Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Lamentations 4:12
The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.
12. all the inhabitants of the world ] an ordinary form of Eastern hyperbole, suggesting to their minds only the same notion as our every body, the obvious limitations being given by the sense in each case. The preaching of Isaiah, supported as it was by the overthrow of Sennacherib (2Ki 19:34 f.), led to the belief, in spite of Jeremiah’s warnings, that Jerusalem could not be absolutely overthrown, a belief which the writer here evidently had shared. This circumstance of itself throws doubt upon Jeremiah’s authorship of this book. Jerusalem’s fortifications, in fact, had been much strengthened by Uzziah (2Ch 26:9), Jotham ( ib. 2Ch 27:3), and Manasseh ( ib. 2Ch 33:14).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Though Jerusalem had been several times captured 1Ki 14:26; 2Ki 14:13; 2Ki 23:33-35, yet it had been so strongly fortified by Uzziah and his successors as to have been made virtually impregnable. Its present capture by Nebuchadnezzar had cost him a year and a halfs siege.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. The kings of the earth] Jerusalem was so well fortified, both by nature and art, that it appeared as a miracle that it should be taken at all.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Jerusalem was so naturally and artificially fortified, and so favoured by God, and taken notice of as a place which the Lord cared for, and watched over, that it could not have entered into the thoughts of any of those that were enemies to it, that they should ever have been able to make themselves masters of it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. Jerusalem was so fortifiedthat all thought it impregnable. It therefore could only have beenthe hand of God, not the force of man, which overthrew it.
Mem.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world,…. Not only the neighbouring nations, and the kings of them, but even such in all parts of the world that knew anything of Jerusalem:
would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy would have entered into the gates of Jerusalem; when it was besieging, they did not believe it would be taken; and when they heard it was, it was incredible to them; it being so strongly fortified by art and nature, with mountains and hills, with walls and bulwarks, and had such a vast number of people in it; and, especially, was the city of the great God, who had so often and so signally preserved and saved it: the “adversary” and “enemy” are the same, and design the Chaldeans. The Targum distinguishes them, and makes Nebuchadnezzar the ungodly to be the adversary; and Nebuzaradan the enemy, who entered to slay the people of the house of Israel, in the gates of Jerusalem; this was a marvellous thing to the nations round about. Titus, when he took this city, acknowledged it was owing to God b;
“God (says he) favouring us, we fought; God is he that has drawn the Jews out of these fortresses; for human hands and machines could have done nothing against these towers.”
b Joseph. De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 9. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
This judgment of wrath is a consequence of the sins of the prophets and priests (Lam 4:12-16), as well as of their vain trust on the help of man (Lam 4:17-20). Lam 4:12. The capture of Jerusalem by enemies (an event which none in all the world thought possible) has been brought on through the sins of the prophets and priests. The words, “the kings of the earth…did not believe that an enemy would come in at the gates of Jerusalem,” are well explained by C. B. Michaelis, thus : reputando fortitudinem urbis, quae munitissima erat, tum defensorem ejus Jehovam, qui ab hostibus, ad internecionem caesis, urbem aliquoties, mirifice liberaverat , e.g., 2 Reg. 19:34. The words certainly form a somewhat overdrawn expression of deep subjective conviction; but they cannot properly be called a hyperbole, because the remark of Ngelsbach, that Jerusalem had been taken more than once before Nebuchadnezzar (1Ki 14:26; 2Ki 14:13.; 2Ch 33:11; 2Ki 23:33.), seems incorrect. For the occasions upon which Jerusalem was taken by Shishak and by Joash king of Israel (1 Kings 14 and 2 Kings 14) belong to those earlier times when Jerusalem was far from being so strongly fortified as it afterwards became, in the times of Uzziah, Jotham, and Manasseh (2Ch 26:9; 2Ch 27:3; 2Ch 33:14). In 2Ch 33:11, on the other hand, there is nothing said of Jerusalem being taken; and the capture by Pharaoh-Necho does not call for consideration, in so far as it forms the beginning of the catastrophe, whose commencement was thought impossible. Ewald wrongly connects Lam 4:13 with Lam 4:12 into one sentence, thus: “that an enemy would enter the gates of Jerusalem because of the sins of her prophets,” etc. The meaning of these verses is thereby not merely weakened, but also misrepresented; and there is ascribed to the kings and inhabitants of the world an opinion regarding the internal evils of Jerusalem, which they neither pronounced nor could have pronounced.
Lam 4:12-14 Lam 4:12 contains an exclamation over the incredible event that has happened, and Lam 4:13 assigns the cause of it: the mediating and combining thought, “this incredible thing has happened,” suggests itself. It has taken place on account of the sins of her prophets and priests, who have shed the blood of righteous men in Jerusalem. A historic proof of this is furnished in Jer 26:7., where priests and prophets indicted Jeremiah on a capital charge, because he had announced that Jerusalem and the temple would suffer the fate of Shiloh; from this, Ngelsbach rightly concludes that, in any case, the burden of the guilt of the martyr-blood that was shed falls on the priests and prophets. Besides this, cf. the denunciations of the conduct of the priests and prophets in Jer 6:13-15; Jer 23:11; Jer 27:10; Eze 22:25. – In Lam 4:14, Lam 4:15, there is described the fate of these priests and prophets, but in such a way that Jeremiah has, throughout, mainly the priests before his mind. We may then, without further hesitation, think of the priests as the subject of , inasmuch as they are mentioned last. Kalkschmidt wrongly combines Lam 4:13 and Lam 4:14, thus: “because of the sins of the prophets…they wander about,” etc.; in this way, the Israelites would be the subject to , and in Lam 4:14 the calamitas ex sacerdotum prophetarumque sceleribus profecta would be described. This, however, is contradicted, not merely by the undeniable retrospection of the expression, “they have polluted themselves with blood” (Lam 4:14), to the shedding of blood mentioned in Lam 4:13, but also by the whole contents of Lam 4:14, especially the impossibility of touching their clothes, which does not well apply to the people of Israel (Judah), but only to the priests defiled with blood. Utterly erroneous is the opinion of Pareau, Ewald, and Thenius, that in Lam 4:14-16 there is “presented a fragment from the history of the last siege of Jerusalem,” – a rupture among the besieged, headed by the most eminent of the priests and prophets, who, filled with frenzy and passion against their fellow-citizens, because they would not believe in the speedy return of the exiles, became furious, and caused their opponents to be murdered. Regarding this, there is neither anything historical known, nor is there any trace of it to be discovered in these verses. The words, “prophets and priests hesitated (or wavered) like blind men on the streets, soiled with blood, so that none could touch their clothes,” merely state that these men, smitten of God in consequence of their blood-guiltiness, wandered up and down in the streets of the city, going about like blind men. This description has been imitated from such passages as Deu 28:28., Jer 23:12; Isa 29:9, where the people, and especially their leaders, are threatened, as a punishment, with blind and helpless staggering; but it is not to be referred to the time of the last siege of Jerusalem. does not mean caedium perpetrandarum insatiabili cupiditate occaecati (Rosenmller), nor “as if intoxicated with blood that has been shed” (Ngelsbach), but as if struck with blindness by God, so that they could no longer walk with firm and steady step. “They are defiled with blood” is a reminiscence from Isa 59:3. As to the form , compounded of the Niphal and Pual, cf. Ewald, 132, b, and Delitzsch on Isaiah, l.c. , without one being able, i.e., so that one could not. As to the construction of with a finite verb following, instead of the infinitive with , cf. Ewald, 285, c, c, and Gesenius, 142, 3, b.
Lam 4:15 “Yea, they (people) address to them the warning cry with which, according to Lev 13:45, lepers were obliged to warn those whom they met not to come near.” Such is the language in which Gerlach has rightly stated the connection between Lam 4:14 and Lam 4:15. is rendered by many, “people shouted out regarding them,” de iis , because, according to Lev 13:45, it was the lepers who were to shout “Unclean!” to those they met; the cry therefore was not addressed to the unclean, but to those who, being clean, were not to defile themselves by touching lepers. But though this meaning may be taken from the language used (cf. Gen 20:13; Psa 3:3), yet here, where the call is addressed to persons, it is neither probable nor necessary. For it does not follow from the allusion to the well-known direction given to lepers, that this prescription is transferred verbatim to the present case. The call is here addressed to the priests, who are staggering towards them with blood-stained garments. These must get out of the way, and not touch those they meet. The sing. .gni is accounted for by the allusion to Lev 13:45, and means, “Out of the way! there comes one who is unclean.” The second half of the verse is variously viewed. , as Milra, comes from , which in Niphal means to wrangle, in Hiphil to stir up strife. The Vulgate, accordingly, translates jurgati quippe sunt , and Ewald still renders, “yet they quarrelled, yet they staggered.” But this view is opposed by these considerations: (1.) … can neither introduce an antithesis, nor mean “yet…yet.” (2.) In view of the shedding of blood, wrangling is a matter of too little importance to deserve mention. Luther’s rendering, “because they feared and fled from them,” is a mere conjecture, and finds no support whatever from the words employed. Hence Gesenius, in his Thesaurus, has rightly explained , after , Jer 48:9, “to fly, flee, or take to flight.” Following him, the moderns translate: “because they had fled, they also staggered about.” It is better to render by quum , “when they fled,” sc. to other nations, not specially to the Chaldeans. is selected with reference to what precedes, but in the general meaning of roaming restlessly about. The idea is as follows: Not merely were they shunned at home, like lepers, by their fellow-countrymen, but also, when they wished to find a place of refuge beyond their native land, they were compelled to wander about without finding rest; for they said among the nations, “They shall no longer sojourn among us.” Thus the curse came on them, Deu 28:65.
Lam 4:16 This was the judgment of God. His face (i.e., in this connection, His angry look; cf. Lev 17:10; Psa 21:10) has scattered them ( as in Gen 49:7). No longer does He (Jahveh) look on the, sc. graciously. The face of the priests is not regarded. , , to regard the person of any one, i.e., to have respect to his position, dignity, and age: the expression is here synonymous with , to show favour. The subject is indefinite, but the enemy is meant. Thus the threatening in Deu 28:50 is fulfilled on them. does not mean “elders,” but “old men,” for the words can be referred only to the priests and prophets formerly spoken of.
Lam 4:17-20 In spite of these facts, which show that God has poured out His fury on us, and that our prophets and priests have been smitten by God for their sins, we still wait, vainly relying on the help of man. In this way, Lam 4:17 is attached to what precedes, – not merely to Lam 4:16, but also the series of thoughts developed in Lam 4:12-16, viz., that in the capture of Jerusalem (which nobody thought possible) there is plainly made known the judgment of God upon the sins of His people and their leaders. It is with special emphasis that stands at the beginning of the verse: “still do our eyes continue to waste away.” The form ( Kethib), in place of which the Qeri subtitles , is abnormal, since does not take plural forms of the suffix in any other instance, and does not occur elsewhere as a noun-suffix. The form is evidently copied from , and must be third fem. pl., as distinguished from the singular suffix , 1Ki 1:22. The Qeri , which is preferred by Michaelis, Pareau, Rosenmller, and Thenius, has for its basis the idea “we still were;” this is shown by the translation of the lxx, and cum adhuc subsisteremus of Jerome. But this view of the word, like most of the Qeri s, is a useless attempt at explanation; for alone cannot have the meaning attributed to it. and the supplements proposed, in statu priori , or “in the city,” are but arbitrary insertions into the text. The combination , which is a rare one, evidently means, “our eyes are still pining (consuming) away,” so that the imperfect is used with the meaning of the participle; cf. Ewald, 306, c, Rem. 2. The combination of with is pregnant: “they consume away (while looking out) for our help;” cf. Deu 28:28; Psa 69:4. is not an exclamation, “in vain!” (Thenius), but stands in apposition to “our help;” thus, “for our help, a help of vanity,” i.e., for a vain help; cf. Ewald, 287, c. The vain help is more distinctly specified in the second member of the verse, as a looking out for a nation that will not help. does not mean “the watch-tower” (Chald., Syr., etc.), – because “on the watch-tower” would require to be expressed by ; cf. Isa 21:8; 2Ch 20:24, – but “watching.” By the “nation that does not help,” expositors, following Jer 37:7, think that Egypt is intended. But the words must by no means be referred to the event there described, inasmuch as we should then be obliged to take the verbs as preterites-a course which would not accord with the interchange of the imperfect ( ) with the perfect ( ). A strange confusion would also arise, such as is made out by Vaihinger: for we would find the prophet placing his readers, in Lam 4:14, in the time of the siege of Jerusalem; then, in Lam 4:15, into the conquered city; and in Lam 4:17 and Lam 4:18, back once more into the beleaguered city, which we again, in Lam 4:19, see conquered (Gerlach). According to Lam 4:18-20, Judah is completely in the power of the Chaldeans; hence the subject treated of in Lam 4:17 is the looking out for the assistance of some nation, after the enemy had already taken Jerusalem and laid it in ashes. What the prophet denounces, then, is that help is still looked for from a nation which nevertheless will not help. In this, perhaps, he may have had Egypt before his mind; for, that the Jews, even after the destruction of Jerusalem, still looked for deliverance or help from Egypt, may be inferred partly from the fact that those who were left in the country fled thither for refuge, and partly from Eze 29:16. Only, the words are not to be restricted merely to this.
Lam 4:18-20 In order to show convincingly how vain it is to expect help from man, Jeremiah, in Lam 4:18-20, reminds his readers of the events immediately preceding the capture of the city, which have proved that nobody – not even the king himself – could avoid falling into the hands of the Chaldeans. Gerlach has correctly given the sense of these verses thus: “They still cling to their hopes, and are nevertheless completely in the power of the enemy, from whom they cannot escape. All their movements are closely watched; it is impossible for any one to deceive himself any longer: it is all over with the nation, now that all attempts at flight have failed (Lam 4:19), and that the king, ‘the life’s breath’ of the nation, has fallen into the hands of the enemy.” Gerlach and Ngelsbach have already very properly set aside the strange and fanciful idea of Ewald, that in Lam 4:18 it is still Egypt that is regarded, and that the subject treated of is, – how Egypt, merely through fear of the Chaldeans, had at that time publicly forbidden the fugitives to go to Palestine for purposes of grace and traffic. These same writers have also refuted the arbitrary interpretation put upon ‘ by Thenius and Vaihinger, who imagine there is a reference to towers used in a siege, from which the besiegers could not merely perceive all that was going on within the city, but also shoot at persons who showed themselves in exposed places. In reply to this, Ngelsbach appropriately remarks that we must not judge of the siege-material of the ancients by the range of cannon. Moreover, does not mean to spy out, but to search out, pursue; and the figure is taken from the chase. The idea is simply this: The enemy (the Chaldeans) watch us in our every step, so that we can no longer move freely about. Our end is near, yea, it is already come; cf. Eze 7:2-6. A proof of this is given in the capture of King Zedekiah, after he had fled in the night, Lam 4:19. For an elucidation of the matters contained in these verses, cf. Jer 39:4., Jer 52:7. The comparison of the enemy to eagles is taken from Deu 28:49, whence Jeremiah has already derived Lam 4:13 and 48:40. , prop. to burn, metaph. to pursue hotly, is here (poet.) construed with acc., but elsewhere with ; cf. Gen 31:36; 1Sa 17:53. “On the hills and in the wilderness,” i.e., on every side, even in inaccessible places. “In the wilderness” alludes to the capture of Zedekiah; cf. Jer 39:5. “The breath of our nostrils” is an expression founded on Gen 2:7, and signifying “our life’s breath.” Such is the designation given to the king, – not Zedekiah in special, whose capture is here spoken of, because he ex initio magnam de se spem concitaverat, fore ut post tristia Jojakimi et Jechoniae fata pacatior res publica esset (Aben Ezra, Michaelis, Vaihinger), but the theocratic king, as the anointed of the Lord, and as the one who was the bearer of God’s promise, 2 Sam 7. In elucidation of the figurative expression, Pareau has appropriately reminded is of Seneca’s words ( Clement. i. 4): ille (princeps) est spiritus vitalis, quem haec tot millia (civium) trahunt . “What the breath is, in relation to the life and stability of the body, such is the king in relation to the life and stability of the nation” (Gerlach). “Of whom we said (thought), Under his shadow (i.e., protection and covering) we shall live among the nations.” It is not implied in these words, as Ngelsbach thinks, that “they hoped to fall in with a friendly heathen nation, and there, clustering around their king, as their protector and the pledge of a better future, spend their days in freedom, if no more,” but merely that, under the protection of their king, they hoped to live even among the heathen, i.e., to be able to continue their existence, and to prosper as a nation. For, so long as there remained to them the king whom God had given, together with the promises attached to the kingdom, they might cherish the hope that the Lord would still fulfil to them these promises also. But this hope seemed to be destroyed when the king was taken prisoner, deprived of sight, and carried away to Babylon into captivity. The words “taken in their pits” are figurative, and derived from the capture of wild animals. as in Psa 107:20. On the figure of the shadow, cf. Jdg 9:15; Eze 31:17.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
He confirms the same thing; for when a thing incredible happens, either we are extremely stupid, or we must be moved and affected. The Prophet, then, now says that the destruction of the city of Jerusalem had been incredible, because God had defended it by his power; it was also so fortified that no one believed that it could be taken, and the grandeur of the city was known everywhere.
He then says that Jerusalem had been taken and overthrown, which no one of the heathens, neither their kings nor their people, had thought possible. It then follows that the city had been destroyed by God’s hand rather than by the power of enemies. Nebuchadnezzar had indeed brought a strong army, but the city was so well fortified that they thought that all attempts would be in vain. That the city, then, was taken and demolished, could not have been ascribed to human forces, but to a power hidden from the eyes of men. It then follows that it was God’s work, and indeed singular. We now, then, understand the design of the Prophet in saying that it was not believed by kings nor people that enemies could storm Jerusalem. And in continuation he adds, —
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) Would not have believed.In. looking to the fact that Jerusalem had been taken by Shishak (1Ki. 14:26), Joash (2Ki. 14:13), the statement seems at first hyperbolical. It has to be remembered, however, that since the latter of these two the city had been strongly fortified by Uzziah, Hezekiah, and Manasseh, and the failure of Sennacheribs attempt had probably led to the impression that it was impregnable.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SUFFERINGS OF THE PROPHETS AND PRIESTS, Lam 4:12-16.
12. Would not have believed The city had indeed been previously captured by Shishak, king of Egypt, (1Ki 14:25-26,) and Joash, king of Israel, (2Ki 14:13-14,) but it had since been more strongly fortified, so as to be thought impregnable. Even now its capture had cost Nebuchadrezzar a most protracted and expensive siege.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jerusalem’s Predicament Was Largely Due To The Priests And The Prophets Who Would Suffer Accordingly ( Lam 4:12-17 ).
The prophet now draws attention to the fact of how much of Jerusalem’s predicament could be laid at the feet of the priests and prophets, the very people who should have been guiding them aright, and he goes on to point out what this would involve for them.
Lam 4:12
(Lamed) The kings of the earth did not believe,
Nor all the inhabitants of the world,
That the adversary and the enemy,
Would enter into the gates of Jerusalem.
He pictures the whole world as astonished at what had happened to Jerusalem, unable to believe that it could be taken. This statement is probably hyperbole, although having said that it must be admitted that we do not know what the kings and the inhabitants of the world really thought at that time. It may be seen as looking at the view of the kings and the inhabitants of the world from Judah’s point of view. How could they not be astonished?
On the other hand, while it was true that Jerusalem had been take a number of times in the past, that had been before it was so heavily fortified. Even its capture in 597 BC by Nebuchadrezzar had been by surrender and not by its being breached. It may well be therefore that it had gained a powerful reputation so that it was commonly thought that it could not be taken. But what is really behind these words is the fact that they were taken by surprise. They ‘could hardly believe their eyes’.
And they had reason to be surprised. Jerusalem was a powerful fortress city well able to withstand a siege, its elevated location and strong walls making it appear almost impregnable. And when we add to that the tales of how God had delivered it in times of trouble, most noticeably in the time of Hezekiah, it may well have gained a reputation for such impregnability. Jerusalem had after all been one of the few cities to successfully resist Assyria. Given the fact that it was also ‘a holy city’ it would certainly have had a certain reputation, and people in those days had an awe of something that was ‘holy’. They would remember that Assyria had been unable to take it, and that even in 597 BC its walls had not been breached.
Lam 4:13
(Mem) It is because of the sins of her prophets,
And the iniquities of her priests,
Who have shed in the midst of her,
The blood of the righteous.
But the prophet has an explanation of why it had now been taken. It was because of the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests (see Jer 6:13; Jer 23:11) who had shed innocent blood in the midst of her, especially the blood of the righteous, that is, those who were truly loyal to the covenant and to YHWH. We note immediately that the primary reason has to do with morality, and a gross breach of the covenant. YHWH was very much concerned about the behaviour of His people, and the shedding of blood was seen as especially horrific. One example of such shedding of the blood of the righteous was the prophet Uriah. See Jer 26:20-24 for details. Consider also the death of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2Ch 24:21), the innocent blood shed by Manasseh (2Ki 21:16), and the attempts on Jeremiah’s own life (Jer 26:7).
Lam 4:14-15
(Nun) They wander in the streets,
Like those who are blind,
They are polluted with blood,
So that men cannot touch their clothes.
(Samek) ‘Depart you,’ they cried to them,
‘Unclean! depart, depart, touch not!’
When they fled away and wandered, men said among the nations,
They will no more sojourn here.
The consequence for the priests and prophets is now vividly described. The opening description is probably metaphorical, indicating their then spiritual condition. As they wandered around the streets they were like the ‘blind. They were so blind that they had no understanding of what was true and right. All that they could do was proclaim falsehood. Or it may indicate their condition as a result of the lack of food. Even the priests and prophets were blinded by hunger so that they reeled as they walked.
And because they had ignored the covenant their blindness had resulted in them shedding innocent blood. Many a law case which resulted in such a conclusion would have been decided by the priests or the prophets, who would have been called on to pass a verdict, and whose influence was great in such matters. In consequence they were as men covered with blood, they were ‘polluted with blood’, so that to touch them would render someone unclean. Whether it was metaphorical blood or actual we do not know.
They are therefore seen as wandering around like lepers (Lev 13:45) crying out, ‘Depart. Unclean, unclean. Depart, depart. Do not touch us.’ Alternately the cries might be seen as coming from the onlookers seeking to avoid contact with them. There is something especially poignant in this in that the touching of a pries or prophet would normally have been seen as unthinkable because they were ‘holy’. But now they were being seen as untouchable for the very opposite reason.
The ‘fleeing away and wandering’ may indicate that these are seen as part of the party that went to Egypt. On the other hand it may well indicate their situation wherever they went. Once in exile they are pictured as pariahs, as those who should be avoided, so that men recoiled from them and cried out, ‘they will no more sojourn here’. They would incur a great deal of religious blame for what had happened to the Temple.
But however we interpret them the real purpose of these verses is in order to bring out the horrific nature of what they had done. The men who should have been ensuring that the covenant was maintained at all costs, had in fact participated in ignoring it.
Lam 4:16
(Pe) The anger of YHWH (literally ‘the face of YHWH’) has scattered them,
He will no more regard them,
They respected not the persons of the priests,
They did not show favour to the elders.
It was the face of YHWH revealed in anger which had scattered them. He had no regard for them as priests and prophets. Their status meant nothing to Him. And this was also true of ‘they’. This could mean people in general among the nations, or simply the Israelite exiles. They too did not respect the persons of the priests, who would once have been seen as sacrosanct. Nor did they show favour to the elders, those rulers who had brought them to this situation. Those who had been the most respected of men were now despised.
Alternately ‘the elders’ might be translated ‘the old’ indicating that even the old among the priests and prophets, those who would have been especially honoured, received no favour from the people. .
Lam 4:17
(Ayin) Our eyes do yet fail,
Looking for our help in vain,
In our watching we have watched,
For a nation which could not save.
The prophet’s thoughts now turn to the days of the siege when they had vainly watched from the walls of Jerusalem, looking out eagerly for those who had promised to assist them against the Babylonians, constantly expecting help. After all Egypt had made such great promises, and who could withstand mighty Egypt? This would especially have been so when the news came of the advancing Egyptian army. But they had watched in vain. No help had come. Egypt had turned out to be a nation which could not save.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
God’s Judgment a Consequence of the Sins of the Prophets and Priests
v. 12. The kings of the earth and all the inhabitants of the world would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem. v. 13. For the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, v. 14. They have wandered as blind men in the streets, they have polluted themselves with blood, v. 15. They, v. 16. The anger of the Lord hath divided them, v. 17. As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help, v. 18. They hunt our steps that we cannot go in our streets, v. 19. Our persecutors are swifter than the eagles of the heaven, v. 20. The breath of our nostrils, v. 21. Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz, v. 22. The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Lam 4:12. The kings of the earth Jerusalem was so strongly fortified both by art and nature, and had been so often miraculously preserved by God from the attempts of its enemies, that it seemed almost incredible that it should suffer so total a subversion. See Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Lam 4:12 The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.
Ver. 12. The kings of the earth, &c. ] These, knowing how impregnable a piece Jerusalem was; how the Jebusites of old held out the tower of Zion against David; how long it had kept out Nebuchadnezzar – viz., for two years’ time almost; how it had been preserved by God against Sennacherib, &c., looked upon it as in a son insuperable, and could not but see a divine vengeance in the destruction of it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lam 4:12-20
Judgment against the prophet and priest of Judah
(Lam 4:12-20)
The kings of the earth believed not, neither all the inhabitants of the world, That the adversary and the enemy would enter into the gates of Jerusalem. It is because of the sins of her prophets, [and] the iniquities of her priests, That have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her. They wander as blind men in the streets, they are polluted with blood, So that men cannot touch their garments. Depart ye, they cried unto them, Unclean! depart, depart, touch not! When they fled away and wandered, men said among the nations, They shall no more sojourn [here]. The anger of Jehovah hath scattered them; He will no more regard them: They respected not the persons of the priests, they favored not the elders (Lam 4:12-16).
The prophet and priest should have guided Judah in the paths of righteousness; however, they perverted the word of God (Jer 23:36) and murdered just men who desired Jehovah’s standards (cf.Jer 26:7 ff).
All of Judahs affliction of death by sword, pestilence, and famine had occurred due to the corrupt work of the prophet and priest. Now they were fully exposed! The cry in the street when a prophet or priest was seen was, out of the way! Here comes one who is unclean (cf. Lev 13:45).
Our eyes do yet fail [in looking] for our vain help: In our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save. They hunt our steps, so that we cannot go in our streets: Our end is near, our days are fulfilled; for our end is come. Our pursuers were swifter than the eagles of the heavens: They chased us upon the mountains, they laid wait for us in the wilderness. The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Jehovah, was taken in their pits; Of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the nations (Lam 4:17-20).
Both before the destruction of Jerusalem and after, God s people sought after help in the wrong place. Egypt was sought after in Jer 37:7 and apparently another nation was looked to now. Some placed their hope in Zedekiah, Jehovah s anointed king; however, when Zedekiah was captured, all hope must have disappeared before their eyes. The people and shepherds held on to the bitter end in their rebellion.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Deu 29:24-28, 1Ki 9:8, 1Ki 9:9, Psa 48:4-6
Reciprocal: Lev 26:32 – and your Deu 28:59 – General 2Ki 25:8 – Nebuzaradan 1Ch 11:5 – the castle Psa 125:2 – As the mountains Psa 147:13 – he hath Isa 5:5 – I will take Jer 20:5 – I will deliver Jer 21:13 – Who Jer 22:8 – General Eze 21:20 – the defenced Hab 1:5 – and regard Zec 1:6 – Like
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lam 4:12. Jerusalem had been well known for centuries as the headquarters for a great nation. The histories of David and Solomon and their many important successors had raised the city to a high standing in the estimation of the world. In view of these facts the people of other countries were surprised to see the Jewish capital invaded and completely subdued as the Babylonians had done.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Lam 4:12. The kings of the earth, &c., would not have believed The city was so well fortified, and had been so often miraculously preserved by God from the attempts of its enemies, that it seemed incredible that it should at last fall into their hands. Lowth.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
B. Causes of the siege 4:12-20
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The overthrow of Jerusalem had surprised the leaders and people of other nations. Invaders had forced their way into it in the past (cf. 1Ki 14:25-28; 2Ki 14:13-14; 2Ch 21:16-17), but the citizens had rebuilt and strengthened its defenses (2Ch 32:2-5; 2Ch 33:14). In Jeremiah’s day it appeared impregnable, especially to the people of Jerusalem (cf. 2Sa 5:6-8).
"Jerusalem’s fall in 586 B.C. exposed their false assurance and illustrates a theological truth of Scripture: Sinful and rebellious people, even if outwardly associated with the covenant community and the promises of God, should not presume on His protection." [Note: Chisholm, p. 361.]