INTRODUCTION
1. Background
The book of Lamentations consists of five laments, all but the third based on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in 587 B.C. and its aftermath. The vividness of the pictures points clearly to the work of an eyewitness. Though the author was conscious of the suffering elsewhere in Judah, he concentrated on the situation in Jerusalem.
2. Authorship
In Hebrew the book is anonymous (the LXX has an introductory verse that ascribes authorship to Jeremiah). Arguments for and against authorship by Jeremiah are evenly balanced. We do well, then, to respect the seal of anonymity impressed on the book by the Holy Spirit. The claim for authorship by Jeremiah appears mainly sentimental. Theological similarities with Jeremiah can expected from anyone who accepted his teaching and that of the great prophets in general.
3. Date
Few commentators seriously suggest that any of the five laments fall outside the period 586–538 B.C. Indeed, the lack of national hope points to completion before 562 B.C., when the release of Jehoiachin from prison (2Ki 25:27–30) must have awakened some expectation that Jeremiah’s promises would be fulfilled. Such hope as is expressed in ch.3 is for the individual rather than the nation; elsewhere national hope scarcely rises above anticipation that hostile nations will share the judgment that has befallen Zion.
4. Purpose
Already in Zec 7:3, 5; 8:19, we find that the destruction of the temple on the seventh day of the fifth month (2Ki 25:8–9) was remembered by an annual fast. (This was transferred in the second century A.D. to the ninth day of the month and has since then commemorated the two destructions of the temple as well as the crushing of Bar Kochba’s revolt in A.D. 135.) We may be certain that this fast was observed from the beginning, almost certainly with ceremonies in the ruins of the temple (cf. Jer 41:5, where pilgrimage to the temple area was a goal for pious people). For as far back as tradition reaches, Lamentations has been read on the ninth day of the fifth month; it is reasonable to assume that it was intended for this purpose from the first.
The immediate purpose of the book of Lamentations, however, does not fully explain its presence in the canon, because, at least for the Christian, it would now have little more than historical and antiquarian interest. The Bible finds room for every element of human experience, including overwhelming human sorrow. This can come to the individual (e.g., Job) or to the nation as a whole. In such a position even the comfortable words of Scripture do not always bring solace and a ray of light. Though Jeremiah had set a limit to Babylonian rule (25:11–12) and had promised national restoration (chs. 30–31), the hearts of the survivors were too stunned to appreciate these promises. Even in the era of the Gospel, the same thing occasionally happens; then the brokenhearted who turn to these laments discover that they are not the first to pass through thick darkness before emerging into the sunlight again. Thus they realize that their God is the one who puts their tears onto his scroll (Ps 56:8).
The modern reader may wonder at the extremes of sorrow expressed in the book and may be puzzled that the Jews should have continued to mourn the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. It is in fact hard for us to realize how complete the destruction was.
The old “City of David” lies outside the present city walls. This is only partially due to the effects of the destruction by the Romans. The Chaldeans so broke down the Jebusite and Davidic walls and terraces that restoration was impossible; and Nehemiah had to build his wall much higher up the slope, greatly reducing the area of what had been the center of the city. At the return from exile, a completely new beginning was needed. Lamentations, in this sense, is a funeral dirge over an irrecoverable past.
5. Literary Form
Chapter 5 is a normal Hebrew poem of twenty-two verses. It consists of a long line, normally of five beats, dividing unevenly (3 + 2) and showing much less parallelism than normal Hebrew poetry. It would certainly have suited impromptu eulogizing of the dead. In chs. 1–4 a high proportion of the lines fall into this pattern, but there are sufficient exceptions to show that it was used in no mere mechanical manner.
In addition, these chapters are built on the basis of an alphabetic acrostic. Chapters 1–2 each contain twenty-two verses, each verse having three lines; the first word of each verse begins with one of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet in order. Chapter 4 is on the same pattern but has only two lines to a verse. Chapter 3, with sixty-six verses, has three verses for each letter of the alphabet, thus reminding us of Ps 119 (though there the groups are of eight verses each). A further peculiarity is that in chs. 2–4 pe comes before ayin, contrary to the usual order of the Hebrew alphabet.
Various explanations have been offered for the use of such an acrostic structure. In Ps 119 it aids the memory, but that can hardly have been the motive here. One likely suggestion is that such a literary convention kept a control on the expression of profound grief. Another suggestion is that the use of the alphabet symbolizes that the completeness—“the A to Z”—of grief is being expressed.
6. Theological Values
The problem of suffering presented itself to Israel on two levels—national and personal. Jeremiah best shows that the two must be kept separate; for while he anticipated and justified the downfall of Jerusalem and the Davidic monarchy, he could not understand his personal suffering, which he as a righteous man should, according to popular theology, have avoided. The classical work on the suffering of the righteous is Job. Lamentations deals with national suffering.
While there is no effort to minimize Judah’s sin, the writer is clearly overwhelmed by the greatness of her doom. There is a clear recognition that the disaster was caused by God, not his enemies. Even the mockery of Judah’s enemies was caused by God (2:17). Hence, the laments are shot through with prayer; and prayer leads to hope in a situation in which hope appears meaningless.
Ultimately there are depths in God’s actions that finite human beings cannot grasp. God’s revelation in word and act consistently shows his justice and covenant love; yet there is always a residue of human experience that demands our bowing to a wisdom too high for our understanding. This finds its supreme example in the Cross and in the cry of Jesus in Mk 15:34 (cf. Ps 22:1). This is why every facile theory of the Atonement has failed to satisfy for long, for there are depths concealed in Golgotha that pass human understanding. Only when in glory we see free will and predestination reconciled will we also grasp how God’s sovereign will is compatible with his justice and covenant love.
EXPOSITION
I. The Desolation and Misery of Jerusalem (1:1–22)
This lament is evidently later than chs. 2, 4, and 5 (ch. 3 is undatable). The writer was no longer stunned by the utter brutality of defeat and destruction but was able to see what had happened in perspective. Jerusalem mourned by this time less for what she had suffered than for what she had become. The lament could be interpreted as a dialogue between poet and city; but we should rather see the poet’s description moving the mourning, widowed city to burst out into a plea both to God and to those strangers who would pass by and see her misery and desolation.
1. The Poet’s Description (1:1–11b)
1 The poet first looks at Jerusalem, the capital and representative of Judah, and contrasts what she once had been with what she now is. Even in the great days of David and Solomon, the territories of Israel never compared with those of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia at their height; as to buildings, riches (except perhaps in the days of Solomon), and population, Jerusalem never rivaled the great cities of the Near East. Yet we are not to take the poet’s language as either nationalistic or sentimental. Israel as God’s land and Jerusalem as the city of God’s sanctuary always held the hope of seeing the Lord’s universal kingship. So the poet is describing her potential in God’s purposes. But what hope is there since the city is lying in ruins and the land a vassal or slave?
2 In the “night” of her desolation, Jerusalem is pictured as weeping, not merely because of her sufferings, but even more because she had been betrayed by her “lovers” and “friends.” These terms (cf. Jer 4:30; 30:14) are best explained by Eze 23 and Hos 8:9–10. The suggestion is that once the monarchy was firmly established, Israel was always faced with an inescapable choice. She could rely on God for her safety against external aggression, or she could turn to allies great and small (cf. 1Ki 15:16–20). The prophets warned Israel that such alliances involved apostasy (cf. Hos 5:13; 8:8, 11; 14:3), but both the northern and the southern leaders would not listen. Judah had learned that such friends were a broken reed (Eze 29:6–7).
3 From Jerusalem the poet turns to the people of Judah who have gone into exile, leaving the city deserted. This does not mean that the afflictions and deportations have been completely effective. To “live among the nations” is used in 4:20 of national existence under the monarchy; hence “dwells among the nations” need not refer to the Exile. The lack of a “resting place” refers to Judah’s inability to guarantee peace under the monarchy.
4 Not even pilgrims come to the sanctuary. Ezra 3:2–6 shows that the temple building was not necessary for sacrifices to be brought, and Jer 41:5 indicates that pilgrims came to the site even after the destruction of the temple. Apparently even that practice ceased, which suggests that this may be the latest of the laments. “Her priests” are any surviving priests who have escaped deportation and remain as near the sacred site as possible. The linking of the “maidens” with the priests is also found in Jer 31:13–14 and Joel 1:8–9, though it is unclear whether this had any part in the temple cultus (Ps 68:25).
5 All this had been foreseen in the covenant (cf. Dt 28:44); thus there is the frank and open confession that this was the Lord’s doing “because of her many sins.” Going into exile was one of the punishments foretold for a breach of the covenant (cf. Dt 28:36, 63–68). A touch of added pathos is given by “her children” paying the penalty for the sins of their parents.
6 Zion’s majesty has collapsed. Her “princes” have fled like famished stags before the hunters, caring nothing for the herd. Twice Jerusalem yielded without a fight (2Ki 24:1, 17; Da 1:2); and at the last Zedekiah and his captains fled for their lives, abandoning the doomed city (2Ki 25:4).
7 Jerusalem is seen as participating in the sufferings of her inhabitants. She remembers the days of “affliction and wandering,” i.e., banishment in misery, when her people became the helpless prey of the conquerors. This supports the view that this lament was composed some time after the fall of the city. Worst of all is the mocking laughter of her enemies. In the vast majority of cases, laughter is linked with scorn (cf. Ge 17:17; 18:12; Job 8:21; Ps 126:2). The glee of Jerusalem’s enemies comes doubtless from a human reaction to Israel’s claim to be God’s elect.
8–9 Jerusalem is compared to a debased prostitute, shamelessly exposing her nakedness and indifferent to the marks of menstrual blood on her garments. Since prostitution is repeatedly used for Israel’s idolatry and Baal worship, it is obviously implied here. The completeness of Israel’s collapse has finally brought her to her senses. She knows she has no grounds for begging for a reversal of fortune, but the insolent triumphing of the enemy calls for divine retribution (cf. Isa 10:12). “The enemy has triumphed” is literally correct but misleading. It is not the victory but the insolent boasting after it that is meant.
10 The worst feature of all is that Jerusalem has lost what she held most dear. Later sentiment had enveloped Jerusalem in a haze of earthly glory and beauty; but her outstanding glory then, as later, was the temple—and even the temple derived its chief glory from its sanctity. This has been brutally violated by the conquerors. Since the Ammonites and the Moabites, who were descended from Lot and thus distantly related to Israel, had been forbidden to enter the Lord’s congregation (Dt 23:3), how much more the completely unrelated Chaldeans!
11a–b The poet brings his lament to a climax. In proportion to what Jerusalem has suffered, to say, “They barter their treasures for food,” does not seem to be particularly serious. In addition, it is hard to believe that when the Chaldeans had finished plundering the city, there was much treasure left. Already Theodoret (c. 450) suggested that the true meaning of the statement was, “They gave their darlings for food to keep alive.” It is unimportant whether we think of them eating their children (cf. 2:20; 4:10 [prophesied in Dt 28:53–57; cf. 2Ki 6:28–29]) or selling them into slavery. Probably both are intended.
2. The City’s Plea (1:11c–16)
11c We are to think of Jerusalem’s being so moved by the poet’s words that she breaks out in a prayer, which forms a suitable halfway stage in the poem. It is not the fact of being despised but the extent to which she is looked down on that she hopes may move God to pity.
12 From God Jerusalem turns with a plea for pity to the nations round about, pictured as travelers passing along the roads of devastated Judah. “The day of his fierce anger” is the Day of the Lord. Just as in Mk 13 and parallels the fall of Jerusalem is linked with the sufferings of the end time, so it is here (cf. also Jer 4:23–28).
13–14 The fire from on high continues the picture of God’s burning anger, acting like a high fever with its racking pains, which brings death. Not Jerusalem’s enemies, but God himself had entrapped the city, bringing it to an inescapable and ignominious end (cf. Eze 12:13; 17:20). The result has been an example of desolation and weakness, as though from a fatal disease. “They have come upon my neck” implies that Jerusalem just could not withstand her enemies when they came against her. For a city that had Jerusalem’s strength, the siege, which lasted only a year and a half, was surprisingly short (2Ki 25:1–2; cf. 17:5–6).
15–16 Nothing but despair is left. There is likely a climax here, and instead of “an army” (GK 4595) we should understand the Hebrew here as a joyful “harvest festival” to which, not Jerusalem, but her enemies are invited. So bitter is the experience that Jerus alem does not use the name “LORD” (yahweh; GK 3378), with its covenant associations (cf. Ex 3:14), but “Lord” (adonay; GK 151). Thus the poet is saying: “The Lord has rejected all the warriors in my midst,” treating them like chaff: “he has summoned [a festival] against me to crush my young men,” not merely to thresh them; and “in his winepress the Lord has trampled the Virgin Daughter of Judah,” to provide the wine of rejoicing. Jerusalem’s heartbroken sob is that “the enemy has prevailed.” Defeat is bitter, but doubly so when the victors are God’s enemies.
3. The Poet’s Lament (1:17)
17 To prepare us for Jerusalem’s final confession, the poet records that though Zion “stretches out her hands” in prayer, there is no comfort; for the destruction is the Lord’s command. Abandoned by him, Jerusalem has become a filthy (menstruous) thing scorned by all.
4. The City’s Confession (1:18–22)
18–22 While the poet has been speaking, Jerusalem has had time to consider her position once more. She immediately confesses that her plight has been caused by her own rebellion. Jerusalem’s one hope is the Lord’s judgment on her enemies, though she does not expect restoration as a result. She tells them that they will not suffer less than she has, the more so as “I called to my allies but they betrayed me.” The very fact that Jerusalem’s one hope and comfort is the similar fate awaiting her enemies is an almost irrefutable argument against Jeremiah’s authorship, for he had foretold not only the downfall of the Chaldeans after seventy years but also the restoration of Jerusalem (Jer 25:12). This hopelessness is the best testimony to the utter shock the fall of Jerusalem caused even among the godly. It also helps explain Jeremiah’s isolation, the optimism of many after Jehoiachin’s deportation (Jer 28:1–4; 29:8–9), and the madness of Zedekiah’s revolt.
II. The Lord’s Anger With His People (2:1–22)
The main notes in the first lament were desertion, desolation, and shame; here the stress is on destruction. It seems to have been composed between the capture of the city in the fourth month (2Ki 25:3–4) and the coming of Nebuzaradan to mete out Nebuchadnezzar’s vengeance (2Ki 25:8–12) a month later; for the dead still lay on the streets unburied. This would explain why the first lament, though the latest in time, is placed first. Initially the sheer impact of physical disaster is overwhelming; it is only later that the shame of it all is seen as even worse.
1. The Casting Off of People and Sanctuary (2:1–9)
1 The storm has passed over the poet’s head. As he picks himself up and gazes on the desolation around him, he declares with the voice of faith that this has been the work of the “Lord” (GK 151), the All-Sovereign. The sun of Jerusalem has been hidden; “the splendor of Israel” (i.e., the temple) has been hurled from its high eminence (“from heaven”); and it has been spurned. “His footstool” can hardly mean the ark; for Jer 3:16, which must date from before the destruction of the temple, is evidence that it had vanished earlier.
2–3 All Judah has been devastated, and the kingdom has lost its sacred character. Both actively (“he has cut off every horn,” i.e., all strength) and passively (“he has withdrawn his right hand”), the Lord God has destroyed his people.
4–5 God is then depicted as a mighty, hostile warrior, armed with bow to slay at a distance and with sword for close fighting (taking “on the tent of the Daughter of Zion” with “all who were pleasing to the eye”), and finally burning up all that is left. He has behaved like an enemy.
6–7 Like an enemy, the Lord “has destroyed his place of meeting” (the temple). “King and priest” are here linked; for, as the history of the monarchy clearly shows, the king was the supervisor of the temple cultus, even if he was excluded from many of the priestly functions. “The walls of her palaces” are fortified residences. Under the monarchy, too, the temple formed part of a grandiose complex, including the royal palace and state buildings. The enemies’ shouts of triumph are compared to the festal shouts of joy (cf. Pss 66:1; 81:1; 95:1; et al.).
8–9 From the temple the lament passes briefly to the city and then to the king (surely Jehoiachin) and his ministers in exile. “The law is no more, and her prophets no longer find visions from the LORD” should be regarded as a unitary statement. There is no indication of God’s will, either through priestly interpretation of the law or through prophetic vision.
2. The Agony of the People (2:10–17)
10 From the bitter past the lament turns to the even more bitter present. The mention of the “elders” and “young women” is probably intended to include the whole surviving population. Sitting on the ground in sackcloth, with dust on the head, in silence, and with the head bowed to the ground speak strongly of mourning.
11–12 The poet joins in the mourning in language that shows his physical participation. The fall of the city and the execution of the desperate men who have defended it do not bring the starvation to an end. During the first stage of military occupation, foraging in the surrounding countryside would not have been permitted. “Bread and wine” probably refers to essentials and semiluxuries.
13 So great is the suffering that words fail. It is probable that the extent of the sea is not intended; rather, the devastation of the city is reminiscent of the chaotic sea.
14 The best commentaries on this verse are Jer 23:18–22 and Eze 13:10–16. Just as many preachers are so obsessed with the holiness of the church that they have not been able to take its shortcomings seriously, so it was in Israel. It took the shock of the Babylonian exile to break the power and influence of the popular prophets and to discredit them finally.
15–17 In ancient times when each pagan city or group of cities had its own deity or deities, there was a degree of mutual toleration in spite of rivalries. However, Israel’s claim that their Lord is the only God, that Israel is his people, and that Jerusalem is his capital causes bitter jealousy and joy at their downfall. “The Lord . . . has fulfilled his word, which he decreed long ago” refers presumably to passages like Lev 26:14–46 and Dt 28:15–68.
3. A Call to Prayer (2:18–19c)
18-19b Despair should drive people to God; so the poet calls Zion to prayer. The first phrase here should be translated, “Cry out from the heart, O wall of the Daughter of Zion.” Though the expression may seem strange, it is a call for everything, including the ruins, to join in the prayer of anguish.
19c This line bears out the interpretation that the lament describes the situation after the capture of the city, not the sufferings during the siege.
4. The Response (2:20–22)
20–22 Whether the poet was composing a prayer for the survivors, whether it was meant as an ideal prayer, or whether it was a poetic expression of what was being prayed is immaterial. The prayer is a desperate recounting of utmost woe. Verse 20a is a reminder that there is a covenant relationship. Since the prophets had stressed the inviolability of the temple (cf. Jer 7:4), it is natural that they should gather there in its last hour. For the “solemn assembly” or “feast day,” see comment on 1:15.
III. An Israelite’s Complaint (3:1–66)
Were this lament in the Psalter, it is improbable that it would have been definitely linked with the fall of Jerusalem; for most of its language has no particular applicability to it, and that which has could come from any situation of major distress. The traditional view has seen in it Jeremiah’s personal lament.
1. His Personal Sufferings (3:1–20)
1 In the OT “to see” (GK 8011) frequently goes beyond the obtaining of a visual image and involves a sharing in it. The omission of the name of God in vv.1–21—except in v.18—is intended to underline the poet’s feelings of abandonment and separation. For “the rod of his wrath,” see Job 9:34; 21:9; Ps 89:32; and Isa 10:5.
2–3 The Hebrew word for “driven” (GK 5627) is used of driving animals, never of God’s gracious leading. It was done by the rod of his anger. “Indeed, he has turned his hand against me again and again, all day long” is a complaint of exceptional suffering.
4 The force of the Hebrew for “grow old” is not to make old but to produce the effect of aging, i.e., to wear out. “Has broken my bones” refers to fever pains, a meaning that suits Isa 38:13.
5–9 “Bitterness” speaks of one’s ultimate poverty—the loss of all hope. “Darkness” is one of the traditional features of Sheol. The force of “those long dead” is that they are also forgotten. The mention of “chains” suggests that we should think of the poet’s being “walled in” in some dungeon from which his cries for help cannot be heard. The poet is like a man trapped in a maze. The walls are so well built—“with blocks of stone”—that he cannot glimpse the right way through any cracks in them, while side paths lead to dead ends or away from escape.
10–12 Even worse, the poet finds the path beset with danger (for the bear and the lion, see Am 5:9 and Hos 13:8). If somehow he manages to escape his deadly foes and God’s leading astray, he finds God, the grim hunter, there to shoot him, not his assailants.
13–15 “He pierced my heart with arrows” shows the power of the archer’s arm. “Heart” is a valid equivalent for the metaphorical meaning but misses the literal picture of “kidneys,” apparently intended here. It is easy to see Jeremiah as the butt of popular ballads. “Gall,” which is traditionally rendered “wormwood,” is the name given to certain plants used for imparting a bitter flavor to some drinks.
16–18 “He has broken my teeth with gravel; he has trampled me in the dust” suggests the violent grinding of the face in the ground by others. In the parallelism of “deprived of peace [shalom; GK 8934]” and “forgotten what prosperity is,” shalom must carry its nuance of “success” or “prosperity.” In “my splendor is gone,” “splendor” (GK 5905) indicates “glory” rather than strength. Both for the prophet and for Israel, hope in the Lord was their glory; when that is gone, they are on the level of the pagans round about. The poet’s mention of “the LORD” breaks the spell of misery that has bound him.
19–20 The Hebrew text at the beginning of v.19 can also be translated “Remember my affliction.” The writer must first recall the character of the Lord (vv.22–23) before he calls out to him.
2. Consolation and Hope of Grace (3:21–39)
21–24 The “hope” (GK 3498) that the writer expresses here is not created by denying or minimizing suffering and misery. Rather, these are transformed when the mind is turned to God. The vital word in v.22 is “great love” (GK 2876), the covenant love and loyalty of the Lord that leads to “compassion.” The covenant called Israel into existence, and the Lord’s loving mercy to what he has created will not end. The very fact of awakening to a new day is in itself a renewal of God’s mercy. Humankind has passed safely through the night, a foreshadowing of death. So the verse ends with “faithfulness,” the counterpart of “great love.” The poet has had so little of this world’s goods and pleasures because his share has been the Lord (cf. Pss 16:5; 73:26; 119:57; 142:5).
25–27 In the Hebrew these three verses begin with “good” (GK 3202). It means above all that which expresses God’s will and purpose. There is the acceptance of God’s time and God’s will, faith expressing itself in quiet hope and the learning of discipline.
28–30 This group of verses states how the principles of vv.25–27 will be worked out, especially that of bearing the yoke. God’s yoke of service will separate one from ordinary human life and lead that person to be an outcast (cf. Job 2:8). Silence implies both acceptance of God’s will and refusal to complain to other people. With this should go the complete submission to God pictured in v.29 by the Oriental obeisance. It leads too to the willingness to be treated like a slave, for the yoke was a symbol of servitude. The principles formulated here will, of course, apply equally to the person called to be a prophet and to the people called to be God’s private treasure (Ex 19:5–6).
31–33 These verses give reasons that will make the bearing of the yoke easier. God’s rejection is temporary. Even if he afflicts, compassion and covenant love will again be shown; his infliction of pain and punishment is never arbitrary.
34–36 A contrast to God’s gracious and loving dealing is offered in three pictures of man’s inhumanity. There is the ill-treating of the prisoner just because he is a prisoner. There is the denial of justice. God is here called the Most High to stress that since he is the God of heaven, he is all-seeing; hence the denial of justice is a deliberate flouting of his will. There is the deliberate twisting of a human being’s right, as though God does not see.
37–39 This section of the lament stresses the almighty power of God, which makes the acceptance of his will necessary. He is behind both good and calamity (cf. Isa 45:7); so why should people complain when they suffer for their sins? So long as they are alive, things can change.
3. A Call to Penitence (3:40–51)
This section divides into two parts. In vv.40–47 the poet puts a prayer into the mouth of the people. Then in vv.48–51 he adds his tears to the people’s plea.
40–41 The people agree that complaint (cf. v.39) is out of place. They must examine their ways, i.e., what they have done. They lift up not merely their hands, the normal position for petition, but the whole inner person (“our hearts”) to God; no mere formal prayer is involved.
42–43 There is a contrast between “we” and “you”; rebellion and disobedience are on Israel’s side, a refusal to forgive on God’s, with the implication that his attitude is just. The thought continues: “You have covered yourself with anger,” and so pursuit and slaying have been merciless.
44–46 That God is veiled from a human being’s gaze by cloud and darkness is commonplace in the OT (cf. Ex 20:21; 40:34–35; Lev 16:2; 1Ki 8:10, 12; et al.). But this veiling is never considered an obstacle to prayer. The confession of complete worthlessness follows. As a result of God’s action, his people’s enemies despise them openly (cf. 2:16; Ps 35:21). Judah cannot defend her honor and has no friends to do it for her.
47–48 The word translated “pitfall” probably means a hunter’s trap (cf. Isa 24:17–18; Jer 48:43–44). The people’s confession reminds Jeremiah of their sufferings and then even more of his own (cf. 9:1; 14:17).
49–51 Jeremiah’s tears, i.e., his pleading for Israel, will continue until God responds. The Hebrew of v.51 is literally, “My eye has dealt with my soul from the daughters of my city.” Scribal confusion may have resulted in the word for “my eye” instead of “suffering.” The sense would be then, “Till the LORD looks down from heaven and sees the suffering done to me because of the daughters of my people,” or something similar.
4. The Growth of Hope (3:52–57)
52–56 Agony over the fate of his people reminds the poet of his own fate. For the picture of the hunted bird, see Pss 11:1–2; 124:7; 140:5. Jeremiah 18:18 is an example of what is meant. “They tried to end my life in a pit” no doubt refers to the incident in Jer 38:6. “Waters closed over my head” is a common picture for distress (cf. Job 27:20; Pss 42:7; 66:12; 69:12; 88:7; 124:4; et al.). There is no real justification for taking eben (“stone”; GK 74) as a collective, i.e., “stones.” A cistern was normally closed by a stone over its mouth. It is not easy to be sure of the exact force of the words in v.56. “Do not close your ears” refers to the remainder of the verse, which is his prayer (“my cry for relief”).
5. An Appeal for Vengeance (3:58–66)
58–66 The rendering of these verses is straightforward. God’s protection over Jeremiah in the past is an adequate basis for confidence in the future. We might think that the prophet has surely grown beyond such imprecations, and that in the destruction of Jerusalem he has seen God’s punishment of his enemies. But we must remember that for the sake of his people, Jeremiah has abandoned everything, even the consolations of family life and children (Jer 16:1–4). In addition, though God gave him some of the most glowing pictures of Israel’s restoration, including the promise of the new covenant, there is no indication that God gave him a glimpse of life beyond the grave. How heavy then must have been the burden of rejection and ingratitude that followed him even into Egypt!
IV. Zion, Past and Present (4:1–22)
We may reasonably date this lament not very long after ch.2. Sufficient time had elapsed for the first shock to wear off, and the poet is able to bring what has happened to a focus and so supplements ch. 2.
1. The Contrast (4:1–11)
1–2 Since gold does not tarnish and the second line refers to the destroyed temple, we can easily see a reference to its gold-covered panels and golden vessels so covered with dust that their value is no longer discernible. Similarly, it is no longer possible to discern the value of the enslaved survivors.
3–5 The “jackal” is a mammal whose maternal care might not be expected. The ostrich was proverbial because of its apparent neglect of its eggs (Job 39:13–18), and “my people” have become like it in their neglect of their babes. Money has ceased to have meaning; so the rich women have no helpers and only such food as they can find among the garbage.
6–9 Whether the lament says that “the punishment” or “the iniquity” of Judah is worse than that of Sodom (cf. Eze 16:44–52) is uncertain. Ultimately it is unimportant, for the measure of iniquity and its punishment are held to be linked. Nazir (GK 5687) is normally rendered Nazirite, but in Ge 49:26 and Dt 33:16 it is used of one separated by rank and qualities from his contemporaries. This is obviously the sense here, and so “princes” is a satisfactory rendering. The description is of men who are able to devote themselves to their physical appearance. An ignominious fate falls to these once fair nobles. So bad is their situation that death is preferable to life.
10–11 Hunger drives humans to inhuman action (cf. 2Ki 6:25–29). All this falls on the people because they have provoked the Lord to wrath.
2. The Sin of Priests and Prophets (4:12–16)
12 There is an obvious element of exaggeration here. Essentially it means that Jerusalem’s deliverance in the time of Sennacherib showed people that, so long as the Lord’s hand was over it, the city was impregnable.
13 This protection has been withdrawn because of the bloodguilt of the priests and prophets. We are here dealing with one of the fundamental concepts of prophetic ethics. Ezekiel 22:1–12 shows that the concept of “bloodshed” was far wider than murder or homicide; all that cut at the roots of society or that deprived people of their land and livelihood shortened their lives and so was bloodshed. Priest and prophet contributed positively and negatively—positively by advocating or condoning such behavior, negatively by failing to condemn those who wronged their fellow Israelites.
14–16 Usually these verses are taken as the direct continuation of v.13, giving the fate of the bloodguilty priests and prophets; bearing the mark of Cain, moral lepers, they are rejected wherever they go. However, Jer 29:15–23 and the earlier chapters of Ezekiel do not support such a picture for those who were deported with Jehoiachin, and the poet would hardly know the fate of those who survived the fall of Jerusalem. It may well be intended as a picture of the miserable survivors as a whole, as they are scattered abroad. This is supported by the mention of elders rather than prophets in v.16. It should be remembered that Judah is almost completely bereft of people of standing.
3. Vain Hopes (4:17–20)
17–20 The blindness of those who have gone into exile is matched only by that of those who are left at home. Hoping against hope, they have looked for Egypt’s help almost to the last moment (Jer 37:3–10). The use of “we” suggests that the poet has shared in these hopes. This and the manner in which Zedekiah is spoken of are irreconcilable with authorship by Jeremiah. (For v.19, see Lev 26:8; Dt 32:30; Isa 30:16–17.) It is reasonably likely that the vivid memory of Zedekiah’s last, desperate attempt to escape (Jer 52:6–9) lies behind vv.19–20. Judah’s madness and blindness are due not only to faith in the inviolability of the temple but also of the Davidic dynasty. This is the obvious explanation why Jeremiah has so little to say about the messianic hope. “Our very life breath” and “under his shadow” are taken from the ancient court-language of the Near East.
4. The Reversal of Doom (4:21–22)
21–22 The vain hopes are gone, and only the stark reality remains. To Edom, who stands for all the enemies of Judah (cf. Isa 34; Eze 35), the poet says, in effect, “Rejoice while you can, for judgment is coming to you also.” Their nakedness involves shame and revelation of sins, but it also implies slavery (cf. Isa 47:2–3). The consolation for Zion is that she has received all the punishment she can (cf. Isa 40:2); there can be no more exile.
V. An Appeal to the Lord (5:1–22)
The absence of an alphabetic acrostic and “lament” meter suggest that this lament may be by another hand. Though there are some references to incidents during the siege, the lament deals mainly with the sequel, which suggests some lapse of time.
1. The Affliction of the Lord’s People (5:1–18)
1–3 Remembrance in the Bible always involves resultant action; so this is a call to God to act. The word traditionally rendered “inheritance” (GK 5709) normally means “possessions,” however obtained. In the poet’s society the fatherless orphan and the widow without grown sons are the weakest, unless they have powerful patrons. There is an implied plea to God to act.
4 From 2Ki 24:14; 25:12 and Jer 39:10 we learn that most of those left in Judah were the very poor, who were expected to keep the fields and vineyards in order. No foreign settlers were brought in, though there is little doubt that this was Nebuchadnezzar’s intention, overruled by God. So this verse probably refers to the heavy taxation that has to be paid if the survivors are to live.
5 The same idea underlies this verse. The author is not alluding to slave masters, though many people have been dragged away as slaves; rather, it is the need to live that drives them on, and they have forfeited God’s promise of rest from their enemies (cf. Dt 12:10; 25:19; 2Sa 7:1, 11).
6–7 It is true that Nebuchadnezzar claimed to be continuing the Assyrian power, as did Cyrus later (cf. Ezr 6:22); but that can hardly be the force of “Assyria” here. The poet is referring to something “our fathers” did. The answer is suggested by Hos 2:5, 8, which shows Israel worshiping the Baalim, the fertility gods of nature. This reduced the Lord for them to a god among gods, and so they sought alliances with Egypt and Assyria (Hos 5:13; 7:11; 12:1). Now their descendants have reaped the bitter harvest, as Samaria had done a century and a half earlier.
8–10 Instead of their own king and ministers, the people are ruled by Babylonian officials, most of relatively low standing, who are proud of the title “slaves of the king”; there is no court of appeal against their arbitrary brutality. This shows itself in the difficulty experienced in obtaining food, which involves risk to life and limb and extreme exposure; “hot” skin is literally “scorched” or “blackened” skin, showing general starvation.
11–13 The brutality the people are experiencing is only a continuation of what they have experienced earlier, when the Chaldeans captured the city. “Princes have been hung up by their hands” suggests torture to make the rich reveal where they have hidden their treasures. This meaning is elaborated by the second element concerning elders; their being “shown no respect” manifestly refers to a deliberate shaming. Hence the hanging, perhaps impaling, is of the dead to dishonor their corpses. Since Nebuchadnezzar did not torture those whom he regarded as most guilty (Jer 52:10–11, 24–27), it is not likely that any were hung up or impaled while still alive. Now “young men toil at the millstones,” doing women’s work, whereas in happier days they would have been soldiers. “Boys stagger under loads of wood”; i.e., they are treated as serfs.
14–18 Old and young had found the course of life disjointed, and all joy is gone because of past sin. The supreme sign of God’s anger is that the temple mount has become the abode of wild animals. No great lapse of time is suggested. The temple mount remains sacred ground (cf. Jer 41:5). We cannot affirm with any certainty whether sacrifices were continued on the sacred site; but if they were (note that there is no suggestion of this in Lamentations), it would have been only on special occasions. At other times even the surviving priests would have avoided the site in their consciousness of sin and defilement. Even today most strictly orthodox Jews will not enter the temple area. The West (Wailing) Wall is outside the holy area. And jackals rapidly occupy ruins.
2. The Lord’s Abiding Power (5:19–22)
19–20 The “throne” is the visible symbol of kingly rule. The poet returns to the plea with which the lament began. “Remember” (v.1) is taken up by “forget”; “look and see” by “forsake.”
21 Suddenly there is the overwhelming realization that true repentance is possible only as initiated by an act of God (cf.Jer 31:18, 33–34; Eze 36:26–27). This is a foreshadowing of the NT doctrine of regeneration. Unfortunately, it was grasped by few at the time. Judaism tends to lay great stress on the importance of repentance but always regards it as something essentially within human control.
22 The “unless” of NIV and others would normally lead us to expect a negative expression in the preceding verse. Probably the best rendering is the NEB: “For if thou hast utterly rejected us, / then great indeed has been thy anger against us.” Whatever the cost in loss of dramatic effect, it is understandable that when Lamentations is read in the synagogue, v.21 is repeated at this point so that the reading will not end on such a sad note.
Just as it is difficult for us to grasp why Jeremiah should have had to suffer more than his contemporaries, so it seems strange to many that one who could so pour out his heart to God should receive so little consolation. There is not even the burning hope of return and restoration that Jeremiah and Ezekiel voiced. The simple fact is that the people of Israel—with few exceptions—had so failed to grasp God’s revelation that an experience parallel to the bondage in Egypt and a new Exodus were needed to prepare Israel for the appearance of her Messiah and the world’s Savior.