Lamentation Of The Daughter Of Zion Over The Ruin Of Jerusalem And Judah [or Rather, The Lamentation Of The Daughter Of Jerusalem Over The Destruction Of The City, The Nation And The Temple.—W. H. H.].[The song is naturally divided into two parts of equal length. Lamentations 1:1-11 describe the wretched condition of the city. Lamentations 1:12-22 are, more strictly, the lamentation over this condition. In both sections the speaker is the ideal person of the genius or daughter of the city, who twice, Lamentations 1:9; Lamentations 1:11, interrupts the description of the first section, which is given in the third person, with an outcry of pain uttered in the first person.—W. H. H.] Part I I. Lamentations 1:1-11ΰ Lamentations 1:1. How sitteth solitary The city that was full of people! She is become as a widow! She that was great among the nations, A Princess over the Provinces,— Is become tributary. α Lamentations 1:2. Bitterly she weepeth in the night, And her tears are [constantly] upon her cheeks. She hath no comforter From among all her lovers: All her friends have dealt treacherously with her, They have become her enemies. β Lamentations 1:3. Judah is gone into exile, From oppression and from heavy bondage. She dwelleth among the heathen: She hath not found rest: All her pursuers have overtaken her Amidst her straits. γ Lamentations 1:4. The ways to Zion are mournful Because none come to her appointed services. All her gates are destroyed. Her priests sigh: Her virgins are sorrowful: And she, herself,—is in bitterness! δ Lamentations 1:5. Her adversaries are exalted, Her enemies prosper. For Jehovah hath afflicted her For the greatness of her sins. Her young children are gone captives Before the adversary. ε Lamentations 1:6. And departed from the daughter of Zion Is all her beauty. Her princes have become like harts That find no pasture, And go, without strength, Before the pursuer. ο Lamentations 1:7. Jerusalem remembers, in the days of her tribulation and of her wanderings, All her pleasant things that she had in the days of old. When her people fall by the hand of the adversary And there is no helper for her,— Her adversaries behold her— They mock at her Sabbaths! η Lamentations 1:8. Jerusalem has grievously sinned; Therefore is she become vile. All, who honoured her, despise her, For they see her nakedness. Yea, she herself sigheth And turneth backward. θ Lamentations 1:9. Her filthiness is on her skirts. She considered not her end, Therefore she came down wonderfully She has no comforter. Behold, O Jehovah, my affliction, For the enemy magnifieth himself. ι Lamentations 1:10. His hand has the oppressor stretched out Over all her precious things: For she saw heathen Come into her sanctuary: Of whom Thou didst command ‘That they come not into Thy congregation.’ λ Lamentations 1:11. All her people sigh, Seeking for bread; They give their precious things for food To sustain life. See, Jehovah, and consider How wretched I am become! The logical construction is preserved, although rendered difficult by the constraint of the alphabetical arrangement of the verses. From Lamentations 1:1 to the last clause of Lam 1:11, the poet speaks. [Rather the poet puts this language into the mouth of a third person, who is revealed to us in Lamentations 1:9; Lamentations 1:11, and still more plainly in the whole of the second part, Lamentations 1:12-22, as the ideal representative of the ruined city.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 1:1-2 present to us the ideal person of Jerusalem, sharply defining the contrast between what she was and what she is now. Lamentations 1:3 personifies in like manner the tribe of Judah. Lamentations 1:4-6 depict the present condition of Jerusalem in ruins, in the midst of which description the ideal person in her grief is introduced; and also, by way of contrast, her successful foe: the forsaken roads of the city, the broken gates, the mourning priests and virgins, the exiled people, and especially the nobles plunged from splendor into the deepest misery, are the separate features which compose this picture. [The especial subject of this description is not the city, strictly speaking, but Zion, the crown and glory of the city. Around the ideal daughter of Zion all the accessories of the picture are drawn. Jerusalem, herself, is the immediate subject of the following verses.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 1:7 relates again to the ideal Jerusalem and informs us how she remembers with pain her former estate, whilst now suffering bitter mockery from her foes. Lamentations 1:8-9 declare the cause of the judgment, already indicated in Lamentations 1:5, namely, the heinous sin of Israel: in consequence of which sin heathen, Lamentations 1:10, had intruded into the sanctuary of Zion, which was forbidden in the law. Finally, Lamentations 1:11, to the last clause, describes the distressing famine of the besieged people. From the last clause of Lam 1:11 to the end of the chapter, the Poet lets Zion herself speak, as she had already done parenthetically in Lamentations 1:9. Lamentations 1:1-2 1How 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, 2how 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. TEXTUAL AND Lam_1:1.—αָ ?γָ ?γ, subst., solitariness, is to be regarded as in the accusative. See Lamentations 3:28; Leviticus 13:46; Jeremiah 15:17; Jeremiah 49:31, μְ ?αָ ?γָ ?γ, Numbers 23:9; Micah 7:14.—ψַ ?αָּ ?ϊִ ?ι. The Ξִ ?ι is archaic. See Olsh., § 123, d. [In ωָׂ ?ψָ ?ϊִ ?ι also. The paragogic Ξִ ?ι was, originally, perhaps, a mark of the genitive, as the corresponding letter in Arabic. Occurs in poetry and in compound names, as ξַ ?μְ ?λִ ?ιΞφֶ ?γֶ ?χ ,ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πִ ?ιΞαֶ ?ζֶ ?χ. Henderson.] The archaic Ξִ ?ι, not infrequent in Jeremiah 10:17 (K’tib); Jeremiah 22:23; Jeremiah 49:16; Jeremiah 51:13. Yet this particular word occurs only here.—ψַ ?α, great, in the qualitative sense, not merely multus, but also magnus, potens, great, powerful, occurs often; Psalms 48:3; Isaiah 63:1; Isaiah 53:12; Jeremiah 41:1. See ψַ ?αθַ ?αָּ ?ηִ ?ιν, et sim., and ψַ ?αָּ ?δ, the metropolis of the Ammonites. The phrase ψααַ ?βֹ ?ειִ ?ν occurs only here. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (1). p. 20.—The αְּ after ωָׂ ?ψָ ?ϊִ ?ι indicates the object over which the Princess rules. See Fuerst. [Blayney, Boothroyd, translate over, instead of among.]—ωָׂ ?ψָ ?δ is synonymous with ψַ ?αָּ ?δ, e. g., ωַׂ ?ψθַ ?αָּ ?ηָ ?ιν, Genesis 37:36; Genesis 39:1, et al., and ωַׂ ?ψρָ ?ψιִ ?ρִ ?ιν, Daniel 1:7; Daniel 1:9, et al. are synonymous with ψַ ?αθΧ and ψַ ?αρΧ. The sing. ωָׂ ?ψָ ?δ excepting as the proper name Sarah, occurs only here. Plural in Judges 5:29; Isaiah 49:23; 1 Kings 11:3; Esther 1:18, shows that it is an old word and in earlier times peculiar to poetry. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (2). p. 29.—ξְ ?γִ ?ιβָ ?δ, province, satrapy, in sing. occurs only in books of Ezra (Ezra 2:1), Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 7:6; Nehemiah 11:3), Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 5:7), Daniel (Daniel 8:2; Daniel 11:24), and especially Esther (Esther 1:1; Esther 1:22; Esther 3:12; Esther 3:14, etc): in plu in Esther 1:3; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3-4; Esther 9:16; Ezekiel 19:8; 1 Kings 20:14-15; 1 Kings 20:17; 1 Kings 20:19 [not 2 Kings 20:19, a mistake of Fuerst copied by Naegelsb.], Ecclesiastes 2:8. Its use in Ezekiel and Kings shows that it was not unknown in the time of Jeremiah. [See Intr. Add. Rem. (2). p. 30.—[ξַ ?ν. W. Robertson, Key to Heb. Bib., derives from ξָ ?ρַ ?ν, to melt, dissolve, “a consuming of strength, virium dissolutio et confectio.” Fuerst from same verb taken in a secondary signification, to split, divide, separate, sunder hence metuph. to number, measure, distribute. The only evidence of such a secondary signification of the verb is in the derivatives themselves, ξַ ?ν and ξִ ?ρָּ ?δ. The old quaint idea seems better. “ξַ ?ν from ξִ ?ρָּ ?δ, because it doth melt and dissolve, as it were, the substance of those who are forced to be tributaries.” Gesenius says this is not “tolerable,” and derives from λָ ?ρַ ?ν to number. But there is a word already from that root, ξֶ ?λֶ ?ν, meaning tribute in the strict sense, while ξַ ?ν means any sort of tribute-service or bond-service (see crit. notes below), having a sense that cannot be extracted from a verb, signifying to number.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 1:2.—[αָּ ?λεֹ ϊִ ?αְ ?λֶ ?δ. The infinitive construct before a finite verb expresses intensity, after it continuity. She weepeth sore or sorely, Broughton, E. V., Blayney, Boothroyd, Henderson, or bitterly, Noyes, not continually, as old Eng. vers., Digdati, French vers., Wordsworth, and Naegelsbach.—W. H. H.]—μְ ?ηִ ?ι never occurs in Jeremiah. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (2). p. 30.—Jeremiah uses the Piel πִ ?ηַ ?ν, Jeremiah 16:7; Jeremiah 31:13; but not the phrase ΰֵ ?ιοξְ ?πַ ?ηֵ ?ν, occurring in this chapter four times, and elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes 4:1. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (3). p. 30. Jeremiah uses, ΰֹ ?δֲ ?αֶ ?ιδָ Jeremiah 20:4; Jeremiah 20:6; ψֵ ?ςַ Jeremiah 29:23; Jeremiah 5:8; Jeremiah 7:5. etc.; αָ ?βַ ?γ Jeremiah 3:8; Jeremiah 3:11; Jeremiah 3:20; Jeremiah 5:11; Jeremiah 12:6, etc.; ΰֹ ?ιֵ ?α, frequently, Jeremiah 6:25; Jeremiah 15:11; Jeremiah 18:17, etc.—δָ ?ιεּ μְ ?ΰֹ ?ιְ ?αִ ?ιν occurs elsewhere only in Psalms 139:22. AND Lam_1:1. How, ΰֵ ?ιλָ ?δ. The second and fourth chapters also begin with this word. It is used by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 8:8; Jeremiah 48:17), and not seldom in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 1:12; Deuteronomy 7:17; Deuteronomy 12:30; Deuteronomy 18:21). In Isaiah it occurs once, Isaiah 1:21, a passage which seems to have been in our Poet’s mind. There, as here, the ideal person of Jerusalem, i. e., of the city of Jerusalem (in distinction from the tribe of Judah, to which Lamentations 1:3 relates), is the subject. The personification is apparent: 1. From the expression, sits solitary. 2. From the words, as a widow. The comparison with a person shows that the subject of comparison is regarded as a person. 3. The singular forms in Lamentations 1:2, she weeps, her tears, her cheeks, etc., as certainly indicate a personification, as the plural forms would prove a reference to the concrete multitude of the exiles. The Poet then has in his eye, not, perhaps, the collective person of the exiled people, but the ideal person of the city of Jerusalem, now ruined. This person he sees in the spirit, sitting solitary amidst the devastated holy places.—Doth the city sit solitary. Solitary, because she has lost her inhabitants, her children. This is evident from the antithesis,—the city that was full of people. [Noyes: “There are several Roman coins extant, representing on the one side the emperor Vespasian, and on the other a woman (the daughter of Zion) sitting upon the ground under a palm tree, in a mournful attitude, and having around her a heap, of arms, shields, etc. The legend is Judζa Capta—Judea taken.”]—That was full of people! In regard to sense and construction, see Jeremiah 51:13; 1 Samuel 2:5. [Henderson: “It is impossible to determine what was the extent of the population of ancient Jerusalem. Before the revolt under Rehoboam it must have been very great, especially during the celebration of the three annual festivals, when the males congregated there from all parts of the country: and even after that event, there is reason to believe that, as the metropolis of the southern kingdom, the number of inhabitants was considerable. It not only continued to be the resort of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but was one of the principal mercantile cities of the East.”]—How. [The repetition of the How in the second and the last clauses of the verse, as in our English version, is not only unnecessary, but mars the rhythmical construction and interrupts the consecutive flow of thought. There is no more propriety in its repetition in Lamentations 1:1, than there would be in Lamentations 1:2, which in form and matter is a continuation of Lam 1:1. The particle, as used in the beginning of the verse, is ejaculatory, not interrogative. It rouses and directs attention, with fine poetical effect, to the image of the ideal Jerusalem, once representing a city full of people, now seen as a dejected woman, sitting solitary, as in the deepest grief. The attention thus gained, the description goes on to the end of Lam 1:2, adding feature to feature, and circumstance to circumstance, with admirable art and graphic power, till the picture is complete.—W. H. H.]—Is she—she isbecome as a widow! In Isaiah 1:21, the faithful city has become a harlot. Here, where we have a poem not of invective and denunciation, but of lamentation, the populous city has become as a widow. For she is no longer (αְּ ?ςֻ ?μָ ?δ) a married one, since she no longer enjoys communion with Jehovah, her Husband (αַּ ?ςַ ?μ. See Delitzsch on Isaiah 54:1 sqq.). She is a woman forsaken (Isaiah 54:6), and the reproach of widowhood (Isaiah 54:6) rests upon her. The expression as a widow [λְּ ?ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ, as one forsaken, widowed] implies that Jerusalem has not lost her husband utterly and forever, but she is only separated from him for a period. There is in the particle as a foreshadowing of reunion. See the expression as widows in Lamentations 5:3.—She that was great among the nations. [Dr. Naegelsbach’s punctuation, which is the punctuation also of the Sept., Vulg., and some more modern versions, requires us to connect these words with the preceding declaration. She is become as a widow, the great one (Die Grosse) among the nations. This is, however, in violation of the masoretic punctuation, and does not seem to strengthen the meaning that Dr. N. derives from the expression as a widow. See critical notes below. Nor is there a necessary antithesis between being as a widow and having been great among the nations. If we adopt the punctuation of the Sept. and Vulg., we should adopt the translation in full of one or the other of those versions, both of which do preserve an antithesis. The Sept. reads She is become as a widow, i. e., a lone, forsaken woman, who was filled with nations. The Vulg. reads, She the lady of nations became as a widow. The punctuation in our present Hebrew Bibles, which is retained by our English version, Broughton, Gattaker, Noyes, and Gerlach, certainly makes the sense clearer and the thoughts more copious. The city sits solitary that was full of people! She is become as a widow! She that was great among the nations. … is become tributary.—W. H. H.]—And princess among the provinces. That not only Israelitish, but foreign provinces also, were at times governed by Jerusalem, is sufficiently established in history. [See David’s conquests and sovereignty over the neighboring states, 2 Samuel 8:1-4; 2 Samuel 10:6-19; the extent of Solomon’s dominions, 1 Kings 4:21; 1 Kings 4:24; 2 Chronicles 9:23-24; the power of Judah in the reign of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chronicles 17:10-11, and in that of Uzziah, 2 Chronicles 26:6-8. See also Ezra 4:20, “There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them.”—W. H. H.]—How is she become—is become. [See remarks on How above.]—Tributary. [“Obliged to pay tribute-service. This is the common meaning of the word.” Noyes.] ιָֽ ?ωְׁ ?αָ ?δαָ ?γָ ?γ, sitteth solitary. This cannot mean dwelleth alone. For the isolated location of the city could be no misfortune, since contact with heathen neighbors was forbidden as injurious. (See Numbers 23:9; Leviticus 20:24; Leviticus 20:26; Deuteronomy 33:28; Exodus 23:31-33; Judges 2, 3.) Nor can ιָֽ ?ωְׁ ?αָ ?δ have the sense of situation, place of location, for ιָ ?ωַׁ ?α never has that sense in the Hebrew. See Gesen.,Thes. In Psalms 122:5; Psalms 125:1; Zechariah 2:8; Zechariah 12:6; Zechariah 14:10 it has either the active signification of inhabiting, or the passive of being inhabited (see Jeremiah 17:6; Jeremiah 17:25; Jeremiah 30:18; Jeremiah 50:13; Jeremiah 50:39, et al). That this last named passive signification does not suit here is evident from the contradiction involved by the words solitary and as a widow. We can only translate How sits solitary the city. [Fuerst,Lex., “ιָ ?ωָׁ ?α, to sit, as an expression of being bowed down, struck down and forsaken, with μָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, Isaiah 3:26; Job 2:13; ςַ ?μΞςָ ?τָ ?ψ, Isaiah 47:1; αָ ?γָ ?γ, Lamentations 1:1; Lamentations 3:28; ξְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν, Ezra 9:3; ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?βָ ?δ, Genesis 38:11; Isaiah 47:8.”] ψִ ?αָּ ?ϊִ ?ι. It is probable that the form ξְּ ?μֵ ?ΰֲ ?ϊִ ?ι, in the kindred passage, Isaiah 1:21, influenced the choice of the form of the word here.—λְּ ?ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ, as a widow. In antithesis to ψַ ?αָּ ?ϊִ ?ιςָ ?ν, full of people, ωְׁ ?λּ ?εּ ?μָ ?δ, bereaved of children, childless, would be first suggested: but this word occurs only once, Isaiah 49:21. ωַׁ ?λֻּ ?μָ ?δ, also, occurs once only (in connection with ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ), Jeremiah 18:21. ςֲ ?χָ ?ψָ ?δ is the barren woman, ξְ ?ωַׁ ?λֵּ ?μָ ?δ or ξְ ?ωַׁ ?λֶּ ?μֶ ?ϊ is abortum faciens, Exodus 23:26; 2 Kings 2:19; 2 Kings 2:21, or infanticida, Ezekiel 36:13. ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ suits admirably, in that it involves the impossibility of bearing children in the future. And that is what the Poet would say. Jerusalem is placed in a condition in which it is impossible for her to become a mother of children, Psalms 113:9. The other feature, that she is also a widow robbed of the children already born to her, is further brought out in what follows. I do not believe, therefore, that Jerusalem is here called a widow, because she is bereaved “of king and princes, and the protection and guidance of rulers,” as Vitringa and others after him (lately Engelhardt), appealing to Isaiah 47:8, have been inclined to think. Besides that, λְּ ?ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ is not synonymous with μְ ?ΰΧ, Raschi has already remarked. Compare μָ ?ξַ ?ν at the close of this verse, and μְ ?ζεֹ ?πָ ?δ, Isaiah 1:21. The word ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ is often found in Jeremiah 7:6; Jeremiah 15:8; Jeremiah 18:21; Jeremiah 22:3. [Henderson is too positive when he says, “The λּ in λְּ ?ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ is simply that of comparison, and is not intended to express any hope that she would be restored from her widowed state, as Jarchi fancifully supposes.” Comparison is not assertion: a thing is not what it is compared with. If λְּ then does simply indicate a comparison, yet it leaves a possibility, and hence a hope of restoration from a widowed state; and there is certainly more than a ‘fanciful’ distinction between being a widow, μְ ?ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ, and being like one,λְּ ?ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ.—W. H. H.]—δֲ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δμָ ?ξַ ?ν, has become tributary. The expression is found in Genesis (Genesis 49:15) and in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 20:11); and is especially frequent in 1 Kings (1 Kings 5:27, 28; 1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings 9:21) and in Judges (Judges 1:28; Judges 1:30; Judges 1:33; Judges 1:35). It is also found in Isaiah (Isaiah 31:8). The etymology and fundamental meaning are not quite certain. At all the places cited the word indicates bond-service, or rather, collectively, services (see ξַ ?νςֹ ?αֵ ?γ, Genesis 49:15; Joshua 16:10; 1 Kings 9:21). It first occurs in the sense of tributum, a money tax, very late, Esther 10:1. It is, however, unimportant whether we take the word in our text in the one sense or the other. Nor can we from this word determine the exact period of time, as J. D. Michaelis would do, when he says: “Therefore she is still standing, but has become tributary. This first happened under the Egyptians” (he has here in mind evidently 2 Kings 23:33). “To what time then is this to be referred,—to that of the elegy on Josiah, or to that of a later period?” If Jerusalem was no longer standing, and not a human soul dwelt there, yet the place on which the ruins of Jerusalem remained had become, with the whole land, a part of the territory subjected to the Chaldeans. Lamentations 1:2. She weepeth sore in the night.—She weeps and weeps the night throughout. [This translation is beautiful and expository, but for grammatical reasons the E. V. is to be preferred. See the Gramm. Notes.—W. H. H.] The sorrowing widow weeps in the night. Not in the night-time only, in distinction from day-time,—nor, as Ewald prefers, ‘until the night.’ For why should she not weep during the night also? Precisely this is the meaning of the poet. She weeps in the night, but not only a part of the night, for that were nothing wonderful, but so that her weeping fills up the time which is usually spent otherwise. So is αַּ ?μַּ ?ιμָ ?δ to be understood in Numbers 14:1, “and the people wept that night.” See Jeremiah 6:5; Jeremiah 36:30, et al. [Henderson: “To express the more aggravated character of the weeping, it is represented as indulged even during the night—the period of rest and quiet.”]—And her tears are on her cheeks. ‘Tears,’ Jer. 8:23; 9:17, et al. The absence of a predicate index, which renders the supplement of the copula ‘are’ necessary, gives the idea evidently that the tears on her cheeks are constantly there, have fixed there, as it were, their permanent place. [Henry: “Nothing dries away sooner than a tear, yet fresh griefs extort fresh tears, so that her cheeks are never free from them.”]—Among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her.—She has no comforter.—[That this phrase has an important meaning is to be inferred by its recurrence four times in this chapter (Lamentations 2:9; see also Lamentations 1:16), and from its being an unusual form, occurring elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes 4:1. It can have no common-place meaning. It refers indirectly to the loss of the Comforter—their God.—W. H. H.]—All her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies. The words lovers and friends indicate the human supports on which Jerusalem foolishly and presumptuously believed she could rely, especially all those nations whose friendship she had so often preferred, instead of trusting in Jehovah. See Lamentations 1:19; Jeremiah 2:13; Jeremiah 2:18; Jeremiah 2:33; Jeremiah 2:36-37; Jeremiah 22:20; Jeremiah 22:22; Hosea 2:7 sqq.; Ezekiel 23. These places show, in harmony with history, that the nations toward which Israel felt itself drawn in amorous love, but by which at last they were not only deserted, but treated with even positive hostility, were especially Assyria, Babylon and Egypt. With reference to Egypt, see particularly Ezekiel 29:6-7; Ezekiel 29:16. See Ewaldin loc. [Henderson: “The lovers and friends were those neighboring states which were allies of the Hebrews,—and their idol-gods, which they worshipped, and in which they trusted. Egypt especially was the object of their confidence, but not even she durst venture to come to their help against the Chaldeans. Those in the more immediate vicinity actually joined the northern enemy on his irruption into the country. 2 Kings 24:2.”] Lamentations 1:33 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. TEXTUAL AND Lam_1:3.—βָּֽ ?μְ ?ϊָ ?δ, see Jeremiah 1:3.—ςֳ ?πִ ?ι, found in Lamentations 1:3; Lamentations 1:7; Lamentations 1:9; Lamentations 3:1; Lamentations 3:19, does not occur in Jeremiah; yet Isaiah uses it Isaiah 48:10 : occurs also in Pentateuch; Genesis 16:11; Genesis 29:32; Genesis 31:42; Exodus 3:7; Deuteronomy 16:3; Deuteronomy 26:7, etc.; in Psalms 9:14; Psalms 25:18; Psalms 31:8, and in other writings of earlier origin than Lam.—ξֵ ?ψֹ ?α is found in Isaiah 7:22; Isaiah 24:22; Nahum 3:4, et al.: Jeremiah says ΰַ ?μψֹ ?α, Jeremiah 30:14-15, or αְּ ?ψֹ ?α, Jeremiah 13:22.—ςֲ ?αֹ ?γָ ?δ does not occur in Jeremiah, yet frequently in Pentateuch, and in Isaiah 14:3; Isaiah 32:17; Isaiah 28:21.—ξָ ?πεֹ ?ηָ occurs Genesis 8:9; Deuteronomy 28:65; Isaiah 34:14, is not used by Jeremiah; he uses ξπεּ ?ηָ ?δ, Jeremiah 45:3. [See Intr. Add. R. (4). p. 30. (6). p. 31.—πָ ?ωַ ?β occurs in Jeremiah 42:16 .] AND Lam_1:3. The tribe of Judah is the subject here, as the city of Jerusalem was in Lamentations 1:1-2, and is conceived of similarly as an ideal person.—Judah is gone into captivity, because of affliction and because of great servitude.Into exile is Judah gone from oppression and severe servitude. It has been correctly remarked that from oppression and from hard servitude cannot refer to the involuntary exile of Judah, since it is added she findeth no rest. For who may expect rest for a people carried into captivity? But voluntary fugitives might hope to find rest. Of such voluntary exiles, Jeremiah speaks in Jeremiah 40:11-12, and from Jeremiah 43:4-7 we learn that all these finally agreed together to seek rest in Egypt. That they found no rest there exactly agrees with what the prophet had declared, Jeremiah 42:13-22, to the people stubbornly persisting in the flight to Egypt. When the Poet speaks here of Judah as a fugitive, seeking rest and finding none, the reason for his doing so may be surmised from the fact that he himself belonged to that part of the people that were living in exile. We may suppose, also, that he regarded this part of the nation as a representative of the whole nation, because they consisted of people who were at least free. It is much like saying,—Judah is no longer with those who have become mixed with a foreign people as slaves. If it yet survive, it survives in a voluntary exile, where, notwithstanding its distressed state and reduced numbers, it still retains at least its personal liberty. [Blayney: “Our translators, who have rendered, Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction and because of great servitude, seem to have adopted the notion of the Chaldee Paraphrast, who represents the Jews to have been carried into captivity in retaliation of their having oppressed the widow and the fatherless among them, and prolonged illegally the bondage of their brethren who had been sold them for slaves.” Henderson adopts this view, that Judah is here represented as suffering captivity on account of, or because of her oppressing and cruelly enslaving her own people, see Jeremiah 34. But the other view, that Judah sought by voluntary exile to escape the oppression and enslavement of the Chaldeans, is recommended by the reasons given above, and is adopted by Blayney, C. B. and J. D. Michaelis, Boothroyd and Noyes. Houbigant, quoted approvingly by Boothroyd in his Heb. Bib., connects the words “from oppression and hard servitude” with the words “she findeth no rest,” an obvious and awkward attempt to escape the difficulty of the supposed causal sense of ξִ ?ϊπ. Hugh Broughton translates Judah leaveth country after affliction and much bondage.—W. H. H.]—[She dwelleth among the heathen, lit., nations, i.e., the heathen nations. The word dwell conveys an idea of a settled permanent abode, not required by the Hebrew, ιָֽ ?ωְׁ ?αָ ?δ. The German, sitzet, which Naegelsbach uses, is better (see Lamentations 1:1). The fugitive, fleeing before her pursuers, finds at last a place among the heathen, where she sits down in hoped-for security: but in vain; her pursuers overtake her, as the hart is found by the hunter, in the straits or defiles of the mountain, from which there is no escape. See Lamentations 1:6, they flee like harts before the pursuer.—W. H. H.]—She findeth no rest: all her persecutors, pursuers, in antithesis to all her lovers and all her friends in Lamentations 1:2 (see Lamentations 1:6; Lamentations 4:19; Jeremiah 15:15; Jeremiah 17:18; Jeremiah 20:11) overtook her between the straits.ξְ ?φָ ?ψִ ?ιν (Sing. ξֵ ?φַ ?ψ) occurs, besides here, only Psalms 116:3; Psalms 118:5. It can mean neither θλίβοντες (so Sept., which erroneously takes it for a participle), nor termini,ὁρισμοί (so Chald., Venitian Greek, et al.). It means angustiζ, narrow defiles from which there is no outlet. The figure is taken from the cbase. See the German phrase, “in die Engen treiben,” “to drive one into straits.” [W. Robertson: “ξְ ?φָ ?ψ, a streight, or a streighting distress.” Fuerst: “to take one in the straits, i.e., to get one at last into our power, a proverbial phrase.” The present use of the English word straits (as ‘reduced to straits,’ ‘in great straits’) explains the sense here, but does not justify the translation, overtook her between the straits.—W. H. H.] The fugitive Judah sits indeed in the midst of a heathenish people, but has found there no rest. She would flee still further, were it possible. But whither could the Jews, with their wives, their children, and all their goods, have fled beyond the desert-surrounded Egypt? They dwelt there, it is true, but they dwelt amidst straits. All their pursuers (and that there were enough of them in Egypt, old and new, is evident from Jeremiah 44:12; Jeremiah 44:18; Jeremiah 44:26 sqq.) could reach them there. Lamentations 1:4-64 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. 5Her adversaries are the chief, her enemies prosper; for the Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions: her children are gone into captivity 6before the enemy. And from the daughter of Zion all her beauty is departed: her princes are become like harts that find no pasture; and they are gone without strength before the pursuer. TEXTUAL AND Lam_1:4.—ΰָ ?αֵ ?μ, adj. mournful [not desert, waste, devastated, as Fuerst says, which destroys the beautiful personification—W. H. H.], occurs Genesis 37:35; Isaiah 57:18, et al., never in Jeremiah. The verb ΰָ ?αַ ?μ he uses, in the same sense as the adjective here (Jeremiah 4:28; Jeremiah 12:4; Jeremiah 12:11; Jeremiah 14:2; Jeremiah 23:10) [and also the noun ΰֵ ?αֶ ?μ, Jeremiah 6:26, et al.—W. H. H.] Isaiah uses the adjective, Isaiah 57:18; Isaiah 61:23.—ξִ ?αְּ ?μִ ?ι, see Jeremiah 2:15; Jeremiah 9:10-11.—The expression αָּ ?ΰֵ ?ι (see Genesis 23:10; Genesis 23:18) is not found in Jeremiah.—ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ is found in Jeremiah twice, Jeremiah 8:7; Jeremiah 46:17, both times in the sense of tempus fixum. In the Lamentations the word occurs six times, and always in the sense of a time of feast, a festival, Lamentations 1:4; Lamentations 1:15; Lamentations 2:6-7; Lamentations 2:22, or the place of a feast, Lamentations 2:6. [It may have here the sense of an appointed time. Ordinary services in the Temple are neglected. None flock to Zion at the usual times of service.—W. H. H.]—The part. ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν is not in Jeremiah: he uses the part. Niph., Jeremiah 33:10, and ωָׁ ?ξֵ ?ν, Jeremiah 12:11. The plur. ending ιο—(see Lamentations 4:3, K’tib), is not found in Jeremiah.—The root ΰָ ?πַ ?η Jeremiah does not use, either in a verbal or a substantive form (see Lamentations 1:8; Lamentations 1:11; Lamentations 1:21).—πεּ ?βεֹ ?ϊ, see δεֹ ?πָ ?δּ below.—ξַ ?ψ Jeremiah does use, Lamentations 2:19; Lamentations 4:18. Lamentations 1:5.—As shown above, δָ ?ιεּ μְ ?ψֹ ?ΰωׁ is a Deuteronomic, ωָׁ ?μεּ a Jeremiac expression. For grammatical form of latter, see Olsh., § 233, b. δεֹ ?βָ ?δּ never occurs in Jeremiah, but frequently in Lamentations 1:4; Lamentations 1:12; Lamentations 3:32-33 : elsewhere, Isaiah 51:23; Zephaniah 3:18. [Vulgate derives it from δָ ?βָ ?δ, which sometimes means to speak; quia Dominus locutus est super eam; Douay, because the Lord hath spoken against her. But Sept., Syr. and Versions generally derive it from ιָ ?πָ ?δ.—W. H. H.]—ςַ ?μΞψֹ ?α is entirely Jeremiac (see on ξֵ ?ψֹ ?α, Lamentations 1:3).—τֶ ?ωַׁ ?ς in Jeremiah only once, Lamentations 5:6.—ςεֹ ?μֵ ?μ, Jeremiah 44:7; ςεֹ ?μָ ?μ, Jeremiah 6:11; Jeremiah 9:20.—δָ ?μַ ?κְ ωְׁ ?αִ ?ι is peculiar to this place. ωְׁ ?αִ ?ι cannot well be an accusative, since to go into exile is always elsewhere expressed by δָ ?μַ ?κְ αַּ ?ωְּׁ ?αִ ?ι, see Lamentations 1:18. [Henderson: her children are gone captives before the enemy.]—The sing. φָ ?ψ, which is frequent in Lam. (Lamentations 1:7; Lamentations 1:10; Lamentations 2:4; Lamentations 4:12), never occurs in Jeremiah: he uses only the plural (Jeremiah 30:16; Jeremiah 46:10) and φָ ?ψָ ?δ (Jeremiah 4:31; Jeremiah 6:24, et al.). Lamentations 1:6.—ιָ ?φָ ?ΰξִ ?ο, for forsaken, lost, is peculiar. [Henderson: “Forξִ ?οΞαַּ ?ϊ the K’ri and some MSS. read more correctly ξִ ?αַּ ?ϊ. The phrase is also thus quoted in the Rabboth.” This best suits the rhythm.—W. H. H.]—δָ ?γָ ?ψ is never found in Jeremiah; nor ΰַ ?ιִּ ?μ (yet see ΰַ ?ιָ ?μָ ?δ, Jeremiah 14:5); nor ξִ ?ψְ ?ςֶ ?δ (Jeremiah always says ξַ ?ψְ ?ςִ ?ιϊ, Jeremiah 10:21; Jeremiah 23:1; Jeremiah 25:36). We find expressions in Jeremiah analogous toαְּ ?μֹ ?ΰλֹ ?ηַ, Lamentations 2:11, αְּ ?μֹ ?ΰιεֹ ?ςִ ?ιμ, Lamentations 5:7, αְּ ?μֹ ?ΰΰֱ ?μηִֹ ?ιν ּ ?—ψֹ ?ψֶ ?σ is found in Jeremiah, but only with suffixes, Jeremiah 15:15; Jeremiah 17:18; Jeremiah 20:11. AND These verses contain a description of the present condition of the city and people of Jerusalem [or, a new aspect of their condition is presented.—We have here another of those changes which impart to these poems a highly dramatic character. A third personage is introduced,—“the daughter of Zion.” The ideal person here is not that of the city of Jerusalem, formerly in outward splendor and estate a queen among the nations, now fallen and humbled (Lamentations 1:1-2), nor yet that of the tribe of Judah, or of the theocratic people, now a fugitive among the heathen (Lamentations 1:3),—but of Zion, formerly the seat of the theocracy, the abode of God, the Temple where Judah and Jerusalem worshipped, now forsaken and despoiled. No longer do the people gather to her appointed solemnities. Silence reigns on Zion, broken only by the sobs of her priests and the moaning of her virgins, a higher evidence than either the ruined city or the exiled people, that the glory was departed from Israel.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 1:4. The ways of Zion,The way to Zion, those ways which lead to Zion: not the streets of the city, as Rosenmueller thinks, for the latter are called ηεּ ?φεֹ ?ϊ (see Hosea 7:1 with Hosea 6:9), do mourn,are mournful (Prosopop�ia, as, e. g.,Lamentations 2:19; Jeremiah 14:2; Jeremiah 23:10; Amos 1:2), because none come to the solemn feasts,forsaken by those who used to come to her feasts [because there are none coming to her appointed services. Appointed assemblies, including all occasions of stated worship, whether daily sacrifices or annual festivals, would more correctly interpret the sense than either “feasts,” “solemn feasts,” or “festivals.”—W. H. H.]—All her gates are desolate,destroyed. Concerning the city itself, its gates are destroyed. But ruined gates are the sign of a ruined city. [“Destroyed,” so Naegelsbach,zerstφrt, Sept. ἠφανισμέμαι= rezed to the ground, Vulg. destructζ. E. V. and modern Versions generally read desolate. It is the gates of Zion, not the gates of the city of Jerusalem, that are here referred to. Those sacred barriers are removed. The holy place has lost its sanctity. It is open now to the intrusion of any who please to enter. See Lamentations 1:10 : “She hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary whom Thou didst command that they should not enter into Thy congregation.” What could more forcibly express, in accordance with Jewish ideas, the idea that the theocratic glory had departed from Israel?—W. H. H.]—Her priests sigh: her virgins are afflicted,sorrowful. Two classes of the inhabitants are named,—the priests and the virgins: the former the nobility, the latter the flower and ornament of the nation. The former sigh under heavy oppression; the latter, who formerly rendered every festival attractive, with dances and pastimes (see Jeremiah 31:13; Herz.Real. Encyc., XV., pp. 414, 415), are now sorrowful. It is thus intimated that every possibility of making a joyous festival is gone. See Jeremiah 7:34; Jeremiah 16:9; Jeremiah 25:10; Jeremiah 33:11; comp. Jeremiah 30:19. The Sept. reads, instead of sorrowful,ἀγόμεναι=led away; the translation evidently of πְ ?δεּ ?βεֹ ?ϊ, which either really stood in the text, or was erroneously substituted by the Alexandrian for the rare word πεּ ?βεֹ ?ϊ. Ewald follows the Sept. Incorrectly, it seems to me. πεּ ?βεֹ ?ϊ is sufficiently expressive, if it be taken as an indication of the prevailing grief and in antithesis to the indications of the public rejoicings that existed in former times. [The mention of “the priests” particularly shows that the sacred precincts of Zion, where they ministered, and where “the virgins” went up to the solemn feasts with joy and gladness, are before the Poet’s eye. To say that the priests are mentioned because they constituted “the nobility” of the inhabitants of the city, is not only awkward, but untrue. Noyes translates the last clause Her virgins wail: a meaning of the original word not licensed by authority.—W. H. H.]—And she is in bitterness. In these words the whole is summed up. [It is, perhaps, impossible to give in English the exquisite force of the original. Naegelsbach nearly reproduces it in German, “Und ihr—ist wehe.”—W. H. H.] Here it is evident that the ideal person of Zion is the embodiment of all the particular members and ranks of the community (des volkslebens). [If this were indisputably evident, it would not militate with the fact that Zion represented the religious life as Judah did the political life of the people.—W. H. H.]—This relative conclusion shows that the Poet proposes to pass to something new. In fact, Lamentations 1:4 describes the positive sorrows and afflictions of the people: Lamentations 1:5, a. b., the good fortune of her enemies as the natural reciprocal effect of the misfortunes of Judah; Lamentations 1:5, c.,6, the negative side of the painful experience of the people, namely, the losses they sustained. Lamentations 1:5. Her adversaries are the chief, lit., have become the head [i. e., her superiors.Blayney and Noyes: or, the head over her.Boothroyd.] In Deuteronomy 28:13 a promise is made to Israel, if obedient, ‘and the Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail,” and in same chapter, Lamentations 1:44, the reverse is threatened, if disobedient. The Poet, without doubt, had these passages in his mind.—Her enemies prosper. The darkness of Israel’s sorrows is deepened by the brilliant prosperity of her enemies. The expression occurs in same sense, Jeremiah 12:1. See Psalms 122:6; Job 12:6.—For the LORD hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions. This advantage on the part of their enemies had not happened by chance, nor by mere arbitrariness or unrighteousness on the side of God, but by an act of Divine rectitude in the punishment of Israel for their sins. What is professedly made conspicuous in Lamentations 1:8 is here anticipated. [Observe, in connection with Zion, as the representative of the religious element of the theocratic idea, in distinction from the national, the name Jehovah is first introduced, and the calamities suffered by the people are first distinctly ascribed to their sins;—the sins especially of priests and ministers of religion, and of hypocrisy, formalism and idolatry on the part of the people.:—W. H. H.]—Her children are gone into captivity,her young children are gone captives. From here to end of Lam 1:6 the Poet describes what Judah has lost. And first, her children.ςεֹ ?μָ ?μִ ?ιν are little children (see Lamentations 2:20; Lamentations 4:4; Jeremiah 6:11; Jeremiah 9:20). These are compelled as captives to go forth before the oppressor into foreign lands. See Joel 4:2, 3.—Before the enemy. [The word adversary (so Broughton) is preferred to enemy, E. V., because the word in Hebrew is the same as that rendered “adversaries” in the first clause. Oppressor and oppressors might be well substituted.—W. H. H.] What renders this more dreadful is the idea that the little children are torn away from parents and brothers and sisters, to be driven as merchandise by their purchasers, some to one place and some to another. [Henderson: “In the representations which we find on ancient sculptures nothing is more affecting than to observe females and young children driven as captives before their conquerors.” Observe, young children are mentioned in connection with Zion because they, in a peculiar sense, are the care of the church, of the religious rather than the political rulers, the lambs of the flock entrusted to the spiritual shepherds of Israel. Nothing could more forcibly express, in accordance with Jewish ideas, the fact that God had forsaken His people, than that the heathen were suffered, without Divine hindrance, to carry away these young children, the children of the covenant, into captivity and slavery. It is this thought that constitutes the poetic climax, showing how severely Jehovah afflicted Zion for her sins.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 1:6. And from the daughter of Zion all her beauty is departed. Zion has lost, not only her dearest and most precious ones, her children, but also her beauty, her glory. This last feature is represented by the princes, with whom, and before them all, the king is to be classed. [What then was the beauty of Zion—the King and the Princes, or God Himself? The beauty of Zion was the presence of Jehovah and the maintenance of His worship on the Holy Mount. See Lamentations 2:1; Lamentations 2:6; 1 Samuel 4:21-22; Ezekiel 7:20-22; Psalms 1:2, “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined,” Psalms 96:9, “Oh, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness,” αְּ ?δַ ?γְ ?ψַ ?ϊΞχֹ ?γֶ ?ωּׁ. Psalms 132:13-14. The beauty of Zion departed when God forsook His people, suffered the Temple to be destroyed, Jeremiah 52:13, and the ordinances of worship to be discontinued. The condition of her princes, like hunted harts, pursued and overtaken, is the consequence of the destruction of Zion, whence they are driven forth, deprived of all spiritual nourishment. God is no longer with them. No more are they fed with the bread of Heaven; and therefore, like starved and parched harts, they fall an easy prey to their pursuers.—W. H. H.]—Her princes are become like harts that find no pasture; and they are gone without strength before the enemy. These noble and fleet-footed animals lose, by hunger, their strength and the power of flight. They are caught and driven at pleasure. So the princes of Zion, formerly her pride and strength, are driven forth by the pursuer. The Sept. and Jerome have κριοί, arietes,=rams. They read or understood ΰֵ ?μִ ?ιν. But evidently ΰַ ?ιִ ?μ is the stag or hart (see Deuteronomy 12:15; Deuteronomy 14:5; Deuteronomy 15:22): rams would not suit in this connection, since rams do not belong to those animals of the chase, which only suffer themselves to be taken by men, when hunger deprives them of power to escape. Lamentations 1:77 Jerusalem remembered in the days of her affliction, and of her miseries, all her pleasant things that she had in the days of old, when her people fell into the hand of the enemy, and none did help her: the adversaries saw her, and did mock at her sabbaths. TEXTUAL AND Lam_1:7.—ιְ ?ξֶ ?ιςָ ?πְ ?ιָ ?δּ εΧ is not the object of ζָֽ ?λְ ?ψָ ?δ, but indicates the time, as is evident from the absence of ε before λֹ ?μ. The accusative ιְ ?ξֵ ?ι answers, as frequently, the question, When? See my Gr., § 70, d. [Blayney: “Houbigant supposes that we ought to read αιξι for ιξι: but I am inclined to think that it is not the α, but the ξ, which has been sunk before ιξι, by means of the preceding word having been terminated with the same letter,—a mistake of which we find numberless instances originating from the same cause. ξιξι signifies during the days, or since they began, asξιξιχγν does presently after, in or during former days,” Boothroyd quotes this note with approval in his Hebrew Bible. Henderson says, “in ιְ ?ξֵ ?ι there is an ellipsis of αְּ, of which there are numerous examples.” But nouns may be “used absolutely to express the relations of time,” see Green’s Gr., § 274, 2.—W. H. H.]—ξְ ?ψεּ ?γִ ?ιν, not from ξָ ?ψַ ?γ, but from ψψּ ?γ, dissipari, vagari (Hosea 12:1; Jeremiah 2:31), is vagatio, erratio, vita extorris et erratica (Fuerst). The word is found, besides here and Lamentations 3:19. only at Isaiah 58:7. [Dr J. A. Alexander translates εְַ ?ςֲ ?πִ ?ιִ ?ινξְ ?ψεּ ?γιν, the afflicted, the homeless, and remarks, “Lowth’s version—the wandering poor—is now commonly regarded as substantially correct. ξְ ?ψεּ ?γִ ?ιν is properly an abstract, meaning wandering (from ψεּ ?γ), here used for the concrete wanderers.” Accepting the opinion of Lowth and Alexander, I have put “wanderings” in the text. Fuerst, in his concordance, derives the word from ψεּ ?γ, as above, but, in his Lexicon, from ξָ ?ψַ ?γ, and translates it expulsion, persecution, misery. W. Robertson says, ξְ ?ψεּ ?γֶ ?ιδָ, her mournings, her lamentations, her miseries or calamities, or her rebellions, for the word may be referred to the root ψεּ ?γ, in Hiph., to mourn, to lament; or to the root ξָ ?ψַ ?γ, to rebel.” Blayney says it “comes from ιָ ?ψַ ?γ, to descend from a higher to a lower condition,” and so translates it abatement. The variety of meanings put upon the word is indicated in the following English Versions: Broughton, vexation; Blayney, abasement; Boothroyd, misery; Henderson, persecution; Noyes. oppression. But wanderings is evidently best supported by its use and most natural derivation, and suits the meaning here, but in Lamentations 3:19 it seems to denote simply a condition of wretchedness.—W. H. H.]—ξַֽ ?ηֲ ?ξֻ ?γֶּ ?ιδָ, only here and Lamentations 1:11, K’tib. Neither ξַ ?ηְ ?ξָ ?γ, nor ξַ ?ηֲ ?ξֹ ?γ, found in Jeremiah. He uses only ηֶ ?ξְ ?γָּ ?δ (Jeremiah 3:19; Jeremiah 12:10; Jeremiah 25:34).—ξִ ?ιξֵ ?ιχֶ ?γֶ ?ν, in Jeremiah we have λִ ?ιξֵ ?ιΞχֶ ?γֶ ?ν, Jeremiah 46:26.—αְּ ?ιַ ?γ could be into the hand [E. V., Blayney, Boothroyd, Henderson, Noyes] instead of by [Broughton]; the difference is not important.—[Blayney: “Instead of ψָ ?ΰεּ ?δָ φָ ?ψִ ?ιν I propose to read ψָ ?ΰεּ ηַֽ ?φָ ?ψִ ?ιִ ?ν.” An ingenious, but unnecessary, unauthorized change.—W. H. H.] AND Lam_1:7. Jerusalem. [Here occurs another of those sudden changes which give to this poem its highly dramatic character. In the preceding verses, which may be properly regarded as introductory to all that follows, the city, the nation, and the church have been successively introduced. Now Jerusalem is named for the first time. Jerusalem, here, must be regarded as generic and comprehensive; the representative of the theocratic idea; the head of all the cities of Israel, the type of its nationality, the seat of its worship, where God dwelt in its consecrated Zion. The ideal persons who have already appeared,—the ruined city, pictured as a sorrowing widow and dethroned and conquered queen, of Lamentations 1:1-2,—the exile, fleeing from misery and bondage, seeking a home among heathen, but finding no rest, no escape from trouble and persecution, of Lamentations 1:3,—the daughter of Zion, despoiled of her beauty, bewailing the absence of worshippers, the invasion of her sacred courts by heathen, the captivity of her infant children and the humiliation of her proud leaders and princes, of Lamentations 1:4-6,—all now are embraced under the generic name of Jerusalem, which from this verse to the end of the chapter is personified as the representative of the theocratic idea.—W. H. H.]—remembered,remembers. The unfortunate cannot forbear recalling their former prosperity, the remembrance of which serves both to comport them and to increase their sorrow. Zion follows this propensity of nature.—in the days of her affliction and of her miseries, all her pleasant things.—All the glorious things, of a spiritual and of a temporal nature, which had fallen to the lot of the chosen people from the beginning of their history, are now the subject of painful remembrance.—that she had in the days of old. See Lamentations 2:17; Isaiah 23:7; Isaiah 37:26; Micah 7:20. [Broughton: “in the old time.” Henderson: “from ancient days.”] Ewald regards the words, all the pleasant things she had from the days of old, as erroneously transplanted here out of Lam 1:10. His principal reason seems to be that they spoil the rhythm. Vaihinger supposes that this verse, as well as Lamentations 2:19, contains four members. I see no necessity for this. We are only to regard the two members of the first part of the verse as of greater length. There is apparently no exact measure for the number of syllables of the several members. The thought that Jerusalem in her misery remembers her present misery [which would be the sense according to Ewald’s emendation] is unnatural; for ζָ ?λַ ?ψ [to call to mind, to remember] always suggests something distant, remote, in reference to space or time, and, in the latter relation, either past or future. Besides, the words, “that she had in the days of old,” so appropriate in Lamentations 1:7, would be altogether superfluous and confusing in Lamentations 1:10.—when her people fell into the hand of the enemy,when her people fall by the hand of the oppressor.This is a more particular description of “the days of her affliction.” They were the days when her people fell by the hand of their enemies.—and none did help her,and she has no helper. [So all the Eng. Versions, except E. V.]—the adversaries saw her,her oppressors behold her. The construction is determined by what precedes, according to acknowledged usage. See. my Gr., § 99.—[ψָ ?ΰָ ?δ = to see, has here the sense of looking at in the way of inspection, beholding (Broughton), perhaps in the sense of ‘looking at a person with satisfaction or joy,’ to ‘feast the eyes upon one with malicious joy’ (see Fuerst’sLex.). The remark of Dr. J. A. Alexander on Isaiah 53:2, that ψָ ?ΰָ ?δ “means to view with pleasure only when followed by the preposition α,” needs qualification.—W. H. H.]—and did mock—they mock—at her Sabbaths.ξִ ?ωְׁ ?λָּ ?ϊ is an ἅπ. λεγ. The sense of the word itself is clear. It can only mean cessationes, excidia [cessations, destructions]. But the choice of a word else unused, seems to indicate that the scorn of their enemies was of an equivocal character; namely, they scoffed not only because Zion had come to its end, but likewise because now a general Sabbath, a day of rest for the land in a bad sense, had begun. We have then a proof that the Sabbath was to the heathen, even before the days of Rome (see Juv. Sat. XIV. 96–106; Pers. V. 179–184; Mart. IV. 4, 7), an occasion for mockery. [Hugh Broughton: “This prophesieth how in Babel they will mourn for desire unto their feasts, which in their Land they would not keep aright. And the Chaldeans will scoff at their Sabbatisms, as did long after Horace, Ovid, and other Poets,—and Tully, too, deserving to have his head cut off and his tongue pricked, as he had. The Psalms 137 commenteth upon this verse.”]. This early mockery of the Jewish Sabbath would be more likely to happen, since it would naturally come to the ears of those who destroyed Jerusalem, that the commandment itself predicted to the disobedient people a time of desolation, as an involuntary Sabbath rest of the land. See Leviticus 26:34; Leviticus 26:43; 2 Chronicles 36:21. I believe, therefore, that the old explanation of Vulg., Arab., Luther, L. Capelle, translating ξִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ϊִּ ?ιν by Sabbaths, is right, so far as it allows an equivocal sense of this word. [This word has given the translators and commentators much trouble. The Sept. translates it by μετοικεσία, “and mocked at her captivity,” deriving the noun from ωָׁ ?αָ ?δ, captivum ducere. The other Versions vary. Blayney:“discontinuance;” “Houbigant justly observes that ωαδ is nowhere used for Sabbath, etc. But without taking the liberty which he does of substituting another word, ξωαψδ, the use of the verb ωαϊ will justify giving to ξωαϊδ a sense well suited to the exigence of the passage, namely, ‘her discontinuance,’ that is, the ceasing, or causing to cease, of her, or of her former prosperity.” Boothroyd and Noyes: “destruction.” Henderson: “they laughed at her ruin,” “ξִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ϊֶּ ?ιδ, lit., her ruined circumstances; the state of the complete cessation of all the active businesses of life. Root, ωָׁ ?αַ ?ϊto cease; Hiph., to put an end to, cause to cease.”Broughton: “Sabbatisms;” (which, as preserving the equivocal sense, is to be preferred).—Blayney: “Some critics have been willing to discard this line, Her oppressors behold her—they mock at her Sabbaths—as well as the fourth in Lamentations 2:19, but for no better reason than because all the other periods in the two chapters consist, of three lines only. But I think this not a sufficient ground, in opposition to the authority of all the Hebrew copies and ancient Versions.” Henderson, who makes four lines of this verse, and only three of the others, remarks, “there is no reason to believe that Jeremiah considered himself so rigidly bound to adhere to his triple arrangement, as on no occasion to break through it in order to give utterance to a thought forcibly bearing on the statement which he had just made.” Why then adopt an artificial style at all? But there is no necessity for making four members instead of three of this verse. Each member consists of two distinctly marked clauses; and in this verse the first member has two clauses of more than usual length. Naegelsbach’s arrangement of the lines in sixes, instead of triplets, plainly disposes of this difficulty, and its correctness is vindicated by the accents.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 1:8-11. 8Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honored her, despise her, because they have seen her nakedness; yea, she sigheth, and9 turneth backward. Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O Lord, behold10my afflictions; for the enemy hath magnified himself. The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things: for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter 11into thy congregation. All her people sigh, they seek bread: they have given their pleasant things for meat to relieve the soul: see, O Lord, and consider; for I am become vile. TEXTUAL AND Lam_1:8.—ηֵ ?θְ ?ΰηָֽ ?θְ ?ΰָ ?δ. See my Gr., § 93, d, note. The form ηֵ ?θְ ?ΰ (frequent in Deuteronomy 15:9; Deuteronomy 21:22, etc., comp. Isaiah 31:7; Isaiah 53:12; Hosea 12:9) is never found in Jeremiah, and in Lam. only here and Lamentations 3:39. Jeremiah uses only the form ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊ Jeremiah 16:10; Jeremiah 16:18; Jeremiah 17:1; Jeremiah 17:3; Jeremiah 18:23, et al. The verb ηָ ?θָ ?ΰ is frequent with him, Jeremiah 2:35; Jeremiah 3:25; Jeremiah 8:14.—[Blayney: “For μְ ?πִ ?ιγָ ?δ, which occurs nowhere else, nineteen MSS., and the first edition of the Hagiographa, read μְ ?πִ ?γָּ ?δ, as at Jeremiah 1:17 and various other places.”]—ξְ ?λַ ?αֵּ ?γ, not found in Jeremiah; 1 Samuel 2:30; 2 Samuel 10:3; Proverbs 14:31.—The Hiphil form, δִ ?ζִּ ?ιμ (not to be confounded with δִ ?ζִּ ?ιψ from πָ ?ζַּ ?μ, Isaiah 48:21), occurs only here. See Olsh., § 255, h, note. In Jeremiah 15:19 we find ζεֹ ?μֵ ?μ, abjectum, vile. [The word is from ζָ ?μַ ?μ, Chaldaic inflexion. See Benjamin Davidson; Analyt. Lex., § 18,14; or from ζεּ ?μ, see Fuerst, Lex.—W. H. H.]—ςֶ ?ψְ ?εָ ?δ, not found in Jeremiah. See Isaiah 47:3; Ezekiel 16:37. [Cranmer, Bishops’ B., filthiness; Broughton, Boothroyd, Noyes, shame.]—ΰָ ?δεֹ ?ψ is found in Jeremiah only with δָ ?μַ ?κְ, Jeremiah 15:6, and πָ ?ρεֹ ?β, Jeremiah 38:22; Jeremiah 46:5. Lamentations 1:9.—θֻ ?ξְ ?ΰָ ?ϊָ ?δּ. Ewald, wholly unnecessarily, would read θָֽ ?ξְ ?ΰַֽ ?ϊָ ?δ, she polluted (§ 194, b). The word is not found in Jeremiah.—τְ ?μָ ?ΰִ ?ιν, acc. adverbial. See πִ ?τְ ?μָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ, Job 37:5; πεֹ ?ψָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ, Psalms 65:6; ξֵ ?ιωָׁ ?ψִ ?ιν, Psalms 75:3; my Gr., § 70, k.—δִ ?πְ ?γִ ?ιμ requires neither πַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ nor τִּ ?ιε to complete the sense. The object lies in the verb itself. The direct causative is needed (see my Gr., § 18, 3). It also means, to play the part of or to affect greatness; see Jeremiah 48:26; Jeremiah 48:42; comp. 1 Samuel 20:41. [Fuerst gives this verb an inchoative sense, to grow violent. This sense of the word seems to have induced the inaccurate translation of Blayney, Behold how an enemy hath aggravated mine affliction. Boothroyd gives same sense.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 1:10.—τָ ?ψַ ?ωׂ (see Lamentations 1:13; Lamentations 1:17; Lamentations 4:4) is not strange to the vocabulary of Jer 4:31; Jeremiah 16:7; Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22.—Before αָּ ?ΰεּ supply ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ.—[Henderson: “The δ in φִ ?εִּ ?ιϊָ ?δ is merely the fuller form of the pronominal fragment for φִ ?εִּ ?ιϊָ, the common form. It is omitted in some MSS.”] Lamentations 1:11.—ξַֽ ?ηֲ ?ξַ ?εγֵּ ?ιδֶ ?ν, see Lamentations 1:7; Lamentations 1:10. [Henderson: the form is “quite irregular. It is corrected in the K’ri, which rejects the ε. The word is thus exhibited in a great number of MSS. and in eight printed editions.”]—αְּ .αְּ ?ΰֹ ?λֶ ?μ indicates something given in the way of price or wages; see Genesis 29:18; Genesis 30:26; Isaiah 7:23; my Gr., § 112, 5, a. ΰֹ ?λֶ ?μ is not found in Jeremiah. He says ΰָ ?λְ ?μָ ?δ, Jeremiah 12:12; or ξַֽ ?ΰֲ ?λָ ?μ, Jeremiah 7:33; Jeremiah 16:4; Jeremiah 19:7; Jeremiah 34:20.—μְ ?δָ ?ωִׁ ?ιαπָ ?τֶ ?ωׁ occurs Lamentations 1:16; Lamentations 1:19; Rth 4:15; Psalms 19:8; Proverbs 25:13, never in Jeremiah.—ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δεְ ?δַ ?αִּ ?ιθָ ?δ. These two imperatives are found together, only in the reverse order, in Job 35:5; Isaiah 63:15; Psalms 80:15; Psalms 142:5. In the Lamentations we also have δַ ?αִּ ?ιθεּ εּ ?ψְ ?ΰεּ, Lamentations 1:12; εּ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δδַ ?αִּ ?ιθּ, Lamentations 1:1, and δַ ?αִּ ?ιθָ ?δ alone Lamentations 3:63. Jeremiah never uses the verb πָ ?αַ ?θ, which Isaiah uses constantly, Isaiah 5:12; Isaiah 5:30; Isaiah 8:22; Isaiah 18:4; Isaiah 42:18; Isaiah 63:15; Isaiah 20:5-6, etc.—ζεֹ ?μֵ ?μָ ?δ occurs once in Jeremiah 15:19. See δִ ?ζִּ ?ιμεּ ?δָ Lamentations 1:8. The word is used in a contemptuous sense; Zion [Jerusalem] has become a ςֶ ?φֶ ?απִ ?αְ ?ζֶ ?δ (Jeremiah 22:28) when she ought to be πַֽ ?ηֲ ?μַ ?ϊφְ ?αִ ?ιφִ ?αְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊβεֹ ?ιִ ?ν (Jeremiah 3:19). [ζεֹ ?μֵ ?μ‍ ? is properly the participle of ζָ ?μַ ?μ, to shake to and fro, to totter, hence figuratively to be low, bad, contemptible, abject, mean, and then again figuratively to be miserable, unhappy, in which last sense it is used here. See Fuerst, Lex.—W. H. H.] AND Lam_1:8. It is sin that has made Jerusalem an object of abhorrence. Her uncleanness has become notorious: therefore those who might comfort her keep far from her, while her heathen oppressors, who, according to the law, should keep away from her, have free access to her.—Jerusalem hath grievously sinned. [Lit., hath sinned a sin. This Hebraism suggests the idea, not only of a sin of a grievous character, but of sin persevered in, and its guilt aggravated by constant repetition. So Cranmer translates: “Jerusalem hath sinned ever more and more.” Naegelsbach, poetically, if not accurately: Gesόndigt, gesόndigt hat Jerusalem.Calvin: “Here the Prophet expresses more clearly and strongly what he had briefly referred to, even that all the evils which the Jews suffered proceeded from God’s vengeance, and that they were worthy of such a punishment, because they had not lightly offended, but had heaped up for themselves a dreadful judgment, since they had in all manner of ways abandoned themselves to impiety. This is the substance of what is said.”—W. H. H.]—Therefore she is removed. [Correctly, therefore she is become vile.Westminster Annotations: “She is become as a woman separated for her uncleanness,” Leviticus 15:19; Ezekiel 22:10; Ezekiel 36:17; or, an abominable thing, for so also is the word used in an abstract notion, Leviticus 20:21; 2 Chronicles 29:5; Ezra 9:11. So Lamentations 1:17.—W. H. H.]—All that honoured her despise her. Those who formerly honored Jerusalem, her friends and allies, now despise her. [Calvin: “This also did not a little increase the grievousness of her calamity; she had been repudiated by her friends, by whom she had before been valued and honored. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ Lamentations 2Lamentation 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, God’s personal agency in the calamities described is the controlling idea (see Lamentations 2:1-9; Lamentations 2:17; Lamentations 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 Zion’s 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!”—The chapter is composed of two sections: 1. Lamentations 2:1-10, a description of the judgment which the Lord had inflicted; 2. Lamentations 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 Lamentations 2:1-10ΰ Lamentations 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. α Lamentations 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 ground—He polluted The kingdom and its princes. β Lamentations 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. γ Lamentations 2:4. He bent His bow as an enemy: He stood—with 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. δ Lamentations 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. ε Lamentations 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. ζ Lamentations 2:7. The Lord cast away with disdain His altar, He abhorred His Sanctuary. He gave up into the enemy’s hand The walls of her palaces. They shouted in Jehovah’s house As on a day of appointed solemnity. η Lamentations 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. θ Lamentations 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! ι Lamentations 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. 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, Lamentations 2:1-2. Then follows a brief recital of the events of the war, from its beginning to the capture of the city, Lamentations 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 Jeremiah 52:13-14), Lamentations 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 Lamentations 2:9 b we learn the fate of the King, Princes and Prophets; in Lamentations 2:10 we see the elders and the virgins lamenting; in Lamentations 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, Lamentations 2:1-22.—The first part naturally divides itself into two equal sections: Lamentations 2:1-5 contain a general description of the punishment of Zion; Lamentations 2:6-10 relate particularly to the destruction of Zion itself.—W. H. H.] Footnotes: [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 ΰια, that may mean hated, despised, or an enemy. In [illegible] initials of the first four words of i. we have ΰιαδ, enmity.—W. H. H.] 2. Lamentations 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 Lam_2:1.—ιָ ?ςִ ?ια. From the verbal stem,ςεּ ?α, from which is ςָ ?α, a cloud, only this single form occurs, and this is ἅπ. λεγ. [αְּ ?ΰַ ?τּ ?εֹ. Gerlach: “not with wrath (Ewald), but in His wrath, as similar expressions at the close of this ver. and in Lamentations 2:2; Lamentations 2:6; Lamentations 2:21-22, show.”—ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι. See Intr. Aδd. Rem. p. 32.—δִ ?ωׁ ?μִ ?ικְ ?—Only used in Hiph. and Hoph.; frequent in Jeremiah 7:15; Jeremiah 7:29; Jeremiah 9:18; Jeremiah 41:9, etc.—ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υ. Accusative of place, in answer to the question, Whither? 1 Samuel 25:23; 1 Kings 1:31; Isaiah 49:23; Amos 9:9; Obadiah 1:3; Psalms 147:15; my Gr., § 70, b. Jeremiah uses ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υ as accusative after verbs of going and coming very frequently, Jeremiah 37:12; Jeremiah 40:12; Jeremiah 42:14; Jeremiah 43:7, etc.—ϊִּ ?τְ ?ΰָ ?ψָ ?δ ּ ?ϊִּ ?τְ ?ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ, a corresponding word, is very frequent, with Jeremiah 48:17; Jeremiah 13:11; Jeremiah 13:18; Jeremiah 33:9.—ζָ ?λַ ?ψ, in same sense, Jeremiah 31:20; Jeremiah 15:15. ξֲ ?γεֹ ?ν, not found in Jer.—Jeremiah never says ιεֹ ?νΰַ ?σ. The only place in which he connects ΰַ ?σ with the idea of a particular time, he says αְּ ?ςֵ ?ϊΰַ ?τְּ ?κ, Jeremiah 18:23. The expression is found in Lam. only here and Lamentations 2:21-22. Lamentations 2:2.—αִּ ?μַּ ?ς. Jeremiah uses only Kal, and that only once, Jeremiah 51:34. Piel in this chapter five times, Lamentations 2:2; Lamentations 2:5, bis, 8, 16, nowhere else in Lam.—[ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι. See Intr. Add. Rem. p. 32]—μֹ ?ΰηָ ?ξַ ?μ. [K’ri,εְ ?μֹ ?ΰ. “The asyndeton is much used in this species of verse at the half pause.” Blayney.] Jeremiah uses the word ηָ ?ξַ ?μ, Jeremiah 13:14; Jeremiah 15:5; Jeremiah 21:7; Jeremiah 1:14; Jeremiah 51:3. But to express the thought, which μֹ ?ΰηָ ?ξַ ?μ here represents, Jeremiah uses εְ ?μֹ ?ΰπִ ?ηַ ?ν, Jeremiah 20:16. [With all deference, the thought in Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah’s style and language.—W. H. H.]—πְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊιַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ςֲ ?χֹ ?α occurs only here. [Blayney translates πְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ pleasant places, following the Sept., πάντατὰὡραῖα, and the Latin, omnia speciosa. Douay: all that was beautiful in Jacob. Though πָ ?ΰָ ?δ is used in this sense in the Piel, there is no clear case where the noun has this sense; it designates either dwellings, Psalms 74:20; Psalms 83:13, or pasture-grounds regarded as the dwellings of shepherds and their flocks, Amos 1:2; Jeremiah 9:9; Jeremiah 25:37; Psalms 23:2; Psalms 65:13. Fuerst translates it here unprotected, open cities, opposite of walled and fortified places.—W. H. H.]—δָ ?ψַ ?ν Jeremiah uses frequently, Jeremiah 1:10; Jeremiah 24:6; Jeremiah 31:28, etc.—He uses ςֶ ?αְ ?ψָ ?δ only twice, Jeremiah 7:29; Jeremiah 48:30.—ξִ ?αְ ?φְ ?ψֵ ?ιαֵ ?ϊΞιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ. See Jeremiah 1:8; Jeremiah 5:17.—ηִ ?μֵּ ?μ, Piel, occurs in Jeremiah 16:18; Jeremiah 31:5; Jeremiah 34:16; comp. Isaiah 43:28.—ξַ ?ξְ ?μָ ?λָ ?δεְ ?ωָׂ ?ψֶ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ιδָ. Sept. has βασιλέααὐτῆς. They must have read ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?δּ as in Lamentations 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 ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?δּ, at the time in sight at Lamentations 2:9, could originate from ρַ ?τְ ?μָ ?λָ ?δ, than it would be to account for the reverse. ξַ ?ξְ ?μָ ?λָ ?δ in connection with ωְׂ ?ψֶ ?ιδָ (the suffix of which refers to the former) and with reference to πָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ and ρִ ?αְ ?φָ ?ψִ ?ιν, is without doubt to be taken in the sense of royalty=kingship, regia potestas. Jeremiah uses the word in this sense, Jeremiah 27:1; Jeremiah 28:1. [Fuerst: dominion, reign, kingdom.] AND Lam_2:1. How—see Lamentations 1:1—hath the Lord covered—doth the Lord cover—the 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; Lamentations 2:6; Lamentations 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 Lamentations 1:6, and Jeremiah 4:31; Jeremiah 6:2; Jeremiah 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 ϊִּ ?τְ ?ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ, by itself, could indicate the Temple which the Israelites called αֵּ ?ιϊϊִּ ?τְ ?ΰַ ?ψְ ?ϊֵּ ?πεּ [lit., house of our glory; E. V., our beautiful house], Isaiah 54:10; comp. Isaiah 60:7; Isaiah 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 (1 Samuel 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 Psalms 78:61. The word ϊִּ ?τְ ?ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ 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 ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ιִ ?ν is never used in this figurative sense in the Old Testament. The places which are cited as proving such a use of the word (Genesis 11:4; Job 20:6; Isaiah 14:12; Daniel 4:8; 2 Chronicles 28:9; comp. Genesis 4:10) are entirely irrelevant. In the New Testament only Matthew 11:23; Luke 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, ιָ ?ςִ ?ια = 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,ξִ ?ωָּׁ ?ξַ ?ιִ ?ν. is often used in this sense. Joshua 10:11; 2 Samuel 22:14; Genesis 19:24; Exodus 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 1 Chronicles 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 Psalms 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 (2 Samuel 6:2; Psalms 80:2; Psalms 99:1) [see also 1 Samuel 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 ξֵ ?ςַ ?μδַ ?λַּ ?τֹּ ?ψֶ ?ϊfrom above the mercy-seat,Exodus 25:22; Numbers 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 Psalms 99:5; Psalms 132:7. [Alexander: on Psalms 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, 1 Chronicles 28:2; Lamentations 2:1; Psalms 132:7; Isaiah 60:13. Even in Isaiah 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 Isaiah 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 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. 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. [ιָ ?ςִ ?ια. Naegelsbach translates it verdunkelt;Gerlach,umwφlkt;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 Green’sGr., § 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 Naegelsbach’s 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 Isaiah 14:12. But his beautiful star shines only in his fancy, and not in the text. Lamentations 2:2. The Lord hath swallowed up.—The Poet has in mind the idea of a yawning abyss. See Exodus 15:12; Numbers 16:30-32; Numbers 26:10; Deuteronomy 11:6; Psalms 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 Lamentations 2:5; Lamentations 2:8; Lamentations 2:16 (see also Habakkuk 1:13; Isaiah 25:7-8; Isaiah 49:19; 2 Samuel 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 πְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊξִ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ [lit. dwellings of pasture-land], Psalms 65:13; Jeremiah 9:9; Jeremiah 23:10; Joe 1:19-20; Joe 2:22. And hath not pitied. See Lamentations 2:17; Lamentations 2:21; Lamentations 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 down—demolished, 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 Lamentations 1:15; Lamentations 2:5. The expression is very suitable, since only Judah still had any strongholds. See Jeremiah 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 δִ ?βִ ?ιςַ μָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, to bring down to the ground, is used very explicitly of fortified places in Isaiah 25:12; Isaiah 26:5, comp. Ezekiel 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 Psalms 89:40, ηִ ?μַּ ?μְ ?ϊָּ μָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υπִ ?ζְ ?ψεֹ, “Thou hast profaned his crown, by casting it to the ground.” [In favor of Naegelsbach’s construction Isaiah 1. the absence of the conjunction. 2. The prevailing meaning of the verb πָ ?βַ ?ς followed by μְ, 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.] Lamentations 2:3-43 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 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 Lam_2:3.—βָּ ?γַ ?ς. Only the Niph. is found in Jeremiah 48:25; Jeremiah 50:23.—ηָֽ ?ψִ ?ι-ΰַ ?σ, not in Jeremiah.—μֶ ?δָ ?αָ ?δ, Jeremiah 48:45.—ΰָֽ ?λְ ?μָ ?δρָ ?αִ ?ια, see Jeremiah 21:14; Jeremiah 46:14; Jeremiah 50:32. Jeremiah always employs as the object of ΰָ ?λַ ?μ in this sense, ρְ ?αִ ?ιαִ ?ιν or ρְ ?αִ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊ. Lamentations 2:4.—γָּ ?ψַ ?κְ χֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ, Jeremiah 9:2; Jeremiah 46:9; Jeremiah 1:14; Jeremiah 1:19; Jeremiah 51:3.—There is no sufficient reason for questioning the pointing of πִ ?φָּ ?α as Part. Niph. It is in apposition with γָּ ?ψַ ?κְ, [πִ ?φָּ ?α is used of God’s coming in judgment in Isaiah 3:13; Psalms 82:1. Its close connection by εְ with the next verb should not be unobserved. He stood or set Himself—His right hand as an adversary—and slew, etc.—W. H. H.] Jeremiah never uses the Niph. πִ ?φָּ ?α, only the Hiph., Jeremiah 5:26; Jeremiah 31:21, and Hithp., Jeremiah 46:4; Jeremiah 46:14.—The verb δָ ?ψַ ?β (see Lamentations 2:20-21; Lamentations 3:43), is scarcely current with Jeremiah. He uses only the Part. (Jeremiah 31:21) and Inf. Kal. (Jeremiah 15:3). [Lowth, Prelim. Dissert, on Isaiah, and Blayney supply after this verb λָ ?μ-πַ ?ςַ ?ψ, every youth, from the Chaldee Paraphrase, to supply an apparent defect in metre.—W. H. H.]—The expression ΰֹ ?δֶ ?μαַּ ?ϊφ֯ occurs only here.—[The recurrence in Jeremiah of the figures of bending the bow and of pouring out fury as liquid fire (see Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 7:20; Jeremiah 21:12; Jeremiah 42:18; Jeremiah 44:6) may be regarded as evidences of authorship.—W. H. H.] AND 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 Lamentations 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 λֹ ?μχֶ ?ψֶ ?ο, 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 and—as far as practicable—simultaneous events of the achievement, wherein the most impressive event, representing, of course, the end, is placed last of all. Lamentations 2:3. He hath cut off—He broke—in his fierce anger—in hot anger. See Exodus 11:8; Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 7:4; 1 Samuel 20:34; 2 Chronicles 25:10. [The pronoun his supplied in E. V. is unnecessary, and weakens the sense. There is a rhetorical climax in the words—anger,ΰַ ?σ, Lamentations 2:1; wrath,ςֶ ?αְ ?ψָ ?δ, Lamentations 2:2; and heat of anger, or hot, fierce, furious anger, ηֳ ?εִ ?ιΞΰַ ?σ, Lamentations 2:3.—W. H. H.]—All the horn of Israel—Every horn of Israel. See Jeremiah 48:25; Ps. 75:11. According to constant usage, the horn is a symbol of power; see Psalms 18:3; Psalms 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 back—He bent back—his right hand from before the enemy. Does the pronominal suffix his, in ιְ ?ξִ ?ιπεֹ, 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 ιָ ?ξִ ?ιο = right hand, in a figurative sense. The word occurs in his book only once, Jeremiah 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, Psalms 74:11 (with reference, perhaps, to the expression πְ ?θεּ ?ιָ ?δζְ ?ψεֹ ?ςַ ?—a stretched-out arm,Exodus 6:6, and elsewhere), and on the other side, Psalms 44:11; Psalms 89:43-44; comp. Isaiah 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 ΰָ ?ηεֹ ?ψ, back, backward, standing in connection with ρִ ?τְּ ?πֵ ?ιΰεֹ ?ιֵ ?α, before the enemy, decides for the latter meaning. For in Psalms 74:11 it is merely ϊָ ?ωִׁ ?ιαιָֽ ?γְ ?κָ, thou withdrawest thy hand. Here the ΰָ ?ηεֹ ?ψ, backward, must change the sense. Drawing back the hand is merely the opposite of stretching it out (ζְ ?ψεֹ ?ςַ πְ ?θεּ ?ιָ ?δ) 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 (Isaiah 41:13), or elevates it (Psalms 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 (Psalms 44:11), or of the sword (held by the right hand, Psalms 89:44). [Owen (in a note on Calvin): “Gataker, Henry, Blayney, and Henderson, consider the right hand as that of Israel—that 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 God’s 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 Psalms 74:11.” Gataker’s argument, in Assembly’s Annotations, on the other side, is very strongly put, and agrees in its main points with Naegelsbach’s. 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 Lamentations 2:1, How hath the Lord done all this, and the subsequent use of His with reference to God (Lamentations 2:1, His anger, twice, His footstool; Lamentations 2:2, His wrath; Lamentations 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 Lamentations 2:3 mean one thing, and in Lamentations 2:4 another. 4. Throughout this whole passage, Lamentations 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 God’s 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 God’s resistance to His own merciful impulses towards His own people. He forcibly bends back the hand He had already stretched out in Israel’s behalf.—W. H. H.]—And he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about—And 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]. αָּ ?ςַ ?ψ with αְּ of the object is so often used in the signification of setting on fire, then of consuming by fire (Numbers 11:1; Numbers 11:3; Isaiah 30:33; Isaiah 42:25; Isaiah 43:2; Jeremiah 44:6; Job 1:16; Psalms 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,αֲּ ?ιֽ ?ςֲֹ ?χα, in a local sense, we must still understand ιִ ?αְ ?ςֵ ?ψ of the kindling of the fire, in which sense only is the Piel used (comp. Exodus 35:3; Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 21:4). Then, too, we see the force of the particle of comparison, λְ ?ΰֵ ?ωׁ, 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 Deuteronomy 32:22. Lamentations 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. Psalms 7:13; Deuteronomy 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 (πִ ?φָּ ?α)—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 πִ ?φָּ ?α 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 Psalms 11:3, but the phraseology in that place is entirely different. I think that passages like Psalms 109:6; Zechariah 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 (Psalms 16:8; Psalms 73:23; Psalms 109:31; Psalms 110:5; Psalms 121:5; Isaiah 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 ιְ ?ξִ ?ιπεֹ, his right hand, has to be taken as an accusative of place, is no objection (see my Gr., § 70, c;Exodus 33:8), though elsewhere a preposition is used (see the places above referred to, Psalms 109:6; Zechariah 3:1 and Psalms 45:10). [The ingenious reference of his right hand to Israel is peculiar to our author: though Chaldζus, 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 Lamentations 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 Lamentations 2:4 also refers to God; if his bow means God’s bow, and not Israel’s, then his right hand would naturally mean God’s, and not Israel’s, or Nebuchadnezzar’s, or any other person’s. 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 Himself—His 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 eye—And destroyed all that charms or delights the eye. The delights of the eye (see Lamentations 1:7; Lamentations 1:10-11) are evidently those in whom the eyes of parents take the greatest delight, the virgins and the young men,Lamentations 1:18. [Calvin:He slew all the chosen men. It is better to take the verb δָ ?ψַ ?β, to kill, slay, metaphorically, as in Psalms 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 Lamentations 4:11; Hos. v: 10: Jeremiah 6:11; Jeremiah 10:25; Jeremiah 42:18; comp. Jeremiah 14:16. That the Poet would indicate the capture and destruction of the city, is clear. Lamentations 2:55 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. TEXTUAL AND Lam_2:5.—ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξεֹ ?ο, in Lam. only here and Lamentations 2:7. Often in Jeremiah 6:5; Jeremiah 9:20, etc. AND According to Jeremiah 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 Lamentations 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 Lamentations 2:6.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 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 Lamentations 2:4, and λְּ ?ΰַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δas a widow, Lamentations 1:1.—He hath swallowed up (see Lamentations 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 king’s house” and “all the houses of the great men,” or “every great house,” λָּ ?μΞαֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?βָ ?γεֹ ?μ in Jeremiah 52:13. Strongholds, see Lamentations 2:2.—He hath destroyed his strongholds, is a quotation from Jeremiah 48:18. Commentators differ with respect to the suffixes in ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?πεֹ ?ϊֶ ?ιδָ, her palaces, and ξִ ?αְ ?φָ ?ψָ ?ιε, his strongholds. Some think the feminine suffix her refers to the daughter of Zion, Lamentations 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 Hosea 8:14, where the feminine suffix is attached to the same word as here, ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?πεֹ ?ϊֶ ?ιδָ, her palaces, and where, as here the masculine would be expected.—W. H. H.] J. D. Michaelis would read ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?πεֹ ?ϊιָ ?δּ, palaces ofJehovah.Thenius conjectures that -ֶ ?ιδָ, her, has been changed into Ξָ ?ιε, 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 ξִ ?αְ ?φָ ?ψָֽ ?ιִ ?κְ, thy strongholds (yet the Sept. has τὰὀχορώματααὐτοῦ), 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 Ezekiel 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 ωִׁ ?ηֵ ?ϊξִ ?αְ ?φָ ?ψָ ?ιε; in Jeremiah 48:18 it is ωׁ ?ηֵ ?ϊξִ ?αְ ?φָ ?ψָֽ ?ιִ ?κְ, 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 Lamentations 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 Lamentations 1:15, mourning and lamentation. The last words in the original are a beautiful paronomasia, borrowed from Isaiah 29:2, ϊַּֽ ?ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιָ ?δεַֽ ?ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιָ ?δ. [Henderson: “Sorrow and sadness.” Vitringa:M�ror ac mζstitia.Gerlach:Betrόbniss und Trobsal.Naegelsbach:Ζchzen und Krδchzen], See ϊֹּ ?δεּ εָ ?αֹ ?δεּ ?Genesis 1:2; ωׁ ?εֹ ?ΰָ ?δεּ ?ξְ ?ωֹׁ ?ΰָ ?δ, Job 30:10; ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ξָ ?δεּ ?ξְ ?ωַׁ ?ξָּ ?δ, Ezekiel 35:3. Lamentations 2:6-76 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 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 Lam_2:6.—The verb ηָ ?ξַ ?ν is found in Jeremiah 22:3; Jeremiah 13:22.—ωׂ ?κְ for ρֹ ?κְ, see Crit. note below.—The definite article in λַּ ?βַ ?κ 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 Green’s Gr., § 245, 5 d.—W. H. H.]—ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ, the first time is used of festival place (see Psalms 74:8; comp. 1 Samuel 20:35), and then of the festival itself (see Lamentations 1:4). [See Crit. note below.]—ωִׁ ?λַ ?η. This Piel form is found only here. It must be taken in the accusative sense.—ωַׁ ?αָּ ?ϊ occurs in Jeremiah only in Jeremiah 17:21-27, where the profanation of the Sabbath is referred to.—πָ ?ΰַ ?υ, in Lamentations only here; in Jeremiah 14:21; Jeremiah 23:17; Jeremiah 33:24.—ζַ ?ςַ ?ν, in Lamentations only here; in Jeremiah 10:10; Jeremiah 15:17; Jeremiah 50:25. Lamentations 2:7. ζָ ?ςַ ?η, three times in Lamentations 2:7; Lamentations 3:17; Lamentations 3:31, never in Jeremiah.—ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πִ ?ι, see Lamentations 1:14 [Introd. Add. Rem. p. 32].—πִ ?ΰֵ ?ψ. This verb is found only here and in Psalms 89:40. [Blayney. renders it as Niph., His sanctuary is accursed, but conjectures from Sept., ἀπετίναξεν, the true reading may be ΰ ,πִ ?ςֵ ?ψ substituted for ς, He hath shaken off His Sanctuary. As the meaning could only be conjectured from the ancient versions (see Alexander, Psalms 89:40), it is not improbable that the Sept. gave it the sense of πָ ?ςַ ?ψ. 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, ζָ ?πַ ?η, if the fundamental idea of ζָ ?πַ ?η 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.]—ξχְ ?γָּ ?ωׁ, See Lamentations 1:10; Lamentations 2:20, twice in Jeremiah 17:12; Jeremiah 51:51.—δִ ?ρְ ?βִּ ?ιψ, see 1 Samuel 23:20; Psalms 31:9, is not found in Jeremiah. The only part of the verb he uses is the Pual, and that only once, Jeremiah 13:19. [Naegelsbach translates this verb “verschloss,” shut up, see marg., E. V. He makes no remark upon its meaning. Fuerst regards νָ ?βַ ?ψ to surround, enclose, Hiph. to shut up, and ρָ ?βַ ?ψ 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.]—ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?πεֹ ?ϊֶ ?ιδָ. The connection requires us to understand this of the sanctuary, although no place can be cited in which ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξεֹ ?ο is used of the Temple; for Jeremiah 30:18, to which some appeal, is to be explained otherwise: See notes on that place. J. D. Michaelis would read, ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?πεֹ ?ϊιָ ?δּ, palace of Jehovah.—χεֹ ?μπָֽ ?ϊְ ?πεּ, see Jeremiah 22:20. AND [Lamentations 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 Lamentations 2:5, his strongholds as distinguished from her palaces.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 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 ωׂ ?κְ, translated tabernacle (marg., hedge)? That it stands for ρֹ ?κְ, cannot be doubted ρֹ ?κְ constantly denotes that sort of (hόtte) hut, cot, bower, that is made of wicker-work [or plaited twigs, boughs], also lairs of beasts similarly constructed, Jeremiah 25:38; Psalms 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 ρַ ?κְ ?=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, Jehovah’s house, Psalms 76:3; as does also ρֻ ?λַּ ?δ, Psalms 18:12; Job 36:29 : comp. ρִ ?λּ ?εּ ?ϊ; Amos 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 (Psalms 46:5; comp. Psalms 84:1-4), could with truth be called βַ ?κΞιְ ?δεֹ ?δַ, Jehovah’s garden (Isaiah 51:3), παράδεισοςεὐλογίας, 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 ωׂ ?κְ, 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 God’s 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 (2 Samuel 6:17-18; 1 Kings 3:4; 1 Kings 8:14-15, etc.; 1 Kings 8:55-56, etc.; 1 Kings 8:62-63, etc.; 1 Kings 9:25; 1 Chronicles 29:10-11, etc.;2 Chronicles 1:6; comp. Ezekiel 46:1-12).” Oehler in Herz.,Real-Enc. VIII., pp. 12, 13. ωׂ ?κְ. That this word stands for ρֹ ?κְ is evident, because, 1. ωׂ and ν frequently are interchanged, especially in the later language (see ρεּ ?β and ωׂ ?εּ ?β, 2 Samuel 1:22, τָּ ?γַ ?ρ and ψָ ?τַ ?ρ ,τָּ ?ψַ ?ωׂ and ψָ ?τַ ?ωׂ, Ges.Thes., p. 931. Ewald, § 50 a). 2. We find in Exodus 33:22 the verbal form ωׂ ?λֹּ ?ϊִ ?ι for ρַ ?λֹּ ?ϊִ ?ι, and in Isaiah 5:5ξְ ?ωׂ ?εּ ?λָּ ?δ for ξְ ?ρεּ ?λָ ?ν, Micah 7:4. 3. Since ωָׂ ?λַ ?κְ and ξְ ?ωׂ ?εּ ?λָּ ?η occur only in the places cited, and ωׂ ?κְ is found only here, it would appear that these forms are not so much indications of an independent root ωֵׂ ?λַ ?κְ, as merely different ways of writing ρָ ?λַ ?κְ. [When Gerlach says that ρֹ ?κְ never means hόtte, a cot, tent, or tabernacle, he overlooks Psalms 76:3, where it undoubtedly describes the holy Temple as God’s tabernacle house or dwelling-place. To his argument that ωׂ ?κְ 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. ωׂ ?κְ may be derived from ωָׂ ?λַ ?κְ in the generic sense of enclosing, and not in the particular sense of enclosing with a hedge or fence, as ωׂ ?εּ ?κְ to weave. Indeed Gerlach seems to give up the very point for which he so ably contends, that ωׂ ?κְ 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 καὶδιεπέτασενὡςἄμπελοντὸσκήνωμααὐτοῦ [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, ιַ ?ηְ ?ξεֹ ?νλַּ ?βֶ ?τֶ ?καִּ ?ρֵ ?ψεֹ [He shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, E. V. Ewald accepts (in his 3d ed.) the Sept. translation, and supposes λַּ ?βֶ ?τֶ ?ο, instead of λַּ ?βַּ ?ο, to be the true reading. To this Gerlach objects—1. That ηָ ?ξַ ?ρ cannot mean to tear up, to pull out; 2. The conjecture that λַּ ?βֶ ?τֶ ?ο may have existed in the text is unnecessary, since the Sept. translator may have interpreted βַ ?ο as a vineyard and translated it by ἄμπελος=a vine, as λֶּ ?ψֶ ?ν is translated by the Sept. in Leviticus 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 λַּ ?βַ ?ο would be taken for λְּ ?ωׂ ?κְ βַ ?ο, 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, Isaiah 63:2, αְּ ?βָ ?γֶ ?ικָ λְ ?γֵֹ ?κְ αְּ ?βַ ?ϊ [“thy garments like the garments of him that treadeth in the winevat”], we supply the idea of αִּ ?βְ ?γֵ ?ι before γֹּ ?ψֵ ?κְ, because the garments could not be compared to the person of the man treading the wine-press. So Genesis 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 ωׂ ?κְ before βַ ?ο, 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 (ωֻׂ ?λּ ?εֹ, 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 βַּ ?οωֻׂ ?λּ ?εֹ [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 βַּ ?ο to be taken in the construct case in spite of the article—an anomaly, for the justification of which (see Ewald, § 290, d;Gesenius, § 108, 2, n) something more is demanded than the remark, ‘ωֻׂ ?λּ ?εֹ stands in an entirely subordinate relation,’ for in point of fact it absolutely determines the meaning of βַּ ?ο”=the garden of His tabernacle.—ρεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ. This word occurs six times in Lamentations 1:4; Lamentations 1:15; Lamentations 2:6, bis, Lamentations 2:7; Lamentations 2:22. Our translators render it in five different ways, and in this verse, where it occurs twice, in two different senses. In Lamentations 1:4; Lamentations 2:6 they call it the solemn feasts; in Lamentations 1:15, an assembly; in Lamentations 2:6, places of the assembly; and the phrase λְּ ?ιεֹ ?νρεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ, they translate in Lamentations 2:7, as in the day of a solemn feast, and in Lamentations 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 ιָ ?ςַ ?γ, 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 Lamentations 1:15 it may have its primitive meaning of a set time. In Lamentations 2:7; Lamentations 2:22 the phrase ιεֹ ?νρεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ 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.] Lamentations 2:7. The Lord hath cast off—The Lord rejected with disdain—His altar,—He hath abhorred—He abhorred—His sanctuary. The altar and sanctuary are recognized as the central points and chief places of Divine worship. By this it is obvious that ξִ ?χְ ?γָּ ?ωׁ, sanctuary, here must signify, not in its widest sense the Temple generally, which has been already sufficiently indicated by ωׂ ?κְ, tabernacle, and ξֹ ?ςֵ ?γ, place of assembly, Lamentations 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 ρִ ?ζְ ?αֵ ?η [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 (Exodus 30:1-10).—He hath given up—He gave up—into 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 noise—they shouted, or raised a cry or clamor—in the house of the LORD—in the house of Jehovah—as in the day of a solemn feast [lit., like a day—a 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 Lamentations 2:6 and Lamentations 1:4; Lamentations 1:15, a day of appointed religious services, with reference, however, to the great festivals of the church.—W. H. H.]. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3The Middle Song Constituting The Climax Of The Poem: Israel’s Brighter Day Of Consolation Contrasted With The Gloomy Night Of Sorrow Experienced By The Servant Of God [as Represented By Jeremiah Himself]This Song, which as the third one of the five holds the middle place, is the culmination point of the whole book, and thus affords a strong argument for the opinion, that the whole book is constructed on one carefully considered plan. It is the culmination point, both as to its matter and as to its form. As to its matter, because we have here the sublimest conceptions of suffering. As to its form, because here the art of the Poet displays itself in full splendor. This appears, first of all, in the alphabetical arrangement. Whilst the other songs have only twenty-two alphabetically arranged verses, this one contains sixty-six verses, arranged in triplets, the three verses of each triplet beginning with the same letter. Each verse is a distich, composed of a rising and falling inflection. The ternary division is observable not merely in reference to the verses beginning with the same initial letter, but with regard to the arrangement of the whole: for the whole Song is naturally divided into three parts. The first part embraces Lamentations 3:1-18 : the second, Lamentations 3:19-42 : the third, Lamentations 3:43-66. PART I Lamentations 3:1-18ΰ Lamentations 3:1. I am the man who saw affliction By the rod of His wrath. ΰ Lamentations 3:2. He led me and brought me Into darkness and not light. ΰ Lamentations 3:3. Surely against me He turned His hand Again and again the whole day long. α Lamentations 3:4. He caused my flesh and my skin to waste away, He broke my bones. α Lamentations 3:5. He built around and encompassed me With bitterness and distress. α Lamentations 3:6. He caused me to dwell in dark places, As the dead of old. β Lamentations 3:7. He hedged me in that I should not go forth, He made my chain heavy. β Lamentations 3:8. Also, lest I should cry and call for help, He shut out my prayer. β Lamentations 3:9. He hedged in my ways with hewn stone, He made my paths crooked. γ Lamentations 3:10. A lurking bear was He to me— A lion in ambush. γ Lamentations 3:11. He drove me aside—He tore me in pieces— He left me suffering and alone. γ Lamentations 3:12. He bent His bow, and set me As the mark for the arrow. δ Lamentations 3:13. He shot into my reins The sons of His quiver. δ Lamentations 3:14. I became a laughing-stock to all my people, Their song all the day. δ Lamentations 3:15. He filled me with bitter things. He made me drunk with wormwood. ε Lamentations 3:16. He broke my teeth with pebbles, He covered me with ashes. ε Lamentations 3:17. Thou didst thrust me away from peace: I forgot good. ε Lamentations 3:18. Then I said, My confidence and my hope Are perished from Jehovah! After the first triad of verses, containing the theme, the Poet, or rather the person whom the Poet represents as speaking (and who will be understood as always intended, where the sense allows it, when for the sake of brevity we say “the Poet,”) describes what he had suffered physically, Lamentations 3:4-5; and in regard to light and freedom, Lamentations 3:6-7; how the Lord had rejected his prayer, Lamentations 3:8; shut up his way, Lamentations 3:9; attacked and worried him like a bear or lion, Lamentations 3:10-11; made him a mark for his arrows, like an archer, piercing into his very soul, Lamentations 3:12-13; how he had thus become an object of scorn to the people, Lamentations 3:14; and drunk with bitterness, Lamentations 3:15; and how, as it were, they had given him pebbles to bile and covered him with ashes, Lamentations 3:16. In Lamentations 3:17-18, he expresses the sense of these images in literal language; God has deprived him of peace and happiness, till he was well nigh compelled to throw away his confidence in God. Thus ends this first part, in which the name of the Lord is not mentioned except as the last word of Lam 3:18, where it appears with peculiar emphasis and, as it were, with a grating dissonance. It is to be observed, however, that in the whole of this first part, only those sorrows which God had sent upon His servant are spoken of; or rather, all sorrows which befall him are made to appear as Divine temptations. Hence the suppression of Jehovah’s name till the very close; where at length it is announced, that it may be more dreadfully apparent whom it was that the Poet was on the point of renouncing.Preliminary NoteThe following general remarks on this section are to be observed. 1. It contains a description of the personal sorrows of one prominent man. This man was distinguished by his position as well as by his sufferings. The former is evident from Lamentations 3:14, where it is said he had become a derision to all the people; this could only happen to one who stood out conspicuously before the eyes of all the people. The second appears from the fact, that he is described as one burdened with sorrows more than all other persons (Lamentations 3:1-3). 2. We must recognize in the man thus made conspicuous the prophet Jeremiah. For not only the description beginning at Lamentations 3:52, undoubtedly refers to what befell this prophet as related in Jeremiah 38, but also, before that passage occurs, Lamentations 3:14 plainly indicates this prophet (see the exposition). There is then no doubt that this Song is put into the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah 3. As in chapter second, in the first nine verses, the destruction of Jerusalem is described as the act of God, so in this chapter the Poet ascribes all his sorrows to God as their author. He represents them as divine temptations. There is only this difference, that whilst in chap. 2, the name of God is frequently mentioned (ιְ ?δεַֹ ?δ ,ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι, Lamentations 3:1-2; Lamentations 3:5-8), in chap. 3. God is spoken of in Lamentations 3:1-16, only indefinitely in the third person, in Lamentations 3:17 He is first addressed in the second person, and in Lamentations 3:18 He is at last distinctly mentioned by name (ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ). This is evidently a designed climax. I do not think with Engelhardt (p. 85), that a tender conscience prevented the Poet from indicating the Lord, explicitly by name, as the author of his profound mental agitation; for what he did in chapter second, and repeats in Lamentations 3:18 of this chapter, he could have done in Lamentations 3:1-16. But this making the name of God prominent in? the last verse, at the culmination point of the description of his sufferings, is due to the art of the Poet, of which this Song affords striking evidence. Lamentations 3:1-31, 2I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of His wrath. He hath led 3me and brought me into darkness, but not into light. Surely against me is he turned; he turneth his hand against me all the day. TEXTUAL AND Lam_3:1.—βֶ ?αֶ ?ψ not infrequent in Jeremiah 17:5; Jeremiah 17:7; Jeremiah 22:30; Jeremiah 23:9, etc. In Lamentations in this chapter only, and here four times, Lamentations 3:1; Lamentations 3:27; Lamentations 3:35; Lamentations 3:39.—Jeremiah never uses ΰֳ ?πִ ?ι see Jeremiah 1:13. The choice of the word here seems due to similarity of sound with ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι, comp. Psalms 88:16.—ωֵׁ ?αֶ ?θ in Jeremiah only in the two critically suspected places, Jeremiah 10:16; Jeremiah 15:19, where ωֵׁ ?αֶ ?θπַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?ϊεֹ is found. This exact phrase ωֵׁ ?αֶ ?θςֶ ?αְ ?γָ ?ϊεֹ is found (as has not been before remarked, that I know of) in Proverbs 22:8, in that part of the Proverbs, too, which is acknowledged to be the oldest and which extends from Proverbs 10:1 to Proverbs 22:16. The expression there is used in the sense of being blamed by men; here, the suffix refers to it God.—ςֶ ?αְ ?ψָ ?δ, see Lamentations 2:2. Lamentations 3:2.—πָ ?δַ ?β not in Jeremiah in any form.—Hiph. δεֹ ?μִ ?ικְ Jeremiah often uses, Jeremiah 2:16-17; Jeremiah 31:9; Jeremiah 32:5.—The substantive ηωֶׁ ?κְ never in Jeremiah. He seldom expresses this general thought, and when he does, he uses other words; φַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?εֶ ?ϊ ,ςֲ ?ψָ ?τֶ ?μ ,πֶ ?ωֶׁ ?σ, Jeremiah 13:16-17; Lamentations 2:6, ΰֲ ?τֵ ?μָ ?δ; Jeremiah 23:12, ξַ ?ΰֲ ?τֵ ?μְ ?ιָ ?δ; Jeremiah 2:31. [If he preferred here a word he never used before, euphony alone would suggest it to him. It happens, however, that of the five words in his prophecies above cited, four of them he uses only once, and the fifth, φַ ?μְ ?ξָ ?εֶ ?ϊ, only twice; and one of the five, ξַ ?ΰֲ ?τֵ ?μְ ?ιָ ?δ, is not found elsewhere in the Bible. Where such variety of terms are used to express the same idea, the introduction of another new one may be deemed; as characteristic of the author. At least this word ηωֶׁ ?κְ, affords no evidence against Jeremiah’s authorship of Lamentations.—W. H. H.]—εְ ?μֹ ?ΰ, see Lamentations 2:1-2; Lamentations 2:14; Lamentations 2:17; Lamentations 3:7; Lamentations 3:49; Lamentations 4:6.—With respect to the Acc. loci, see Lamentations 2:21. Lamentations 3:3.—ιָ ?ωֻׁ ?αιַ ?δֲ ?τֹ ?κְ ιָ ?γεֹ. In regard to the peculiar idiom by which an adverbial idea is expressed by a finite verb, see my Gr., § 95 g. n. [Also Green’s Gr., § 269]. In Jeremiah 18:4, ωָׁ ?α occurs in a similar construction [see marginal reading in E. V.] AND Lam_3:1. I am the man.—[The references to the personal experiences of the prophet Jeremiah in this chapter are too evident to be disputed. That these words were the words of Jeremiah himself must be the opinion of all who read this chapter unprejudiced by a theory to the contrary (see Introduction). But we are not to regard him as speaking here as a private person. He speaks as the Prophet of Jehovah raised up at that particular juncture, to stand between the people and their covenant God, to reveal His will to them and to present their interest to God at the throne of grace, for these were the twofold functions of the prophet’s office. The Prophet therefore was a representative man. He stood for the people. He suffered for the people. He spoke for the people. Hence in this Song Jeremiah easily passes from the singular to the plural forms of speech, from I and me, to we and us. [Gerlach: “The supposition that in this chapter the personal sufferings of the Prophet are the subject of his Lamentation (Michaelis, Pareau, Maurer, Kalkar, Bleek in his Introduction), cannot be certainly proved, either from Lamentations 3:14 (see Comm. on that ver.), nor from the description contained in 53–55, where the possibility of a figurative sense cannot be denied. In opposition to this opinion are the following arguments. 1. From the fact that we imperceptibly takes the place of I in Lamentations 3:22 and Lamentations 3:40-47, we may conclude that in the rest of the chapter also, the prophet does not speak only in his own name and of his own person. 2. Unless we would destroy the whole connection of the chapter, we must allow that the calamity, recognized in Lamentations 3:42-43, as the punishment of the sins of the people (we have sinned), is the same calamity which is described in Lamentations 3:1-18 with reference to the experience of a single individual—an opinion, which, by manifold agreements between the two sections, is shown to be correct. 3. The lamentation of the Prophet over his own past suffering, in the actual presence of a great national calamity, would be no less improbable, than the position of this chapter, in the middle of four others lamenting the national calamity, would in that case be inappropriate. The Lamentation of this chapter is then correctly understood only, when it is regarded as a lamentation of every one of the individual pious Israelites, as a lamentation which, while proceeding from self-experienced mental sufferings, has its truth, neverthelesss, for all pious Israelites, in whose name the Prophet speaks. This was perceived by Aben Ezra, when he designated the individual Israelites as the subject lamenting, and in this most, modern interpreters (Rosenmueller, Ewald, Thenius, Neumann, Vaihinger) agree.”—W. H. H.]—That hath seen affliction—who saw misery, i.e., experienced it. Raschi is of the opinion that the verb here expresses the idea of living to see the fulfilment of the destruction predicted, which would suit Jeremiah alone. But in that case it would at least have been necessary to say (ηָ ?ςֳ ?πִ ?ι) the affliction, or misery. The verb may have the sense, in a general way, of experiencing or living to see, as frequently (see Jeremiah 5:12; Psalms 16:10; Psalms 49:10; Ecclesiastes 8:16; Ecclesiastes 9:9). But the distinction between prophecy and fulfilment is too feebly indicated, to admit of Raschi’s interpretation. The Poet has rather in view the distinction between higher and comparatively inferior degrees of suffering. He would simply say that he had suffered more than all other persons. Besides, man (βֶ ?αֶ ?ψ) would be too indefinite. We would expect seer (ψΰֵ ?δ), or prophet (πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ); [I am the prophet, or seer, who has lived to see the fulfilment of my own predictions.]—By the rod of his wrath.—The expression can only mean, that the Poet had seen misery in consequence of God’s using the rod of His wrath. Compare Isaiah 10:5, where the Lord calls the Assyrian the rod of My anger, and Job 9:34; Job 21:9, where the rod of God is spoken of in a general way. [Calvin: “At the very beginning he acknowledges that whatever he suffered had been inflicted by God’s hand … there is included in the word wrath a brief confession, especially when it is added by the rod, or staff.”] Lamentations 3:2. He hath led me and brought me—He led and brought me—into darkness but (or, and) not into light.—The metaphor, [of light and darkness for prosperity and adversity] is found in Amos 5:18; Amos 5:20; Job 12:25, expressed in the same Hebrew phrase. Lamentations 3:3. Surely against me.—The threefold prominence given to the person speaking, by the repetition of the personal pronoun three times in the beginning of the Song, is not without a reason. These introductory verses thus acquire a thematic character, i.e., it is thus indicated that the speaker intends to make his own person especially a theme of discourse. His justification in this is, that he can with good reason assume to himself the personality punished to the greatest degree by sufferings of every sort. While he was this, he was also at the same time a leader, as it were, of all punished in the same way, therefore the representative of a whole class of sufferers,—of the Israel, hated by men but beloved of God, of the Ἰσραηλκατὰπνεῦμα—the spiritual Israel. This explanation would not stand, if we were to understand the whole people as indicated by the man in Lamentations 3:1. That the whole people are not so designated by the man, will be seen further on. For the present, the expression itself, the man, furnishes an argument against it: for throughout the book Zion is always spoken of as a female. See his strongholds,Lamentations 2:5, where only the masculine pronoun is used in reference to Zion, and there only because the words are a quotation. [Probably the pronoun there refers to God, not to Zion. See the Notes.—W. H. H.]—Is he turned; he turneth his hand against me all the day.—turned he his hand always again the whole day. [He turns His hand again and again the whole day long. The Hebrew is very idiomatic. The true construction is explained by the grammatical note of Naegelsbach above, referring to the use of a verb in an adverbial sense. The best grammarians and Versions agree in this construction. Our English Version is obviously wrong, not only because it translates both verbs transitively, but because it translates them in different tenses and is obliged to supply the words against me in the last clause. The verbs are both future and ought to be taken in the sense of the historical imperfect, because the Prophet would express the constant repetition of God’s strokes, or else as a present tense, because the prophet is referring to sufferings not yet at an end.—W. H. H.] All the day.—See Lamentations 1:13; Lamentations 3:14; Lamentations 3:62. [He smote me and continues smiting me again and again, all the day long.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:4-94, 5My flesh and my skin hath he made old: he hath broken my bones. He hath 6builded against me, and compassed me with gall and travail. He hath set me in 7dark places, as they that be dead of old. He hath hedged me about, that I cann 8get out: he hath made my chain heavy. Also, when I cry and shout, he shutteth 9out my prayer. He hath inclosed my ways with hewn stone: he hath made my paths crooked. TEXTUAL AND Lam_3:4.—Jeremiah uses αָ ?ωָׂ ?ψ often, Jeremiah 7:21; Jeremiah 12:12, etc.; ςַ ?εֹ ?ψ, once, LamJer 13:23. The two words occur in connection, especially in Leviticus 13:2-4; Leviticus 11:38-39. Comp. besides Job 19:20, Proverbs 5:11; Lamentations 4:8; Lamentations 5:10. Lamentations 3:5.—εַ ?ιַ ?χַּ ?σ involves, like ιָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?α, Lamentations 3:3, an adverbial relation to the principal verb, see Lamentations 3:3. [There is no necessity for this construction here, nor are the verbs so nearly synonymous as to render this construction likely. It is better to take the two verbs as having the same relation to ςַ ?μָ ?ι, and the same subjective accusative in αָּ ?πָ ?δςָ ?μַ ?ι—.ψֹ ?ΰωׁ εּ ?ϊְ ?μָ ?ΰָ ?δ. Gesenius: “God hath builded against me, obstructed me, shut up my way on every side so that I cannot get out.”—W. H. H.]—δֵ ?χּ ?ισ, elsewhere frequently in the sense circuire, circumdare (see Joshua 6:3; Psalms 17:9; Psalms 48:13, etc.), means also circumponere, and that which is placed around in the accusative by itself. So also Job 19:6. The word is not found in Jeremiah.—ψֹ ?ΰωׁ (In Jeremiah only in the connection ξֵ ?ιψֹ ?ΰωׁ, Jeremiah 8:14; Jeremiah 9:14; Jeremiah 23:15) is of uncertain derivation, but indicates undoubtedly poison (see Deuteronomy 29:17; Deuteronomy 32:32-33; Lamentations 3:19). The word connected with it, ϊְּ ?μָ ?ΰָ ?δ, does not occur in Jeremiah, although he used the verb μָ ?ΰָ ?δ, comparatively speaking, frequently, Jeremiah 6:11; Jeremiah 9:4; Jeremiah 12:5; Jeremiah 15:6; Jeremiah 20:9. The meaning is difficulty, labor, Exodus 18:8; Numbers 20:14; Nehemiah 9:32; Malachi 1:13. Lamentations 3:6.—ξַ ?ηֲ ?ωַׁ ?λִּ ?ιν, not in Jeremiah.—δεֹ ?ωִׁ ?ια, Jeremiah 32:37. [This word does not imply the posture of sitting, as Henderson imagines, when he says the language may refer “to an ancient custom of placing the dead bodies in a sitting posture in the sepulchres.”—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:7.—βָּ ?γַ ?ψ, Jeremiah never uses. [Observe, this is an initial word. See Intr., Add. Rem. (6), p. 31.—W. H. H.]—εְ ?μֹ ?ΰΰֵ ?φֵ ?ΰ is found in Psalms 88:9, word for word. For the construction [of εְ with the future, that I could not go forth] see my Gr., § 89, 3 b, 2; § 109, 3.—δִ ?λְ ?αιγ is, to say the least, foreign to Jeremiah’s style. Comp. 1 Kings 12:10; 1 Kings 12:14.—πְ ?ηωִׁ ?ϊ, in the sense of a fetter, only here; elsewhere πְ ?ηֻ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν, Jeremiah 39:7; Jeremiah 52:11, etc.Lamentations 3:8.—ζָ ?ςַ ?χ, in the sense of crying to God, frequently with Jeremiah, for example Jeremiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 20:8; Jeremiah 25:34.—The verb ωָׁ ?εַ ?ς (see Psalms 88:14) used only in Piel, does not occur in Jeremiah; he uses only the substantive derived from it ωַׁ ?εְ ?ςָ ?δ, which also occurs in our chapter, Lamentations 3:56.—The verb ωָׂ ?ϊַ ?ν, thus written, occurs only here. It is merely a scribal variety of ρָ ?ϊַ ?ν; see ωִ ?αּ ?εֹ Lamentations 2:6. Jeremiah uses neither. The sense is obstruere (of wells, Genesis 26:15; Genesis 26:18; 2 Kings 3:19; 2 Kings 3:25), occludere, recludere (of prophetical mysteries, Daniel 8:26; Daniel 4:9). [Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Gerlach: Obstruxit precibus meis viam qua pervenire ad suas aures possint.] Lamentations 3:9.—βָּ ?ζִ ?ιϊ, not in Jeremiah. May there not be an allusion to stones with which, the grave is built up ?—πְ ?ϊִּ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊ in Jeremiah 6:16; Jeremiah 18:15.—Piel ςִ ?εָּ ?δ occurs only in Isaiah 24:1. Jeremiah uses Hiph. twice, ηֶ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ςֱ ?εεּ γַ ?ψְ ?λָּ ?ν; Jeremiah 3:21, δַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ςֲ ?εֵ ?δ ,πִ ?μְ ?ΰεּ, Jeremiah 9:4. That πְ ?ϊִ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊַ ?ιςִ ?εָּ ?δ indicates the destruction of the via munita, as Thenius would have it, I do not believe. For in Isaiah 24:1, ςִ ?εָּ ?δ signifies not evertere, but pervertere. [Gerlach: “πְ ?ϊִ ?ιαָ ?δ is not a carefully constructed causeway (Thenius), which is rather the meaning of ξְ ?ρִ ?μָּ ?δ, but is rather the path worn by the steps of the traveller, then any small by-road (see Jeremiah 18:15, where γֶּ ?ψֶ ?κְ μֹ ?ΰρְ ?μεּ ?μָ ?δ is added epexegetically to πְ ?ϊִ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊ.”] AND It may be observed here that the speaker, having in the introductory verses 1–3 designated himself, in general terms, as the man most severely punished, now proceeds to prove this in detail. Lamentations 3:4. He begins with direct personal sufferings in his flesh, skin and bones. My flesh and my skin hath he made old.—He wasted away my flesh and my skin. The verb rendered he made old, in the Kal, has an intransitive signification, atteri, consumi, to be wasted away by attrition, to be consumed, especially of garments (Deuteronomy 8:4; Deuteronomy 29:5; comp. Isaiah 50:9; Isaiah 51:6) and of the bodily faculties (Genesis 18:12): in the Piel, which is used here, it means atterere, to wear out by attrition [the verb means to rub], consumere, to consume, waste away; it is found in this sense, besides here, in Psalms 49:15; Job 21:13; Isaiah 65:22; 1 Chronicles 17:19.—He hath broken my bones.He broke (see Lamentations 2:9) my bones [Henderson:Broke in pieces]. The same phrase occurs in Isaiah 38:13. See Psalms 51:10; Job 30:17, and the declaration of the contrary in Psalms 34:21. [The breaking of the bones indicate, not only the loss of physical strength, but a condition of great suffering. “The bones are often represented in the Scriptures as the seat of acute pain” (Barnes.) Job 20:11; Job 30:17; Psalms 6:2; Psalms 22:14; Psalms 31:10; Psalms 38:3; Psalms 42:10; Proverbs 14:30. We can only take the phrase here in the metaphorical sense. He was suffering both physical weakness and physical pain.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:5. Now follow the hindrances which have been raised against him from without. And first he says, he had been built around with poison and trouble.—He hath builded against me and compassed me with gall and travail.He built up against me and round about me poison and difficulty. [He built around me, and encompassed [me] with bitterness and distress.—W. H. H.] The image of a beleaguered city lies at the foundation of the thought here. But we are not, with the older commentators, to supply wall (ξָ ?φεֹ ?ψ), or some similar word after the verb built, but rather are to take gall and travail [poison and difficulty] as the object of that verb. The connection of words and thoughts here is singular, and has not up to the present time been sufficiently elucidated. Perhaps the Poet would say that the Lord had surrounded him, not only with hardships of every sort, but with adversities in themselves ruinous. It is however possible that in the word poison,ψֹ ?ΰωׁ, the idea of bitterness (see Psalms 69:22) may predominate. Any way a sudden transition, from a figurative to a literal style of speaking, is effected. [There is perhaps no more difficulty here than is created by an attempt to reduce a metaphorical expression to the terms of a literal and actual fact. To enclose and encompass one with bitterness and trouble or distress (using the abstract for the concrete, i.e., with circumstances causing bitterness and distress), as if these were obstructing walls, is undoubtedly the sense of our text, and is adopted by most of the versions and commentators.—W. H. H.] [The Sept., the Targ. and the Arab. (not the Vulg. as Blayney says), render ψֹ ?ΰωׁ, as if it were ψֹ ?ΰωׁ ?ι, my head. But these and all the ancient versions translate the same word in Lamentations 3:19, by gall. The Sept. also translates ϊִּ ?μָ ?ΰָ ?δ as a verb, ἐμόχθησεν. Blayney adopts these readings of the Sept., but instead of elucidating the meaning, confuses it still more by a new translation of the first clause: “He hath built upon me, and encompassed my head, so that it is weary.” Henderson adopts partially the Sept. translation, but discovers a new and doubtful meaning for the second verb, δִ ?χִּ ?ισ, He hath builded against me and struck me on the head, and it is distressed.Fuerst proposes (See his Lex. under the word ϊְּ ?μָ ?ΰָ ?δ) to carry out the military idea suggested by the verbs, thus; He has surrounded me with fortifications and a trench. But it is hardly necessary to accept the new and unauthorized derivations of these words, when their frequent use gives us a sense, that is, indeed, metaphorical, but none the less clear and expressive, and sustained so generally by the Versions, old and new.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:6. To the obstructions of the way are added the obstructions of light. This whole verse is reproduced word for word in Psalms 143:3.—He hath set me in dark places.He caused me to dwell in darkness.—As they that be dead of old.—As the dead of olden time.Psalms 88:5-7; Psalms 88:11-13, afford the best commentary on this. There are those dead before the appointed time, whom the Lord remembers no more, and to whom He shows no more the wonders of His grace. The expression is found only here and in Psalms 143:3. [We may translate it either the dead of old, or the forever dead.Blayney: “God had involved him in such a depth of distress, that he was as incapable of extricating himself, as those who had laid long in the dark mansions of the dead were of making their escape thence.” Gerlach; “He is thrust into the darkness of the grave (Psalms 88:5-6), or of Sheol (Psalms 88:7; Job 10:21-22)—as an image of distress, Psalms 30:4; Psalms 88—like the dead of eternity, the forever dead (Vulg., mortui sempiterni).—Most commentators (Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Maurer, De Wette, Ewald, Thenius, Neumann, Bφttcher) explain, the dead old = those a long time dead; but whether dead a long or a short time makes no difference, and this, as Conz has correctly remarked, ‘would occasion an absurd ambiguity, as if the dead, who have been but a little while dead and buried, might not lie in darkness.’ The Chal.:Mortui qui vadunt in alterum seculum (mundum).”—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:7. A climax! Not only has the Lord surrounded him with obstacles and deprived him of light, but He has also taken away his freedom. He is imprisoned and fettered! He hath hedged me about, that I cannot get out.He hedged me in that I could not get out [or, that I should not escape, or go forth.—The very words of Christ in the passion Psalms 88:9 (Words-worth)]. He hath made my chain heavy,—He made heavy my chain, or fetter.Lamentations 3:8. The Lord accepts none of the sufferer’s prayers. He hears him not. [Henderson: “The prophet places himself in the position of a prisoner, who is securely immured, and to whose supplications for deliverance, how earnestly soever they may be made, no attention is paid.”] Also when I cry and shout, he shutteth out my prayer.Also though I cry and call for help, my prayer has he barred or bolted. [The idea is, hindered or obstructed. He has taken means, by anticipation, to prevent my prayer for help from being heard, either by Himself, or by any other who might possibly come to the rescue. The change from the future tenses, to the preterite tense, seems to indicate this meaning.—W. H. H.] The sense cannot be that the Lord prevented the prayer from going out of the man’s heart, for in fact, he cried (see Rosenmuellerin loc), but that He shut up the way of access to His own ear and heart. Comp. Lamentations 3:44; Proverbs 1:28. [Wordsworth: “So the suffering Messiah says, Psalms 22:2, “O my God, I cry in the daytime, but Thou hearest not.” Gerlach: “However loudly he prays, the Lord has closed His ear; Lamentations 3:44; Job 19:8; Isaiah 1:15; Jeremiah 7:16; Psalms 18:42; Proverbs 1:28.”] Lamentations 3:9. The right way is built up against the Poet, so that he seems compelled to false ways.—He hath inclosed—he hedged in [same word as in Lamentations 3:7]—my ways with hewn stones. If hewn, then large stones, for we do not build with small ones. Comp. Exodus 20:25; 1 Kings 5:31; Isaiah 9:9; Amos 5:11; Ezekiel 40:42.—He hath made—he made—my paths crooked. The Poet would say that he had been forced to crooked and false paths. See crooked ways,Psalms 125:5; crooked things,Isaiah 42:16. [At the first glance this would seem to be a continuation of the figure contained in verses 7, 8. This impression is due to the repetition of the word βָּ ?γַ ?ψ, hedgedin, and to the climax implied by hewn stone. The idea, in that case, is, that having imprisoned him and loaded him with fetters and shut out his cry for help, God proceeds, as it were, to make his imprisonment permanent and secure, by building up around him a wall of hewn stone. If this is so, then the last clause cannot mean He made my paths crooked, for one in the situation described must remain an inactive, passive sufferer; but it would mean that God had made all paths of escape impassable. The principal avenues of escape (γְּ ?ψָ ?λִ ?ι) are built up with hewn stones, barriers that cannot be scaled. The smaller paths (πִ ?ϊִ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊַ ?ι) are broken up, turned upside down, and thus rendered impassable. This is Gerlach’s view. It is better, however, to regard this verse as introducing a new metaphor, which is continued in Lamentations 3:10. “He next conceives of himself as a traveller whose way is blocked up by a solid wall, and who, being compelled to turn aside into the devious pathways of the forest, is exposed to the rapacity of wild beasts” (Henderson). This view is recommended by the following considerations. 1. The figure of an immured and fettered prisoner is already complete, and could receive no additional force from what is here said. 2. The repetition of the verb πָּ ?γַ ?ψ, hedged in, which in ordinary cases would indicate a continuance of the same subject, is accounted for here by the necessity of a word with the same initial letter. 3. The expressions “my ways” and “my paths,” favor this construction. They are his, because he is expected to pursue them. Were they simply the ways and paths of possible escape from the place of confinement, they would not, strictly speaking, be his at all, for he could not use them. 4. This explanation makes the next verse less abrupt, and produces a regular and beautiful succession of metaphorical pictures. 5. The idea of simply breaking up or turning over the bypaths, as expressed by the Hebrew verb ςָ ?εַ ?δ, does not correspond with the security against escape expressed by building up the main avenues of escape with hewn stone. 6. The common translation, He made my path crooked, best agrees with the force of the Hebrew verb, and is adopted with great unanimity by the Versions and commentators. Owen: “The meaning is turned aside. He had built, as it were, a wall of hewn stones across his way, and thus He turned aside his goings or his paths, so that he was constrained to take some other course.” Wordsworth: “Not only hath He blocked up my way with hewn stones, but He has turned my paths aside from their proper direction.” So E. V., Broughton, Calvin, Blayney, Boothroyd, Henderson, and Noyes.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:10-1810, 11He was unto me as a bear lying in wait, and as a lion in secret places. He 12hath turned aside my ways, and pulled me in pieces: he hath made me desolate. He 13hath bent his bow, and set me as a mark for the arrow. He hath caused the arrows 14of his quiver to enter into my reins. I was a derision to all my people, and their 15song all the day. He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath made me drunken 16with wormwood. He hath also broken my teeth with gravel-stones, he hath covered 17me with ashes. And thou hast removed my soul far off from peace: I forgat prosperity. 18And I said, My strength and my hope is perished from the Lord.TEXTUAL AND Lam_3:10.—Jeremiah never mentions bears. [The need of an initial γ would naturally suggest the bear in connection with the lion. See Intr., Add. Rem. (6), p. 31.—W. H. H.]—Jeremiah uses ΰָ ?ψַ ?α only once, in the phrase δָ ?λִ ?ιπεּ δָ ?ΰֹ ?ψְ ?αִ ?ιν, Jeremiah 51:12,—ξִ ?ρְ ?ϊָּ ?ψִ ?ιν Jeremiah uses often, Jeremiah 13:17; Jeremiah 23:24; Jeremiah 49:10. Lamentations 3:11.—τְּ ?ωַׁ ?η, ἄπ. λεγόμ. In the Aramaic it stands for πִ ?ϊַּ ?η in frustra dissecuit (Leviticus 1:6; Leviticus 1:12), for θָ ?ρַ ?σ dilaniavit (Job 16:9), for ωָׁ ?ρַ ?σ dissecuit, τָּ ?ψַ ?χ fregit (1 Samuel 15:33; Psalms 6:3). See Chr. B. Michaelis in Rosenmueller and Ges. Thes., p. 1153.—For relation of ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν to Jeremiah’s style and use of language, see Lamentations 1:4 ωׁ ?εּ ?ν Jeremiah uses not infrequently, Jeremiah 12:11; Jeremiah 13:16; Jeremiah 17:5, etc. [ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν would be suggested here as alliterative with preceding word.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:12.—δִ ?φִ ?ια in Jeremiah 5:26; Jeremiah 31:21—ξַ ?θָ ?ψָ ?δ, in the sense of custodia, a place of custody, frequently in Jeremiah 32:2; Jeremiah 32:12, etc. In the sense of a mark, only here, Job 16:12, and 1 Samuel 20:20. See Gesen. Thes., p. 511 s. v., ηֵ ?υ. With regard to its Aramaic termination Ξָ ?ΰ—(see ιִ ?ωְׁ ?πֶ ?ΰ, Lamentations 4:1). See Olsh., § 38 f., 108 e [Green’s, Gr., § 196 d]. This is no evidence against Jeremiac authorship, since, not only analogies occur in Jeremiah (see γָּ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ, 1, 11;. πָ ?ωׂ ?ΰ, Jeremiah 23:39), but scattered examples occur also in older books. See Olsh. as above.—ηֵ ?υ, Jeremiah 9:7; Jeremiah 1:9; Jeremiah 1:14, etc.Lamentations 3:13.—Hiph. δֵ ?αִ ?ιΰ often in Jeremiah 3:14; Jeremiah 20:5; Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 25:13, etc.—Jeremiah also uses ΰַ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?δ (Jeremiah 5:15), but αְּ ?πֵ ?ιΰַ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?δ occurs only here. The arrow is called αֶּ ?οΞχֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ in Job 41:20. See αְּ ?πֵ ?ιΞψֶ ?ωֶׁ ?σ, sons of flame, of lightning, by which many interpreters understand arrows, others sparks, and others birds. See also αְּ ?πֵ ?ιιִ ?φδָ ?ψ, Zechariah 4:14; αֶּ ?οΞωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?ο, Isaiah 5:1. Lamentations 3:14.—The words δָ ?ιִ ?ιϊִ ?ιωְׂ ?ηֹ ?χ are taken from Jeremiah 20:7, where it is said, δָ ?ιִ ?ιϊִ ?ιμִ ?ωׂ ?ηεֹ ?χλָּ ?μΞδַ ?ιּ ?εּ ?νλֻּ ?μּ ?δμֹ ?ςֵ ?βμιπְ ?βִ ?ιπָ ?‌ ?‌ ?‌ ?‌ ?δ– Jeremiah never uses. See Lamentations 3:63; Lamentations 5:14. Lamentations 3:15.—Jeremiah uses Hiph. δωׂ ?αּ ?ιςַ, Lamentations 5:7.—ξְ ?ψεֹ ?ψιν, besides here only in Exodus 12:8; Numbers 9:11.—Hiph. δψְ ?εָ ?δ Jeremiah 31:25.—μַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ςֲ ?πָ ?δ, wormwood, absinthium, Jeremiah uses in Jeremiah 9:14; Jeremiah 23:15. Lamentations 3:16—The verb βָּ ?ψַ ?ν, contundere, comminuere, is found besides here only in Psalms 119:20.—The verb λָּ ?τַ ?ωׁ occurs only here. It is in Hiph., and means obruit, cooperuit. [All the ancient Versions seem to have considered λָּ ?τַ ?ωׁ same as λָּ ?αַ ?ωׁ. The Sept., ἐψωμισένμεσποδόν, is rendered by Vulg. cibavit me cinere, “as if from λָּ ?αַ ?ωׁ came the Latin word cibus” (Blayney); but this meaning cannot be extracted from the fundamental sense of the root (see Fuerst). The Targ. rendered it laid low, which gives good sense, and is adopted by Blayney, Boothroyd, Owen and C. B. Michaelis. The Arabic, rolled me in the ashes, which is adopted by Luther, E. V. marg., J. D. Michaelis and Ewald. The Syr, besprinkled, or covered, which is generally accepted as the correct meaning.—W. H. H.]—ΰֵ ?τֶ ?ψ in Jeremiah only in the kindred expression δִ ?ϊְ ?τַּ ?μְ ?ωִׁ ?ι ,αָ ?ΰֵ ?τֶ ?ψ, Jeremiah 6:26; Comp. Ezekiel 27:30. Lamentations 3:17.—ζָ ?πַ ?η Jeremiah never uses: see Lamentations 2:7.—πָ ?ωָׁ ?δ, Jeremiah 23:39.—θεֹ ?αָ ?η frequently in Jeremiah 14:11; Jeremiah 18:10; Jeremiah 18:20, etc.Lamentations 3:18.—εָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ΰֹ ?ξַ ?ψ. See Lamentations 3:54; Jeremiah 3:17; Jeremiah 3:19—πֵ ?φֶ ?η. Only πֶ ?φַ ?η occurs in Jeremiah, and that with reference to time, duration.—ϊεֹ ?ηֶ ?μֶ ?ϊ, Jeremiah never uses: but see Proverbs 11:7; Ezekiel 19:5; Ezekiel 37:11. AND Lam_3:10. While in what precedes we were told how the sufferer was deprived of all means of escape, what follows describes the positive weapons of offence with which he was assaulted. [By regarding Lamentations 3:9 as in close connection with what precedes, the introduction of the bear and lion in Lamentations 3:10 is abrupt and irrelevant. A prisoner, closely immured, has nothing to fear from bears and lions lurking in their coverts. Connect Lamentations 3:9 with Lamentations 3:10, however, and the sense is apparent. A traveller, prevented by barricades and stone walls from pursuing the way he would go, is compelled to follow crooked paths environed with danger of encountering lurking wild beasts. See notes on Lamentations 3:9—W. H. H.]—He was unto me as a bear lying in wait, and as a lion in secret places.A lurking bear was he to me,—a lion in, ambush. The image of a bear lying in wait occurs only here. See, however, Hosea 13:7-8; Amos 5:19; Proverbs 28:15. The figure of a lion lying in wait occurs in Jeremiah 49:19; Jeremiah 1:14; comp. Jeremiah 2:30; Jeremiah 4:7; Jeremiah 5:6; Jeremiah 12:8. Elsewhere, see Psalms 10:9; Psalms 17:12. Lamentations 3:11. Bears or lions, when they attack a flock, spring upon them, tear the sheep in pieces and leave those they do not eat weltering alone in their blood. This last has happened to the Poet. He hath turned aside my ways—he drove me aside. He hath made my ways turn aside [lit.], that is to say, He drives me from the right, direct way. And pulled me in pieces, he hath made me desolate.He tore me in pieces and cast me away lonely and miserable. Should we translate, He tore me to pieces, mutilated me, and understand this to mean that the wild beast had eaten his victim, then this would not suit the other figures used in the text. On this account, we must understand this tearing in pieces only in the sense of discerpere, of mangling, lacerating. So Ewald,mich zerrupfend. The Poet would say that the beast of prey had seized one of the scattered flock, had throttled it and left it for dead, lying alone in its misery. For we must carefully observe the two ideas expressed here in the last Hebrew word, ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν, that of desolation, destruction (see Lamentations 1:4; Lamentations 1:13; Lamentations 1:16), and that of solitariness, loneliness (Isaiah 54:1; 2 Samuel 13:20). [This word, ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν, may express any object of suffering forsaken of God and men, exciting, therefore, either pity or astonishment. See the use of the verb and its derivatives in Lamentations 1; Isaiah 54:1; Job 16:7; Job 21:5; Psalms 143:4. The fundamental signification of the root is to be motionless, filled with dread. This is the idea here. A solitary sheep, torn by the wild beast, lying alone in its suffering, and apparently dead. He made me desolate, or a desolation, may be a literal translation, but does not convey the sense which can only be done by inventing a phrase, as Naegelsbach has done. The idea is best condensed, perhaps, in the words, He left me suffering and alone.—W. H. H.] ρεֹ ?ψֵ ?ψ cannot be taken here in the sense it always has elsewhere, refractarius, rebellis. The word in this sense is Part. Kal. of ρָ ?ψַ ?ψ, and occurs only in Hosea 4:16. Here it can only be, either Pilel of ρεּ ?ψ [so Davidson], or Poel of ρָ ?ψַ ?ψ (Olsh. § 254). It is, in either case, a verbal form, occurring no where except here, and meaning He made my ways turn aside, that is to say, he drove me from the right, direct way. Thenius lays too much stress on the word, when he translates, He has dragged me aside. [The idea is, He causes me to diverge from the way, to escape the lurking beast; but in vain, for he springs upon me, rends me, and leaves me weltering in blood. Blayney gives us an original translation of his own. “He hath turned full upon me.ρָ ?ψַ ?ψ is applied, Hosea 4:16, to a refractory heifer, that turns aside, and will not go forward in the straight track, as she is directed. Here it is to be understood of a bear or lion turning aside toward a traveller, to fall upon him in his way.” Gerlach understands the word here to signify turning back, instead of turning aside, that is, arresting the fugitive and sending him back to prison. But neither the context, nor the signification of the word allow of this sense. Jarchi, according to Gerlach, regarded ρεֹ ?ψֵ ?ψ, as a denominative from ρִ ?ιψ, spinis opplevit vias meas. So Hugh Broughton,My ways hath He made thorny.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:12. In a new figure the Poet describes the Lord as an archer, who has made him his mark. [Henderson: “The idea of a hunter was naturally suggested by the circumstances just referred to. This is beautifully expressed in language borrowed from such employment.”] He hath bent—He bent—his bow.—See. Lamentations 2:4. And set me as a—the—mark for the arrow. The second half of the verse seems to be an imitation of Job 16:12. Lamentations 3:13. Continuation of the figure employed on ver, 12. He hath caused the arrows of His quiver to enter into my reins.—He shot into my reins the sons of his quiver. The Lord not only aims at the mark. He hits it, and that right in the centre. The reins are here regarded as the central organs, as frequently with Jeremiah (Jeremiah 11:20; Jeremiah 12:2; Jeremiah 17:10; Jeremiah 20:12), not in a physical sense, however, but in a psychological sense, as appears from Lamentations 3:14. See Delitzsch Psychologie, § 13, p. 268, 2d Edition.—The expression sons of the quiver, occurs only here. Rosenmueller quotes not inappropriately the pharetra gravida sagittis of Horace (Ode. I. 22, 23). Lamentations 3:14. It happens here that the Poet suddenly loses the figure. But it seems as if he would indicate by means of Lam 3:14, that by the arrows of which he spoke in Lamentations 3:13, he meant the arrows of derision. Jeremiah 9:7 explicitly calls the deceitful tongue (μְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?οξִ ?ψְ ?ξָ ?δ), a sharpened arrow (ηֵ ?υωׁ ?εֹ ?ηִ ?θ) See Isaiah 49:2.—I was a derision to all my people.—I have become a laughing stock to all my people. Altogether unnecessarily many interpreters (even Thenius and Ewald) take ςַ ?ξִ ?ι, my people, as a rare plural form for ςַ ?ξִ ?ιν, peoples, nations (as, it is asserted, in 2 Samuel 22:44; Psalms 144:2. See Ewald. § 177 a). This rests on the presumption that the subject of the Lamentation is not the Prophet, but the people of Israel. We have already above, at Lamentations 3:1-3, declared ourselves against, this opinion, and will return to the question again below, at Lamentations 3:40 sqq. [Henderson; “Instead of ςַ ?ξִ ?ιmy people, a considerable number of MSS. read ςַ ?ξִ ?ιν, and four δָ ?ςַ ?ξִ ?ιν in the plural; but this reading, though supported by the Syr., seems less suitable than the former. There is no evidence that the Prophet was treated otherwise than with respect by foreigners. Instead of meeting with any consideration from his countrymen, fidelity in the discharge of his duty to whom had been the occasion of all his personal troubles, he was made the butt of their ridicu e, and the theme of their satirical songs.” See Jeremiah 20:7. And their song all the day. [The conjunction and is not in the original, and is omitted by Naegelsbach.—W. H. H.] The expression, their song (πְ ?βִ ?ιπָ ?ϊָ ?ν), is from Job 30:9; comp. Job 12:4; Psalms 69:8-13. Lamentations 3:15. After the short interruption of Lam 3:14, the Poet returns to the figurative style of speaking. He exhausts, as it were, his stock of images, in order to depict the adversities which befell him. He must also receive them as meat and drink, and that too in copious measure, and he must be covered with them as with ashes. [Scott: Lamentations 3:14-16. “In the midst of his other troubles, the prophet was derided and insulted by the people, over whose approaching calamities he so pathetically mourned; and they made him the subject of their profane songs, for which they were at length made a derision and a song to their enemies. Thus the Lord filled him with bitterness and intoxicated him with the nauseous cup, of which he was made to drink, instead of the cordials that his case seemed to require, and instead of nourishing, palatable food, his bread was as it were mixed with gravel, which brake his teeth, and put him to great pain when he attempted to eat: and he was covered with ashes, as a constant mourner and penitent.”]—He hath filled me with bitterness (marg., bitternesses). He satiated me with bitterness. [The Hebrew verb is used to denote satiety after eating, Deuteronomy 6:11; Hosea 4:10. The connection seems to require this sense here He was required to eat bitter things, or bitter herbs (see Fuerst’sLex.), and drink wormwood till he was filled.—W. H. H.]—He hath made me drunken with wormwood.—He made me drunk with [or, made me drink to excess of] worm wood. See Lamentations 3:19. Lamentations 3:16. He hath also broken [lit. And he broke. Lamentations 3:16-18 each, begin with and (or vav conversive) for the sake of the initial letter, which is translated here also. It can be omitted in translation altogether, though it may denote here an intimate connection between this verse and Lamentations 3:15, as between eating and drinking.—W. H. H.] My teeth with gravel stones.—He broke my teeth with pebbles. It is a matter of indifference whether we regard this as meaning bread mixed with stones, or stones instead of bread. He hath covered me with ashes.—He covered me with ashes. The ashes here seem to be intended as a symbol of mourning, as they are in the well-known usages of mourning. See 2 Samuel 13:19; Job 2:8; Micah 1:10. ηָ ?φָ ?υ, lapillus, a little stone, occurs besides here only in Proverbs 20:17 (Psalms 77:18). [Proverbs 20:17, “Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel,” seems to be an allusion to the grit that often is mixed with bread baked in ashes, and thus may explain this passage. Blayney, Boothroyd, Owen and Henderson, translate the word grit. Henderson’s inelegant translation, He hath made my teeth cranch grit, and Ewald’ser liess meine Zδhne zermalmen Steine, is inconsistent with the use of the preposition αְּ, the presumptive power of the verb βָ ?ψַ ?ν (see Gerlach), and the apparent meaning of this passage especially when compared with Proverbs 20:17,—the pebbles were not broken by the teeth, but the teeth were broken by the pebbles.—A curious result of translating from a translation is exhibited in the Vulg. The Sept. having rendered this ’Εξέβαλενψήφῳτοὺςὁλόταςμου, the Vulg., taking ψήφος as calculus arithmeticus, translated Et fregit ad numerum (in full number, or by number, Douay “one by one”) denies meos.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 3:17-18. These verses constitute the conclusion and culmination point of the Lamentation. The speaker, dropping the metaphorical and adopting the literal style, utters a threefold declaration. 1. That the Lord had thrust him back, as it were, from the dominion of peace (ωָׁ ?μεֹּ ?ν, peace, is to be taken in its broadest sense, see below). To this objective act, what follows corresponds as subjective. 2. That the speaker has been deprived of all happiness, even to the recollection of it. 3. That he—and this is the acme of his sorrow—regarded even his confidence and hope in Jehovah as destroyed. Lamentations 3:17. And thou hast removed my soul far off from peace.—Thou thrustedst away my soul from peace. This is a quotation from Psalms 88:15, which Psalm our Poet so often avails himself of. This explains why the Poet so suddenly addresses God in the second person. [Wordsworth: “By an affecting transition, the Prophet turns to the Almighty, whom he sees present, and addresses Him, Thou hast removed my soul far off from peace; adopting the language of another Passion Psalm (Psalms 88:14-18).”] Peace (ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν) is happiness in the widest sense, as often, and stands in parallelism with good (θεֹ ?αָ ?δ). See Jeremiah 8:15; Jeremiah 14:9, “We looked for peace, but no good came.” I forgat prosperity (marg., good).—I forgot good. The speaker has been deprived of all happiness, even to the recollection of it. [Lowth: “So Joseph speaking of the seven years of famine saith that ‘plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.’ ”] Many old translators take πַ ?τְ ?ωִׁ ?ι as the subject of εַ ?ϊִּ ?ζְ ?πָ ?η. Jerome:Expulsa est a pace anima mea. Venet. Gr.:Ἀπέστητ’ ἀπ’ εἰρήνηςἡέμὴψυχή. Syriac:data est oblivioni a pace anima mea. [Calvin:Et remota fuit a pace anima mea. Broughton:and my soul is cast off from peace.] But these translations evidently proceed from philological ignorance. For ζָ ?πַ ?η is never used intransitively (not even in Hosea 8:5). These translators seem also to have stumbled at the fact that here suddenly God is addressed in the second person. Among the moderns also, Thenius and Ewald take πַ ?λְּ ?ωִׁ ?ι as the subject. But they take ζָ ?πַ ?ηξִ ?ο likewise in a sense it never has, namely, of loathing. Thenius translates, so that I loathe happiness. Ewald:Happiness has become loathsome to me. To this we object, because no one ever feels a loathing of happiness,—nor is ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν equivalent to life, in which case it might indicate a satiety or weariness of life, but ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν is the enjoyment of life. They have overlooked the fact that this passage is a quotation from Psalms 88:15, of which our Poet so often avails himself. There it is said μָ ?ξָ ?διְ ?δεָֹ ?δϊִּ ?ζְ ?πַ ?ηπַ ?τְ ?ωִׁ ?ι. This explains why the Poet so suddenly addresses God in the second person, and determines the meaning of ζָ ?πַ ?η, which can only be, as everywhere else, rejicere, repellexe. That ζָ ?πַ ?η is construed with ξִ ?ο (as elsewhere, only once, in Hiphil, 2 Chronicles 11:14) need not surprise us, for there is nothing in the word itself that would make this construction appear as unauthorized or even strange. [Gerlach, while rejecting the opinions of Thenius and Ewald, adopts the idea of the old translators, Und es ward verstossen vom Frieden meine Seele, and strangely appeals to 2 Chronicles 11:14, to justify the intransitive use of the verb.—W. H. H] Lamentations 3:18. And I said, My strength and my hope is perished from the Lord—Over and gone from Jehovah is my confidence and hope. [Broughton:And I thought in myself, my state is undone and my hope from the Eternal. Henderson:And I said, My confidence is perished, and my hope from Jehovah. Not only had all present enjoyment been annihilated, but all prospect of future prosperity had been cut off.”] The Poet here represents the sum total, as it were, of his punishment, the separate details, which he has been narrating, beginning at Lamentations 3:1, being garded as the several items of a sum in arithmetic. The result is an alarming one. His confidence and his hope in the Lord had been almost destroyed by the unintermitted blows of the rod of wrath (Lamentations 3:1-3). But they had not been actually destroyed. This we learn from the expression, and I said, εָֽ ?ΰֹ ?ξָ ?ψ. Without this word Lamentations 3:18 would have a much more equivocal sense. But this indicates that the Poet would represent the loss of his confidence, not as an actual fact (else he would have said ψַ ?ιִ ?ΰָ ?αֵ ?γ), but as merely an anticipatory thought. He said, i.e., he thought so to himself, as in Jeremiah 3:7, εָ ?ΰֹ ?ξַ ?ψ represents merely a speaking to one’s self, i.e, a thought, a feeling. [See instances of this use of the expression in Genesis 26:9; 1 Samuel 20:3; 2 Samuel 21:16; 1 Kings 8:12, etc.—W. H. H.] That he had not actually lost his confidence is, finally, most apparent from what follows, where the Poet, with all his soul’s energy, refastens the bond of confidence that had threatened to break. [Henry: “Without doubt it was his infirmity to say thus, Psalms 77:10, for with God there is everlasting strength, and He is His people’s never failing hope, whatever they may think.”] ΰָ ?αַ ?γ followed by ξִ ?ο, has different senses. This ξִ ?ο often indicates the person or place suffering the loss; ΰָ ?αַ ?γξָ ?πεֹ ?νξִ ?ξֶּ ?πִ ?ι; Psalms 142:5; comp. Job 11:20; Job 18:17; Jeremiah 18:18; Jeremiah 25:35; Jeremiah 49:7; Jeremiah 49:38, etc. It can be taken thus here. For the thought that Jehovah has lost the confidence of the Poet, can be expressed in the form here used. Yet it is well to observe here that the words cannot be translated, my confidence and my hope in Jehovah are lost [as Noyes does]. For the object of confidence is always indicated by ΰֵ ?μ ,ςַ ?μ ,αְּ, or, as especially after ϊּ ?εֹ ?ηֶ ?μֶ ?ϊ, Psalms 39:8, by μְ. But the sense is, my confidence is perished away from Jehovah, it has lost its direction towards Him. It is a constructio prζgnans: my confidence is turned away from God, and thus has become destroyed. ξִ ?ο could also be taken with reference to the efficient cause. See ξִ ?πִּ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ηΰֶ ?μεֹ ?δַּ ιֹ ?ΰαֵ ?γεּ, Job 4:9; Psalms 80:17. [So Blayney and Boothroyd:Jehovah hath caused my strength and my hope to fail.] Yet, if ξִ ?ο had only this sense, and not at the same time the local sense of away from, we would rather expect ξִ ?τְּ ?πֵ ?ι as we read Psalms 68:3, —ιֹ ?ΰαְ ?γεּ ψְ ?ωָׁ ?ςִ ?ινξִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιΰֶ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινπֵ ?φֶ ?η. That this root contains the ideas of splendor, strength and endurance, is certain. Which is its original meaning is disputed. Here, as in 1 Sam. 5:29, the idea seems to be strength with the modification of perseverance, persevering steadfastness and confidence. At least this best suits the intimately connected word ϊּ ?εֹ ?ηַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ι. PART II Lamentations 3:19-42ζ Lamentations 3:19. Remember my affliction and my wandering, The wormwood and the gall. ζ Lamentations 3:20. Yea, Thou wilt indeed remember That my soul is bowed down in me. ζ Lamentations 3:21. This will I take to my heart, Therefore will I hope. η Lamentations 3:22. Because of Jehovah’s mercies, we are not consumed; For His compassions fail not: η Lamentations 3:23. They are new every morning: Great is Thy faithfulness. η Lamentations 3:24. My portion is Jehovah, saith my soul; Therefore will I hope in Him. θ Lamentations 3:25. Good is Jehovah to them that wait for Him, To the soul that seeketh Him. θ Lamentations 3:26. Good is it both to hope and silently wait For the salvation of Jehovah. θ Lamentations 3:27. Good is it for a man, That he bear the yoke in his youth. ι Lamentations 3:28. He sitteth alone and is silent, Because He imposed it upon him: ι Lamentations 3:29. He putteth his mouth in the dust, Peradventure, there may be hope! ι Lamentations 3:30. He offereth his cheek to him that smiteth him; He is filled with reproach. λ Lamentations 3:31. For the Lord will not cast off Forever! λ Lamentations 3:32. For though He hath caused grief. Yet is He moved to compassion according to His great mercy. λ Lamentations 3:33. For He doth not willingly afflict And grieve the children of men. μ Lamentations 3:34. To trample under his feet All prisoners of the earth,— μ Lamentations 3:35. To deprive a man of his rights Before the face of the Most High,— μ Lamentations 3:36. To subvert a man in his cause,— The Lord approveth not! ξ Lamentations 3:37. Who is he that spoke and it was done, Except the Lord commanded? ξ Lamentations 3:38. Cometh not the evil as well as the good From the mouth of the Most High? ξ Lamentations 3:39. Why murmur living men— Every one for his sins? π Lamentations 3:40. Let us search and try our ways, And return to Jehovah. π Lamentations 3:41. Let us lift up our heart together with our hands To God in the Heavens, π Lamentations 3:42. We—have sinned and rebelled. Thou—hast not pardoned. In the second part, Lamentations 3:19-42, the Poet rises out of the night of sorrow into the clear day of comfort and hope; yet he allows, as it were, a morning dawn to precede, and an evening twilight to follow this day. Lamentations 3:19-21 contain a transition. The Poet can again pray! He prays the Lord to be once more mindful of him, Lamentations 3:19-20; and on his own part he sets about to seek for grounds of comfort, Lamentations 3:21. These he finds, first of all, in the fact that Israel is not completely destroyed, that there is yet a remnant, as a starting point for a return to the better fortune which is now at hand. This fact is due to the grace and mercy of God, the continuation of which the Poet recognizes with the deepest joy, Lamentations 3:22-24. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ Lamentations 4Zion’s guilt and punishment graphically described by an eye-witness, [or the sufferings of the people of all grades and ranks of society.—W. H. H.]The Song consists plainly of four parts [or sections], Lamentations 4:1-6; Lamentations 4:7-11; Lamentations 4:12-16; Lamentations 4:17-20; and a conclusion, Lamentations 4:21-22PART I. Lamentations 4:1-11 Sect. I. Lamentations 4:1-6ΰ Lamentations 4:1. How doth gold become dim! The choice gold change its color! The hallowed stones are cast forth At the head of every street. α Lamentations 4:2. The noble sons of Zion, Who are equal in value to the purest gold, How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, The work of the hands of the Potter! β Lamentations 4:3. Even jackals drew out the breasts, They suckled their whelps. The daughter of my people became cruel, Like ostriches in the wilderness. γ Lamentations 4:4. The tongue of the sucking babe cleaved To the roof of his mouth for thirst: Young children asked bread. There was no one to break to them. δ Lamentations 4:5. They that fed on dainties Perished on the streets: They that were borne on scarlet Embraced heaps-of-dirt. ε Lamentations 4:6. For greater was the iniquity of the daughter of my people Than the sin of Sodom, Which was overthrown as in a moment And no hands came against her. Sec. II. Lamentations 4:7-11ζ Lamentations 4:7. Her princes were purer than snow, Whiter than milk, They were more ruddy in body than corals; Their form—a sapphire. η Lamentations 4:8. Their visage became darker than blackness: They were not known in the streets: Their skin cleaved to their bones, It became dry like a stick. θ Lamentations 4:9. Happier were those slain by the sword Than these slain by famine, Those pierced-ones, whose lives gushed forth While yet there were fruits of the field. ι Lamentations 4:10. The hands of tender-hearted women Cooked their own children; They became food for them In the ruin of the daughter of my people. λ Lamentations 4:11. Jehovah fulfilled His fury; He poured out His fierce wrath. And He kindled a fire in Zion, And it consumed her foundations. [The first elegy related especially to the city of Jerusalem; the second, to Zion and the holy places; the third, to the sufferings of the prophet, as a representative of the spiritual Israel; this fourth elegy, relates to the sufferings of the people generally, embracing all classes.—W. H. H.] The two parts, comprising the first-half of the chapter, Lamentations 4:1-11, correspond with each other, both in matter and form. In the first part, Lamentations 4:1-6, is described the sad fate of the sons of Zion, noble scions of the noblest lineage (Jeremiah 2:21). A contrast is presented, not only between their great worth and their pitiable fortune, but also between the fate that befell them, who constituted the living treasure of Zion, and the fate of its material wealth, Lamentations 4:1-2. Then is described the harrowing grief, caused by the sufferings of little children, which could not possibly be relieved, Lamentations 4:3-5. Finally this part closes with the general remark, that Zion’s guilt, if inferred from these facts, had been even greater than Sodom’s, Lamentations 4:6. In the second part, Lamentations 4:7-11, the Poet first describes the noble appearance and character of the Princes of Judah, and then, in striking contrast, the frightful wrongs they had endured, Lamentations 4:7-9; a description which evidently constitutes a parallel to that contained in Lamentations 4:1-2. So, also, parallel to what was said of the children in Lamentations 4:3-5, is what we read on the same subject in Lamentations 4:10; only what is here said in Lamentations 4:10, constitutes a climax to what was related in Lamentations 4:3-5. The second part, like the first, ends with a general remark; Zion has suffered the full measure of Divine wrath, Lamentations 4:11. Lamentations 4:1-21 How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of 2the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter! TEXTUAL AND Lam_4:1. ΰֵ ?ιλָ ?δ, see Lamentations 1:1.—ιεּ ?ςַ ?ν, Hophal only here; elsewhere only Kal occurs, and that only twice, Ezekiel 28:3; Ezekiel 31:8. If the signification of ςָ ?ξַ ?ν, demanded by the context in Ezekiel 28:3, is latere,—and in Ezekiel 31:8, is obscurare, then it naturally follows that the signification of the Hophal here is obscurari; though it is not yet clearly apparent how this meaning agrees with the idea of accumulation (Sammelns), which lies in the words ςִ ?νςַ ?ξָּ ?δςַ ?ν. [Henderson; “ςָ ?ξַ ?ν to congregate, Arabic, texit, obstruxit, as clouds, when collected, do the heavens; hence to grow, or make dark, obscure the lustre of anything. LXX ἐμαυρώθη.”]—ιִ ?ωְׁ ?πֶ ?ΰ. With respect to its Aramaic form, see Lamentations 3:12; 2 Kings 25:29; Ecclesiastes 8:11. [Blayney: “Twenty-five MSS. and one edition read ιωπδ.”] The word has the signification of alium, diversum esse.—mutari,—only in later Hebrew, Esther 1:7; Esther 3:8; Malachi 3:6; and that in accordance with the Chaldaic, which often uses ωָׁ ?πָ ?ΰ in this sense, Daniel 3:27; Daniel 5:9; Daniel 6:18.—λֶּ ?ϊֶ ?ν, is not found in Jer.; it stands in parallelism with ζָ ?δַ ?α in Job 31:24; Proverbs 25:12; it is used with τָּ ?ζ, Son 5:11. [The Sept. have ἀργύριον, not because they read δλρσ, but because they were unwilling to repeat the word gold. Rosenmueller.] Lamentations 4:2. ιִ ?χְ ?ψִ ?ιν. In Jer. only in Jeremiah 15:19.—ρָ ?μָ ?ΰ only here. The expression seems to be taken from Job 28:16; Job 28:19, where we read of wisdom ρָ ?μָ ?δ .μֹ ?ΰϊְ ?ρֻ ?μֶּ ?δαְּ ?λֶ ?ϊֶ ?ν (ρָ ?μָ ?ΰ) is tollere, pendere. [Jerome translates amicti auro, which Calvin prefers. “The value, and not the appearance is evidently meant,” (Owen); it is the explanation of ιִ ?χְ ?ψִ ?ιν, precious.—W. H. H.]—τָּ ?ζ from τָּ ?ζַ ?ζ, secernere, purgare, does not occur in Jer.; yet see Jeremiah 10:9. The article generalizes the meaning.—Jer. never uses the Niphal πֶ ?ηְ ?ωַׁ ?α.—πֶ ?αֶ ?μ, Jeremiah 13:12; Jeremiah 48:12.—ηֶ ?ψֶ ?ωׂ, Jeremiah 19:1; Jeremiah 32:14. The construction with μְ, as Isaiah 29:17; Psalms 106:31. Elsewhere, after πֶ ?ηְ ?ωַׁ ?α that with which the comparison is made is indicated by ςִ ?ν ,λְּ, or the simple nominative.—ιεֹ ?φֵ ?ψ, frequent in Jeremiah 10:16; Jeremiah 18:2-4; Jeremiah 19:1; Jeremiah 19:11; etc. [No occasional use of a new word can invalidate the presumption created by the use of the image of a potter’s vessel, that Jeremiah was the author of this poem.—W. H. H.]—The expression ύξַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?διΧιΧ, occurs here only. AND Lam_4:1. How. That this song also begins with this exclamation (ΰֵ ?ιλָ ?δ) is a strong argument for the identity of the author. It is in the highest degree improbable that different authors not only composed alphabetical songs on the same subject, but also began them with the very same word. How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!How may gold become black, the precious treasure change its color? The correct understanding of this verse depends on the understanding of the next verse and its relation to this verse. Thenius would substitute in Lamentations 4:2, houses of Zion for sons of Zion (αָּ ?ϊֵ ?ι instead of αְּ ?πֵ ?ι). Without dwelling on the fact, that not the least critical evidence for such a change of the text is offered, the context affords sufficient evidence against it: for not only would houses equal in value to gold be an exaggerated hyperbole, but it is evident from the antithesis involved in the expression the work of the hands of the potter, and also from the subject of the parallel verses 7–9, that men are intended. But if we retain the reading sons of Zion, and if the meaning is that the sons of Zion regarded as precious, are equal in value [comparable] to gold, then it is obvious in what sense gold and precious stones are spoken of in Lamentations 4:1. It is not of the fate of the Temple-gold and Temple-walls that he speaks [Calvin, Boothroyd, Noyes, and seemingly Wordsworth]; but the Poet asks how is it possible that noble gold should lose its brightness, that the precious stones should be thrown upon the street? Thus, says he, has it happened to the sons of Zion, who are such jewels. And thus, what never happened in the case of material treasures and jewels, has occurred in the case of these living, metaphorical jewels. We take, then, Lamentations 4:1, as a question, relating to what was likely to happen according to the usual course of things. This is involved in the use of the imperfect tense in the Hebrew verbs [ιεּ ?ςַ ?ν, etc.), which refer to matters not yet completed as, it was becoming dim or obscured, etc. In any other sense the perfect tense would have been necessary. Nor can these imperfects be referred to the work of destruction while in course of execution (Thenius); for it would certainly be very singular to represent the Jews as saying, whilst the work of destruction was going on, “How is now the gold in the Temple blackened by the smoke! How now are the stones of the Temple-wall rolled down!” Those, over whose heads everything was going to pieces, could not be thinking of such minute and particular details as these. Rather, in the form of a question, what had never before been known to happen, is here affirmed. [The form is interrogative, only so far as the interjection of surprise suggests a question as to the possibility of an event, else unparalleled. The construction is the same as in Lamentations 1:1, How sitteth solitary the city that, etc.! So here, How doth gold become dim! That the reference is to men, and not to literal gold and jewels, is the opinion of Blayney, Henderson, Rosenmueller, Gerlach and others. Gerlach: “Since the chapter contains not one word (unless here) of the destruction and robbery of the Temple and palaces, but describes especially what befell the men, rather than the edifices of the city, (which latter theme had already been exhaustively discussed in chap. 2), therefore the first verse must not be taken literally and explained of the Temple and its ornaments (Chald., Maurer, Kalkar, Thenius; see Lamentations 1:10). It is rather to be taken figuratively, either generally of the fall of all that was high and valuable in Israel, of which particular instances are cited in what follows, or, as Michaelis and Rosenmueller have preferred, specifically, as explained by the following verse, which interprets the gold and holy stones of Lam 4:1, by the sons of Zion, whilst the words are thrown down at all the street-corners, find their explanation in the more detailed description of Lam 4:5. Besides, this designation of the sons of Zion as stones of holiness (ΰַ ?αְ ?πֵ ?ιΞχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ), has an analogy in the stones of a crown (ΰַ ?αְ ?πֵ ?ιΞπֵ ?ζֶ ?ψ, precious stones) in Zechariah 9:16. From this it appears, how unauthorized is the presumption (Michaelis, Rosenmueller), which would perceive in the expression, stones of holiness, a reference to the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest and, therefore, a designation of the Priests (whilst the gold denotes the people generally, and the precious ore [fine gold] the Princes), or would understand the words stones of holiness as referring directly to the stones on the breast-plate of the High Priest (Maurer [Noyes], see Bellermann, Urim u. Thum, S. 21. With the Israelites, thrown about dead on the streets, on account of their sins,—the holy stones—regarded as symbols of the people—will, at the same time, be scattered about at the corners of the streets.’) The literal interpretation of the stones as the stones of the walls of the Sanctuary, by Thenius and Neumann, [Calvin, Boothroyd, etc.], (in which case the words should be ΰַ ?αְ ?πֵ ?ιΞδַ ?χֹּ ?γֶ ?ωׁ), is controverted by the improbability of their being scattered about through all the streets of the city,—an opinion, which is not made more acceptable by the conjecture of Thenius, that all the streets of the city terminated near the Temple in an open square, for in any case the expression would then be very strongly hyperbolical.”—W. H. H.]—Become dim.—The signification of the verb (ιεּ ?ςַ ?ν, obscurari), is to be taken, not in the sense of a momentary effect, but of a continuous obscuration. For not a superficial and transient, but a deep and abiding depravation is affirmed in Lamentations 4:2, of the goldlike sons of Zion. What is said, then, is this, How can gold lose its bright lustre, and become dull, tarnished, black?—[How. The repetition of the how in the English version is as unnecessary here as in Lamentations 1:1.—The most fine gold.—The Hebrew word for gold here is not the same Hebrew word used in the preceding clause. Broughton has supplied the lack of an English equivalent by retaining the Hebrew word: How is the gold dimmed! how is the pure cethern changed! The Hebrew word (λֶּ ?ϊֶ ?ν) has been variously derived and interpreted. Three explanations have received the sanction of high authority (see Lange’sComm., Son 5:11). It has been derived from λָ ?ϊַ ?ν, to hide, to hoard, hence esteemed precious. So Barnes, Job 31:24. Dr. Naegelsbach seems to adopt this sense. The English version also by using the superlative most fine gold. But if the word itself meant precious gold, the addition of the adjective θεֹ ?α, good, would be superfluous. It has been derived, again, from λָּ ?ϊַ ?ν in the supposed sense of being solid, dense, hence massive gold: so Blayney, the best massy gold. Others derive it from δָ ?ωַׁ ?ν=λָּ ?ϊַ ?ν, to shine, to glitter, and explain it of some very valuable kind of metal like gold (so Gerlach the costly ore, or metal, Erz); or of a particular kind of gold that shines and sparkles, genus auri fulgentis, a micando (Fuerst’sConcordance). This last meaning seems to agree best with the sense here, the use of the word in Son 5:11, and the very peculiar use of the verb in Jeremiah 2:22. According to Rosenmueller, Chaldeaus rendered it ζִ ?ιε, splendor, the Syriac and Jerome, color.—Changed, faded or changed its color. Gerlach: “This can only denote a change of color, or loss of brightness, since the gold could not be changed in its substance.” W. H. H.]—The stones of the Sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. Thrown down are the stones of the sanctuary [stones of holiness, or consecrated stones] at the corners of all the streets. The expression stones of the sanctuary (ΰַ ?αְ ?πֵ ?ιχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ), is found only here. By itself it might properly denote the stones of the Temple walls, particularly since these are also called costly stones (ΰֲ ?αָ ?πִ ?ινιֳ ?χψεֹ ?ϊ), 1 Kings 5:31 (1 Kings 5:17); Jeremiah 7:9-11. But who would take the trouble to carry these away and pour them out in the corners of the streets? What Thenius says of the concentration of the principal streets at the foot of the Temple hill, is very problematical. Besides, the connection requires the sense of precious stones: for with such, not with wall-stones, however excellent, are the Sons of Zion compared as precious (ιֳ ?χψִ ?ιν), and precious stones (ΰֶ ?αֶ ?οιֳ ?χψָ ?δ), are often named, as here, in connection with gold, 2 Samuel 12:30; 1 Kings 10:2; 1 Kings 10:10-11. In regard to the use of precious stones in the Sanctuary, they were not only attached to the garments of the High Priest (Exodus 28:9; Exodus 28:17-20; Exodus 39:6; Exodus 39:10-13), but they were employed for ornamenting the Temple itself (2 Chronicles 3:6; 1 Chronicles 29:2). Who would pour out such valuable stones in the corners of all the streets, that is to say, in the first corner one happened to come to? Even the enemy did not do that. Yet this thing happened to the sons of Zion though they were most precious jewels. Lamentations 4:2. The precious sons of Zion,—Zion’s sons, the noble ones (δַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ιְ ?χָ ?ψִ ?ιν, comp. ιְ ?χִ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ, honorable women, Psalms 45:10 (9)). That we are to understand here by the sons of Zion, the nobility of the people [Calvin, Henderson], I do not believe. The expression is too comprehensive, and nothing prevents our understanding the following predicates of the chosen people generally, who were in their totality a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6). The Princes are spoken of for the first time in the second part, Lamentations 4:7-11, which constitutes throughout the climax of the first part.—Comparable to fine gold, who are equal in value to gold [lit., those who are weighed with pure gold. Henderson: “As what is weighed is estimated according to the contents of the opposite scale, the verb came to be employed in the sense of comparing one thing with another. Comp. Job 28:16; Job 28:19.”]—Fine gold, τָ ?ζ, is pure, solid gold. [This is still another Hebrew word for gold, indicating its quality. Broughton anglicizes it, Fesse ore, as he does λֶּ ?ϊֶ ?ν in Lamentations 4:1, which he calls cethern. Blayney: the purest gold.—W. H. H.] They are estimated by the gold, that is to say, their value is represented by a mass of gold, the weight of which is equal to their own. The expression is figurative.—How. [The repetition of this word ΰֵ ?ιλָ ?δ, is forcible. It serves to connect this verse with Lamentations 4:1, and to continue and complete the sentence begun with the same word in Lamentations 4:1. It shows that one idea of horror and amazement pervades the whole sentence, and hence that the gold, choice gold, and hallowed stones, of Lamentations 4:1, are identical with the precious sons of Zion, in Lamentations 4:2.—W. H. H.].—Are they esteemed as earthen pitchers—potsherd-pitchers—the work of the hands of the potter! [Wordsworth: “As Jeremiah himself had represented them to be shattered in pieces for their sins, Jeremiah 19:10. 11.” Gataker: “As bottles of sherd, or earthen stuff, so Jeremiah 19:1; Jeremiah 19:10; as things of no repute or worth, 2 Corinthians 4:7. See Jeremiah 22:28.” Gerlach: “The point of comparison is the worthlessness of the material out of which they are made, see Isaiah 45:9.”] Footnotes: [Gerlach would narrow the meaning down to the little children referred to Lamentations 4:3-4, and explains their being called precious, comparable to gold, by passages in which children are represented as of more value than any other gift of God, Genesis 15:2; Genesis 30:1; Psalms 127:3. There is no necessity for this. It is much more natural to take these two introductory verses as embracing a general description of the humiliation of the whole people. The verses that follow give us the details of the picture, with reference to particular classes of people.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 4:3-53 Even the sea-monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: 4the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst; the young 5children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets; they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dung-hills. TEXTUAL AND Lam_4:3.—[ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ιο (K’ri, ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ιν). Sea-monsters, E. V., Boothroyd: sea-calves, E. V. marg.: dragons, Broughton, Blayney, Owen; serpent, Calvin; jackals, Henderson, Noyes, Fuerst, Lex.: wolves, Gerlach: wild-dogs, Thenius.]—ηָ ?μַ ?υ, never used in Jeremiah, is used of pulling off the shoe, in Deuteronomy 25:9-10; Isaiah 20:2. The sense of drawing, seems to lie at the foundation of this root (see Hosea 5:6). Whether a second root ηָ ?μַ ?υ (from which comes δָ ?μεּ ?υ, one equipped, a warrior) may be affirmed, or whether the original identity of both may be established, we cannot now stop to inquire.—ωַׁ ?γ, mamma, Jeremiah never uses [because he never had occasion to speak of the female breasts or teats.—W. H. H.]—Of the verb ιָ ?πַ ?χ, Jeremiah uses only once the Participle ιεֹ ?πֵ ?χ, Jeremiah 44:7, in a substantive sense. [The only time Jeremiah in his prophecies had occasion to speak of a suckling, or make any allusion to a mother’s nursing a child at the breast, he uses the participle of the verb ιָ ?πַ ?χ. What verb then would Jeremiah have been more likely to use in this place?—W. H. H.]—βεּ ?ψ, young-one [whelp], is found once in Jeremiah, in the form βεֹ ?ψֵ ?ι, Jeremiah 51:38, see Nahum 2:13.—αַּ ?ϊ–ςַ ?ξִּ ?ι. See Lamentations 2:11; Lamentations 3:48.—μְ ?ΰַ ?λְ ?ζָ ?ψ. The verb to be or become must be supplied. See Ewald, § 217 d, a. ΰַ ?λְ ?ζָ ?ψ (Jeremiah uses only ΰַ ?λְ ?ζָ ?ψִ ?ι, Jeremiah 6:23; Jeremiah 30:14; Jeremiah 50:42) is the cruel one, Job 30:21. We would expect the feminine form: but that is never used, and, besides, the masculine form seems intended to convey the idea of unwomanly, unmotherly; it is as if it were said, Zion has become a hardened man.—λַּ ?ιְ ςֵ ?πִ ?ιν. The Masorites connect the two words and read λַּ ?ιְ ?ςֵ ?πִ ?ιν. It is true that ιָ ?ςֵ ?ο occurs only here (elsewhere the ostrich is called αַּ ?ϊΞιַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ςֲ ?πָ ?δ, the daughter of screeching, Micah 1:8; Job 30:29, etc.). Yet the K’ri is to be approved of. For, on the one hand, the separation could easily happen by mistake; and, on the other hand, ςֹ ?πִ ?ιν, as the K’tib has it, gives no satisfactory sense. It must be translated, For criers (Heuler) in the wilderness (are they.) To supply δֵ ?ξָּ ?δ here is difficult, and who are the criers in the wilderness? The children, or (as others prefer) their parents? [Forty-five of Kennicott’s MSS., and seventy-seven of De Rossi’s, and most of the early printed editions of the 15th century, according to Henderson and Gerlach, have λַּ ?ιְ ?ςֵ ?πִ ?ιν, without any reference to another reading, “Neumann, in support of the K’tib, would understand by the crying ones (Heulenden) the wild beasts of the wilderness, as the Venetian Greek, ὡςσειρῆνες” (Gerlach).—W. H. H.] Lamentations 4:4.—γָּ ?αַ ?χεβεΧ. The same phrase is found in Job 29:10; Psalms 137:6; comp. Jeremiah 22:16 (Jeremiah 22:15); Ezekiel 3:26, where ΰֵ ?μ is used.—Jeremiah uses ηֵ ?κְ never [because he never had occasion to, not happening ever to speak of the palate, or roof of the mouth.—W. H. H.]. γָּ ?αַ ?χ twice, Jeremiah 13:11; Jeremiah 42:16 : ιεֹ ?πֵ ?χ once, Jeremiah 44:7 : μָ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ο frequently, Jeremiah 5:15; Jeremiah 9:2; Jeremiah 9:4; Jeremiah 9:7, etc.: φָ ?ξָ ?ΰ once for φָּ ?ξֵ ?ΰ, Jeremiah 48:18.—ςεֹ ?μָ ?μִ ?ιν. See Lamentations 1:5; Lamentations 2:19; Jeremiah 6:11; Jeremiah 9:20 (Jeremiah 9:21).—τּ ?ψֵ ?ωׂ, a scribal variety for τֹּ ?ψֵ ?ν, as Micah 3:3; see Isaiah 58:7; Jeremiah 16:7. Lamentations 4:5.—ΰָ ?λַ ?μ is frequently constructed with αְּ (Exodus 12:43-45; Leviticus 2:11; Judges 13:16), but nowhere except here with μְ. Bφttcher urges the μְ, and translates admitted to dainties, or directed to dainties [μְ having a local sense, as 2 Samuel 9:7, or Job 12:8. See Thenius]. Thenius supposes the allusion to be rather to the external surroundings of delicate food, than to the food itself. But it is not apparent how ΰָ ?λַ ?μ can mean to admit, to direct, or how μְ can denote something around. If μְ is to be explained as a Hebraism, then we must adopt a pregnant construction, and regard μְ as dependent on an omitted verb of craving after, longing for. See Proverbs 23:3; Proverbs 23:6, ΰַ ?μΞϊִּ ?ϊְ ?ΰָ ?εμְ ?ξַ ?θְ ?ςַ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ϊָ ?ιε, comp. Jeremiah 24:1. To eat after dainties would, then, be the same as seeking to eat such. Our book, however, was written at a time when an Aramaic expression cannot surprise us. Besides, there is found in Jeremiah an undoubted example of this Aramaic μְ, as a nota accusativi, Jeremiah 40:2. [Note this as a mark of Jeremiac authorship, that is a set-off, at least, against many of the trivial exceptions to his style.—W. H. H.] See Ewald, § 277, e. [Gesenius Gr., § 151, e. “It is a solecism of the later style, when active verbs are construed with μְ, instead of the accusative, as ΰָ ?λַ ?μμְ, Lamentations 4:5.”—Gerlach takes the whole expression adverbially, nach Herzenslust assen, they ate according, to their heart’s desire.—W. H. H.]—ξַ ?ςֲ ?γַ ?πִ ?ιν. See Genesis 49:20; 1 Samuel 15:32; Proverbs 29:17. ξֵ ?ςֲ ?γָ ?πַ ?ι, Jeremiah 51:34, is composed of ξִ ?ο and ςֲ ?γָ ?πִ ?ιν (Psalms 36:9 (8); 2 Samuel 1:24.—πָ ?ωַׁ ?ξּ ?εּ. See Jeremiah 4:9; Ezekiel 4:17, where the word is used as here of persons.—ΰָ ?ξַ ?ο is the technical word for the nurture of children: see ΰֹ ?ξֵ ?ο, Numbers 11:12; Isaiah 49:23; 2 Kings 10:1; 2 Kings 10:5; Esther 2:7 : ΰֹ ?ξֶ ?πֶ ?ϊ, Rth 4:16; 2 Samuel 4:4. The fundamental meaning seems to be to carry, support, raise up; see ΰֹ ?ξְ ?πָ ?δ a column, ΰָ ?πεֹ ?ο ,ΰָ ?ξָ ?ο, the one who erects a building, the architect. ΰֱ ?ξֻ ?πִ ?ιν are then gestati, see Isaiah 60:4. Jeremiah uses Niphal, Jeremiah 15:18; Jeremiah 42:5, and Hiphil, Jeremiah 12:6; Jeremiah 40:14, but only in an ethical sense.—ϊּ ?εֹ ?μָ ?ς does not occur in Jeremiah.—The word ΰַ ?ωְׁ ?τַּ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ϊ occurs only here. The plural ΰַ ?ωְׁ ?τεֹ ?ϊ in 1 Samuel 2:8; Psalms 113:7; Nehemiah 2:13; Nehemiah 3:13-14; Nehemiah 12:31. The signification is undoubtedly dirt (Koth). For its derivation, see Ewald, § 186, e; Olsh., § 211, a.—The verb ηָ ?αַ ?χ, Jeremiah uses in no form. Piel is to embrace. AND Lam_4:3. Lamentations 4:1-2, describe the misfortunes of Zion from a theocratic point of view; Lamentations 4:3-5 show how terrible they were, as seen from a natural point of view, by describing the pitiable misery of the poor children: see Lamentations 1:5; Lamentations 2:11-12; Lamentations 2:19-20. Even the sea-monsters (marg. sea-calves) [jackals, or wolves] draw out [drew-out] the breast, they give [gave] suck to their young ones. That the Hebrew word translated sea-monsters, ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ικ, here stands for ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ιν = jackals (see Jeremiah 9:10 (Jeremiah 9:11); Jeremiah 10:22; Jeremiah 14:6, etc.), was an opinion of the Masorites, which many of the moderns have adopted from the Syriac. In fact, ικ—is the Aramaic plural ending (see Olsh. § 111 b), which would not be surprising here. ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ικ, as a singular (see Jeremiah 51:34) is bellua maritima (see Genesis 1:21), which is defined at one time as a dragon, at another as a whale, at another as a crocodile, at another as a serpent (comp. Exodus 7:9-10; Deuteronomy 32:23; Psalms 74:13, etc.). That the sea-monsters draw out for use the teats, which are contained in the breasts as in bags or sheaths, Bochart (in the Hierozoicon, tom. 3 p. 777, ed. Rosenmόller) authenticates, by many evidences, as a fact known to the ancients. There is on this account, therefore, no reason for departing from the sense indicated by the text. [There are, however, several other reasons for regarding this word as an Aramaic plural for jackals or for wolves (Gerlach), which belong to the same family. These are, 1. The plural forms of the verbs (drew out, gave suck) and of the suffix (their young-ones), which would require ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ιπִ ?ιν instead of ϊַּ ?πִ ?ικ, if sea-monsters were intended. 2. The fact that βּ ?εּ ?ψ is used of the whelps of lions, bears, dogs, and animals of similar species. 3. The authority of the Masorites. 4. The frequent occurrence of Aramaic forms in Jeremiah’s writings. 5. The agreement of so many versions and commentators, ancient and modern. 6. The probability that jackals, wolves, or animals of that description, would occur to the mind of the Prophet in connection with the events of which he speaks. There was nothing to suggest the monsters of the deep, and the comparison, if referred to them, seems forced and far-fetched. But as the Prophet recalls the consequences of the destruction of Jerusalem, as he remembers how the foxes even now had possession of the mountain of Zion, Lamentations 5:18, he cannot forget how hungry beasts of prey had revelled in the land, and prowled about the deserted villages and even the streets of Jerusalem itself. Even those beasts had shown the instincts of natural affection at least. And hence the natural contrast between them and the mothers, who, before the beasts appeared on the scene, forsook their own babes and refused to give them nourishment. It should be observed here that the verbs in this verse and in all the following description are in the past time. The Prophet is describing what had happened; not what was then transpiring. This use of the perfect tense shows that he was referring, not in the abstract, to what it is in the nature of jackals to do, but in the concrete, to what had been actually observed of them. Even (the βַ ?ν is emphatic) jackals, that infested the depopulated country, drew out their breast, etc.—The expression drawing out the breast is suggested by the common habit of women in drawing out the breast from the covering robe and presenting it to the child; a mulieribus lactantibus, quζ laxata veste mammam lactanti prζbent (Junius, quoted by Gerlach).—W. H. H.]—The daughter of my people is become cruel, [became cruel. Lit. was turned into a cruel one (Gataker), see Job 30:21. Calvin says: “The daughter of my people is come to the cruel one, for the people had to do with nothing but cruelty,… He, then, does not accuse the people of cruelty, that they did not nourish their children, but on the contrary, he means that they were given up to cruel enemies.” But the preceding part of this verse and what follows in Lamentations 4:4-5, and especially in the climax presented in Lamentations 4:10, require the sense given in our English version, in which the versions agree with great unanimity. The Prophet gives us a frightful instance of the effect of suffering and starvation. Mothers became more unnatural than jackals or hyenas that suckle their young; and forsook their babes, not merely to avoid the sight of pains they could not alleviate, but to escape the exhausting demands upon their own waning strength,—nay, the mania induced by extreme suffering destroyed their affection for their children—W. H. H.]—Like the ostriches in the wilderness. In reference to the want of feeling towards its young in the ostrich, Thenius refers to Oken’sNatural History (vii. s. 655, ff.). See Bochart, Hieroz. P. II. L. II. cap. 14, pag. 824; cap. 17, pag. 854 seqq. ed. Rosenm.—Winer R. W. B. s. v. Strauss. Job 39:13-17. [“On the least noise or trivial occasion she forsakes her eggs or her young ones, to which perhaps she never returns: or if she does, it may be too late either to restore life to the one, or to preserve the lives of the others. Agreeably to this account, the Arabs meet sometimes with whole nests of these eggs undisturbed; some of them are sweet and good, others are addled and corrupted; others again have their young ones of different growth, according to the time, it may be presumed, they may have been forsaken of the dam. They often meet with a few of the little ones no bigger than well-grown pullets, half-starved, straggling, and moaning about, like so many distressed orphans, for their mother.” (Shaw’sTravels, quoted by Noyes). “The Arabs call the ostrich the impious or ungodly bird, on account of its neglect and cruelty towards its young,” (Barnes on Job 39:13).] Lamentations 4:4. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth [cleaved] to the roof of his mouth for thirst. See Job 29:10; Psalms 137:6, comp. Psalms 22:16 (Psalms 22:15); Ezekiel 3:26.—Young children ask [asked] bread [see Lamentations 2:11-12], and no man breaketh it unto them [and there was no one to break to them]. Lamentations 4:5. They that did feed delicately, they that ate dainties [or, fed on dainties, Calvin, Blayney, Boothroyd, Henderson, Noyes].—Are desolate in the streets, perish [perished] on the streets, [i.e. by starvation, while seeking in vain for food.—W. H. H.]—They that were brought up in scarlet, they who were carried on crimson [carried on cloths, or borne on couches of scarlet, crimson, or purple color, made of costly materials of Tyrian dyes.—W. H. H.] Scarlet, the red dying material, got from the cochineal worm; see Exodus 16:20; Isaiah 1:18.—Embrace dunghills, embrace the dirt [embraced dirt-heaps, the heaps of dirt, refuse (rubbish, Fuerst’sLex.), lying in the streets of the city.—W. H. H.] To embrace the dirt (see Job 24:8, embrace the rock) can only mean to have it between the arms, which is done by them who lie in the dirt. Sterquilinea arripiunt, et super ea veluti toto corpore incumbunt, ut fame confecti cibum inde eruant. (They eagerly grasp the dunghills, stretched out upon them, as it were at full length, that, dying of hunger, they may thence seize their food).—Pareau. [The idea of seeking food in the dirt-heaps of the city streets, confuses the two very distinct members of this verse. Little children, who had been fed on delicacies, perished in the streets while vainly seeking food; and thus, those, who had been borne on costly couches covered with the richest goods, lay now dying, with outstretched hands embracing, as it were, the heaps of filth in the city streets. To embrace the dust is a familiar image in all languages: to embrace the dirt-heaps of an oriental city, so proverbially filthy, intensifies the figure. The whole description is highly poetical.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 4:66 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. TEXTUAL AND Lam_4:6. The expression δֲ ?τεּ ?λָ ?δ is taken from Genesis 19:25 (εַ ?ιַּֽ ?δֲ ?τֹ ?κְ ΰֶ ?ϊΞδֶ ?ςָ ?ψִ ?ιν, comp. Jeremiah 20:16, and λְּ ?ξַ ?δְ ?τֵ ?λַ ?ϊ, Deuteronomy 29:22; Isaiah 13:19; Amos 4:11; Jeremiah 50:40).—ηָ ?μεּ is derived, not from ηεּ ?μ, but from ηָ ?μָ ?δ (so derived apparently by the Sept. and Syr.). The latter denotes to relax, to be powerless, Judges 16:7; Isaiah 57:10; it can also very well be said of the hands, and there is no necessity of resorting, by any artificial method, to a modification of the idea of gyrare. In reference to this word, see Jeremiah 5:3. Jer. uses the Kal of βָ ?γַ ?μ, Jeremiah 5:27, and the Hiphil, Jeremiah 48:26; Jeremiah 48:42.—ςָ ?εֹ ?κ is frequent with him, Jeremiah 2:22; Jeremiah 3:13; Jeremiah 13:22; etc.—αַּ ?ϊΞςַ ?ξִּ ?ι, see Lamentations 2:11.—ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊ often in Jeremiah 16:10; Jeremiah 17:13; etc.—ψֶ ?βַ ?ς also, Jeremiah 4:20; Jeremiah 18:7; Jeremiah 18:9.—λְּ ?ξεΞψֶ ?βַ ?ς occurs only here; yet see λְּ ?ψֶ ?βַ ?ς, Numbers 16:21; Numbers 17:10; Psalms 13:19. AND Lam_4:6. With this verse the Poet concludes the first part of his Song. This verse corresponds to Lamentations 4:11, which constitutes a similar conclusion. In both cases the Poet draws a general inference from the preceding particular facts, which he had related in detail. In this verse the inference is, that the guilt of Zion was proved to be greater than the sin of Sodom.—For the punishment of the iniquity (marg. For the iniquity) of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom.—And the guilt of the daughter of my people was greater than the sin of Sodom. I cannot agree with those who take ςָ ?εֹ ?κ and ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊ in the sense of the punishment of sin. This sense is not capable of proof. In all the cases appealed to for this purpose (Genesis 4:13; 1 Samuel 28:10; 2 Samuel 16:12; Isaiah 5:18; Psalms 31:11), on more exact examination, their original meaning of sin, guilt, appears to be their real meaning. And this is true in reference to ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊ, for which some would justify the sense of p�na peccati, from the passages Numbers 32:23; Isaiah 40:2; Zechariah 14:9. See Drechsler on Isaiah 5:18. In εַ ?ιִּ ?βְ ?γַּ ?μ = was greater, lies, then, the thought, it being allowable to infer the cause from the effect, that Zion’s guilt is shown to be greater than was the sin-guiltiness (Sόndenschuld) of Sodom. There is certainly in the vav before ιִ ?βְ ?γַּ ?μ a causal intimation. For it amounts to the same thing, as far as the sense is concerned, whether I infer the effect from the cause with the words and so, or the cause from the effect with the word for. This causal use of the vav, moreover, is sufficiently established; see Psalms 7:10; Psalms 60:13; Psalms 95:5; Proverbs 23:3; Genesis 22:12; Jeremiah 16:12; Jeremiah 23:36; Jeremiah 31:3; Isaiah 39:1; Hosea 4:4; Hosea 6:4; etc. See my Gr. § 110, 1. [The Vav coφrdinates the proposition with what precedes in the relation of cause to effect. These things were so, for the sin was greater, etc. As the vav is here the initial letter, the stress laid upon it shows the masterly manner in which the author of the poem often makes the acrostic, which in common hands would be constrained and merely artificial, contribute to the spirit and force of the sentiment. This is true, whether we take the words discussed, in the sense of sin or the punishment of sin; but the fact that it is emphatic is an argument in favor of the sense in which Dr. Naegelsbach construes it, and this added to the doubt whether ςָ ?εֹּ ?κ and ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊ ever do mean the punishment of sin, may decide us in favor of his translation. The other translation gives good sense and fits in admirably with the context, and is adopted without hesitation by all the English versions and commentators (except Wordsworth), and by Calvin and Gerlach. Yet Calvin says: “If any one prefers the other version, I will not contend, for it is not unsuitable; and hence also a most useful doctrine may be drawn, that we are to judge of the grievousness of our sins by the greatness of our punishment; for God never exceeds what is just when He takes vengeance on the sins of men. Then His severity shows how grievously men have sinned. Thus, Jeremiah may have reasoned from the effect to the cause, and declared that the people had been more wicked than the Sodomites. Nor is this unreasonable; for … the Prophets everywhere charged them as men who not only equalled but also surpassed the Sodomites, especially Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:46-47). Isaiah also called them the people of Gomorrah, and the king’s counsellors and judges, the princes of Sodom (Isaiah 1:9-10). This mode of speaking is then common in the Prophets, and the meaning is not unsuitable.” The Sept. translates both words ἀνομία; the Vulg. one iniquitas, the other peccatum.—W. H. H.].—That was overthrown as in a moment. Sodom’s guilt was great, and the punishment decreed for it corresponded to the greatness of its sin: it was destroyed instantaneously by fire falling from Heaven (see Genesis 19:25), whereby its punishment was proved to be supernatural and divinitus immissa [sent from God]. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31). [Blayney: “Sodom was destroyed by a sudden act of God, which the Prophet thinks preferable to lingering and wasting away with disease or want, as was the case in Jerusalem during the long siege”]—And no hands stayed on her—and no hands became slack (relaxed) thereby. That Sodom was destroyed, not by the hands of men, but by the hand of God alone, is a fact that is emphasized as giving intensity to the severity of its punishment. Yet, our Poet would say, the fate of Jerusalem was still more terrible, because its guilt was greater than Sodom’s. With what propriety this could be affirmed, is easily comprehended. For there had not been on the part of Sodom and Gomorrah such fulness of manifestation of the long-suffering love of God, as in the case of Jerusalem, (see Jeremiah 7:13; Jeremiah 7:25; Jeremiah 11:7; Jeremiah 25:4; Ezekiel 16:46-48; Isaiah 1:10; Matthew 11:23-24). But if it be asked, in what respect Jerusalem’s fate had been more dreadful than that of Sodom, the answer, it seems to me, is contained in the λְּ ?ξεֹ ?Ξψֶ ?βַ ?ς=as in a moment. Sodom’s sufferings in death were brief: there were no starving children, no mothers who cooked their children. Jerusalem’s sufferings were long and protracted, whereby was produced that horrible crime! Eversio Sodomζ fuit instar subitζ apoplexiζ, eversio autem Hierosolymζ fuit instar lentζ tabis [the overthrow of Sodom was a kind of sudden apoplexy, but the overthrow of Jerusalem was a kind of slow consumption], says Fφrster. [Dr. Naegelsbach has not made his sense of this difficult clause very apparent. It seems hardly credible that αָ ?ϊּ should mean thereby (dadurch). If the verb is derived from ηָ ?μָ ?δ, instead of ηεּ ?μ, the translation of either Blayney or Owen, is to be preferred. Blayney translates nor were hands weakened in her, referring to the suddenness of the destruction, and forming a parallelism with the preceding clause, overthrown as in a moment. Owen translates, and not wearied against (or over) her were hands, and says, “This is substantially the Sept. and Syr. Grotius says that the meaning is, that Sodom was destroyed not by human means, that is, not by a siege as Jerusalem had been.” Wordsworth: “And no hands were weary on her. No human hands were wearied by destroying her, but she was suddenly consumed by the hand of God.” If we accept of the usual derivation of the verb from ηεּ ?μ, then the translation of Thenius may be commended for its simplicity, and is supported by the dual form of ιָ ?γָ ?ιִ ?ν=hands, and no one in her wrung the hands. But, as Gerlach shows, the dual form is constantly used for the plural (see λָּ ?μΞιָ ?γַ ?ιν, all hands, Isaiah 13:7), and the verb ηεּ ?μ is used with αְּ of the object, of brandishing the sword against the cities of Ephraim (Hosea 11:6): we may, therefore, understand the sense to be, and no hands (i.e., human hands) were wrung round (or brandished) against it, men’s hands were not brought against, it. This seems to correspond with Dr. Naegelsbach’s interpretation, and is the sense generally adopted. Boothroyd: Without the hands of men. Henderson: And no hands attacked her. Noyes: Though no hands came against her.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 4:7-97 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were 8more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets; their skin cleaveth to their 9bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick. They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. TEXTUAL AND Lam_4:7.—ζַ ?λּ ?εּ. The word occurs only in Job 15:15; Job 25:5; and in Hiph., Job 9:30.—πָ ?ζִ ?ιψ does not occur in Jeremiah. [Yet πִ ?ζְ ?ψֵ ?κְ, Jeremiah 7:29, is a remarkable coincidence in the use of language, if πְ ?ζִ ?ιִ ?ψιִ ?ν means crowned-ones, as Dr. Naegelsbach suggests.—W. H. H.]—ωֶׁ ?μֶ ?β, Jeremiah 18:14.—The verb φָ ?ηַ ?η, splendidum esse, nitere, is found only here. The adjective φַ ?η in Jeremiah 4:11.—ηָ ?μָ ?α in Jeremiah only in the phrase ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υζָ ?αַ ?ϊηָ ?μָ ?αεΧ, Jeremiah 11:5; Jeremiah 32:22.—Kal ΰָ ?γַ ?ν is found only here. The sense without doubt is to be red, reddish. The same meaning adheres to the derived conjugations, Pual (Exodus 25:5; Exodus 26:14; Exodus 35:7; Exodus 35:23; Nehemiah 2:4), Hiph. (Isaiah 1:18), Hithpael (Isaiah 1:18). The word does not occur in Jeremiah.—ςֶ ?φֶ ?ν (in Jeremiah 8:1; Jeremiah 20:9; Jeremiah 23:9) stands here as pars pro toto. See Proverbs 15:30; Proverbs 16:24; and ςֹ ?φֶ ?ν, Psalms 139:15. [Blayney absurdly translates, They were ruddier on the bone, and thus explains, “In the preceding line the whiteness of their skin is described; in this their flesh, which was red underneath towards the bone, marking their high health.”]—ρַ ?τִּ ?ιψ (see Ezekiel 1:26; Ezekiel 10:1) does not occur in Jeremiah. Lamentations 4:8.—ηָ ?ωַׁ ?κְ. Jeremiah uses the Hiphil, only once, Jeremiah 13:16.—ωְׁ ?ηεֹ ?ψ occurs only here (see ωִׁ ?ηεֹ ?ψ, Jeremiah 2:18). [The translation of Blayney, duskier than the dawn, and of Henderson, darker than the dawn, would require us to read ωַׁ ?ηַ ?ψ, and then the comparison could only be with the darkness of the very early dawn, and would be an awkward figure at that.—W. H. H.]—ϊָּ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ΰֳ ?ψָ ?ν. See Jeremiah 11:16.—πִ ?λְּ ?ψεּ, Niph. of πָ ?λַ ?ψ, see Proverbs 26:24; Job 34:19. In Jeremiah Piel is found, Jeremiah 19:4, and Hiphil Jeremiah 24:5.—φָ ?τַ ?γ, firmiter adhζrere, only here.—ςεֹ ?ψָ ?ν, see Lamentations 3:4.—ιָ ?αֵ ?ωׁ εβεΧ, see Joshua 9:5. In Jeremiah the verb ιָ ?αֵ ?ωׁ is often found, Jeremiah 23:10; Jeremiah 50:38, etc. The adjective ιָ ?αֵ ?ωׁ he never uses.—ςֵ ?υ is frequent in Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:6; Jeremiah 3:9; Jeremiah 3:13, etc. Lamentations 4:9.—For the meaning of θεֹ ?αִ ?ιν, see Lamentations 3:26.—The expression ηַ ?μְ ?μֵ ?Ξηֶ ?ψֶ ?α, is found in Jeremiah 14:18, but is especially frequent with Ezekiel 31:17-18; Ezekiel 32:21-31.—ωׁ relativum, see Lamentations 2:15.—ιָ ?ζֻ ?αεּ. The word is found in Jeremiah only in Jeremiah 49:4, and then in another sense. Here it must evidently denote the dissolving of life, i.e., the lingering dying of the starving. The word does not, indeed, occur elsewhere in this sense, for everywhere else it stands for the virile flux or female menses, or for confluence or abundant flowing together (ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υζָ ?αַ ?ϊεβεΧ, Exodus 3:8, etc.), or for copious water-floods (Psalms 78:20; Psalms 105:41; Isaiah 48:21). But the connection absolutely requires us to take the idea of flowing, which the word undoubtedly has, in this modification of it. Pareau, also, with propriety, calls attention to the closely related word γָּ ?ΰַ ?α, tabescere (Jeremiah 31:12; Jeremiah 31:25, Psalms 88:10). He also shows that in the Latin a similar affinity exists between tabescere and liquescere. For as Seneca at one time says (Epist. 26) incommodum summum est minui et deperire et, ut proprie dicam, liquescere, so he says another time, (Medea, 4:590), in rivos nivibus solutis sole jam forti, medioque vere tabuit Hζmius. [See critical notes below.]—ξְ ?γֻ ?χָּ ?ψִ ?ιν. Jeremiah uses the word twice, Jeremiah 37:10; Jeremiah 51:4, and both times the Part. Pual.—The expression ϊְּ ?πִ ?εּ ?αεֹּ ?ϊωָׂ ?γַ ?ι is found in Deuteronomy 32:13; comp. Ezekiel 36:30; Isaiah 27:6; Judges 9:11. ϊְּ ?πεּ ?αָ ?δ does not occur in Jeremiah, but ωָׂ ?γַ ?ι does, Jeremiah 4:17; Jeremiah 18:14. ξִ ?ο, here, cannot possibly have the positive sense of giving out, failure, or that of positive causality. It must rather be taken in its negative sense, away, far from, without. See Lamentations 4:18; and Jeremiah 48:45; Job 11:15; Job 21:9. See my Gr., § 112, 5 d. AND Lam_4:7-11. The plan of this part [which may be regarded a the antistrophe to Lamentations 4:1-6.—W. H. H.] is exactly similar to that of Lam 4:1-6. It begins with a description of what the Princes of Zion had to suffer. This description corresponds evidently to what was said generally of the sons of Zion, Lamentations 4:1-2, of whom the Princes are the flower. But Lamentations 4:7-9 form a climax to Lamentations 4:1-2, which appears in the fact that what is said of the Princes of Zion, in Lamentations 4:8-9, surpasses what is said of the sons of Zion in the last clause of Lam 4:2. Lamentations 4:10 corresponds in a similar way with Lamentations 4:3-5, what was said there, being surpassed here. Lamentations 4:11, finally, corresponds with Lamentations 4:6; for like it, Lamentations 4:11 contains a definite, comprehensive and inferential conclusion. Lamentations 4:7. Her Nazarites—her Princes. That πְ ?ζִ ?ιψִ ?ιν here cannot denote the Nazarites is evident, not so much from the description which is given of them, for that would be very suitable to a Samson for instance, as from the fact that the Nazarites were a more fraction of the whole people, too scattered and numerically insignificant to be mentioned here with such particularity. Rather as they [the Nazarites] were said to be coronati, crowned ones, from their unshorn hair [see Numbers 6:19, δִ ?ϊְ ?βַ ?μְּ ?ηεֹ ΰֶ ?ϊΞπִ ?ζְ ?ψεֹ ?=his crown is shaven off of him; πִ ?ζְ ?ψֵ ?κְ, the unshorn hair, or crown, Jeremiah 7:29.—W. H. H.], so the Poet here calls the Princes crowned ones [see πָ ?ζַ ?ψ, to encircle, hence πֵ ?ζֶ ?ψ, a crown, diadem or chaplet.—W. H. H.] from the golden crown, which they wore. It is true this is a poetical expression, which is not of frequent occurrence; for we can only compare Genesis 49:26 (Deuteronomy 33:16), where Joseph is called πְ ?ζִ ?ιψΰֶ ?ηָ ?ιε, the crowned one among his brothers. It is, besides, very apparent that the Poet was required to select a subject, to which the brilliant predicates, which he heaps up in Lamentations 4:7, would be appropriate. [Gataker gives the same meaning and derivation to the word, and refers to Nahum 3:17, ξִ ?πְּ ?ζָ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?κְ, thy crowned ones, or honorable ones. It seems more likely, however, that the word designates Princes or nobles, not from any allusion to their being crowned, which is not obvious, but because they constituted a separate and distinguished class of persons, were set apart, for honorable offices, as the Nazarites were for strictly religious services (non voto sed dignitate separati;Noldius, quoted by Gerlach). So Calvin explains the word in Genesis 49:26, and Blayney and Gerlach here. Boothroyd translates nobles. Noyes, princes. Henderson retains the word Nazarites.—W. H. H]—Were purer—more shining [glistening, glδnzender]. The word in Job 15:15; Job 25:5, represents the brightness of the heavens and the stars.—Than snow. The comparison with the glistening white snow is found also in Psalms 51:9 (7); Isaiah 1:18.—They were whiter than milk. [Purer than snow, whiter than milk, according to ordinary Bible usage, are beautiful metaphors for innocency of character and life. Here, however, they refer entirely to physical appearance, the resplendent beauty of their complexion, as is plain from what follows: not of their garments, as some have imagined, but of their bodies, as is evident from the antithesis in the next verse.—W. H. H.]—They were more ruddy in body than rubies (Rφthlicher strahlten sie am Leibe als Korallen), their body was of a more reddish hue than corals. “Red on white is the normal color of the human complexion, the prime-color of beauty, Son 5:10; Lamentations 4:7,” says Delitzsch, Psychol., p. 75. [Calvin, understanding Nazarites as intended, supposes that their red color was a mark and evidence of God’s favor as in the cases of the Hebrew children recorded in Daniel. “We know that the Nazarites abstained from wine and strong drink: hence abstinence might have lessened somewhat of their ruddiness. For he who is accustomed to drink wine, if he abstains for a time, is apt to grow pale; he will then lose almost all his color, at least he will not be so ruddy; nor will there appear in his face and in his members so much vigor as when he took his ordinary support. Jeremiah, in short, teaches us that the blessing of God was conspicuous in the Nazarites, for He wonderfully supported them while they were for a time abstinents.” This necessity of appealing to a possible miracle may itself create a doubt, if Nazarites are here referred to at all. That in such a corrupt state of society as existed, at that period of their history, among the Jews, there were many who assumed the vows of the Nazarite, is doubtful. There is no allusion to the existence even of Nazarites among the people at this time, in either the prophetical or historical books. But that there was not only such a class, but that they were so remarkable for their piety and so acceptable to God, that God gave them such evidences of His favor as were bestowed on Daniel and his brethren, making them conspicuous among men by their personal beauty, especially by the ruddiness of their complexion, we cannot believe. And it would be incredible and horrible that upon that particular class the heaviest judgments descended, as is related in the next verse. If we infer from their personal beauty, in Lamentations 4:7, that they were special favorites of Heaven, we must conclude, from the transformation of their appearance into that of ugliness, in Lamentations 4:8, that they were also special objects of Divine wrath. The two things do not agree. This alone proves that Nazarites are not intended. The description of their personal appearance, which could only apply to Nazarites, by some such forced construction as requires Calvin to invoke the aid of a miracle, is entirely appropriate to that class of the nobility represented by the Princes, who lived delicately and luxuriously, and whose faces, not embrowned by exposure to the weather, nor seamed and roughened by a life of hardship, were flushed and shining from the effects of high living, and whose persons beamed and glistened, as it were, from the care bestowed upon them, and the pains taken to beautify and adorn themselves. Perhaps the idea conveyed by the Hebrew verbs of the glistening quality of their white and red complexion, may be due to the then prevailing use of unguents.—W. H. H.]—Rubies, corals, τְּ ?πִ ?ιπִ ?ιν. Concerning this word, which occurs besides in Job 28:18; Proverbs 3:15; Proverbs 8:11; Proverbs 20:15; Proverbs 31:10, opinions are much divided. The translations are entirely at variance: Sept. λίθοι, Symm. τὰπερίβλεπτα, Chald. lapides pretiosi, Syr. sardinus, Jerome, ebur antiquum. Among the moderns, Bootius (animadv ss., IV. 3), whom J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Maurer and Thenius [Henderson, Noyes, Gerlach, Fuerst] follow, maintains the signification to be corals; against which Bochart (Hieroz. P. ii., L. V., Cap. 6, 7, ed., Rosenm., Tom. 3, pag. 601 seqq.) contends for pearls. His opinion is especially maintained by Pareau (not on this passage, but in his remarks on Job 28) and supported with new arguments. Leyrer also (in Herz.R.-Enc. XI., p. 399) is inclined to adopt this side. The decision is difficult. Corals agree best with the context, since the existence of reddish pearls is too slightly established, and the meaning of glistening for the Hebrew ΰָ ?γַ ?ν is entirely hypothetical.—Their polishing was of sapphire, a sapphire was their form.—Their polishing, their form, Ger. Gestalt; Fr. taille; Lat. forma, figura [Eng. mien, general appearance]. The word (βִּ ?ζְ ?ψָ ?δ, from βָ ?ζַ ?ψ Lamentations 3:54) occurs in this sense only here. In the description of Ezekiel’s temple it is used of the northern porch, Jeremiah 41:12-15; Jeremiah 42:1; Jeremiah 42:10; Jeremiah 42:13. [Blayney, after Braunius (see Pictorial Bible), taking the word from βָּ ?ζַ ?ψ to divide, or intersect, translates, their veining was the sapphire; alluding to the blue veins appearing through the white and red complexions. So Boothroyd and Adam Clarke. This would be either a mark of beauty, or an intimation of the bloated condition of the luxurious and pampered nobility. In either case, the sense is good, and is recommended by the fact that snow, milk and corals indicate color, and therefore sapphire, too, would naturally suggest the characteristic color of that gem. βִּ ?ζְ ?ψָ ?δ, however, would more likely indicate the cutting of a gem, and hence its form, taille, and in case of the sapphire, which is next in hardness to the diamond, its brilliancy of appearance. Gerlach: “The words are not to be understood of color (as of the veins showing through, or of the garments, as Cant. 28:18), but, on account of the characteristic βִּ ?ζְ ?ψָ ?δ, excisio, taille, of the perfect shape, the consummate beauty of bodily form (Kφrperbau). Sapphire was their form (Gestalt), that is to say, so beautiful and without fault, as if they were a polished image made out of precious stone.”—W. H. H.] White as milk and snow, red as corals, and shining as sapphire, is the appearance of the nobles as here described. This seems to constitute a climax to Lamentations 4:1-2 : for the Poet evidently, in Lamentations 4:7, paints with gayer and more variegated colors. Lamentations 4:8. In glaring contrast with Lamentations 4:7, he now describes what has befallen the nobles in consequence of the great catastrophe.—Their visage—their appearance [so Blayney, Henderson, Owen, Gerlach: their countenance, Noyes: their visage, Broughton, Boothroyd].—Is [was, or became. The verbs are all in the past tense. So Gataker and Owen render them. The Prophet is still looking back to what had taken place, though now to a time posterior to that indicated in Lamentations 4:7. He is describing the change that took place in the appearance of the nobles, while the city was still standing, and they were seen in the streets.—W. H. H.] Blacker than a coal.—darker than blackness [so marg. E. V., Calvin, Boothroyd, Gerlach, Wordsworth. Broughton and Noyes, like the E. V. Vulg., Rashi, Kimchi, black coals. Sept., soot. Owen suggests darker than Sihor, or the river Nile, see Jeremiah 2:18. They are not [were not] known—recognized—in the streets. See Lamentations 4:5. The sense is, in their houses they might perhaps be recognized, but not on the streets.—Their skin cleaveth [cleaved] to their bones. See Job 19:20; Job 30:30.—It is withered, it is become like a stick—it is [it became] dry as wood. [The English version—it is withered—arose from taking the adjective dry, for the verb to dry. No other English version has it so.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 4:9. This verse enters into close connection with Lamentations 4:8. Here it is declared that the miserable condition described in Lamentations 4:8, is the consequence of starvation; and at the same time, the reflection is made that death by hunger is more dreadful than death by the sword.—They that be slain with the sword, are better than they that be slain with hunger; Happier are they who are slain by the sword, than they who are by hunger slain [Happier were the slain by the sword, than the slain by the famine. Translating the words in the past time, removes them from the category of a moral or psychological reflection, and restores the harmony of the style as a poetical description of actual events. It reminds us, too, that the nobles suffered from the sword, as well as by famine. They who died quickly by means of the sword were more fortunate than those who suffered a lingering death by starvation. So in Lamentations 4:6, the Prophet regards, for similar reasons, the destruction of Sodom as less severe and terrible than that of Jerusalem.—W. H. H.]—For these pine away—marg., flow out,—stricken through for want of the fruits of the field—Who pine away pierced in the heart for want of the fruits of the field. This clause declares two things in reference to those slain by the sword (ηַ ?μְ ?μֵ ?ιηֶ ?ψֶ ?α), and those slain by hunger (ηַ ?μְ ?μֵ ?ιψָ ?ςָ ?α), one in which they agree, and one in which they differ. 1. That wherein they agree; they are both pierced through (ξְ ?γֻ ?χָ ?ψִ ?ιν). 2. That wherein they differ; those that starve, melt away, that is to say, they die slowly, whilst with the others, death is quickly ever. [The Versions and commentators accept generally the translation given above of the last clause of this verse. Yet there are serious objections to it, and cogent reasons for adopting a different rendering. 1. It is taken for granted that the relative ωֶׁ ?δֵ ?ν must refer to the last subject mentioned, those slain or killed, by hunger. It is more grammatical to refer it to the principal subject of the preceding clause, which is those slain by the sword, regarding the sentence as only begun in the first clause and finished in the second. The words ξֵ ?ηַ ?μְ ?μֵ ?ιψָ ?ςָ ?α, than those killed by famine, could be transposed to the end of the verse without changing the grammatical construction in the least, (though it would mar the rhythm and the poetical paronomasia), and this shows that they are entirely subordinate to the main idea. 2. A meaning is forced upon the verb ζεּ ?α, of melting or pining away, as descriptive of a slow death, which it has in no other place in Scripture. In the only place where it has been supposed to have the meaning of dissolving, Jeremiah 49:4, Dr. Naegelsbach himself says it has not that sense (see gram. note above), and if it has, it would imply rather a sudden, mysterious disappearance, than a slow and prolonged dissolution. The affinity between the Latin words tabescere and liquescere, brought forward by Pareau, and confirmed by a quotation from Seneca, which has been repeated by nearly every commentator since, even last of all by Gerlach, is of no force whatever; not only because the usage of Latin thought and expression is of no authority in Hebrew; but because liquescere, the fundamental idea of which is to become liquid, to melt, has a natural affinity to tabescere, to melt gradually, be dissolved and hence, metaphorically, to waste or pine away, while ζεּ ?α, the fundamental idea of which is to flow out or gush out, has no natural affinity to γָּ ?ΰַ ?α, even if the fundamental idea of γָּ ?ΰַ ?α is to melt, and certainly no affinity to γָּ ?ΰַ ?α in the only senses in which it is used in the Hebrew Bible, of pining away, or being distressed with sorrow or fear. On the other hand, the only sense in which the word ζεּ ?α is elsewhere used, as when it is applied to the sudden and violent gushing out, or rapid overflowing of water, see Psalms 78:20; Psalms 105:41; Isaiah 48:21; Exodus 3:8, admirably describes the death of those whose lives flowed away as the blood gushed from their hearts, pierced with a sword. 3. The future form of the verb ιָ ?ζֻ ?αεּ, is entirely ignored. It may be difficult, with our different modes of thought, always to detect the purport of a change in the Hebrew tenses, but it is quite certain that these changes are never purposeless; and here, where a future is suddenly thrust in among preterite tenses, it must have an important bearing upon the meaning intended. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ Lamentations 5Distress And Hope Of The Prisoners And Fugitives: [expressed In The Form Of A Prayer Or, E. V., A Pitiful Complaint Of Zion In Prayer Unto God.—W. H. H.]Lamentations 5:1. Remember, Jehovah, what has come upon us! Look down and see our reproach. Lamentations 5:2. Our inheritance has fallen to strangers, Our houses to aliens. Lamentations 5:3. We have become orphans, without father, Our mothers—as widows. Lamentations 5:4. Our water we have drunk for money, Our wood comes for a price. Lamentations 5:5. On our necks we have been pursued; We have been weary,—there was no rest for us. Lamentations 5:6. Towards Egypt have we stretched the hand,— Towards Assyria,—to be satisfied with bread. Lamentations 5:7. Our fathers sinned. They are no more; We have borne their iniquities. Lamentations 5:8. Servants have ruled over us: There was none to deliver from their hand. Lamentations 5:9. At the peril of our lives we get our bread, Because of the sword of the desert. Lamentations 5:10. Our skin has been parched as an oven, Because of the ragings of hunger. Lamentations 5:11. Women in Zion have been humbled,— Virgins—in the cities of Judah. Lamentations 5:12. Princes have been hung up by the hand: The persons of Elders have not been honored. Lamentations 5:13. Young men have carried mill-stones; And boys have fallen under [burdens of] wood. Lamentations 5:14. Elders have forsaken the gate,— Young men—their music. Lamentations 5:15. Ceased has the joy of our heart; Our dance has been changed to mourning. Lamentations 5:16. The crown has fallen from our head. Woe unto us! for we have sinned. Lamentations 5:17. For this our heart has become faint; For these things our eyes have become dim. Lamentations 5:18. As to Mount Zion, which has become desolate, The foxes have walked upon it! Lamentations 5:19. But Thou, Jehovah, reignest forever; Thy throne is from generation to generation. Lamentations 5:20. Wherefore should’st Thou always forget us, And abandon us for length of days? Lamentations 5:21. Turn us, Jehovah, unto Thee, and we shall turn; Renew our days as of old;— Lamentations 5:22. If Thou hast not utterly rejected us, And art wroth against us exceedingly! The subject is chiefly composed of the particular incidents of those grievous days which followed the capture of Jerusalem. The Poet lets the people speak yet not as an ideal female person, but in the first person plural as a concrete multitude. The Song is divided into an introduction, Lamentations 5:1, two principal parts, Lamentations 5:2-16, and a conclusion, Lamentations 5:17-22. In the introduction, Lamentations 5:1, the Lord is entreated to regard the sorrows that had befallen Zion [the people]. In the following two principal parts, Lamentations 5:2-16, these sorrows are described in detail. The first part embraces Lamentations 5:2-7. All their property, fixed and movable, is seized by the enemy, Lamentations 5:2; families are scattered, fathers have disappeared, mothers are as widows, Lamentations 5:3; the captives receive no subsistence, they must buy what they need, though as the product of their own land it is really their own property, Lamentations 5:4; on the march to Babylon, they are driven beyond their strength, and no rest is allowed them, Lamentations 5:5. Besides all this, the whole people do not even remain, together. Whilst one party is compelled to throw itself into the arms of the Egyptians, another party belongs to Assyria; both are in such straits as to rejoice if able only to prolong their lives, Lamentations 5:6. But this great misfortune is caused by the sins of the fathers, the consequences of which now their posterity have to bear, Lamentations 5:7. The second principal part embraces Lamentations 5:8-16. Whilst those forced to Babylon groan under the rods of the rough servants, who are their drivers, Lamentations 5:8, those who wander to Egypt, must seek for subsistence amidst constant danger from the robbers of the desert, Lamentations 5:9 : both parties suffer the consuming pangs of hunger, Lamentations 5:10. To this is now added a recital, partly the recollection of what had already been endured, partly an exhibition of what they still experienced, of the sufferings from which no class of the population was exempted: women have been dishonored, Lamentations 5:11; noble princes hung up or outrageously ill-treated, Lamentations 5:12; young men compelled to carry heavy hand-mills, and boys loads of wood, Lamentations 5:13. Sitting in the gate—the delight and glory of old men, and playing on stringed instruments—the pleasure of young men, have come to an end, Lamentations 5:14. In general, among all classes, deep mourning has succeeded to pleasure and joy, Lamentations 5:15. The crown of glory has fallen from the head of Zion, and, verily, those who suffer this, are obliged to acknowledge, that it has happened, not merely because their fathers had sinned (Lamentations 5:7), but because they themselves have sinned, Lamentations 5:16. The conclusion contains a prayer, to which Lamentations 5:17-18 are introductory. In these verses it is declared, that all the affliction of the Israelites culminates in the destruction of the Sanctuary. But this thought suggests the encouragement, which the Poet now presents in his prayer; although the external Sanctuary is destroyed, Thou Thyself, O Lord, remainest for ever, ver, 19. Wherefore shouldest Thou forget and forsake Thy people for ever? Lamentations 5:20. Lead us back to Thyself, that we may be again what we have been in former times, Lamentations 5:21. This will be done, for it is not to be supposed, that Thou canst have utterly rejected us, Lamentations 5:22. [Lamentations 5:1, introductory; Lamentations 5:2-10, descriptive of general suffering from oppression and want of necessaries of life; Lamentations 5:11-13, instances of individual suffering; Lamentations 5:14-18, effect on the feelings and sentiments of the people; Lamentations 5:19-22, the prayer.—W. H. H.] Preliminary Note on Lamentations 5This chapter is not acrostic. Yet it is evident from the agreement of the number of the verses with the number of the letters of the alphabet, that the chapter should be regarded as belonging to the four preceding ones as a member of the same family. The acrostic is wanting, because the contents are in prose. The Poet would make apparent, even in the external form, the decrescendo movement, which we perceive from the third chapter onward. Were there not 22 verses, this chapter might be regarded as an entirely disconnected supplement. But the number of verses is a vinculum, that in a way even externally observable, unites this prosaic chapter with the preceding poetical ones. [Various reasons may be given for the absence of the acrostic in this chapter. 1. There may be something in the notion that the alphabetical structure was not allowed to embarrass freedom of thought and expression in prayer (Gerlach, Adam Clarke). 2. We may suppose the writer felt less need of the artificial restraint in controlling his feelings and restricting their expression. It is not true that this Song “is of less impassioned character” than the others, as Wordsworth says, but it is true, as he further says, that “the writer, being less agitated by emotions, and having tranquillized himself by the utterance of his sorrow, and by meditations on the attributes of God, did not need the help of that artificial appliance to support and control him.” Besides, new restraints are imposed upon the writer in this Song, which more than supply any assistance derived from the alphabetical curb in the preceding songs. The verses are reduced from three and two members each, to a single member, and this not only balanced by a cesura or pause as in the other songs, but composed of corresponding parallelisms of ideas and expressions. To have added, to the production of these distinct and emphatic parallelisms, the difficulties of the acrostic, could have served no useful or artistic purpose. 3. In the last fact referred to, the introduction of parallelisms of thought and sentiment, may be found the most satisfactory reason for the absence of the acrostic. As long as the parallelisms were merely rhythmical, as in the first four songs, the alphabetical index served a good purpose in rounding off and defining the successive verses. Now it is no longer needed. We find here then an argument in favor of the theory advanced, in Additional Remarks to the Introduction, p. 23, in reference to the relation of the Acrostic to rhythmical parallelisms. Is this chapter poetry or prose? Dr. Naegelsbach says, “the acrostic is wanting because the contents are in prose.” He certainly cannot mean that the chapter is prose, because the acrostic is wanting; and yet unless he implies this, he has not even suggested a reason for this most extraordinary assertion. This chapter has poetical characteristics, that the preceding chapters do not possess; besides having all that they do possess, except the acrostic, which in itself is unpoetical. 1. It has that unfailing mark of Hebrew poetry, of which the preceding chapters are nearly destitute, parallelisms of thought, one half the verse exactly and beautifully corresponding in its sentiment and form of construction to the preceding half, and successive verses connected by underlying analogies, comparisons, or relations, such as parallelisms involve. 2. The language is so unmistakably rhythmical as to be almost metrical. The first line of each verse never consists of more than four words, nor of less than three, counting compound words as one. The second line never consists of more than three words (unless in two instances, where μΰֹ Lamentations 5:12, and λִּ ?ι or πָ ?ΰ Lamentations 5:16, may be joined to the word following them), and if it have two words only, those two are in that case invariably long words. In this song, if anywhere in Hebrew poetry, we can detect evidences of such metrical feet as the Hebrew language was capable of. 3. There is throughout the Song such assonance as cannot be accidental, and could only be allowed in poetry. The Song is full of rhymes. This may not justify us in calling it a “strictly rhymed Song” (as does Bellerman, Metr. d. Hebr., S. 220, quoted by Gerlach), but it is certainly a result of the evident regard to assonance in the choice of words. Thus in this Song that is composed of only 44 short lines, εּ occurs 55 times, and 44 times as final letter of words; ν occurs 21 times as final letter of words: out of the 134 words the Song contains, 65, or only 2 less than one half, end in either εּ or ν. 24, or more than half of the lines, end with εּ, 17 end with βεּ, 9 end with ξ. In 9 verses (1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17) both lines end with the same letter (or letters) and vowel point. 28 lines end with the same letter that terminates one (or both) of the lines of the verse immediately preceding or following. Other evidences of a studied assonance are apparent: such as ξָ ?βεֹ ?ϊ ,ΰָ ?α, as terminations of Lam 5:3; ςֵ ?φֵ ?ιπεּ ,ξֵ ?ιξֵ ?ιπεּ, first words in the lines of Lam 5:4; ξִ ?λְּ ?πֵ ?ι as first word in second lines of verses 9, 10, making a parallelism in sound as well as in sense; ωָׁ ?αַ ?ϊ ,ωָׁ ?αָ ?ϊεּ, in near relation and parallelism, Lamentations 5:14-15, and possibly an equivalent for failure of rhyme in Lamentations 5:14; μִ ?αֵּ ?πεּ, as last word in first lines of Lam 5:15; Lamentations 5:17; etc. So obvious is the prevailing paronomasia in this Song, that the remark has been made, that the Song appears like ‘the effort of a youth playing with words’ (quoted by Gerlach). To the slur contained in this remark, it may be replied, that no unskilled youth, even if capable of choosing his words so artfully, could have arranged them so as to give both harmony and sense, and thus produce a poem equal in fervor, force and beauty to this. But the fact that such an insult could be offered to this Song, proves that it is written in a style only adopted in poetry. 4. In spirit as well as in form, this chapter is poetry, and that of the highest order. There is nothing prosaic about it, not even in the recital of hard facts and detailed incidents. As the Song proceeds the lyre is tuned to higher chords than even inspired minstrels often reach, and Lamentations 5:14-19, are so exquisitely beautiful that we cannot imagine anything to excel them in all the Songs of Heaven and earth. I cannot repress the expression of these sentiments and be a silent instrument in giving to American readers, this strange opinion of an eminent man, that this chapter is a bit of prose writing, tacked on to a splendid poem, by the poor expedient of its containing twenty-two verses (though it is something new to write prose in verses). Were I more diffident of my own judgment, I might take refuge under the shadow of Dean Milman, who in culling from the Lamentations what he regards as specimens of “the deepest pathos of poetry,” gives us a metrical translation of nearly the whole of the 5th chapter (14 out of the 22 verses), while he selects only three verses from chap. 1, eight verses from chap, 2, three verses from chap, 4, and none from chap. 3. It is to be inferred that in his judgment, the fifth Song excels in its poetry the four Songs that precede it. I agree with him. That the only connection of this chapter with the preceding four chapters is found in the corresponding number of its verses, without which it might be regarded as a supplement to those chapters, but not as an integral part of the Poem, is an opinion that will not sustain examination. 1. It is, as we have seen, lyrical in its structure, and thus assimilated to the preceding Song of Solomon 2. The Poem could not end with the fourth chapter. Such an ending were too painfully abrupt. Even as it is, the burden of Edom seems to be intruded at that place, and we only comprehend it, when we know that it was Jeremiah’s habit to represent the security of the church of God, by depicting the destruction of its enemies. But to end the Poem with that threat against Edom, would seem to be impossible. Something more is needed, and that something is just what we have in the prayer of Lam 5:3. The only way to account for the omission of the usual prayer (see 1, 2, 3) at the end of the 4th Song, is by the fact that its omission was to be more than supplied by the 5th Song. Here is the groove into which the fifth Song is dovetailed so securely, that we cannot break the connection, without marring the harmony and completeness of the whole poem. 4. The structure of this last Song, gives the last needed touch to the manifest unity of the whole poem. The preceding chapters may be regarded as composing a poem not unlike the modern ode, in which great liberties in the versification are allowed. But the Ode, complete in its main parts, is wound up at last with a Hymn of prayer to God, constructed according to the strictest rules of lyrical poetry, metrical and harmonious, and forming an apt conclusion because it recites all that has been before said, briefly and forcibly,—sums up, as it were, the whole case, and leaves it in the hands of God. Finally Dr. Naegelsbach’s beautiful fiction of a crescendo and a decrescendo movement, does not need the flattening out of the Poem into a piece of prose writing, attached to what precedes only by the number of its verses. It is enough that the decrescendo movement, in the music of the Poem, is arrested at the close, and the Poet’s most plaintive lyre pours forth a final strain of impassioned, yet melting and delicious harmony.—W. H. H.] Footnotes: [The opinion of Bertholf, that the Prophet “either had no more time to spend in the troublesome choice of initial words, or that he grew tired of this trifling process and deliberately relinquished it,” (quoted by Gerlach in his Intr. p. x.), is sufficiently refuted, not only by its own irreverence, but by what has been said in reference to the acrostic in Additional Remarks to Intr. pp. 23, 24.—W. H. H.] [We cannot misunderstand our author, for besides speaking of this as a “prosaic chapter” and comparing it with the preceding “poetical chapters” (see also Intr. pp. 3, 4, 5), he puts his new translation into good German prose—while he has given us most beautiful metrical translations of the other four chapters.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:11 Remember, O Lord, what is come upon us: consider and behold our reproach. TEXTUAL AND Lam_5:1.—ζְ ?λֹ ?ψιιΧ. See Isaiah 38:3; Micah 6:5; Job 4:7.—δַ ?αִּ ?ιθָ. See Lamentations 1:11. [Blayney: “Forty-one MSS. and four Editions read with the Masora δַ ?αִ ?ιθָ ?δ, with the δ paragogic.” Henderson: “The δ thus added to the Imperative, expresses the emotion of ardent desire on the part of the speaker.”]—ηֶ ?ψְ ?τָ ?ϊֵ ?πεּ. See Lamentations 3:30; Psalms 74:22; Psalms 89:51. AND Lam_5:1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us,—Remember, Jehovah, what has befallen us,—consider and behold—look and see—our reproach.—[The word translated consider (see Lamentations 1:11), when followed by ψָ ?ΰָ ?δ, to see, means to direct attention to a thing in order to see it. Blayney and Noyes translate, Look down and see—which gives the sense, but the word does not express direction, but the intensity of looking.—W. H. H.] This first verse constitutes the introduction. It contains the prayer, that Jehovah would regard the affliction and reproach fallen on Zion [the people], some features of which the Poet recounts in what follows. The Poet presents himself before God, as it were, and all that follows is to be regarded as addressed to God. Lamentations 5:2-102, 3Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. We are orphans 4and fatherless, our mothers are as widows. We have drunken our water for money; 5our wood is sold unto us. Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have 6no rest. We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be 7satisfied with bread. Our fathers have sinned, and are not: and we have borne 8their iniquities. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us 9out of their hand. We gat our bread with the peril of our lives, because of the 10sword of the wilderness. Our skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible famine. TEXTUAL AND Lam_5:2.—πַֽ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?δ, frequent in Jeremiah 2:7; Jeremiah 3:19; Jeremiah 12:7-9, etc.—πֶ ?δֶ ?τַּ ?κְ, see Lamentations 1:20; Lamentations 4:6. Jeremiah uses in this sense πָ ?ρַ ?α, Jeremiah 6:12. This word represents the transfer of property to another owner, in Isaiah 60:5 also.—ζָ ?ψִ ?ιν Jeremiah uses frequently, Jeremiah 6:25; Jeremiah 3:13; Jeremiah 5:19, etc.—πָ ?λְ ?ψִ ?ιν Jeremiah uses only once, in the fem., βֶּ ?τֶ ?οπָ ?λְ ?ψִ ?ιָ ?δ, Jeremiah 2:21. Lamentations 5:3.—ιϊָ ?εֹ ?ν, Jeremiah 5:28; Jeremiah 7:6, etc.; in Lamentations only here.—ΰֵ ?υΰָ ?α. See Isaiah 47:1; Jeremiah 2:32; my Gr., § 106, 3. [ΰֵ ?ιο. = ohne, without, Naegels. Gr.] The K’ri, εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιο is unnecessary. Lamentations 5:4.—ξֵ ?ιξֵ ?ιπεּ, Jeremiah 6:7; Jeremiah 46:7; Jeremiah 50:38.—λֶ ?ρֶ ?σ, Jeremiah 6:30, etc.—ςֵ ?φִ ?ιν, Jeremiah 5:14; Jeremiah 7:18, etc.—ξְ ?ηִ ?ιψ, Jeremiah 15:13.—ιָ ?αֹ ?ΰεּ. Ewald translates, our wood is sold for silver. He also takes αּ ?εֹ ?ΰ in the sense of the Latin vineo, venire. But I do not think that αּ ?εֹ ?ΰ is ever used in this sense. At the most, only 1 Kings 10:14 could be cited, where the word is used with reference to the revenues. Lamentations 5:5.—φַ ?εָּ ?ΰψ, see Lamentations 1:14.—ψָ ?γַ ?σ, Jer. 19:18; Lamentations 1:6 : in the sense of driving, chasing, the word is not elsewhere found in Jeremiah. [It is doubtful if that is its sense here.—W. H. H.]—ιָ ?βַ ?ς, Jeremiah 45:3, which place is very closely allied in sense to our place here, Jeremiah 51:58.—δεּ ?πַ ?η. The Hophal is found only here: Jeremiah uses only the Hiphil δִ ?πִּ ?ιηַ, Jeremiah 14:9; Jeremiah 27:11; Jeremiah 43:6. Lamentations 5:6.—ξִ ?φְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν and ΰַ ?ωּׁ ?εּ ?ψ are to be taken as Acc. localis, in answer to the question whither? See my Gr., § 70, b. [There is no necessity of supposing an ellipsis of the preposition μְ, as Henderson; nor any grammatical reason for translating, O Egypt, O Assyria, as Blayney does, diverting the prayer from God to these heathen nations.—W. H. H.]—ωָׂ ?αַ ?ς see Lamentations 3:30. Lamentations 5:7.—ΰֵ ?ιπָ ?ν. Four times in this chapter, the Masorites would read εְ, where it is wanting in the word, Lamentations 5:3; Lamentations 5:5; Lamentations 5:7 twice. But the author generally uses Vav sparingly. Only once is the second clause of the verse begun with εְ. In this verse, an error might arise from its use. If it were εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπָ ?ν, some would be led to understand their non-existence, as the consequence of their sinning. See Jeremiah 10:20. But this cannot be the author’s meaning; for he immediately asserts that the generation now living has to bear the punishment. Their being no longer in existence, therefore, is the simple result of the course of nature.—ρָ ?αַ ?μ Jeremiah never uses. It represents bearing the burden of sin, Isaiah 53:4; Isaiah 53:11; comp. Jeremiah 46:4; Jeremiah 46:7.—ςַ ?εֹ ?ο, see Lamentations 2:14. Lamentations 5:8.—ξָ ?ωַׁ ?μ, Jeremiah 22:30; Jeremiah 30:21, etc.—τָ ?ψַ ?χ, see Genesis 27:40; Psalms 7:3; Psalms 136:24; Jeremiah never uses the word, neither does it occur again in the Lamentations. Lamentations 5:9.—.αְּ ?πַ ?ρְּ ?ωֵׁ ?πεּ (αְּ pretii, see my Gr., § 112, 5 a). See Lamentations 1:11; 2 Samuel 23:17; 1 Chronicles 11:19.—δֵ ?αִ ?ιΰ, see Lamentations 1:21. [We have the future here, as the historical imperfect, implying the recurrence of what is related.—W. H. H.]—μֶ ?ηֶ ?ν, Lamentations 1:11.—ηֶ ?ψֶ ?αδַ ?ξִּ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ, which can only indicate the robber tribes of the desert (Genesis 16:12), is found only here. [Calvin translates δֶ ?ψֶ ?α, drought, and wonders that any one ever thought of calling it sword. It may have the meaning of drought in Deuteronomy 28:22, though even there E. V. has sword. In this verse, all the Versions, and commentators generally, translate sword.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:10.—λָּ ?ξַ ?ψ occurs only in Niphal, and besides here only in three places, Genesis 43:30; 1 Kings 3:26; Hosea 11:8. The sense is calefactum, adustum esse (see ηָ ?ξַ ?ψ, Lamentations 1:20; Lamentations 2:11). The plural shows that ςεֹ ?ψ is regarded collectively. [It also shows the preference in this Song for termination in εּ. Yet, “fifty eight MSS., and the Soncin. Bible read ςεֹ ?ψֵ ?ιπεּ in the plural” (Henderson).—W. H. H.]—ςεֹ ?ψ, see Lamentations 4:8.—ϊַּ ?πּ ?εּ ?ψ, see Hosea 7:6-7, is not found in Jeremiah, [nor any equivalent for it.—W. H. H.]—ζַ ?μְ ?ςֲ ?τεֹ ?ϊ, ζstus vehemens, Jeremiah never uses. It is found, besides here, only in Psalms 119:53; Psalms 11:6. AND [Lamentations 5:2-10 describe the distressed condition of the people generally, and especially the sufferings caused by deficiency in the necessaries of life. Lamentations 5:2-3, describe their disinherited and bereaved condition.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens—foreigners. [Calvin: “The land had been promised to Abraham four hundred years, before his children possessed it; we know that this promise had been often repeated, ‘This land shall be to you for an inheritance.’… No land has ever been given to men in so singular a way as the land of Canaan to the posterity of Abraham. As, then, this inheritance had been for so many ages possessed by the chosen people, Jeremiah does not without reason complain that it was turned over to aliens.”]—Our houses to aliens. Many expositors (Vaihinger for instance) understand from the second clause of this verse, that not all the houses of Jerusalem had been destroyed, but those which still remained were at the disposal of the Chaldeans; which is the same as saying that they dwelt in them. They appeal to 2 Chronicles 36:19, where the destruction of the palaces only is spoken of. Although in Jeremiah 52:13; 2 Kings 25:9, it is expressly said that all the houses of Jerusalem were destroyed, yet, they say, this is to be regarded as merely a rhetorical hyperbole, since elsewhere the houses of the great [the nobility] are alone specified. Compare Jeremiah 52:13. We have, however, no evidence that the Chaldeans inhabited Jerusalem after its destruction; and Nehemiah (Lamentations 2:3) mourns that Jerusalem is ηֲ ?ψֵ ?αָ ?δ, desolate, and its gates burned with fire. When it is said here that the houses were given up to the Chaldeans, this can only mean that they disposed of them as they pleased. In fact, they destroyed the houses, but carried away the movable property found in them as booty. Although the houses and their contents could be designated as an inheritance, yet by πַֽ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?δ, inheritance, which is here distinguished from the houses, the land is especially intended (see. Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 16:14; Numbers 36:7-9; Joshua 13:23; etc.). We may say, therefore, that πַֽ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?δ, inheritance, and αָּ ?ϊִּ ?ιν, houses, are related to each other substantially as fixed and movable property. Lamentations 5:3. We are orphans and fatherless—we have become orphans, fatherless [without a father,Calvin, Blayney, Boothroyd, Noyes, Gerlach]—and our mothers are as widows. That the first words cannot be understood exclusively of the loss of their own fathers, is evident from the expression as widows.Pareau is of the opinion that widows and orphans indicate, in a general way only, as a proverbial formula, tritissimam sortem [a very sad lot], and appeals to Isaiah 1:17; Psalms 94:6; James 1:27. But in all those places, widows and orphans in the strict sense of the terms, are to be understood. Thenius understands by the mothers, the wives of the King, who were with the little company among whom our song originated. But even if we allow, that as some of the Princesses of the royal family, according to Jeremiah 41:10, escaped transportation, so also may some of the wives of the royal harem, yet we cannot suppose that the Poet indicated these as the mothers of himself and his companions, because they were not, in fact, their mothers, nor was it customary to call them so. Ewald refers orphans and fatherless to the loss of the sovereign (the father of his country, Lamentations 2:9; Lamentations 4:20) and of the theocracy, but widows to the communities and cities (Lamentations 1:1). This is without doubt correct, as far as this, that all the Israelites had, in this respect, become fatherless and their mothers widows. But why might not the Poet, at the same time, have alluded to the fact, that in the prevailing confusion most of the mothers could not certainly know whether their husbands were dead or alive, and therefore it could be correctly said of them that they were “as widows” (see Lamentations 1:1)? I believe, therefore, that Lamentations 5:3 embraces every species of orphanage that might have existed at that time. [There were so many orphans and mothers separated from their husbands among the people, that a Poet might well exclaim, Behold in us a people composed of fatherless orphans, whose mothers are as widows! But the particle of comparison attached to the last word, as widows, suggests the probability that the whole verse is intended metaphorically. We are like fatherless orphans and our mothers like widows. This is Gerlach’s explanation.—W. H. H.] [Lamentations 5:4-10 relate to the general distress occasioned by the want of the necessaries of life and the oppression of their masters.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:4. We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us (marg. cometh for price unto us). Our water we drink for money; our wood comes to us for payment. That the want of water before the capture of the city is not here intended, is evident from the expressions our water, our wood; for the prominence of this idea can only signify that the Jews were obliged to buy from their enemies the wood and water that were rightly their own; but this could have been the case only after the capture of the city. We perceive from the description, that the companies of the captives, in all cases narrowly watched, were not at liberty to go, at their own pleasure, to bring wood and water. But they were furnished, either with no provisions at all, or in insufficient quantities, so that in order to secure the necessaries of life, they were obliged to apply to their guards, who made them pay dearly for the services rendered them. It appears further from this passage, that the Poet has here in his eye that period of the captivity when the captives were still in their own land, else he could not say “our water, our wood.” There seems to be a rhetorical reason for the use of the perfect (ωָׁ ?ϊִ ?ιπεּ) in the first clause, and of the imperfect (ιָ ?αΰεּ) in the second. For, grammatically considered, either the perfect or imperfect should be used both times, since the two acts are entirely homogeneous. But the Poet wished to bring variety into his period, perhaps also to avoid the clashing together of two tone-syllables, which would have happened, if it had been written αָּ ?ΰεּ. He could introduce this variety, since the limit between these two verbal forms is a fluctuating one, determined by the subjective conception of the speaker. For, in many cases, the same action can be regarded as already completed and as still in progress. See for example ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ιִ ?κϊָּ ?αֹ ?ΰεּ (Joshua 9:8) and ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ικαָּ ?ΰϊֶ ?ν (Genesis 42:7), my Gr. §§ 84, 87. So here the drinking of water for money is represented by ωָׁ ?ϊִ ?ιπεּ as something accomplished, being constituted by many acts of drinking, but by ιָ ?αֹ ?ΰεּ the fetching of the wood is represented as something not yet finished, something still continuing. We are at liberty to translate both tenses, so far as they are concerned, by the present or by the preterit. The context shows which the Poet intends. He evidently is describing the journey of the captives going into exile. But nothing indicates that he looks back upon it as already accomplished, that he would represent it as already terminated in the land of exile. Consequently, we are obliged to translate all the tenses, which refer to different incidents of the journey, in the present. [There is a studied effort in this Song, as shown in the preliminary note to this chapter, to multiply words ending in πεּ ,εּ, and we may add in Ξֵ ?πεּ In the expressions “Our water,” “our wood,” the pronoun is added merely, if we may so say, for the sake of the rhyme, or, more correctly, the assonance, just as in Lamentations 5:9 he says, “our bread.” The writer could legitimately gratify the ear by this expedient, for what they bought and used certainly became their own. It is obvious, therefore, that the meaning of the verse can not turn on the use of the word our. If this had been intended to be emphatic, and to represent the water and the wood as their property before they bought it, then this verse should have immediately followed Lamentations 5:2, where the transfer of their property to new owners is represented. Otherwise, the third verse intrudes a new idea between two thoughts that are closely related, the loss of their inheritance and houses, and the necessity of purchasing what had been their own property. If, on the other hand, we take our text as a simple statement of the fact that they were obliged to purchase such common necessaries of life as water and wood, we are enabled to translate the preterit verb in the past indefinite time. The Prophet is by no means describing the incidents of the journey of the exiles from their own land. He is enumerating and heaping together en masse the various features of sorrow and suffering experienced by the un-happy people, without particular reference either to the time or place of their happening. Among other things that had happened was their having to pay money for the water they drank: and he uses the preterit tense, We have drunken our water for money,—this is among the things that had happened, perhaps once only, perhaps oftener; but there was another hardship of more frequent occurrence, one often repeated, and that may have continued down to the time when he wrote, and this he expresses, as the Hebrew so constantly expresses the recurrence of events even after they are past, by the future form of the verb, which we may render as an historical imperfect—our wood came to us, or was coming, that is, it came in that way only, for a price, or we may render it as a present—it comes still only for pay.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:5. Our necks are under persecution (marg. On our necks are we persecuted); we labor and have no rest.We are driven headlong [Ueber Hals und Kopf werden wir gejagt, lit. over neck and head (over head and ears, as we say in English) are we driven]; are we tired, rest is not permitted us. The Septuagint connects ςֵ ?μφַ ?εַּ ?ΰψֵ ?πεּ ?upon our necks, with what precedes, ξὐλαἡμῶνἐνἀλλάγματιἠλθενἐπὶτὸντράχηλονἥμῶν, our wood in exchange for our money came upon our neck. So also the Arabic version. The Syriac closes Lamentations 5:4 with αִּ ?ξְ ?ηִ ?ιψ. and refers ιָ ?αֹ ?ΰεּ to what follows, so that it also translates venerunt super collum nostrum, they came upon our neck, where either ligna, wood, or hostes, the enemy, may be regarded as the subject. Among the moderns, Aben-Ezra and J. Dav. Michaelis also connect the phrase upon our necks with what precedes. The latter gives the sense thus, ligna nostra pretio empta cervicibus nostris imposita in urbem importantur, our wood bought with a price and laid upon our necks is carried into the city. The explanation of the Syriac produces a very harsh zeugma in Lamentations 5:4, renders the following sentence unintelligible, and expresses a thought that may be termed at least unnecessary. The objections to the other versions are as follows. 1. αִּ ?ξְ ?ηִ ?ιψ, for pay, Lamentations 5:4 must be taken, either as dependent on a verb to be supplied (emta), or as belonging to ιָ ?αֹּ ?ΰεּ, in the very unsuitable sense, that the Jews were paid for carrying the wood. 2. The symmetrical proportions of the verses are destroyed; Lamentations 5:4 is too long, Lamentations 5:5 too short. We will then follow the Masoretic division of the verses. But as thus arranged, this verse has undergone various interpretations. Pareau translates super cervicibus nostris insessores patimur, we bear sitters [riders] upon our necks. But πִ ?ψְ ?γַּ ?τְ ?πεּ cannot mean we are ridden, or we carry riders. As little can it mean naturally, we bear persecutors or oppressors, which would correspond with Pareau’s idea, only without a figure. Others (Raschi, De Wette, Ewald, 1st ed., Meyer, Vaihinger, Engelhardt) translate on our necks the yoke, or the yoke on the neck are we persecuted. But as Thenius has remarked, the yoke here is a superadded idea entirely arbitrary. [Blayney reads ςֹ ?μ, yoke, instead of the preposition ςַ ?μ, upon. But we must then, as he does, take the verb in a sense it cannot have of being burthened with, With the yoke of our necks are we continually burthened; or, as Boothroyd does, supply the preposition on and the verb is, and make an independent proposition of the first two words, The yoke is on our necks, we are pursued; or, as Noyes does, supply two prepositions, With the yoke upon our necks, we are driven.Henderson, without changing ςַ ?μ into ςֹ ?μ, thinks that upon our necks we are persecuted expresses “elliptically the great hardship to which the Jews were reduced in being compelled as captives to bear a heavy yoke on their necks;” and translates, We are persecuted with a yoke on our necks. So William Lowth seems to understand the text and refers to Deuteronomy 28:48. “We are driven to our work like the bullock that has a yoke about his neck” (Adam Clarke).—W. H. H.] All these explanations fail in this that they let ςַ ?μ depend, not immediately on πִ ?ψְ ?γַּ ?τְ ?πεּ, but very unnecessarily on an entirely different idea supposed to be concealed therein. Thenius and Ewald (2d ed.) have perceived the right sense, when they translate, on the neck were we pursued (so Ewald: Thenius expresses the same sense by the words, they pursued us over our necks, i.e. since they are ever close behind us). I translate, We are driven on over our necks, that is to say, so that the driving goes over our necks onwards—and this idea corresponds exactly with our German phrase, “όber Hals und Kopf” [lit. over neck and head, i.e. headlong]. Luther: “όber Hals.” [In full: Man treibt uns όber Hals.] Besides, ψָ ?γַ ?σ cannot be taken in the sense of pursuing, for not fugitives, but captives are here spoken of, who are already in the hands of the enemies and are driven onward without mercy. This appears plainly from Lamentations 5:5; Lamentations 5:8. The meaning to drive, to chase, undoubtedly lies in the root ψָ ?γַ ?σ (see the kindred roots γָּ ?τַ ?δ ,πָ ?γַ ?σ ,δָ ?γַ ?σ), and is as plain as daylight in such places as Leviticus 26:36 (the sound of a falling leaf shall chase them). Job 30:15; Isaiah 17:13. [It would be a relief to accept Dr. Naegelsbach’s simple explanation, and translate, They drove us, or we were driven headlong, or as we would say in our colloquial English, heels over head, but there is no evidence that the Hebrew words are used in any such colloquial sense. The next best thing is to adopt the translation of Maurer, Thenius, Ewald, Owen and Gerlach, which Dr. Naegelsbach also approves of, On our necks were we pursued, i.e. our pursuers followed us so closely as to be, as it were, on our necks. “We are hunted by pursuers who are ever hanging over our neck” (Wordsworth). The objection to taking the verb in the sense of pursuing, on the ground that the people are here considered as captives and not fugitives, grows out of the incorrect interpretation of Lam 5:4, and involves an entire misconception of the intention of this Song. It is not the design of the Prophet to give a detailed account of successive and related events, but to heap up together, in one rapid and vehement recapitulation, all the wrongs, indignities and sufferings the people had endured, without reference to times or places.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:6. Whilst the Poet describes the onward march of the larger part of the people to the land of banishment, he is reminded that the people are, by this means, still more widely separated and torn asunder; for one part, by far the smaller part, has been compelled to turn southwards towards Egypt. [This verse confirms the opinion that the Prophet is not relating successive events in the order of their occurrence and in their relations to each other; but is stating independent facts and instances, all of which contribute to present to God an appeal for pity and mercy. There is no close connection, therefore, between Lamentations 5:5-6, such as Owen and Gerlach would find, when they say that Lamentations 5:6 relates what they did when so closely pursued. According to Dr. Naegelsbach’s interpretation, that Lamentations 5:5 refers to the Jews on their way to Babylonia, driven before their captors, the connection of Lam 5:6 is impossible. While they were so closely pursued that their pursuers were on their necks, did even a small part of them miraculously escape and flee to Egypt? Dr. Naegelsbach does not mean to assert this; but his theory of interpretation would seem to demand it.—W. H. H.]—We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians to be satisfied with bread,—Towards Egypt stretched we the hand,—Towards Assyria,—in order to be satisfied with bread. To stretch out the hand can mean here only, to stretch out the hand as a suppliant; see Jeremiah 50:15; 1 Chronicles 29:24. [Calvin: “To give the hand, is explained in three ways: some say that it means humbly to ask; others, to make an agreement; and others, to extend it in token of misery, as he who cannot ask for help, intimates his wants by extending his hand. But the Prophet seems simply to mean that the people were so distressed by want, that they begged bread.”] But in what sense did the Jews stretch out the hand to Assyria? They had submitted to this great power, not willingly, as they had thrown themselves into the arms of the Egyptians, but by compulsion. Yet they must, if they would live, stretch out their suppliant hand, to receive a morsel of bread from the hand of Assyria bestowing it upon them. But what power is intended by Assyria? It has been understood of Assyria strictly speaking, which carried the ten tribes into exile. But it would be strange, indeed, if the Poet here overlooked the Babylonish exile. That he says Assur, and not Babel, may be explained on the ground that he has in mind the Assyrian, as well as the Babylonish captivity. While Babel never stands for Assur and Babel, the name Assur is so used as to embrace both countries; see 2 Kings 17:24; 2 Kings 18:11; 2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chronicles 33:11. The brief words of our text exhibit also the fact, that Israel no longer existed as a nation, but was entirely given over to the power of the kingdoms of this world, on whose favor its very life depended; and, while the smaller part found itself in the power of Egypt, the larger part, which included both Israel, carried away into Assyrian exile, and Judah, deported to Babylon, is subject to Assur,—to Assur in the widest sense of the term, understanding thereby, not only Assyria in the strict sense, but Babylon also. See also Jeremiah 2:18. [Noyes is of the opinion that giving the hand, imports submission, as in Jeremiah 50:15; to stretch out the hand to be bound, as it were. Thus, he remarks, “in 2 Chronicles 30:8, what is translated in the common version yield yourselves unto the Lord, is in the original give the hand to the Lord.” The context here, nevertheless, favors the idea that the Jews were reduced in many instances to abject beggary, and entire dependence for the necessaries of life on these heathen nations, the greatest enemies their country had.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:7. Our fathers have sinned and are not: and we have borne their iniquities.—Our fathers have sinned: they are not; we bear their sins. [There is no sufficient reason for rendering the last verb as a present. The English version is more literal.—W. H. H.] Comparing this verse with Lamentations 5:16, a certain parallelism is observable. In both the sins of the people are asserted to be the cause of the calamities previously described. But Lamentations 5:7 says, Our fathers have sinned and we bear their guilt. Lamentations 5:16, on the contrary says, Woe to us, we have sinned. Here, as in Lamentations 1:5; Lamentations 1:8-9; Lamentations 1:14; Lamentations 1:18; Lamentations 2:14; Lamentations 3:42; Lamentations 4:6; Lamentations 4:12-14, the description of calamities endured constitute a principal feature in the confession of sin. As one paragraph ends with Lamentations 5:7, and another with Lamentations 5:16, Lamentations 5:8 begins a new paragraph. [This division separates verses closely allied. The subject down to Lamentations 5:10 is chiefly related to sufferings connected with the want of the necessaries of life. With Lamentations 5:11 begins a description of individual instances of outrage and cruelty (Lamentations 5:11-14), followed by a description of the effects of all these calamities, public and private, on the theocratic people who offer the prayer. Lamentations 5:16 is as intimately connected with what follows, as with what precedes it.—W. H. H.] There is at least some truth in the assertion made in Lamentations 5:7. For the great catastrophe had been brought about, not only by the guilt of the last generation, but also by that of previous generations (Jeremiah 3:25; Jeremiah 15:4; Jeremiah 16:11-12). But Lamentations 5:7, without Lamentations 5:16, would contain only a partial view of the truth. The two verses complete each other. [Wordsworth: “The sins of their forefathers were visited upon them, because they themselves had sinned, as they themselves confess.… There is, therefore, no reason for supposing, with some, that these words could not have been written by Jeremiah, being at variance with the doctrine in Jeremiah 31:29.”]—And are not (ΰֵ ?ιπָ ?ν, without ε, see Gr. notes above; they are not.) These words connect themselves rather with what follows, than with what precedes. Our fathers have sinned. Whilst they are no more, we bear their sins.Lamentations 5:8. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hands.—[None delivered from their hands.] Who are these servants? Satraps are suggested. So say those who understand Lamentations 5:5 of the residence of a part of the people in Palestine or elsewhere. But we see from Lamentations 5:5, that the subject of discourse is the march of the actually exiled hosts. Satraps, it is true, are the king’s servants, but they are not merely servants, they are not slaves. That men of distinguished descent and high rank should stand under Satraps was a reproach, when considered in a theocratic point of view, but not to be regarded as a matter of sufficient importance to be mentioned in this place. Besides, in fact Gedaliah ruled in Judea, himself a Jew and, according to the testimony of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 40:7-12), a well-disposed man. But that real slaves were employed for overseers and drivers of the marching captives, this was certainly in the highest degree hard and likewise disgraceful. [This again is to be regarded as one feature of the great variety of sufferings that befell the people. It is not necessary to suppose that the whole people were at any time under the lordship of slaves or under-servants. It is not necessary to suppose an exclusive reference to the bands of captives that were driven to Babylonia. It is enough that in their degraded state it often happened that they had to submit to domineering and harsh treatment from men that were themselves menials.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:9. We gat our bread with—at—the peril of our lives, because of the sword of the wilderness.Rosenmueller refers this verse to the dangers which the corn-transports out of Egypt may have had to encounter in the wilderness. But is it supposable that corn was brought from Egypt, when the larger part of the people had been led away to Babylon, and the smaller part had themselves fled to Egypt? Ewald, on the other hand, finds in these words “a remarkable indication, that most of the fugitives in Egypt dwelt at the northeastern border close to the desert,” and so were compelled “to wring their bread from the desert and its robbers.” But when in the world was bread brought from the desert, even by those dwelling on the borders of Egypt, and not from the interior of the country? Thenius presumes that this Song was written amid the circumstances of one of those small companies that remained in Palestine and were scattered about in that land. These, falling in on their pasture-grounds with the warlike tribes sojourning among them, would be compelled to get their subsistence by fighting for it. But that supposition is confirmed neither by the history (observe Jeremiah 42:1, “all the people,” etc.,), nor by the contents of our Song (compare Lamentations 5:8 especially, with the opinion of Thenius, that the little company, among whom the Song was written, preferred liberty in poverty, to dependence in prosperity, Lamentations 5:6). The view of Vaihinger rests on the same opinion, and differs from that of Thenius only in this, that he understands the bringing of bread to refer to merchant travellers who were in peril from Bedouin robbers. I am of the opinion, that the expedition here indicated, was an incident belonging to the experience of those Israelites who had not been led away to Babylon, and especially of those who had fled to Egypt. It is allowable to suppose, both from general reasons and particularly from Lamentations 5:6, that this one of the two parts of the people is intended. Much is touched upon in the Song, that happened to all in common (Lamentations 5:2-3; Lamentations 5:7; Lamentations 5:10-12); much that only befell those who suffered captivity (Lamentations 5:4-5; Lamentations 5:8); here (Lamentations 5:9) we have a description that suits only the condition of those fugitives to Egypt, who yet retained their freedom. But I refer the verse, not as Ewald to those already settled in Egypt, but to events and circumstances preceding their settlement. According to Jeremiah 41:8, ten men bought their lives of Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah, at the price of provisions which they had hidden. From this we see that provisions were scarce and that there were bands of robbers who hunted for them. Is it not then in the highest degree probable, that the crowd which fled to Egypt (Jeremiah 41:16-18), both while they were still in Palestine, and frequently when they were in the desert, could obtain what was necessary for subsistence only at the peril of their lives?—[We gat our bread. Here again we have a future tense, πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ; intimating the frequent recurrence, and doubtless the continuance, at the time of writing, of this peril.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:10. Our skin was black like an oven. [So Broughton, Calvin and Henderson. See Psalms 68:13. Our skin is burnt [has been burnt] like an oven. [This sense is the one generally adopted, on the ground that it is more consistent with the effects of famine, and more congenial with the derivation and use of the Hebrew word. Blayney and Noyes translate the verb parched.—W. H. H.]. The effect of hunger on the skin is compared to that of heat on the walls of the oven. Like these, that has become hot, dry, hard, cracked. There was hunger enough with the two parts of the people, who stretched out their hands, one to Assyria, the other to Egypt, until the one had arrived in Assyria and the other in Egypt.—Because of the terrible (marg. terrors, or storms of) famine,—because of the heat (or hotness, Gluten) of hunger. [Because of the burning (Broughton) or burnings (Calvin, Noyes). Gerlach translates the word raging, or fury (Wόthen), and so it is rendered by Alexander (in Psalms 11:6; Psalms 119:53, the only other places where the word occurs), who remarks, that “no English word is strong enough to represent the Hebrew except rage or fury.” Blayney translates stormy blasts of hunger, and Hendersonthe hot blasts of famine.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:11-1311 They ravished the women in Zion, and the maids in the cities of Judah.12, 13Princes are hanged by their hand: the faces of elders were not honoured. They took the young men to grind, and the children fell under the wood. TEXTUAL AND Lam_5:11.—ςִ ?πָּ ?δ, see Lamentations 3:33.—ςָ ?ψֵ ?ιιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ, see Jeremiah 1:15; Jeremiah 4:16; Jeremiah 9:10; and elsewhere very frequently. Lamentations 5:12.—ϊָּ ?μָ ?δ is found nowhere in Jeremiah.—δָ ?γַ ?ψ Jeremiah never uses; see Leviticus 19:15; Leviticus 19:32; Exodus 23:3. Lamentations 5:13.—θְ ?ηεֹ ?ο, handmill, is ἅπ. λεγ. See elsewhere θַֽ ?ηֲ ?πָ ?δ Proverbs 12:4, and the verb Deuteronomy 11:8; Judges 16:21; Isaiah 47:2, etc. Jeremiah uses neither the verb nor the substantive.—λָּ ?ωַׁ ?μ with αְּ, Jeremiah 6:21; Isaiah 8:15; Leviticus 26:37. AND [Lamentations 5:11-13. The sufferings of individuals, of all ages and conditions, especially their degradation, are described. These verses still further confirm the opinion, that this Song belongs to no special time or locality, but that it is a general enumeration of the various evils the people had suffered, from the time when Jerusalem was invaded, to the time when the Prophet indited this Poem.—W. H. H.] Lamentations 5:11. In this and the following verses (to Lamentations 5:15) are described the sorrows which befell particular classes of persons at the capture of the city. These are incidents which partly belong to an earlier period of the history, and partly still continue in force. The violation of the women and the hanging up of the Princes are past events, but the pain they caused still survives.—They ravished—dishonored. [Owen: “There is here a delicate word for a disgraceful act. The words literally are,—Women in Zion they humbled (or, were humbled). It is humbled by the Sept. and Vulg.” They suffered not only the worst, but all sorts of indignities.—W. H. H.].—The women in Zion and the maids—virgins—in the cities of Judah. [Blayney, Boothroyd, Henderson and Noyes translate the first word matrons. The Hebrew word is as generic as our word women. Besides, this transfers the antithesis from Zion and the cities of Judah, where it belongs, to the distinction between matrons and maids, which the parallelism does not require. The women generally were humbled, even in Zion, yea and throughout all the cities of Judah.Calvin: “He mentioned Sion rather than Jerusalem,—it was indeed to state a part for the whole; but that place we know had been chosen by God that His name might be there worshipped.… As, then, God had there His palace, that He might dwell in the midst of His people, it was a disgraceful sight in the extreme to see women ravished there, for the temple of God was thus violated.”—W. H. H] Lamentations 5:12. Princes are—were [have been]—hanged up—hung—by their hand [i.e. suspended by the hand.—W. H. H.]. This has been explained in three ways. 1. The Princes hung themselves with their own hand. But since, according to Deuteronomy 21:23, he that is hanged is accursed of God, this is incredible. Why could they not have killed themselves in some other way? Calvin indeed surmises, that they were compelled to hang themselves. But would not this have been explicitly stated, if the Jews had been compelled to do it? 2. At their side [i.e. Princes were hung beside or near the cities (so Ewald), or at the side, or in near proximity to the humbled women]. But against this are (1) the masculine suffix, (2) and yet more the preposition αְּ,—it should be μְ ?ιָ ?γָ ?ν (1 Samuel 19:3; Proverbs 8:3; 1 Chronicles 18:17; 1 Chronicles 23:28). Only two places can be named, where αְּ ?ιַ ?γ may stand for μְ ?ιַ ?γ, namely, 1 Samuel 21:14; Job 15:23. But in the first passage it is, εַ ?ιִּ ?ϊδֹ ?μִ ?μαְּ ?ιָ ?γָ ?ν, he raved in or under their hands; and in Job 15:23, the sense, as the connection shows, is—he knows that he himself (by his own hand) has prepared the day of darkness. Nothing else remains for us, therefore, but to translate, 3. by their hand, and to refer the suffix to their enemies. The sense, indeed, is somewhat feeble; but verbal and substantial arguments render this explanation necessary. [Gerlach adopts the same view. Besides the evident awkwardness of this construction, it is open to the very serious objection, that the enemies have not been mentioned in the preceding context, nor are they prominently in the mind of either writer or speaker. The preceding verse merely tells us that women in Zion and virgins in the cities of Judah had been humbled. But by whom? The natural inference is, by the public enemy. Yet this is not said; is not even inevitable, and if it were, the mind of the reader is occupied with the women who suffered, not with the men who inflicted the injury. The pronoun, if it refers to any subject in the preceding verse, must, it would seem, refer to the women, or possibly to the cities. But that it does not refer to either of these is evident from its gender, and from the absence of any intelligible sense in which it can refer to them. We must conclude that it refers to the persons immediately named in close and preceding connection, and who according to all fixed rules of grammar, must be its subject. If this is so, then it can only mean either, what Calvin says, that the Princes committed suicide, and that by hanging themselves, which as has been said is utterly incredible; or else, what the collocation of the words in the original naturally suggests, that the princes were hung up, i.e. suspended, by the hand, or their hand. The pronoun may properly be dispensed with, for its presence here seems entirely due to the preference of the writer for words ending in ν; it belongs to the rhyme, or assonance, and is not intended to be emphatic. So the Vulgate translates, omitting the pronoun: Principes manu suspensi sunt.—Henderson also omits the pronoun: but he overlooks the Niphal form of the verb and makes the enemy its subject. He translates, Princes they hung up by the hand.Boothroyd, more correctly, Princes were hung up by the hand. He supposes that the Princes and elders were first murdered and then hung up. Owen: “The most obvious meaning of the words is, that Princes were hung or suspended by the hand, and not by the neck. Such a punishment.… may have been a barbarity resorted to by the Chaldeans. This seems to be the meaning conveyed by the Versions and the Targum.” If they were not tortured to death in this way, it is not unlikely that “the sons of Zedekiah,” and “all the Princes of Judah” were slain in Riblah, by being beheaded, and that their headless trunks were suspended by the hands on the walls of the city. Thus the headless, naked body of Saul, and the bodies of his three sons, were fastened to the walls of Bethshan (1 Samuel 31:8-12). “It was a custom with the Persians, after they had slain, strangled, or beheaded their enemy, to hang their bodies upon poles or empale them. In this way they treated Hirstζus of Miletum, and Leonidas of Lacedζmon. See Herodotus, Lib. vi. c. 30; Lib. vii. c. 238” (Adam Clarke). Or, there may have been instances in which Princes were thus suspended, not after death, nor for the purpose of killing them, but as an ignominious and torturing punishment. It is said that “no punishment is more common in the East. Has a master a refractory slave,… several men are called, who tie the offender’s hands and hoist him to the roof till he beg forgiveness” (Comp. Comm.).—W. H. H.] The faces of Elders were not regarded. This is said in allusion to Leviticus 19:32, “Thou shalt honor the face of the old man,” comp. Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:3. Although in the places referred to, the word Elders is intended as a designation of age, not of dignity, yet we are obliged to take it in the latter sense here; because it is placed in parallelism with Princes, and because the aged in contrast with the youthful are spoken of in Lamentations 5:14. Lamentations 5:13. They took the young men to grind—the young men are obliged to carry the mill—[Noyes:Young men carried mill-stones]. The Vulgate translates, Adolescentibus impudice abusi sunt (same as, Adolescentes molitionem passi sunt). [Douay:They abused the young men indecently,which is explained by this note, “i.e., made them grind naked in the mill.” But the second clause of the verse is against any such interpretation of the first clause. The explanations, Juvenes ad molendum sumserunt, Young men were taken to grind, and Juvenes molas agitarunt or versarunt, Young men shook or turned mills, are verbally incorrect, for the verb πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰ does not mean agitare, to shake: to give it the sense of turning,μְ would be necessary. But the simple literal meaning of the word [to lift,Gerlach:—to carry], entirely suffices. For not only was the carrying of the hand-mills on the journey a heavy burden, but that they carried these implies that they were also compelled to turn them, i. e., to grind with them. As thus explained, the first clause corresponds with the second. And [The omission of the conjunction in this song, where it might be expected, makes its expression here more emphatic. Young men have been compelled to carry mill-stones, even boys, or mere children have fallen under the heavy burdens of wood they were forced to carry.—W. H. H.] the children fell under the wood.—Boys fall [properly, fell, or have fallen.—W. H. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/