Zion’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], Lam_4:1-6; Lam_4:7-11; Lam_4:12-16; Lam_4:17-20; and a conclusion, Lam_4:21-22
PART I. Lam_4:1-11
Sect. I. Lam_4:1-6
à
Lam_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.
á
Lam_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!
â
Lam_4:3. Even jackals drew out the breasts,
They suckled their whelps.
The daughter of my people became cruel,
Like ostriches in the wilderness.
ã
Lam_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.
ä
Lam_4:5. They that fed on dainties
Perished on the streets:
They that were borne on scarlet
Embraced heaps-of-dirt.
å
Lam_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. Lam_4:7-11
æ
Lam_4:7. Her princes were purer than snow,
Whiter than milk,
They were more ruddy in body than corals;
Their form—a sapphire.
ç
Lam_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.
è
Lam_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.
é
Lam_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.
ë
Lam_4:11. Jehovah fulfilled His fury;
He poured out His fierce wrath.
And He kindled a fire in Zion,
And it consumed her foundations.
ANALYSIS
[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, Lam_4:1-11, correspond with each other, both in matter and form. In the first part, Lam_4:1-6, is described the sad fate of the sons of Zion, noble scions of the noblest lineage (Jer_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, Lam_4:1-2. Then is described the harrowing grief, caused by the sufferings of little children, which could not possibly be relieved, Lam_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, Lam_4:6.
In the second part, Lam_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, Lam_4:7-9; a description which evidently constitutes a parallel to that contained inLam_4:1-2. So, also, parallel to what was said of the children inLam_4:3-5, is what we read on the same subject inLam_4:10; only what is here said inLam_4:10, constitutes a climax to what was related inLam_4:3-5. The second part, like the first, ends with a general remark; Zion has suffered the full measure of Divine wrath, Lam_4:11.
Lam_4:1-2
1How 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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_4:1.
àֵéëָä
, see Lam_1:1.—
éåּòַí
, Hophal only here; elsewhere only Kal occurs, and that only twice, Eze_28:3; Eze_31:8. If the signification of
òָîַí
, demanded by the context in Eze_28:3, is latere,—and in Eze_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
òִí òַîָּä òַí
. [Henderson; “
òָîַí
to congregate, Arabic, texit, obstruxit, as clouds, when collected, do the heavens; hence to grow, or make dark, obscure the lustre of anything. LXX
ἐìáõñþèç
.”]—
éִùְׁðֶà
. With respect to its Aramaic form, see Lam_3:12; 2Ki_25:29; Ecc_8:11. [Blayney: “Twenty-five MSS. and one edition read
éùðä
.”] The word has the signification of alium, diversum esse.—mutari,—only in later Hebrew, Est_1:7; Est_3:8; Mal_3:6; and that in accordance with the Chaldaic, which often uses
ùָׁðָà
in this sense, Dan_3:27; Dan_5:9; Dan_6:18.—
ëֶּúֶí
, is not found in Jer.; it stands in parallelism with
æָäַá
in Job_31:24; Pro_25:12; it is used with
ôָּæ
, Son_5:11. [The Sept. have
ἀñãýñéïí
, not because they read
äëñó
, but because they were unwilling to repeat the word gold. Rosenmueller.]
Lam_4:2.
éִ÷ְøִéí
. In Jer. only in Jer_15:19.—
ñָìָà
only here. The expression seems to be taken from Job_28:16; Job_28:19, where we read of wisdom
ñָìָä
.
ìֹà úְñֻìֶּä áְּëֶúֶí
(
ñָìָà
) 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
éִ÷ְøִéí
, precious.—W. H. H.]—
ôָּæ
from
ôָּæַæ
, secernere, purgare, does not occur in Jer.; yet see Jer_10:9. The article generalizes the meaning.—Jer. never uses the Niphal
ðֶçְùַׁá
.—
ðֶáֶì
, Jer_13:12; Jer_48:12.—
çֶøֶùׂ
, Jer_19:1; Jer_32:14. The construction with
ìְ
, as Isa_29:17; Psa_106:31. Elsewhere, after
ðֶçְùַׁá
that with which the comparison is made is indicated by
òִí
,
ëְּ
, or the simple nominative.—
éåֹöֵø
, frequent in Jer_10:16; Jer_18:2-4; Jer_19:1; Jer_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
ý
îַ
ֽòֲùֵׂä é× é×
, occurs here only.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_4:1. How. That this song also begins with this exclamation (
àֵéëָä
) 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 Lam_4:2, houses of Zion for sons of Zion (
áָּúֵé
instead of
áְּðֵé
). 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 Lam_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, Lam_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 [
éåּòַí
, 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 Lam_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 Lam_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 (
àַáְðֵéÎ÷ֹãֶùׁ
), has an analogy in the stones of a crown (
àַáְðֵéÎðֵæֶø
, precious stones) in Zec_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
àַáְðֵéÎäַ÷ֹּãֶùׁ
), 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 (
éåּòַí
, 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 Lam_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 Lam_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 (
ëֶּúֶí
) 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
ëָúַí
, 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
èåֹá
, good, would be superfluous. It has been derived, again, from
ëָּúַí
in the supposed sense of being solid, dense, hence massive gold: so Blayney, the best massy gold. Others derive it from
äָùַׁí=ëָּúַí
, 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 Jer_2:22. According to Rosenmueller, Chaldeaus rendered it
æִéå
, 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 (
àַáְðֵé ÷ֹãֶùׁ
), is found only here. By itself it might properly denote the stones of the Temple walls, particularly since these are also called costly stones (
àֲáָðִéí éֳ÷øåֹú
), 1 Kings 5:31 (1Ki_5:17); Jer_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 (
éֳ÷øִéí
), and precious stones (
àֶáֶï éֳ÷øָä
), are often named, as here, in connection with gold, 2Sa_12:30; 1Ki_10:2; 1Ki_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 (Exo_28:9; Exo_28:17-20; Exo_39:6; Exo_39:10-13), but they were employed for ornamenting the Temple itself (2Ch_3:6; 1Ch_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.
Lam_4:2. The precious sons of Zion,—Zion’s sons, the noble ones (
äַ
ֽéְ÷ָøִéí
, comp.
éְ÷ִøåֹú
, honorable women, Psa_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 (Exo_19:6). The Princes are spoken of for the first time in the second part, Lam_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,
ôָæ
, is pure, solid gold. [This is still another Hebrew word for gold, indicating its quality. Broughton anglicizes it, Fesse ore, as he does
ëֶּúֶí
in Lam_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
àֵéëָä
, is forcible. It serves to connect this verse with Lam_4:1, and to continue and complete the sentence begun with the same word in Lam_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 Lam_4:1, are identical with the precious sons of Zion, in Lam_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, Jer_19:10. 11.” Gataker: “As bottles of sherd, or earthen stuff, so Jer_19:1; Jer_19:10; as things of no repute or worth, 2Co_4:7. See Jer_22:28.” Gerlach: “The point of comparison is the worthlessness of the material out of which they are made, see Isa_45:9.”]
Footnotes:
[Gerlach would narrow the meaning down to the little children referred to Lam_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, Gen_15:2; Gen_30:1; Psa_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.]
Lam_4:3-5
3Even 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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_4:3.—[
úַּðִּéï
(K’ri,
úַּðִּéí
). 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.]—
çָìַõ
, never used in Jeremiah, is used of pulling off the shoe, in Deu_25:9-10; Isa_20:2. The sense of drawing, seems to lie at the foundation of this root (see Hos_5:6). Whether a second root
çָìַõ
(from which comes
äָìåּõ
, one equipped, a warrior) may be affirmed, or whether the original identity of both may be established, we cannot now stop to inquire.—
ùַׁã
, mamma, Jeremiah never uses [because he never had occasion to speak of the female breasts or teats.—W. H. H.]—Of the verb
éָðַ÷
, Jeremiah uses only once the Participle
éåֹðֵ÷
, Jer_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
éָðַ÷
. What verb then would Jeremiah have been more likely to use in this place?—W. H. H.]—
âåּø
, young-one [whelp], is found once in Jeremiah, in the form
âåֹøֵé
, Jer_51:38, see Nah_2:13.—
áַּú
–
òַîִּé
. See Lam_2:11; Lam_3:48.—
ìְàַëְæָø
. The verb to be or become must be supplied. See Ewald, § 217 d, a.
àַëְæָø
(Jeremiah uses only
àַëְæָøִé
, Jer_6:23; Jer_30:14; Jer_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.—
ëַּéְ òֵðִéí
. The Masorites connect the two words and read
ëַּéְòֵðִéí
. It is true that
éָòֵï
occurs only here (elsewhere the ostrich is called
áַּúÎéַ
ֽòֲðָä
, the daughter of screeching, Mic_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,
òֹðִéí
, as the K’tib has it, gives no satisfactory sense. It must be translated, For criers (Heuler) in the wilderness (are they.) To supply
äֵîָּä
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
ëַּéְòֵðִéí
, 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,
ὡò óåéñῆíåò
” (Gerlach).—W. H. H.]
Lam_4:4.—
ãָּáַ÷ åâå×
. The same phrase is found in Job_29:10; Psa_137:6; comp. Jer_22:16 (Jer_22:15); Eze_3:26, where
àֵì
is used.—Jeremiah uses
çֵêְ
never [because he never had occasion to, not happening ever to speak of the palate, or roof of the mouth.—W. H. H.].
ãָּáַ÷
twice, Jer_13:11; Jer_42:16 :
éåֹðֵ÷
once, Jer_44:7 :
ìָùׁåֹï
frequently, Jer_5:15; Jer_9:2; Jer_9:4; Jer_9:7, etc.:
öָîָà
once for
öָּîֵà
, Jer_48:18.—
òåֹìָìִéí
. See Lam_1:5; Lam_2:19; Jer_6:11; Jer_9:20 (Jer_9:21).—
ôּøֵùׂ
, a scribal variety for
ôֹּøֵí
, as Mic_3:3; see Isa_58:7; Jer_16:7.
Lam_4:5.—
àָëַì
is frequently constructed with
áְּ
(Exo_12:43-45; Lev_2:11; Jdg_13:16), but nowhere except here with
ìְ
. Böttcher urges the
ìְ
, and translates admitted to dainties, or directed to dainties [
ìְ
having a local sense, as 2Sa_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
àָëַì
can mean to admit, to direct, or how
ìְ
can denote something around. If
ìְ
is to be explained as a Hebraism, then we must adopt a pregnant construction, and regard
ìְ
as dependent on an omitted verb of craving after, longing for. See Pro_23:3; Pro_23:6,
àַìÎúִּúְàָå ìְîַèְòַîּåֹúָéå
, comp. Jer_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
ìְ
, as a nota accusativi, Jer_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
ìְ
, instead of the accusative, as
àָëַì ìְ
, Lam_4:5.”—Gerlach takes the whole expression adverbially, nach Herzenslust assen, they ate according, to their heart’s desire.—W. H. H.]—
îַòֲãַðִéí
. See Gen_49:20; 1Sa_15:32; Pro_29:17.
îֵòֲãָðַé
, Jer_51:34, is composed of
îִï
and
òֲãָðִéí
(Psa_36:9 (8); 2Sa_1:24.—
ðָùַׁîּåּ
. See Jer_4:9; Eze_4:17, where the word is used as here of persons.—
àָîַï
is the technical word for the nurture of children: see
àֹîֵï
, Num_11:12; Isa_49:23; 2Ki_10:1; 2Ki_10:5; Est_2:7 :
àֹîֶðֶú
, Rth_4:16; 2Sa_4:4. The fundamental meaning seems to be to carry, support, raise up; see
àֹîְðָä
a column,
àָðåֹï
,
àָîָï
, the one who erects a building, the architect.
àֱîֻðִéí
are then gestati, see Isa_60:4. Jeremiah uses Niphal, Jer_15:18; Jer_42:5, and Hiphil, Jer_12:6; Jer_40:14, but only in an ethical sense.—
úּåֹìָò
does not occur in Jeremiah.—The word
àַùְׁôַּúּåֹú
occurs only here. The plural
àַùְׁôåֹú
in 1Sa_2:8; Psa_113:7; Neh_2:13; Neh_3:13-14; Neh_12:31. The signification is undoubtedly dirt (Koth). For its derivation, see Ewald, § 186, e; Olsh., § 211, a.—The verb
çָáַ÷
, Jeremiah uses in no form. Piel is to embrace.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_4:3. Lam_4:1-2, describe the misfortunes of Zion from a theocratic point of view; Lam_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 Lam_1:5; Lam_2:11-12; Lam_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,
úַּðִּéê
, here stands for
úַּðִּéí
= jackals (see Jer_9:10 (Jer_9:11); Jer_10:22; Jer_14:6, etc.), was an opinion of the Masorites, which many of the moderns have adopted from the Syriac. In fact,
éê
—is the Aramaic plural ending (see Olsh. § 111 b), which would not be surprising here.
úַּðִּéê
, as a singular (see Jer_51:34) is bellua maritima (see Gen_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. Exo_7:9-10; Deu_32:23; Psa_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. Rosenmüller) 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
úַּðִּéðִéí
instead of
úַּðִéê
, if sea-monsters were intended. 2. The fact that
âּåּø
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, Lam_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
âַí
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, quæ laxata veste mammam lactanti præbent (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 Lam_4:4-5, and especially in the climax presented in Lam_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).]
Lam_4:4. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth [cleaved] to the roof of his mouth for thirst. See Job_29:10; Psa_137:6, comp. Psa_22:16 (Psa_22:15); Eze_3:26.—Young children ask [asked] bread [see Lam_2:11-12], and no man breaketh it unto them [and there was no one to break to them].
Lam_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 Exo_16:20; Isa_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.]
Lam_4:6
6For 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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_4:6. The expression
äֲôåּëָä
is taken from Gen_19:25 (
åַéַּֽäֲôֹêְ àֶúÎäֶòָøִéí
, comp. Jer_20:16, and
ëְּîַäְôֵëַú
, Deu_29:22; Isa_13:19; Amo_4:11; Jer_50:40).—
çָìåּ
is derived, not from
çåּì
, but from
çָìָä
(so derived apparently by the Sept. and Syr.). The latter denotes to relax, to be powerless, Jdg_16:7; Isa_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 Jer_5:3. Jer. uses the Kal of
âָãַì
, Jer_5:27, and the Hiphil, Jer_48:26; Jer_48:42.—
òָåֹê
is frequent with him, Jer_2:22; Jer_3:13; Jer_13:22; etc.—
áַּúÎòַîִּé
, see Lam_2:11.—
çַèָּàú
often in Jer_16:10; Jer_17:13; etc.—
øֶâַò
also, Jer_4:20; Jer_18:7; Jer_18:9.—
ëְּîåÎøֶâַò
occurs only here; yet see
ëְּøֶâַò
, Num_16:21; Num_17:10; Psa_13:19.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_4:6. With this verse the Poet concludes the first part of his Song. This verse corresponds to Lam_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
òָåֹê
and
çַèָּàú
in the sense of the punishment of sin. This sense is not capable of proof. In all the cases appealed to for this purpose (Gen_4:13; 1Sa_28:10; 2Sa_16:12; Isa_5:18; Psa_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
çַèָּàú
, for which some would justify the sense of pœna peccati, from the passages Num_32:23; Isa_40:2; Zec_14:9. See Drechsler on Isa_5:18. In
åַéִּâְãַּì
= 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 (Sündenschuld) of Sodom. There is certainly in the vav before
éִâְãַּì
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 Psa_7:10; Psa_60:13; Psa_95:5; Pro_23:3; Gen_22:12; Jer_16:12; Jer_23:36; Jer_31:3; Isa_39:1; Hos_4:4; Hos_6:4; etc. See my Gr. § 110, 1. [The Vav coördinates 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
òָåֹּê
and
çַèָּàú
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 (Eze_16:46-47). Isaiah also called them the people of Gomorrah, and the king’s counsellors and judges, the princes of Sodom (Isa_1:9-10). This mode of speaking is then common in the Prophets, and the meaning is not unsuitable.” The Sept. translates both words
ἀíïìßá
; 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 Gen_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 (Heb_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 Jer_7:13; Jer_7:25; Jer_11:7; Jer_25:4; Eze_16:46-48; Isa_1:10; Mat_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
ëְּîåֹÎøֶâַò
=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 Sodomæ fuit instar subitæ apoplexiæ, eversio autem Hierosolymæ fuit instar lentæ tabis [the overthrow of Sodom was a kind of sudden apoplexy, but the overthrow of Jerusalem was a kind of slow consumption], says Förster. [Dr. Naegelsbach has not made his sense of this difficult clause very apparent. It seems hardly credible that
áָúּ
should mean thereby (dadurch). If the verb is derived from
çָìָä
, instead of
çåּì
, 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
çåּì
, then the translation of Thenius may be commended for its simplicity, and is supported by the dual form of
éָãָéִí
=hands, and no one in her wrung the hands. But, as Gerlach shows, the dual form is constantly used for the plural (see
ëָּìÎéָãַéí
, all hands, Isa_13:7), and the verb
çåּì
is used with
áְּ
of the object, of brandishing the sword against the cities of Ephraim (Hos_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.]
Lam_4:7-9
7Her 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 GRAMMATICAL
Lam_4:7.—
æַëּåּ
. The word occurs only in Job_15:15; Job_25:5; and in Hiph., Job_9:30.—
ðָæִéø
does not occur in Jeremiah. [Yet
ðִæְøֵêְ
, Jer_7:29, is a remarkable coincidence in the use of language, if
ðְæִéִøéִí
means crowned-ones, as Dr. Naegelsbach suggests.—W. H. H.]—
ùֶׁìֶâ
, Jer_18:14.—The verb
öָçַç
, splendidum esse, nitere, is found only here. The adjective
öַç
in Jer_4:11.—
çָìָá
in Jeremiah only in the phrase
àֶøֶõ æָáַú çָìָá å×
, Jer_11:5; Jer_32:22.—Kal
àָãַí
is found only here. The sense without doubt is to be red, reddish. The same meaning adheres to the derived conjugations, Pual (Exo_25:5; Exo_26:14; Exo_35
