{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"LAM","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Lamentations","commonName":"Lamentations","introduction":"The Lamentations of Jeremiah\n\nIntroduction\n\n1. The Name, Contents, and Arrangement of the Book\n\nThe Name\n\nThe five Lamentations composed on the fall of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah, which have received their position in the canon of the Old Testament among the Hagiographa, have for their heading, in Hebrew MSS and in printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, the word איכה (\"alas! how...\"), which forms the characteristic initial word of three of these pieces (Lam 1:1; Lam 2:1, and Lam 4:1). The Rabbis name the collection קינות (Lamentations), from the nature of its contents: so in the Talmud (Tract. Baba Bathra, f. 14b); cf. Jerome in the Prol. galeat, and in the prologue to his translation: \"incipiunt Threni, i.e., lamentationes, quae Cynoth hebraice inscribuntur.\" With this agree the designations Θρῆνοι (lxx), and Threni or Lamentationes, also Lamenta in the Vulgate and among the Latin writers.\n\nContents\n\nThe ancient custom of composing and singing lamentations over deceased friends (of which we find proof in the elegies of David on Saul and Jonathan, Sa2 1:17., and on Abner, Sa2 3:33., and in the notice given in Ch2 35:25) was even in early times extended so as to apply to the general calamities that befell countries and cities; hence the prophets often speak of taking up lamentations over the fall of nations, countries, and cities; cf. Amo 5:1; Jer 7:29; Jer 9:9, Jer 9:17., Eze 19:1; Eze 26:17; Eze 27:2, etc. The five lamentations of the book now before us all refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the kingdom of Judah by the Chaldeans; in them are deplored the unutterable misery that has befallen the covenant people in this catastrophe, and the disgrace which the fallen daughter of Zion has thereby suffered. This subject is treated of in the five poems from different points of view. In the first, the lamentation is chiefly made over the carrying away of the people into captivity, the desolation of Zion, the acts of oppression, the plundering and the starvation connected with the taking of Jerusalem, the scoffing and contempt shown by the enemy, and the helpless and comfortless condition of the city, now fallen so low. In the second, the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah is set forth as an act of God's wrath against the sins of the people, the impotency of human comfort in the midst of the terrible calamity is shown, and the people are exhorted to seek help from the Lord. In the third, the deep spiritual sufferings of God's people in the midst of the general distress form the subject of grievous complaint, out of which the soul endeavours to rise, and to see the compassion of the Lord, and the justice of His dealings on earth generally, as well as in this visitation of judgment; and on this is founded the confident expectation of help. In the fourth, the dreadful misery that has befallen Zion's citizens of every class is represented as a punishment for the grievous sins of the people and their leaders. And lastly, in the fifth, the Lord is entreated to remove the disgrace from His people and restore them to their former state of grace. According to this view, one may readily perceive in these poems a well-cogitated plan in the treatment of the material common to the whole, and a distinct progress in the execution of this plan. There is no foundation, on the other hand, for the opinion of De Wette, that a gradation may be traced in the description given of the condition of the city; and the attempt of earlier expositors (Horrer, Pareau, Jahn, etc.) to explain and apply the contents of the different poems to different leading features in the Chaldean catastrophe - such as the siege, the capture, the destruction of the city and the temple - has entirely failed. Ewald, again, assumes that the five poems were composed for a time to be solemnly spent in sorrow and penitence, and that in the five lamentations the prophet-writer presents a kind of changing act (drama), making five different acts follow each other progressively; and further, that it is only with the changing series of these that the entire great act of real lamentation and divine sorrow concludes. But neither in the design nor in the execution of these poems are any points to be found which form a safe foundation for this assumption. Ewald is so far correct, however, in his general remark, that the prophetic composer sought to present to the community, in their deep sorrow, words which were meant to direct the grieving heart to the only source of true comfort; and that he understood how \"to lead the deeply sorrowing ones imperceptibly to a proper knowledge of themselves and of their own great guilt, and thereby, in the first place, to true sorrow and sighing; that he also knew how to resolve the wildest grief at last into true prayer for divine retribution, and to change new strength into rejoicing over the everlasting Messianic hope, and into the most touching request for the divine compassion\" (Die Dichter des Alt. Bundes, 3 Ausg. i. 2, S. 322).\n\nForm\n\nIn order to give an air of continuity as well as of exhaustive completeness to the lamentation, which constantly assumes new figures and turns of thought, the poems, with the exception of the last (Lamentations 5), are alphabetically arranged, and in such a form that the first three consist of long stanzas, each of three lines, which are for the most part further divided about the middle by a caesura into two portions of unequal length. These poems are so arranged in accordance with the letters of the alphabet, that in the first two, every verse of three lines, and in the third, every line in the verse, begins with the letters of the alphabet in their order. In this last third poem, moreover, all the letters of the alphabet occur thrice in succession, for which reason the Masoretes have divided these lines of the verses as if each formed a complete verse. In the fourth poem, the verses, which are also arranged and marked alphabetically, consist only of lines which are likewise divided into two by a caesura; in the fifth, the alphabetic arrangement of the verses is departed from, and it is only in their number that the verses of the poem are made like the letters of the alphabet. This alphabetic arrangement of the verses is exactly carried out in the four poems, but with the remarkable difference, that in the first only does the order of the letters entirely agree with the traditional arrangement of the alphabet, while, in the other three, the verse beginning with פ stands before that beginning with ע. This deviation from the rule does not admit of being explained by the assumption that the verses in question were afterwards transposed in consequence of an oversight on the part of the copyist, nor by the supposition that the order of the letters had not yet been absolutely fixed. The former assumption, adopted by Kennicott, Jahn, etc., is shown to be utterly incorrect, by the circumstance that the supposed transmutation cannot be reconciled with the course of thought in the poems; while the latter, which has been maintained by C. B. Michaelis, Ewald, etc., is disproved by the fact that no change has taken place in the order of the letters in the Shemitic alphabets (cf. Sommer, Bibl. Abhandll. i. S. 145; Gesenius, 5, Rem. 2; Ewald, 12, a); and other alphabetic poems, such as Psa 111:1-10, Psa 112:1-10; 119, and Prov 31:10-31, exactly preserve the common arrangement of the letters. Still less does the irregularity in question permit of being attributed to an oversight on the part of the composer (which is Bertholdt's view), for the irregularity is repeated in three poems. It is rather connected with another circumstance. For we find in other alphabetic poems also, especially the older ones, many deviations from the rule, which undeniably prove that the composers bound themselves rigorously by the order of the alphabet only so long as it fitted in to the course of thought without any artificiality. Thus, for instance, in Ps 145 the Nun verse is wanting; in Ps 34 the Vav verse; while, at the close, after ת, there follows another verse with פ. Just such another closing verse is found in Ps 25, in which, besides, the first two verses begin with א, while ב is wanting; two verses, moreover, begin with ר instead of ק and ר: in Ps 37 ע is replaced by צ, which is again found after פ in its proper order. It is also to be considered that, in may of these poems, the division of the verses into strophes is not continuously and regularly carried out; e.g., in these same Lam; Lam 1:7 and Lam 2:19, verses of four lines occur among those with three. Attempts have, indeed, been made to attribute these irregularities to later reviewers, who mistook the arrangement into strophes; but the arguments adduced will not stand the test; see details in Hvernick's Einl. iii. S. 51ff.\n\nIf we gather all these elements together, we shall be obliged to seek for the reason of most, if not all of these deviations from the norm, in the free use made of such forms by the Hebrew poets. Gerlach here objects that, \"in view of the loose connection of thought in alphabetic poems generally, and in these Lamentations particularly, and considering the evident dexterity with which the poet elsewhere uses the form, another arrangement of the series would not have caused him any difficulty.\" We reply that there is no want in these poems of a careful arrangement of thought; but that the skill of the poet, in making use of this arrangement, was not always sufficient to let him put his thoughts, corresponding to things, into the alphabetic form, without using artificial means or forced constructions; and that, in such cases, the form was rather sacrificed to the thought, than rigorously maintained through the adoption of forced and unnatural forms of expression.\n\nFinally, the reason for the absence of the alphabetic arrangement from the fifth poem is simply, that the lamentation there resolves itself into a prayer, in which the careful consideration indispensable for the carrying out of the alphabetic arrangement must give place to the free and natural outcome of the feelings.\n\n2. The Author, Time of Composition, and Position in the Canon\n\nAuthor\n\nIn the Hebrew text no one is named as the author of the Lamentations; but an old tradition affirms that the prophet Jeremiah composed them. Even so early as in the Alexandrine version, we find prefixed to Jer 1:1, the words, Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι τὸν ̓Ισραὴλ καὶ ̔Ιερουσαλὴμ ἐρημωθῆναι, ἐκάθισεν ̔Ιερεμίας κλαίων καὶ ἐθρήνησε τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον ἐπὶ ̔Ιερουσαλὴμ, καὶ ει. These words are also found in the Vulgate; only, instead of et dixit, there is the amplification, et amaro animo suspirans et ejulans dixit. The Syriac is without this notice; but the Arabic exactly reproduces the words of the lxx, and the Targum begins with the words, Dixit Jeremias propheta et sacerdos magnus. After this, both in the Talmud (Baba bathr. f. 51. 1) and by the Church Fathers (Origen in Euseb. hist. eccl. iv. 25, Jerome in prolog. gal., etc.), as well as the later theologians, the Jeremianic authorship was assumed as certain. The learned but eccentric Hermann von der Hardt was the first to call in question the Jeremianic composition of the book, in a \"Programm\" published in 1712 at Helmstdt; he attributed the five poems to Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and King Jehoiachin (!). This doubt was resumed at a later period by an unknown writer in the Tbingen Theol. Quartalschr. 1819, part i.; it was mentioned by Augusti (Einl.), and further carried out by Conz in Bengel's Archiv, iv. p. 161f. and 422ff. Kalkar was the next to question the traditional belief, and urged against it the position of the book among the כּתוּבים, and the difference existing between the Greek translation of the Lamentations and that of the prophecies of Jeremiah; these objections he held to be not inconsiderable, yet not decisive. Then Ewald (Poet. Bcher des A. B. i. S. 145, and in the third edition of the same book, i. 2, S. 326; cf. Bibl. Jahrbb. vii. S. 151f., and History of the People of Israel, iv. p. 22) decidedly refused to ascribe the book to the prophet, and rather attributed it to one of his pupils, Baruch or some other; in this opinion he is followed by Bunsen, as is usual in questions regarding the criticism of the Old Testament. Finally, Ngelsbach (in Lange's series, see Clark's For. Theol. Lib.), with the help of the Concordance, has prepared a table of those words and forms of words found in the Lamentations, but not occurring in the prophecies of Jeremiah; by this means he has endeavoured to set forth the difference of language in the two books, which he accepts as a decisive reason for rejecting the Jeremianic authorship of the Lamentations. And Thenius assures us that, \"in consequence of pretty long and conscientious examination, he has become convinced\" that Lamentations 2 and 4, judging from their contents and form, undeniably proceeded from Jeremiah; while Lamentations 1 and 3 were composed by one who was left behind in the country, some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and shortly before the last deportation; but Lamentations 5 is from a man \"who was probably wandering about everywhere, as the leader of a band of nobles seeking a safe asylum, but unwilling to attach themselves to the caravan going to Egypt.\"\n\nSchrader, in his late revision of De Wette's Introduction, 339, has thus condensed the results of these critical investigations: In support of the old tradition, which mentions Jeremiah as the author, \"one might appeal to the affinity in contents, spirit, tone, and language (De W.). Nevertheless, this same style of language, and the mode of representation, exhibit, again, so much that is peculiar; the artificiality of form, especially in Lamentations 1, 2, and 4, is so unlike Jeremiah's style; the absence of certain specific Jeremianic peculiarities, and the contradiction between some expressions of the prophet and those of the author of the Lamentations, is again so striking, that one must characterize the authorship of Jeremiah as very improbable, if not quite impossible, especially since the points of likeness to the language used by Jeremiah, on the one hand, are sufficiently accounted for in general by the fact that both works were composed at the same time; and on the other hand, are nullified by other points of likeness to Ezekiel's style, which show that use has already been made of his prophecies.\" Again: \"The hypothesis of Thenius, that the poems are by different authors, is refuted by the similarity in the fundamental character of the poems, and in the character of the language.\" We may therefore dispense with a special refutation of this hypothesis, especially since it will be shown in the exposition that the points which Thenius has brought forward in support of his view are all founded on a wretchedly prosaic style of interpretation, which fails to recognise the true nature of poetry, and regards mere poetic figures as actual history. Of the considerations, however, which Schrader has adduced against the Jeremianic authorship, the last two that are mentioned would, of course, have decided influence, if there were any real foundation for them, viz., the contradiction between some expressions of Jeremiah and those of the author of the Lamentations. But they have no foundation in fact.\n\nThe only instance of a contradiction is said to exist between Lam 5:7 and Jer 31:29-30. It is quoted by Schrader, who refers to Nldeke, die alttest. Literat. S. 146. But the expression, \"Our fathers have sinned, they are no more, we bear their iniquities\" (Lam 5:7), does not stand in contradiction to what is said in Jer. 39:29f. against the current proverb, \"The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth have become blunt,\" viz., that in the future, after the restoration of Israel, \"every one shall die for his own iniquity, and the teeth of every one who eats sour grapes shall become blunt.\" One statement would contradict the other only if the latter meant that those who bear the punishment were guiltless, or thought themselves such. But how far this thought was from the mind of the suppliant in Lam 5:7, is shown by what he says in Lam 5:16 : \"Woe unto us, for we have sinned.\" According to these words, those in Lam 5:7 can only mean, \"We atone not merely for our own sins, but also the sins of our fathers,\" or, \"The sins of our fathers as well as our own are visited on us.\" This confession accords with Scripture (cf. Exo 20:5; Jer 16:11, etc.), and is radically different from the proverb, \"The fathers have eaten sour grapes,\" etc., which was constantly in the mouth of those who considered themselves innocent, and who thereby perverted the great truth, that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children who hate Him, into the false statement, that innocent children must atone for the sins of their fathers. On this, cf. also the exposition of Lam 5:7. But when Schrader, following Nldeke, further remarks, \"that Jeremiah would hardly have said nothing whatever about God's having foretold all this suffering through him,\" there lies at the foundation of this remark the preposterous notion, that Jeremiah ought to have brought himself prominently forward in the Lamentations (supposing him to have written them), as one who ought not to suffer the evil under which the people were groaning. Such gross Pelagianism was foreign to the prophet Jeremiah. No one need speak, therefore, of a contradiction between the Lamentations and the prophecies of Jeremiah.\n\nAs little proof is there for the assertion that the author of the Lamentations made use of the prophecies of Ezekiel. Ngelsbach and Schrader, in support of this allegation, have adduced only Lam 2:14, compared with Eze 12:24; Eze 13:5.; and Lam 2:15, compared with Eze 27:3; Eze 28:12. Ngelsbach says: \"The words, נביאיך חזוּ לך, in Lam 2:14, are no doubt a quotation from Eze 12:24; Eze 13:6-11, Eze 13:14-15, Eze 13:23; Eze 21:28, 34; Eze 22:28. For it is only in these passages, and nowhere else in the Old Testament, that the expression חזוּ occurs, and in combination with תפל. Moreover, כּלילת יפי, in Lam 2:15, is an expression decidedly peculiar to Ezekiel, for it occurs only in Eze 27:3 (cf. Eze 28:12), and nowhere else.\" But the three expressions of these two passages form really too weak a proof that the author of the Lamentations made use of the prophecies of Ezekiel. Of course, as regards the mere form of the words, it is true that the expression כּלילת יפי, \"she who is perfect in beauty,\" is found, besides Lam 2:15, only in Eze 27:3, where the prophet says of Tyre, \"Thou sayest, I am perfect in beauty,\" and in Eze 28:12, where it is said of the king of Tyre, \"Thou art... כּליל;\" but the thing occurs also in Psa 50:2, with the unimportant change in the form of the words מכלל יפי, \"perfection of beauty,\" where Zion is so designated. Now, if we not merely gather out of the Concordance the expressions of like import, but also keep in view the idea presented in Lam 2:15, \"Is this the city שׁיּאמרוּ?\" and at the same time consider that the poet says this of Jerusalem, there cannot be the least doubt that he did not take these epithets, which are applied to Jerusalem, from Ezekiel, who used them to designate Tyre, but that he had Psa 50:2 in view, just as the other epithet, \"a joy of the whole earth,\" points to Psa 48:3. Only on the basis of these passages in the Psalms could he employ the expression sheשׁיּאמרוּ, \"which they call.\" Or are we to believe that the word כּליל, כּלילה was originally unknown to the author of the Lamentations, and that he first became acquainted with it through Ezekiel? Nor, again, can we say that the words taken by Ngelsbach out of Lam 2:14 are \"undoubtedly a quotation from Ezekiel,\" because they do not occur in this way in any of the passages cited from Ezekiel. All that we can found on this assertion is, that in the prophecies of Jeremiah neither חזה שׁוא or the word-form תּפל occurs; while Ezekiel not only uses חזון שׁוא, Eze 12:14, חזה שׁוא, and מחזה שׁוא, as synonymous with דּבּר שׁוא, קסם שׁוא, and חזה כזב (Eze 13:6-9, Eze 13:23), but also says of the false prophets, Eze 13:9-11, \"They build a wall, and plaster it over with lime\" (טחים, Eze 13:10, cf. Eze 13:14, Eze 13:15, Eze 13:18). These same false prophets are also called, in Eze 13:11, טחי תפל, \"those who plaster with lime.\" But Ezekiel uses the word תפל only in the meaning of \"lime,\" while the writer of these Lamentations employs it in the metaphorical sense, \"absurdity, nonsense,\" in the same way as Jer; Jer 23:13, uses תּפלה, \"absurdity,\" of the prophets of Samaria. Now, just as Jeremiah has not taken תּפלה from Ezekiel, where it does not occur at all (but only in Job 1:22; Job 24:12), so there is as little likelihood in the opinion that the word תפל, in Lam 2:14, has been derived from Ezekiel, because Job 6:6 shows that it was far from rarely used by the Hebrews.\n\nNor does the non-occurrence of חזה שׁוא in Jeremiah afford any tenable ground for the opinion that the expression, as found in Lam 2:14, was taken from Ezekiel. The idea contained in חזה was not unknown to Jeremiah; for he speaks, Jer 14:14, of חזון שׁקר, and in Jer 23:16 of חזון מלבּם, referring to the false prophets, whose doings he characterizes as שׁקר sa sezi; cf. Jer 6:13; Jer 8:10; Jer 14:14; Jer 23:25., 32, Jer 27:10, Jer 27:15; Jer 28:16; Jer 29:9, Jer 29:23, Jer 29:31. Further, if we consult only the text of the Bible instead of the Concordance, and ponder the connection of thought in the separate passages, we can easily perceive why, instead of שׁקר (חזון) חזה, which is so frequent in Jeremiah, there is found in Lam 2:14, חזה שׁוא and חזה משּׂאות שׁוא dna . In the addresses in which Jeremiah warns the people of the lying conduct of the false prophets, who spoke merely out of their own heart, שׁקר was the most suitable expression; in Lam 2:14, on the contrary, where complaint is made that the prophecies of their prophets afford no comfort to the people in their present distress, שׁוא was certainly the most appropriate word which the composer could select, even without a knowledge of Ezekiel. There can be no question, then, regarding a quotation from that prophet. but even though it were allowed that 2:14 implied an actual acquaintance with Lamentations 12 and 13 of Ezekiel, still, nothing would follow from that against the Jeremianic authorship of the Lamentations. For Jeremiah uttered these prophecies in the sixth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, i.e., in the third year before the last siege, and the fifth before the destruction of Jerusalem; and considering the frequent intercourse carried on between the captives in Babylon and those who still remained in Judah and Jerusalem, in virtue of which the former even sent letters to Jerusalem (cf. Jer 29:25), some of Ezekiel's prophecies might have become known in the latter city a considerable time before the final catastrophe, and even reached the ears of Jeremiah.\n\nWith the demolition of these two arguments, the main strength of our opponents, in the bringing forward of proof, has been broken. Schrader has not adduced a single instance showing \"the absence of certain specific Jeremianic peculiarities.\" For \"the comparatively less emphasis given to the sins of the people,\" which is alleged in Nldeke's note, cannot be applied in support of that position, even if it were correct, in view of the prominence so frequently assigned to grievous sin, Lam 1:5, Lam 1:8,Lam 1:14, Lam 1:18, Lam 1:22; Lam 2:14; Lam 3:39, Lam 3:42; Lam 4:6, Lam 4:13; Lam 5:7; because the Lamentations were not composed with the design of punishing the people for their sin, but were intended to comfort in their misery, and to raise up again, the people who had been severely chastised for the guilt of their sin, which was greater than the sin of Sodom (Lam 4:6). Add to this, that Schrader, by using this argument, contradicts himself; for he has shortly before adduced the affinity in contents, spirit, tone, and language as an argument to which one might appeal in support of the Jeremianic authorship, and this affinity he has established by a long series of quotations.\n\n(Note: The passages are the following: Lam 1:8., cf. with Jer 4:30; Jer 13:21., 26; Lam 1:20; Lam 4:13., with Jer 14:7, Jer 14:18; Lam 2:14 with Jer 14:13; Lam 1:16; Lam 2:11; Lam 3:48-49, with Jer 8:21., Jer 9:16., Jer 13:17; Jer 14:17;Lam 3:52 with Jer. 15:26f.; Lamentations 3 with Jer 15:10., Jer 17:5., 14ff., Jer 20:7., 14ff. (De Wette). Further, בּתוּלת בּת , Lam 1:15; Lam 2:13, cf. Jer 14:17; Jer 46:11; מגור, Lam 2:22, cf. Jer 4:25; Jer 10:3, Jer 10:10; זולל, Lam 1:11, cf. Jer 15:19; מחמוּדים instead of מחמדּים, Lam 1:11; נידה instead of נדּה, Lam 1:8; לוא instead of לא; אכל ל, Lam 4:5; גּאל, Lam 4:14; תּפל, Lam 2:14. Finally, Chaldaizing forms: שׁוממין, Lam 1:4; ישׁנא instead of ישׁנה, Lam 4:1; מטּרא, Lam 3:12; העיב, Lam 2:1; שׂרג, Lam 1:14.)\n\nFurther, the remark that \"the artificiality of form, especially in Lamentations 1, 2, and 4, is unlike Jeremiah,\" is correct only in so far as no alphabetic poems are to be found in the prophetic book of Jeremiah. But are we then to look for poetic compositions in prophetic addresses and historical narratives? The remark now quoted is based on the assertion made by other critics, that the alphabetic arrangement of poetic compositions generally is a mere rhetorical work of art, and the production of a later but degenerate taste (Ed. Reuss and others), or a piece of trifling unworthy of the prophet. This view has long ago been shown groundless; cf. Hvernick's Einl. iii. S. 46ff. Even Hupfeld, who calls the alphabetical arrangement \"artificiality or trifling,\" considers that it is of a kindred nature with collections of proverbs, and with small poems of a didactic character but deficient in close connection of thought; he thinks, too, that it may be comparatively ancient as a style of composition, and that it was not applied till later to other species of writing (as Lamentations). To this, Ed. Riehm, in the second edition of Hupfeld on the Psalms, i. p. 31, has added a very true remark: \"In lyric poetry proper, the employment of this artificial form is naturally and intrinsically justified only when a single fundamental strain, that fills the whole soul of the poet, - deep, strong, and sustained, - seeks to die away in many different forms of chords; hence its employment in the elegy.\" The application of this artificial form to such a purpose is perfectly justified in these Lamentations; and the attempt to deny that these poems are the work of Jeremiah, on the ground of their artificial construction, would be as great an exhibition of arbitrary conduct, as if any one refused to ascribe the hymn \"Befiehl du deine Wege\" to Paul Gerhardt, or \"Wie schn leucht uns der Morgenstern\" to Philip Nicolai, on the ground of the \"artificiality\" that manifests itself in the beginning of the verses.\n\nFinally, the language and the mode of representation in these poems certainly exhibit much that is peculiar; and we find in them many words, word-forms, and modes of expression, which do not occur in the prophecies of Jeremiah. But it must also be borne in mind that the Lamentations are not prophetic addresses intended to warn, rebuke, and comfort, but lyric poetry, which has its own proper style of language, and this different from prophetic address. Both the subject-matter and the poetic form of these poems, smooth though this is in general, necessarily resulted in this, - that through the prevalence of peculiar thoughts, modes of representation, and feelings, the language also received an impress, in words and modes of expression, that was peculiar to itself, and different from the prophetic diction of Jeremiah. The mere collection of the words, word-forms, and expressions peculiar to the Lamentations, and not occurring in the prophecies of Jeremiah, cannot furnish irrefragable proof that the authors of the two writings were different, unless it be shown, at the same time, that the character of the language in both writings is essentially different, and that for the ideas, modes of representation, and thoughts common to both, other words and expressions are used in the Lamentations than those found in the prophecies of Jeremiah. But neither the one nor the other has been made out by Ngelsbach. After giving the long list he has prepared, which occupies five and a half columns, and which gives the words occurring in the different verses of the five chapters, he explains that he does not seek to lay any weight on the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, probably because Jeremiah also has many such words; but then he raises the question, \"How is the fact to be accounted for, that Jeremiah never uses עליון or אדני except as divine names, while the latter, nevertheless, occurs fourteen times in the Lamentations; that Jeremiah never uses הבּיט, יגה, אנח, זנח, חטא, מחמד, בּלּע, לא חמל, עפר, עטף, חזה, חשׁך, נגינה, יחל, נשׂא פּנים, nor למו, the relative שׁ, or בּקרב without a suffix, while all these expressions occur more or less frequently in the Lamentations? And it has been well remarked that these expressions are not of so specific a kind, that the fact of their not being used in the prophetic book, but employed in the Lamentations, might be explained from the nature of the contents; but they belong, in great measure, to what I may call the house-dress of the author, which he constantly wears, - which he more or less unconsciously and unintentionally uses.\" We answer that the simile of the house-dress has been most unhappily chosen. Although the style of a writer may possibly be compared to his coat, yet nobody is in the habit of wearing his house-coat always, on Sundays and week-days, in the house and out of it; so, too, no writer is in the habit of using always the same words in prose and poetry. When we investigate the matter itself, we find we must, first of all, deduct fully one-third of the words enumerated, although these have evidently been collected and arranged as the most convincing proof; the words thus rejected are also found in the prophetic book of Jeremiah, though not quite in the same grammatical form, as the note shows.\n\n(Note: For בּקרב, without a suffix, Lam 3:45, exactly corresponds to מקּרב, Jer 6:1 : cf. besides, בּקרבּי, Lam 4:15, Lam 4:20, with Jer 23:9; בּקרבּהּ, Jer 4:13, and Jer 6:6; Jer 46:21. לא, Lam 2:2, Lam 2:17, Lam 2:21; Lam 3:43, is found five times in Jeremiah (Jer 13:14; Jer 15:5; Jer 21:7; Jer 50:14; Jer 51:3), not only in the 3rd pers. perfect, but also in the imperfect. Of בּלע there occurs the Kal, Jer 51:34, and the noun בּלע, Jer 51:44; from חשׁך, the noun חשׁך certainly is not found, but perhaps the verb is used in the Hiphil, Jer 13:16, as the Kal in Lam 4:8; Lam 5:16. With חטא, Lam 1:8 and Lam 3:39, alternates חטּאת, Lam 4:6, Lam 4:22, which Jeremiah frequently uses. Of שׁמם, the participle שׁומם certainly is not found in Jeremiah, but the adj. שׁמם is found in Jer 12:11, as in Lam 5:8; and the Niphal of the verb in Jer 4:9 and Jer 33:10, as in Lam 4:5. Lastly, neither is ענה wholly wanting in Jeremiah; for in Jer 22:16 we are to read עני, miser, although the noun עני and the verb are not met with in his book.)\n\nThen we ask the counter question, whether words which one who composed five poems employs only in one of these pieces, or only once or twice throughout the whole, ought to be reckoned as his house-dress? Of the words adduced, we do not find a single on in all the five poems, but חשׁך only in Lam 3:2, נשׂא פּנים only in Lam 4:16, נגינה only in Lam 3:14 and Lam 5:14, פּצה פה only in Lam 2:16 and Lam 3:46, עליון only in Lam 3:35 and Lam 3:38, אנח (Niphal) only in Lamentations 1 (four times). Moreover, we ask whether Jeremiah might not also, in lyric poems, use poetic words which could not be employed in homely address? But of the words enumerated, למו, עליון, and אדני alone as a name of God, together with נגינה, belong to the poetic style.\n\n(Note: עליון as a name of God (3:35 and 38), besides Isa 14:14, is found only in poetic pieces, Num 26:16; Deu 32:8, and about twenty times in the Psalms; אדני used by itself, except in direct addresses to God and interviews with Him, occurs in the Psalms about forty times, and also in the addresses of particular prophets, composed in the loftier style, particularly Isaiah and Amos; lastly, נגינה, in Amo 3:14, occurs as a reminiscence of Job 30:9, and in the Psalms and hymns, Isa 38:20, and Hab 3:10.)\n\nThey are therefore not found in Jeremiah, simply because his prophetic addresses are neither lyric poems, nor r","order":25,"numberOfChapters":5,"sha256":"286c668b63763dfd95797afcf8c017f29689e3d6d7aa48d71027f0f8a7a3365c","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/LAM/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"LAM","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":5,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/LAM/5.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"LAM","chapter":5},"totalNumberOfVerses":45},"chapter":{"number":5,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["Supplication and statement regarding the distress. The quest made in Lam 5:1 refers to the oppression depicted in what follows. The words, \"Remember, O Lord, what hath happened (i.e., befallen) us,\" are more fully explained in the second member, \"Look and behold our disgrace.\" It is quite arbitrary in Thenius to refer the first member to the past, the second to the present, described in what follows, Lam 5:12-16. The Qeri הבּיטה is an unnecessary alteration, after Lam 1:11; Lam 3:63. - With Lam 5:2 begins the description of the disgrace that has befallen them. This consists, first of all, in the fact that their inheritance has become the possession of strangers. Rosenm׬ller rightly explains נחלה to mean, terra quae tuo nobis dono quandam est concessa. נחפך is used of the transference of the property to others, as in Isa 60:5. Many expositors would refer בּתּינוּ to the houses in Jerusalem which the Chaldeans had not destroyed, on the ground that it is stated, in Kg2 25:9 and Jer 52:13, that the Chaldeans destroyed none but large houses. There is no foundation, however, for this restriction; moreover, it is opposed by the parallel נחלתנוּ. Just as by נחלה we are to understand, not merely the possession of Jerusalem, but of the whole country, so also בּתּינוּ are the dwelling-houses of the country in towns and villages; in this case, the question whether any houses still remained standing in Jerusalem does not demand consideration at all. Ngelsbach is wrong in his remark that נחלה and בּתּים respectively mean immovable and portable property, for houses are certainly not moveable property.\nLam 5:3\nLam 5:3 is very variously interpreted by modern expositors. Ewald and Vaihinger understand \"father\" as meaning the king, while Thenius refers it specially to Zedekiah; the \"mothers,\" according to Ewald and Vaihinger, are the cities of Judah, while Thenius thinks they are the women of Zedekiah's harem. But to call the women of the royal harem \"mothers\" of the nation, would be as unexampled as the attribution of the title to the cities of Judah. The second clause, \"our mothers are like widows,\" contains a simile: they are not really widows, but like widows, because they have lost the protection which the mother of a family has in her husband. In like manner, the first clause also is to be understood as a comparison. \"We are fatherless orphans,\" i.e., we are like such, as the Chaldee has paraphrased it. Accordingly, C. B. Michaelis, Pareau, Rosenmller, Kalkschmidt, and Gerlach have rightly explained the words as referring to the custom of the Hebrews: hominies omni modo derelictos omnibusque praesidiis destitutos, pupillos et viduas dicere; cf. Psa 94:6; Isa 1:17; Jam 1:27.\nLam 5:4\nAnd not merely are the inhabitants of Judah without land and property, and deprived of all protection, like orphans and widows; they are also living in penury and want, and (Lam 5:5) under severe oppression and persecution. Water and wood are mentioned in Lam 5:4 as the greatest necessities of life, without which it is impossible to exist. Both of these they must buy for themselves, because the country, with its waters and forests, is in the possession of the enemy. The emphasis lies on \"our water...our wood.\" What they formerly had, as their own property, for nothing, they must now purchase. We must reject the historical interpretations of the words, and their application to the distress of the besieged (Michaelis); or to the exiles who complained of the dearness of water and wood in Egypt (Ewald); or to those who fled before the Chaldeans, and lived in waste places (Thenius); or to the multitudes of those taken prisoner after the capture of Jerusalem, who were so closely watched that they could not go where they liked to get water and wood, but were obliged to go to their keepers for permission, and pay dearly for their services (Ngelsbach). The purchase of water and wood can scarcely be taken literally, but must be understood as signifying that the people had to pay heavy duties for the use of the water and the wood which the country afforded.\nLam 5:5\n\"On our necks we are persecuted,\" i.e., our persecutors are at our necks, - are always close behind us, to drive or hunt us on. It is inadmissible to supply any specific mention of the yoke (imposito collo gravi servitutis jugo, Raschi, Rosenmller, Vaihinger, etc.); and we must utterly reject the proposal to connect \"our neck\" with Lam 5:4 (lxx, Syriac, J. D. Michaelis), inasmuch as the symmetry of the verses is thereby destroyed, nor is any suitable meaning obtained. \"We are jaded: no rest is granted us.\" הוּנח is Hophal of הניח, to give rest to. The Qeri ולא instead of לא is quite as unnecessary as in the case of אין, Lam 5:3, and אינם and אנחנוּ in Lam 5:7. The meaning of the verse is not, \"we are driven over neck and head,\" according to which the subject treated of would be the merciless treatment of the prisoners, through their being driven on (Ngelsbach); still less is it meant to be stated that the company to which the writer of the poem belonged was always tracked out, and hunted about in the waste places where they wished to hide themselves (Thenius). Neither of these interpretations suits the preceding and succeeding context. Nor does the mention of being \"persecuted on the neck\" necessarily involve a pursuit of fugitives: it merely indicates incessant oppression on the side of the enemy, partly through continually being goaded on to hard labour, partly through annoyances of different kinds, by which the victors made their supremacy and their pride felt by the vanquished nation. In רדף there is contained neither the notion of tracking fugitives nor that of driving on prisoners.\nLam 5:6\nThe meaning of נתן is more exactly defined by the superadded לשׂבּע לחם, which belongs to both members of the verse. \"In order to satisfy ourselves with bread (so as to prolong our lives), we give the hand to Egypt, to Assyria.\" מצרים and אשּׁוּר are local accusatives. To give the hand is a sign of submission or subjection; see on Jer 50:15. Pareau has correctly given the meaning thus: si victum nobis comparare velimus, vel Judaea nobis relinquenda est atque Aegyptii sunt agnoscendi domini, vel si hic manemus, Chaldaeis victoribus nos subjiciamus necesse est; quocunque nos vertamus, nihil superest nisi tristissima servitus. This complaint shows, moreover, that it is those in Judea who are speaking. נתנּוּ, \"we give the hand,\" shows that the assumption of Thenius, - that the writer here brings to remembrance the fate of two other companies of his fellow-countrymen who were not carried away into exile, - -is an arbitrary insertion. Asshur, as the name of the great Asiatic empire, stands for Babylon, as in Ezr 6:22, cf. Jer 2:18.\nLam 5:7\n\"We suffer more than we are guilty of; we are compelled to bear the iniquities of our fathers,\" i.e., to atone for their guilt. There is a great truth contained in the words, \"Our fathers have sinned; they are no more; we bear their iniquities (or guilt).\" For the fall of the kingdom had not been brought about by the guilt of that generation merely, and of none before; it was due also to the sins of their fathers before them, in previous generations. The same truth is likewise expressed in Jer 16:11; Jer 32:18; and in Kg2 23:26 it is stated that God did not cease from His great wrath because of the sins of Manasseh. But this truth would be perverted into error, if we were to understand the words as intimating that the speakers had considered themselves innocent. This false view, however, they themselves opposed with the confession in Lam 5:16, \"for we have sinned;\" thereby they point out their own sins as the cause of their misfortune. If we compare this confession with the verse now before us, this can only mean the following: \"The misfortune we suffer has not been incurred by ourselves alone, but we are compelled to atone for the sins of our fathers also.\" In the same way, too, Jeremiah (Jer 16:11) threatens the infliction of a penal judgment, not merely \"because your fathers have forsaken me (the Lord),\" but he also adds, \"and ye do still worse than your fathers.\" God does not punish the sins of the fathers in innocent children, but in children who continue the sins of the fathers; cf. Isa 65:7, and the explanation given of Jer 31:29 and Eze 18:2. The design with which the suffering for the sins of the fathers is brought forward so prominently, and with such feeling, is merely to excite the divine compassion for those who are thus chastised.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["Further description of the miserable condition under which the congregation languishes. Lam 5:8. \"Servants rule over us,\" etc. עבדים are not the Chaldean soldiers, who are in Kg2 24:10 designated the servants of Nebuchadnezzar (Pareau, Rosenmller, Maurer); still less the Chaldeans, in so far as they, till shortly before, had been the subjects of the Assyrians (Kalkschmidt); nor the Chaldean satraps, as servants of the king of Babylon (Thenius, Ewald); nor even \"slaves who had been employed as overseers and taskmasters of the captives while on the march\" (Ngelsbach); but the Chaldeans. These are called servants, partly because of the despotic rule under which they were placed, partly in the sense already indicated by C. B. Michaelis, as being those qui nobis potius, si pii fuissemus, servire debuissent, in accordance with the analogous designation of Jerusalem as a princess among the countries of the world, Lam 1:1.\nLam 5:9\nAnd in addition to this humiliation under dishonourable servitude, we can get our daily bread only at the risk of our life. Thus there is fulfilled to them the threatening in Deu 28:28, \"Ye shall be servants among your enemies, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and want of everything.\" בּנפשׁנוּ, \"for the price of our soul,\" i.e., with our life at stake, we bring in our bread. The danger is more exactly described by what is added: \"before the sword of the wilderness.\" By this expression are meant the predatory Bedouins of the desert, who, falling upon those that were bringing in the bread, plundered, and probably even killed them. The bringing of the bread is not, however, to be referred (with Rosenmller, Maurer, and Kalkschmidt) to the attempts made to procure bread from the neighbouring countries; still less is it to be referred (with Thenius, Ewald, and Ngelsbach) to the need for \"wringing the bread from the desert and its plunderers;\" but it refers to the ingathering of the scanty harvest in the country devastated by war and by the visitations of predatory Bedouins: הביא is the word constantly employed in this connection; cf. Sa2 9:10; Hag 1:6.\nLam 5:10\nThe bread which we are thus obliged to struggle for, at the risk of our life, is not even sufficient to allay hunger, which consumes our bodies. נכמר does not mean to be blackened (Chaldee, Kimchi, C. B. Michaelis, Maurer), but in Gen 43:30; Kg1 3:26, and Hos 11:8, to be stirred up (of the bowels, compassion), hence to kindle, glow. This last meaning is required by the comparison with תּנּוּר, oven, furnace. This comparison does not mean cutis nostra tanquam fornace adusta est (Gesenius in Thes., Kalkschmidt), still less \"black as an oven\" (Dietrich in Ges. Lex.), because תּנּוּר does not mean the oven viewed in respect of its blackness, but (from נוּר) in respect of the fire burning in it. The meaning is, \"our skin glows like a baker's oven\" (Vaihinger, Thenius, Ngelsbach, Gerlach), - a strong expression for the fever-heat produced by hunger. As to זלעפות, glowing heat, see on Psa 11:6.\nLam 5:11-12\nWith this must further be considered the maltreatment which persons of every station, sex, and age have to endure. Lam 5:11. Women and virgins are dishonoured in Jerusalem, and in the other cities of the land. Lam 5:12. Princes are suspended by the hand of the enemy (Ewald, contrary to the use of language, renders \"along with\" them). To hang those who had been put to death was something superadded to the simple punishment by death (Deu 21:22.), and so far as a shameful kind of execution. \"The old men are not honoured,\" i.e., dishonoured; cf. Lam 4:16; Lev 19:32. The words are not to be restricted to the events mentioned in Jer 39:6, but also apply to the present condition of those who are complaining,\nLam 5:13-14\nYouths and boys are forced to engage in heavy servile work. טחון נשׂאוּ does not mean \"they take them for the mill,\" ad molendum sumpserunt (Ewald, Rosenmller). Apart from the consideration that there is no ground for it in the language employed, such a view of the words does not accord with the parallelism. נשׂא, construed with a simple infinitive or accusative (without ל), does not mean \"to take for something.\" טחון is a substantive, \"the mill.\" \"To bear (carry) the mill\" signifies to work at and with the mill. We must think of the hand-mill, which was found in every household, and which could thus be carried from one place to another. Grinding was the work of salves; see on Jdg 16:21. The carrying of the mill (not merely of the upper millstone) is mentioned as the heaviest portion of the work in grinding. \"Boys stagger (fall down) on the wood laid on them to be carried,\" i.e., under the burden of it. כּשׁל with בּ means to stumble on something; here בּ denotes the cause of the stumbling; cf. Jer 6:21; Lev 26:37. It is arbitrary to understand עץ as meaning the wooden handle of the mill (Aben Ezra, and Bochart in Hieroz. i. 157, ed. Rosenmller); the same must also be said regarding the opinion of Thenius and Ngelsbach, who refer the words to the dragging of the hand-mills, and of the wood necessary for baking bread for the comfort of the soldiers, on the march of the captives to Babylon.\nLam 5:15-16\nUnder the pressure of such circumstances, all public meetings and amusements have ceased. \"The elders cease from the fate.\" The gate was the place of assembly for the people, not merely for deliberating upon public affairs (Rut 4:15; Jos 20:4), but also \"for social entertainment (since there were no refreshment-rooms, coffeehouses, and public baths, such as are now to be found in the East), or even for quiet enjoyment in looking at the motley multitude of passers-by; Gen 19:1; Sa1 4:18; Sa1 9:18; Job 29:7\" (Winer's Bibl. R.W.B. s.v. Thor). That the gate is here to be regarded as a place of entertainment and amusement, is shown by the parallel member, \"young men cease from their instrumental music;\" cf. Lam 1:4. On Lam 5:15, cf. Jer 7:34; Jer 16:9, and Jer 31:13; Psa 30:12. Lastly, in Lam 5:16, the writer sums up the whole of the misery in the complaint, \"The crown of our head is fallen! woe unto us, for we have sinned,\" i.e., we suffer the punishment for our sins. \"The fallen crown can only be a figurative expression for the honourable position of the people in its entirety, but which is now lost.\" Such is the view which Ewald rightly takes; on the other hand, the interpretation of Thenius, that \"the 'crown of our head' is nothing else than Zion, together with its palaces, placed on Jerusalem, as it were on the head [of the country], and adorning it,\" deserves mention simply as a curious specimen of exegetical fancy. Ngelsbach has gone too far in restricting the figurative expression to the crown of Jerusalem, which consists in her being mistress among the nations, a princess among the regions of the earth (Lam 1:1), the perfection of beauty, and the joy of the whole earth (Lam 2:15); for \"our crown\" is not equivalent to Jerusalem, or a crown on the head of Jerusalem.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["The request that the judgment of wrath may be averted, and that the former gracious condition may be restored. Lam 5:17 and Lam 5:18 form the transition to the request in Lam 5:19-22. \"Because of this\" and \"because of these [things]\" refer mainly to what precedes, yet not in such a way as that the former must be referred to the fact that sin has been committed, and the latter to the suffering. The two halves of the verse are unmistakeably parallel; the sickening of the heart is essentially similar to the dimness coming on the eyes, the former indicating the sorrow of the soul, while the latter is the expression of this sorrow in tears. \"Because of this (viz., because of the misery hitherto complained of) the heart has become sick,\" and the grief of the heart finds vent in tears, in consequence of which the eyes have become dim; cf. Lam 2:11. But this sorrow culminates in the view taken of the desolation of Mount Zion, which receives consideration, not because of its splendid palaces (Thenius), but as the holy mountain on which the house of God stood, for \"Zion\" comprehended Moriah; see on Psa 2:6; Psa 9:12; Psa 76:3. The glory formerly attaching to Mount Zion (Psa 48:3; Psa 50:2) is departed; the mountain has been so much laid waste, that jackals roam on it. שׁוּעלים are not properly foxes, but jackals (as in Psa 63:11), which lodge among the ruins. הלּך is an intensive form, meaning to rove or roam about.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["The glory of Zion, the earthly habitation of the Lord, is at an end, but the throne of the Lord endures eternally. Through this thought, the lamentation rises to the prayer that the Lord may not forsake His people for ever, but re-establish His kingdom on the earth. \"Thou, O Jahveh, art enthroned eternally.\" This thought is expressed as the ground of hope, in nearly the same words as are found in Psa 102:13. Jahveh is the God of salvation. Since His throne endures eternally in heaven, He cannot let His kingdom perish on the earth. On this is founded the request, \"Why wilt Thou forget us for ever, forsake us for a length of days (i.e., through life, always, Psa 23:6)?\" This the Lord cannot do, because of His grace. From this is developed the further request (Lam 5:21), \"Lead us back to Thyself, that we may return.\" We must not restrict השׁיב and שׁוּב to conversion to the Lord (Kalkschmidt, Ewald, Vaihinger, Gerlach); they signify the re-establishment of the gracious relation, which is, of course, impossible without repentance and conversion on the part of Israel. It is wrong to refer the words to the restoration of the people to their native land, or to the re-establishment of the theocracy (Dathe, Thenius), because it is not the exiles who address this petition to the Lord. The mode in which we are to understand the \"bringing back to Jahveh\" is shown in the second hemistich, \"renew our days, as they were in former times,\" i.e., vouchsafe to us again the life (or state of grace) which we enjoyed in former times. In Lam 5:22 this request is based on an argument introduced in a negative form. כּי אם, after a negative clause, signifies nisi, but (Ger. sondern). This meaning developed into that of a strong limitation (cf. Ewald, 356), unless = provided that. Thus literally here: \"unless Thou hast utterly rejected us, - art very wroth against us.\" This case, however, is merely stated as a possibility, the actual occurrence of which is out of the question. The idea is the same as that expressed by Jeremiah (Jer 14:19) in the form of a question, in order to give greater emphasis to his intercession for his nation. The Lord cannot have utterly rejected His people Israel, because He would thereby make His name to be despised in the eyes of the nations (Jer 14:21). Thus terminates this lamentation, with a request for whose fulfilment faith can hope with confidence.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["In many Hebrew MSS Lam 5:21 is found repeated after Lam 5:22, to make the whole more suitable for public reading in the synagogue, that the poem may not end with the mention of the wrath of God, as is the case also at the close of Isaiah, Malachi, and Ecclesiastes: the intention is, to conclude with words of comfort. But v. 22, rightly understood, did not require this repetition: for, as Rhabanas has already remarked in Ghisleri commentar. on v. 22: non haec quasi desperando de salute populi sui locutus est, sed ut dolorem suum nimium de contritione et objectione diutina gentis suae manifestaret. This conclusion entirely agrees with the character of the Lamentations, in which complaint and supplication should continue to the end, - not, however, without an element of hope, although the latter may not rise to the heights of joyful victory, but, as Gerlach expresses himself, \"merely glimmers from afar, like the morning star through the clouds, which does not indeed itself dispel the shadows of the night, though it announces that the rising of the sun is near, and that it shall obtain the victory.\" \n"]}],"introduction":"A Prayer to the Lord by the Church, Languishing in Misery, for the Restoration of Her Former State of Grace\n1 Remember, O Jahveh, what hath happened to us; consider, and behold our reproach.\n2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to foreigners.\n3 We are orphans, without a father; our mothers are as widows.\n4 Our own water we drink for money, our own wood cometh to us in return for payment.\n5 On our necks are we persecuted; we are jaded, - there is no rest for us.\n6 [Towards] Egypt we reach our hand, - [towards] Assyria, to satisfy ourselves [with] bread.\n7 Our fathers sinned, they are not; we bear their iniquities.\n8 Servants rule us; there is none to deliver us out of their hand.\n9 At the risk of our life we bring in our bread, because of the sword of the wilderness.\n10 Our skin gloweth with heat like a furnace, because of the fever-heat of hunger.\n11 They have forced women in Zion, virgins in the cities of Judah.\n12 Princes are hung up by their hand; the face of the elders is not honoured.\n13 Young men carry millstones, and lads stagger under [loads of] wood.\n14 Elders cease from the gate, young men from their instrumental music.\n15 The joy of our heart hath ceased, our dancing has turned into mourning.\n16 The crown of our head is fallen; woe unto us, that we have sinned!\n17 Because of this our heart became sick; because of these [things] our eyes became dark.\n18 Upon Mount Zion, which is laid waste, jackals roam through it.\n19 Thou, O Jahveh, dost sit [enthroned] for ever; They throne is for generation and generation.\n20 Why dost thou forget us for ever, - forsake us for a length of days?\n21 Lead us back, O Jahveh, to thyself, that we may return; renew our days, as of old.\n22 Or, hast Thou indeed utterly rejected us? art thou very wroth against us?\nThis poem begins (Lam 5:1) with the request addressed to the Lord, that He would be pleased to think of the disgrace that has befallen Judah, and concludes (Lam 5:19-22) with the request that the Lord may not forsake His people for ever, but once more receive them into favour. The main portion of this petition is formed by the description of the disgrace and misery under which the suppliants groan, together with the acknowledgment (Lam 5:7 and Lam 5:16) that they are compelled to bear the sins of their fathers and their own sins. By this confession, the description given of their misery is divided into two strophes (Lam 5:2-7 and Lam 5:8-16), which are followed by the request for deliverance (Lam 5:19-22), introduced by Lam 5:17 and Lam 5:18. The author of this prayer speaks throughout in the name of the people, or, to speak more correctly, in the name of the congregation, laying their distress and their supplication before the Lord. The view of Thenius, - that this poem originated among a small company of Jews who had been dispersed, and who, in the mist of constant persecution, sought a place of refuge from the oppression of the Chaldeans, - has been forced upon the text through the arbitrary interpretation of detached figurative expressions. \n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/LAM/5.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"LAM","chapter":5},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/EZK/1.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"EZK","chapter":1},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/LAM/4.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"LAM","chapter":4},"numberOfVerses":5}