Lamentation Of The Poet Over The Destruction Of Zion: [the Destruction Described And Attributed To Jehovah.—W. H. H.]
[“The first song expresses sorrow over the disgrace of the city: the second describes the terrors of the destruction of the city and Temple” (Gerlach, Intr, p. 5), and connects them with the vengeance of God. In the first song, the city is the conspicuous object, and Zion and the holy places appear as accessories to her former honor and her present disgrace. In the second song, God’s personal agency in the calamities described is the controlling idea (see Lam_2:1-9; Lam_2:17; Lam_2:20-22), and the Temple or Zion, as the place of His habitation, is the prominent object, while the city appears only as the locality or scene of 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. Lam_2:1-10, a description of the judgment which the Lord had inflicted; 2. Lam_2:12-22 lamentations over this judgment. The similarity of the general structure of Song of Solomon 1, 2, their division into two almost equal parts, the first chiefly descriptive, the second more strictly composed of lamentations, is an evidence that they were written by one author, and help to compose one complete and symmetrical poem.—W. H. H.]
PART I
Lam_2:1-10
à
Lam_2:1. How doth the Lord cover with a cloud, in His anger,
The daughter of Zion!
He, from Heaven, hath cast down to the ground
The glory of Israel,
He remembered not His footstool.
In the day of His anger.
á
Lam_2:2. The Lord swallowed up and spared not
All the habitations of Jacob:
He demolished in His wrath
The strongholds of the daughter of Judah:
He cast down to the ground—He polluted
The kingdom and its princes.
â
Lam_2:3. He broke in hot anger
Every horn of Israel.
He turned back His right hand
Before the enemy.
And He set Jacob on fire—
As a flame of fire devoureth round about.
ã
Lam_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.
ä
Lam_2:5. The Lord became as an enemy:
He swallowed up Israel;
He swallowed up all her palaces;
He destroyed all His strongholds:
And increased in the daughter of Judah
Mourning and lamentation.
å
Lam_2:6. And He laid waste as a garden His tabernacle:
He abolished His appointed solemnities:
Jehovah caused to be forgotten in Zion
Appointed solemnities and Sabbath days:
And rejected in His furious anger
King and Priest.
æ
Lam_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.
ç
Lam_2:8. Jehovah purposed
To destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion.
He stretched out a line:
He withdrew not His hand from devouring.
Then He caused rampart and wall to mourn;
They languished together.
è
Lam_2:9. Her gates have sunk into the ground:
He destroyed and broke her bars.
Her King and her Princes among the Gentiles—
There is no law!
Her Prophets also
Find no vision from Jehovah!
é
Lam_2:10. The elders of the daughter of Zion
Sit on the ground,—they are silent,—
They throw up dust upon their heads,
They put on sackcloth.
The virgins of Jerusalem
Bow their heads to the ground.
ANALYSIS
In this song, as in the preceding one, the alphabetical construction interferes with the succession of the several steps and parts of the great drama in their regular order; yet, on close examination, some regard to the arrangement of events, with reference to their nature and occurrence, is observable. There is given, first of all, a comprehensive survey of the whole work of destruction,Lam_2:1-2. Then follows a brief recital of the events of the war, from its beginning to the capture of the city,Lam_2:3-4. Then is described the complete destruction of the Temple, the houses and the walls, by Nebuzaradan, four weeks after the capture of the city (see Jer_52:13-14), Lam_2:5-9a. 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. FromLam_2:9b we learn the fate of the King, Princes and Prophets; inLam_2:10we see the elders and the virgins lamenting; inLam_2:11the Poet describes his own sufferings, etc. [Naegelsbach does not recognize the very obvious division of this chapter into two parts. Gerlach makes three sections,Lam_2:1-22.—The first part naturally divides itself into two equal sections:Lam_2:1-5contain a general description of the punishment of Zion;Lam_2:6-10relate 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
àéá
, that may mean hated, despised, or an enemy. In [illegible] initials of the first four words of i. we have
àéáä
, enmity.—W. H. H.]
2. Lam_2:1-2
1How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not 2his footstool in the day of his anger! The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied; he hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah: he hath brought them down to the ground: he hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam_2:1.—
éָòִéá
. From the verbal stem,
òåּá
, from which is
òָá
, a cloud, only this single form occurs, and this is
ἅð
.
ëåã
. [
áְּàַôּåֹ
. Gerlach: “not with wrath (Ewald), but in His wrath, as similar expressions at the close of this ver. and in Lam_2:2; Lam_2:6; Lam_2:21-22, show.”—
àֲãֹðָé
. See Intr. Aäd. Rem. p. 32.]—
äִùׁìִéêְ
—Only used in Hiph. and Hoph.; frequent in Jer_7:15; Jer_7:29; Jer_9:18; Jer_41:9, etc.—
àֶøֶõ
. Accusative of place, in answer to the question, Whither?1Sa_25:23; 1Ki_1:31; Isa_49:23; Amo_9:9; Oba_1:3; Psa_147:15; my Gr., § 70, b. Jeremiah uses
àֶøֶõ
as accusative after verbs of going and coming very frequently, Jer_37:12; Jer_40:12; Jer_42:14; Jer_43:7, etc.—
úִּôְàָøָä ּúִּôְàֶøֶú
, a corresponding word, is very frequent, with Jer_48:17; Jer_13:11; Jer_13:18; Jer_33:9.—
æָëַø
, in same sense, Jer_31:20; Jer_15:15.
îֲãåֹí
, not found in Jer.—Jeremiah never says
éåֹí àַó
. The only place in which he connects
àַó
with the idea of a particular time, he says
áְּòֵú àַôְּê
, Jer_18:23. The expression is found in Lam. only here and Lam_2:21-22.
Lam_2:2.—
áִּìַּò
. Jeremiah uses only Kal, and that only once, Jer_51:34. Piel in this chapter five times, Lam_2:2; Lam_2:5, bis, 8, 16, nowhere else in Lam.—[
àֲãֹðָé
. See Intr. Add. Rem. p. 32]—
ìֹà çָîַì
. [K’ri,
åְìֹà
. “The asyndeton is much used in this species of verse at the half pause.” Blayney.] Jeremiah uses the word
çָîַì
, Jer_13:14; Jer_15:5; Jer_21:7; Jer_1:14; Jer_51:3. But to express the thought, which
ìֹà çָîַì
here represents, Jeremiah uses
åְìֹà ðִçַí
, Jer_20:16. [With all deference, the thought in Jer_20:16 is only analogous to the thought here, which is exactly expressed in the passages first cited. This is not to be overlooked In considering the peculiarities of Jeremiah’s style and language.—W. H. H.]—
ðְàåֹú éַ
ֽòֲ÷ֹá
occurs only here. [Blayney translates
ðְàåֹú
pleasant places, following the Sept.,
ðÜíôá ôὰ ὡñáῖá
, and the Latin, omnia speciosa. Douay: all that was beautiful in Jacob. Though
ðָàָä
is used in this sense in the Piel, there is no clear case where the noun has this sense; it designates either dwellings, Psa_74:20; Psa_83:13, or pasture-grounds regarded as the dwellings of shepherds and their flocks, Amo_1:2; Jer_9:9; Jer_25:37; Psa_23:2; Psa_65:13. Fuerst translates it here unprotected, open cities, opposite of walled and fortified places.—W. H. H.]—
äָøַí
Jeremiah uses frequently, Jer_1:10; Jer_24:6; Jer_31:28, etc.—He uses
òֶáְøָä
only twice, Jer_7:29; Jer_48:30.—
îִáְöְøֵé áֵúÎéְäåּãָä
. See Jer_1:8; Jer_5:17.—
çִìֵּì
, Piel, occurs in Jer_16:18; Jer_31:5; Jer_34:16; comp. Isa_43:28.—
îַîְìָëָä åְùָׂøֶ
ֽéäָ
. Sept. has
âáóéëÝá áὐôῆò
. They must have read
îַìְëָּäּ
as in Lam_2:9. The Syriac and Arabic read so also. Yet the authority of the Septuagint is much too precarious to change the reading of the text, which is also found in the Vulg. and Chal. Besides, it is much easier to explain how
îַìְëָּäּ
, at the time in sight at Lam_2:9, could originate from
ñַôְìָëָä
, than it would be to account for the reverse.
îַîְìָëָä
in connection with
ùְׂøֶéäָ
(the suffix of which refers to the former) and with reference to
ðָàåֹú
and
ñִáְöָøִéí
, is without doubt to be taken in the sense of royalty=kingship, regia potestas. Jeremiah uses the word in this sense, Jer_27:1; Jer_28:1. [Fuerst: dominion, reign, kingdom.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_2:1. How—see Lam_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; Lam_2:6; Lam_2:21-22) shows that this chapter is especially intended to exhibit the fury of the wrath of God against Jerusalem; as in the first chapter the repetition of the formula, indicating the absence of help and comfort, corresponds to the description of the extreme distress described in that chapter.”] The expression daughter of Zion occurs Lam_1:6, and Jer_4:31; Jer_6:2; Jer_6:23.—And cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel. To understand this it is necessary to determine first of all to whom the words from heaven refer. At the first glance they seem to refer to the object of the verb cast down. In that case the beauty of Israel would be in Heaven and from Heaven hurled down to the earth. But in what sense was the beauty of Israel in Heaven? To answer this, we must first know what is meant by the beauty or glory of Israel. The word in the original
úִּôְàֶøֶú
, by itself, could indicate the Temple which the Israelites called
áֵּéú úִּôְàַøְúֵּðåּ
[lit., house of our glory; E. V., our beautiful house], Isa_54:10; comp. Isa_60:7; Isa_63:15; or, the ark of the covenant, in reference to which the daughter-in-law of Eli gave to her child the name of Ichabod, which is thus interpreted (1Sa_4:21-22), “And she named the child Ichabod, [Marg.: where is the glory? or, there is no glory], saying, The glory is departed from Israel (because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father-in-law and her husband): and she said, The glory is departed from Israel; for the ark of God is taken.” See Psa_78:61. The word
úִּôְàֶøֶú
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
ùָׁîַéִí
is never used in this figurative sense in the Old Testament. The places which are cited as proving such a use of the word (Gen_11:4; Job_20:6; Isa_14:12; Dan_4:8; 2Ch_28:9; comp. Gen_4:10) are entirely irrelevant. In the New Testament only Mat_11:23; Luk_10:15 (“and thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto Heaven,” etc.) afford possible analogies for such a figurative use of this phrase. Therefore I believe (with Dathe, Kalkar and others) that from Heaven is to be referred to the subject of the verb cast down:the Lord from Heaven casts down the glory of Israel to the ground. This also suits admirably the idea expressed in the verb in the first clause,
éָòִéá
= 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,
îִùָּׁîַéִí
. is often used in this sense. Jos_10:11; 2Sa_22:14; Gen_19:24; Exo_16:4, etc.—And remembered not His footstool in the day of His anger. The ark of the covenant is explicitly called the footstool of Jehovah in 1Ch_28:2, where David says, “I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God” [and for the footstool. “The conjunction and is exegetical, and the same with that is.” So says Joseph Mede in his article on Psa_132:7, “We will go into His tabernacle, we will worship at (towards,Mede) His footstool.”—W. H. H.]. The ark of the covenant may be so called, because He, who is enthroned upon the cherubim (2Sa_6:2; Psa_80:2; Psa_99:1) [see also 1Sa_4:4, which Mede translates sitteth upon the cherubims.—W. H. H.], has the cover of the ark of the covenant [the mercy-seat] at His feet, wherefore it is also said, that the Lord speaks
îֵòַì äַëַּôֹּøֶú
from above the mercy-seat,Exo_25:22; Num_7:89. Therefore, without doubt, the ark of the covenant is to be understood as the footstool, towards which worship is said to be directed in Psa_99:5; Psa_132:7. [Alexander: on Psa_99:5. “Exalt ye Jehovah our God, and prostrate yourselves to His footstool.—Bow down. (or prostrate) yourselves, as an act of worship. Not at His footstool, as the were place of worship, but to it, as the object, this name being constantly given to the ark, 1Ch_28:2; Lam_2:1; Psa_132:7; Isa_60:13. Even in Isa_66:1, there is allusion to the ordinary usage of the terms. The ark is here represented as the object of worship, just as Zion is in Isa_45:14, both being put for the God who was present in them.” Calvin: “The design of the Prophet is to show to the people how much 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.
[
éָòִéá
. Naegelsbach translates it verdunkelt;Gerlach,umwölkt;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 Isa_14:12. But his beautiful star shines only in his fancy, and not in the text.
Lam_2:2. The Lord hath swallowed up.—The Poet has in mind the idea of a yawning abyss. See Exo_15:12; Num_16:30-32; Num_26:10; Deu_11:6; Psa_106:17. [All the English versions translate the verb swallowed up, except Henderson (destroyed) and the Douay (The Lord hath cast down headlong, from Vulgate, precipitavit). Yet it seems manifest, from the use of the same word in Lam_2:5; Lam_2:8; Lam_2:16 (see also Hab_1:13; Isa_25:7-8; Isa_49:19; 2Sa_20:19), that the word is used merely to signify utter destruction, without intending to suggest, even in a figurative sense, the exact method of destruction, as by such “a yawning abyss” as is referred to in passages cited by Naegelsbach. Gerlach has destroyed, vertilgt,Calvin also, perdidit.—W. H. H.]—All the habitations of Jacob. The word rendered habitations includes the ideas of dwellings and pasture-grounds. It indicates the places where the Nomadic spread his tent and allowed his flock to graze. Hence the frequent phrase
ðְàåֹú îִãְáָּø
[lit. dwellings of pasture-land], Psa_65:13; Jer_9:9; Jer_23:10; Joe_1:19-20; Joe_2:22. And hath not pitied. See Lam_2:17; Lam_2:21; Lam_3:43. And spared not. [So the Sept. and Vulg. E. V. pitied, is most in accordance with the use of the word: yet the idea of sparing, in the exercise of mercy, is suggested by the order of the words in the original, The Lord swallowed up and spared not all the habitations of Jacob. So Calvin, Broughton, Gerlach.—W. H. H.]—He hath thrown 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 Lam_1:15; Lam_2:5. The expression is very suitable, since only Judah still had any strongholds. See Jer_34:7.—He hath brought them down to the ground: He hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof.He cast down to the ground, He polluted the kingdom and its princes. The expression
äִâִéòַ ìָàָøֶõ
, to bring down to the ground, is used very explicitly of fortified places in Isa_25:12; Isa_26:5, comp. Eze_13:14. Yet to refer it here to what precedes, results in a troublesome asyndeton. Then, too, the structure of the verse would be irregular, for the second idea and clause of the verse would have three lines or members, and the third only one. Finally, there is an idea in bringing down to the ground [or made to touch the ground; margin, E. V.], akin to that of pollution, which immediately follows. For majesty is polluted by being brought into contact with common dust. Compare Psa_89:40,
çִìַּìְúָּ ìָàָøֶõ ðִæְøåֹ
, “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
ðָâַò
followed by
ìְ
, to touch, to come in contact with. 3. The natural division of the verse. 4. The excellent sense. This construction is adopted by Rosenmueller, Ewald, Neumann, Blayney and Noyes. The only objections to it are 1, the application of the phrase brought down to the ground, in Isaiah, to the razing of fortified places; and 2, which is a stronger objection, the Masoretic punctuation.—W. H. H.]
Lam_2:3-4
3He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming 4fire which devoureth round about. He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye it the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam_2:3.—
âָּãַò
. Only the Niph. is found in Jer_48:25; Jer_50:23.—
çָֽøִé
-
àַó
, not in Jeremiah.—
ìֶäָáָä
, Jer_48:45.—
àָֽëְìָä ñָáִéá
, see Jer_21:14; Jer_46:14; Jer_50:32. Jeremiah always employs as the object of
àָëַì
in this sense,
ñְáִéáִéí
or
ñְáִéáåֹú
.
Lam_2:4.—
ãָּøַêְ ÷ֶùֶׁú
, Jer_9:2; Jer_46:9; Jer_1:14; Jer_1:19; Jer_51:3.—There is no sufficient reason for questioning the pointing of
ðִöָּá
as Part. Niph. It is in apposition with
ãָּøַêְ
, [
ðִöָּá
is used of God’s coming in judgment in Isa_3:13; Psa_82:1. Its close connection by
åְ
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.
ðִöָּá
, only the Hiph., Jer_5:26; Jer_31:21, and Hithp., Jer_46:4; Jer_46:14.—The verb
äָøַâ
(see Lam_2:20-21; Lam_3:43), is scarcely current with Jeremiah. He uses only the Part. (Jer_31:21) and Inf. Kal. (Jer_15:3). [Lowth, Prelim. Dissert, on Isaiah, and Blayney supply after this verb
ëָì
-
ðַòַø
, every youth, from the Chaldee Paraphrase, to supply an apparent defect in metre.—W. H. H.]—The expression
àֹäֶì áַּú ö֯
occurs only here.—[The recurrence in Jeremiah of the figures of bending the bow and of pouring out fury as liquid fire (see Jer_4:4; Jer_7:20; Jer_21:12; Jer_42:18; Jer_44:6) may be regarded as evidences of authorship.—W. H. H.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_2:3-4. When it is here said that the Lord had broken the horn of Israel, then that He had deprived him of his right hand, then that He had kindled a fire in Jacob, and as an enemy had assaulted him, it is evident that a climax is intended. There is described first the deprivation of the power of resistance, then the deprivation of help, then the progress to positive hostility. Thenius sees in Lam_2:3-4 a full statement of all the incidents of the war, from the capture of the frontier fortresses to the taking of the city by storm. He understands, therefore, by the horn of Israel, “those places of defence which were prominent, like horns, consequently frontier fortresses;” hath drawn back his right hand, etc. describes the retreat of the Jewish armies to the capital; he burned against Jacob, etc., the effusion of the hostile troops over the land of which they were to become masters; he hath bent his bow, etc., the institution of siege; he stood with his right hand, etc., and slew, etc., the assault and storming of the city; he poured out his fury like fire, the capture of the city. Some of this hits the true sense, but not all. That horn should indicate the frontier fortresses, is artificial. It is to be considered, too, that the phrase is
ëֹì ÷ֶøֶï
, 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.
Lam_2:3. He hath cut off—He broke—in his fierce anger—in hot anger. See Exo_11:8; Deu_29:23; Isa_7:4; 1Sa_20:34; 2Ch_25:10. [The pronoun his supplied in E. V. is unnecessary, and weakens the sense. There is a rhetorical climax in the words—anger,
àַó
, Lam_2:1; wrath,
òֶáְøָä
, Lam_2:2; and heat of anger, or hot, fierce, furious anger,
çֳåִéÎàַó
, Lam_2:3.—W. H. H.]—All the horn of Israel—Every horn of Israel. See Jer_48:25; Ps. 75:11. According to constant usage, the horn is a symbol of power; see Psa_18:3; Psa_75:5-6, etc. [Calvin: “We know that by horn is meant strength as well as excellency or dignity; and I am disposed to include both here, though the word breaking seems rather to refer to strength or power.” Noyes: “every horn, i.e., all her means of defence.”]—He hath drawn back—He bent back—his right hand from before the enemy. Does the pronominal suffix his, in
éְîִéðåֹ
, 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
éָîִéï
= right hand, in a figurative sense. The word occurs in his book only once, Jer_22:24, and then in its literal sense. The only places that can be adduced as parallel to this place are, on the one side, Psa_74:11 (with reference, perhaps, to the expression
ðְèåּéָä æְøåֹòַ
—a stretched-out arm,Exo_6:6, and elsewhere), and on the other side, Psa_44:11; Psa_89:43-44; comp. Isa_41:13. Whilst the first named passage distinctly expresses the thought that Jehovah draws back His hand, and that His right hand, the other passages declare that the Lord let the people or the edge of the sword fall back from before their enemy. It seems to me that in our passage the word
àָçåֹø
, back, backward, standing in connection with
ñִôְּðֵé àåֹéֵá
, before the enemy, decides for the latter meaning. For in Psa_74:11 it is merely
úָùִׁéá éָֽãְêָ
, thou withdrawest thy hand. Here the
àָçåֹø
, backward, must change the sense. Drawing back the hand is merely the opposite of stretching it out (
æְøåֹòַ ðְèåּéָä
) and an act of volition consistent with the possession of strength. But falling back before the enemy is a symptom of weakness, which could not be asserted of the hand of Jehovah. As it is said elsewhere that Jehovah strengthens the right hand (Isa_41:13), or elevates it (Psa_89:43), so it can be said that He lets it fall back (as if it had become weak), and this falling back of the right hand is the same, as is elsewhere explained, as a falling back of the person generally (Psa_44:11), or of the sword (held by the right hand, Psa_89:44). [Owen (in a note on Calvin): “Gataker, Henry, Blayney, and Henderson, consider the right hand as that of 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 Psa_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 Lam_2:1, How hath the Lord done all this, and the subsequent use of His with reference to God (Lam_2:1, His anger, twice, His footstool; Lam_2:2, His wrath;Lam_2:4, His bow, His right hand, His fury, etc.), it certainly seems arbitrary and violent in this instance to refer it to another subject. 3. It is awkward, to say the least, to make his right hand in Lam_2:3 mean one thing, and in Lam_2:4 another. 4. Throughout this whole passage, Lam_2:1-10, the people of Israel are represented as passive objects of Divine wrath, and no allusion is made to the slightest activity on their part in resisting the instruments of wrath, as would be done here if his refers to Israel. 5. This makes excellent sense, and preserves the continuity of the thought, verging as usual towards a climax. God breaks off the horn of Israel, that they can no longer oppose their enemies; He bends back His own right hand, and thus withdraws His own opposition to those enemies; and while Israel lies thus helpless in themselves and deprived of 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].
áָּòַø
with
áְּ
of the object is so often used in the signification of setting on fire, then of consuming by fire (Num_11:1; Num_11:3; Isa_30:33; Isa_42:25; Isa_43:2; Jer_44:6; Job_1:16; Psa_106:18), that we may take it here unhesitatingly in the same sense. This, indeed, is the only admissible sense. For should we take in, Jacob,
áֲּéֽòֲֹ÷á
, in a local sense, we must still understand
éִáְòֵø
of the kindling of the fire, in which sense only is the Piel used (comp. Exo_35:3; Jer_7:18; Eze_21:4). Then, too, we see the force of the particle of comparison,
ëְàֵùׁ
, like a flame. Evidently the meaning is that the Lord had become to Jacob as a flaming fire. He had become so by kindling the consuming fire of war in the land. See Deu_32:22.
Lam_2:4. He hath bent His bow like an enemy. The Lord attacks Israel with all kinds of weapons: and so with the bow. Comp. Psa_7:13; Deu_32:23. [Calvin: “Stating a part for the whole, he includes in the bow every other weapon.” Kitto: “The Hebraism for bow is like that for bread. As the latter includes all food, so does the former include all weapons.” (Daily Bib. lll., Vol. 3, p. 295.)—He stood with His right hand as an adversary. He stood at his right hand as an adversary. We cannot take his right hand as the subject of the verb (
ðִöָּá
)—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
ðִöָּá
the meaning of taking aim at something. [So Henderson:He hath steadied His right hand like an adversary. “The point of the comparison here is obviously that of the care taken by the archer to obtain a steady aim.”] Ewald appeals to Psa_11:3, but the phraseology in that place is entirely different. I think that passages like Psa_109:6; Zec_3:1 illustrate this. In those places the enemy is represented as standing at the right hand. As it is said elsewhere that the friend and helper stands at the right hand, in order to support and strengthen the right hand (Psa_16:8; Psa_73:23; Psa_109:31; Psa_110:5; Psa_121:5; Isa_41:13), so it is also said that the enemy places himself at the right hand, in order, by hemming it in and weakening it, to overcome its resistance. That
éְîִéðåֹ
, his right hand, has to be taken as an accusative of place, is no objection (see my Gr., § 70, c;Exo_33:8), though elsewhere a preposition is used (see the places above referred to, Psa_109:6; Zec_3:1 and Psa_45:10). [The ingenious reference of his right hand to Israel is peculiar to our author: though Chaldæus, as quoted by Rosenmueller, adopts a similar construction, but with reference to the enemies of Israel:—“He has placed Himself at the right hand of Nebuchadnezzar, in order to assist him.” Besides the absence of the preposition which this interpretation would seem to require, a very strong objection to it is the sudden change of person. For the principal reasons for supposing the right hand in Lam_2:3 refers to God, because God is the subject of the preceding clause, and no other person is specified, we believe the right hand in Lam_2:4 also refers to God; if his bow means 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 Lam_1:7; Lam_1:10-11) are evidently those in whom the eyes of parents take the greatest delight, the virgins and the young men,Lam_1:18. [Calvin:He slew all the chosen men. It is better to take the verb
äָøַâ
, to kill, slay, metaphorically, as in Psa_78:47, for destroy (Henderson).—W. H. H.]—In the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion. If the daughter of Zion is the body of the inhabitants of Zion, then the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion is the dwelling-place of those inhabitants, i.e., the city. [These words are connected with what follows, not with the preceding clause: In the tabernacle of the daughter of Sion poured He out like fire His fury. So Blayney, Gerlach, Naegelsbach. Calvin prefers it. The Masoretic punctuation requires it.—W. H. M.]—He poured out His fury like fire. The figurative idea of the outpouring of wrath, conceived of as liquid fire, is found elsewhere in Lam_4:11; Hos. v: 10: Jer_6:11; Jer_10:25; Jer_42:18; comp. Jer_14:16. That the Poet would indicate the capture and destruction of the city, is clear.
Lam_2:5
5The Lord was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces; he hath destroyed his strongholds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam_2:5.—
àַøְîåֹï
, in Lam. only here and Lam_2:7. Often in Jer_6:5; Jer_9:20, etc.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
According to Jer_52:13-14 (see also 6, 12), four weeks after the capture, Nebuzaradan had burned ‘the house of Jehovah, the house of the king, all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house,’ and destroyed the walls. To these facts Lam_2:5-9 a seem to refer, though they relate only to the destruction of the palaces, the holy places and the walls. [The particular description of destruction of holy places begins at Lam_2:6.—W. H. H.]
Lam_2:5. The Lord was as an enemy.The Lord became as an enemy. This is specified, first of all, as the cause of these calamities. As an enemy, see Lam_2:4, and
ëְּàַìְîָðָä
as a widow, Lam_1:1.—He hath swallowed up (see Lam_2:2) Israel, He bath swallowed up all her palaces; He bath destroyed his strongholds.Israel, on the one part, and the palace and strongholds, on the other, are to each other as the people and the city. Palaces here, as remarked, seem to correspond to “the king’s house” and “all the houses of the great men,” or “every great house,”
ëָּìÎáֵּéú äַâָãåֹì
in Jer_52:13. Strongholds, see Lam_2:2.—He hath destroyed his strongholds, is a quotation from Jer_48:18. Commentators differ with respect to the suffixes in
àַøְîְðåֹúֶéäָ
, her palaces, and
îִáְöָøָéå
, his strongholds. Some think the feminine suffix her refers to the daughter of Zion, Lam_2:4, the masculine suffix his to Israel. Others think that Israel itself may be conceived of, at one time as the name of the country, at another as the name of the city. [This is the opinion of Gerlach, who refers to a very similar instance in Hos_8:14, where the feminine suffix is attached to the same word as here,
àַøְîְðåֹúֶéäָ
, her palaces, and where, as here the masculine would be expected.—W. H. H.] J. D. Michaelis would read
àַøְîְðåֹú éָäּ
, palaces ofJehovah.Thenius conjectures that
-
ֶéäָ
, her, has been changed into
Îָéå
, 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
îִáְöָøָֽéִêְ
, thy strongholds (yet the Sept. has
ôὰ ὀ÷ïñþìáôá áὐôïῦ
), or the Poet has chosen the suffix that best preserved the similarity of sound with the original text. He could do this in virtue of the greater freedom which prevails in the Hebrew with respect to denoting the gender. See my Gr., § 60, 4. As in Eze_23:36-49, where Aholah and Aholibah are spoken of, the suffixes are constantly changed (see especially 2:46); so here also possibly, the suffixes are changed even after a masculine or feminine idea floated before the mind of the Poet. [The mere recurrence of two not very remarkable words in succession, can hardly be regarded as a quotation. But unfortunately there is in the present instance a dissimilarly which is very prejudicial to the idea of a quotation. Here we read
ùִׁçֵú îִáְöָøָéå
; in Jer_48:18 it is
ùׁçֵú îִáְöָøָֽéִêְ
, and our author is obliged to suppose a possible scribal error, or to invent an auricular theory of quotation. It seems necessary here to adopt the opinion of those who, according to Rosenmueller, refer the masculine suffix to God and the feminine to the daughter of Zion. He swallowed up all her palaces, He destroyed His own strongholds. This is not to be discarded as a mere conjecture where every other mode of interpretation is purely conjectural. It is recommended by the arguments adduced for the explanation of his in Lam_2:3. It avoids the difficulty of supposing that pronouns of different genders refer to the same person. The her refers to the ideal person Israel, the daughter of Jerusalem. Her palaces are the habitations of the people. His own strongholds are the defences of Zion which is His habitation. Grammar and Rhetoric both commend this explanation.—W. H. H.]—And hath increased or multiplied in the daughter of Judah, see Lam_1:15, mourning and lamentation. The last words in the original are a beautiful paronomasia, borrowed from Isa_29:2,
úַּֽàֲðִéָä åַֽàֲðִéָä
. [Henderson: “Sorrow and sadness.” Vitringa:Mœror ac mæstitia.Gerlach:Betrübniss und Trobsal.Naegelsbach:Æchzen und Krächzen], See
úֹּäåּ åָáֹäåּ
Gen_1:2;
ùׁåֹàָä åּîְùֹׁàָä
, Job_30:10;
ùְׁîַîָä åּîְùַׁîָּä
, Eze_35:3.
Lam_2:6-7
6And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised, in the indignation of his 7anger, the king and the priest. The Lord has cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the Lord, as in the day of a solemn feast.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam_2:6.—The verb
çָîַí
is found in Jer_22:3; Jer_13:22.—
ùׂêְ
for
ñֹêְ
, see Crit. note below.—The definite article in
ëַּâַê
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.]—
îåֹòֵã
, the first time is used of festival place (see Psa_74:8; comp. 1Sa_20:35), and then of the festival itself (see Lam_1:4). [See Crit. note below.]—
ùִׁëַç
. This Piel form is found only here. It must be taken in the accusative sense.—
ùַׁáָּú
occurs in Jeremiah only in Jer_17:21-27, where the profanation of the Sabbath is referred to.—
ðָàַõ
, in Lamentations only here; in Jer_14:21; Jer_23:17; Jer_33:24.—
æַòַí
, in Lamentations only here; in Jer_10:10; Jer_15:17; Jer_50:25.
Lam_2:7.
æָòַç
, three times in Lam_2:7; Lam_3:17; Lam_3:31, never in Jeremiah.—
àֲãֹðִé
, see Lam_1:14 [Introd. Add. Rem. p. 32].—
ðִàֵø
. This verb is found only here and in Psa_89:40. [Blayney. renders it as Niph., His sanctuary is accursed, but conjectures from Sept.,
ἀðåôßíáîåí
, the true reading may be
à
,
ðִòֵø
substituted for
ò
, He hath shaken off His Sanctuary. As the meaning could only be conjectured from the ancient versions (see Alexander, Psa_89:40), it is not improbable that the Sept. gave it the sense of
ðָòַø
. So Bro
