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. Lam_1:1-11describe the wretched condition of the city. Lam_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, Lam_1:9; Lam_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. Lam_1:1-11
à
Lam_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.
á
Lam_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.
â
Lam_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.
ã
Lam_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!
ä
Lam_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.
å
Lam_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.
ï
Lam_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!
ç
Lam_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.
è
Lam_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.
é
Lam_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.’
ë
Lam_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!
ANALYSIS
The logical construction is preserved, although rendered difficult by the constraint of the alphabetical arrangement of the verses. FromLam_1:1to the last clause ofLam_1:11, the poet speaks. [Rather the poet puts this language into the mouth of a third person, who is revealed to us inLam_1:9; Lam_1:11, and still more plainly in the whole of the second part, Lam_1:12-22, as the ideal representative of the ruined city.—W. H. H.] Lam_1:1-2present to us the ideal person of Jerusalem, sharply defining the contrast between what she was and what she is now. Lam_1:3personifies in like manner the tribe of Judah. Lam_1:4-6depict 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.] Lam_1:7relates again to the ideal Jerusalem and informs us how she remembers with pain her former estate, whilst now suffering bitter mockery from her foes. Lam_1:8-9declare the cause of the judgment, already indicated in Lam_1:5, namely, the heinous sin of Israel: in consequence of which sin heathen, Lam_1:10, had intruded into the sanctuary of Zion, which was forbidden in the law. Finally, Lam_1:11, to the last clause, describes the distressing famine of the besieged people. From the last clause ofLam_1:11to the end of the chapter, the Poet lets Zion herself speak, as she had already done parenthetically inLam_1:9.
Lam_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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_1:1.—
áָãָã
, subst., solitariness, is to be regarded as in the accusative. See Lam_3:28; Lev_13:46; Jer_15:17; Jer_49:31,
ìְáָãָã
, Num_23:9; Mic_7:14.—
øַáָּúִé
. The
Îִé
is archaic. See Olsh., § 123, d. [In
ùָׂøָúִé
also. The paragogic
Îִé
was, originally, perhaps, a mark of the genitive, as the corresponding letter in Arabic. Occurs in poetry and in compound names, as
îַìְëִéÎöֶãֶ÷
,
àֲãֹðִéÎáֶæֶ÷
. Henderson.] The archaic
Îִé
, not infrequent in Jer_10:17 (K’tib); Jer_22:23; Jer_49:16; Jer_51:13. Yet this particular word occurs only here.—
øַá
, great, in the qualitative sense, not merely multus, but also magnus, potens, great, powerful, occurs often; Psa_48:3; Isa_63:1; Isa_53:12; Jer_41:1. See
øַá èַáָּçִéí
, et sim., and
øַáָּä
, the metropolis of the Ammonites. The phrase
øá áַâֹåéִí
occurs only here. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (1). p. 20.]—The
áְּ
after
ùָׂøָúִé
indicates the object over which the Princess rules. See Fuerst. [Blayney, Boothroyd, translate over, instead of among.]—
ùָׂøָä
is synonymous with
øַáָּä
, e. g.,
ùַׂø èַáָּçָéí
, Gen_37:36; Gen_39:1, et al., and
ùַׂø ñָøéִñִéí
, Dan_1:7; Dan_1:9, et al. are synonymous with
øַá è×
and
øַá ñ×
. The sing.
ùָׂøָä
excepting as the proper name Sarah, occurs only here. Plural in Jdg_5:29; Isa_49:23; 1Ki_11:3; Est_1:18, shows that it is an old word and in earlier times peculiar to poetry. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (2). p. 29.]—
îְãִéâָä
, province, satrapy, in sing. occurs only in books of Ezra (Ezr_2:1), Nehemiah (Neh_1:3; Neh_7:6; Neh_11:3), Ecclesiastes (Ecc_5:7), Daniel (Dan_8:2; Dan_11:24), and especially Esther (Est_1:1; Est_1:22; Est_3:12; Est_3:14, etc): in plu in Est_1:3; Est_8:9; Est_9:3-4; Est_9:16; Eze_19:8; 1Ki_20:14-15; 1Ki_20:17; 1Ki_20:19 [not2Ki_20:19, a mistake of Fuerst copied by Naegelsb.], Ecc_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.]—[
îַí
. W. Robertson, Key to Heb. Bib., derives from
îָñַí
, 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,
îַí
and
îִñָּä
. The old quaint idea seems better. “
îַí
from
îִñָּä
, 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
ëָñַí
to number. But there is a word already from that root,
îֶëֶí
, meaning tribute in the strict sense, while
îַí
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.]
Lam_1:2.—[
áָּëåֹ úִáְëֶä
. 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.]—
ìְçִé
never occurs in Jeremiah. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (2). p. 30.]—Jeremiah uses the Piel
ðִçַí
, Jer_16:7; Jer_31:13; but not the phrase
àֵéï îְðַçֵí
, occurring in this chapter four times, and elsewhere only in Ecc_4:1. [See Intr., Add. Rem. (3). p. 30.] Jeremiah uses,
àֹäֲáֶéäָ
Jer_20:4; Jer_20:6;
øֵòַ
Jer_29:23; Jer_5:8; Jer_7:5. etc.;
áָâַã
Jer_3:8; Jer_3:11; Jer_3:20; Jer_5:11; Jer_12:6, etc.;
àֹéֵá
, frequently, Jer_6:25; Jer_15:11; Jer_18:17, etc.—
äָéåּ ìְàֹéְáִéí
occurs elsewhere only in Psa_139:22.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_1:1. How,
àֵéëָä
. The second and fourth chapters also begin with this word. It is used by Jeremiah (Jer_8:8; Jer_48:17), and not seldom in Deuteronomy (Deu_1:12; Deu_7:17; Deu_12:30; Deu_18:21). In Isaiah it occurs once, Isa_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 Lam_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 Lam_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 Judæa Capta—Judea taken.”]—That was full of people! In regard to sense and construction, see Jer_51:13; 1Sa_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 Lam_1:1, than there would be in Lam_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 Isa_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 (
áְּòֻìָä
) a married one, since she no longer enjoys communion with Jehovah, her Husband (
áַּòַì
. See Delitzsch on Isa_54:1 sqq.). She is a woman forsaken (Isa_54:6), and the reproach of widowhood (Isa_54:6) rests upon her. The expression as a widow [
ëְּàַìְîָðָä
, 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 Lam_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, 2Sa_8:1-4; 2Sa_10:6-19; the extent of Solomon’s dominions, 1Ki_4:21; 1Ki_4:24; 2Ch_9:23-24; the power of Judah in the reign of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_17:10-11, and in that of Uzziah, 2Ch_26:6-8. See also Ezr_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.]
éָֽùְׁáָä áָãָã
, 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 Num_23:9; Lev_20:24; Lev_20:26; Deu_33:28; Exo_23:31-33; Judges 2, 3.) Nor can
éָֽùְׁáָä
have the sense of situation, place of location, for
éָùַׁá
never has that sense in the Hebrew. See Gesen.,Thes. In Psa_122:5; Psa_125:1; Zec_2:8; Zec_12:6; Zec_14:10 it has either the active signification of inhabiting, or the passive of being inhabited (see Jer_17:6; Jer_17:25; Jer_30:18; Jer_50:13; Jer_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., “
éָùָׁá
, to sit, as an expression of being bowed down, struck down and forsaken, with
ìָàָøֶõ
, Isa_3:26; Job_2:13;
òַìÎòָôָø
, Isa_47:1;
áָãָã
, Lam_1:1; Lam_3:28;
îְùׁåֹîֵí
, Ezr_9:3;
àַìְîָâָä
, Gen_38:11; Isa_47:8.”]
øִáָּúִé
. It is probable that the form
îְּìֵàֲúִé
, in the kindred passage, Isa_1:21, influenced the choice of the form of the word here.—
ëְּàַìְîָðָä
, as a widow. In antithesis to
øַáָּúִé òָí
, full of people,
ùְׁëּåּìָä
, bereaved of children, childless, would be first suggested: but this word occurs only once, Isa_49:21.
ùַׁëֻּìָä
, also, occurs once only (in connection with
àַìְîָðָä
), Jer_18:21.
òֲ÷ָøָä
is the barren woman,
îְùַׁëֵּìָä
or
îְùַׁëֶּìֶú
is abortum faciens, Exo_23:26; 2Ki_2:19; 2Ki_2:21, or infanticida, Eze_36:13.
àַìְîָðָä
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, Psa_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 Isa_47:8, have been inclined to think. Besides that,
ëְּàַìְîָðָä
is not synonymous with
ìְà×
, Raschi has already remarked. Compare
ìָîַí
at the close of this verse, and
ìְæåֹðָä
, Isa_1:21. The word
àַìְîָðָä
is often found in Jer_7:6; Jer_15:8; Jer_18:21; Jer_22:3. [Henderson is too positive when he says, “The
ëּ
in
ëְּàַìְîָðָä
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
ëְּ
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,
ìְàַìְîָðָä
, and being like one,
ëְּàַìְîָðָä
.—W. H. H.]—
äֲéְúָä ìָîַí
, has become tributary. The expression is found in Genesis (Gen_49:15) and in Deuteronomy (Deu_20:11); and is especially frequent in 1 Kings (1 Kings 5:27, 28; 1Ki_9:15; 1Ki_9:21) and in Judges (Jdg_1:28; Jdg_1:30; Jdg_1:33; Jdg_1:35). It is also found in Isaiah (Isa_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
îַí òֹáֵã
, Gen_49:15; Jos_16:10; 1Ki_9:21). It first occurs in the sense of tributum, a money tax, very late, Est_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 2Ki_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.
Lam_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
áַּìַּéìָä
to be understood in Num_14:1, “and the people wept that night.” See Jer_6:5; Jer_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 (Lam_2:9; see also Lam_1:16), and from its being an unusual form, occurring elsewhere only in Ecc_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 Lam_1:19; Jer_2:13; Jer_2:18; Jer_2:33; Jer_2:36-37; Jer_22:20; Jer_22:22; Hos_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 Eze_29:6-7; Eze_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. 2Ki_24:2.”]
Lam_1:3
3Judah 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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_1:3.—
âָּֽìְúָä
, see Jer_1:3.—
òֳðִé
, found in Lam_1:3; Lam_1:7; Lam_1:9; Lam_3:1; Lam_3:19, does not occur in Jeremiah; yet Isaiah uses it Isa_48:10 : occurs also in Pentateuch; Gen_16:11; Gen_29:32; Gen_31:42; Exo_3:7; Deu_16:3; Deu_26:7, etc.; in Psa_9:14; Psa_25:18; Psa_31:8, and in other writings of earlier origin than Lam.—
îֵøֹá
is found in Isa_7:22; Isa_24:22; Nah_3:4, et al.: Jeremiah says
àַìøֹá
, Jer_30:14-15, or
áְּøֹá
, Jer_13:22.—
òֲáֹãָä
does not occur in Jeremiah, yet frequently in Pentateuch, and in Isa_14:3; Isa_32:17; Isa_28:21.—
îָðåֹçָ
occurs Gen_8:9; Deu_28:65; Isa_34:14, is not used by Jeremiah; he uses
îðåּçָä
, Jer_45:3. [See Intr. Add. R. (4). p. 30. (6). p. 31.]—
ðָùַâ
occurs in Jer_42:16 (see also Jer_39:5; Jer_52:8 ).]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_1:3. The tribe of Judah is the subject here, as the city of Jerusalem was in Lam_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 Jer_40:11-12, and from Jer_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, Jer_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
îִúð
. 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,
éָֽùְׁáָä
. The German, sitzet, which Naegelsbach uses, is better (see Lam_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 Lam_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 Lam_1:2 (see Lam_1:6; Lam_4:19; Jer_15:15; Jer_17:18; Jer_20:11) overtook her between the straits.
îְöָøִéí
(Sing.
îֵöַø
) occurs, besides here, only Psa_116:3; Psa_118:5. It can mean neither
èëßâïíôåò
(so Sept., which erroneously takes it for a participle), nor termini,
ὁñéóìïß
(so Chald., Venitian Greek, et al.). It means angustiæ, 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: “
îְöָø
, 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 Jer_44:12; Jer_44:18; Jer_44:26 sqq.) could reach them there.
Lam_1:4-6
4The 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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_1:4.—
àָáֵì
, adj. mournful [not desert, waste, devastated, as Fuerst says, which destroys the beautiful personification—W. H. H.], occurs Gen_37:35; Isa_57:18, et al., never in Jeremiah. The verb
àָáַì
he uses, in the same sense as the adjective here (Jer_4:28; Jer_12:4; Jer_12:11; Jer_14:2; Jer_23:10) [and also the noun
àֵáֶì
, Jer_6:26, et al.—W. H. H.] Isaiah uses the adjective, Isa_57:18; Isa 61:23.—
îִáְּìִé
, see Jer_2:15; Jer_9:10-11.—The expression
áָּàֵé
(see Gen_23:10; Gen_23:18) is not found in Jeremiah.—
îåֹòֵã
is found in Jeremiah twice, Jer_8:7; Jer_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,Lam_1:4; Lam_1:15; Lam_2:6-7; Lam_2:22, or the place of a feast,Lam_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.
ùׁåֹîֵí
is not in Jeremiah: he uses the part. Niph.,Jer_33:10, and
ùָׁîֵí
, Jer_12:11. The plur. ending
éï
—(see Lam_4:3, K’tib), is not found in Jeremiah.—The root
àָðַç
Jeremiah does not use, either in a verbal or a substantive form (see Lam_1:8; Lam_1:11; Lam_1:21).—
ðåּâåֹú
, see
äåֹðָäּ
below.—
îַø
Jeremiah does use, Lam_2:19; Lam_4:18.
Lam_1:5.—As shown above,
äָéåּ ìְøֹàùׁ
is a Deuteronomic,
ùָׁìåּ
a Jeremiac expression. For grammatical form of latter, see Olsh., § 233, b.
äåֹâָäּ
never occurs in Jeremiah, but frequently in Lam_1:4; Lam_1:12; Lam_3:32-33 : elsewhere, Isa_51:23; Zep_3:18. [Vulgate derives it from
äָâָä
, 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
éָðָä
.—W. H. H.]—
òַìÎøֹá
is entirely Jeremiac (see on
îֵøֹá
, Lam_1:3).—
ôֶùַׁò
in Jeremiah only once, Lam_5:6.—
òåֹìֵì
, Jer_44:7;
òåֹìָì
, Jer_6:11; Jer_9:20.—
äָìַêְ ùְׁáִé
is peculiar to this place.
ùְׁáִé
cannot well be an accusative, since to go into exile is always elsewhere expressed by
äָìַêְ áַּùְּׁáִé
, see Lam_1:18. [Henderson: her children are gone captives before the enemy.]—The sing.
öָø
, which is frequent in Lam. (Lam_1:7; Lam_1:10; Lam_2:4; Lam_4:12), never occurs in Jeremiah: he uses only the plural (Jer_30:16; Jer_46:10) and
öָøָä
(Jer_4:31; Jer_6:24, et al.).
Lam_1:6.—
éָöָà îִï
, for forsaken, lost, is peculiar. [Henderson: “For
îִïÎáַּú
the K’ri and some MSS. read more correctly
îִáַּú
. The phrase is also thus quoted in the Rabboth.” This best suits the rhythm.—W. H. H.]—
äָãָø
is never found in Jeremiah; nor
àַéִּì
(yet see
àַéָìָä
, Jer_14:5); nor
îִøְòֶä
(Jeremiah always says
îַøְòִéú
, Jer_10:21; Jer_23:1; Jer_25:36). We find expressions in Jeremiah analogous to
áְּìֹà ëֹçַ
, Lam_2:11,
áְּìֹà éåֹòִéì
, Lam_5:7,
áְּìֹà àֱìçִֹéí
ּ
—
øֹøֶó
is found in Jeremiah, but only with suffixes, Jer_15:15; Jer_17:18; Jer_20:11.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
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 (Lam_1:1-2), nor yet that of the tribe of Judah, or of the theocratic people, now a fugitive among the heathen (Lam_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.]
Lam_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
çåּöåֹú
(see Hos_7:1 with Hos_6:9), do mourn,are mournful (Prosopopœia, as, e. g.,Lam_2:19; Jer_14:2; Jer_23:10; Amo_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,zerstört, Sept.
ἠöáíéóìÝìáé
= rezed to the ground, Vulg. destructæ. 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 Lam_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 Jer_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 Jer_7:34; Jer_16:9; Jer_25:10; Jer_33:11; comp. Jer_30:19. The Sept. reads, instead of sorrowful,
ἀãüìåíáé
=led away; the translation evidently of
ðְäåּâåֹú
, which either really stood in the text, or was erroneously substituted by the Alexandrian for the rare word
ðåּâåֹú
. Ewald follows the Sept. Incorrectly, it seems to me.
ðåּâåֹú
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, Lam_1:4 describes the positive sorrows and afflictions of the people: Lam_1:5, a. b., the good fortune of her enemies as the natural reciprocal effect of the misfortunes of Judah; Lam_1:5, c.,6, the negative side of the painful experience of the people, namely, the losses they sustained.
Lam_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 Deu_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, Lam 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, Jer_12:1. See Psa_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 Lam_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.
òåֹìָìִéí
are little children (see Lam_2:20; Lam_4:4; Jer_6:11; Jer_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.]
Lam_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 Lam_2:1; Lam_2:6; 1Sa_4:21-22; Eze_7:20-22; Psa_1:2, “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined,” Psa_96:9, “Oh, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness,”
áְּäַãְøַúÎ÷ֹãֶùּׁ
. Psa_132:13-14. The beauty of Zion departed when God forsook His people, suffered the Temple to be destroyed, Jer_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
êñéïß
, arietes,=rams. They read or understood
àֵìִéí
. But evidently
àַéִì
is the stag or hart (see Deu_12:15; Deu_14:5; Deu_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.
Lam_1:7
7Jerusalem 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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_1:7.—
éְîֶé òָðְéָäּ å×
is not the object of
æָֽëְøָä
, but indicates the time, as is evident from the absence of
å
before
ëֹì
. The accusative
éְîֵé
answers, as frequently, the question, When? See my Gr., § 70, d. [Blayney: “Houbigant supposes that we ought to read
áéîé
for
éîé
: but I am inclined to think that it is not the
á
, but the
î
, which has been sunk before
éîé
, 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.
îéîé
signifies during the days, or since they began, as
îéîé ÷ãí
does presently after, in or during former days,” Boothroyd quotes this note with approval in his Hebrew Bible. Henderson says, “in
éְîֵé
