Jer.), see Exo 29:13; Exo 29:22; Lev 3:4, etc., so called because omnium viscerum et gravissimum et densissimum est (Galen, de usu partium, 6, 7, in Ges. Thes., p. 656). [Sept. translates it , my glory. But the undoubted use of the word as meaning the liver, and its connection here with eyes and bowels, are conclusive.W. H. H.] , is entirely Jeremiac, Jer 6:14; Jer 8:11; Jer 8:21. Again in Lam 3:48; Lam 4:10.
Verb , three times in this chap. Lam 2:11-12; Lam 2:19; never in Jer. . Comp. Jer 44:7. and , not unusual in Jer 5:1; Jer 9:20; Jer 49:25.
Lam 2:12.The Hithp. , besides here, only in Lam 4:1 and Job 30:16., Jer 32:18.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
In Lam 2:11-12 the Poet proceeds to describe his own grief. Lam 2:11. Mine eyes do fail with tearsmine eyes have become dim in consequence of tears [mine eyes failed with tears; Old English, were spent,Broughton. The eyes are represented as exhausted, worn out, by weeping.W. H. H.]. See Jer 14:6; Lam 4:17; Psa 69:4; Psa 119:82; Psa 119:123.My bowels are troubledmy bowels are tumultuously moved. See Lam 1:20. He depicts his sorrowful emotions by showing how his eyes and bowels have become affected by them. [Bowels, here as elsewhere, are used in a sense entirely figurative. His eyes, literally, wept. But the poet never intended to indicate the literal movement of his bowels as an evidence of his grief. The bowels, according to Hebrew habits of thought and expression, were the seat of mental emotions, especially of a painful nature. His tears kept pace with his agony of mind. A correct translation would be, my soul was greatly moved. See notes on Lam 1:20. The verbs in this verse are preterites, and ought to be so renderedW. H. H.]My liver is poured out upon the earthmy liver has fallen out to the earth [lit., was poured out on the ground]. The pouring out of the liver cannot be understood as if it were emptied of its fluid contents, for it has no such contents. Nor can we say that, properly speaking, the flowing out of the bile, caused by compression of the liver, is intended. So Fuerst, who explains this text by Job 16:13. For in that case, the bile should be designated as being poured out. Rather, the Poet would say, that the liver itself falls out from him, as it were; as we say that a mans heart falls out from him [that he loses heart?]. The liver is thus evidently regarded as the seat of emotions, the reverse of those which at that time controlled the Poet. The liver is described as the seat of pleasure and courage (see Delitzsch,Psychologie, IV., 13, p. 228, 1st ed.; p. 268, 2d ed.). The falling out of the liver, then, denotes the loss of all joyousness and courage; and is conceived of, it would seem, as the consequence and climax of the fermentation of the viscera in general, described in what precedes. The whole phrase is peculiar to this passage. [The physiological explanations of many commentators (see Blayney, Henderson) require us to regard the Poet as suffering from bilious diarrha. The Hebrews (probably not so well versed in physiology as the commentators imagine) identified the physical life with the substance of the soul, and associated mental activity with the organs and functions of physical vitality, locating/ intellectual action in the head and heart, and purely emotional in the heart and lower viscera, as the liver and the bowels. Remembering this, we may dismiss the unpleasant suggestions of the movement of the bowels and ejection of bile from the liver, in the literal sense, and, escaping the painful presumptions of colic and jaundice, allow our Poet to express the anguish of his soul in the metaphorical language of his race. The liver is here regarded, says Noyes, as the seat of feeling, and its being poured out on the ground, remarks Gerlach, is explained by such analogous expressions as Psa 42:5, I pour out my soul;Job 30:16, My soul is poured out. Here, as with regard to many other of the bodily organs as mentioned in Scripture, there is not only a literal sense capable of universal interpretation, but a metaphorical import that cannot be communicated by any literal version, unless when the same metaphorical signification happens to exist also in the language into which the translation is made. Dr. J. M. Good touches on this subject in the Preface to his Translation of the Song of Songs, and is disposed to contend that such allusions, in order to convey their real signification, should be rendered, not literally, but equivalently; and we so far agree with him as to think that the force and delicacy of many passages must be necessarily impaired and their true meaning lost, when the name merely is given, in a language where that name does not involve the same metaphorical idea. * * * Among ourselves the spleen is supposed to be the region of disappointment and melancholy. But were a Jew to be told, in his own tongue, that the inimitable Cowper had long labored under the spleen, be would be ignorant of the meaning of his interpreter; and, when at last informed of it, might justly tell him that, although he had literally rendered the words, he had by no means conveyed the idea (The Pictorial Bible).W. H. H.]For the destructionon account of the ruinof the daughter of my people, because the children and the sucklings swoon (marg., faint) in the streets of the city. [Lit., in the languishing or fainting of child and sucking-babe in the streets of the city.] The Poets grief was caused by the ruin of his people in general, but especially by the frightful sufferings of the poor children, which he represents as the very acme of the calamity.
Lam 2:12. The Poet describes, in a manner graphic and true to nature, what he had said in a general way (Lam 2:11) of the wasting away of the children. The strokes of his pencil are few in number, but suffice to place before our eyes an exact picture of those heart-rending scenes.They say to their mothersTo their mothers they said. The imperfect () is used to indicate an act in the past often repeated. Comp. my Gr., 87, f. For it is evident the Poet describes a past condition of things, namely, that ensuing on the capture of the city. At that time, when neither the famished city (see Jer 52:6), nor the conqueror, who had no time then to think of it, furnished the means of subsistence, the famine must have been at its highest stage. [The word, which is future in form, should undoubtedly be translated by our present. So E. V., Calvin, Broughton, Blayney, Henderson, Gerlach. It is an instance of the future used, as our present is, in graphic descriptions. See Lam 2:1, , covers. To their mothers they say.W. H. H.]Where is corn and wine?Corn () which usually occurs in connection with grapes (, see Jer 31:12), here denotes, neither baked bread alone, as most commentators think, nor only roasted corn, parched corn, as Thenius would have it. For the hungry children longed only for food in general [not for a particular kind of food]. Corn, here, is to be taken, therefore, in the general sense, which , bread, formerly had, a meaning which the word seems to have in Psa 78:24 also, where the manna is called corn of heaven,. The Poet does not say, but every one feels, how this question, which they could not answer, must have cut into the hearts of those mothers.When they swoonedwhilst they fainted [lit., in fainting]. The prefix , in, here has a temporal sense: they said so whilst they were wasting away. [So in the last clause. In breathing out their soul, i. e., they said so, whilst they were dying. CranmersBible gives a free translation, but admirably expresses the sense of the whole verse. Even when they spake to their mothers: where is meat and drink? For while they so said, they fell down in the streets of the city, like as they had been wounded and some died in their mothers bosom.W. H. H.].As the wounded in the streets of the city. Although not wounded, yet they died a painful death as the wounded do. [The idea rather is, not necessarily that they died, all of them at least; but, overcome with weakness and suffering, many of them fell suddenly in the streets as if wounded, whilst others died in their mothers bosom.W. H. H.]When their soul was poured outwhilst breathing out their soul[lit. in breathing out]. The soul pours itself forth, whilst the breath streams out. It is also the same as expirare,into their mothers bosomin the lap of their mothers.Thenius would understand the bosom. But the mothers are regarded as sitting on the ground, and the children lying in their laps. [Bosom is better. There were children of all ages among those alluded to. Some old enough to seek for food themselves and fall down in the streets of the city. Some able to ask in words for food and drink. Others sucklings, Lam 2:11, and these doubtless are especially meant as breathing out their soul in their mothers bosom while vainly seeking nourishment at the breast.W. H. H.] Thenius rightly draws attention to the Hithpael forms of the verbs in the second and third clauses ( and ). These indicate how the children struggled, and how intense the conditions of their wasting away and expiring were.
Lam 2:13-14
13What thing shall I take to witness for thee? What thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? What shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea; who can heal thee? 14Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee; and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens, and causes of banishment.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:13.The Ktib is certainly wrong, since is never used in Kal. We must read, therefore, according to the Kri . The meaning of is to give testimony, bear witness. The person whom the testimony concerns is usually indicated by . Yet there are three places where the accusative in the form of a suffix stands in the place of . Of the witnesses who were brought forward against Naboth, it is said, 1Ki 21:10, , and in Lam 2:13, . In Job 29:11 it is said, and here in a good sense (bonam partem) . According to these and other analogies, which are placed together in my Gr., 78, we may take the suffix here as denoting the remoter object in the dative case. [So Sept.: . Calvin: Quid contestabor tibi. Boothroyd: What shall I testify to thee? The words have been variously rendered. Cranmers Bible: What shall I say of thee? Bish. Bible.: What shall I say unto thee? Broughton: What testimony shall I bring for thee? Blayney: What shall I urge to thee? Henderson: What shall I take to witness? carelessly overlooking the suffix. Noyes: How shall I address thee?]The Piel is comparare, conferre, to compare one thing with another. See Isa 46:5; Isa 40:18; Isaiah 25; Song Son 1:9. Only the Kal occurs in Jer 6:2.The Hiphil , which occurs only here and Isa 46:5, has the same signification, no form of the verb is found in Jeremiah. . In the Lamentations only here and Lam 5:15, never in Jeremiah. [The definite article hero is emphatic, and is well rendered by Naegelsbach, thou daughter of Jerusalem.W. H. H.]. The Piel in Jer 16:7; Jer 31:13. [The force of here is to express the end or design, that I might comfort thee. Calvin]. , see Lam 1:15. . The expression is found only here: yet comp. Jer 6:23; Jer 50:42.. Very frequent in Jeremiah, see Lam 2:11., Jeremiah uses frequently, Jer 3:22; Jer 8:22; Jer 17:14, etc., but never in construction with .[The future form of the verbs, which Naegelsbach renders as simple presents, express an optative sense, what may, can or shall I testify, etc.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:14.
Verb Jeremiah never uses., which Jeremiah uses not infrequently, Jer 11:20; Jer 33:6; Jer 49:10, is construed with only here and Lam 4:22. The significance of this construction is, the disclosing of a matter before concealed. [The phrase is elliptical; they had not removed that which covered their iniquity as a veil (Calvin, Gerlach, Rosenmueller, etc.). Blayney: For the Syr., seems to have preserved the true reading . Besides the lack of authority for this emendation of the text, the recurrence of this verb with in Lam 4:22, seems conclusive.W. H. H.] Jeremiah often uses Jer 2:22; Jer 3:13; Jer 13:22, etcThe singular , in sense of effatum, is found in Jeremiah only in the familiar passage Jer 23:33-40, where he forbids the use of this expression. The plural occurs only here. in Jeremiah only in the adverbial expression , Jer 2:30; Jer 4:30; Jer 6:23; Jer 18:15; Lamjer 46:11; whilst in Ezekiel we find , Eze 12:24; , Eze 13:17; , Eze 21:28. is . .; means detrusit, Psa 5:11, expulit, Jer 13:3; Jer 23:3; Jer 23:8; Jer 29:14; Jer 29:18, etc., dispulit, disjecit, Jer 23:2; Jer 1:17, but also abduxit, Deu 13:6; Deu 13:11, seduxit, Deu 13:14; 2Ch 21:11; Pro 7:21. [Owen: There seems to be a mistake in this word of a for a , two letters very similar; for the Targ. the Syr. and the Arab., must have so read the word, as they render it in the sense of what is deceptive, fallacious, or imaginary. It is in the last rendered phantasms. The word occurs in Jer 22:14, and is applied to chambers through which air or wind passed freely. It may be rendered here winds or airy things. Such was the character of their prophecies. This is far more suitable to the passage than expulsions or rejections, as given by the Sept. and Vulg. As the verb sometimes, though rarely, has the sense of misleading, seducing, may not the idea of fallacious have been derived from ? There is no necessity, however, for imposing such a meaning upon it here.W. H. H.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
In these two closely connected verses, the Poet expresses the thought that the true prophets cannot repair the injury the bad prophets have caused. He greatly desires to comfort Zion, by way of prophetical testimony in her behalf, and by way of comparison to her advantage with other sufferers. But it is impossible: for immeasurable and irretrievable injury has been done by the false testimony of her prophets.
Lam 2:13. What thing shall I take to witness for thee?What testify I to thee? [What can I testify to thee?W. H. H.] The Poet means prophetical testimony (see , testimony,Isa 8:16), and that in the sense of instruction, warning, correction, (see Jer 6:10), not in the sense of comforting by promises. See below, next clause of this verse, on the words that I may comfort thee. [While the word signifies prophetical testimony, to bear witness in behalf of God, it may signify divine testimony either for or against a person, and here the former is intimated both by the construction (see critical note below), and by the following words that I may comfort thee. Besides the Prophet was actually testifying against the people in the name and by the Spirit of God. But He received no favorable message in their behalf. There is an allusion to Lam 2:9, her prophets also find no vision from Jehovah.W. H. H.] What thing shall I liken to theeWhat liken to thee,O thou daughter of Jerusalem? What shall I equal to theewhat compare to thee,that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? It is a comfort for the unfortunate to know that others have endured equal suffering. This comfort cannot be given to Zion. The idea of comforting can be referred to all three of the preceding verbs, although to testify, never means prophesying in order to comfort and make happy, but has always the sense of warning, correction: yet even warning, correction and instruction may be a comfort. [Where this Hebrew verb occurs in the sense of warning or protest it is always connected with its object by the significant preposition or . Here the word may be taken simply in the sense of bearing witness, in which sense it is favorably used (even in Hiphil) in Job 29:11, see also Mal 2:14. The meaning is, What can I, as a prophet of God and in the name of God, testify for God in thy behalf, in order to comfort thee? Wordsworth: What prophetic testimony shall I utter in Gods name, in order to console thee? I have no message of comfort for thee; and thy misery is so great, that I can find no likeness or parallel to it, wherewith to assuage thy sorrow.W. H. H.]For thy breach is great like the seafor great as the sea is thy ruin, or injury;who can heal thee? That is to say, Zions hurt is immeasurable, and incurable. [Blayney: The breach or wound, which Jerusalem had received, is by an hyperbole said to be great, deep or wide, like the sea, which is, as it were, a breach made in the earth. Henderson: He cannot find any object to put in parallel with the lamentable condition of Jerusalem. The only exception is the sea, which, on account of its vast dimensions, alone furnished a fit emblem of the magnitude of the devastation effected by the Chaldeans. Assem. Ann.: Such a breach, as not some small river, but the sea is wont to make, when it hath rent asunder and got thorow the sea-walls, that before kept it out; such as cannot be made up again. See Jer 51:42; Eze 26:3; Job 30:14. Calmet:Un ocan de maux, un dluge de douleurs, une mer daffliction, A sea of miseries, a flood of troubles, an ocean of sorrow.]
Lam 2:14. Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee.Thy prophets foretold to thee deceit and white-wash. [Thy prophets prophesied to thee falsehood and delusion. The last word () has been variously translated, though Naegelsbach alone can claim the unique and parabolical idea expressed by white-wash. This meaning is suggested by the use of the word in Eze 13:10-15; Eze 22:28, rendered in our version untempered mortar. Whether Ezekiel meant white-wash, or not, which is doubtful, the word can have no such meaning here. To daub a wall with white-wash is feasible. To prophesy white-wash is impossible. The Hebrew word () seems to have suggested the idea of something viscous, sticky, slimy; hence applied to lime, mortar, as by Ezekiel; or to the white of an egg (Job 6:6), from which comes the idea of insipidity, want of savor, which is the sense adopted in our text by Broughton:The prophets have looked out for thee things vain and which have lost the saltness, and by Calvin,insulsitatum, vel insipidum, tastelessness or insipidity; this sense easily suggests the idea of folly, in which sense the word in our text is rendered by most of the versions; Sept.:; Vulg.:stulta;Luther:thrichte Gesichte; E. V.: foolish things. The word as thus used would imply more than mere absurdity, which is the sense Blayney and Boothroyd give it. It means a folly that is chargeable with guilt, in which sense the cognate word is used in Job 1:22 (see Barnes Notes), Job 24:12 : a folly especially that is deceptive, that does not fulfil the expectations it excites, in which sense the same word is applied to false prophets in Jer 23:13.We have not in English a word that will express both these ideas,delusive folly or foolish delusions. Gerlach uses the word Blend-werk, false-show, delusion, but acknowledges that it expresses only the effect, and not the contemptible character of what the prophets did. The word stuff, adopted by Henderson, thy prophets see for thee vanity and stuff, is hardly equivalent to the Hebrew word. He borrowed it from Gataker, who says, They took upon them to be seers, but saw not what they should see, and told what they saw not, nothing but vain and frivolous stuff, the froth of their own fancies, Jer 23:16; Jer 23:26; Jer 27:14-15.W. H. H.] The expression [saw vain things; E. V., prophesied falsehood], is found five times in Ezekiel and only in Eze 13:6-7; Eze 13:23; 21:34 [E. V. Eze 21:29], Eze 22:28. The expression [E. V., here, foolish things, in Ezek., untempered mortar], is also Ezekiels, for it is used by him emphatically four times, in the same chapter that contains the phrase ( ) just referred to, Eze 13:10-11; Eze 13:14-15; and it is used again by him, and that, too, in immediate connection with the same phrase ( ) in Eze 22:28. The thirteenth chapter of Ezekiel is directed against the false prophets. Ezekiel in that denunciatory discourse has before his eyes what Jeremiah had said relative to the same subject (chap. 23). Now in Jer 23:13 occurs the expression , in the prophets of Samaria I saw [E. V., folly, marg., an unsavory, or an absurd thing]. [the word in our text] never occurs in Jeremiah. Besides here, it occurs only in Ezekiel at the places above cited, and in Job 6:6. For its meaning see the thorough discussion of Haevernick in his Comm. on Ezekiel. The whole passage in which Ezekiel uses the expression in the sense of white-wash, and to which Eze 22:28 afterwards refers, bears throughout the peculiar characteristics of Ezekiels metaphorical style. We cannot, therefore, doubt that Ezekiel 13 was written earlier than our chapter: and also that the words from to originated from the above cited places of Ezekiel. See the Introduction, 3. [The inference contained in the Introduction and implied here, that if this is a quotation from Ezekiel, Jeremiah could not be the author of the Lamentations, is entirely gratuitous. The thirteenth chapter of Ezekiel must have been written before the final destruction of Jerusalem; about five years before Jerusalem was taken and destroyed, according to Wordsworth. Even if the prophecy of Ezekiel had been nearly or quite contemporaneous with the destruction of Jerusalem, it is a mere assumption, incapable of proof, that Jeremiah could not have possessed a copy of that prophecy, even if we are obliged to believe that he wrote these lamentations immediately after the destruction of the city. With the close intercourse that must have subsisted at the time between Babylonia and Palestine, with an invading army constantly flowing in and meeting detachments guarding captives and spoils going out, and with the lively sympathy that must have existed between Ezekiel and Jeremiah, and between the pious Jews in exile and the pious Jews in Judea, it would be neither impossible nor unlikely that the utterances of those prophets should be interchanged as rapidly as they were committed to writing.In point of fact, however, it is by no means clear that this passage is a quotation from Ezekiel. As to the first expression, it is composed of two words only, both in frequent use in the earlier Scriptures and in the prophets who preceded Jeremiah. And as to the second, it is used in a connection entirely different from that in which it occurs in Ezekiel, and very obviously in a different sense. How prophesying could be suggested by daubing a wall with , it is difficult to see. How the word can mean the same thing in both places, is also beyond the power of ordinary perception. There would be as much propriety in giving the word the meaning of white-wash or mortar in Job 6:6 as here. This is no more a quotation from Ezekiel, than Ezekiels use of the word is a quotation from Job.W. H. H.]And they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivityAnd uncovered not thy guilt, to turn thy captivity [i. e., to prevent it, or avert it. So the Syr. translates it.] The expression, turn thy captivity, founded on Deu 30:3, is frequent in Jeremiah (see Jer 32:44; Jer 33:7, etc.), and with Ezekiel (Eze 16:53; Eze 29:14, etc.). But in the connection in which it here occurs, it does not mean, as it does in the places referred to, vertere captivitatem, i. e.,reducere captivos [turn the captivity, i. e., bring back the captives], but can only mean avertere captivitatem [avert, or prevent the captivity]. By open exhortations to repentance, the prophets would have averted the captivity (see Eze 22:30-31). The words are connected with what precedes. [Assem. Ann.: They laid not thy sins before thee, to bring thee to repentance, whereby thy present miseries might have been prevented,Jer 6:13-14; Jer 8:11; Jer 23:17; Jer 23:22. Gerlach and others understand this to mean that, after the captivity was a fact, the prophets had not led the people to a repentance that would have delivered them from it, see Psa 14:7; Job 42:10; Jer 30:18. But this sense would not be pertinent here. Our text looks back to one of the original causes of the present misery. What her prophets might have done to prevent it, they cannot now do, even if by doing it they could terminate that misery; for now her prophets can find no vision from Jehovah, Lam 2:9. If they had exercised their power aright when they possessed it, the captivity would have been averted. This is the idea now in the Poets mind.W. H. H.]But have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishmentAnd they foretold to thee sayings of deceit and of seduction. [But then they saw for thee burdens of falsehood and expulsions.W. H. H.] The connecting thought is, And so prophesied they, etc.False burdensoracles of deceit, , are declarations of delusory purport, which result not felicitously, but ruinously.Causes of banishment,seductions,, can signify, ambiguously indeed, either seductions or banishments. Both predicates may refer to the discourses of the false prophets. Luther makes the last feature only conspicuous. But they have preached to thee wantonly, in that they have preached thee out of the land. Thenius rightly draws attention to the fact that Jer 27:10; Jer 27:15, in a passage where he warns of the false prophets, expresses emphatically and exactly the same thought which is contained in our verse, Hearken not ye to your prophets * * * for they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out ( , comp. Lam 2:15, ), and ye should perish. It is therefore very possible that the Poet, by the choice of this word, seemingly invented ad hoc for his present purpose, would give us to understand that he had in view not only the declarations of Ezekiel, but also those of Jeremiah pertaining to this matter. Thus the verb [from which the Hebrew noun is derived] is, as seen from the examples adduced, especially current with Jeremiah. It is found in this prophet nineteen times, elsewhere in the old Testament thirty-four times, ten of which are in Deuteronomy. But that it may be used here ambiguously, its connection with indicates. [There are three objections to the translation of Naegelsbach. 1. It makes the last clause of the verse a mere repetition of the first clause. 2. It is very doubtful if the last word, rendered seduction (Noyes,seductions), can have that meaning. Wordsworth gives its literal meaning as drivings away, and explains it consistently with the general idea adopted by our author, the prophecies of thy false prophets, to which thou didst hearken, instead of listening to God, have banished thee, and driven thee away from thy home. 3. The word rendered by Naegelsbach, Wordsworth, Noyes and others, prophecies, and in E. V. burdens, cannot mean any prophecy, without reference to its subject or character, but designates a prophecy of a threatening or minatory nature. The correct translation then is, But they saw for thee burdens of vanity and expulsions or banishments. But how could this be true of the false prophets? Hengstenberg (on Zec 1:9) understands the vain burdens and exiles or dispersions, which the false prophets predicted as referring to the enemy. The false prophets endeavor to make themselves beloved by the people, by predicting a great calamity, which should come upon their powerful oppressors. (So also Diodati.) The objection to this is that it does not naturally follow the second clause of the verse, and is, after all, only a repetition of the first clause. Henderson takes the word burdens as meaning the causes of punishments, as our version has rendered the last word causes of banishment. The false prophets, in their attempts to account for the captivity, invented any one but the true one,the apostacy of the Jews. This preserves the logical connection between the three clauses of the verse, but is philologically untenable, for the idea of causes of punishment is not suggested by the words used. The probable explanation is suggested by the use of the future with conversive, which, while it makes the verb a preterite, suggests a time posterior to that to which the preceding preterites referred. Her prophets having predicted vain and foolish things, and failed to bring the people to repentance, and so save them from captivity, then at last, after the captivity occurred, themselves predicted for her burdens of misfortune and of banishments. Those very prophets who once prophesied so many things full of flattery, overwhelmed and panic-stricken in the hour of calamity, see nothing but evil for the daughter of Zion, and were loudest in their predictions of punishments and misfortunes. This would agree with the interpretation already given to the words in Lam 2:9. Her prophets also find no vision from Jehovah, i.e., no vision of good, of bless in they have only visions of evils, prophetical burdens full of apprehensions and fears. Another explanation suggests itself from the double meaning of the verb to see,, which may mean merely to see, or to see by prophetical inspiration. It may be taken in the former sense, with a satirical purpose. These prophets did see prophetically, or pretended to do so, visions from God that were vain and delusory, but they afterwards actually saw in course of fulfilment the burdens of misfortune and banishment pronounced by Jeremiah and formerly derided by them. The use of the word , if it necessarily means false (though it may possibly mean simply misfortune, see Job 7:3; Isa 30:28; Hos 12:12), would be a valid objection to the last interpretation, but not to the other, for in that case the burdens were false burdens, suggested by their own excited and terrified imaginations. The force of the future with conversive, following verbs in the preterite, may be expressed here thus, but then, i. e., after the captivity, they saw false burdens and expulsions.W. H. H.]
The thought is entirely Jeremiac. See Jer 2:8; Jer 14:13-15; Jer 27:14-16, etc. In Lamentations it occurs only once again, Lam 4:13.[. After all that has been asserted to the contrary, the evidence from its derivation and use is, that this word means simply a burden, and, as applied to prophecies, an announcement of punishment or vengeance imposed on its object as a burden. The verb never means to pronounce, except in a figurative sense, as if the voice were lifted up in loud outcries or shouting: and its derivative is not used in a single instance where it can only mean a simple declaration or announcement, or where we cannot trace at least a figurative allusion to something that is borne or carried as a burden. It is used twenty-four times of a literal material burden (Num 4:15; Num 4:19; Num 4:24; Num 4:27 twice, Num 4:31-32; Num 4:47; Num 4:49; 2Ki 5:17; 2Ki 8:9; 2Ch 17:11; 2Ch 20:25; 2Ch 35:3; Neh 13:15; Neh 13:19; Isa 22:25; Isa 30:6; Isa 46:1-2; Jer 17:21-22; Jer 17:24; Jer 17:27); ten times of a literal mental burden or care (Num 11:11; Num 11:17; Deu 1:12; 2Sa 15:33; 2Sa 19:36; 2Ki 9:25; 2Ch 24:27; Job 7:20; Psa 38:5; Eze 24:25); twice where it seems to refer to usury laid as a burden on the unfortunate (Neh 5:7; Neh 5:10), once for punishment as a burden (Hos 8:10), twenty-four times with reference to prophecies that may fairly be regarded as of a minatory character, laying burdens on their objects (Isa 13:1; Isa 14:28; Isa 15:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 19:1; Isa 21:1; Isa 21:11; Isa 21:13; Isa 22:1; Isa 23:1; Jer 23:33 twice,34, 36 twice,38thrice;Eze 12:10; Nah 1:1 Hab 1:1; Zec 9:1; Zec 12:1; Mal 1:1), three times where it is translated by E. V. song, and in the margin carriage, where the idea of the care of religious services involves the idea of a burden (1Ch 15:22 twice, 1Ch 15:27), and twice where it may mean a solemn charge laid as a burden on those to whom it is given (Pro 30:1; Pro 31:1) A careful examination of these passages, the only ones except our text where the word occurs, will strongly confirm the opinion that never means simply effatum, a declaration, an ordinary oracle or prophecy, but always one implying a burden of evil foretold or imprecated.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:15-16
15All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of 16beauty, The joy of the whole earth? All thine enemies have opened their mouth against thee: they hiss and gnash the teeth: they say, We have swallowed her up certainly this is the day that we looked for; we have found, we have seen it.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:15. . Num 24:10; Job 27:23. See Jer 31:19 (Eze 21:17); Eze 48:26.Jer. nowhere uses the expression . He says instead , Jer 18:16, comp. Psa 44:15.The , relativum, which is used here, and in Lam 2:16, evidently because words from the common colloquial dialect are quoted, occurs in Lam. only in these two verses and in Lam 4:19; Lam 5:18, and not at all in Jer. The Pron. rel. must be regarded as in the accusative of the nearer relation (in reference to whom they said it, see my Gr., 70, c. f.), since never directly means to call (see Isa 5:20; Isa 8:12; Ecc 2:2). The Imperfect here indicates repetition in past times; see on , Lam 2:12.. This word-form and its variations are frequent in Ezekiel (see Eze 16:14; Eze 23:12; Eze 38:4; Eze 27:24); Jeremiah never uses them. See Psa 1:2, is mentioned as going out of Zion.Jeremiah (Jer 49:25) and Ezekiel (Eze 24:25) use by itself, each only once.
Lam 2:16.With reference to the transposition of the initial letters and in chaps, 2, 3, 4, see the Intr.Jeremiah never uses : in Ez. it is found once, Lam 2:8.. See Lam 2:15.The verb occurs only in Job 16:9; Psa 37:12; Psa 35:16; Psa 112:10, and is used only of grinding the teeth, gnashing with the teeth., Lam 2:2; Lam 2:5; Lam 2:8.Jer. often uses the Piel , Jer 8:15 (Jer 14:19); Jer 13:16; Jer 14:22 : it is not found in Ezekiel.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
In these verses the Poet depicts the scornful triumph of heathen and inimical nations over the ruin of Jerusalem. [Scott: The idolaters took the words out of the mouth of the Jews, and derided them for glorying in their holy city and its peculiar protection and privileges. The combination of scorn, enmity, rage and exultation, which the conquerors and spectators manifested, when gratified by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, are set before the reader with peculiar pathos and energy. The whole scene is presented to his view as in some exquisitely finished historical painting: and the insulting multitudes, who surrounded the Redeemers cross, can hardly be forgotten on the occasion.]
Lam 2:15. All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their headThey clap their hands over thee all who pass by the way. They hiss and shake their head. [All that passed by the way clapped their hands at thee, they hissed and wagged their head.Owen: Jeremiah relates what had taken place, the verbs being in the past tense. Our version is not correct in rendering the verbs in the present tense. The old versions follow the Hebrew.W. H. H.] Some (Otto, Thenius) interpret this verse as the expression, not of mockery, but of amazement. They say not all who passed by would have mocked. That may be. But the number who would not was certainly decreasingly small. For by the , passers of the way, we must understand travellers and strangers. The Israelites were no longer in that empty land, and if there were some, yet to them the destruction of the city was only too well known. But clapping the hands is a gesture especially of surprise. Besides, it is further said, that they hiss. The Hebrew verb signifies, it is true, primarily to whistle, and does not always express scorn and mockery (see Isa 5:26; Isa 7:18). with , Isa 5:26; Isa 7:18; Zec 10:8, does not express scorn and mockery, but with it always does, 1Ki 9:8; Job 27:23; Jer 19:8; Jer 49:17; Jer 1:13; Eze 27:36; Zep 2:15. We whistle to a person to call his attention, but to whistle at or over a person implies derision.W. H. H.] But the connection here decidedly favors the sense of scornful hissing. For , to hiss, must be taken in the same sense in which it is immediately used in the next verse, which is closely connected with this verse. There it undoubtedly has this sense. Add to this, that the shaking of the head is always an expression of scornful wonderment; Psa 22:8; Psa 109:25; Job 16:4; Isa 37:22 (2Ki 19:21).At the daughter of Jerusalem. See Lam 2:13 [Mark the distinction between thee in the first clause, and the daughter of Jerusalem in the second clause. In the first chapter the city itself is prominent and foremost, and Zion appears as an accessory to her past grandeur, once her crowning glory, but now in ruins, the cause of her deepest disgrace and anguish. In this chapter the relations of the two are reversed. Zion here stands forth in ideal personification as the conspicuous figure, and the city, the daughter of Jerusalem, once her chief honor and her joy, is now the chiefest cause of her shame and grief.W. H. H.]Saying, Is this the city that men callIs that the city of which it used to be said.The perfection of beautyPerfect in beauty. The expression is borrowed from Eze 27:3, where the prophet so calls the city of Tyre, and Eze 28:12, where he indicates the king of Tyre as perfect in beauty.The joy of the whole earth. This expression is used of Zion in Psa 48:3. [Alexander: It is called the joy of the whole earth, as a source of spiritual blessing to all nations:] See Isa 24:11. Jerusalem is called the joy of the whole earth, and not merely of the whole land [i.e., the land of Israel (Owen)], as is evident, because that which is perfect in beauty must be all this, and because all the strangers and travellers passing by it are represented as moved at first with astonishment. Joy at her beauty can be reconciled with envy and hatred of her inhabitants.
Lam 2:16. This verse enters into very close connection with the preceding one. It treats of the same malicious rejoicings of the enemies over the downfall of Jerusalem. But it proceeds farther in its statements, for while in Lam 2:15 only the passers-by, in Lam 2:16 all her enemies are represented as rejoicing and exulting.All thine enemies opened their mouth against thee.All thine enemies gape their mouth at thee [lit., All of thy enemies opened at thee wide their mouth]. The gaping, or distorting of the mouth, in be hoof of scornful laughter, is indicated again in Lam 3:46, where these words are almost verbally repeated, and with the expressions here used in Psa 22:14.They hiss [lit., they hissed] see Lam 2:15and gnash [lit., gnashed] the teeth. As this is elsewhere an expression of suppressed rage, so here it is an expression of satisfied rage. See Psa 35:16; Psa 35:21; Psa 35:25.They say [lit., said], we have swallowed her upwe have devoured [i.e., completely destroyed]. Not only those enemies who had personally taken an active part in the destruction of Jerusalem, are intended, but all had a share in what some actually achieved,so far, at least, that all could say, We have destroyed.Certainly this is the day that we looked forYea, this is the day we have expected. It is evident that the restriction involves an assertion; if only this day (as the day of total destruction), and no other, could afford satisfaction to the enemies, then certainly that day afforded satisfaction in the highest degree. See Jer 10:19.We have found, we have seen it.Finding,, is the antithesis to seeking, striving. Seeing,, which involves the idea of certainty on the ground of seeing with the bodily eyes (see Psa 4:7; Psa 85:8), is the antithesis to merely wishing and hoping. The heaping together of words arranged asyndetically [we have looked for, we have found, we have seen,the original can hardly fail to remind us of the famous Veni, vidi, vici] portrays the intensity and the completeness of their satisfaction.
Lam 2:17
17The Lord hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: and he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee: he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:17. . See Deu 19:19.The verb , in Jer. only in Kal and in the connection , Jer 6:13; Jer 8:10. In the sense of absolvere, filling up, it is found Isa 10:12; Zec 4:9. is found no where else in the Old Testament. The form , once very frequent, especially in Ps. cxix., is found neither in Jer. nor Ez.Piel Jer. uses very frequently. , see Lam 1:7.Piel , twice in Jer.; in Lam. only here. . This expression is not found in Jer.; he only once uses the word , see on Lam 2:3.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam 2:17. [In Lam 2:17 the direct address to Zion is resumed, and is continued through Lam 2:18-19.W. H. H.] The ruin of Zion, as above described, was not a fortuitous event. God had for a long time foreseen and decreed it as eventually inevitable. Hence the historical catastrophe is nothing else than a realization of a divine purpose. It was, then, God Himself who destroyed the holy city and afforded to her enemies the rejoicings of which Lam 2:15-16 speak. To those verses this verse refers throughout.The Lord hath done that which he had devisedJehovah accomplished what He had decreed. See Jer 51:12, for Jehovah hath both devised and done that which He spake. Zec 1:6 expands the same thought by the emphatic expression of the middle term, Like as Jehovah of hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways, and according to our doings, so hath He dealt with us. [Henderson: However the enemies of the Jews might tauntingly exult in their destruction of the Jewish metropolis, that disastrous event was ultimately to be referred to the purpose of Jehovah to punish its inhabitants for their sins]He hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old. The Lord had, in very ancient times, when He founded the Theocracy, commanded His servants to warn His people that in case of disobedience they would have to suffer the punishment of destruction. See Lev 26:14-39; Deu 28:15-68. [Scott: This reference to the ancient predictions against Israel for their sins, is of great importance; both as it shows that these prophecies were then extant and well known among the Jews, and that they were understood by the pious remnant exactly as we now explain them.Blayney, followed by Boothroyd, divides the verse thus: Jehovah hath accomplished that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word; what he constituted in days of old, he hath destroyed and not spared; and says, To this construction we are determined by the metre. The sense is good, and perfectly adapted to the place, and corresponds nearly with what is expressed Jer 44:4. All this is true. But, on the whole, the Hebrew accents rather favor the common division, the metre does not demand the change, and the repetition of the pronoun directly before its governing verb has a poetical and rhythmical effect, according to the common division, not to be overlooked.W. H. H.]He hath thrown downHe demolished, or destroyed.And hath not pitiedAnd pitied not. See Lam 2:2.And he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over theeHe made the enemy joyful over thee. [Calvin:exhilarated their enemies.]He hath set up the horn of thine adversariesHe exalted the horn of thine oppressors. This expression is purely poetical. See in particular 1Sa 2:10; Ps. 75:11; Psa 92:11; Psa 148:14; 1Ch 25:5.
Lam 2:18-19
18Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine 19eye cease. Arise, cry out in the night; in the beginning of the watches pour out thine heart like water before the face of the Lord; lift up thy hands toward him for the life of thy young children, that faint for hunger in the top of every street.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:18.. Boermal would altogether erase this word. Houbigant reads: . Herder: [or ], i.e., exardesce [fervido zelo corripere. So Blayney: Their heart cried out, before Jehovah with fervency, O, etc.]. Dathe, after the Syriac: . J. D. Michaelis: for , i.e., clamat cor eorum ob fundamenta murorum. Tu filia Zion descendere fac, etc. Thenius would read instead of . Ewald, in his later editions, reads . He compares Psa 72:2, and translates, indefatigably cry to Jehovah, O wall of the daughter of Zion! The reading , however, is confirmed by the Sept. For this translates, : etc. Jerome does not change the text, but he translates. Clamavit cor eurum ad Dominum super muros fili Zion.The verb in the sense torpidum, languidum esse, Niph. examinatum, enervatum esse, Gen 45:26; Hab 1:4; Psa 77:3; Psalms 38, 9. The substantive occurs only here: Lam 3:49. The construction is a very strong, perhaps the strongest, example of the use of the construct case for the mere purpose of the external connection of words. See Ew., 287, d, 2; 289, b. is used here in the general sense of cessare. See Jos 10:12-13; Jer 47:6.
Lam 2:19.. See Jer 2:27; Jer 13:4; Jer 13:6; Jer 18:2.. See Jer 31:7; Pro 1:20.. See Lam 1:2. , an expression only found here. . See Jer 17:16.[. Henderson: Instead of Adonai forty of Kennicotts, and forty-eight of De Rossis MSS., together with seven more of his originally, and the Hagiographa printed at Naples, read Jehovah. The Venetian Greek version has . On these authorities I have not scrupled to follow this reading in the translation. Blayney, Boothroyd, Noyes, adopt this reading.W. H. H.] , not in Jeremiah.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam 2:18. Their heart cried unto the LordThe first words of Lam 2:18 have given the commentators great trouble. Various readings have been invented. I believe that neither a different reading, nor an artful construction is necessary. Only we must not regard the words, Their hearts cried unto the Lord, as an independent sentence (Lueckenbuesser, Thenius) thrown in by the way. Rather, these words constitute the introduction and means of transition to all that follows down to the end of the chapter. First of all, let it be observed, from the second clause of Lam 2:18, the Poet lets Zion herself speak with reference to what he had been saying in Lam 2:13-17. This change in the method of recital he precedes with the brief word of introduction above indicated. But what he now puts into the mouth of Zion, as an outpouring of the heart to Jehovah, he divides into two parts. First of all, in Lam 2:18 b,19, they to whom the pronoun their (the suffix in , their heart) refers address the wall and summon it to prayer. In Lam 2:20-22 the prayer itself follows, which accordingly must be regarded as the prayer of the wall of Zion. They of whom it is said, Their heart cries unto the Lord, are evidently particular individuals. But these persons would not appear before God in their individual capacities, but rather seek the mediation (der idealen Gesammtheit) of the whole church, regarded in its ideal or mystical unity. Thus the cry of their heart comes to God through the mouth (der Gesammtheit) of the united people [theocratically and by personification regarded as a unit]. Thus it is explained why the words, Their heart cried unto the Lord, are not immediately followed by words addressed to God, but by an appeal to the wall of Zion, which by answering this appeal brings before the Lord that which filled their heart, as mentioned in Lam 2:18 a. That those individuals should thus seek the mediation of the whole church (Gesammtheit) is very natural. For not the individual Israelite, but Israel is the universally historic reservoir and organ of the redeeming grace of God. With Israel is the covenant of grace made, and only as covenant members of Israel have individuals any claim on covenant grace. Now, therefore, as in the Psalms (Psa 135:19; Psa 147:12; Psa 149:1-3, etc.) the congregation is often summoned to offer praise and thanks to the Lord, so here it is summoned to make its complaint to the Lord. If this is done here in a very peculiar fashion, by summoning to prayer the wall of Zion as if it were the symbol of the theocratic unity (der Gesammtheit), yet this is justified by the historical circumstances out of which our Song originated. Zion stood as long as the walls held together. But as soon as these were broken through, Zion was lost (see Jer 52:7, then the city was broken up). Is it surprising that an Israelite, who had experienced the siege and capture of Jerusalem, should take the wall for all that it enclosed? This trope is, on the whole, no more bold, than where elsewhere the frontiers are taken for the country they bound, the house for its inhabitants, the purse for its contents. The pre-eminent importance of the wall may be clearly perceived from the fact that in Nehemiahs time everything depended on its restoration. See Neh 6:15-16; Neh 12:27-43; comp. Psa 122:3. If the wall of the daughter of Zion is thus taken for the daughter of Zion herself, it should not surprise us that the same activities are attributed to the wall which belong properly to the daughter of Zion, and that it is exhorted to weep and to pray for its children. Mourning and exhaustion have already been attributed to it in Lam 2:8 above, and in Lam 1:4 the ways of Zion are represented as mourning. Further, Isa 3:26; Isa 14:31 have been correctly referred to, where the predicates of mourning, lamenting and howling are imputed to the gates. [The first words of the verse must refer to the enemies who are the subject of the preceding verse. There is no other nominative expressed to which the pronoun their (the suffix in ) can belong. To refer it back to the passer-by in Lam 2:15, as Blayney does, is unnecessary and unnatural. To suppose that it refers to the pious Jews is to suppose an abrupt ungrammatical, and awkward transition, to which there is no parallel in the Lamentations. The pronominal suffixes in these Songs are employed with singular accuracy. If we keep in mind the proper meaning of the verb rendered cried, which is to cry out, to vociferate (Deu 22:24; Deu 22:27; Isa 42:2), we readily see the connection. Even these heathen enemies recognized the hand of God in the destruction of Jerusalem, and their heart expressed this conviction in loud outcries and shouts addressed to the Lord,Adonai the Lord of the heathen, as well as of Israel. This may throw additional light on the words in Lam 2:7, They have made a noise in the house of Jehovah, as in the day of a solemn feast. (It is not impossible that the choice of a proper initial word may have led to this continued reference to the heathen.) After the word Lord there ought to be a full stop. This is indicated in the Hebrew by the accent Aathnah, which rarely occurs so near the beginning of a verse. What follows is not what the enemies cried, nor indeed can it be, for the Hebrew word so translated is intransitive. Whenever that word, is followed by anything spoken or said, the verb , to say, is introduced, Exo 5:8, they cry, saying: Exo 5:15, Exo 17:4; Num 12:13; 2Ki 4:1; 2Ki 6:26, criedsaying:1Ki 20:39; 2Ki 4:40; 2Ki 6:5, criedand said. The only seeming exception to this construction, 2Ki 2:12, where Elisha cried, My father, my father! etc., is due, probably, to the broken disconnected ejaculations of the prophet, that could hardly be proceded by the verb , as if he had said something with deliberation. It must be observed, too, that they were only ejaculations, outcries that he uttered, and the verb is not followed by as it is here. But here, where is used, a long and connected address, like this to the walls of Zion, could not be the object of the verb , to cry. Had the prophet intended to tell us what the enemies said to God, he would have followed the word , they cried with the usual phrase and said. We must take therefore the following touching address to the walls, as the words of the Prophet. We thus avoid the exceeding awkwardness of introducing a long address to the walls of the city with the singular announcement that they cried to the Lord, when there is not, according to Naegelsbach, a single word actually addressed to the Lord, for the prayer in verses 2022 is the prayer of Zion. We moreover dispense with the necessity of the laborious distinction between the individual members of the church and the mystical unity of the untranslatable Gesammtheit. We have here an eloquent poetical address by the prophet to the ruined walls, which by personification and synecdoche represent the afflicted daughter of Zion.Wordsworth: O wall of the daughter of Zion. The Prophet appeals to the wall of Jerusalem, as that which once encircled her with defence, but now lies prostrate, and which, being reduced to ruin, was the fittest representative of the city in her desolate condition. He gives a voice to the stones of the wall, and makes them weep for her sorrow. We need not be surprised by such a prosopopia as this, any more than by his exclamation, O earth, earth, earth (Jer 22:29), or by the language of Hab 2:11; The stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam shall answer it; or by our Lords words (Luk 19:40), If these should hold their peace, the stones would cry out. Comp. Gerlach, p. 75.W. H. H.]Let tears run down like a river day and night. The expression, precisely as it is here, is found no where else. For similar expressions, see Lam 3:48; Jer 9:17; Jer 13:17; Jer 14:17.Give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease [or leave off, i.e., shedding tears (Noyes)]. The daughter of thine eye. This expression is found elsewhere only in Psa 17:8. , daughter, is here apparently an abbreviation of , entrance, door, gate,Zec 2:12. The pupil is the door, the opening of the eye, because in it lies the power of sight. See FuerstLex.,Gesen.Thes., p. 841. Delitzsch on Psa 17:8. [Assem. Ann.: That which we call the ball, or apple of the eye, from the spherical figure of it, that the Hebrews call the daughter of the eye, either as the dearest and tenderest part of it, Deu 32:10; Pro 7:2, or from the figures that seem to appear in it, whence also it is termed by the Greeks the damsel, by the Latins the babe of the eye. See Deu 32:10; Pro 7:2, and Alexander on Psa 17:8. Blayney understands the tear as so called with great propriety and elegance; but this is supported by no evidence, and is rendered improbable by analogous terms applied to the pupil of the eye, by Hebrews, Greeks and Romans, as indicated above.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:19. Arise,Rise up.[Gerlach: Up. Owen: The meaning as stated by Gataker, is, Rise from thy bed; for she is exhorted to cry in the night. The Hebrew word is familiar and precious to us as the same our Saviour uttered, Mar 5:41. Talitha cumi,, .W. H. H.]Cry out in the night, in, or atthe beginning of the watches. The Hebrews divided the night into three watches [the first, commencing at sunset and extending to what corresponded to our ten oclock; the second, from ten till two in the morning; and the third from that time till sun rise (Henderson)]: the middle one was called , the middle watch,Jdg 7:19; the last , morning watch,Exo 14:24; 1Sa 11:11. Since in Jdg 7:19 the beginning of the middle watch is called [lit., head of middle watch], so [lit., head of night watches], the beginning of the night watches generally, would be the time of the first watch. See Winer,R. W. B., s. v., Nachtwachen. [The opinion that this was the name of the first watch, seems to rest entirely on its use here. Yet there is much reason to doubt if it has here that sense. To rise in the first watch of the night, which began before ordinary bed-time, is not very suggestive of sleepless grief and anxiety. The passage in Judges favors Gerlachs conjecture, that the expression denotes the beginning of each successive watch in the night. He refers to the similar use of , head, beginning, in this same verse, and quotes the remark of Michaelis, that means, not the first of all the open-places, but the beginning or head of every one of them. So means not the first of the night watches, but the beginning of each successively. At every watch, or as often as you hear the watchman announce the hour, cry out to God in prayer.W. H. H.] The preposition used here in Hebrew, , means towards or about that time (see Gen 3:8; Gen 8:11). The sense is, About the time, when formerly every one resigned himself to his first sleep, the one here addressed should rise up to painful mourning.Pour out thine heart like water. This seems to denote, first of all, the melting, dissolving of the heart by grief (see Psa 22:15; Psa 58:8; comp. 1Sa 7:6), and then, the open unreserved outpouring of the heart (see Psa 62:9; Psa 42:5; Psa 102:1).Before the face of the Lord [Jehovah, see Textual note above].Lift up thy hands toward him.Lift up to him thy hands. See Psa 63:5; Psa 119:48. [Calvin: The elevation of the hands, in this place and others, means the same thing as prayer; and it has been usual in all ages to raise up the hands to Heaven, and the expression often occurs in the Psalms (Psa 28:2; Psa 134:2); and when Paul bids prayers to be made every where, he says, I would have men to raise up pure hands without contention (1Ti 2:8)]For the life of thy young children, lit., for the souls of, etc. As is seen by the words following (that have fainted, etc.), the object of holding up the hands is, not to save the children (Rosenmueller), but to mourn over their loss. See at Lam 2:11-12. Besides, the children are designated, also, as in the verses just named, not as the only, but as a principal object of lamentation. See Lam 2:20-22. [Gerlach: To raise the hands is, according to the fixed use of words, the same thing as to pray, Lam 3:41; Psa 28:2; Psa 63:5; Psa 134:2 (see 1Ti 2:8), and therefore cannot be understood, with Thenius, as a gesture of the deepest distress. If he would confirm this opinion by the fact, that according to the whole train of thought their fate is already determined and can only be mourned over, and therefore an exhortation to pray for the life of the languishing ones would no longer be in place; then we answer, that in that case no prayer in behalf of the city would any longer be proper, for its fate was fulfilled; yet it would be proper for those who are found surviving in great want, as in fact a prayer immediately follows on the thought of this calamity in Lam 1:11, Lam 20: See, Jehovah, how I am distressed. And, further, [for the soul] does not indicate the already ended life (Thenius, De Wette), for which (the life principle) would be a singular expression, and, further still, it would be inconsistent with the descriptions given in Lam 2:11; Lam 4:4-5, where not the death of those who have fainted, but the distress of those still living, rends the hearts of their mothers. Gerlachs opinion is confirmed by the words to Him,, lift up thy hands to him, i.e., to God in prayer.W. H. H.]That faint for hunger in the top [lit., at the head] of every streetWho have fainted for hunger at the opening of every street. See Lam 4:1; Isa 51:20; Nah 3:10. That the wall, in the poets conception, strictly and only represents Zion, is plainly evident from this, that the Israelitish children are designated as the children of the wall. This could be done with the more propriety from the fact that the wall had a certain motherly character. Did it not embrace the people with its arms? Did it not truly, in a certain mother-like manner, bear them on its bosom? [Wordsworth: The wall, which girdled Jerusalem, is regarded as a mother, which nurses the inhabitants, her offspring, in her bosom; and she laments for the children which lie at the end of the streets, extending from one side of the city to the other.]
Lam 2:20-22
20Behold, O Lord, and consider to whom thou hast done this. Shall the women eat their fruit and children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be 21slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? The young and the old lie on the ground in the streets: my virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword: thou hast slain 22them in the day of thy anger; thou hast killed and not pitied. Thou hast called, as in a solemn day, my terrors round about; so that in the day of the Lords anger none escaped nor remained: those that I have swaddled and brought up hath mine enemy consumed.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam 2:20.. See Lam 1:12; Lam 3:25.[. Henderson: is twice used in this verse with the force of a demonstrative interjection. He translates, Behold! women eat their fruit, infants of a span long; Behold! priest and prophet are slain, etc. This is manifestly wrong. In the very few instances in which has the force of an interjection, it retains a conditional sense, and never introduces an unqualified affirmation, or statement of an unquestioned matter of fact (see Hos 12:12; Job 17:13; Job 17:16; Pro 3:34; Jer 31:20). Besides, the future form of the verbs requires here a conditional or potential sense.W. H. H.]. See Lam 2:4. [Henderson: The nominative to is and taken singly. The German enables Naegelsbach to preserve the Hebrew construction, Soll erwtrget werden Priester und Prophet?W. H. H.]. See Lam 2:7.
Lam 2:21.. Jeremiah uses only once, Lam 3:25; but we find Kri (decidedly arbitrary) in Lam 3:2, . See Lam 2:2; Lam 2:10-11.. Acc. loc. See my Gr., 70, , . [The accusative is used after verbs of rest, in answer to the question where? Naegels. Gr.] . See Jer 51:22.. See Jer 11:19; Jer 25:34; Jer 51:40. The expression seems to involve an antithesis to , Lam 2:20.
Lam 2:22.. The imperfect, when compared with the preceding and following perfects, seems to be due entirely to the necessities of the acrostic. [Perhaps, the future here, as in Lam 2:20, has a conditional or potential sense. So Owen, who connects it with the words, See, O Jehovah, and consider. In this case the following would have the sense of for; or as in E. V.: so that. Shouldst Thou call together, as on a festival, all my terrors from round about! For there was not, etc. Blayney, in his emendation of the text, overlooks the necessity of a initial. . See Lam 2:6.W. H. H.]. Piel not in Jeremiah, nor does he use the verb in this sense. See Eze 19:2.. See Jer 5:3; Jer 9:15; Jer 14:12; Jer 49:37, etc. [Blayney (followed by Boothroyd) takes this word for with suffix, and translates: Those whom I had fostered and made to grow were all of them my enemies. The pointing, not , the Versions, and the sense, are all against this.W. H. H.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The opinion of Chr. B. Michaelis (which Rosenmueller seems to adopt), that the following prayer is set forth by the prophet himself, as a form of prayer (instar formularis), in behalf of the daughter of Zion, who is exhorted to pray in Lam 2:18-19, hardly needs refutation. That the wall of Zion, i.e., Zion herself, utters the prayer in Lam 2:20-22, is evident, both from the exhortation to prayer in Lam 2:18-19, and from the substantial agreement of Lam 2:20-22 with what Lam 2:18-19 had indicated as the subject matter of this prayer of lamentation.
Lam 2:20. Behold, O LORD, and considerSee, O Jehovah, and look. This exact formula occurs Lam 1:11. The prayer in Lam 1:20-22 (comp. Lam 1:9) also begins with See, Jehovah.To whom thou hast done this. [As the pronoun is interrogative, that form should be preserved: to whom hast Thou done thus? The question thus interposed between the appeal to God to look, and the description of what He will see if He look, is very forcible and does not mar the sense as the ordinary construction does, but makes it more apparent.W. H. H.] The Lord had done this, not to a heathen nation, but to the people of His own choice, to whom all the promises of His blessing were given (comp. Gen 12:2-3; Gen 15:5; Gen 18:18; Gen 20:17-18; Gen 26:3-4; Gen 28:14, etc.).Shall the women eat their fruit and children of a span long?Should women eat their fruit, the children whom they nursed? This is a single indirect question, although it is contained in two members. , if [literally translated, the question is, ifshall eat women their fruit, etc.] is dependent on , see [see ifthis is so, or should be so]. The sense of the question, moreover, is not, whether it had ever been heard of that mothers had been driven by hunger to eat their own offspring? (Rosenmueller), for then the perfect tense ought to have been used. But what is asked is, whether that thing, speaking in a general way, may be supposable, possible, or right; and to express this the imperfect must be used. The explanation of Thenius, Had they then been obliged to eat, etc., i.e., Had Thy judgments gone so far, that, etc., is not sufficiently grammatical. What is asked is, whether this thing, generally speaking, would be allowed to happen? The answer to this question would involve another, whether it had been suffered to happen at that time? But the latter question is not directly contained in the words used.The crime here mentioned is clearly designated as a punishment to the rebellious people; Deu 28:53; Jer 19:9. See 2Ki 6:28-29; Lam 4:10.Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the LordShould priest and prophet be slain, etc. [Assem. Ann.: Should God endure to see His own house polluted with the blood of His own priests and such as bore the name at least of His prophets.]
, their fruit. The masculine suffix has induced most interpreters unnecessarily to change the reading. [As the Sept. has , and Chal. and Arab, similar readings, it has been conjectured that the original text was , of which the changed into is all that remains in the present text. Blayney suggests . Owen has an original device of his own to meet this presumed difficulty. He says, Fruit, in the sense of offspring, is applied to men as well as to women. We may take the final mem in as a pronoun, their wives; the same are meant as in verse 18, their voice [heart?], i.e., the citizens of Jerusalem. Thus the construction will be quite grammatical. Should their own wives eat their offspring. That would mean their wives ate, not their own, but their husbands children. This would furnish preachers with a text against polygamy, or the cruelty of step-mothers! Henderson is satisfied with a magisterial appeal to euphony: The masculine suffix is adopted instead of the feminine, to agree in form with preceding.W. H. H.] It is not even necessary, with Chr. B. Michaelis, to keep in mind mothers and fathers. The masculine, as the more comprehensive and higher sex, includes the feminine too. See my Gr., 60, 5; Jer 9:19; Jer 44:19; Jer 44:25; Gen 31:9; Exo 1:21, etc. occurs only here. It is the abstract of the verb , which is found only in Lam 2:22 below. The latter (different from , Isa 48:13) is a denominative from , palma, the hand-breadth, palm of the hand, and seemingly signifies palmis gestare (the Latins say ulnis gestare). Kimchi, Vitringa, Kalkar would unders and the expression of the smoothing of the limbs, as of the swaddling clothes and bands, with the palm of the hand. [With E. V., children of a span long, agree Vulg.:parvulos ad mensuram palm;Luther: die jngsten Kindlein einer Spanne lang; Broughton:infants that may be spanned, and Henderson:infants of a span long. The idea of children carried in the hands is adopted by Blayney:children of palms, i.e., little ones dandled on the hands; Rosenmueller:infantes quos suis manibus tractant;Gerlach: die Kinder, die man auf Hnden trgt; and Noyes:children borne in the arms. The marginal reading in E. V., children swaddled with their hands, is thus explained in Assem. Ann.: Because the verb means to mete or to stretch out aught with the hand, as Isa 48:13. Hence both the Chaldee Paraphrast and the Rabbins here expound it the children of swaddlings; the children whose limbs the mothers were wont to stretch out and stroke, as if they were meting or measuring them with their hands, to fashion them and make them grow straight and proportionable; and to the same purpose also to make them up with swathing bands; for this word ariseth from a root frequent in the Talmudists, for a wrapper of linen, wherewith to wrap up aught; as also, for a veil, or apron, or the like, in Scripture, Rth 3:15; Isa 3:22; and this interpretation receiveth further strength from what followeth here, Lam 2:22. Calvin translates parvulos educationis, whichOwen translates, infants while nursed, the children of nursings, or nurturings (educationum). Boothroyd:their little nurslings. The Sept.; those sucking the breasts. After examining these various translations and interpretations, it is obvious that Naegelsbach has expressed the true meaning of the word, whatever is its fundamental primitive idea,the children whom they nursed,taking the last word in its most comprehensive sense.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:21. The young and the old lie on the ground in the streetsBoy and old man lie on the ground in the streets. [So Gerlach. Blayney, Noyes:The boy and the old man.Henderson:Boys and old men.The verb is preterite, and ought to be so translated. He is describing what was then past. The boy and the old man lay on the ground.Blayney:have lien.W. H. H.]My virgins and my young men. See Lam 1:4; Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10; Lam 5:11.Arehavefallen by the sword. See Jer 19:7; Jer 20:4; Jer 39:18. [Blayney imagines the metre needs improving, and translates, My virgins and my young men are fallen; with the sword hast thou slain them, in utter disregard of the accents, besides the necessity of supplying a pronoun not expressed.W. H. H.]Thou hast slain them in the day of thine anger; thou hast killed and not pitiedThou hast killed in the day of thy anger (see Lam 2:2); hast slain and not pitied (Lam 2:2). [The asyndetical construction, as in Lam 2:16, is vehement and forcible. Thou hast killed, hast slain, hast not pitied. To supply the conjunction and or personal pronoun them weakens the sentence.W. H. H.]
Lam 2:22. Thou hast calledThou callest togetheras in a solemn dayas on a feast-day. See Lam 2:6.My terrors round about [lit., from round about, from every direction, so that they were surrounded by them. So Broughton. Calvin: Here he uses a most appropriate metaphor, to show that the people had been brought to the narrowest straits; for he says that terrorshad on every side surrounded them, as when a solemn assembly is called. They sounded the trumpets when a festival was at hand, that all might come up to the Temple. As, then, many companies were wont to come to Jerusalem on feast-daysfor when the trumpets were sounded all were calledso the Prophet says that terrors had been sent from every part to straiten the miserable people. Owen: My terrors mean my terrifiers, according to the Vulg., the abstract for the concrete.W. H. H.]So that in the day of the LORDS anger none escaped or remainedAnd there was not on the day of Jehovahs wrath an escaped one or a survivor. [The two words rendered escaped and remained seem to express the same idea; namely, to escape. As there were multitudes who survived the slaughter and still remained on earth, we cannot translate the second word by either of these terms, unless we regard them as merely hyperbolical. Probably the meaning is that none entirely escaped the effects of Gods wrath, and we may translate thus, there was not one that escaped or was exempt. This is consistent with the meaning of the verb from which the noun is derived (, elabi, to escape, to get clear, i.e., of condemnation or punishment), and is confirmed apparently by Jer 42:17, they shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: and none of them shall remain or escape, i.e., shall escape or be wholly exempt (comp. Jer 44:14),from the evil that I will bring upon them. We may understand the phrase in our text as elliptical for the fuller expression as we find it in Jer 44:14, remain or escape from the evils, . We may translate the sentence impersonally, there was not that escaped or was exempt. The wrath of the Lord descended on all things and all persons. The city and Zion, the walls and the gates, the sanctuary, palaces and houses, and all the inhabitants, without regard to age, sex or condition, were involved in a common ruin.W. H. H.]Those that I have swaddledThose I have carried or nursed, see Lam 2:20and brought up, hath mine enemy consumedmy enemy destroyed them. It is evident that the prayer is a prayer of lamentation, and with respect to its object responds to the exhortation contained in Lam 2:19 by giving the first place to the principal subject of that verse, without restricting itself to that subject, which is, besides, rather intimated than expressed.
, terrors, every where else means shelter, place of accommodation, dwelling, commoratio, peregrinatio (Gen 17:8; Gen 28:4; Gen 36:7; Gen 37:1; Exo 6:4, etc.), granary (Sing. , Psa 55:16). None of these meanings suits here. It is better therefore to derive it from , terrifying, which occurs frequently in Jer 6:25; Jer 20:3-4; Jer 20:10; Jer 46:5; Jer 49:29. [Gerlach: This word is certainly a designation of the enemy (Vulg.: qui terrent me), but is not to be restricted to them, see Lam 1:20, since the formula so frequent in Jeremiah (Jer 6:25; (Jer 20:4; Jer 20:10; (Jer 46:5; (Jer 49:29) is a general expression for a position threatened on all sides with dangers and the terror prevailing therein.Ewald, according to Gerlach, takes the word in its more common signification and insists that it relates to the same persons named in the second and last clauses of the verse. The word denotes my villagers round about, and the inhabitants of the defenceless country towns and villages are intended, who were related to the chief protecting city as farmers, (Sept. ). Thus the whole verse plainly alludes to a great event, in the days of the siege. All the inhabitants of the country rushed into the principal city (as happened similarly under Titus) as if a great feast as of old were to be held in this city,but alas! it would be in the end for them, at the final capture, the great festivity of murder. This makes excellent sense of the whole verse, and is recommended by preserving the same subject throughout the three clauses of the verse,which cannot be said of Blayneys translation, Thou hast convoked, as on a set day, such as were strangers to me round about, which gives us a new theme in each clause. But, as Gerlach remarks, the analogy of Lam 1:15, the fact that the authority of the Sept. is weakened by its evident mistranslation of the formula in the prophetical bookfear on every side, and the difficulty of supposing that the flight of the country people to the city could be designated as a summons from the Lord, should confirm us in the usual translation of this passage.W. H. H.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Lam 2:1. Olim erat regnum Israelitarum in sublimi, jam sub limo. Frster.
2. Lam 2:1. When Jeremiah says throughout, the Lord has done it, disregarding what Babel did, he would teach us, when injury is inflicted upon us by the world and men, that we should regard, not the instruments, who could not injure the least hair of our heads, but God, who does and ordains it (Lam 3:37 : Amo 3:6; Isa 45:7; Sir 11:14), that He (1) is impelled to it by our sins, and (2) that He prepares His punishments in Heaven, before they are inflicted on transgressors. This serves to make ns patient. Example: Job says not, The Devil, the Chaldeans, the Arabians, did this, but God has done it. Cramer, according to Eg. Hunnius, Ser. I., Lamentations 2, p. 45.[Lam 2:1, etc. How hath Jehovah, etc. The grief is not so much that such and such things are done, as that God has done them; this, this is their wormwood and gall. To those who know how to value Gods favor, nothing appears more dreadful than His anger; corrections in love are easily borne, but rebukes in wrath wound deep. Matt. Henry.]
3. Lam 2:1. Bellarmine is not wise in attempting to establish the worship of images from this text, and especially from Psa 99:5 (Lib. II., de cultu imaginum, cap. 12). For the Psalmist would not have the pious worship the temple of the Lord, or the ark of the covenant, or mercy-seat. Therefore, in Hebrew it is not said, Worship His footstool, but Worship at [or toward] His footstool. Augustine understands this as said with reference to the human nature of Christ, in which the Logos is adorned with Divine worship (). But this interpretation rather strengthens than weakens the argument of the Jesuit. Frster.
4. Lam 2:1. If men themselves are not worthy, He rejects all their ceremonies. He inquires nothing about stone houses with their splendor, nothing about the external form of the church, but He will prepare for Himself the souls of individuals in the fire for all eternity. Diedrich.
5. Lam 2:2. The Abbot Rupert, in his commentary on the books of Kings (B. V., Lam 14) understands the fall of Jezebel out of the window (2Ki 9:33),as well as the passage before us, which is expressed in the Vulgate thus, the Lord hath cast down headlong all that was beautiful in Jacob,as a prophecy of the vengeance which Israel has incurred, for the shedding of the blood of Christ; and he then says, That fall has been heard of throughout the whole world. Lo! that synagogue which slew Christ, where is it? Truly, whatever seems to remain may be compared to what the dogs left of Jezebels body. Ghisler., p. 70.
6. Lam 2:2. Paschasius Radbertus observes on this passage, that kingdom, king, priest, Temple, stronghold, etc., may be nothing else than as it were, some great prophet or prophecy contained in earthen vessels. But now that Christ has come, since the various predictions concerning Him, which were contained in those Vessels, have been fulfilled, they have all been cast down and broken, destroyed and scattered, polluted and profaned, that all the mystical and unutterable secrets which were concealed in them should be made apparent to the whole world, being revealed more clearly than light. Ghisler.
7. Lam 2:2. He hath polluted, etc. This is, truly, the result, of the profanation of the Divine name and majesty, which was at times extremely common even among the chief men; and this result is in accordance with the rule of divine justice in Wis 11:17Wherewithal a man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punished. Frster. The secret of their strength was taken away from the people in the persons of their princes, as Samson lost his strength when he had violated his vow. Diedrich.[Lam 2:2. Prayer. Grant, Almighty God, that as Thou settest before us at this day those ancient examples by which we perceive with what heavy punishments Thou didst chastise those whom Thou hadst adopted,O grant, that we may learn to regard Thee, and carefully to examine our whole life, and duly consider how indulgently Thou hast preserved us to this day, so that we may ever patiently bear Thy chastisements, and with a humble and sincere heart flee to Thy mercy, until Thou be pleased to raise up Thy Church from that miserable state in which it now lies, and so to restore it, that Thy name may, through Thine only-begotten Son, be glorified throughout the whole world. Amen. Calvin.]
8. Lam 2:3. This consideration can and ought to check pride and arrogance, and prevent us from fiercely erecting our horns, being mindful of that notorious saying:
Cornua qui faciunt, ne cornua ferre recusent
And from Zec 1:18-21 we learn, that the Lord can easily raise up smiths to break the horns of those who are fierce and insolent. Frster.
9. Lam 2:5. God has made Christ a horn of salvation to His church, that it should receive from His fulness grace, blessing, strength and power. Whoever will not make use of Christ for this purpose, his carnal ability will soon go to wreck and ruin. Luk 1:69. Starke.
10. Lam 2:5. When Judea denied the mystery of our Lords incarnation, which the Gentiles believed, the princes of Judea fell into contempt, and these Gentiles, who had been oppressed while guilty of unbelief, were elevated into the liberty of the true faith. But Jeremiah, foreseeing long before it happened this fall of the Israelites, says, The Lord has become as if He were an enemy, He has overthrown Israel, He has overthrown all his walls, He has overthrown His defences. Greg. Papa, Lib. XI., Moral. Cap. 10, quoted by Ghisler., p. 76.
11. Lam 2:5. . The Vulgate version has, humiliatam et humiliationem [one humbled and humiliation]. Avenarius interprets invectum et invectionem [attack and assault by sea] and explains it as relating to naval conflicts and the various methods of assaulting an enemy: since both words are from anah, which properly signifies to be carried in ships. Frster. [Note.Frster either misquoted the Vulgate, or intended only to give the sense, in his understanding of it. The Vulgate is humiliatum et humiliatam; which the Douay translates and hath multiplied in the daughter of Judea the afflicted, both men and women. The Vulg. is a translation of the Sept.: .W. H. H.]
12. Lam 2:4-5. Here a distinction between the evil of crime and the evil of punishment is to be observed. God is not the efficient cause of the evil of crime. The opinion of Peter Martyr, in his Commentary on the first chapter of Romans, is, therefore, impious and horrible,I cannot deny that God is in every way the cause of sin. God is, however, the chief cause of the evil of punishment, being just Judge and the avenger of crimes. In this sense the inimical acts of the Babylonians are here attributed directly to Him. Frster.
13. Lam 2:6-7. The Lord, who never suffers Himself to be forgotten causes our solemn feasts and the Sabbaths of our rest to be forgotten, not because the rites of our religion do not please Him, but because the former tabernacle of God or the temple of the Holy Ghost in us is profaned, and there is now no place in which those rites may be so offered as to please God. Paschas. Radbertus by Ghisler., p. 79.
14. Lam 2:6-7. The Romanists, therefore, err when they pretend that Rome is the fixed and immovable seat of the church. For although the Catholic and universal church cannot cease to exist (Mat 16:18), yet that particular churches have perished and can perish, experience testifies, yea Rome herself testifies by an example in her own history. What is here related of the temple at Jerusalem, that it should assuredly be demolished and overthrown, has happened to temples of Christ at the hands of the Turks. It is a fact also especially memorable, that on the 29th day of May, in the year 1453, the Turks having assembled and taken Constantinople, the temple of Sophia, esteemed so sacred, was turned into a horse-stable. And this is what was long ago written in Psa 78:59-64, and also Psa 83:13-14. Frster.[Lam 2:7. Had he only spoken of the city, of the lands, of the palaces, of the vineyards, and, in short, of all their possessions, it would have been a much lighter matter; but when he says that God had counted as nothing all their sacred things,the altar, the Temple, the ark of the covenant, and festive days,when, therefore, he says, that God had not only disregarded, but had also cast away from Him these things, which yet especially availed to conciliate His favor, the people must have hence perceived, except they were beyond measure stupid, how grievously they had provoked Gods wrath against themselves; for this was the same as though heaven and earth were blended together. Had there been an upsetting of all things, had the sun left its place and sunk into darkness, had the earth heaved upwards, the confusion would have hardly been more dreadful, than when God put forth thus His hand against the sanctuary, the altar, the festal days, and all their sacred things. But we must refer to the reason why this was done, even because the Temple had been long polluted by the iniquities of the people, and because all sacred things had been wickedly and disgracefully profaned. We now, then, understand why the Prophet enlarged so much on a subject in itself sufficiently plain. Calvin.]
15. Lam 2:7. Wherewith one sins, therewith is he punished (Wis 11:17). But because the most heinous sins had been perpetrated at the altar and Divine worship, so now at the altar the severe chastisement is inflicted, that they must be deprived of it. Cramer.[Lam 2:7. They have made a noise in the house of JehovahWhy did He grant so much license to these profane enemies? even because the Jews themselves had previously polluted the Temple, so that He abhorred all their solemn assemblies, as also He declares by Isaiah, that He detested their festivals, Sabbaths and new moons (Lam 1:13-14). But it was a shocking change, when enemies entered the place which God had consecrated for Himself, and there insolently boasted, and uttered base and wicked calumnies against God! But the sadder the spectacle, the more detestable appeared the impiety of the people, which had been the cause of so great evils. * * * That the Chaldeans polluted the Temple, that they trod under foot all sacred things, all this the Prophet shows was to be ascribed to the Jews themselves, who had, through their own conduct, opened the Temple to the Chaldeans and exposed all sacred things to their will and pleasure. Calvin.]
16. Lam 2:9. God is careful to punish contempt of His word by taking away that word. The curse which they chose, that is come to them; the blessing they did not choose, that is far from them, Psa 109:17. Cramer.
17. Lam 2:1-10. Although God, properly speaking, allows Himself to repent of nothing, and His gifts and callings admit of no change (Rom 11:20), yet it is evident from this passage, that He is bound to no particular people, especially if that people prove to be godless and unthankful towards Him. He had chosen the people of Israel for His own peculiar people, Jerusalem for His dwelling, where He had, as it were His fire and His hearth (Isa 31:9), and had lifted it up to Heaven; but when it became ungrateful and disobedient, He considered not all this, but cast down to the earth all the glory of Israel, laid waste His own tabernacle, destroyed His dwelling, overthrew His altar. For God is not only merciful and kind, but also an angry and just Judge, who will not let iniquity go unpunished, and makes His chastisements the more severe in proportion to the kindness He has shown to a people, when they are ungrateful and godless. This should be a solemn warning to us. Wrtemb. Summ. [Even those doctrines, ordinances and regulations, which are most exactly scriptural, when scrupulously retained by men destitute of the Spirit of God, are but a lifeless carcass of religion: and when made a cloak for iniquity, God abhors them. So that, in the day of His wrath for national wickedness, He will despise temples and palaces, kings and priests, establishments and forms of every kind. Scott.]
18. Lam 2:10. They have cast up dust upon their heads, etc. Luctus pro luxu. Frster.
19. Lam 2:11. Effusion of the liver is carnal mortification. Bonaventura, quoted by Ghisler., p. 91.
20. Lam 2:13. When God punishes His people on account of their sins, He punishes them more severely than He does other peoples. It may be said of Him, The dearer the child, the harder the rod. Osiandri Bible in Starke. [When we wish to alleviate grief, we are wont to bring examples which have some likeness to the case before us. For when any one seeks to comfort one in illness, he will say, Thou art not the first nor the last, thou hast many like thee; why shouldest thou so much torment thyself; for this is a condition almost common to mortals. * * The Prophet, then, means that comforts commonly administered to those in misery, would be of no benefit, because the calamity of Jerusalem exceeded all other examples; as though he had said, No such thing has ever happened in the world; God had never before thundered so tremendously against any people. * * Great as the sea is thy breach; that is, Thy calamity is the deepest abyss. I cannot then find any in the whole world whom I can compare to thee, for thy calamity exceeds all calamities; nor is there anything like it that can be set before thee, so that thou art become a memorable example for all ages. But when we hear the Prophet speaking thus, we ought to remember that we have succeeded in the place of the ancient people. As then, God had formerly punished with so much severity the sins of His chosen people, we ought to beware lest we in the present day provoke Him to an extremity by our perverseness, for He remains ever like Himself. Calvin.]
21. Lam 2:14. Preachers, so soothing, are smooth-preachers and dumb dogs, who bring great and irreparable injury to a whole country, for the sun shall go down over such prophets and the day shall be dark over them (Mic 3:6). And although they may receive for a long time good-will and favor, money and encouragement from men, yet they lose, together with their Bearers who delight in such accommodating ministers, all their from the living God; Gal 1:10, Jam 4:4. Cramer according to Eg. Hunnius, Ser. 3, Lamentations 2. p. 64. [They had wilfully drunk sweet poison. Calvin.Prayer. Grant, Almighty God, that though Thou chastisest us as we deserve, we may yet never have the light of truth extinguished among us, but may ever see, even in darkness, at least some sparks, which may enable us to behold Thy paternal goodness and mercy, so that we may be especially humbled under Thy mighty hand, and that being really prostrate through a deep feeling of repentance, we may raise our hopes to Heaven, and never doubt that Thou wilt at length be reconciled to us when we seek Thee in Thine only-begotten Son. Amen. Calvin.]
22. Lam 2:15-16. He who suffers an injury, need not mind mockery. It is the Devils special delight to make a mock of the church and of all the pious, so that the godless are known by their great Ahs and Ohs (Wis 5:3)! Let not, however, ridicule cause us to waver, but let us remain firm and faithful to God. For blessed are ye when men, for My sake, revile and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you (Mat 5:11). For God can easily and speedily take away again such reproach and put to silence the triumphing of the wicked, and apply to them the songMine eyes will see that they shall be trodden down as the mire of the streets (Mic 7:10). Cramer quoted by Eg. Hunnius, Ser. 4, Lamentations 2, p. 73).
23. Lam 2:14-16. This is, in truth, the root of the calamity, that the prophets in the service of the people had preached in accordance with carnal pleasures; they had not disclosed but concealed the misdeeds of the people, and thus had preached the people out of their country, and into captivity. How then was this? Had they invented new precepts? made another catechism? So, nothing at all of this sort! But it sufficed for the purpose of destruction, that they mistook the Gospel, and exercised no control over the people in conformity therewith, but instead of that practised a false policy. Now the enemies of Jerusalem and of Gods people mock and imagine that all the glorious promises of the Word of God of a kingdom of grace among men have come to naught. They imagine that they have now made it evident by their power, that the mystery of Gods grace and election is naught. Poor fools! They know not that God is in all this; they know nothing of that God, who suffers with us and for us, and leads us through suffering to glory. Diedrich.
24. Lam 2:17. When we experience Gods judgment and chastisements on account of our sins, we ought always to look back (1) on our sins, (2) on Gods frequent warnings of punishment, (3) on His unchangeable faithfulness, and (4) on His great power and His right hand which can change all things, Psa 77:11; Dan 9:8; Psa 51:5. Cramer, quoted by Eg. Hunnius, Ser. 4, Ch. II., pp. 74 ff.[Lam 2:17. He hath fulfilled His word that He had commanded in the days of old.Had the Prophet touched only on the secret counsel of God, the Jews might have been in doubt as to what it was. And certainly as our minds cannot penetrate into that deep abyss, in vain would he have spoken of the hidden judgments of God. It was, therefore, necessary to come down to the doctrine, by which God, as far as it is expedient, manifests to us what would otherwise be not only hidden, but also incomprehensible; for were we to inquire into Gods judgments, we would sink into the deep. But when we direct our minds to what God has taught us, we find that He reveals to us whatever is necessary to be known; and though even by His word, we cannot perfectly know His hidden judgments, yet we may know them in part, and as I have said, as far as it is expedient for us. Let us then hold to this rule, even to seek from the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospel, whatever we desire to know concerning the secret judgments of God; for were we to turn aside, even in the smallest degree, from what is taught us, the immensity of Gods glory would immediately swallow up all our thoughts; and experience sufficiently teaches us, that nothing is more dangerous and even fatal than to allow ourselves more liberty in this respect than what behooves us. Let us then learn to bridle all curiosity when we speak of Gods secret judgments, and instantly to direct our minds to the word itself, that they may be in a manner inclosed therein. Calvin.]
25. Lam 2:18. In this exhortation, the requisites of true and ardent prayer are shown. (1) The first of these is the cry of the heart to God, by which devoutness, or the earnest and ardent desire of the heart is denoted. For, as Cyprian says, in his 12th Sermon on the Lords Prayer, God hears not the voice, but the heart. And it is commonly said, When the heart does not pray, then the tongue labors in vain. (2) Tears, i. e., by metonomy, true penitence, of which tears are signs, as appears in the case of the sinful woman (Luk 7:38), and of Peter (Luk 22:62). And well-known is that saying of the orthodox Father, The tears of sinners are angels bread and angels wine. Frster.
26. Lam 2:18-22. Here we have a lesson,when, to whom, and how, we ought to pray. We should pray always and not faint, as Christ teaches us by a parable (Luke 18), but especially when there is a great and immediate necessity, as Jeremiah did here, and David, The anguish of my heart is great, O bring me, Lord, out of my distresses (Psa 25:17). To this Lord the prophet Jeremiah here points the people. God Himself calls us to come to Him only, and says, Call upon Me in the day of trouble, I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorify Me (Psa 50:15). Not alone should your mouth pray, but, says Jeremiah, let your heart cry to God. For the Lord is near to those who call upon Him, to those who call upon Him with earnestness (Psa 145:18). We should present before Him circumstantially our necessity and solicitudes, with tears and sighs, as Jeremiah here directs. For although God well knows beforehand what distresses us and what we need, before we tell Him (Mat 6:8), yet the recital of our pressing necessity serves to make us more earnest in prayer; for God will have those who pray, such as those who worship Him in spirit and in truth (Joh 4:23). Wrt. Summarien.
27. Lam 2:19. Arise, cry out in the night.The prayer of nighthow readily it rises to God the only Judge, and to the Holy Angel who undertakes to present it before the Heavenly altar! How grateful and bright, colored with the blush of humility! How serene and placid, disturbed by no clamor or bustle! And last of all, how pure and sincere, sprinkled with no dust of earthly care, incited by no praise or flattery of beholders! Bernard, Serm. 86 on the Canticles, in Ghisler., p. 108.
28. Lam 2:20. Behold, O Jehovah, and consider.It is most proper, when any one is overwhelmed with affliction, that he keep it not entirely to himself, but disclose it to such persons as may come to his relief in the way either of help or of comfort. But to no one can we better and more advantageously lament our distresses and solicitudes, than to our dear God, for He is our confidence, a strong tower from our enemies (Psa 61:4). Cramer quoted by Eg. Hunnius, Ser. 4, Lamentations 2, p. 78.[Prayer. Grant, Almighty God, that as Thy Church at this day is oppressed with many evils, we may learn to raise up not only our eyes and our hands to Thee, but also our hearts, and that we may so fix our attention on Thee as to look for salvation from Thee alone; and that though despair may overwhelm us on earth, yet the hope of Thy goodness may ever shine on us from Heaven, and that, relying on the Mediator whom Thou hast given us, we may not hesitate to cry continually to Thee, until we really find by experience that our prayers have not been in vain, when Thou, pitying Thy church, hast extended Thy hand, and given us cause to rejoice, and hast turned our mourning into joy, through Christ our Lord. Amen. Calvin.]
29. Lam 2:21. The young and the old.When general judgments proceed from God, the old and the young must suffer together: the old, because they have not rightly educated the young: the young, because they have imitated the wickedness of the old. Cramer.
30. [Lam 2:19-22. Comforts for the cure of these lamentations are here sought for and prescribed. The two most common topics, that their case is neither singular nor desperate, are here tried, but laid by, because they would not hold. No wisdom or power of man can repair the desolations of such a broken, shattered state. It is to no purpose, therefore, to administer these common cordials; therefore, the method of cure prescribed is, to refer her to God, that by penitent prayer she may commit her case to Him, and be instant, and constant in her supplications, Lam 2:19. Arise out of thy despondency, cry out in the night, watch unto prayer; be importunate with God for mercy, be free and full, be sincere and serious; open thy mind, spread thy case before the Lord; lift up thine hands towards Him in holy desire and expectations; beg for the life of thy young children. Take with you words, take with you these words, Lam 2:20. Prayer is a remedy for every malady, even the most grievous. And our business in prayer is not to prescribe, but to subscribe to the wisdom and will of God; Lord, behold and consider, and Thy will be done. Henry.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. Lam 2:1-10. As a warning against a proud confident of security, our text can be used for a sermon on this theme.The judgment on the members of the old covenant is a solemn warning for the members of the new covenant. 1. The judgment. 1. Who judges? The Lord. 2. How does He judge? With rigorous righteousness. 3. Why does He judge? Because His wrath has been provoked by sins. II. The warning. 1. They were the natural branches; we engrafted ones (Rom 11:24). They had for their part only the revelation of the law; we the revelation of grace. 2. From this it follows that we have to expect a similar judgment, not only with the same, but assuredly with greater certainty.
2. Lam 2:9. The blessing of a well ordered political and ecclesiastical condition of affairs. I. What belongs to such order? 1. That the civil magistracy administer the law. 2. That the teachers of Gods word rightly divide it. II. What are the salutary fruits thereof? 1. In a temporal point of view, Order, Right and Righteousness, peace and general prosperity. 2. In a spiritual point of view, Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth and good will from God to men.
3. Lam 2:11-12. These verses could be preached upon in a time of severe famine. I. Describe the actual condition of things. The distress: 1, of the children; 2, of the parents. II. Exhort to lively sympathy and the actual manifestation of pity.
4. Lam 2:13-14. The hurt of the daughter of Zion. 1. Wherein it consists. 2. Its causes. 3. Its cure.
5. Lam 2:13-14. The immense responsibility of the office of the preacher. 1. To whom are the preachers responsible (and whose word have they therefore to publish)? 2. What blessings may they be the authors of by a constant consideration of this responsibility? 3. What injury may they do by not considering the same?
6. Lam 2:15-16. Warning against malicious joy in the misfortunes of others. We understand this in a double sense; whilst we (1), warn against such conduct as may make one a subject of the malicious joy of others; (2), we warn against malicious exultation over the misfortunes of others.
7. Lam 2:16-17. The impressive sermon which is contained in great calamities. I. These warn us; 1, against the pride which goes before a fall; 2, against malicious joy over the fall of our neighbor. II. They instruct us, 1, to consider the warnings of the Lord; 2, to recognize plainly His hand in the blows which befall men.
8. Lam 2:18-22. The prayer of the distressed. 1. It comes out of the heart. 2. It is the expression of deep pain. 3. It is not satisfied with few words. 4. It is directed confidently to the Lord.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!
CONTENTS.
We have here a continuation of the same subject as the former. The Prophet mourns over the desolated circumstances of Jerusalem, and complains of those afflictions to God.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger! The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied: he hath thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of the daughter of Judah; he hath brought them down to the ground: he hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof. He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about. He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire. The Lord was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces: he hath destroyed his strong holds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation. And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the LORD, as in the day of a solemn feast. The LORD hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: he hath stretched out a line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying: therefore he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together. Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars: her king and her princes are among the Gentiles: the law is no more; her prophets also find no vision from the LORD. The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground, and keep silence: they have cast up dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves with sackcloth: the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground. Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers’ bosom.
We shall not fully enter into the spirit of this solemn scripture nor discover the chief bent of the man of God’s lamentations, unless we take with us, all along what it was that so deeply afflicted his mind, and gave the finishing stroke to his sorrow, namely, that it was the Lord’s doing. Painful as it was in itself to be brought under the humblings of a proud foe; yet, the aggravated circumstances in it were, that the Lord’s hand directed the whole. And when the Lord smites, and for sin also, doubly and tenfold distressing is that misery. Reader! make application of this to the sorrows of Jesus, when receiving at the Lord’s hand double for the sins of his beloved Jerusalem, for whom he became surety. The sword of justice that awoke and smote the man that was God’s fellow, awoke and smote him at Jehovah’s command: yea, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief. Zec 13:7 ; Isa 53:4-6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
True Devotion
Lam 2:19
Where there is love there is true devotion. There is true devotion when the object of love is God.
I. False devotion. People are apt to deceive themselves and suppose themselves to be devout when they are nothing of the sort. One is given to much frequenting of church, yet her heart all the while is full of rancour against a neighbour. Another mortifies and denies himself food and sleep, but takes no little pride in his austerities, and flatters himself he is becoming a saint. Another again is liberal in charities, but is chary of forgiveness to one who has wronged him.
II. True devotion consists in an eminent degree of love, which makes us prompt, active, and diligent in the observance of God’s commandments. He who loves grieves to offend the person loved. True devotion is not acquired all at once, but as it grows it exhibits the three characteristics of contrition, love of prayer, self-sacrifice.
III. True devotion may be obtained
a. By acquiring a love of God and a hatred of sin.
b. By constant recollection, or abiding in the presence of God.
c. By oblation of all we do and all we suffer to Him.
d. By frequent and exact purification of conscience.
e. By frequent communion.
S. Baring-Gould, Sermon-Sketches, p. 191.
References. II. 19. A. P. Manley, Sermons on Special Occasions, p. 310. S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon-Sketches, p. 191. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii. No. 59. III. 16. T. Hooke, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv. p. 325.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
“Handfuls of Purpose”
For All Gleaners
“How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!” Lam 2:1
Still the prophet is dwelling upon the sufferings of Jerusalem. The image is that of an infinite thundercloud dissolving in a tremendous tempest, under which the beauty of Israel perishes and the temple itself is overthrown. It is supposed that the “footstool” is the Ark of the Cover ant, which was involved in the destruction of the temple. It is to be noticed that the word “Lord” here is not Jehovah, but Adonai: by such changes of designation, moral change on the part of Jerusalem is indicated. Sometimes the minor name is used, and sometimes the major, according as Jerusalem realises the greatness of its sin or the nearness and love of God. All God’s acceptances of humanity are conditional. We are only safe so long as we are obedient. God keeps his thunder for his friends as certainly as for his enemies, if they be unfaithful to the covenant which unites them: nay, would it not be correct to say that a more terrible thunder is reserved for those who, knowing the right, yet pursue the wrong? “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” If we had been in darkness God would have been pitiful to us, but because we say, We see, therefore our sin remaineth. Even the ark has no meaning to God as a mere piece of mechanism; it is only of value in proportion as it represents in living activity the law and the mercy which it symbolises. We cannot live in a holy past: we can only live in a sacred present; not because a lifetime ago we prayed and served and did our duty lovingly can we be saved. We are what we are from day to day. Yesterday’s virtue is not set down against this day’s negligence. As every day must bear its own burden, so every day must witness to its own faithfulness. Nothing is carried over from the account of yesterday to the account of today. Each link in the whole chain of life must be strong, or the chain itself will give way at the weakest point.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
“Children of a Span Long”
Lam 2:20
The English language is very rich, yet very poor. Most rich people are poor when you come to know them and want them. This English language is both a millionaire and a pauper. It is not rich in fine grades and shades of meaning It has a right hand and a left, and there is an end of it; it is black and white, and up and down, and new and old, rough divisions of that kind. So we are rough people, dealing largely in rough and rude judgments, cutting things off sharply, forgetting where we cut them and for what end. If we speak of children, that is about all we have to say, “the children,” that is all. They may be “a span long,” or they may be going to school; they may be in the cradle, or they may have assumed their first full suit: still, they are all children. That is very English; rude and snubbing, curt, and wanting in roundness and delicacy and fineness and colour. So the Bible has suffered from our poverty of language. Many passages we do not understand by reading them in English. Happily they are not passages upon which the salvation of the soul depends. Everything necessary to salvation is written as with a pencil of light. There is no ambiguity about the Cross; there is no double meaning about the need of Christ’s priesthood for the salvation and ultimate sanctification and coronation of humanity. Yet there are many passages in which distinctions of meaning would be like floods of light.
Jewish writers and commentators even of modern days tell us that the Jews had nine different words by which to say “child.” Everything depended upon the word that was used. From the word you knew exactly the age of the child, the ability of the child, the point of development attained by the child; you had no questions to ask. There was, of course, a common word by which children were all designated when there was no need to discriminate and specify. A boy was Ben Ben-ezra, Benjamin; son of Ezra, son of Jamin. The girl was Bath Ben and Bath, masculine and feminine, signifying generally “children.” But the Hebrew, we are told by the Jewish writers of eminence, did not rest there. That would have been enough for us, a Ben and a Bath, and there is an end of it with the English language. That English language was not made for the finer theology. There was Yeled , and the Hebrew said that word meant the child was “newly born,” quite a little, little thing. Exodus ii. is full of it: “put the child therein;… she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept…. And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.” The Hebrew called the little one Yeled . It had no need to ask whether it was seven years old or three months, or whether it was going to school: it was Yeled . Sometimes the child was Yonek “Out of the mouths of babes hast thou ordained strength.” The English has done its best there; it has invented the word “babe.” In Jeremiah ( Jer 44:7 ) we have “child and suckling, out of Judah.” Sometimes the word was Oled , as in the text. When the Hebrew said Oled , the Jewish writer to whom I am indebted for the nine instances tells us that the meaning was, the child was about to be weaned. There was no need to multiply words; Oled was the word that held all the meaning. Sometimes the child was called Gamul ; then it was getting independent of its mother, it was looking otherwhere for sustenance, a dangerous part of life; yet it must come. In Isaiah ( Isa 11:8 ) we read, “And the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.” Then the child advanced and was called Taph , and we are told that Taph means the quickly stepping; no longer carried by hits mother, but toddling sharply, taking little short steps to keep up with the longer strides of the mother: do you see it? The child is now getting on. That is referred to in Jeremiah ( Jer 40:7 ) “men, and women, and children.” It is referred to in Esther ( Est 3:13 ) “both young and old, little children and women, in one day.” The Hebrew woman did not say, The child could now walk quite nicely; she said, ” Taph .” Then the child advanced and stood straighter; he looked broader: speaking of the child at that time he was called Elem , the strong; he was ready to assist his parents in their labour, though he was not independent. We read of this kind in 1Sa 20:22 “But if I say thus unto the young man,” called in the verse before the “lad”: between two periods of life, a most awkward age, just ceasing to be a boy and hardly yet beginning to be a man; in what we call a very touchy and sensitive condition of life; better to be spoken to as little as possible, and never lectured. The child advanced, and he became Naar , the free, coming from a verb, we are told, which signifies to walk about freely and defend himself. We read of these people in Gen 37:2 and Jdg 8:20 . Finally came the ninth condition of the child, and he was spoken of as Bachur , the mellowed, the ripe, marriageable, fit for military service. So the little one grew up; so the generations come and go; so the days will never let us stand still. He who but yesterday was a Ben has now grey hairs here and there upon him, and he knoweth it not Time flies; eternity seems to come to meet it half-way.
When the male child was about thirty days old the Jewish commentators relate what befell in the family. There came into operation what was called the law of redemption a law enforced amongst the Jews unto this day. The friends are called together to a little repast, the parents call to the repast a descendant of Aaron (a kind of priest, I suppose) called Cohen. The father had deposited with the priest thirty silver shekels of the sanctuary (eleven or twelve shillings of English money), and after grace and prayers and what religious rites I know not, the priest asked the father whether he would have the child or the shekels. The father replied that he would have the child; then the priest took the shekels and swung them around the child’s head and uttered religious words, and the firstborn male thus became free. What a glorious interpretation is given of this by the Apostle Peter! Speaking of Christians he said, Ye were not redeemed with eleven or twelve shillings ye were not redeemed with silver and gold; ye are the Lord’s freemen, blood-bought, stand up, saved and crowned and enfranchised in the city of God.
Yet we must not altogether imitate the Jews. Though they had many fine distinctions in language, some of their distinctions were too fine for us and for Christian reasoning. The Jewish writer already referred to says that when he was in Moab he was talking to a sheikh who had “four wives and five children,” and soon after the sheikh said he had “six daughters.” “But,” said the Jewish writer, “you told me a day or two ago you had only five children; now you say you have five children and six daughters five and six are eleven.” “Yes,” said the sheikh, “but in counting children we do not count daughters.” That is a distinction the more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Mark the difference in Christ. In Christ there is neither male nor female, circumcised nor uncircumcised, bond nor free. Christ looks upon us as human, touched with the colour of heaven, throbbing with the pulsations of eternity. When he died he counted the women and the children, boys and girls, and the old men: he died for the whole world.
In training human life, then, we should observe some of these distinctions and profit by them. We should avoid generalities; we should study character, we should study age. No child is identical with any other child. In giving what we term common education we are right, as we are right in dispensing common bread; but beside the common education there should be a finely graduated training. This child is delicate, sensitive; the east wind will almost kill that fair flower. The other child is robust, strong, audacious, venturesome. Another is inquisitive, always on the quest for something more in the way of information; another is almost cursed with the gift of asking questions. We must therefore study each, and adapt our ministry to each, and this is what the preacher has to do. This is the difficulty of the minister. The people cannot all be treated alike; in every congregation there are many congregations. We have all possible distinctions and classifications of personality and cf growth and of necessity, and the wise great preacher would be one who brought out of his treasury things new and old, and gave to each a portion of meat in due season; and whilst the one is being served the other should courteously wait.
We should notice the law of progress. It is impossible to deny the law of evolution on its practical and visible aspects, whatever truth or error may attach to it when its action is remote and beyond the power of being tested by the senses. Evolution is a process which is taking place before our eyes every day. We say the child is taller, the child is stronger, the child is gentler: what is the meaning of that change of terms? It means that life has been advancing and is not today what it was yesterday; and blessed is that man who has the sagacity to notice the degrees of progress, because they mean degrees of necessity. When does the child become a man? That is an awful point in life. We do not want the child to become a man, and yet we do want it. There is a period in life when we do not know precisely what we would really want or would really prefer; but to be no longer child, to become not only a quick-stepping one but a young man who is independent, to cut off in some degree old associations, we do not want the child to have a house of his own, and yet we do want him to have it tomorrow and to be warm and comfortable. And even the girls whom the Jews did not count would leave any father. Is that true? Certainly: and when the girl has left her father and gone away into the world’s strife she wonders how some other girl can think of marrying: How silly girls are now! says this advanced creature, who never left her father, except on the first provocation. We must take larger views. We were made for an independence which is perfectly compatible with association; we must reach the point of individuality. There is a point at which you are no longer your father’s seed. It is a point hardly to be set forth in words, but his responsibility cannot follow you, and he ought not to be stigmatised by your follies, and your excesses and extravagances and follies ought not to be charged back upon your father. If he can charge himself with them, so be it; let him burn himself at the fire which his own hands enkindled; I am now speaking more generally, and more from what may be called the statesman’s point of view. There comes a point when men are no longer to have their faults and foibles and unwisdoms of every kind charged upon their parents.
What a school the world is, as God sees it! What a sight the human populations must present to the eyes of God! What variety, what contradiction, what fine shading, what almost goodness, what almost hell! Christianity alone is equal to the whole occasion. Christ knows every soul. Christ calls men by their names. Christ does not need to be introduced to any one. He knows us. Therein is his Deity. He never makes a mistake about any man. He knows the fair Nathanael, the guileless soul, meditating, contemplating under the fig tree: he knows the Iscariot who is just about to sell him after kissing him with sin’s foulest lips. All things are naked and opened to the eyes of that dear Saviour. This is a terror, yet this is a joy. If he knows all the bad he also knows what we are struggling against; he knows whether we are trying really to kill the devil that is in every one of us. He knows, in the language of the poet, not only “what’s done,” but also “what’s resisted.” Many of us may have a better account to give at the last than even we ourselves suppose. All our struggles are set down as conquests. When we have been wrestling with the enemy night and day, and the sweat-drops stand upon our brow in proof of agony; when we think ourselves overthrown, the Lord Christ may say, No, thou didst struggle well, thou shalt be saved. Cheer thee! take heart! Have nothing to do with perfectionists who have no taint or stain, who have no infirmity. Avoid the Pharisees who would contaminate you with their egotism, and go to the company of those who say, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee; the company of those who say, I will arise and go to my Father; I will say to my Father, I have sinned. Associate with those who say, If I may but touch the hem of his garment, I shall be young. In thy touch is immortality.
Note
“There are perhaps few portions of the Old Testament which appear to have done the work they were meant to do more effectually than this. It has presented but scanty materials for the systems and controversies of theology. It has supplied thousands with the fullest utterance for their sorrows in the critical periods of national or individual suffering. We may well believe that it soothed the weary years of the Babylonian exile (comp. Zec 1:6 with Lam 2:17 ). When they returned to their own land, and the desolation of Jerusalem was remembered as belonging only to the past, this was the book of remembrance. On the ninth day of the month of Ab (July), the Lamentations of Jeremiah were read, year by year, with fasting and weeping, to commemorate the misery out of which the people had been delivered. It has come to be connected with the thoughts of a later devastation, and its words enter, sometimes at least, into the prayers of the pilgrim Jews who meet at the ‘place of wailing’ to mourn over the departed glory of their city. It enters largely into the nobly constructed order of the Latin Church for the services of Passion-week ( Breviar. Rom., Feria Quinta. ‘In Coena Domini’). If it has been comparatively in the background in times when the study of Scripture had passed into casuistry and speculation, it has come forward, once and again, in times of danger and suffering, as a messenger of peace, comforting men, not after the fashion of the friends of Job, with formal moralisings, but by enabling them to express themselves, leading them to feel that they might give utterance to the deepest and saddest feelings by which they were overwhelmed. It is striking, as we cast our eye over the list of writers who have treated specially of the book, to notice how many must have passed through scenes of trial not unlike in kind to that of which the Lamentations speak. The book remains to do its work for any future generation that may be exposed to analogous calamities,”
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Prayer
We have come to praise thee, Father of mercies, in the appointed place: where thy name is recorded, there thou wilt be to meet thy people. We rely upon thy promise; all the promises of God are, Yea, Amen, in Christ Jesus: thy Son is the Everlasting Yes. We shall have all things in time and in eternity with Christ, whose riches are unsearchable. We cove in his name, we pray under the shadow of his Cross, we plead the power of his blood. Thou wilt not say No to the hearts who thus come to thee, Father of life, God of light. We have brought our song; for thou hast led us even in the winter-time through gardens of delight, thou hast given unto us pleasure even in the time of storm and tumult. Thy hand has been upon us for good night and day; thou hast been round about our houses as if thou didst care for them; thou hast been the light, the joy, the music of our home. Thou hast blessed thy servants in basket and in store, so that they have enough and abound, and they know not the pang of hunger or the chill of cold. They have come therefore to sing of thy mercy, and to say, Thy rod and thy staff have comforted us. Others have come to praise thee because of the opened door. The door was fast shut, and they could not move it; thou hast caused the door to fall back, and now thy people walk in a full liberty: they would praise God, they would no more be silent in dulness of soul, but with great gladness, rising into rapture, each would say, Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits. Thou wilt not disdain our tribute of praise; the praises of eternity are thine, but how could they be complete without the praises of time? Thou didst make the little earth, thou didst round it and set it in the heaven, thou didst give it what light it has, and all our possessions are thine; we ourselves are not our own, we bear the image and superscription of God; therefore dost thou deign to come to us, and because thou hast not withheld thine only begotten Son from the earth thou wilt not rest until the whole world be bathed in the sunlight of his love. We come from the family, and say all is well; it is well with the old man, and the little child, and the busy mother; it is well with those who have gone away, yea, it is better with them: they are more to us, they are nearer to us, we now feel more complete because of their perfectness. They loved the Saviour, they trusted in his Cross; thou hast taken them from us for a little while, the father, the mother, the child, the friend, but only for a little while, and not far away; nay, thou hast set them nearer to us than ever they were before. We will therefore not allow the flesh to triumph, but we will cause the spirit to answer the pleading of thy Spirit, and we shall joy and rejoice even in the presence of death itself: O Death, where is thy sting? We commend one another to thy tender care; thou knowest how frail we are, thou art able to keep us not only from falling but from failing; we shall not begin to fall; thou art able to present us faultless at the last. This is thy miracle, thou dying, rising, triumphant Christ. 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 2:1 How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, [and] cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!
Ver. 1. How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion witha cloud! ] Heb., With a thick cloud: nothing like that bright cloud wherein he appeared to his people, as a token of his grace, at the dedication of the temple. 1Ki 8:10 How comes it about, and what may be the reason for it? Oh in what a wonderful manner and by what strange means hath the Lord now clouded and covered his people (whom he had established as Mount Zion) with blackest calamities and confusions, taking all the lustre of happiness and of hope from her, and that in his anger, and again in the day of his anger!
“ Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? ”
And cast down from heaven to earth,
And remembered not his footstool. Lamentations Chapter 2
It has been noticed that the solitude of Jerusalem is the prominent feeling expressed in the opening of these elegies. Here we shall find its overthrow spread out in the strongest terms and with great detail. Image is crowded on image to express the completeness of the destruction to which Jehovah had devoted His own chosen people, city, and temple; the more terrible, as He must be in His own nature and purpose unchangeable. None felt the truth of His love to Israel more than the prophet; for this very reason, none could so deeply feel the inevitable blows of His hand, obliged as He was to be an enemy to those He most loved. “How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with the cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger. The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied: he hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; he hath brought them down to the ground: he hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof. He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about. He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire. The Lord was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces: he hath destroyed his strongholds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation.” (Ver. 1-5.)
But even this was not the worst. Their civil degradation and ruin were dreadful; for their outward place and blessings came from God in a sense peculiar to Israel. But what was this to His degrading His own earthly dwelling in their midst! “And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly. Jehovah hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of Jehovah, as in the day of a solemn feast.” (Ver. 6, 7.) It was of no use to think of the Chaldeans. God it was who brought Zion and the temple, and their feasts and fasts and sacrifices, with king and priest, to nought.
Hence in verse 8 it is said with yet greater emphasis, “Jehovah hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: he hath stretched out a line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying: therefore he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together. Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars: her king and her princes are among the Gentiles: the law is no more; her prophets also find no vision from Jehovah. The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground and keep silence: they have cast up dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves with sackcloth: the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground.” (Ver. 8-10.) The prophet then introduces his own grief. “Mine eyes do fill with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers’ bosom. What thing shall I take to witness for thee? what thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal thee?” He justly feels that no object can adequately match the series of miseries of Zion. The sea alone could furnish by its greatness a notion of the magnitude of their calamities.
Another element now enters to aggravate the description – the part which false prophets played before the final crisis came. “Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment.” (Ver. 14.)
Then He depicts the cruel satisfaction of their envious neighbours over their sufferings and ruin. “All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying Is this the city that men call the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth? All thine enemies have opened their mouth against thee: they hiss and gnash the teeth: they say, We have swallowed her up. certainly this is the day that we looked for; we have found, we have seen it.” (Ver. 15, 16,) But the prophet insists that it was Jehovah who had done the work of destruction because of His people’s iniquity, let the Gentiles boast as they might of their power over Jerusalem. “Jehovah hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down and hath not pitied: and he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee, he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries.” (Ver. 17.) Sorrowful, most sorrowful, that His hand had done it all; yet a comfort to faith, for it is the hand that can and will build up again for His name’s sake. Nor was it a hasty chastening; from earliest days Jehovah had threatened and predicted by Moses what Jeremiah details in his Lamentations. Compare Lev 26 , Deu 28:31 , Deu 28:32 . To Him therefore the prophet would have the heart to cry really, as it had in vain through mere vexation. “Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease. Arise, cry out in the night: in the beginning of the watches pour out thine heart like water before the face of the Lord: lift up thy hands toward him for the life of thy young children, that faint for hunger in the top of every street. Behold, O Jehovah, and consider to whom thou hast done this. Shall the women eat their fruit, and children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? The young and the old lie on the ground in the streets: my virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword; thou hast slain them in the day of thine anger; thou hast killed, and not pitied. Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about, so that in the day of Jehovah’s anger none escaped nor remained: those that I have swaddled and brought up hath mine enemy consumed.” (Ver. 18-22.) He arrays the most frightful excesses the Jews had suffered before God that He may deal with the enemies who had been thus guilty.
As to the apparent alphabetic dislocation in verses 16, 17, I do not doubt that it is intentional. In Lam 1 all is regular as to this. In Lam 3 , Lam 4 a transposition occurs similar to what we find here. It cannot therefore be either accidental on the one hand, or due to a different order in the alphabet on the other, as has been thought. Some of the Hebrew MSS. place the verses as they should stand in the regular order, and the Septuagint pursues a middle course by inverting the alphabetic marks but retaining the verses to which they should belong in their Masoretic place. But there is no sufficient reason to doubt that the Hebrew gives the passage as the Spirit inspired it, spite of the strangeness of the order, which must therefore have been meant to heighten the picture of sorrow. In sense they must stand as they are. a change according to the ordinary place of the initials Pe and Cadhe would out the thread of just connection.
the LORD*. One of the 134 places where the Sopherim say they altered “Jehovah” of the primitive text to “Adonai”. See App-32.
the beauty of Israel. Probably referring to the Temple (Isa 64:11), or the heroic defenders of Jerusalem (2Sa 1:19).
Israel. Referring to the spiritual seed. See note on Lam 1:17.
His footstool. Probably referring to the ark of the covenant (1Ch 28:2), or the sanctuary (Psa 99:5; Psa 132:7. Isa 60:13).
Chapter 2
The second lamentation:
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and he has cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger! The Lord has swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and has not pitied: he hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; he hath brought them down to the ground: he hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof. He has cut off in his fierce anger all of the horn of Israel: he has drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, he has burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devours round about. He has bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire ( Lam 2:1-4 ).
It must have been an awesome and a very traumatic experience to have seen the destruction that was wrecked upon Jerusalem by the Babylonian army. When, after eighteen months of siege, they finally broke into the city and began to slay with the sword. Even before they broke the walls and came in, people were already starving to death within the city. It was a horrible scene. Jeremiah can’t get it out of his mind, the thoughts and the sights that he saw. They were imprinted in his mind. And now, as he sees it lying desolate, he reflects over these things. And he tells some of the things that were happening, and they are so horrible that they would make those kind of impressions in your mind that cause you to shudder whenever you think of them. And they are those mental images that you just can’t seem to remove. As you see the people starving to death, falling on the streets, faint, weak, once mighty people, once a proud people, but now so defeated and destroyed.
The Lord was as an enemy: he swallowed up Israel, he has swallowed up all of her palaces: he has destroyed the strongholds, he has increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation. He hath violently taken away the tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD has caused the solemn feasts and the sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off his altar, he has abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up in the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the LORD, as in the day of the solemn feast ( Lam 2:5-7 ).
That is, the enemies were in there cheering and yelling and all as they were destroying it, much as the voices and cheers and all that once went up in the days of their solemn feasts.
The LORD hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: he hath stretched out a line, he has not withdrawn his hand from destroying: therefore he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together. Her gates are sunk into the ground; he has destroyed and broken her bars: her king and her princes are now among the Gentiles: there is no more law; her prophets also find no vision from the LORD. The elders of the daughters of Zion sit on the ground, and keep silent: they have cast dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves with sackcloth: and the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground. And my eyes do fail because of the tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured out upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city ( Lam 2:7-11 ).
It’s almost more than he can bear. He sees these little children and little nursing babies fainting because of the lack of food. He sees them as they are swooning, just staggering through the streets. Young girls, their heads bowed down to the ground. The old men just sitting there staring blankly in sackcloth with dust, with dirt. They’ve just covered themselves with dirt and there is no place to go. There’s no hope. It’s all gone.
The little children say to their mothers, Where is the corn and the wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers’ bosom. What thing shall I take to witness for thee? what thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal thee? Your prophets have seen vain and foolish things for you: and they have not discovered your iniquity, to turn away your captivity; but they have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment. All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth? ( Lam 2:12-15 )
Desolate, destroyed, ravaged city, once the perfection of beauty. Once the joy of the whole earth, and now it’s being hissed at as people walk by, clapping their hands and shaking their heads.
All of your enemies have opened their mouth against thee: they hiss, gnash the teeth: they say, We have swallowed her up: certainly this is the day that we have looked for; we have found, and we have seen. The LORD hath done that which he had devised; he has fulfilled his word that he commanded in the days of old ( Lam 2:12-17 ):
God was faithful to His warnings. He had told them if they did not turn from their wickedness, if they did not turn from their idolatry, that He was going to bring their enemies against them and they would be destroyed. God has done that which He had purposed.
he has fulfilled his word that he commanded in the days of old: he has thrown down, he’s not pitied: he has caused your enemies to remove joy over thee, he has set up the horn of your adversaries [the power of your adversaries]. Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease ( Lam 2:17-18 ).
He’s calling them for intercession to weep before God until God does a work again.
Arise, cry out in the night: in the beginning of the watches pour out your heart like water before the face of the Lord: lift up your hands toward him for the life of thy young children, that faint for hunger in the top of every street ( Lam 2:19 ).
“Isn’t this enough,” Jeremiah is saying, “to challenge you to seek God, to seek God all night long? Look at your little children swooning in the streets. Pray for them that God will somehow work His work again among the people.” They were living in an extremely desperate time, but they were not yet really desperate before the Lord. They were just plain desperate, but really not seeking God. You wonder what will it take to cause men to really seek God, to really cry out? The Bible says, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” ( Jas 5:16 ).
My mom tells me how that one time when I was a little kid and I was sick, and she came into the bedroom and laid hands on me, and I was running a fever. And she prayed, “Oh Lord, touch Charles, you know, and heal him.” And when she was through praying, I said to her, “Mom, now pray like you really mean it.” And I wonder how many times our prayers aren’t just sort of perfunctory type of activities, you know. There is no real heart behind it. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” God said to Jeremiah, “And in the day that you seek Me with your whole heart, in that day I will be found of you.”
And Jeremiah is saying, “Hey, go for it. Cry in the night, in the beginning of the watches, pour out your heart like water before the face of the Lord. Lift up your hands toward Him. At least for the life of the young children that are fainting for hunger on every street.”
Behold, O LORD, and consider to whom thou hast done this: Shall the women eat their fruit ( Lam 2:20 ),
That is, the women eat their own little babies, which they were doing.
shall children be born who are only a span long? ( Lam 2:20 )
The women were so malnourished that as their children were being born they were only seven or eight inches long at birth. Horrible.
shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? The young and the old lie on the ground in the streets: my virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword; thou hast slain them in the day of your anger; you have killed, and not pitied. You have called us in a solemn day my terrors round about me, so that in the day of the LORD’S anger none escaped nor remained: those that I have swaddled and brought up hath my enemy consumed ( Lam 2:20-22 ). “
Lam 2:1-22
Jehovah had poured out His anger and
wrath upon a disobedient people
(Lam 2:1-22)
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger! He hath cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, And hath not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger. The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied: He hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; He hath brought them down to the ground; he hath profaned the kingdom and the princes thereof. He hath cut off in fierce anger all the horn of Israel; He hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy: And he hath burned up Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about. He hath bent his bow like an enemy, he hath stood with his right hand as an adversary, And hath slain all that were pleasant to the eye: In the tent of the daughter of Zion he hath poured out his wrath like fire (Lam 2:1-4).
Jeremiah had proclaimed to the rebellious nation of Judah that Jehovah God would fight against them as their enemy for their sinful deeds (Jer. 21:5).Note the repeated use of the terms wrath and fierce anger. Tracing back the reason for these actions and emotions we find the source being Judah s sin. God is made angry and filled with wrath against those who continue in their sins!
The Lord is become as an enemy, he hath swallowed up Israel; He hath swallowed up all her palaces, he hath destroyed his strongholds; And he hath multiplied in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation. And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his place of assembly: Jehovah hath caused solemn assembly and sabbath to be forgotten in Zion, And hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary; He hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces: They have made a noise in the house of Jehovah, as in the day of a solemn assembly (Lam 2:5-7).
The words wrath and anger are used six times in the first six verses. The people of Judah continued to worship Jehovah even though Jeremiah had revealed its fruitlessness. Judah considered her worship acceptable (Jer 11:15; Jer 14:11-12; Jer 26:2) while the Lord saw it as unacceptable (Jer 6:20). To further illustrate the polluted nature and the Lord s rejection of their worship, Jeremiah stated that Jehovah had violently taken away the tabernacle, destroyed the place of assembly, cast off His altar, abhorred his sanctuary, and despised both king and priest.
Jehovah hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion; He hath stretched out the line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying; And he hath made the rampart and wall to lament; they languish together. Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars: Her king and her princes are among the nations where the law is not; Yea, her prophets find no vision from Jehovah. The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground, they keep silence; They have cast up dust upon their heads; They have girded themselves with sackcloth: The virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground (Lam 2:8-10).
Not only was the place of worship destroyed with the king and priest, but the cities walls were torn down. No walls meant no gates and no closures to the city for protection. Such a state found (destruction of place of worship, city, and walls along with no king, priest, or prophet that speaks from God) its remaining citizens (elders and virgins of Jerusalem) sitting on the ground in deep depression.
Mine eyes do fail with tears, my heart is troubled; My liver is poured upon the earth, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, Because the young children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is grain and wine? When they swoon as the wounded in the streets of the city, When their soul is poured out into their mothers’ bosom. What shall I testify unto thee? what shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? What shall I compare to thee, that I maycomfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? For thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal thee?(Lam 2:11-13).
As Jeremiah beheld the crying babies and young children swooning through the streets in weakness and misery, his heart was broken. Overcome with emotions the prophet broke out in tears that he could not stop. His pain was as deep as the liver within his body. Though the prophet would that the situation was better, he realized that the wound of sin was deep and was incurable at this point (cf. Jer 8:22; Jer 46:11). It is because of verses such as these that Jeremiah has often been referred to as the weeping prophet.
Thy prophets have seen for thee false and foolish visions; And they have not uncovered thine iniquity, to bring back thy captivity, But have seen for thee false oracles and causes of banishment (Lam 2:14).
Jeremiah had previously exposed the false prophets and their false doctrines, yet the people Interestingly, we see here what the duty of the prophet was. They should have uncovered iniquity rather than cover it up. Rather than comforting sinners in their error (cf. Jer 23:13-17), they should have exposed their sins and called for their repentance! God s people today are to expose rather than tolerate (cf. Eph 5:11)!
All that pass by clap their hands at thee; They hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, [saying], Is this the city that men called The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth? All thine enemies have opened their mouth wide against thee; They hiss and gnash the teeth; they say, We have swallowed her up; Certainly this is the day that we looked for; we have found, we have seen it (Lam 2:15-16).
Jeremiah had foretold that the passers-by would do this very thing; i.e., hiss and so forth to exercise scorn over the fallen city and nation (cf. Jer 19:8).would not hear(cf.Jeremiah chapter 23). Their jealousy over the years against Jerusalem was now vindicated in their minds.
Jehovah hath done that which he purposed; He hath fulfilled his word that he commanded in the days of old; He hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: And he hath caused the enemy to rejoice over thee; He hath exalted the horn of thine adversaries. Their heart cried unto the Lord: O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night; Give thyself no respite; let not the apple of thine eye cease. Arise, cry out in the night, at the beginning of the watches; Pour out thy heart like water before the face of the Lord: Lift up thy hands toward him for the life of thy that faint for hunger at the head of every street (Lam 2:17-19).
From the days of old Jehovah had purposed the destruction of his people, city, and tabernacle because of Judah s rebellious and sinful ways. Jeremiah had warned the people with tears (Jer 14:17-18). The prophet called upon Judah to lift up her voice and hands to the Lord and to repent of her sinfulness. The sore famine that claimed the lives of their children ought to have motivated Judah to give in to their rebellious and stubborn ways.
See, O Jehovah, and behold to whom thou hast done thus! Shall the women eat their fruit, the children that are dandled in the hands? Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? The youth and the old man lie on the ground in the streets; My virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword: Thou hast slain them in the day of thine anger; Thou hast slaughtered, [and] not pitied. Thou hast called, as in the day of a solemn assembly, my terrors on every side; And there was none that escaped or remained in the day of Jehovah’s anger: Those that I have dandled and brought up hath mine enemy consumed (Lam 2:20-22).
A gruesome and terrible picture is painted regarding the ongoing suffering within the city walls as Babylon put on the siege. Women age their children; prophet and priest were murdered in the sanctuary of the Lord; young and old were dying of famine and disease; and virgins and young men of war were dying by the sword. The fierce anger of Jehovah God had wiped them clean and had not pitied the people in their plight.
Such a scene strikes terror into the reader. The loving and merciful Jehovah God had now turned His face from His people. He had sent them prophet after prophet to cause them to repent and turn yet Judah rejected and even killed them. The time of Jehovah s visitation of wrath had now come, and there was none to escape.
These words illustrate that God was the Lord of justice (cf. Jer 9:23). Those who reject His divine standards will face the same wrath and indignation at the coming of Jesus (cf. 2Th 1:6 ff). The word of God is replete with warnings against those who would not obey the Lord s commandments (cf. Isa 11:4; Isa 63:1 ff; Rev 6:14-17; Rev 14:9-10; Rev 14:19-20).young children,
God’s Anger at Sin
Questions on Lam 2:1-22
Open It
1. If a close friend turned against you, what would you do?
2. How do you respond to graphic scenes of starving children?
3. When have you had to plead on behalf of something or someone?
Explore It
4.What did the Lord do to the Daughter of Zion? (Lam 2:1-2)
5. What happened to Judahs strength and power? (Lam 2:3)
6. What had the Lord become like to the Israelites? (Lam 2:4-5)
7. In His anger, what did the Lord allow to happen? (Lam 2:6-7)
8. What became of the city? (Lam 2:8-9)
9. How did the destruction of the city affect the elders and young women? (Lam 2:10)
10.How did the author respond to the harrowing scenes of destruction? (Lam 2:11)
11. What happened to the children because of the consequences of war? (Lam 2:11-12)
12. How deep was the trouble that had overtaken Gods people? (Lam 2:13)
13. How had the false prophets misled the people? (Lam 2:14)
14. How did Israels enemies respond to her ruin? (Lam 2:15-16)
15. What was the fearless message of the true prophets? (Lam 2:17)
16. What was the suffering city told to do? (Lam 2:18-22)
Get It
17. When have you felt the Lords silence or anger against you?
18. How do you respond when you are treated harshly by those closest to you?
19. Gods people had sinned and He punished them for it; how does God deal with our sin today?
20. Why do you think God allows suffering?
21. What popular false teachings are set forth today by religious leaders?
22. In what ways have Christians today become complacent about sin?
23. How should Christians respond to the horrors of famine?
24. What does it mean to you to cry to the Lord from the depths of your heart?
Apply It
25. What can you give to help provide food for a hungry child?
26. When can you spend some time in prayer for an individual or group of people going through intense suffering?
In the second poem, the prophet dealt with the sources of the sorrow he had described. Again affirming that it was the result of the direct action of Jehovah, he proceeded to describe it in its material and spiritual aspects. Habitations of Jacob are destroyed, princes are profaned, the people are slain. Such are the material judgments. The place of worship is destroyed, the solemn assemblies are forgotten, the sanctuary is abhorred, king, princes, prophets, and people are degraded.
After this recognition of the act of Jehovah in judgment the prophet broke out into a description of the affliction in iniquity as to the actual suffering endured, and the even more painful contempt of the nations. He identified himself with the people in all their sufferings, and recognized the contempt of the nations as fulfilling the word which Jehovah had spoken. Finally, he uttered an appeal of penitence in which there are two movements. The first is his appeal to the people, in which he urged them to repentance, and the turning of the life to God. The second is the appeal of the people to Jehovah, in which again the story of affliction is told.
Chapter 2 – THE DAY OF THE LORD’S ANGER
It is the city of Jerusalem in a very particular sense that is under contemplation in this chapter. That city, once famed as the dwelling-place of the great King, was now a waste of blackened ruins. Throughout, it is recognized that not an enemy from the outside acting of his own volition, but the Lord Himself, who had so long dwelt in the midst of the city, had devoted it to destruction.
This the very verse brings out. “How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel , and remembered not His footstool in the day of His anger!” It was sorrowful to contemplate that the city once called “the holy” should have become so vile and apostate that Jehovah could no longer endure it. It is noticeable, however, that the beauty of Israel is “cast down from heaven to earth;” not “to hell” (Sheol, or hades, the place of the dead), as in the case of privileged Capernaum (Mat 11:23). There, the Lord Jesus had done many mighty works, and given a testimony beyond anything enjoyed by Jerusalem of old. But He and His words had been utterly rejected. Therefore Capernaum , “exalted to heaven,” should be “brought down to hell.” Its day was over forever. Not so was it with Jerusalem . “Cast down to earth,” treated like a city of the nations; yea, trodden down of the Gentiles; still it is destined yet to occupy a place of glory such as it never knew in the past. It must be disciplined by adversity, but was not forsaken in perpetuity. In His indignation against idolatry, the Lord had “swallowed up all the habitation of Jacob,” not pitying, because of the hardness of their hearts. He had “thrown down in His wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah ,” bringing them down to the ground and polluting the kingdom and princes. It was all because of sin. He loved them truly, but could not permit them to go in peace while in so dreadful a moral state. Therefore had He, “in His fierce anger,” cut off the horn of Israel , and caused their right arms to fail before the enemy (v.2, 3).
Three times in verses 4 and 5 He is said to have acted as though He were their enemy, First, we read, “He hath bent His bow like an enemy.” Second, “He stood with His right hand as an adversary;” and, third, “The Lord was as an enemy.” But it is well to notice the qualifying expressions “like” and “as.” An enemy He never was; though their conduct compelled Him to act as if He were. How many a Christian has had to know Him in a similar way! How often has He seemed to become an enemy! But faith looks beyond all that the eye can see, and knows that He is unchanged in His love and tenderness. It is sin in His children that has broken in on the fellowship He delights to have them enjoy. He is “of purer eyes than to behold iniquity;” and while He will never give up one of His redeemed, He will not countenance looseness of walk and an unbridled tongue in any, simply because He has saved them. In fact, it is just the contrary, for “whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” This was the lesson the remnant of Judah had to learn; bitter as it must have been.
In verse 6, “tabernacle” should be as in the margin, “hedge.” By turning to Psalm 80, we find the same metaphor employed. Israel is likened to vine brought out of Egypt and planted in a land from which the heathen had been cast out. Hedged in and tended by the divine Husbandman, it should have borne fruit for Himself, but we know His verdict (Isa 6:1-7): “It brought forth wild grapes.” Because of this He allows it to be overrun by the heathen, as we read in Psa 80:12-16, “Why hast Thou broken down our hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. Return, we beseech Thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; and the vineyard which Thy right hand hath planted, and the branch which Thou madest strong for Thyself. It is burned with fire, it is cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Thy countenance.” It is the same thought that we have expressed here: the enclosure which in the past had separated the garden of the Lord from the Gentiles around was broken down by the Lord Himself, and “the places of the assembly” destroyed, so that the solemn feasts and Sabbaths had been caused to cease in Zion .
His altar He had cast off, and abhorred His sanctuary; permitting the unclean to pollute it, because of the unfaithfulness of His people. The walls of the city, with the gates and bars, were levelled to the ground; the king and princes were captive among the Gentiles; the very law (so long despised) was no more; and the prophets (to whom the deaf ear had been turned for years) had no vision from the Lord. Zion ‘s elders were girded in sackcloth, and sat upon the ground with dust upon their heads in speechless grief as they beheld the desolations on every hand (v.7-10). It was complete and overwhelming ruin, brought about by Jehovah because they had neglected His Word and followed in the ways of the heathen.
In deep-toned notes of woe Jeremiah cries “Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers’ bosom” (v.11-12). Only in fellowship with God do His people find peace and plenty. Away from Him unrest and famine must result. Is not this the reason why there are so many swooning babes and fainting children among the assemblies of God’s saints today? Surely it is time to consider our ways and turn again to the Lord. Something is radically wrong when the gathering of believers is not a nursery where babes in Christ receive needed nourishment, and help for their upbuilding and establishment in the things of God. When it is otherwise, it augurs a fallen state and testimony.
Zion had been overwhelmed as by the waves of the sea, so that there was no healing of her breach, humanly speaking (v.13). Her prophets had seen vain and foolish things for her (as in the case of Hananiah, recorded in chapter 28) prophesying smooth things, but not discovering her iniquity. True peace there could not be with unjudged sin upon her (v.14). Thus Jerusalem had become the sport of the passer-by, who scornfully asked, “Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth?” (v.15). Both these titles are found applied to it in the Psalms: the former in Psa 50:2; the latter in Psa 48:2.
Her enemies exulted in her ruin, and gloried in having “swallowed her up.” This they had long desired, and now attributed it to their own prowess, not knowing of the Lord’s controversy with her (v.16). It was not the might of their arms that had caused them to triumph over her. Her offended Lord had but done that which He had devised, and fulfilled His Word given in the days of Moses (v.17). To Him, therefore, the remnant turns, crying out in the bitterness of their souls and giving themselves no rest day nor night, but incessantly lifting up their hands toward Him for the life of their fainting children (v.18-19). This was as it should be, and argued a returning in heart to their God. The last three verses (20-22) form a prayer, and set forth their pitiable condition “in the day of the Lord’s anger.” He had said, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me.” To Him, therefore, they turn, bewailing their wretchedness, the result of their own evil ways, and beseeching His favour. They shall yet prove that His ear is not dull of hearing, neither is His eye blinded to their misery.
CHAPTER 2 What the Lord Has Done
The great catastrophe continues in vivid description throughout this chapter also. Not an enemy has done it, not Nebuchadrezzar and his Chaldean hordes, but the Lord is the executor of all. The beauty of Israel He cast down; He swallowed up the habitations of Jacob; He burned against Jacob like a flame; He bent His bow like an enemy; He poured out His fury like fire; He was as an enemy. These are a few of the many expressions with which the righteousness of the Lord in judging His people is acknowledged.
And what a great description of Jerusalem and her inhabitants we read in Lam 2:8-16. Gates broken down; king and princes among the Gentiles; law abandoned; no more visions! Elders on the ground in sackcloth and ashes; virgins hanging their heads; children and sucklings swooning in the streets–and all that pass by clap their hands, hiss, and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem.
The LORD hath done what He had devised; He hath fulfilled the Word that He had commanded in the days of old. Oh! that the people today would hear and believe that God will yet fulfill other judgment messages and deal with the world on account of its sin. The chapter ends with a prayer.
How: Lam 1:1, Lam 4:1
covered: Lam 3:43, Lam 3:44, Eze 30:18, Eze 32:7, Eze 32:8, Joe 2:2
and cast: Isa 14:12-15, Eze 28:14-16, Mat 11:23, Luk 10:15, Luk 10:18, Rev 12:7-9
the beauty: 1Sa 4:21, 2Sa 1:19, Isa 64:11, Eze 7:20-22, Eze 24:21
his footstool: 1Ch 28:2, Psa 99:5, Psa 132:7
Reciprocal: Isa 1:8 – daughter Isa 5:25 – the anger Jer 6:2 – daughter Jer 12:7 – I have given Jer 48:39 – How is it Lam 1:6 – all Lam 1:17 – commanded Lam 2:7 – cast off Lam 2:17 – he hath thrown Lam 3:2 – brought Lam 3:47 – desolation Lam 5:16 – woe Zep 2:15 – how is
Lam 2:1. This verse is a lamentation over the sad condition that was brought about through the righteous anger of the Lord. Daughter of Zion is an affectionate term for the people of the Lord who had their headquarters at Zion which was the principal district in Jerusalem. Footstool is an expression of humility which the prophet words on behalf of his people. Remembered not is used in the sense that the Lord did not spare his people when his anger was aroused to the extent of divine chastisement
Lam 2:1. How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud Changed her condition for the worse, and turned the light of her prosperity into the darkness of adversity. And cast down, &c., the beauty of Israel The temple and all its glory. And remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger Hath not spared even the ark itself, the footstool of the shekinah, or divine glory, which was wont to appear, sitting, as it were, enthroned upon the mercy-seat, between the cherubim: see the margin.
Lam 2:1. How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud. The day break, but no sun shines, no opening of future hope.
Lam 2:2. The Lord hath swallowed up all the inhabitants of Jacob. The enemy has come in like a flood, the people have disappeared in the vortex.
Lam 2:3. He hath cut offall the horn of Israel. See on Job 15:15. Psalms 112.
Lam 2:7. They (the Chaldeans) have made a noise in the house of the Lord, as in the day of a solemn feast. The song and the music were once heard there: now the noise, the cries, the shouts of a storming army. What a reverse of glory for vengeance.
Lam 2:8. The Lordhath stretched out a line on Zion. This is a figure of architecture: the artists measure the ground for a new building, and for the removal of walls and rubbish. So God caused the measuring line to pass over Samaria.
Lam 2:10. The elderssit on the ground, and keep silence. Jobs three friends sat down for seven days, indicating the deepest sorrow.
Lam 2:11. The sucklings swoon in the streets, when dying of the blackest famine, or when they asked their mother,
Lam 2:12. Where is corn, dogzt, not parched corn, but bread made of wheat flour, their usual food; and wine, as in former days. These words are the real copies of nature, which always touch the heart. The flood of invasion had made a breach wide as the sea.
Lam 2:14. Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things. To these Jeremiah attributes the ruin of the country. They invariably opposed his ministry. When he predicted war, they predicted peace; when he spake of famine, they foretold fine harvests, and halcyon days. When he raised the cry of invasion, they soothed all fears with the balm of Egypt. Therefore, hardening the people in their sins, they spurned repentance, and boldly rushed on the bucklers of destruction. These prophets were men of influence in the temple, lap-dogs of the highpriest, who stopped at no blasphemy to carry their point. But the priests and the prophets were slain in the sanctuary of the Lord, in the holy temple which their idolatries had profaned: Lam 2:20.
Lam 2:20. Shall women eat their fruitchildren of a span long? This, in case of apostasy, Moses had foretold, with all the consequent horrors. Deuteronomy 28.
REFLECTIONS.
The poetry here is admirable, and the subject naturally inspires sublimity of thought. The apostrophes are most striking, and the most impressive images of grief. The prophet loses sight of the Chaldeans, in the more exalted view of the Lords coming in martial array to fight against his people, to demolish his city, and to make desolate his sanctuary. But when he saw the dead lying in every street, the children asking for corn and wine, and fainting with hunger; when he saw the mothers eating their own children, and the elders sitting with dust on their heads, his eyes failed with tears. Misery unparalleled! Oh what a scene also of priests slain around the altar, to expiate the pollutions of the sanctuary with their blood. The glory is departed; for Ichabod was written on the ruins of Zion in characters far more gloomy than those which befel the house of Eli.
Raised now to all the majesty of grief, he casts an indignant look on the false prophets, now lying slain among the priests. They had frustrated his ministry by counter predictions, they hindered the repentance of the people by promises of peace, and hardened their hearts by falsehood and lies. What an obloquy rests on their memory for ever. But fallen and disgraced as they are, what instruction may not the christian derive from their memory. Never, never, oh pastor, never flatter a people in their sins. They will curse thee for it another day, and God will require their blood at thy hand. It is to betray the charge of God. It is to magnify the maxims of the age above the bible. It is weakness, it is want of courage, it is want of holiness. View, oh minister, view the Lord as in the ten first verses of this chapter, coming to fight against an infidel world with the sharp sword which goeth out of his mouth. Then clothing thy soul with his spirit, fight valiantly, as under thy generals eye, and sure of victory, return a thousand times to the charge. If ministers were all animated with this spirit, there is no saying what advantages would follow in the cause of morality, and in the advancement of the Redeemers kingdom. But ministers too often assume a profession, because it is a profession. They form parties of pleasure, they dine in public, and attend some of the more decent diversions. Thus when they have sanctioned the errors of the age, then their mouth is shut in the pulpit, the gospel freezes on their lips, and they are incapable of serving God. Their more enlightened and faithful hearers are discouraged and grieved; they would fain speak of what is good in their minister, but are obliged to retain silence on the mention of his name. But let him be assured that a harlot is not more despised by her seducers than the man who has prostituted the honour and glory of his ministry, is despised by the infidels of the age. Be instructed then, oh man, and abandon thy profession for the humblest trade, rather than occasion the ruin of Zion.
The final advice of the prophet to cry in the night, and like Daniel, to afflict the soul with weeping, is most salutary and becoming, till the Lord shall establish and make Jerusalem a praise in the earth, by restoring her to all the promised glory of the latter day.
Lamentations 2. The Second Lament.This differs from the first in its contents, and in its literary form. The metrical matters are the same, i.e. there are twenty-two verses, wherein the first word of the verse, or stanza, begins with the Heb. A, B, C, etc., and each stanza has three lines, of five accents each. We saw that in Lamentations 1 the singers wail for Zion filled half the song, and her own cries the second half; but this second Lament is all taken up with God. In Lam 2:1-12 the woes are bemoaned as being of His doing and His alone, and Lam 2:13-17 forms a short rsum of this; then, next, Lam 2:18 f. urges the city to cry to Him for help; and in the close, Lam 2:20-22, she does so.
In more detail, Lam 2:1-17 is the wail of a stricken heart, because Yahweh has flung down all Zions beauty, has demolished her fortress, has profaned her throne. True, this might mean Zedekiahs ruin in 586 B.C., but the pathetic touch of personal experience of the ruin, which marks the passage, cannot well suit that earlier dating, since scholars are fairly well agreed that the poems were not written until after 600 B.C. More probably the Lament comes from men who actually saw the ruin of Aristobulus II by the invasion of Pompey.
And now, awful thought! it is Yahweh Himself who has lifted the bars of the citys gates to let those invaders in. He Himself is the real enemy! He has ruined the Temple, which was His own Place of Trysting with men! His hand has led the roaring troops tramping into His sanctuary. And meanwhile all the old rulers have fled afar to alien lands, where they can receive no Torah, no ever-new teaching from the Priestly ministrants, who are the only authoritative receivers and issuers thereof. This is a notable evidence that, if the writer lived in 60 B.C., Torah was not regarded at that date as a thing all given through Moses in the far-off past. This agrees exactly with the central faith of P, expressed beautifully in Exo 25:22, that Yahweh would always give new revelations to His people from His Shekinah on the Ark. But now, cries our singer bitterly, all our prophets are silent; our priests, elders, virgins all sit silent, amid the moaning of babes for food.
In Lam 2:1 f., Lam 2:5, Lam 2:7, Lam 2:18 f. notice that the name Yahweh is avoided, and Adonai is substituted. The Jews, just before Jesus came, were shy of pronouncing the Divine Name: by A.D. 400 they had ceased altogether uttering it aloud whenever it occurred in their synagogal reading of the Pentateuch; and they had learned to say instead of it simply and reverently my Lord (Adonai), as they do to this day. So in the passage before us, it is probable that we see the rise of this custom. The practice arose apparently through the loss of confidence in Yahwehs care for them: they were superstitiously afraid lest they should invoke His presence and His anger. G. B. Gray notes on the passage Lam 2:1-12 that the singers love for his particular metre and for a certain parallelism makes him at times forget his connexion of thought. So manifest is the scholastic formalism which we have attributed to the scribal age.
Lam 2:2. Delete daughter, substitute king for kingdom, and with some transposition we get the writers ideas better expressed thus:
Lordly One has swallowed up, and has not spared Judahs vales;
Has torn, and flung to earth her fortress;
Angry even to over-boiling wrath, He has destroyed her king and princes.
Lam 2:3. horn is used in the sense of power, as is usual.
Lam 2:4 a has a word too many for the metre: which word shall be omitted? Gray omits like a foe, because the author did not care much for sectional parallelism. The second line must run on to Zion, while the end of the third line has been lost.
Lam 2:5. has several marks of late Judaism, such as Lordly One, and Moedh. Alliteration was much liked by Hebrews and Jews, and a good illustration of it occurs in Lam 2:5, where Cheyne translates moaning and bemoaning: but Streane gives groaning and moaning.
Lam 2:6. Omitting a Heb. letter we get clear and good sense thus: He has done violence to His arboured garden. Here, too, beside His Trysted place some late annotating reader has set Sabbath, as an equally sacred thing: this is a mark of the growth of formalism.
Lam 2:7. The noisy invasion of the Temple seems meant as that of Pompey, rather than that of Antiochus: had the latter been intended, there would have been a word about his desecration of the altar (see Josephus, Ant. xii. 5, xiv. 4).
Lam 2:9 f. is pitifully sad; the eyes have run tears till they are dry; honour is poured out on the ground.
Lam 2:13. The song becomes a passionate wail, like the sleepless weariness of a wrecked soul. What could be like this tragic undoing of Jerusalem? Her wound gapes, big as the sea: who could possibly heal it? How well does all this make us realise the heart of Jesus when He rose and cried, Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden.
Lam 2:14-17 rehearses again the sorrows, especially laying blame on false preachers: these had lied, mocking at warnings of danger and banishments and punishments. So now Gods vengeance lies herein, that all lands mock at Zion, and say, Ha! Is this city the perfect beauty? Is this the place of joy for all the earth? Ha, ha! Omit in Lam 2:15 the commentators remark, Of which they will say. Evidently some preachers had been proclaiming the apocalyptic theory that Israel was to be the chief people in all the earth: another note of date, for this was a favourite faith of the generations just before the birth of Jesus. A wonderful faith it was, foolish indeed in many ways, yet grand in its fault. Moreover, Jesus fulfilled it.
Lam 2:16. Now appears a remarkable thing: an inversion of the usual order of the Heb. alphabetical letters Ayin and Pe. Usually the order would be Pe, Ayin, but here Pe begins Lam 2:16, and Ayin begins Lam 2:17. The same strange feature is found also in chs. 3 and 4. It occurs nowhere else in Heb. literature, except in the alphabetical Psalms 9, 10, at least as this is restored by Duhm. That Psalm seems to have peculiar doctrinal evidences of having been written by a scribe of the first century B.C. Did that scribe compose these three Laments?
Lam 2:17 pictures the hatred of the people by their enemies, and the patronising mockery of Yahweh by these: He has at last done what He threatened, has He? We knew all along that either He or someone else would have to crush this Zion. All the more bitter, following this taunt, is the aching moan of the song, O Maiden-city, cry, cry; cease not to cry to the Lordly One. By day, by night, pray; Oh weep and pray.
Lam 2:19. A fourth line has been needlessly added, as a marginal note no doubt, by some reader.
Lam 2:20-22. Zions prayer: here sore need makes the approach to God more pressing, even more familiar than before. Zion does not now say, O Lordly One, but O Yahweh. It is Yahwehs own daughter that is beseeching the Fathers heart only to look and see that it is she whom He has so hurt. Her cry becomes a ghastly thing: mothers are eating their babes; priests are murdered in the Temple; old and young, virgins and lads, lie dead in the streets.
Lam 2:22 is most pathetic of all, Wilt Thou not summon a Trysting meeting, as the old faith expected, to consider all this? And yet, from the hamlets all about no man can come now, for there all are dead! So ends this saddest of all the Laments, full of pitiful scenes, black and awful with woe. The pleading before Yahweh makes ones own eyes wet. Oh, is it really Thou! Canst Thou not stay Thy hand? rises the cry. All this misery is unlike the condition in which Nebuchadrezzar left Jerusalem. Then the poor people were put into some comfort. Jeremiah was well pleased to stay in Jerusalem; and he bade the exiles pray for the Babylonians. The Servant-Singer preached Yahwehs love to them. And more remarkable still is Ezekiels constant insistence that Babylon is Yahwehs hand. It is Babylon that shall set all nations to rights, and shall be rewarded greatly for her coming punishment of Egypt. Surely these Laments come from a very different condition of things. On the other hand, all is just like the conditions just before Jesus came; when so many were broken-hearted, and were waiting for some Consolation of Israel. This second Lament is surely a prelude to the Gospel of the Saviour.
2:1 How hath the Lord {a} covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, [and] cast down from {b} heaven to the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his {c} footstool in the day of his anger!
(a) That is, brought her from prosperity to adversity.
(b) Has given her a most sore fall.
(c) Alluding to the temple, or to the ark of the covenant, which was called the footstool of the Lord, because they would not set their minds so low, but lift up their heart toward the heavens.
A. God’s anger 2:1-10
"There are about forty descriptions of divine judgment, which fell upon every aspect of the Jews’ life: home, religion, society, physical, mental and spiritual. Some of the blackest phrases of the book appear here . . ." [Note: Irving L. Jensen, Jeremiah and Lamentations, p. 132.]
Jeremiah pictured the sovereign Lord (Heb. ’adonay) overshadowing Jerusalem, personified as a young woman, with a dark cloud because of His anger. The Lord had cast the city from the heights of glory to the depths of ignominy (cf. Isa 14:12). It had been as a footstool for His feet, but He had not given it preferential treatment in His anger. The footstool may be a reference to the ark of the covenant (cf. 1Ch 28:2; Psa 99:5) or the temple, but it probably refers to Jerusalem.
GOD AS AN ENEMY
Lam 2:1-9
THE elegist, as we have seen, attributes the troubles of the Jews to the will and. action of God. In the second poem he even ventures further, and with daring logic presses this idea to its ultimate issues. If God is tormenting His people in fierce anger it must be because He is their enemy-so the sad-hearted patriot reasons. The course of Providence does not shape itself to him as a merciful chastisement, as a veiled blessing; its motive seems to be distinctly unfriendly. He drives his dreadful conclusion home with great amplitude of details. In order to appreciate the force of it let us look at the illustrative passage in two ways-first, in view of the calamities inflicted on Jerusalem, all of which are here ascribed to God, and then with regard to those thoughts and purposes of their Divine Author which appear to be revealed in them.
First, then, we have the earthly side of the process. The daughter of Zion is covered with a cloud. {Lam 2:1} The metaphor would be more striking in the brilliant East than it is to us in our habitually sombre climate. There it would suggest unwonted gloom-the loss of the customary light of heaven, rare distress, and excessive melancholy. It is a general, comprehensive image intended to overshadow all that follows. Terrible disasters cover the aspect of all things from zenith to horizon. The physical darkness that accompanied the horrors of Golgotha is here anticipated, not indeed by any actual prophecy, but in idea.
But there is more than gloom. A mere cloud may lift, and discover everything unaltered by the passing shadow. The distress that has fallen on Jerusalem is not thus superficial and transient. She herself has suffered a fatal fall. The beauty of Israel has been cast down from heaven to earth. The language is now varied; instead of “the daughter of Zion” we have “the beauty of Israel.” {Lam 2:1} The use of the larger title, “Israel,” is not a little significant. It shews that the elegist is alive to the idea of the fundamental unity of his race, a unity which could not be destroyed by centuries of inter-tribal warfare. Although in the ungracious region of politics Israel stood aloof from Judah, the two peoples were frequently treated as one by poets and prophets when religious ideas were in mind. Here apparently the vastness of the calamities of Jerusalem has obliterated the memory of jealous distinctions. Similarly we may see the great English race-British and American-forgetting national divisions in pursuit of its higher religious aims, as in Christian missions; and we may be sure that this blood-unity would be felt most keenly under the shadow of a great trouble on either side of the Atlantic. By the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the northern tribes had been scattered, but the use of the distinctive name of these people is a sign that the ancient oneness of all who traced back their pedigree to the patriarch Jacob was still recognised. It is some compensation for the endurance of trouble to find it thus breaking down the middle wall of partition between estranged brethren.
It has been suggested with probability that by the expression “the beauty of Israel” the elegist intended to indicate the temple. This magnificent pile of buildings, crowning one of the hills of Jerusalem, arid shining with gold in “barbaric splendour,” was the central object of beauty among all the people who revered the worship it enshrined. Its situation would naturally suggest the language here employed. Jerusalem rises among the hills of Judah, some two thousand feet above the sea-level; and when viewed from the wilderness in the south she looks indeed like a city built in the heavens. But the physical exaltation of Jerusalem and her temple was surpassed by exaltation in privilege, and prosperity, and pride. Capernaum, the vain city of the lake that would raise herself to heaven, is warned by Jesus that she shall be cast down to Hades. {Mat 11:23} Now not only Jerusalem, but the glory of the race of Israel, symbolised by the central shrine of the national religion, is thus humiliated.
Still keeping in mind the temple, the poet tells us that God has forgotten His footstool. He seems to be thinking of the Mercy-Seat over the ark, the spot at which God was thought to shew Himself propitious to Israel on the great Day of Atonement, and which was looked upon as the very centre of the Divine presence. In the destruction of the temple the holiest places were outraged, and the ark itself carried off or broken up, and never more heard of. How different was this from the story of the loss of the ark in the days of Eli, when the Philistines were constrained to send it home of their own accord! Now no miracle intervenes to punish the heathen for their sacrilege. Yes, surely God must have forgotten His footstool! So it seems to the sorrowful Jew, perplexed at the impunity with which this crime has been committed.
But the mischief is not confined to the central shrine. It has extended to remote country regions and simple rustic folk. The shepherds hut has shared the fate of the temple of the Lord. All the habitations of Jacob-a phrase which in the original points to country cottages-have been swallowed up. {Lam 2:2} The holiest is not spared on account of its sanctity, neither is the lowliest on account of its obscurity. The calamity extends to all districts, to all things, to all classes.
If the shepherds cot is contrasted with the temple and the ark because of its simplicity, the fortress may be contrasted with this defenceless hut because of its strength. Yet even the strongholds have been thrown down. More than this, the action of the Jews army has been paralysed by the God who had been its strength and support in the glorious olden time. It is as though the right hand of the warrior had been seized from behind and drawn back at the moment when it was raised to strike a blow for deliverance. The consequence is that the flower of the army, “all that were pleasant to the eye,” {Lam 2:4} are slain. Israel herself is swallowed up, while her palaces and fortresses are demolished.
The climax of this mystery of Divine destruction is reached when God destroys His own temple. The elegist returns to the dreadful subject as though fascinated by the terror of it. God has violently taken away His tabernacle. {Lam 1:6} The old historic name of the sanctuary of Israel recurs at this crisis of ruin; and it is particularly appropriate to the image which follows, an image which possibly it suggested. If we are to understand the metaphor of the sixth verse as it is rendered in the English Authorised and Revised Versions, we have to suppose a reference to some such booth of boughs as people were accustomed to put up for their shelter during the vintage, and which would be removed as soon as it had served its temporary purpose. The solid temple buildings had been swept away as easily as though they were just such flimsy structures, as though they had been “of a garden.” But we can read the text more literally, and still find good sense in it. According to the strict translation of the original, God is said to have violently taken away His tabernacle “as a garden.” At the siege of a city the fruit gardens that encircle it are the first victims of the destroyers axe. Lying out beyond the walls they are entirely unprotected, while the impediments they offer to the movements of troops and instruments of war induce the commander to order their early demolition. Thus Titus had the trees cleared from the Mount of Olives, so that one of the first incidents in the Roman siege of Jerusalem must have been the destruction of the Garden of Gethsemane. Now the poet compares the ease with which the great massive temple-itself a powerful fortress, and enclosed within the city walls-was demolished, with the simple process of scouring the outlying gardens. So the place of assembly disappears, and with it the assembly itself, so that even the sacred Sabbath is passed over and forgotten. Then the two heads of the nation-the king, its civil ruler, and the priest, its ecclesiastical chief are both despised in the indignation of Gods anger.
The central object of the sacred shrine is the altar, where earth seems to meet heaven in the high mystery of sacrifice. Here men seek to propitiate God; here too God would be expected to shew Himself gracious to men. Yet God has even cast off His altar, abhorring His very sanctuary. {Lam 2:7} Where mercy is most confidently anticipated, there of all places nothing but wrath and rejection are to be found. What prospect could be more hopeless?
The deeper thought that God rejects His sanctuary because His people have first rejected Him is not brought forward just now. Yet this solution of the mystery is prepared by a contemplation of the utter failure of the old ritual of atonement. Evidently that is not always effective, for here it has broken down entirely; then can it ever be inherently efficacious? It cannot be enough to trust to a sanctuary and ceremonies which God Himself destroys. But further, out of this scene which was so perplexing to the pious Jew, there flashes to us the clear truth that nothing is so abominable in the sight of God as an attempt to worship Him on the part of people who are living at enmity with Him. We can also perceive that if God shatters our sanctuary, perhaps He does so in order to prevent us from making a fetich of it. Then the loss of shrine and altar and ceremony may be the saving of the superstitious worshipper who is thereby taught to turn to some more stable source of confidence.
This, however, is not the line of reflections followed by the elegist in the present instance. His mind is possessed with one dark, awful, crushing thought. All this is Gods work. And why has God done it? The answer to that question is the idea that here dominates the mind of the poet. It is because God has become an enemy. There is no attempt to mitigate the force of this daring idea. It is stated in the strongest possible terms, and repeated again and again at every turn – Israels cloud is the effect of Gods anger; it has come in the day of His anger; God is acting with fierce anger, with a flaming fire of wrath. This must mean that God is decidedly inimical. He is behaving as an adversary; He bends His bow; He manifests violence. It is not merely that God permits the adversaries of Israel to commit their ravages with impunity; God commits those ravages; He is Himself the enemy. He shews indignation. He despises, He abhors. And this is all deliberate. The destruction is carried out with the same care and exactitude that characterise the erection of a building. It is as though it were done with a measuring line. God surveys to destroy.
The first thing to be noticed in this unhesitating ascription to God of positive enmity is the striking evidence it contains of faith in the Divine power, presence, and activity. These were no more visible to the mere observer of events in the destruction of Jerusalem than in the shattering of the French empire at Sedan. In the one case as in the other all that the world could see was the crushing military defeat and its fatal consequences. The victorious army of the Babylonians filled the field as completely in the old time as that of the Germans in the modern event. Yet the poet simply ignores its existence. He passes it with sublime indifference, his mind filled with the thought of the unseen Power behind. He has not a word for Nebuchadnezzar, because he is assured that this mighty monarch is nothing but a tool in the hands of the real Enemy of the Jews. A man of smaller faith would not have penetrated sufficiently beneath the surface to have conceived the idea of Divine enmity in connection with a series of occurrences so very mundane as the ravages of war. A heathenish faith would have acknowledged in this defeat of Israel a triumph of the might of Bel or Nebo over the power of Jehovah. Rut so convinced is the elegist of the absolute supremacy of his God that no such idea is suggested to him even as a temptation of unbelief. He knows that the action of the true God is supreme in everything that happens, whether the event be favourable or unfavourable to His people. Perhaps it is only owing to the dreary materialism of current thought that we should he less likely to discover an indication of the enmity of God in some huge national calamity.
Still, although this idea of the elegist is a fruit of his unshaken faith in the universal sway of God, it startles and shocks us, and we shrink from it almost as though it contained some blasphemous suggestion. Is it ever right to think of God as the enemy of any man? It would not be fair to pass judgment on the author of the Lamentations on the ground of a cold consideration of this abstract question. We must remember the terrible situation in which he stood-his beloved city destroyed, the revered temple of his fathers a mass of charred ruins, his people scattered in exile and captivity, tortured, slaughtered; these were not circumstances to encourage a course of calm and measured reflection. We must not expect the sufferer to carry out an exact chemical analysis of his cup of woe before uttering an exclamation on its quality; and if it should be that the burning taste induces him to speak too strongly of its ingredients, we who only see him swallow it without being required to taste a drop ourselves should be slow to examine his language too nicely. He who has never entered Gethsemane is not in a position to understand how dark may be the views of all things seen beneath its sombre shade. If the Divine sufferer on the cross could speak as though His God had actually deserted Him, are we to condemn an Old Testament saint when he ascribes unspeakably great troubles to the enmity of God?
Is this, then, but the rhetoric of misery? If it be no more, while we seek to sympathise with the feelings of a very dramatic situation, we shall not be called upon to go further and discover in the language of the poet any positive teaching about God and His ways with man. But are we at liberty to stop short here? Is the elegist only expressing his own feelings? Have we a right to affirm that there can be no objective truth in the awful idea of the enmity of God.
In considering this question we must be careful to dismiss from our minds the unworthy associations that only too commonly attach themselves to notions of enmity among men. Hatred cannot be ascribed to One whose deepest name is Love. No spite, malignity, or evil passion of any kind can be found in the heart of the Holy God. When due weight is given to these negations very much that we usually see in the practice of enmity disappears. But this is not to say that the idea itself is denied, or the fact shown to be impossible.
In the first place, we have no warrant for asserting that God will never act in direct and intentional opposition to any of His creatures. There is one obvious occasion when He certainly does this. The man who resists the laws of nature finds those laws working against him. He is not merely running his head against a stone wall; the laws are not inert obstructions in the path of the transgressor; they represent forces in action. That is to say, they resist their opponent with vigorous antagonism. In themselves they are blind, and they bear him no ill-will. But the Being who wields the forces is not blind or indifferent. The laws of nature are, as Kingsley said, but the ways of God. If they are opposing a man God is opposing that man. But God does not confine His action to the realm of physical processes. His providence works through the whole course of events in the worlds history. What we see evidently operating in nature we may infer to be equally active in less visible regions. Then if. we believe in a God who rules and works in the world, we cannot suppose that His activity is confined to aiding what is good. It is unreasonable to imagine that He stands aside in passive negligence of evil. And if He concerns Himself to thwart evil, what is this but manifesting Himself as the enemy of the evildoer?
It may be contended, on the other side, that there is a world of difference between antagonistic actions and unfriendly feelings, and that the former by no means imply the latter. May not God oppose a man who is doing wrong, not at all because He is his Enemy, but just because He is his truest Friend? Is it not an act of real kindness to save a man from himself when his own will is leading him astray? This of course must be granted, and being granted, it will certainly affect our views of the ultimate issues of what we may be compelled to regard in its present operation as nothing short of Divine antagonism. It may remind us that the motives lying behind the most inimical action on Gods part may be merciful and kind in their aims. Still, for the time being, the opposition is a reality, and a reality which to all intents and purposes is one of enmity, since it resists, frustrates, hurts.
Nor is this all. We have no reason to deny that God can have real anger. Is it not right and just that He should be “angry with the wicked every day”? {Psa 7:11} Would He not be imperfect in holiness, would He not be less than God, if He could behold vile deeds springing from vile hearts with placid indifference? We must believe that Jesus Christ was as truly revealing the Father when He was moved with indignation as when He was moved with compassion. His life shows quite clearly that He was the enemy of oppressors and hypocrites, and He plainly declared that He came to bring a sword. {Mat 10:34} His mission was a war against all evil, and therefore, though not waged with carnal weapons, a war against evil men. The Jewish authorities were perfectly right in perceiving this fact. They persecuted Him as their enemy; and He was their enemy. This statement is no contradiction to the gracious truth that He desired to save all men, and therefore even these men. If Gods enmity to any soul were eternal it would conflict with His love. It cannot be that He wishes the ultimate ruin of one of His own children. But if He is at the present time actively opposing a man, and if He is doing this in anger, in the wrath of righteousness against sin, it is only quibbling with words to deny that for the time being He is a very real enemy to that man.
The current of thought in the present day is not in any sympathy with this idea of God as an Enemy, partly in its revulsion from harsh and un-Christlike conceptions of God, partly also on account of the modern humanitarianism which almost loses sight of sin in its absorbing love of mercy. But the tremendous fact of the Divine enmity towards the sinful man so long as he persists in his sin is not to be lightly brushed aside. It is not wise wholly to forget that “our God is a consuming fire.” {Heb 12:29} It is in consideration of this dread truth that the atonement wrought by His Son according to His own will of love.is discovered to be an action of vital efficacy, and not a mere scenic display.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary