Distress And Hope Of The Prisoners And Fugitives: [expressed In The Form Of A Prayer Or, E. V., A Pitiful Complaint Of Zion In Prayer Unto God.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:1. Remember, Jehovah, what has come upon us!
Look down and see our reproach.
Lam_5:2. Our inheritance has fallen to strangers,
Our houses to aliens.
Lam_5:3. We have become orphans, without father,
Our mothers—as widows.
Lam_5:4. Our water we have drunk for money,
Our wood comes for a price.
Lam_5:5. On our necks we have been pursued;
We have been weary,—there was no rest for us.
Lam_5:6. Towards Egypt have we stretched the hand,—
Towards Assyria,—to be satisfied with bread.
Lam_5:7. Our fathers sinned. They are no more;
We have borne their iniquities.
Lam_5:8. Servants have ruled over us:
There was none to deliver from their hand.
Lam_5:9. At the peril of our lives we get our bread,
Because of the sword of the desert.
Lam_5:10. Our skin has been parched as an oven,
Because of the ragings of hunger.
Lam_5:11. Women in Zion have been humbled,—
Virgins—in the cities of Judah.
Lam_5:12. Princes have been hung up by the hand:
The persons of Elders have not been honored.
Lam_5:13. Young men have carried mill-stones;
And boys have fallen under [burdens of] wood.
Lam_5:14. Elders have forsaken the gate,—
Young men—their music.
Lam_5:15. Ceased has the joy of our heart;
Our dance has been changed to mourning.
Lam_5:16. The crown has fallen from our head.
Woe unto us! for we have sinned.
Lam_5:17. For this our heart has become faint;
For these things our eyes have become dim.
Lam_5:18. As to Mount Zion, which has become desolate,
Lam_5:21. Turn us, Jehovah, unto Thee, and we shall turn;
Renew our days as of old;—
Lam_5:22. If Thou hast not utterly rejected us,
And art wroth against us exceedingly!
ANALYSIS
The subject is chiefly composed of the particular incidents of those grievous days which followed the capture of Jerusalem. The Poet lets the people speak yet not as an ideal female person, but in the first person plural as a concrete multitude. The Song is divided into an introduction, Lam_5:1, two principal parts, Lam_5:2-16, and a conclusion, Lam_5:17-22. In the introduction, Lam_5:1, the Lord is entreated to regard the sorrows that had befallen Zion [the people]. In the following two principal parts, Lam_5:2-16, these sorrows are described in detail. The first part embracesLam_5:2-7. All their property, fixed and movable, is seized by the enemy, Lam_5:2; families are scattered, fathers have disappeared, mothers are as widows, Lam_5:3; the captives receive no subsistence, they must buy what they need, though as the product of their own land it is really their own property, Lam_5:4; on the march to Babylon, they are driven beyond their strength, and no rest is allowed them, Lam_5:5. Besides all this, the whole people do not even remain, together. Whilst one party is compelled to throw itself into the arms of the Egyptians, another party belongs to Assyria; both are in such straits as to rejoice if able only to prolong their lives, Lam_5:6. But this great misfortune is caused by the sins of the fathers, the consequences of which now their posterity have to bear, Lam_5:7. The second principal part embracesLam_5:8-16. Whilst those forced to Babylon groan under the rods of the rough servants, who are their drivers, Lam_5:8, those who wander to Egypt, must seek for subsistence amidst constant danger from the robbers of the desert, Lam_5:9 : both parties suffer the consuming pangs of hunger, Lam_5:10. To this is now added a recital, partly the recollection of what had already been endured, partly an exhibition of what they still experienced, of the sufferings from which no class of the population was exempted: women have been dishonored, Lam_5:11; noble princes hung up or outrageously ill-treated, Lam_5:12; young men compelled to carry heavy hand-mills, and boys loads of wood, Lam_5:13. Sitting in the gate—the delight and glory of old men, and playing on stringed instruments—the pleasure of young men, have come to an end, Lam_5:14. In general, among all classes, deep mourning has succeeded to pleasure and joy, Lam_5:15. The crown of glory has fallen from the head of Zion, and, verily, those who suffer this, are obliged to acknowledge, that it has happened, not merely because their fathers had sinned (Lam_5:7), but because they themselves have sinned, Lam_5:16. The conclusion contains a prayer, to whichLam_5:17-18are introductory. In these verses it is declared, that all the affliction of the Israelites culminates in the destruction of the Sanctuary. But this thought suggests the encouragement, which the Poet now presents in his prayer; although the external Sanctuary is destroyed, Thou Thyself, O Lord, remainest for ever, ver, 19. Wherefore shouldest Thou forget and forsake Thy people for ever?Lam_5:20. Lead us back to Thyself, that we may be again what we have been in former times, Lam_5:21. This will be done, for it is not to be supposed, that Thou canst have utterly rejected us, Lam_5:22. [Lam_5:1, introductory; Lam_5:2-10, descriptive of general suffering from oppression and want of necessaries of life; Lam_5:11-13, instances of individual suffering; Lam_5:14-18, effect on the feelings and sentiments of the people; Lam_5:19-22, the prayer.—W. H. H.]
Preliminary Note on Lamentations 5
This chapter is not acrostic. Yet it is evident from the agreement of the number of the verses with the number of the letters of the alphabet, that the chapter should be regarded as belonging to the four preceding ones as a member of the same family. The acrostic is wanting, because the contents are in prose. The Poet would make apparent, even in the external form, the decrescendo movement, which we perceive from the third chapter onward. Were there not 22 verses, this chapter might be regarded as an entirely disconnected supplement. But the number of verses is a vinculum, that in a way even externally observable, unites this prosaic chapter with the preceding poetical ones.
[Various reasons may be given for the absence of the acrostic in this chapter. 1. There may be something in the notion that the alphabetical structure was not allowed to embarrass freedom of thought and expression in prayer (Gerlach, Adam Clarke). 2. We may suppose the writer felt less need of the artificial restraint in controlling his feelings and restricting their expression. It is not true that this Song “is of less impassioned character” than the others, as Wordsworth says, but it is true, as he further says, that “the writer, being less agitated by emotions, and having tranquillized himself by the utterance of his sorrow, and by meditations on the attributes of God, did not need the help of that artificial appliance to support and control him.” Besides, new restraints are imposed upon the writer in this Song, which more than supply any assistance derived from the alphabetical curb in the preceding songs. The verses are reduced from three and two members each, to a single member, and this not only balanced by a cesura or pause as in the other songs, but composed of corresponding parallelisms of ideas and expressions. To have added, to the production of these distinct and emphatic parallelisms, the difficulties of the acrostic, could have served no useful or artistic purpose. 3. In the last fact referred to, the introduction of parallelisms of thought and sentiment, may be found the most satisfactory reason for the absence of the acrostic. As long as the parallelisms were merely rhythmical, as in the first four songs, the alphabetical index served a good purpose in rounding off and defining the successive verses. Now it is no longer needed. We find here then an argument in favor of the theory advanced, in Additional Remarks to the Introduction, p. 23, in reference to the relation of the Acrostic to rhythmical parallelisms.
Is this chapter poetry or prose? Dr. Naegelsbach says, “the acrostic is wanting because the contents are in prose.” He certainly cannot mean that the chapter is prose, because the acrostic is wanting; and yet unless he implies this, he has not even suggested a reason for this most extraordinary assertion. This chapter has poetical characteristics, that the preceding chapters do not possess; besides having all that they do possess, except the acrostic, which in itself is unpoetical. 1. It has that unfailing mark of Hebrew poetry, of which the preceding chapters are nearly destitute, parallelisms of thought, one half the verse exactly and beautifully corresponding in its sentiment and form of construction to the preceding half, and successive verses connected by underlying analogies, comparisons, or relations, such as parallelisms involve. 2. The language is so unmistakably rhythmical as to be almost metrical. The first line of each verse never consists of more than four words, nor of less than three, counting compound words as one. The second line never consists of more than three words (unless in two instances, where
ìàֹ
Lam_5:12, and
ëִּé
or
ðָà
Lam_5:16, may be joined to the word following them), and if it have two words only, those two are in that case invariably long words. In this song, if anywhere in Hebrew poetry, we can detect evidences of such metrical feet as the Hebrew language was capable of. 3. There is throughout the Song such assonance as cannot be accidental, and could only be allowed in poetry. The Song is full of rhymes. This may not justify us in calling it a “strictly rhymed Song” (as does Bellerman, Metr. d. Hebr., S. 220, quoted by Gerlach), but it is certainly a result of the evident regard to assonance in the choice of words. Thus in this Song that is composed of only 44 short lines,
åּ
occurs 55 times, and 44 times as final letter of words;
í
occurs 21 times as final letter of words: out of the 134 words the Song contains, 65, or only 2 less than one half, end in either
åּ
or
í
. 24, or more than half of the lines, end with
åּ
, 17 end with
âåּ
, 9 end with
î
. In 9 verses (1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17) both lines end with the same letter (or letters) and vowel point. 28 lines end with the same letter that terminates one (or both) of the lines of the verse immediately preceding or following. Other evidences of a studied assonance are apparent: such as
îָâåֹú
,
àָá
, as terminations of Lam_5:3;
òֵöֵéðåּ
,
îֵéîֵéðåּ
, first words in the lines of Lam_5:4;
îִëְּðֵé
as first word in second lines of verses 9, 10, making a parallelism in sound as well as in sense;
ùָׁáַú
,
ùָׁáָúåּ
, in near relation and parallelism, Lam_5:14-15, and possibly an equivalent for failure of rhyme in Lam_5:14;
ìִáֵּðåּ
, as last word in first lines of Lam_5:15; Lam_5:17; etc. So obvious is the prevailing paronomasia in this Song, that the remark has been made, that the Song appears like ‘the effort of a youth playing with words’ (quoted by Gerlach). To the slur contained in this remark, it may be replied, that no unskilled youth, even if capable of choosing his words so artfully, could have arranged them so as to give both harmony and sense, and thus produce a poem equal in fervor, force and beauty to this. But the fact that such an insult could be offered to this Song, proves that it is written in a style only adopted in poetry. 4. In spirit as well as in form, this chapter is poetry, and that of the highest order. There is nothing prosaic about it, not even in the recital of hard facts and detailed incidents. As the Song proceeds the lyre is tuned to higher chords than even inspired minstrels often reach, and Lam_5:14-19, are so exquisitely beautiful that we cannot imagine anything to excel them in all the Songs of Heaven and earth. I cannot repress the expression of these sentiments and be a silent instrument in giving to American readers, this strange opinion of an eminent man, that this chapter is a bit of prose writing, tacked on to a splendid poem, by the poor expedient of its containing twenty-two verses (though it is something new to write prose in verses). Were I more diffident of my own judgment, I might take refuge under the shadow of Dean Milman, who in culling from the Lamentations what he regards as specimens of “the deepest pathos of poetry,” gives us a metrical translation of nearly the whole of the 5th chapter (14 out of the 22 verses), while he selects only three verses from chap. 1, eight verses from chap, 2, three verses from chap, 4, and none from chap. 3. It is to be inferred that in his judgment, the fifth Song excels in its poetry the four Songs that precede it. I agree with him.
That the only connection of this chapter with the preceding four chapters is found in the corresponding number of its verses, without which it might be regarded as a supplement to those chapters, but not as an integral part of the Poem, is an opinion that will not sustain examination. 1. It is, as we have seen, lyrical in its structure, and thus assimilated to the preceding Song of Solomon 2. The Poem could not end with the fourth chapter. Such an ending were too painfully abrupt. Even as it is, the burden of Edom seems to be intruded at that place, and we only comprehend it, when we know that it was Jeremiah’s habit to represent the security of the church of God, by depicting the destruction of its enemies. But to end the Poem with that threat against Edom, would seem to be impossible. Something more is needed, and that something is just what we have in the prayer of Lam_5:3. The only way to account for the omission of the usual prayer (see 1, 2, 3) at the end of the 4th Song, is by the fact that its omission was to be more than supplied by the 5th Song. Here is the groove into which the fifth Song is dovetailed so securely, that we cannot break the connection, without marring the harmony and completeness of the whole poem. 4. The structure of this last Song, gives the last needed touch to the manifest unity of the whole poem. The preceding chapters may be regarded as composing a poem not unlike the modern ode, in which great liberties in the versification are allowed. But the Ode, complete in its main parts, is wound up at last with a Hymn of prayer to God, constructed according to the strictest rules of lyrical poetry, metrical and harmonious, and forming an apt conclusion because it recites all that has been before said, briefly and forcibly,—sums up, as it were, the whole case, and leaves it in the hands of God. Finally Dr. Naegelsbach’s beautiful fiction of a crescendo and a decrescendo movement, does not need the flattening out of the Poem into a piece of prose writing, attached to what precedes only by the number of its verses. It is enough that the decrescendo movement, in the music of the Poem, is arrested at the close, and the Poet’s most plaintive lyre pours forth a final strain of impassioned, yet melting and delicious harmony.—W. H. H.]
Footnotes:
[The opinion of Bertholf, that the Prophet “either had no more time to spend in the troublesome choice of initial words, or that he grew tired of this trifling process and deliberately relinquished it,” (quoted by Gerlach in his Intr. p. x.), is sufficiently refuted, not only by its own irreverence, but by what has been said in reference to the acrostic in Additional Remarks to Intr. pp. 23, 24.—W. H. H.]
[We cannot misunderstand our author, for besides speaking of this as a “prosaic chapter” and comparing it with the preceding “poetical chapters” (see also Intr. pp. 3, 4, 5), he puts his new translation into good German prose—while he has given us most beautiful metrical translations of the other four chapters.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:1
1Remember, O Lord, what is come upon us: consider and behold our reproach.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam_5:1.—
æְëֹø éé×
. See Isa_38:3; Mic_6:5; Job_4:7.—
äַáִּéèָ
. See Lam_1:11. [Blayney: “Forty-one MSS. and four Editions read with the Masora
äַáִéèָä
, with the
ä
paragogic.” Henderson: “The
ä
thus added to the Imperative, expresses the emotion of ardent desire on the part of the speaker.”]—
çֶøְôָúֵðåּ
. See Lam_3:30; Psa_74:22; Psa_89:51.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Lam_5:1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us,—Remember, Jehovah, what has befallen us,—consider and behold—look and see—our reproach.—[The word translated consider (see Lam_1:11), when followed by
øָàָä
, to see, means to direct attention to a thing in order to see it. Blayney and Noyes translate, Look down and see—which gives the sense, but the word does not express direction, but the intensity of looking.—W. H. H.] This first verse constitutes the introduction. It contains the prayer, that Jehovah would regard the affliction and reproach fallen on Zion [the people], some features of which the Poet recounts in what follows. The Poet presents himself before God, as it were, and all that follows is to be regarded as addressed to God.
Lam_5:2-10
2, 3Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. We are orphans 4and fatherless, our mothers are as widows. We have drunken our water for money; 5our wood is sold unto us. Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have 6no rest. We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be 7satisfied with bread. Our fathers have sinned, and are not: and we have borne 8their iniquities. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us9out of their hand. We gat our bread with the peril of our lives, because of the 10sword of the wilderness. Our skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible famine.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lam_5:2.—
ðַֽçֲìָä
, frequent in Jer_2:7; Jer_3:19; Jer_12:7-9, etc.—
ðֶäֶôַּêְ
, see Lam_1:20; Lam_4:6. Jeremiah uses in this sense
ðָñַá
, Jer_6:12. This word represents the transfer of property to another owner, in Isa_60:5 also.—
æָøִéí
Jeremiah uses frequently, Jer_6:25; Jer_3:13; Jer_5:19, etc.—
ðָëְøִéí
Jeremiah uses only once, in the fem.,
âֶּôֶï ðָëְøִéָä
, Jer_2:21.
Lam_5:3.—
éúָåֹí
, Jer_5:28; Jer_7:6, etc.; in Lamentations only here.—
àֵõ àָá
. See Isa_47:1; Jer_2:32; my Gr., § 106, 3. [
àֵéï
. = ohne, without, Naegels. Gr.] The K’ri,
åְàֵéï
is unnecessary.
Lam_5:4.—
îֵéîֵéðåּ
, Jer_6:7; Jer_46:7; Jer_50:38.—
ëֶñֶó
, Jer_6:30, etc.—
òֵöִéí
, Jer_5:14; Jer_7:18, etc.—
îְçִéø
, Jer_15:13.—
éָáֹàåּ
. Ewald translates, our wood is sold for silver. He also takes
áּåֹà
in the sense of the Latin vineo, venire. But I do not think that
áּåֹà
is ever used in this sense. At the most, only 1Ki_10:14 could be cited, where the word is used with reference to the revenues.
Lam_5:5.—
öַåָּàø
, see Lam_1:14.—
øָãַó
, Jer. 19:18; Lam_1:6 : in the sense of driving, chasing, the word is not elsewhere found in Jeremiah. [It is doubtful if that is its sense here.—W. H. H.]—
éָâַò
, Jer_45:3, which place is very closely allied in sense to our place here, Jer_51:58.—
äåּðַç
. The Hophal is found only here: Jeremiah uses only the Hiphil
äִðִּéçַ
, Jer_14:9; Jer_27:11; Jer_43:6.
Lam_5:6.—
îִöְøַéִí
and
àַùּׁåּø
are to be taken as Acc. localis, in answer to the question whither? See my Gr., § 70, b. [There is no necessity of supposing an ellipsis of the preposition
ìְ
, as Henderson; nor any grammatical reason for translating, O Egypt, O Assyria, as Blayney does, diverting the prayer from God to these heathen nations.—W. H. H.]—
ùָׂáַò
see Lam_3:30.
Lam_5:7.—
àֵéðָí
. Four times in this chapter, the Masorites would read
åְ
, where it is wanting in the word, Lam_5:3; Lam_5:5; Lam_5:7twice. But the author generally uses Vav sparingly. Only once is the second clause of the verse begun with
åְ
. In this verse, an error might arise from its use. If it were
åְàֵéðָí
, some would be led to understand their non-existence, as the consequence of their sinning. See Jer_10:20. But this cannot be the author’s meaning; for he immediately asserts that the generation now living has to bear the punishment. Their being no longer in existence, therefore, is the simple result of the course of nature.—
ñָáַì
Jeremiah never uses. It represents bearing the burden of sin, Isa_53:4; Isa_53:11; comp. Jer_46:4; Jer_46:7.—
òַåֹï
, see Lam_2:14.
Lam_5:8.—
îָùַׁì
, Jer_22:30; Jer_30:21, etc.—
ôָøַ÷
, see Gen_27:40; Psa_7:3; Psa_136:24; Jeremiah never uses the word, neither does it occur again in the Lamentations.
Lam_5:9.—.
áְּðַñְּùֵׁðåּ
(
áְּ
pretii, see my Gr., § 112, 5 a). See Lam_1:11; 2Sa_23:17; 1Ch_11:19.—
äֵáִéà
, see Lam_1:21. [We have the future here, as the historical imperfect, implying the recurrence of what is related.—W. H. H.]—
ìֶçֶí
, Lam_1:11.—
çֶøֶá äַîִּãְáָּø
, which can only indicate the robber tribes of the desert (Gen_16:12), is found only here. [Calvin translates
äֶøֶá
, drought, and wonders that any one ever thought of calling it sword. It may have the meaning of drought in Deu_28:22, though even there E. V. has sword. In this verse, all the Versions, and commentators generally, translate sword.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:10.—
ëָּîַø
occurs only in Niphal, and besides here only in three places, Gen_43:30; 1Ki_3:26; Hos_11:8. The sense is calefactum, adustum esse (see
çָîַø
, Lam_1:20; Lam_2:11). The plural shows that
òåֹø
is regarded collectively. [It also shows the preference in this Song for termination in
åּ
. Yet, “fifty eight MSS., and the Soncin. Bible read
òåֹøֵéðåּ
in the plural” (Henderson).—W. H. H.]—
òåֹø
, see Lam_4:8.—
úַּðּåּø
, see Hos_7:6-7, is not found in Jeremiah, [nor any equivalent for it.—W. H. H.]—
æַìְòֲôåֹú
, æstus vehemens, Jeremiah never uses. It is found, besides here, only in Psa_119:53; Psa_11:6.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[Lam_5:2-10 describe the distressed condition of the people generally, and especially the sufferings caused by deficiency in the necessaries of life. Lam_5:2-3, describe their disinherited and bereaved condition.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens—foreigners. [Calvin: “The land had been promised to Abraham four hundred years, before his children possessed it; we know that this promise had been often repeated, ‘This land shall be to you for an inheritance.’… No land has ever been given to men in so singular a way as the land of Canaan to the posterity of Abraham. As, then, this inheritance had been for so many ages possessed by the chosen people, Jeremiah does not without reason complain that it was turned over to aliens.”]—Our houses to aliens. Many expositors (Vaihinger for instance) understand from the second clause of this verse, that not all the houses of Jerusalem had been destroyed, but those which still remained were at the disposal of the Chaldeans; which is the same as saying that they dwelt in them. They appeal to 2Ch_36:19, where the destruction of the palaces only is spoken of. Although in Jer_52:13; 2Ki_25:9, it is expressly said that all the houses of Jerusalem were destroyed, yet, they say, this is to be regarded as merely a rhetorical hyperbole, since elsewhere the houses of the great [the nobility] are alone specified. Compare Jer_52:13. We have, however, no evidence that the Chaldeans inhabited Jerusalem after its destruction; and Nehemiah (Lam_2:3) mourns that Jerusalem is
çֲøֵáָä
, desolate, and its gates burned with fire. When it is said here that the houses were given up to the Chaldeans, this can only mean that they disposed of them as they pleased. In fact, they destroyed the houses, but carried away the movable property found in them as booty. Although the houses and their contents could be designated as an inheritance, yet by
ðַֽçֲìָä
, inheritance, which is here distinguished from the houses, the land is especially intended (see. Lev_20:24; Num_16:14; Num_36:7-9; Jos_13:23; etc.). We may say, therefore, that
ðַֽçֲìָä
, inheritance, and
áָּúִּéí
, houses, are related to each other substantially as fixed and movable property.
Lam_5:3. We are orphans and fatherless—we have become orphans, fatherless [without a father,Calvin, Blayney, Boothroyd, Noyes, Gerlach]—and our mothers are as widows. That the first words cannot be understood exclusively of the loss of their own fathers, is evident from the expression as widows.Pareau is of the opinion that widows and orphans indicate, in a general way only, as a proverbial formula, tritissimam sortem [a very sad lot], and appeals to Isa_1:17; Psa_94:6; Jam_1:27. But in all those places, widows and orphans in the strict sense of the terms, are to be understood. Thenius understands by the mothers, the wives of the King, who were with the little company among whom our song originated. But even if we allow, that as some of the Princesses of the royal family, according to Jer_41:10, escaped transportation, so also may some of the wives of the royal harem, yet we cannot suppose that the Poet indicated these as the mothers of himself and his companions, because they were not, in fact, their mothers, nor was it customary to call them so. Ewald refers orphans and fatherless to the loss of the sovereign (the father of his country, Lam_2:9; Lam_4:20) and of the theocracy, but widows to the communities and cities (Lam_1:1). This is without doubt correct, as far as this, that all the Israelites had, in this respect, become fatherless and their mothers widows. But why might not the Poet, at the same time, have alluded to the fact, that in the prevailing confusion most of the mothers could not certainly know whether their husbands were dead or alive, and therefore it could be correctly said of them that they were “as widows” (see Lam_1:1)? I believe, therefore, that Lam_5:3 embraces every species of orphanage that might have existed at that time. [There were so many orphans and mothers separated from their husbands among the people, that a Poet might well exclaim, Behold in us a people composed of fatherless orphans, whose mothers are as widows! But the particle of comparison attached to the last word, as widows, suggests the probability that the whole verse is intended metaphorically. We are like fatherless orphans and our mothers like widows. This is Gerlach’s explanation.—W. H. H.]
[Lam_5:4-10 relate to the general distress occasioned by the want of the necessaries of life and the oppression of their masters.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:4. We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us (marg. cometh for price unto us). Our water we drink for money; our wood comes to us for payment. That the want of water before the capture of the city is not here intended, is evident from the expressions our water, our wood; for the prominence of this idea can only signify that the Jews were obliged to buy from their enemies the wood and water that were rightly their own; but this could have been the case only after the capture of the city. We perceive from the description, that the companies of the captives, in all cases narrowly watched, were not at liberty to go, at their own pleasure, to bring wood and water. But they were furnished, either with no provisions at all, or in insufficient quantities, so that in order to secure the necessaries of life, they were obliged to apply to their guards, who made them pay dearly for the services rendered them. It appears further from this passage, that the Poet has here in his eye that period of the captivity when the captives were still in their own land, else he could not say “our water, our wood.” There seems to be a rhetorical reason for the use of the perfect (
ùָׁúִéðåּ
) in the first clause, and of the imperfect (
éָáàåּ
) in the second. For, grammatically considered, either the perfect or imperfect should be used both times, since the two acts are entirely homogeneous. But the Poet wished to bring variety into his period, perhaps also to avoid the clashing together of two tone-syllables, which would have happened, if it had been written
áָּàåּ
. He could introduce this variety, since the limit between these two verbal forms is a fluctuating one, determined by the subjective conception of the speaker. For, in many cases, the same action can be regarded as already completed and as still in progress. See for example
îֵàַéִê úָּáֹàåּ
(Jos_9:8) and
îֵàַéê áָּàúֶí
(Gen_42:7), my Gr. §§ 84, 87. So here the drinking of water for money is represented by
ùָׁúִéðåּ
as something accomplished, being constituted by many acts of drinking, but by
éָáֹàåּ
the fetching of the wood is represented as something not yet finished, something still continuing. We are at liberty to translate both tenses, so far as they are concerned, by the present or by the preterit. The context shows which the Poet intends. He evidently is describing the journey of the captives going into exile. But nothing indicates that he looks back upon it as already accomplished, that he would represent it as already terminated in the land of exile. Consequently, we are obliged to translate all the tenses, which refer to different incidents of the journey, in the present. [There is a studied effort in this Song, as shown in the preliminary note to this chapter, to multiply words ending in
ðåּ
,
åּ
, and we may add in
Îֵðåּ
In the expressions “Our water,” “our wood,” the pronoun is added merely, if we may so say, for the sake of the rhyme, or, more correctly, the assonance, just as in Lam_5:9 he says, “our bread.” The writer could legitimately gratify the ear by this expedient, for what they bought and used certainly became their own. It is obvious, therefore, that the meaning of the verse can not turn on the use of the word our. If this had been intended to be emphatic, and to represent the water and the wood as their property before they bought it, then this verse should have immediately followed Lam_5:2, where the transfer of their property to new owners is represented. Otherwise, the third verse intrudes a new idea between two thoughts that are closely related, the loss of their inheritance and houses, and the necessity of purchasing what had been their own property. If, on the other hand, we take our text as a simple statement of the fact that they were obliged to purchase such common necessaries of life as water and wood, we are enabled to translate the preterit verb in the past indefinite time. The Prophet is by no means describing the incidents of the journey of the exiles from their own land. He is enumerating and heaping together en masse the various features of sorrow and suffering experienced by the un-happy people, without particular reference either to the time or place of their happening. Among other things that had happened was their having to pay money for the water they drank: and he uses the preterit tense, We have drunken our water for money,—this is among the things that had happened, perhaps once only, perhaps oftener; but there was another hardship of more frequent occurrence, one often repeated, and that may have continued down to the time when he wrote, and this he expresses, as the Hebrew so constantly expresses the recurrence of events even after they are past, by the future form of the verb, which we may render as an historical imperfect—our wood came to us, or was coming, that is, it came in that way only, for a price, or we may render it as a present—it comes still only for pay.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:5. Our necks are under persecution (marg. On our necks are we persecuted); we labor and have no rest.We are driven headlong [Ueber Hals und Kopf werden wir gejagt, lit. over neck and head (over head and ears, as we say in English) are we driven]; are we tired, rest is not permitted us. The Septuagint connects
òֵì öַåַּàøֵðåּ
upon our necks, with what precedes,
îὐëá ἡìῶí ἐí ἀëëÜãìáôé ἠëèåí ἐðὶ ôὸí ôñÜ÷çëïí ἥìῶí
, our wood in exchange for our money came upon our neck. So also the Arabic version. The Syriac closes Lam_5:4 with
áִּîְçִéø
. and refers
éָáֹàåּ
to what follows, so that it also translates venerunt super collum nostrum, they came upon our neck, where either ligna, wood, or hostes, the enemy, may be regarded as the subject. Among the moderns, Aben-Ezra and J. Dav. Michaelis also connect the phrase upon our necks with what precedes. The latter gives the sense thus, ligna nostra pretio empta cervicibus nostris imposita in urbem importantur, our wood bought with a price and laid upon our necks is carried into the city. The explanation of the Syriac produces a very harsh zeugma in Lam_5:4, renders the following sentence unintelligible, and expresses a thought that may be termed at least unnecessary. The objections to the other versions are as follows. 1.
áִּîְçִéø
, for pay,Lam_5:4 must be taken, either as dependent on a verb to be supplied (emta), or as belonging to
éָáֹּàåּ
, in the very unsuitable sense, that the Jews were paid for carrying the wood. 2. The symmetrical proportions of the verses are destroyed; Lam_5:4 is too long, Lam_5:5 too short. We will then follow the Masoretic division of the verses. But as thus arranged, this verse has undergone various interpretations. Pareau translates super cervicibus nostris insessores patimur, we bear sitters [riders] upon our necks. But
ðִøְãַּôְðåּ
cannot mean we are ridden, or we carry riders. As little can it mean naturally, we bear persecutors or oppressors, which would correspond with Pareau’s idea, only without a figure. Others (Raschi, De Wette, Ewald, 1st ed., Meyer, Vaihinger, Engelhardt) translate on our necks the yoke, or the yoke on the neck are we persecuted. But as Thenius has remarked, the yoke here is a superadded idea entirely arbitrary. [Blayney reads
òֹì
, yoke, instead of the preposition
òַì
, upon. But we must then, as he does, take the verb in a sense it cannot have of being burthened with, With the yoke of our necks are we continually burthened; or, as Boothroyd does, supply the preposition on and the verb is, and make an independent proposition of the first two words, The yoke is on our necks, we are pursued; or, as Noyes does, supply two prepositions, With the yoke upon our necks, we are driven.Henderson, without changing
òַì
into
òֹì
, thinks that upon our necks we are persecuted expresses “elliptically the great hardship to which the Jews were reduced in being compelled as captives to bear a heavy yoke on their necks;” and translates, We are persecuted with a yoke on our necks. So William Lowth seems to understand the text and refers to Deu_28:48. “We are driven to our work like the bullock that has a yoke about his neck” (Adam Clarke).—W. H. H.] All these explanations fail in this that they let
òַì
depend, not immediately on
ðִøְãַּôְðåּ
, but very unnecessarily on an entirely different idea supposed to be concealed therein. Thenius and Ewald (2d ed.) have perceived the right sense, when they translate, on the neck were we pursued (so Ewald: Thenius expresses the same sense by the words, they pursued us over our necks, i.e. since they are ever close behind us). I translate, We are driven on over our necks, that is to say, so that the driving goes over our necks onwards—and this idea corresponds exactly with our German phrase, “über Hals und Kopf” [lit. over neck and head, i.e. headlong]. Luther: “über Hals.” [In full: Man treibt uns über Hals.] Besides,
øָãַó
cannot be taken in the sense of pursuing, for not fugitives, but captives are here spoken of, who are already in the hands of the enemies and are driven onward without mercy. This appears plainly from Lam_5:5; Lam_5:8. The meaning to drive, to chase, undoubtedly lies in the root
øָãַó
(see the kindred roots
ãָּôַä
,
ðָãַó
,
äָãַó
), and is as plain as daylight in such places as Lev_26:36 (the sound of a falling leaf shall chase them). Job_30:15; Isa_17:13. [It would be a relief to accept Dr. Naegelsbach’s simple explanation, and translate, They drove us, or we were driven headlong, or as we would say in our colloquial English, heels over head, but there is no evidence that the Hebrew words are used in any such colloquial sense. The next best thing is to adopt the translation of Maurer, Thenius, Ewald, Owen and Gerlach, which Dr. Naegelsbach also approves of, On our necks were we pursued, i.e. our pursuers followed us so closely as to be, as it were, on our necks. “We are hunted by pursuers who are ever hanging over our neck” (Wordsworth). The objection to taking the verb in the sense of pursuing, on the ground that the people are here considered as captives and not fugitives, grows out of the incorrect interpretation of Lam_5:4, and involves an entire misconception of the intention of this Song. It is not the design of the Prophet to give a detailed account of successive and related events, but to heap up together, in one rapid and vehement recapitulation, all the wrongs, indignities and sufferings the people had endured, without reference to times or places.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:6. Whilst the Poet describes the onward march of the larger part of the people to the land of banishment, he is reminded that the people are, by this means, still more widely separated and torn asunder; for one part, by far the smaller part, has been compelled to turn southwards towards Egypt. [This verse confirms the opinion that the Prophet is not relating successive events in the order of their occurrence and in their relations to each other; but is stating independent facts and instances, all of which contribute to present to God an appeal for pity and mercy. There is no close connection, therefore, between Lam_5:5-6, such as Owen and Gerlach would find, when they say that Lam_5:6 relates what they did when so closely pursued. According to Dr. Naegelsbach’s interpretation, that Lam_5:5 refers to the Jews on their way to Babylonia, driven before their captors, the connection of Lam_5:6 is impossible. While they were so closely pursued that their pursuers were on their necks, did even a small part of them miraculously escape and flee to Egypt? Dr. Naegelsbach does not mean to assert this; but his theory of interpretation would seem to demand it.—W. H. H.]—We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians to be satisfied with bread,—Towards Egypt stretched we the hand,—Towards Assyria,—in order to be satisfied with bread. To stretch out the hand can mean here only, to stretch out the hand as a suppliant; see Jer_50:15; 1Ch_29:24. [Calvin: “To give the hand, is explained in three ways: some say that it means humbly to ask; others, to make an agreement; and others, to extend it in token of misery, as he who cannot ask for help, intimates his wants by extending his hand. But the Prophet seems simply to mean that the people were so distressed by want, that they begged bread.”] But in what sense did the Jews stretch out the hand to Assyria? They had submitted to this great power, not willingly, as they had thrown themselves into the arms of the Egyptians, but by compulsion. Yet they must, if they would live, stretch out their suppliant hand, to receive a morsel of bread from the hand of Assyria bestowing it upon them. But what power is intended by Assyria? It has been understood of Assyria strictly speaking, which carried the ten tribes into exile. But it would be strange, indeed, if the Poet here overlooked the Babylonish exile. That he says Assur, and not Babel, may be explained on the ground that he has in mind the Assyrian, as well as the Babylonish captivity. While Babel never stands for Assur and Babel, the name Assur is so used as to embrace both countries; see 2Ki_17:24; 2Ki_18:11; 2Ki_23:29; 2Ch_33:11. The brief words of our text exhibit also the fact, that Israel no longer existed as a nation, but was entirely given over to the power of the kingdoms of this world, on whose favor its very life depended; and, while the smaller part found itself in the power of Egypt, the larger part, which included both Israel, carried away into Assyrian exile, and Judah, deported to Babylon, is subject to Assur,—to Assur in the widest sense of the term, understanding thereby, not only Assyria in the strict sense, but Babylon also. See also Jer_2:18. [Noyes is of the opinion that giving the hand, imports submission, as in Jer_50:15; to stretch out the hand to be bound, as it were. Thus, he remarks, “in 2Ch_30:8, what is translated in the common version yield yourselves unto the Lord, is in the original give the hand to the Lord.” The context here, nevertheless, favors the idea that the Jews were reduced in many instances to abject beggary, and entire dependence for the necessaries of life on these heathen nations, the greatest enemies their country had.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:7. Our fathers have sinned and are not: and we have borne their iniquities.—Our fathers have sinned: they are not; we bear their sins. [There is no sufficient reason for rendering the last verb as a present. The English version is more literal.—W. H. H.] Comparing this verse with Lam_5:16, a certain parallelism is observable. In both the sins of the people are asserted to be the cause of the calamities previously described. But Lam_5:7 says, Our fathers have sinned and we bear their guilt. Lam_5:16, on the contrary says, Woe to us, we have sinned. Here, as in Lam_1:5; Lam_1:8-9; Lam_1:14; Lam_1:18; Lam_2:14; Lam_3:42; Lam_4:6; Lam_4:12-14, the description of calamities endured constitute a principal feature in the confession of sin. As one paragraph ends with Lam_5:7, and another with Lam_5:16, Lam_5:8 begins a new paragraph. [This division separates verses closely allied. The subject down to Lam_5:10 is chiefly related to sufferings connected with the want of the necessaries of life. With Lam_5:11 begins a description of individual instances of outrage and cruelty (Lam_5:11-14), followed by a description of the effects of all these calamities, public and private, on the theocratic people who offer the prayer. Lam_5:16 is as intimately connected with what follows, as with what precedes it.—W. H. H.] There is at least some truth in the assertion made in Lam_5:7. For the great catastrophe had been brought about, not only by the guilt of the last generation, but also by that of previous generations (Jer_3:25; Jer_15:4; Jer_16:11-12). But Lam_5:7, without Lam_5:16, would contain only a partial view of the truth. The two verses complete each other. [Wordsworth: “The sins of their forefathers were visited upon them, because they themselves had sinned, as they themselves confess.… There is, therefore, no reason for supposing, with some, that these words could not have been written by Jeremiah, being at variance with the doctrine in Jer_31:29.”]—And are not (
àֵéðָí
, without
å
, see Gr. notes above; they are not.) These words connect themselves rather with what follows, than with what precedes. Our fathers have sinned. Whilst they are no more, we bear their sins.
Lam_5:8. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hands.—[None delivered from their hands.] Who are these servants? Satraps are suggested. So say those who understand Lam_5:5 of the residence of a part of the people in Palestine or elsewhere. But we see from Lam_5:5, that the subject of discourse is the march of the actually exiled hosts. Satraps, it is true, are the king’s servants, but they are not merely servants, they are not slaves. That men of distinguished descent and high rank should stand under Satraps was a reproach, when considered in a theocratic point of view, but not to be regarded as a matter of sufficient importance to be mentioned in this place. Besides, in fact Gedaliah ruled in Judea, himself a Jew and, according to the testimony of Jeremiah (Jer_40:7-12), a well-disposed man. But that real slaves were employed for overseers and drivers of the marching captives, this was certainly in the highest degree hard and likewise disgraceful. [This again is to be regarded as one feature of the great variety of sufferings that befell the people. It is not necessary to suppose that the whole people were at any time under the lordship of slaves or under-servants. It is not necessary to suppose an exclusive reference to the bands of captives that were driven to Babylonia. It is enough that in their degraded state it often happened that they had to submit to domineering and harsh treatment from men that were themselves menials.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:9. We gat our bread with—at—the peril of our lives, because of the sword of the wilderness.Rosenmueller refers this verse to the dangers which the corn-transports out of Egypt may have had to encounter in the wilderness. But is it supposable that corn was brought from Egypt, when the larger part of the people had been led away to Babylon, and the smaller part had themselves fled to Egypt? Ewald, on the other hand, finds in these words “a remarkable indication, that most of the fugitives in Egypt dwelt at the northeastern border close to the desert,” and so were compelled “to wring their bread from the desert and its robbers.” But when in the world was bread brought from the desert, even by those dwelling on the borders of Egypt, and not from the interior of the country? Thenius presumes that this Song was written amid the circumstances of one of those small companies that remained in Palestine and were scattered about in that land. These, falling in on their pasture-grounds with the warlike tribes sojourning among them, would be compelled to get their subsistence by fighting for it. But that supposition is confirmed neither by the history (observe Jer_42:1, “all the people,” etc.,), nor by the contents of our Song (compare Lam_5:8 especially, with the opinion of Thenius, that the little company, among whom the Song was written, preferred liberty in poverty, to dependence in prosperity, Lam_5:6). The view of Vaihinger rests on the same opinion, and differs from that of Thenius only in this, that he understands the bringing of bread to refer to merchant travellers who were in peril from Bedouin robbers. I am of the opinion, that the expedition here indicated, was an incident belonging to the experience of those Israelites who had not been led away to Babylon, and especially of those who had fled to Egypt. It is allowable to suppose, both from general reasons and particularly from Lam_5:6, that this one of the two parts of the people is intended. Much is touched upon in the Song, that happened to all in common (Lam_5:2-3; Lam_5:7; Lam_5:10-12); much that only befell those who suffered captivity (Lam_5:4-5; Lam_5:8); here (Lam_5:9) we have a description that suits only the condition of those fugitives to Egypt, who yet retained their freedom. But I refer the verse, not as Ewald to those already settled in Egypt, but to events and circumstances preceding their settlement. According to Jer_41:8, ten men bought their lives of Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah, at the price of provisions which they had hidden. From this we see that provisions were scarce and that there were bands of robbers who hunted for them. Is it not then in the highest degree probable, that the crowd which fled to Egypt (Jer_41:16-18), both while they were still in Palestine, and frequently when they were in the desert, could obtain what was necessary for subsistence only at the peril of their lives?—[We gat our bread. Here again we have a future tense,
ðָáִéà
; intimating the frequent recurrence, and doubtless the continuance, at the time of writing, of this peril.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:10. Our skin was black like an oven. [So Broughton, Calvin and Henderson. See Psa_68:13.] Our skin is burnt [has been burnt] like an oven. [This sense is the one generally adopted, on the ground that it is more consistent with the effects of famine, and more congenial with the derivation and use of the Hebrew word. Blayney and Noyes translate the verb parched.—W. H. H.]. The effect of hunger on the skin is compared to that of heat on the walls of the oven. Like these, that has become hot, dry, hard, cracked. There was hunger enough with the two parts of the people, who stretched out their hands, one to Assyria, the other to Egypt, until the one had arrived in Assyria and the other in Egypt.—Because of the terrible (marg. terrors, or storms of) famine,—because of the heat (or hotness, Gluten) of hunger. [Because of the burning (Broughton) or burnings (Calvin, Noyes). Gerlach translates the word raging, or fury (Wüthen), and so it is rendered by Alexander (in Psa_11:6; Psa_119:53, the only other places where the word occurs), who remarks, that “no English word is strong enough to represent the Hebrew except rage or fury.” Blayney translates stormy blasts of hunger, and Hendersonthe hot blasts of famine.—W. H. H.]
Lam_5:11-13
11They ravished the women in Zion, and the maids in the cities of Judah.12, 13Princes are hanged by their hand: the faces of elders were not honoured. They took the young men to grind, and the children fell under the wood.
