Lamentations 2 commentary

LAME TATIO S 2 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 [a]How the Lord has covered Daughter Zion
with the cloud of his anger[b]!
He has hurled down the splendor of Israel
from heaven to earth;
he has not remembered his footstool
in the day of his anger.
BAR ES, "How ... - Or, “How” doth “‫אדני‬ 'ădonāy cover.” He hath east down etc. By
God’s footstool seems to be meant the ark. See Psa_99:5 note.
CLARKE, "How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud -
The women in the eastern countries wear veils, and often very costly ones. Here, Zion is
represented as being veiled by the hand of God’s judgment. And what is the veil? A dark
cloud, by which she is entirely obscured.
Instead of ‫אדני‬ Adonai, lord, twenty-four of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS., and some of the
most ancient of my own, read ‫יהוה‬ Yehovah, Lord, as in Lam_2:2.
The beauty of Israel - His Temple.
His footstool - The ark of the covenant, often so called. The rendering of my old MS.
Bible is curious: -
And record not of his litil steging-stole of his feet, in the dai of his
woodnesse.
To be wood signifies, in our ancient language, to be mad.
GILL, "How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his
anger,.... Not their persons for protection, as he did the Israelites at the Red sea, and in
the wilderness; nor their sins, which he blots out as a thick cloud; or with such an one as
he filled the tabernacle and temple with when dedicated; for this was "in his anger", in
the day of his anger, against Jerusalem; but with the thick and black clouds of calamity

and distress; he "beclouded" (r) her, as it may be rendered, and is by Broughton; he drew
a veil, or caused a cloud to come over all her brightness and glory, and surrounded her
with darkness, that her light and splendour might not be seen. Aben Ezra interprets it,
"he lifted her up to the clouds": that is, in order to cast her down with the greater force,
as follows:
and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel; all its glory,
both in church and state; this was brought down from the highest pitch of its excellency
and dignity, to the lowest degree of infamy and reproach; particularly this was true of
the temple, and service of God in it, which was the beauty and glory of the nation, but
now utterly demolished:
and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger; to spare and preserve
that; meaning either the house of the sanctuary, the temple itself, as the Targum and
Jarchi; or rather the ark with the mercy seat, on which the Shechinah or divine Majesty
set his feet, when sitting between the cherubim; and is so called, 1Ch_28:2.
HE RY 1-4, "It is a very sad representation which is here made of the state of God's
church, of Jacob and Israel, of Zion and Jerusalem; but the emphasis in these verses
seems to be laid all along upon the hand of God in the calamities which they were
groaning under. The grief is not so much that such and such things are done as that God
has done them, that he appears angry with them; it is he that chastens them, and
chastens them in wrath and in his hot displeasure; he has become their enemy, and
fights against them; and this, this is the wormwood and the gall in the affliction and the
misery.
I. Time was when God's delight was in his church, and he appeared to her, and
appeared for her, as a friend. But now his displeasure is against her; he is angry with her,
and appears and acts against her as an enemy. This is frequently repeated here, and
sadly lamented. What he has done he has done in his anger; this makes the present day
a melancholy day indeed with us, that it is the day of his anger (Lam_2:1), and again
(Lam_2:2) it is in his wrath, and (Lam_2:3) it is in his fierce anger, that he has thrown
down and cut off, and (Lam_2:6) in the indignation of his anger. Note, To those who
know how to value God's favour nothing appears more dreadful than his anger;
corrections in love are easily borne, but rebukes in love wound deeply. It is God's wrath
that burns against Jacob like a flaming fire (Lam_2:3), and it is a consuming fire; it
devours round about, devours all her honours, all her comforts. This is the fury that is
poured out like fire (Lam_2:4), like the fire and brimstone which were rained upon
Sodom and Gomorrah; but it was their sin that kindled this fire. God is such a tender
Father to his children that we may be sure he is never angry with them but when they
provoke him, and give him cause to be angry; nor is he ever angry more than there is
cause for. God's covenant with them was that if they would obey his voice he would be
an enemy to their enemies (Exo_23:22), and he had been so as long as they kept close to
him; but now he is an enemy to them; at least he is as an enemy, Lam_2:5. He has bent
his bow like an enemy, Lam_2:4. He stood with his right hand stretched out against
them, and a sword drawn in it as an adversary. God is not really an enemy to his people,
no, not when he is angry with them and corrects them in anger. We may be sorely
displeased against our dearest friends and relations, whom yet we are far from having an
enmity to. But sometimes he is as an enemy to them, when all his providences
concerning them seem in outward appearance to have a tendency to their ruin, when
every thing made against them and nothing for them. But, blessed be God, Christ is our

peace, our peacemaker, who has slain the enmity, and in him we may agree with our
adversary, which it is our wisdom to do, since it is in vain to contend with him, and he
offers us advantageous conditions of peace.
II. Time was when God's church appeared very bright, and illustrations, and
considerable among the nations; but now the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion
with a cloud (Lam_2:1), a dark cloud, which is very terrible to himself, and through
which she cannot see his face; a thick cloud (so that word signifies), a black cloud, which
eclipses all her glory and conceals her excellency; not such a cloud as that under which
God conducted them through the wilderness, or that in which God took possession of
the temple and filled it with his glory: no, that side of the cloud is now turned towards
them which was turned towards the Egyptians in the Red Sea. The beauty of Israel is
now cast down from heaven to the earth; their princes (2Sa_1:19), their religious
worship, their beauty of holiness, all that which recommended them to the affection and
esteem of their neighbours and rendered them amiable, which had lifted them up to
heaven, was now withered and gone, because God had covered it with a cloud. He has
cut off all the horn of Israel (Lam_2:3), all her beauty and majesty (Psa_132:17), all her
plenty and fulness, and all her power and authority. They had, in their pride, lifted up
their horn against God, and therefore justly will God cut off their horn. He disabled them
to resist and oppose their enemies; he turned back their right hand, so that they were
not able to follow the blow which they gave nor to ward off the blow which was given
them. What can their right hand do against the enemy when God draws it back, and
withers it, as he did Jeroboam's? Thus was the beauty of Israel cast down, when a
people famed for courage were not able to stand their ground nor make good their post.
JAMISO , "How — The title of the collection repeated here, and in Lam_4:1.
covered ... with a cloud — that is, with the darkness of ignominy.
cast down from heaven unto ... earth — (Mat_11:23); dashed down from the
highest prosperity to the lowest misery.
beauty of Israel — the beautiful temple (Psa_29:2; Psa_74:7; Psa_96:9, Margin;
Isa_60:7; Isa_64:11).
his footstool — the ark (compare 1Ch_28:2, with Psa_99:5; Psa_132:7). They once
had gloried more in the ark than in the God whose symbol it was; they now feel it was
but His “footstool,” yet that it had been a great glory to them that God deigned to use it
as such.
CALVI , "The Prophet again exclaims in wonder, that an incredible thing had
happened, which was like a prodigy; for at the first sight it seemed very
unreasonable, that a people whom God had not only received into favor, but with
whom he had made a perpetual covenant, should thus be forsaken by him. For
though men were a hundred times perfidious, yet God never changes, but remains
unchangeable in his faithfulness; and we know that his covenant was not made to
depend on the merits of men. Whatsoever, then, the people might be, yet it behooved
God to continue in his purpose, and not to annul the promise made to Abraham.
ow, when Jerusalem was reduced to desolation, there was as it were all abolition of
God’s covenant. There is, then, no wonder that the Prophet here exclaims, as on
account of some prodigy, How can it be that God hath clouded or darkened, etc.

We must, however, observe at the same time, that the Prophet did not mean here to
invalidate the fidelity or constancy of God, but thus to rouse the attention of his own
nation, who had become torpid in their sloth; for though they were pressed down
under a load of evils, yet they had become hardened in their perverseness. But it was
impossible that any one should really call on God, except he was humbled in mind,
and brought the sacrifice of which we have spoken, even a humble and contrite
spirit. (Psalms 51:19.) It was, then, the Prophet’s object to soften the hardness which
he knew prevailed in almost the whole people. This was the reason why he
exclaimed, in a kind of astonishment, How has God clouded, etc. (148)
Some render the words, “How has God raised up,” etc., which may be allowed,
provided it be not taken in a good sense, for it is said, in his wrath; but in this case
the words to raise up and to cast down ought to be read conjointly; 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. We may, then, take this
meaning, that God, in order that he might with greater violence break in pieces his
people, had raised them up, not to honor them, but in order to dash them more
violently on the ground. However, as this sense seems perhaps too refined, I am
content with the first explanation, that God had clouded the daughter of Zion in his
wrath; and then follows an explanation, that he had cast her from heaven to the
earth. So then God covered with darkness his people, when he drew them down
from the high dignity which they had for a time enjoyed. He had, then, cast on the
earth all the glory of Israel, and remembered not his footstool
The Prophet seems here indirectly to contend with God, because he had not spared
his own sanctuary; for God, as it has been just stated, had chosen Mount Sion for
himself, where he designed to be prayed to, because he had placed there the
memorial of his name. As, then, he had not spared his own sanctuary, it did not
appear consistent with his constancy, and he also seemed thus to have disregarded
his own glory. But the design of the Prophet is rather to shew 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; and what was
the cause but the sins of men? for God, as I have said, always preserves moderation
in his judgments. He, then, 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
And the Temple, by a very suitable metaphor, is called the footstool of God. It is,
indeed, called his habitation; for in Scripture the Temple is often said to be the
house of God. It was then the house, the habitation, and the rest of God. But as men
are ever inclined to superstition, in order to raise up their thoughts above earthly
elements, we are reminded, on the other hand, in Scripture, that the Temple was the
footstool of God. So in the Psalms,
“Adore ye before his footstool,” (Psalms 99:5;)

and again,
“We shall adore in the place where his feet stand.”
(Psalms 132:7.)
We, then, see that the two expressions, apparently different, do yet well agree, that
the Temple was the house of God and his habitation, and that yet it was only his
footstool. It was the house of God, because the faithful found by experience that he
was there present; as, then, God gave tokens of his presence, the Temple was rightly
called the house; of God, his rest and habitation. But that the faithful might not fix
their minds on the visible sanctuary, and thus by indulging a gross imagination, fall
into superstition, and put an idol in the place of God, the Temple was called the
footstool of God. For as it was a footstool, it behooved the faithful to rise up higher
and to know that God was really sought, only when they raised their thoughts above
the world. We now perceive what was the purpose of this mode of speaking.
God is said not to have remembered his Temple, not because he had wholly
disregarded it, but because the destruction of the Temple could produce no other
opinion in men. All, then, who saw that the Temple had been burnt by profane
hands, and pulled down after it had been plundered, thought that the Temple was
forsaken by God; and so also he speaks by Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 10:18.) Then this
oblivion, or not remembering, refers to the thoughts of men; for however God may
have remembered the Temple, yet he seemed for a time to have disregarded it. We
must, at the same time, bear in mind what I have said, that the Prophet here did not
intend to dispute with God, or to contend with him, but, on the contrary, to shew
what the people deserved; for God was so indignant on account of their sins, that he
suffered his own Temple to be profaned. The same thing also follows respecting the
kingdom, —
Why should the Lord in his wrath becloud
the daughter of Sion?
And if ‫,ישבה‬ in Lamentations 1:1, be in the future tense, as it may be, that clause
may be rendered in the same way, —
Why should sit alone the city that was full of people?
Then follows here, as in the former instance, a description of what had happened to
Sion, —
He hath cast from heaven to earth the glory of Israel,
And not remembered his footstool in the day of his wrath.
At the same time, the clauses may both be rendered as proposed in a note on
Lamentations 1:1, and the tenses of the verbs be preserved. The verb here is clearly
in the future tense, and the verb in the former instance may be so; and the future in

Hebrew is often to be taken as the present, as the case is in Welsh.
How this! in his wrath becloud does the Lord the daughter of Sion!
— Ed.
TRAPP, " How 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 his footstool in the day of his anger!
Ver. 1. How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion witha cloud!] Heb., With a
thick cloud: nothing like that bright cloud wherein he appeared to his people, as a
token of his grace, at the dedication of the temple. [1 Kings 8:10] How comes it
about, and what may be the reason for it? Oh in what a wonderful manner and by
what strange means hath the Lord now clouded and covered his people (whom he
had established as Mount Zion) with blackest calamities and confusions, taking all
the lustre of happiness and of hope from her, and that in his anger, and again in the
day of his anger!
“ Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? ”
And cast down from heaven to earth,] i.e., From the highest pitch of felicity to the
lowest plight of misery. This was afterwards indeed Caperuaum’s case; but when
Micah the Morashite prophesied in the times of Jeremiah that "Zion should be
ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem laid on heaps," [Micah 3:12 Jeremiah 26:18] it
seemed a paradox, and very few believed them. Christ’s disciples also had a conceit
that the temple and the world must needs have one and the same period, which
occasioned that mixed discourse made by our Saviour. [Matthew 24:1-3] But God’s
gracious presence is not tied to a place. The ark, God’s footstool (as here it is called)
was transportative till settled in Zion; so is the Church militant in continual motion,
till it come to triumph in heaven; and those that with Capernaum are lifted up to
heaven in the abundance of means, may be brought down to hell for an instance of
divine vengeance.
And remembered not his footstool.] The temple, and therein the ark, to teach them
that he was not wholly there included, neither ought now to be sought and
worshipped anywhere but above. Sursum corda.
PARKER, ""How 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 his footstool in the day of his anger!"— Lamentations 2:1
Still the prophet is dwelling upon the sufferings of Jerusalem. The image is that of
an infinite thundercloud dissolving in a tremendous tempest, under which the
beauty of Israel perishes and the temple itself is overthrown. It is supposed that the

"footstool" is the Ark of the Cover ant, which was involved in the destruction of the
temple. It is to be noticed that the word "Lord" here is not Jehovah, but Adonai: by
such changes of designation, moral change on the part of Jerusalem is indicated.
Sometimes the minor name is used, and sometimes the major, according as
Jerusalem realises the greatness of its sin or the nearness and love of God. All God"s
acceptances of humanity are conditional. We are only safe so long as we are
obedient. God keeps his thunder for his friends as certainly as for his enemies, if
they be unfaithful to the covenant which unites them: nay, would it not be correct to
say that a more terrible thunder is reserved for those who, knowing the right, yet
pursue the wrong? "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is
sin." If we had been in darkness God would have been pitiful to us, but because we
say, We see, therefore our sin remaineth. Even the ark has no meaning to God as a
mere piece of mechanism; it is only of value in proportion as it represents in living
activity the law and the mercy which it symbolises. We cannot live in a holy past: we
can only live in a sacred present; not because a lifetime ago we prayed and served
and did our duty lovingly can we be saved. We are what we are from day to day.
Yesterday"s virtue is not set down against this day"s negligence. As every day must
bear its own burden, so every day must witness to its own faithfulness. othing is
carried over from the account of yesterday to the account of today. Each link in the
whole chain of life must be strong, or the chain itself will give way at the weakest
point.
COFFMA , "WHAT THE LORD HAD DO E TO ZIO [1]
"This chapter is all taken up with God. In Lamentations 2:1-12, all the woes are
bemoaned as being God's work, and His alone; and Lamentations 2:13-17 give a
short resume of this; Lamentations 2:18f urges the city to cry to God for help; and,
in Lamentations 2:20-22, she does so."[2] "The main point of this chapter is that it
was God Himself who destroyed the people and their city; and the writer seldom
strays very far from that main point."[3]
Significantly, the details of this chapter could hardly have been provided by any
other than an eyewitness of the destruction, which points squarely to Jeremiah as
the author, as traditionally accepted. Green also noticed this: "The tone of it places
this chapter very near the year 587 B.C. when the tragedy occurred. In fact, it
appears to be an eyewitness account of that tragedy."[4] The chapter has been
subdivided variously by different scholars; but we shall follow this outline: (1) a
graphic picture of the divine visitation (Lamentations 2:1-10); (2) details regarding
the distress and despair of the people (Lamentations 2:11-17); and (3) the prayer of
the people to God for help (Lamentations 2:18-22). "This prayer is different from
the one in the previous chapter, "Because the element of imprecation is missing
from it."[5]
Lamentations 2:1-10
GRAPHIC PICTURE OF THE DIVI E VISITATIO UPO JUDAH

" ow hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion
with a cloud in his anger!
He hath cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel,
And hath not remembered his 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 profaned the kingdom and the princes thereof.
He hath cut off in fierce anger all the horn of Israel;
He hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy:
And he hath burned up Jacob like a flaming fire,
which devoureth round about.
He hath bent his bow like an enemy,
he hath stood with his right hand as an adversary,
and hath slain all that were pleasant to the eye:
In the tent of the daughter of Zion
he hath poured out his wrath like fire.
The Lord is become as an enemy, he hath swallowed up Israel;
He hath swallowed up all her palaces,
he hath destroyed all his strongholds;
And he hath multiplied in the daughter of Judah

mourning and lamentation.
And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle,
as if it were of a garden;
he hath destroyed his place of assembly:
Jehovah hath caused solemn assembly and sabbath
to be forgotten in Zion,
And hath despised in the indignation of his anger
the king and the priest.
The Lord hath 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 Jehovah,
as in the day of a solemn assembly.
Jehovah hath purposed to destroy
the wall of the daughter of Zion;
He hath stretched out the line,
he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying:
And he hath made the rampart and the wall to lament;
they languish together.
Her gates are sunk into the ground;
he hath destroyed and broken her bars:
Her king and her princes are among the nations
where the law is not;

Yea, her prophets find no vision from Jehovah.
The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground;
they keep silence;
They cast up dust upon their heads;
they have girded themselves with sackcloth:
The virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground."
The word "anger" occurs three times in this paragraph and the word "wrath" is
found twice. Of all the attributes of God which appear in his word, none is more
generally neglected and denied than this very one, namely, that the fierce anger of
God will ultimately rage against human wickedness, as exhibited in these verses.
The God of American Pulpits today is generally extolled as a namby-pamby, an old
fuddy duddy, somewhat like an over-indulgent old grandfather, too lazy, indifferent
or unconcerned to do anything whatever, no matter what crimes of blood and lust
roar like a tornado under his very nose. The Bible does not support such an image
of God!
Yes, He is a God who loves mankind, who gave His Son upon the Cross for human
redemption. He is a God of mercy, forgiveness, grace and forbearance, but when
any man or any nation has fully demonstrated final rejection of God's love and their
rebellion against His eternal law, that wonderful, loving, forgiving God will at last
appear in His character as the enemy of that man or that nation.
The background of all these terrible things that happened to Jacob is the almost
unbelievable wickedness of the Chosen People. A major part of the Old Testament is
little more than a brief summary of that wickedness:
"The Lord hath covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger"
(Lamentations 2:1). During the exodus, God had shielded the Chosen People with a
cloud, the dark side of which confronted Egypt; but now it is the remnant of Israel
that faces the ugly side of the cloud! Throughout this chapter there appears the
screaming fact that it is God Himself who has brought all of the evil upon His sinful
people. "That was the wormwood and the gall in their terrible affliction."[6]
"Cast down from heaven unto the earth" (Lamentations 2:2). What a change there
was from the glory of Solomon to the very bottom of the social ladder. Israel at this
point had become the slaves of the Gentiles.
"He hath thrown down ... the strongholds ... of Judah" (Lamentations 2:3). But was
it not Babylon that did that? o! It was God who did it; Babylon was merely God's

instrument.
"He hath cut off all the horn of Israel" (Lamentations 2:3). The horn was a well-
known symbol of power. Cheyne noted that a better rendition would be "every
horn."[7] "It referred to all the strongholds, especially the fortresses."[8] We
especially liked Hiller's blunt rendition, "God lopped off the horns of Israel."[9] Or,
as we might paraphrase it: "God dehorned His sinful people."
"He hath burned up Jacob like a flaming fire" (Lamentations 2:3). The conception
that God's anger is like a terrible fire is not merely an Old Testament metaphor.
"To the wicked God, at any time, may become a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29;
Deuteronomy 4:24)."[10]
"God, in these verses, is represented as a furious warrior, who with irresistible
power destroyed everything that Judah had trusted in. They had stopped trusting in
God, and instead were relying on might (Lamentations 2:2), palaces (Lamentations
2:5), strongholds (Lamentations 2:5), the physical Temple (Lamentations 2:6)."[11]
All these were destroyed.
"He hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden"
(Lamentations 2:6). Solomon's temple was not God's tabernacle to begin with, but
Solomon's corrupted replacement of it. evertheless the Jews had trusted in it as
their security and salvation. The wonder expressed here is that God removed it and
destroyed it so easily, "as if of a garden." "God removed his Temple as easily as a
farmer removes a vintage booth (a tiny arbor), which had served its purpose, from a
garden."[12] In summer time, one may often see such little shelters near orchards
and gardens, where the sellers of fruits, etc, could be sheltered from the sun.
This terrible destruction of the Temple sends the Bible student back to the very
origin of it in the mind of David; and the undeniable fact that David and his son
Solomon were wrong in the building of it. (See 2 Samuel 7).
"They have made a noise in the house of Jehovah, as in the day of a solemn
assembly" (Lamentations 2:7). This `noise,' however was different. It was the
boisterous, profane and obscene cries of the Chaldean soldiers screaming and
shouting their delight as they looted and destroyed the marvelous treasures of the
Temple. It was a horrible contrast with the sweet songs of the Temple virgins and
the solemn liturgies of the priesthood.
"The triumphant shouts of the enemy bore some resemblance to the sounds on a
solemn feast day, but O how sad a contrast it was"![13]
"God purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion" (Lamentations 2:8).
" ebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian armies are here ignored! The capture of
Jerusalem, far from being God's defeat, was a victory for his righteousness. See
Isaiah 42:24ff. God's judicial displeasure against iniquity is a grim reality indeed for
those who render themselves liable to receive it."[14]

"Her king and her princes are among the nations where the law is not"
(Lamentations 2:9). The ridiculous rendition of the Revised Standard Version
(RSV) reads, "The law is no more," being not only a false translation but an
outright falsehood also. The Law of Moses never ceased, until the Son of God nailed
it to the cross. And, as the Lord said, "Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished"
(Matthew 5:18). The tragedy of this crooked mistake in the RSV is that it is used by
radical critics as, " otable evidence that the Torah was not regarded (when
Lamentations was written) as a thing given through Moses in the far-off past."[15]
Thoughtful scholars will not be deceived by this tragic rendition in the Revised
Standard Version. We thank God that the Anchor Bible gave us another acceptable
translation of this passage; "The king and the princes are among the heathen
(where) there is no instruction."[16] With regard to the word "where" which the
translators have supplied in the ASV, and which this writer supplied in the Anchor
Bible, it does not occur in the KJV, where it was considered unnecessary, because
the word Gentiles stands adjacent to and in front of the words there is no law,
plainly indicating that it was among them, the Gentiles, that God's Law was not.
There was never, in the long history of Israel after Sinai a single hour in which the
Law of Moses did not exist.
"The elders ... sit upon the ground ... the virgins hang down their heads"
(Lamentations 2:10). "The elders open not their mouth in the gate as usual ...
overwhelmed with grief ... in token of great grief, as did the friends of Job, they sit
upon the ground and keep silent."[17]
CO STABLE, "Jeremiah pictured the sovereign Lord (Heb. "adonay)
overshadowing Jerusalem, personified as a young woman, with a dark cloud
because of His anger. The Lord had cast the city from the heights of glory to the
depths of ignominy (cf. Isaiah 14:12). It had been as a footstool for His feet, but He
had not given it preferential treatment in His anger. The footstool may be a
reference to the ark of the covenant (cf. 1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalm 99:5) or the
temple, but it probably refers to Jerusalem.
Verses 1-10
A. God"s anger2:1-10
"There are about forty descriptions of divine judgment, which fell upon every
aspect of the Jews" life: home, religion, society, physical, mental and spiritual. Some
of the blackest phrases of the book appear here ..." [ ote: Irving L. Jensen,
Jeremiah and Lamentations , p132.]
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "GOD AS A E EMY
Lamentations 2:1-9
THE elegist, as we have seen, attributes the troubles of the Jews to the will and.

action of God. In the second poem he even ventures further, and with daring logic
presses this idea to its ultimate issues. If God is tormenting His people in fierce
anger it must be because He is their enemy-so the sad-hearted patriot reasons. The
course of Providence does not shape itself to him as a merciful chastisement, as a
veiled blessing; its motive seems to be distinctly unfriendly. He drives his dreadful
conclusion home with great amplitude of details. In order to appreciate the force of
it let us look at the illustrative passage in two ways-first, in view of the calamities
inflicted on Jerusalem, all of which are here ascribed to God, and then with regard
to those thoughts and purposes of their Divine Author which appear to be revealed
in them.
First, then, we have the earthly side of the process. The daughter of Zion is covered
with a cloud. [Lamentations 2:1] The metaphor would be more striking in the
brilliant East than it is to us in our habitually sombre climate. There it would
suggest unwonted gloom-the loss of the customary light of heaven, rare distress, and
excessive melancholy. It is a general, comprehensive image intended to overshadow
all that follows. Terrible disasters cover the aspect of all things from zenith to
horizon. The physical darkness that accompanied the horrors of Golgotha is here
anticipated, not indeed by any actual prophecy, but in idea.
But there is more than gloom. A mere cloud may lift, and discover everything
unaltered by the passing shadow. The distress that has fallen on Jerusalem is not
thus superficial and transient. She herself has suffered a fatal fall. The beauty of
Israel has been cast down from heaven to earth. The language is now varied; instead
of "the daughter of Zion" we have "the beauty of Israel." [Lamentations 2:1] The
use of the larger title, "Israel," is not a little significant. It shews that the elegist is
alive to the idea of the fundamental unity of his race, a unity which could not be
destroyed by centuries of inter-tribal warfare. Although in the ungracious region of
politics Israel stood aloof from Judah, the two peoples were frequently treated as
one by poets and prophets when religious ideas were in mind. Here apparently the
vastness of the calamities of Jerusalem has obliterated the memory of jealous
distinctions. Similarly we may see the great English race-British and American-
forgetting national divisions in pursuit of its higher religious aims, as in Christian
missions; and we may be sure that this blood-unity would be felt most keenly under
the shadow of a great trouble on either side of the Atlantic. By the time of the
destruction of Jerusalem the northern tribes had been scattered, but the use of the
distinctive name of these people is a sign that the ancient oneness of all who traced
back their pedigree to the patriarch Jacob was still recognised. It is some
compensation for the endurance of trouble to find it thus breaking down the middle
wall of partition between estranged brethren.
It has been suggested with probability that by the expression "the beauty of Israel"
the elegist intended to indicate the temple. This magnificent pile of buildings,
crowning one of the hills of Jerusalem, arid shining with gold in "barbaric
splendour," was the central object of beauty among all the people who revered the
worship it enshrined. Its situation would naturally suggest the language here
employed. Jerusalem rises among the hills of Judah, some two thousand feet above

the sea-level; and when viewed from the wilderness in the south she looks indeed
like a city built in the heavens. But the physical exaltation of Jerusalem and her
temple was surpassed by exaltation in privilege, and prosperity, and pride.
Capernaum, the vain city of the lake that would raise herself to heaven, is warned
by Jesus that she shall be cast down to Hades. [Matthew 11:23] ow not only
Jerusalem, but the glory of the race of Israel, symbolised by the central shrine of the
national religion, is thus humiliated.
Still keeping in mind the temple, the poet tells us that God has forgotten His
footstool. He seems to be thinking of the Mercy-Seat over the ark, the spot at which
God was thought to shew Himself propitious to Israel on the great Day of
Atonement, and which was looked upon as the very centre of the Divine presence. In
the destruction of the temple the holiest places were outraged, and the ark itself
carried off or broken up, and never more heard of. How different was this from the
story of the loss of the ark in the days of Eli, when the Philistines were constrained
to send it home of their own accord! ow no miracle intervenes to punish the
heathen for their sacrilege. Yes, surely God must have forgotten His footstool! So it
seems to the sorrowful Jew, perplexed at the impunity with which this crime has
been committed.
But the mischief is not confined to the central shrine. It has extended to remote
country regions and simple rustic folk. The shepherd’s hut has shared the fate of the
temple of the Lord. All the habitations of Jacob-a phrase which in the original
points to country cottages-have been swallowed up. [Lamentations 2:2] The holiest
is not spared on account of its sanctity, neither is the lowliest on account of its
obscurity. The calamity extends to all districts, to all things, to all classes.
If the shepherd’s cot is contrasted with the temple and the ark because of its
simplicity, the fortress may be contrasted with this defenceless hut because of its
strength. Yet even the strongholds have been thrown down. More than this, the
action of the Jews’ army has been paralysed by the God who had been its strength
and support in the glorious olden time. It is as though the right hand of the warrior
had been seized from behind and drawn back at the moment when it was raised to
strike a blow for deliverance. The consequence is that the flower of the army, "all
that were pleasant to the eye," [Lamentations 2:4] are slain. Israel herself is
swallowed up, while her palaces and fortresses are demolished.
The climax of this mystery of Divine destruction is reached when God destroys His
own temple. The elegist returns to the dreadful subject as though fascinated by the
terror of it. God has violently taken away His tabernacle. [Lamentations 1:6] The
old historic name of the sanctuary of Israel recurs at this crisis of ruin; and it is
particularly appropriate to the image which follows, an image which possibly it
suggested. If we are to understand the metaphor of the sixth verse as it is rendered
in the English Authorised and Revised Versions, we have to suppose a reference to
some such booth of boughs as people were accustomed to put up for their shelter
during the vintage, and which would be removed as soon as it had served its
temporary purpose. The solid temple buildings had been swept away as easily as

though they were just such flimsy structures, as though they had been "of a
garden." But we can read the text more literally, and still find good sense in it.
According to the strict translation of the original, God is said to have violently taken
away His tabernacle "as a garden." At the siege of a city the fruit gardens that
encircle it are the first victims of the destroyer’s axe. Lying out beyond the walls
they are entirely unprotected, while the impediments they offer to the movements of
troops and instruments of war induce the commander to order their early
demolition. Thus Titus had the trees cleared from the Mount of Olives, so that one
of the first incidents in the Roman siege of Jerusalem must have been the
destruction of the Garden of Gethsemane. ow the poet compares the ease with
which the great massive temple-itself a powerful fortress, and enclosed within the
city walls-was demolished, with the simple process of scouring the outlying gardens.
So the place of assembly disappears, and with it the assembly itself, so that even the
sacred Sabbath is passed over and forgotten. Then the two heads of the nation-the
king, its civil ruler, and the priest, its ecclesiastical chief are both despised in the
indignation of God’s anger.
The central object of the sacred shrine is the altar, where earth seems to meet
heaven in the high mystery of sacrifice. Here men seek to propitiate God; here too
God would be expected to shew Himself gracious to men. Yet God has even cast off
His altar, abhorring His very sanctuary. [Lamentations 2:7] Where mercy is most
confidently anticipated, there of all places nothing but wrath and rejection are to be
found. What prospect could be more hopeless?
The deeper thought that God rejects His sanctuary because His people have first
rejected Him is not brought forward just now. Yet this solution of the mystery is
prepared by a contemplation of the utter failure of the old ritual of atonement.
Evidently that is not always effective, for here it has broken down entirely; then can
it ever be inherently efficacious? It cannot be enough to trust to a sanctuary and
ceremonies which God Himself destroys. But further, out of this scene which was so
perplexing to the pious Jew, there flashes to us the clear truth that nothing is so
abominable in the sight of God as an attempt to worship Him on the part of people
who are living at enmity with Him. We can also perceive that if God shatters our
sanctuary, perhaps He does so in order to prevent us from making a fetich of it.
Then the loss of shrine and altar and ceremony may be the saving of the
superstitious worshipper who is thereby taught to turn to some more stable source
of confidence.
This, however, is not the line of reflections followed by the elegist in the present
instance. His mind is possessed with one dark, awful, crushing thought. All this is
God’s work. And why has God done it? The answer to that question is the idea that
here dominates the mind of the poet. It is because God has become an enemy. There
is no attempt to mitigate the force of this daring idea. It is stated in the strongest
possible terms, and repeated again and again at every turn - Israel’s cloud is the
effect of God’s anger; it has come in the day of His anger; God is acting with fierce
anger, with a flaming fire of wrath. This must mean that God is decidedly inimical.
He is behaving as an adversary; He bends His bow; He manifests violence. It is not

merely that God permits the adversaries of Israel to commit their ravages with
impunity; God commits those ravages; He is Himself the enemy. He shews
indignation. He despises, He abhors. And this is all deliberate. The destruction is
carried out with the same care and exactitude that characterise the erection of a
building. It is as though it were done with a measuring line. God surveys to destroy.
The first thing to be noticed in this unhesitating ascription to God of positive enmity
is the striking evidence it contains of faith in the Divine power, presence, and
activity. These were no more visible to the mere observer of events in the destruction
of Jerusalem than in the shattering of the French empire at Sedan. In the one case as
in the other all that the world could see was the crushing military defeat and its fatal
consequences. The victorious army of the Babylonians filled the field as completely
in the old time as that of the Germans in the modern event. Yet the poet simply
ignores its existence. He passes it with sublime indifference, his mind filled with the
thought of the unseen Power behind. He has not a word for ebuchadnezzar,
because he is assured that this mighty monarch is nothing but a tool in the hands of
the real Enemy of the Jews. A man of smaller faith would not have penetrated
sufficiently beneath the surface to have conceived the idea of Divine enmity in
connection with a series of occurrences so very mundane as the ravages of war. A
heathenish faith would have acknowledged in this defeat of Israel a triumph of the
might of Bel or ebo over the power of Jehovah. Rut so convinced is the elegist of
the absolute supremacy of his God that no such idea is suggested to him even as a
temptation of unbelief. He knows that the action of the true God is supreme in
everything that happens, whether the event be favourable or unfavourable to His
people. Perhaps it is only owing to the dreary materialism of current thought that
we should he less likely to discover an indication of the enmity of God in some huge
national calamity.
Still, although this idea of the elegist is a fruit of his unshaken faith in the universal
sway of God, it startles and shocks us, and we shrink from it almost as though it
contained some blasphemous suggestion. Is it ever right to think of God as the
enemy of any man? It would not be fair to pass judgment on the author of the
Lamentations on the ground of a cold consideration of this abstract question. We
must remember the terrible situation in which he stood-his beloved city destroyed,
the revered temple of his fathers a mass of charred ruins, his people scattered in
exile and captivity, tortured, slaughtered; these were not circumstances to
encourage a course of calm and measured reflection. We must not expect the
sufferer to carry out an exact chemical analysis of his cup of woe before uttering an
exclamation on its quality; and if it should be that the burning taste induces him to
speak too strongly of its ingredients, we who only see him swallow it without being
required to taste a drop ourselves should be slow to examine his language too nicely.
He who has never entered Gethsemane is not in a position to understand how dark
may be the views of all things seen beneath its sombre shade. If the Divine sufferer
on the cross could speak as though His God had actually deserted Him, are we to
condemn an Old Testament saint when he ascribes unspeakably great troubles to
the enmity of God?

Is this, then, but the rhetoric of misery? If it be no more, while we seek to
sympathise with the feelings of a very dramatic situation, we shall not be called
upon to go further and discover in the language of the poet any positive teaching
about God and His ways with man. But are we at liberty to stop short here? Is the
elegist only expressing his own feelings? Have we a right to affirm that there can be
no objective truth in the awful idea of the enmity of God.
In considering this question we must be careful to dismiss from our minds the
unworthy associations that only too commonly attach themselves to notions of
enmity among men. Hatred cannot be ascribed to One whose deepest name is Love.
o spite, malignity, or evil passion of any kind can be found in the heart of the Holy
God. When due weight is given to these negations very much that we usually see in
the practice of enmity disappears. But this is not to say that the idea itself is denied,
or the fact shown to be impossible.
In the first place, we have no warrant for asserting that God will never act in direct
and intentional opposition to any of His creatures. There is one obvious occasion
when He certainly does this. The man who resists the laws of nature finds those laws
working against him. He is not merely running his head against a stone wall; the
laws are not inert obstructions in the path of the transgressor; they represent forces
in action. That is to say, they resist their opponent with vigorous antagonism. In
themselves they are blind, and they bear him no ill-will. But the Being who wields
the forces is not blind or indifferent. The laws of nature are, as Kingsley said, but
the ways of God. If they are opposing a man God is opposing that man. But God
does not confine His action to the realm of physical processes. His providence works
through the whole course of events in the world’s history. What we see evidently
operating in nature we may infer to be equally active in less visible regions. Then if.
we believe in a God who rules and works in the world, we cannot suppose that His
activity is confined to aiding what is good. It is unreasonable to imagine that He
stands aside in passive negligence of evil. And if He concerns Himself to thwart evil,
what is this but manifesting Himself as the enemy of the evildoer?
It may be contended, on the other side, that there is a world of difference between
antagonistic actions and unfriendly feelings, and that the former by no means imply
the latter. May not God oppose a man who is doing wrong, not at all because He is
his Enemy, but just because He is his truest Friend? Is it not an act of real kindness
to save a man from himself when his own will is leading him astray? This of course
must be granted, and being granted, it will certainly affect our views of the ultimate
issues of what we may be compelled to regard in its present operation as nothing
short of Divine antagonism. It may remind us that the motives lying behind the most
inimical action on God’s part may be merciful and kind in their aims. Still, for the
time being, the opposition is a reality, and a reality which to all intents and purposes
is one of enmity, since it resists, frustrates, hurts.
or is this all. We have no reason to deny that God can have real anger. Is it not
right and just that He should be "angry with the wicked every day"? [Psalms 7:11]
Would He not be imperfect in holiness, would He not be less than God, if He could

behold vile deeds springing from vile hearts with placid indifference? We must
believe that Jesus Christ was as truly revealing the Father when He was moved with
indignation as when He was moved with compassion. His life shows quite clearly
that He was the enemy of oppressors and hypocrites, and He plainly declared that
He came to bring a sword. [Matthew 10:34] His mission was a war against all evil,
and therefore, though not waged with carnal weapons, a war against evil men. The
Jewish authorities were perfectly right in perceiving this fact. They persecuted Him
as their enemy; and He was their enemy. This statement is no contradiction to the
gracious truth that He desired to save all men, and therefore even these men. If
God’s enmity to any soul were eternal it would conflict with His love. It cannot be
that He wishes the ultimate ruin of one of His own children. But if He is at the
present time actively opposing a man, and if He is doing this in anger, in the wrath
of righteousness against sin, it is only quibbling with words to deny that for the time
being He is a very real enemy to that man.
The current of thought in the present day is not in any sympathy with this idea of
God as an Enemy, partly in its revulsion from harsh and un-Christlike conceptions
of God, partly also on account of the modern humanitarianism which almost loses
sight of sin in its absorbing love of mercy. But the tremendous fact of the Divine
enmity towards the sinful man so long as he persists in his sin is not to be lightly
brushed aside. It is not wise wholly to forget that "our God is a consuming fire."
[Hebrews 12:29] It is in consideration of this dread truth that the atonement
wrought by His Son according to His own will of love.is discovered to be an action of
vital efficacy, and not a mere scenic display.
PETT, "Introduction
Chapter 2. A Lament Over What Has Happened To Jerusalem Due To The Lord’s
Anger.
This chapter also divides up into sections. In the first 9 verses the prophet describes
in forceful detail what ‘the Sovereign Lord’ (adonai) has done against Jerusalem
and Judah, and he follows this up in Lamentations 2:10-12 with a picture of
Jerusalem’s inhabitants (elders, virgins, young children) revealing how all this has
affected them (they keep silence and mourn, they hang their heads, the children
complain of hunger). Then in Lamentations 2:13-19 he addresses the inhabitants of
Jerusalem directly, outlining what has come upon them and calling on them to seek
to YHWH for help, finishing it all off in Lamentations 2:20-22 with a direct appeal
to YHWH to see what the situation is.
ote the emphasis in the first six verses on the wrath, fury and anger of the
Lord/YHWH (specifically drawn attention to in Lamentations 2:1 (twice), 2, 3, 4, 6),
something again emphasised in the final verse (Lamentations 2:22). His people had
defied Him and disregarded His loving covenant for too long. They had rejected the
pleas of His prophets. And there comes a time when even God’s patience is at an end
and He becomes relentless. The results of that anger were plain to see in the ruined
Temple, the destroyed city, and the relatively empty and devastated land. (It should,
however, be noted from the human point of view that it was not YHWH Himself

Who had done this, but the Babylonian contingents. God works through history and
the sinfulness of man. He had simply withdrawn His hand of protection because of
His antipathy towards His people’s sin, letting men loose in their viciousness - see
Lamentations 2:3).
Once again we see a variation between ‘Sovereign Lord’ (adonai) and YHWH. In
Lamentations 2:1-5 it is the Sovereign Lord Who has acted against Jerusalem and
Judah/Israel in a variety of ways, whilst in Lamentations 2:6 it is YHWH Who has
caused the solemn gathering of the people and the sabbath to be ‘forgotten’, that is,
not maintained because of Judah’s condition. In Lamentations 2:7 it is the
Sovereign Lord Who has cast off her altar and sanctuary, whilst in Lamentations
2:8 it is YHWH Who has purposed to destroy the walls of Zion and has given the
prophets no vision. From that point there is then no mention of either until
Lamentations 2:17 where it is YHWH Who has devised against Jerusalem and
thrown her down, causing her enemies to rejoice and exalting them, whilst it is to
the Sovereign Lord that the prayers of the women for their hungry children are
addressed and are to be addressed (Lamentations 2:18-19). On the other hand the
Prophet’s appeal for God to consider the situation being prayed about is addressed
to YHWH (Lamentations 2:20), whilst in the same verse reference is made to ‘the
sanctuary of the Lord’. It is clear that the names are being used interchangeably.
The final reference is to ‘the day of YHWH’s anger’ in Lamentations 2:22.
Interesting also are the names used of Judah/Jerusalem in the first few verses. It is
‘the daughter of Zion’ (Lamentations 2:1; Lamentations 2:4; Lamentations 2:8;
Lamentations 2:10), ‘Israel’ (Lamentations 2:1; Lamentations 2:3; Lamentations
2:5), ‘Jacob’ (Lamentations 2:2-3), ‘the daughter of Judah’ (Lamentations 2:5),
‘Zion’ (Lamentations 2:6).
Verses 1-9
The Lord’s Anger Is Revealed In The Destruction Of Jerusalem (Lamentations 2:1-
9).
In these verses we have a description of how in His ‘anger’ (antipathy towards sin)
the Lord has brought destruction on Judah and Jerusalem both politically and
religiously. He is seen as the cause of the Babylonian activity. It is a reminder to us
that behind what often seems to be the meaningless flow of history God is at work.
Lamentations 2:1
(Aleph) How has the Lord covered the daughter of Zion,
With a cloud in his anger!
He has cast down from heaven to the earth,
The beauty of Israel,
And has not remembered his footstool,
In the day of his anger.
In the first five verses of this chapter all the activity is seen as that of ‘the Sovereign
Lord’ acting against those who were once His people. In this first verse a threefold

activity is depicted. The Sovereign Lord has:
· Covered the Daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger.
· Cast down from Heaven to earth the Beauty of Israel.
· ot remembered His Footstool in the day of His anger.
Many commentators have seen all three of these activities as referring to Jerusalem
or Israel; the daughter of Zion covered with a storm-cloud, the beauty of Israel cast
down from Heaven to earth, His footstool not remembered by the Lord. But a
glance at the following verses throws this interpretation into doubt, for they
demonstrate that it is the prophet’s usual practise in this lament to speak of three
different, if parallel things, not the same thing three times. Thus we must view this
interpretation with suspicion.
The first statement is clear. The Sovereign Lord has, in His anger, covered the
daughter of Zion (Jerusalem) with a storm-cloud. This is the very opposite to the
way in which, in earlier days, YHWH had manifested Himself in a cloud. That had
been protective, indicating His presence with them. ow the swirling storm-cloud is
seen to be one of judgment and fierce anger.
He has ‘cast down the Beauty of Israel from Heaven to earth’. This phrase is
descriptive of a fall from high honour, even from god-likeness, as we see by its use of
the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14:1, and of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:14; Ezekiel 28:17. But
to what does ‘the Beauty of Israel refer? The concept of beauty is elsewhere:
· 1). Referred to the Temple (Psalms 96:6; Isaiah 60:7; Isaiah 64:11).
· 2). Referred to Israel/Judah’s royal house (compare 2 Samuel 1:19;
Zechariah 12:7).
· 3). Referred to Jerusalem itself (Isaiah 52:1). See Lamentations 2:15.
Compare in this regard how Babylon is called "the beauty of the splendour of the
Chaldeans" in Isaiah 13:19.
If we take it as 3) it would certainly fit in as a parallel to ‘the daughter of Zion’, but,
as we have already suggested, in this lament the prophet does not tend to use such
exact parallels. Thus we would rather expect the daughter of Zion, the beauty of
Israel, and the Footstool to refer to three different things.
Considering 2). reference to Judah’s king as ‘the Beauty of Israel’ (as in 2 Samuel
1:19; Zechariah 12:7) and being cast down from Heaven to earth would certainly tie
in with the parallel of the King of Babylon who made exalted claims about his status
and was also to be cast from Heaven to earth (Isaiah 14:12-15), and it is quite
possible that Zedekiah may have been aping the Babylonian ew Year ritual in
which this was enacted. Reference to the king may also be seen as a good parallel to
the Ark, if we take the Ark as His footstool, something specifically stated in 1
Chronicles 28:2, for both the King and the Ark represented YHWH’s kingship.
Furthermore a star falling from Heaven could certainly be seen as signifying a bad
end for a ruler (for star = ruler compare umbers 24:17; Daniel 8:10). And
certainly the king was seen by Jerusalem and the prophet in an exalted sense, being
described in terms of ‘YHWH’s Anointed’, the very breath of their nostrils

(Lamentations 4:20), making clear his importance in their eyes. As the Davidic king
and the Anointed of YHWH, the one on whom Israel’s hopes rested, he could well
be described as the beauty of Israel. In contrast it is difficult to see either the
Temple or Jerusalem as being cast down from Heaven to earth (unless we see the
idea as metaphorical of their splendour being cast down from Heaven, but there is
no example of this elsewhere). What is also significant is that the king and his
princes, and their fate, are stressed in the immediately following verses (see
Lamentations 2:2; Lamentations 2:6) demonstrating that they were in the prophet’s
mind as he wrote. It would appear to us therefore that the Beauty of Israel was the
Davidic king, whose status was beautiful, but who was brought low by the Lord.
It was the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH that was mainly seen as YHWH’s
footstool (1 Chronicles 28:2; compare Psalms 99:5). This was presumably because it
was seen as the place where YHWH manifested Himself on earth, as He sat on His
throne in Heaven whilst His feet rested on the ark. Though hidden behind the
curtain in the tabernacle/temple the Ark was the means by which, through their
high priest, Israel felt that they could directly meet with God. And that ark was now
to be ‘not remembered’ by Him, something apparent when it was either destroyed
or carried off to Babylon. It had become simply a treasure and would no longer be
able to fulfil its function. What had been sacred for so long was now to be seen as
irrelevant.
If we accept these suggestions we see the verse as indicating that Jerusalem had been
covered by His storm-cloud, as His anger rested on it; the membership of the
Davidic royal house had been cast from Heaven to earth (removed from its high
status and profaned - Lamentations 2:2), because it had been disobedient to YHWH
and could therefore no longer represent Him; and the Ark had become ‘not
remembered’ because it had been carried off (or destroyed) and could no longer
function.
It is, of course, possible, to see all three ideas as referring to the same thing, either
Jerusalem itself (Isaiah 52:1), or the Temple, seen equally as ‘the daughter of Zion’,
‘the Beauty of Israel’ (see Isaiah 64:11) and ‘His Footstool’ (Psalms 132:7; Isaiah
60:13), but the references are not specific and Psalms 132:7 could equally apply to
the ark, whilst the ‘casting down to earth’ makes this interpretation questionable.
Given the prophet’s usual practise of speaking of three different but similar things,
as explained above, this interpretation would seem to be very unlikely.
BI 1-9, "How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in ms anger.
Chastisements
1. It is our duty to strive with ourselves to be affected with the miseries of God’s
people.
2. The chastisements and corrections that God layeth upon His Church are most
wonderful.
(1) The Lord will in His own servants declare His anger against sin.

(2) He seeth afflictions the best means to frame them to His obedience.
(3) His ways are beyond the reach of flesh and blood.
3. God spareth not to smite His dearest children when they sin against Him.
(1) That He may declare Himself an adversary to sin in all men without
partiality.
(2) That He may reduce His servants from running on headlong to hell with the
wicked.
4. The higher God advanceth any, the greater is their punishment in the day of their
visitation for their sins.
(1) To whom much is given, of them must much be required.
(2) According to the privileges abused, so is the sin of those that have them
greater and more in number.
5. The most beautiful thing in this world is base in respect of the majesty and glory
of the Lord.
6. God’s anger against sin moveth Him to destroy the things that He commanded for
His own service, when they are abused by men. (J. Udall.)
The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob.
Spoiled habitations
1. It is the hand of God that taketh away the flourishing estate of a kingdom (Dan_
4:29).
2. As God is full of mercy in His long-suffering, so is His anger unappeasable when it
breaketh out against the sons of men for their sins (Jer_4:4).
3. God depriveth us of a great blessing when He taketh from us our dwelling places.
4. There is no assurance of worldly possessions and peace, but in the favour of God.
5. God overthroweth the greatest strength that man can erect, even at His pleasure.
6. It is a mark of God’s wrath, to be deprived of strength, courage, or any other
necessary gift, when we stand in need of them.
7. It is the sin of the Church that causeth the Lord to spoil the same of any blessing
that she hath heretofore enjoyed.
8. These being taken away in God’s anger, teacheth us that it is the good blessing of
God to have a kingdom, to have strongholds, munitions, etc., for a defence against
their enemies.
9. The more God honoureth us with His blessings, the greater shall be our dishonour
if we abuse them, when He entereth “into judgment” with us for the same. (J. Udall.)
He hath cut off in His fierce anger all the horn of Israel.—
Strength despoiled

1. Strength and honour are in the Lord’s disposition, to be given, continued, or taken
away at His pleasure.
2. When God’s favour is towards us, it is our shield against our enemies; but when
He meaneth to punish us, He leaveth us unto ourselves.
3. Though God’s justice be severe against sin in all men, yet is it most manifest in His
Church, having sinned against Him.
(1) All men’s eyes are most upon God’s Church.
(2) God doth declare Himself more in and for His Church than the world
besides. (J. Udall.)
2 Without pity the Lord has swallowed up
all the dwellings of Jacob;
in his wrath he has torn down
the strongholds of Daughter Judah.
He has brought her kingdom and its princes
down to the ground in dishonor.
BAR ES, "Habitations - The dwellings of the shepherds in the pastures Jer_49:19.
These are described as swallowed up by an earthquake, while the storm itself throws
down the fortified cities of Judah.
Polluted - i. e. profaned it, made common or unclean what before was holy.
CLARKE, "The Lord hath swallowed up - It is a strange figure when thus
applied: but Jehovah is here represented as having swallowed down Jerusalem and all
the cities and fortifications in the land: that is, he has permitted them to be destroyed.
See Lam_2:6.
GILL, "The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath
not pitied,.... As he regarded not his own habitation the temple, nor the ark his

footstool, it is no wonder he should be unconcerned about the habitations of others; as
of the inhabitants of the land of Judea and of Jerusalem, particularly of the king, his
nobles, and the great men; these the Lord swallowed up, or suffered to be swallowed up,
as houses in an earthquake, and by an inundation, so as to be seen no more; and this he
did without showing the least reluctance, pity, and compassion; being so highly incensed
and provoked by their sins and transgressions:
he hath thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of the daughter of
Judah; not only the dwelling houses of the people, but the most fortified places, their
castles, towers, and citadels:
he hath brought them down to the ground; and not only battered and shook them,
but beat them down, and laid them level with the ground; and all this done in the fury of
his wrath, being irritated to it by the sins of his people; even the daughter of Judah, or
the congregation thereof, as the Targum:
he hath polluted the kingdom, and the princes thereof; what was reckoned
sacred, the kingdom of the house of David, and the kings and princes of it, the Lord's
anointed; these being defiled with sin, God cast them away, as filth to the dunghill, and
gave them up into the hands of the Gentiles, who were reckoned unclean; and thus they
were profaned. Jarchi interprets these princes of the Israelites in common, who were
called a kingdom of priests; and makes mention of a Midrash, that explains them of the
princes above, or of heaven.
JAMISO , "polluted — by delivering it into the hands of the profane foe. Compare
Psa_89:39, “profaned ... crown.”
K&D, "The Lord has destroyed not merely Jerusalem, but the whole kingdom. ‫ע‬ ַ ִ ,
"to swallow up," involves the idea of utter annihilation, the fury of destruction, just in
the same way as it viz. the fury is peculiar to ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ב‬ ָ‫,ע‬ the overflowing of anger. "He hath not
spared" forms an adverbial limitation of the previous statement, "unsparingly." The Qeri
‫ּא‬‫ל‬ְ‫,ו‬ instead of ‫ּא‬‫ל‬, is an unnecessary and unpoetic emendation. ‫ּות‬‫א‬ָ‫ל־נ‬ ָⅴ, all the pastures of
Jacob. According to its etymology, ‫ה‬ֶ‫ו‬ָ‫נ‬ means a place where shepherds or nomads rest, or
stay, or live; here, it is not to be understood specially of the dwellings as contrasted with,
or distinguished from the pasture-grounds, but denotes, in contrast with the fortresses
(‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫צ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫,)מ‬ the open, unfortified places of the country in which men and cattle enjoy food
and rest. "The strongholds of the daughter of Judah" are not merely the fortifications of
Jerusalem, but the fortresses generally of the country and kingdom of Judah; cf. Jer_
5:17; Jer_34:7. ַ‫יע‬ִ ִ‫ה‬ ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ፎ ָ‫,ל‬ "to cast down to the ground" (used of the pulling down of walls,
cf. Isa_25:12), is an epexegesis of ‫ס‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ‫,ח‬ as in Exo_13:14, and is not to be joined (in
opposition to the accents) with what succeeds, and taken figuratively. For neither does
‫ל‬ ֵ ִ‫ח‬ need any strengthening, nor does ַ‫יע‬ִ ִ‫ה‬ ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ፎ ָ‫ל‬ suitably apply to the kingdom and its
princes. The desecration of the kingdom consisted in its being dishonoured by the
disgraceful conduct of its rulers; cf. Psa_89:40.

CALVI , "He pursues the same subject, but in other words. He first says, that God
had without pardon destroyed all the habitations of Jacob; some read, “all the
beauty (or the ornament) of Jacob.” But the other rendering is more suitable, that
he had destroyed all the habitations of Jacob; and then that he had demolished in
his indignation, etc. The word is derived from what means excess; but we know that
all words signifying wrath are transferred to God, but they do not properly belong
to him. God, then, in his violent wrath had demolished all fortresses, and cast them
to the ground; and afterwards, that he had profaned, etc.
This profanation of the kingdom, and of the princes, corresponds with the former
verse, where he said that God had not remembered his footstool for we know that
the kingdom was sacerdotal and consecrated to God. When, therefore, it was
polluted, it follows that God in a manner exposed his name to reproach, because the
mouth of all the ungodly was thus opened, so that they insolently poured forth their
slanders. That God, then, spared not the kingdom nor the Temple, it hence followed
that his wrath against the Jews was dreadful. ow, as he is a righteous judge, it
follows, that such was the greatness of the sins of the Jews, that they sustained the
blame for this extreme sacrilege; for it was through their sins that God’s name was
exposed to reproach both as to the Temple and the kingdom.
TRAPP, "Lamentations 2:2 The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of
Jacob, and hath not pitied: he hath thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of
the daughter of Judah; he hath brought [them] down to the ground: he hath
polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof.
Ver. 2. The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jadah.] Kατεποντισε, (a)
as the sea swalloweth up a ship; as an earthquake swalloweth up whole townships;
as fire swalloweth up fuel, or as Moses’ serpent swallowed up the sorcerers’
serpents.
And hath not pitied.] This was worse than all the rest. [Isaiah 47:6]
He hath thrown down.] ot shaken them only, and so left them standing, but utterly
subverted them, and that in great displeasure, Deo irritato, et irato. God set on the
Chaldees, and was the author, not of their evil will, but of their work.
He hath brought them down to the ground.] Though for their height they seemed to
threaten heaven.
He hath polluted the kingdom and the priests.] Which were held holy and
inviolable. Profanavit regnum coeli, say some Rabbis here, He hath profaned the

kingdom of heaven; for so they accounted the commonwealth of Israel, which
Josephus calleth Yεοκρατειαν, a God government. But now God had disprivileged
them, and cast them off as a thing of naught.
PETT, "Lamentations 2:2
(Beth) The Lord has swallowed up and has not pitied,
All the habitations of Jacob,
He has thrown down in his wrath,
The strongholds of the daughter of Judah,
He has brought them down to the ground,
He has profaned the kingdom, and its princes.
ote here an example of what we have said above. The prophet refers to ‘the
habitations of Jacob’ (the noun indicates rude habitations like those of a shepherd),
‘the strongholds of the daughter of Judah’ (referring to substantial cities), and ‘the
kingdom and its princes’.
The word for ‘habitations’ is mainly used for the habitations of shepherds. Thus it
would appear that what are initially seen as swallowed up by the invaders are the
smaller towns and villages which were not ‘built up’ and were without walls, thus
being easy targets. The larger towns and cities are covered by the idea of
‘strongholds’. They have been thrown down in His wrath. Indeed they have been
brought down to the ground.
And at the same time ‘the kingdom, and its princes’ have been ‘profaned’, that is,
have been rendered or treated as unclean and defiled, being treated as though they
were an ordinary kingdom and ordinary princes and not YHWH’s chosen. In the
case of the princes they have also been slain by the swords of profane men. There is
a recognition here of the fact that the princes were seen to have had a special
recognition by God as being His anointed princes, and this was especially so of the
king who was YHWH’s Anointed (Lamentations 4:20). But that special recognition
had not prevented the Lord from allowing them to be profaned by foreign swords or
by equally foreign instruments for blinding.
The word for ‘kingdom’ could equally be translated ‘kingship’ on the basis of 2
Samuel 3:10; 2 Samuel 7:12-13; 2 Samuel 7:16. ote how in 2 Samuel 7 it parallels
the idea of the throne of David. This would support the idea that in Lamentations
2:1 ‘the beauty of Israel’ was the Davidic house and throne.
3 In fierce anger he has cut off

every horn[c][d] of Israel.
He has withdrawn his right hand
at the approach of the enemy.
He has burned in Jacob like a flaming fire
that consumes everything around it.
BAR ES, "Since the horn is the symbol of power, the cutting off of every horn means
the depriving Israel of all power of resistance. The drawing back of God’s right hand
signifies the withdrawal of that special Providence which used to protect the chosen
people.
And he burned ... - Or, “and” he kindled a fire in Jacob: as the active enemy of
“Jacob,” Himself applying the torch.
CLARKE, "The horn of Israel - His power and strength. It is a metaphor taken
from cattle, whose principal strength lies in their horns.
Hath drawn back his right hand - He did not support us when our enemies came
against us.
GILL, "He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel,.... All its power
and strength, especially its kingly power, which is often signified by a horn in Scripture;
see Dan_7:24; this the Lord took away in his fierce anger, and left the land destitute of
all relief, help, defence and protection; whether from its king and princes, or from its
men of war or fortified places; all being cut off and destroyed:
he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy; either his own right
hand, with which he had used to fight for his people, and protect them, but now
withdrawing it, left them to the mercy of their enemies; or Israel's right hand, which he
so weakened, that they had no power to resist the enemy, and defend themselves:
and he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire which devoureth round
about; that is, his wrath was like a burning flaming fire, which consumes all around,
wherever it comes; thus the Lord in his anger consumed Jacob, and left neither root nor
branch.
JAMISO , "horn — worn in the East as an ornament on the forehead, and an
emblem of power and majesty (1Sa_2:10; Psa_132:17; see on Jer_48:25).

drawn back ... fight hand — (Psa_74:11). God has withdrawn the help which He
before gave them. Not as Henderson, “He has turned back his (Israel’s) right hand”
(Psa_89:43).
K&D, "In Lam_2:3 and Lam_2:4, the writer describes the hostile conduct of the Lord
towards Israel, by which the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Thenius utterly mistakes
the poetic character of the description given, and evidently finds in it the several events
that occurred up to the taking of the city, all mentioned in their natural order; according
to this, the perfects would require to be translated as preterites. But this view can be
made out only by giving an arbitrary meaning to the several figures used; e.g., it is
alleged that "every horn" means the frontier fortresses, that the expression "before the
enemy" refers to the time when the latter turned his face against Jerusalem, and so on.
The three members of Lam_2:3 contain a climax: deprivation of the power to resist; the
withdrawal of aid; the necessary consequence of which was the burning like a flame of
fire. "To cut down the horn" means to take away offensive and defensive power; see on
Jer_48:25. "Every horn" is not the same as "all horns," but means all that was a horn of
Israel (Gerlach). This included not merely the fortresses of Judah, but every means of
defence and offence belonging to the kingdom, including men fit for war, who are
neither to be excluded nor (with Le Clerc) to be all that is understood by "every horn." In
the expression ‫ּו‬‫נ‬‫י‬ ִ‫מ‬ְ‫יב...י‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫,ה‬ the suffix, as in ‫ּו‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫,ק‬ Lam_2:4, refers to Jahveh, because the
suffix joined to ‫ד‬ָ‫י‬ always points back to the subject of the verb ‫יב‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫;ה‬ cf. Psa_74:11. God
drew back His hand before the enemy, i.e., He withdrew from the people His assistance
in the struggle against the enemy. Such is the meaning given long ago by the Chaldee:
nec auxiliatus est populo suo coram hoste. ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ע‬ ְ‫ב‬ַ ַ‫ו‬ ‫ּב‬‫ק‬ ֲ‫ע‬ַ‫י‬ ְ does not mean "He consumed
Jacob;" but He burned (i.e., made a conflagration) in Jacob; for, in every passage in
which ‫ר‬ ַ‫ע‬ ָ is construed with ְ , it does not mean to "burn something," but to burn in or
among, or to kindle a fire (cf. Job_1:16, where the burning up is only expressed by
‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ְ‫ּאכ‬ ַ‫,ו‬ Num_11:3; Psa_106:18), or to set something on fire, Isa_42:25. The burning
represents devastation; hence the comparison of ‫ר‬ ַ‫ע‬ ְ‫ב‬ִ‫י‬ with "like fire of flame (= flaming,
brightly blazing fire, cf. Isa_4:5; Psa_105:32) that devours round about." The subject of
‫ר‬ ַ‫ע‬ ְ‫ב‬ִ‫י‬ is Jahveh, not ira Jovae (Rosenmüller), or ‫ה‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ל‬ (Neumann), or the enemy
(Gerlach). The transition from the perfect with ‫ו‬ consec. does not cause any change of
the subject; this is shown by Lam_2:4 and Lam_2:5, where also the second clause is
connected with the first by means of ‫ו‬ consec. But the statement of Gerlach - that if
Jahveh and not the enemy be the subject, then the consecutive sentence (the burning
among Jacob as the result of the withdrawal of Jahveh's hand before the enemy) would
be inexplicable - gives no evidence of its truth. The kindling or making of the fire in
Jacob is, of course, represented as a result of what is previously stated, yet not as the
consequence merely of the withdrawal of his hand, but also of the cutting off of every
horn. In both of these ways, God has kindled in Jacob a fire which grows into a
destructive conflagration. - In Lam_2:4 the idea is still further developed: God not
merely delivered up His people to the enemy, leaving them defenceless and helpless, but
also came forward Himself to fight against them as an enemy. He bent His bow like a
warrior, showing Himself, in reference to His claims, as an adversary or oppressor. The
specification "His right hand" is added, not so much for the purpose of defining more

exactly the activity of the right hand (using it to shoot the arrows or wield the sword; cf.
Deu_32:41., Psa_7:13.), as rather with the view of expressing more precisely the hostile
attitude of God, since the right hand of God is at other times represented as the
instrument of help. The expression "and He slew," which follows, does not require us to
think of a sword in the right hand of God, since we can also kill with arrows. God slew as
an enemy; He destroyed everything that was precious in men's sight, i.e., to merely
omnes homines aetate, specie, dignitate conspicuos (C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmüller,
Thenius); for, in Psa_78:47, ‫ג‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ‫ח‬ is also used with reference to the effect of hail on the
vine; and the arrows shot from the bow are merely named by synecdoche, and by way of
specification, as instruments of war for destruction. Still less can ‫ן‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫י־ע‬ ֵ ַ‫מ‬ ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫מ‬ signify omnia
ea templi ornamenta, quibus merito gloriabatur populus (Kalkschmidt), since it is not
till Lam_2:6. that the temple is spoken of. "The word is to be taken in its widest
generality, which is indicated by 'all;' accordingly, it comprehends everything that can be
looked upon as dear," including children (cf. Eze_24:25) and the sanctuary, though all
these do not exhaust the meaning of the word (Gerlach). Upon the tent of the daughter
of Zion He poured out His fury in fire. The daughter of Zion means the inhabitants of
Jerusalem: her tent is not the temple (Kalkschmidt, Ewald), which is never called the
tent of the daughter of Zion, but only that of Jahveh (1Ki_2:28, etc.); but her house, i.e.,
the city as a collection of dwellings. The figure of the outpouring of wrath is often used,
not only in Jer_6:11; Jer_10:25; Jer_42:18, etc., but also in Hos_5:10; Zep_3:8; Psa_
69:25; Psa_76:6, etc.
CALVI , "Jeremiah expresses the same thing in various ways; but all that he says
tends to shew that it was an evidence of God’s extreme vengeance, when the people,
the city, and the Temple, were destroyed. But it ought to be observed, that God is
here represented as the author of that calamity: the Prophet would have otherwise
lamented in vain over the ruin of his own country; but as in all adversities he
acknowledged the hand of God, he afterwards added, that God had a just reason
why he was so grievously displeased with his own people.
He then says, that every horn had been broken by God. 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. But the
whole clause must be noticed, that God had broken every horn of Israel in the
indignation of his wrath. The Prophet intimates that God had not been angry with
his people as though he had been offended by slight transgressions, but that the
measure of his wrath had been unusual, even because the impiety of the people had
so burst forth, that the offense given to God could not have been slight. Then, by
indignation of wrath the Prophet does not mean an excess, as though God had
through a violent impulse rushed forth to take vengeance; but he rather intimates
that the people had become so wicked, that it did not behoove God to punish in an
ordinary way an impiety so inveterate.
He then adds, that God had withdrawn, his right hand from before the enemy, and
that at the same time he had burned like a fire, the flame of which had devoured all
around. The Prophet here refers to two things; the first is, that though God had
been accustomed to help his people, and to oppose their enemies, as they had

experienced his aid in the greatest dangers, yet now his people were forsaken and
left destitute of all hope. The first clause, then, declares, that God would not be the
deliverer of his people as formerly, because they had forsaken him. But he speaks
figuratively, that God had drawn back his right hand; and God’s right hand means
his protection, as it is well known. But the Prophet’s meaning is by no means
obscure, even that there was hereafter no hope that God would meet the enemies of
his people, and thus preserve them in safety, for he had drawn back his hand. (149)
But there is a second thing added, even that God’s hand burned like fire. ow it was
in itself a grievous thing that the people had been so rejected by God, that no help
could be expected from him; but it was still a harder thing, that he went forth
armed to destroy his people. And the metaphor of fire ought to be noticed; for had
he said that God’s right hand was against his people, the expression would not have
been so forcible; but when he compared God’s right hand to fire which burned, and
whose flame consumed all Israel, it was a much more dreadful thing. (150)
Moreover, by these words the Israelites were reminded that they were not to lament
their calamities in an ordinary way, but ought, on the contrary, to have seriously
considered the cause of all their evils, even the provoking of God’s wrath against
themselves; and not only so, but that God was angry with them in an unusual
degree, and yet justly, so that they had no reason to complain. It follows, —
And he burned in Jacob as fire,
the flame devoured around.
— Ed
TRAPP, "Lamentations 2:3 He hath cut off in [his] fierce anger all the horn of
Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned
against Jacob like a flaming fire, [which] devoureth round about.
Ver. 3. He hath cut off in his anger all the horn of Israel,] i.e., All the strength and
beauty, the royal majesty especially. [Psalms 89:24; Psalms 132:17]
He hath drawn back his right hand.] Wherewith he was wont to shelter them and to
fight for them. Or, Israel’s right hand - scil., by disabling them; for it is God that
strengtheneth and weakeneth the arm of either party. [Ezekiel 30:24]
And he burned against Jacob.] Or, In Jacob - i.e., He declareth his displeasure
among his people as clearly as a flame of fire that is easily discerned.
(Gimel) He has cut off in fierce anger,
All the horn of Israel,
He has drawn back his right hand,

From before the enemy,
And he has burned up Jacob like a flaming fire,
Which devours round about.
Here the prophet makes clear how God accomplishes His work. He allows the evil of
man free rein, withdrawing His protection from His people (drawing back His right
hand). By this means He has cut off ‘all the horn of Israel’. The horn was the symbol
of an animal’s power and strength, and when men wished to render it ‘harmless’
they cut off its horn. This was what YHWH had metaphorically done to Israel. ote
the mention of ‘Israel’. The prophet saw Judah as representing Israel, and indeed it
did so, for it contained a mixture of the ‘twelve tribes’, many of whom had fled or
migrated from the north.
And the consequence was that ‘Jacob’ (Abraham’s grandson was called both Jacob
and Israel) had literally been ‘burned up like a flaming fire’, as the fierce invaders
had set light to its towns and cities. But the thought is wider than that of just literal
fire. The prophet sees the ability of fire to eat up everything as the symbol of total
destruction.
4 Like an enemy he has strung his bow;
his right hand is ready.
Like a foe he has slain
all who were pleasing to the eye;
he has poured out his wrath like fire
on the tent of Daughter Zion.
BAR ES, "He stood with his right hand ... - i. e. that right hand so often
stretched out to help now grasped a weapon ready for Judah’s destruction.
Were pleasant - Or, was “pleasant.” Put full stop after “eye.” Begin the third distich
thus:
In the tabernacle - (or, tent) of the daughter of Zion.
CLARKE, "He hath bent his bow - he stood with his right hand - This is the
attitude of the archer. He first bends his bow; then sets his arrow upon the string; and,

lastly, placing his right hand on the lower end of the arrow, in connection with the
string, takes his aim, and prepares to let fly.
GILL, "He hath bent his bow like an enemy,.... God sometimes appears as if he
was an enemy to his people, when he is not, by his conduct and behaviour; by the
dispensations of his providence they take him to be so, as Job did, Job_16:9; he bends
his bow, or treads it, for the bending or stretching the bow was done by the foot; and as
the Targum,
"and threw his arrows at me:''
he stood with his right hand as an adversary; with arrows in it, to put into his
bow or with his sword drawn, as an adversary does. The Targum is,
"he stood at the right hand of Nebuchadnezzar and helped him, when he distressed his
people Israel:''
and slew all that were pleasant to the eye; princes and priests, husbands and
wives, parents and children, young men and maids; desirable to their friends and
relations, and to the commonwealth:
in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion he poured out his fury like fire; that
is, either in the temple, or in the city of Jerusalem, or both, which were burnt with fire,
as the effect of divine wrath and fury; and which itself is comparable to fire; like a
burning lamp of fire, as the Targum; or rather like a burning furnace or mountain; see
Nah_1:6.
JAMISO , "(Isa_63:10).
stood with ... right hand — He took His stand so as to use His right hand as an
adversary. Henderson makes the image to be that of an archer steadying his right hand
to take aim. Not only did He withdraw His help, but also took arms against Israel.
all ... pleasant to ... eye — (Eze_24:25). All that were conspicuous for youth,
beauty, and rank.
in ... tabernacle — the dwellings of Jerusalem.
CALVI , "He employs now another metaphor, that God, who was wont to defend
his people, now took up arms against them; for stating a part for the whole, he
includes in the bow every other weapon. When, therefore, he says that God had bent
his bow, it is the same as though he said that he was fully armed. The bow, then, as
we have before seen, means every kind of weapon. He then adds, that his right hand
stood as an adversary. Here he more plainly describes what he had before touched
upon, even that God had not only given up his people to the will of their enemies,
but that he himself had held up a banner to their enemies, and went before them
with an armed hand. or is there a doubt but that by the right hand of God he
means all their enemies; for it was necessary carefully to impress this fact on the
minds of the people, that the war had not been brought by the Chaldeans, but that
God had resolved thereby to punish the wickedness of the people, and especially

their desperate obstinacy, for he had omitted nothing to restore the people to the
right way.
Whenever, then, there is mention made here of God, let us know that the people are
reminded, as I have already said, that they had to do with God, lest. they should
forget this, or think that it was adverse fortune, or dream of some other causes of
evils, as men are wont in this respect to be very ingenious in deceiving themselves.
And we shall see this more clearly hereafter, where it is said, that God had thought
to destroy the wall of Jerusalem; but this thought was the same as his decree. Then
the Prophet explains there more fully what is yet here substantially found, even that
God was brought forward thus before the people, that they might learn to humble
themselves under his mighty hand. The hand of God was not indeed visible, but the
Prophet shews that the Chaldeans were not alone to be regarded, but rather that the
hidden hand of God, by which they were guided, ought to have been seen by the eyes
of faith. It was, then, this hand of God that stood against the people.
It then follows, He slew all the chosen men; some read, “all things desirable;” but it
seems more suitable to consider men as intended, as though he had said, that the
flower of the people perished by the hand of God in the tabernacle of the daughter
of Sion; though the last clause would unite better with the end of the verse, that on
the tabernacle of the daughter of Sion God had poured forth his wrath, or his anger,
as fire
He repeats the metaphor which he had used in the last verse; and this is what we
ought carefully to notice; for God threatens by Isaiah that he would be a fire to
devour his enemies:
“The light of Israel shall be a fire, and his Holy One a flame of fire, and it shall
devour all briers and all kinds of wood.”
(Isaiah 10:7.)
There God threatened the Chaldeans, as though he had said that his vengeance
would be dreadful, when as a patron and defender of his people he would contend
with the Chaldeans. He there calls himself the light of Israel and the Holy One; and
hence he said that he would be a fire and a flame as to the Chaldeans. But what does
he say here? even that God had poured forth lt is wrath as fire, that its flame had
devoured all around whatever was fair to be seen in Israel. We hence see that the
people had provoked against themselves the vengeance of God, which would have
been otherwise poured forth on their enemies; and thus the sin of the people was
doubled. It follows, —
TRAPP, "Lamentations 2:4 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 in the
tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.
Ver. 4. He hath bent his bow like an enemy.] He doth not only help the enemies, but

himself fighteth against us with his own bare hand. He hath bent his bow, id est, vim
suam ultricem, saith Origen; that is, his avenging force. So the poet feigneth that
Apollo shot his deadly shafts into the camp of the Grecians.
He stood with his right hand.] Heb., He was set. Vulgate, Firmavit dextram suam;
he held his right hand steadily, that he might hit what he shot at.
In the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion.] In Jerusalem, that was sweetly situated,
as a tabernacle pitched in a pleasant plain, but now a field of blood.
He hath poured out his wrath like fire,] i.e., Abundantly and most vehemently,
perinde ac Aetna, Hecla, &c.
(Daleth) He has bent his bow like an enemy,
He has stood with his right hand,
And he has slain like an adversary,
All who were pleasant to the eye,
In the tent of the daughter of Zion,
He has poured out his wrath like fire.
The Lord is seen as being like an archer who picks off the enemy one by one, and a
swordsman who slays with his right hand, in this case ‘all who were pleasant to the
eye’ in Judah. This may refer to Judah’s young men and women in their prime, or it
may refer to the royal house and the aristocracy. Or indeed to both. For His wrath
is like a fire that devours all before it.
It would be possible to render this as ‘He has destroyed like an adversary all that
was pleasant to the eye’, referring to the noble buildings, the treasures, and
especially the Temple with its treasures. But the translation above fits the context
better.
5 The Lord is like an enemy;
he has swallowed up Israel.
He has swallowed up all her palaces
and destroyed her strongholds.

He has multiplied mourning and lamentation
for Daughter Judah.
BAR ES, "Literally, ‫אדני‬ 'ădonāy has become “as an enemy.”
GILL, "The Lord was as an enemy,.... Who formerly was on their side, their God
and guardian, their protector and deliverer, but now against them; and a terrible thing it
is to have God for an enemy, or even to be as one; this is repeated, as being exceeding
distressing, and even intolerable. Mr. Broughton renders it, "the Lord is become a very
enemy"; taking "caph" for a note of reality, and not of similitude;
he hath swallowed up Israel; the ten tribes, or the Jewish nation in general; as a
lion, or any other savage beast, swallows its prey, and makes nothing of it, and leaves
none behind:
he hath swallowed up all her palaces: the palaces of Zion or Jerusalem; the palaces
of the king, princes, nobles, and great men; as an earthquake or inundation swallows up
whole streets and cities at once; See Gill on Lam_2:2;
he hath destroyed his strong holds: the fortified places of the land of Israel, the
towers and castles:
and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation;
exceeding great lamentation, for the destruction of its cities, towns, villages, and the
inhabitants of them.
HE RY 5-9, " Time was when Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were strong and
well fortified, were trusted to by the inhabitants and let alone by the enemy as
impregnable. But now the lord has in anger swallowed them up; they are quite gone; the
forts and barriers are taken away, and the invaders meet with no opposition: the stately
structures, which were their strength and beauty, are pulled down and laid waste. 1. The
Lord has in anger swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob (Lam_2:2), both the cities
and the country houses; they are burnt, or otherwise destroyed, so totally ruined that
they seem to have been swallowed up, and no remains left of them. He has swallowed
up, and has not pitied. One would have thought it a pity that such sumptuous houses, so
well built, so well furnished, should be quite destroyed, ad that some pity should have
been had for the poor inhabitants that were thus dislodged and driven to wander; but
God's wonted compassion seemed to fail: He has swallowed up Israel, as a lion swallows
up his prey, Lam_2:5. 2. He has swallowed up not only her common habitations, but
her palaces, all her palaces, the habitations of their princes and great men (Lam_2:5),
though those were most stately, and strong, and rich, and well guarded. God's
judgments, when they come with commission, level palaces with cottages, and as easily

swallow them up. If palaces be polluted with sin, as theirs were, let them expect to be
visited with a curse, which shall consume them, with the timber thereof and the stones
thereof, Zec_5:4. 3. He had destroyed not only their dwelling-places, but their strong-
holds, their castles, citadels, and places of defence. These he has thrown down in his
wrath, and brought them to the ground; for shall they stand in the way of his
judgments, and give check to the progress of them? No; let them drop like leaves in
autumn; let them be rased to the foundations, and made to touch the ground, Lam_2:2.
And again (Lam_2:5), He has destroyed his strong-holds; for what strength could they
have against God? And thus he increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and
lamentation, for they could not but be in a dreadful consternation when they saw all
their defence departed from them. This is again insisted on, Lam_2:7-9. In order to the
swallowing up of her palaces, he has given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of
her palaces, which were their security, and, when they are broken down, the palaces
themselves are soon broken into. The walls of palaces cannot protect them, unless God
himself be a wall of fire round about them. This God did in his anger, and yet he has
done it deliberately. It is the result of a previous purpose, and is done by a wise and
steady providence; for the Lord has purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of
Zion; he brought the Chaldean army in on purpose to do this execution. Note, Whatever
desolations God makes in his church, they are all according to his counsels; he performs
the thing that is appointed for us, even that which makes most against us. But, when it is
done, he has stretched out a line, a measuring line, to do it exactly and by measure:
hitherto the destruction shall go, and no further; no more shall be cut off than what is
marked to be so. Or it is meant of the line of confusion (Isa_34:11), a levelling line; for he
will go on with his work; he has not withdrawn his hand from destroying, that right
hand which he stretched out against his people as an adversary, Lam_2:4. As far as the
purpose went the performance shall go, and his hand shall accomplish his counsel to the
utmost, and not be withdrawn. Therefore he made the rampart and the wall, which the
people had rejoiced in and upon which perhaps they had made merry, to lament, and
they languished together; the walls and the ramparts, or bulwarks, upon them, fell
together, and were left to condole with one another on their fall. Her gates are gone in
an instant, so that one would think they were sunk into the ground with their own
weight, and he has destroyed and broken her bars, those bars of Jerusalem's gates
which formerly he had strengthened, Psa_147:13. Gates and bars will stand us in no
stead when God has withdrawn his protection.
JAMISO , "an enemy — (Jer_30:14).
mourning and lamentation — There is a play of similar sounds in the original,
“sorrow and sadness,” to heighten the effect (Job_30:3, Hebrew; Eze_35:3, Margin).
K&D, "The Lord has become like an enemy. ‫ב‬ֵ‫ּוי‬‫א‬ ְⅴ is not separated from ‫ה‬ָ‫י‬ ָ‫ה‬ by the
accents (Pesik and Mahpak before, and Kadma after); so that there appears to be
nothing to justify the remark of Gerlach, that, "as if the prophet were hesitating whether
he should state explicitly that the Lord had become an enemy, he breaks off the sentence
he had begun, 'The Lord hath become...,' and continues, 'He hath destroyed like a
mighty one.' " As to ‫ע‬ ַ ִ , cf. Lam_2:2. "Israel" is the name of Judah viewed as the
covenant people. The swallowing or destruction of Israel is explained in the clauses
which follow as a destruction of the palaces and fortresses. The mention of the palaces
points to the destruction of Jerusalem, while the "fortresses" similarly indicate the

Lamentations 2 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Lamentations 2 commentary

Similar to Lamentations 2 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lamentations 2 commentary