Lamentations 4 Commentary: Gold and Stones Metaphors Explained

LAME TATIO S 4 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 [a]How the gold has lost its luster,
the fine gold become dull!
The sacred gems are scattered
at every street corner.
BAR ES, "The stones of the sanctuary - Or, the hallowed stones, literally stones
of holiness, a metaphor for the people themselves. The actual stones of the temple would
not be thus widely thrown about as to be seen everywhere, but the prophet has already
affirmed this of the young children dying of hunger (compare Lam_2:19).
CLARKE, "How is the gold become dim - The prophet contrasts, in various
affecting instances, the wretched circumstances of the Jewish nation, with the
flourishing state of their affairs in former times. Here they are compared to gold, ‫זהב‬
zahab, native gold from the mine, which, contrary to its nature, is become dim, is
tarnished; and even the fine, the sterling gold, ‫כתם‬ kethem, that which was stamped to
make it current, is changed or adulterated, so as to be no longer passable. This might be
applied to the temple, but particularly to the fallen priests and apostate prophets.
The stones of the sanctuary - ‫קדש‬ ‫אבני‬ abney kodesh, the holy stones; the Jewish
godly men, who were even then the living stones of which God built his Church.
GILL, "How is the gold become dim!.... Or "covered" (b); or hid with rust, dust, or
dirt; so that it can scarcely be discerned:
how is the most fine gold changed! this may be literally true of the gold of the
temple; and so the Targum calls it
"the gold of the house of the sanctuary;''
with which that was overlaid, and many things in it, 1Ki_6:21; and was sadly sullied and
tarnished with the burning of the temple, and the rubbish of it: its brightness was lost,

and its colour changed; but though there may be an allusion to that, it is to be
figuratively understood of the people of God; for what is here expressed in parabolical
phrases, as Aben Ezra observes, is in Lam_4:2 explained in proper and literal ones:
godly and gracious men, there called the precious sons of Zion, are comparable to gold,
even the most fine gold; partly because of their habit and dress; gold of Ophir; clothing
of wrought gold; the rich robe of Christ's righteousness; which, for its brightness and
splendour, is like the finest gold; and is as lasting and durable as that; and in which the
saints look like a mass of pure gold, Psa_45:9; and partly because of the graces of the
Spirit in them, which are like gold for their purity, especially when tried; for their value,
and the enriching nature of them, and their duration; particularly the graces of faith,
hope, love, humility, which are like rows of jewels, and chains of gold, and as ornamental
as they; see Son_1:10; as also because of the doctrines of grace received by them, which
are more to be desired than gold, than fine gold; and are better than thousands of gold
and silver, by reason of their intrinsic worth and value; for their purity and brightness,
being tried and purified, and because of their duration, Psa_19:10; as well as on account
of the riches of grace and glory they are possessed of, and entitled to: now this, in either
of the senses of it, cannot be lost as to substance, only become dim; may lose its
brightness and glory, and like gold change its colour, but not its nature; and; this may be
the case of good men, comparable to it; when there is a decline in them, with respect to
the exercise of grace; faith in Christ and his righteousness is low, hope not lively, and
love waxen cold; when there is a veil drawn over the Gospel, a great opposition to it, and
a departure from it; or the doctrines of it are not so clearly and consistently preached;
and when there is a failure in a holy walk, and conversation becoming it; all which is
matter of lamentation:
the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street; in the
literal sense it may regard the costly stones of the temple, which, when that was
destroyed, not only lay in heaps; but many of them, at least, were separated and
scattered about, and carried into every corner of the city, and the streets of it, and there
lay exposed, neglected, and trampled upon; see 1Ki_5:17; but, in the figurative sense, it
designs the people of God; who, though they are taken out of the common quarry and pit
of mankind, and are by nature as common stones; yet by the Spirit and grace of God are
made living and lively ones, and are hewn and fitted for the spiritual building the
church; where they are laid, and are as the stones of a crown, as jewels and precious
stones; but when there are animosities, contentions, and divisions among them, so that
they disunite, and are scattered from one another, their case is like these stones of the
sanctuary; and which is to be lamented. It is by some Jewish writers (c) interpreted of
great personages, as princes, and great men of the earth.
HE RY, "The elegy in this chapter begins with a lamentation of the very sad and
doleful change which the judgments of God had made in Jerusalem. The city that was
formerly as gold, as the most fine gold, so rich and splendid, the perfection of beauty
and the joy of the whole earth, has become dim, and is changed, has lost its lustre, lost
its value, is not what it was; it has become dross. Alas! what an alteration is here!
I. The temple was laid waste, which was the glory of Jerusalem and its protection. it is
given up into the hands of the enemy. And some understand the gold spoken of (Lam_
4:1) to be the gold of the temple, the fine gold with which it was overlaid (1Ki_6:22);
when the temple was burned the gold of it was smoked and sullied, as if it had been of
little value. it was thrown among the rubbish; it was changed, converted to common
uses and made nothing of. The stones of the sanctuary, which were curiously wrought,
were thrown down by the Chaldeans, when they demolished it, or were brought down by

the force of the fire, and were poured out, and thrown about in the top of every street;
they lay mingled without distinction among the common ruins. When the God of the
sanctuary was by sin provoked to withdraw no wonder that the stones of the sanctuary
were thus profaned.
JAMISO , "Lam_4:1-22. The sad capture of Jerusalem, the hope of restoration,
and the retribution awaiting Idumea for joining Babylon against Judea.
Aleph
gold — the splendid adornment of the temple [Calvin] (Lam_1:10; 1Ki_6:22; Jer_
52:19); or, the principal men of Judea [Grotius] (Lam_4:2).
stones of ... sanctuary — the gems on the breastplate of the high priest; or,
metaphorically, the priests and Levites.
K&D, "The misery that has come on the inhabitants of Jerusalem is a punishment for
their deep guilt. The description given of this misery is divided into two strophes: for,
first (Lam_4:1-6), the sad lot of the several classes of the population is set forth; then
(Lam_4:7-11) a conclusion is drawn therefrom regarding the greatness of their sin.
Lam_4:1-6
The first strophe. Lam_4:1. The lamentation begins with a figurative account of the
destruction of all that is precious and glorious in Israel: this is next established by the
bringing forth of instances.
Lam_4:1-2
Lam_4:1, Lam_4:2 contain, not a complaint regarding the desolation of the sanctuary
and of Zion, as Maurer, Kalkschmidt, and Thenius, with the lxx, assume, but, as is
unmistakeably declared in Lam_4:2, a lamentation over the fearful change that has
taken place in the fate of the citizens of Zion. What is stated in Lam_4:1 regarding the
gold and the precious stones must be understood figuratively; and in the case of the
"gold that has become dim," we can as little think of the blackening of the gilding in the
temple fabric when it was burnt, as think of bricks (Thenius) when "the holy stones" are
spoken of. The ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ ‫ּון‬ ִ‫צ‬ (inhabitants of Zion), Lam_4:2, are likened to gold and sacred
stones; here Thenius would arbitrarily change ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ into ‫י‬ ֵ ָ (houses, palaces). This change
not merely has no critical support, but is objectionable on the simple ground that there
is not a single word to be found elsewhere, through all the chapter, concerning the
destruction of the temple and the palaces; it is merely the fate of the men, not of the
buildings, that is bewailed. "How is gold bedimmed!" ‫ם‬ ַ‫יוּע‬ is the Hophal of ‫ם‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫,ע‬ to be
dark, Eze_28:3, and to darken, Eze_31:8. The second clause, "how is fine gold changed!"
expresses the same thing. ‫א‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ = ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ according to the Chaldaizing usage, means to change
(oneself), Mal_3:6. The growing dim and the changing refer to the colour, the loss of
brilliancy; for gold does not alter in substance. B. C. Michaelis and Rosenmüller are too
specific when they explain that the gold represents populus Judaicus (or the potior
populi Hebraei pars), qui (quae) quondam auri instar in sanctuario Dei fulgebat, and
when they see in ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ ፍ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ק‬ an allusion to the stones in the breast-plate of the high priest.
Gold is generally an emblem of very worthy persons, and "holy stones" are precious
stones, intended for a sacred purpose. Both expressions collectively form a figurative

description of the people of Israel, as called to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests.
Analogous is the designation of the children of Israel as ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ ፍ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ז‬ֵ‫,נ‬ Zec_9:16 (Gerlach).
ְ‫ך‬ ֵ ַ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫,ה‬ to be poured out (at all the corners of the streets), is a figurative expression,
signifying disgraceful treatment, as in Lam_2:11. In Lam_4:2 follows the application of
the figure to the sons (i.e., the citizens) of Zion, not merely the chief nobles of Judah
(Ewald), or the princes, nor children in the narrowest sense of the word (Gerlach); for in
what follows mention is made not only of children (Lam_4:3, Lam_4:4), but also of
those who are grown up (Lam_4:5), and princes are not mentioned till Lam_4:7. As
being members of the chosen people, all the inhabitants of Jerusalem have been held
"dear," and "weighed out with gold," i.e., esteemed as of equal value with gold (cf. Job_
28:16, Job_28:19); but now, when Jerusalem is destroyed, they have become regarded
as earthenware pots, i.e., treated as if they were utterly worthless, as "a work of the
hands of the potter," whereas Israel was a work of the hands of God, Isa_64:7. ‫א‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ס‬ = ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ס‬
cf. Job_28:16, Job_28:19 to weigh; Pual, be weighed out, as an equivalent.
CALVI , "Here Jeremiah, following the order of the alphabet the fourth time, (206)
deplores the ruin of the city, and the destruction of the priesthood and of the
kingdom. For they are mistaken who think that the death of Josiah is here
lamented; for there are here many things, which we shall see as we proceed, which
do not suit that event. There is no doubt but that this mournful song refers to the
destruction of the Temple and city; but when Josiah was killed, the enemy had not
come to the city, and the stones of the Temple were not then east forth into the
streets and the public roads. There are also other things which we shall see, which
did not then happen. It follows then that here is described the terrible vengeance of
God, which we have had already to consider.
He begins by expressing his astonishment, How obscured is the gold! and the
precious gold! for ‫,כתם‬ catam, is properly the best gold, though the word good, ‫הטוב‬
ethub, is added to it. We may hence conclude that it generally denotes gold only. He
mentions, then, gold twice, but they are two different words in Hebrew, ‫,זהב‬ zaeb,
and ‫כתם‬ catam. (207) ow he speaks figuratively in the former part of the verse; but
there is no doubt but that by the gold, and the finest gold, as it is rendered, he means
the splendor of the Temple; for God had designed the Temple to be built, as it is
well known, in a very magnificent manner. Hence he calls what was ornamental in
the Temple gold.
He then speaks without a figure, and says, that thestones were thrown here and
there in all directions. Some, indeed, think that these words refer to the sacred
vessels, of which there was a large quantity, we know, in the Temple. But this
opinion is not probable, for the Prophet does not complain that the gold was taken
away, but that it was obscured, and changed. It is then, no doubt, a metaphorical
expression. But he afterwards explains himself when he says that the stones of the
sanctuary were cast forth here and there along all the streets. It was indeed a sad
spectacle; for God had consecrated that temple to himself, that he might dwell in it.
When therefore the stones of the sanctuary were thus disgracefully scattered, it
must have grievously wounded the minds of all the godly; for they saw that God’s

name was thus exposed to reproaches. or is there a doubt but that the Chaldeans
vomited forth many reproaches against God when they thus scattered the stones of
the temple. It hence appears, that the Prophet did not without reason exclaim, How
has this happened! for such a sight must have justly astonished all the godly, seeing
as they did the degradation of the temple connected with a reproach to God himself.
It follows, —
How is this! tarnished is gold,
Changed is fine gold, the best:
Cast forth are the sacred stones
At the head of every street.
— Ed
CO STABLE, "Verse 1
This lament resumes the characteristic "How" introduction (cf. Lamentations 1:1;
Lamentations 2:1). The gold and precious stones that had decorated the temple no
longer served that function. Jeremiah compared the precious inhabitants of
Jerusalem (cf. Exodus 19:5-6) to gold and gems. They now lay in the streets of the
city defiled and dead.
"For those who esteemed themselves as high-quality gold, the kind of experience
which reduced them to the level of base metal in the opinion of their enemies was of
harrowing psychological and spiritual proportions." [ ote: Harrison, Jeremiah and
. . ., p232.]
Verses 1-6
1. The first description of siege conditions4:1-6
Verses 1-11
A. Conditions during the siege4:1-11
This section of the poem consists of two parallel parts ( Lamentations 4:1-11). The
Judahites had become despised ( Lamentations 4:1-2; Lamentations 4:7-8), and both
children and adults (everyone) suffered ( Lamentations 4:3-5; Lamentations 4:9-10).
This calamity was the result of Yahweh"s punishment for sin ( Lamentations 4:6;
Lamentations 4:11).
TRAPP, "Lamentations 4:1 How is the gold become dim! [how] is the most fine gold
changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.
Ver. 1. How is the gold become dim.?] How by way of wonderment again, as
Lamentations 1:1. - q.d., Quo tanto scelere hominum, et qua tanta indignatione Dei?
(a) What have men done, and how hath God been provoked, that there are such
strange alterations here all on the sudden? By gold, and fine gold, here understand
the temple overlaid by Solomon with choice gold; or God’s people, his spiritual

temple, who had now lost their lustre and dignity.
The stones of the sanctuary are poured out.] Come tumbling down from the
demolished temple.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
A LAME T OVER WHAT HAPPE ED TO JERUSALEM DURI G THE
TERRIBLE FAMI E SIEGE A D FAMI E
Lamentations 4:1-10
"How is the gold become dim!
How is the most pure gold changed!
The stones of the sanctuary are poured out
at the head of every street.
The precious sons of Zion,
comparable to fine gold.
How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers,
the work of the hands of the potter!
Even the jackals draw out the breast,
they give suck to their young ones:
The daughter of my people is become cruel,
like the ostriches in the wilderness.
The tongue of the sucking child
cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst:
The young children ask bread,
and no man breaketh it unto them.
They that did feed delicately
are desolate in the streets:

They that were brought up in scarlet
embrace dunghills.
For the iniquity of the daughter of my people
is greater than the sin of Sodom,
That was overthrown in a moment,
and no hands were laid upon her.
Her nobles were purer than snow,
they were whiter than milk;
They were more ruddy in body than rubies,
Their polishing was of sapphire.
Their visage is blacker than coal;
they are not known in the streets:
Their skin cleaveth to their bones;
it is withered, it is become like a stick.
They that are slain with the sword
are better than they that are slain with hunger;
For these pine away, stricken through,
for want of the fruits of the field.
The hands of the pitiful women
have boiled their own children;
They were their food
in the destruction of the daughter of my people."
These terrible lines must rank among the saddest words ever written. They
described the horrors of the awful famine that preceded the flight of Zedekiah the

king of Israel and the terrible destruction that followed. The actual fall of Jerusalem
was an awesome event. The Temple was looted; the houses (all of them) were
burned; the walls were thrown down; Zedekiah was captured; his sons were
slaughtered in his presence, and then his eyes were gouged out by the Babylonians;
many thousands were brutally butchered; other thousands were led away as
captives, either to be sold, or to die of starvation and abuse on the journey; but these
verses have no word at all concerning all those terrors. What is described here is the
unspeakable horrors of the siege that preceded all that.
"How is the gold become dim ... changed!" (Lamentations 4:1a). This is metaphor.
The following verse identifies the gold as "the precious sons of Zion." As elaborated
a few lines later, the well-dressed, amply supplied nobles of Jerusalem had become
skin and bones, dying of starvation, sitting upon dunghills in search of food. We
have here Jeremiah's eyewitness account of all this.
"The stones of the sanctuary" (Lamentations 4:lb). "This refers to the precious
gems which decorated the breastplate of the High Priest."[1] Their mention here is
metaphorical, and they are parallel with the fine gold.
"The jackals ... give suck to their young ones" (Lamentations 4:3a). The wild
animals could nurse their young, but Jerusalem's starving women could not.
othing, in all the horrors of warfare, ever exceeded the cruel horrors of a siege.
The literature of all nations does not provide any better account of what happens in
such a siege than this account from Jeremiah.
"Like ostriches in the desert" (Lamentations 4:3b). This creature is often cited as
one that had no regard for their offspring. "The ostrich leaves her eggs on the
ground, forgetting that her own foot may crush them or a wild beast may break
them."[2]
"The sucking child ... the young children" (Lamentations 4:4). Starving mothers are
unable to nurse their babies; the older children cry in vain for something to eat.
"They that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills" (Lamentations 4:5). As
noted above, even the favored heads of their society sought in vain for food.
"The iniquity of ... my people is greater than the sin of Sodom" (Lamentations 4:6a).
The tragedy of this shocking fact is often overlooked. Ezekiel elaborated the same
truth (Ezekiel 16); but the consequences of it reached far beyond Jerusalem. For
Sodom's wickedness, God destroyed them. Why did he not then destroy Israel which
had become worse than Sodom? It was only because God had promised Abraham
and the patriarchs that he would bring in the Messiah, The Seed Singular, through
Abraham's posterity. In a sense, God was 'stuck with Israel,' until that promise was
fulfilled in the birth of Christ. Israel deserved a worse punishment than Sodom, for
their sin was greater, and this verse indicates that their punishment was worse!
"Sodom was overthrown ... no hands were laid upon her" (Lamentations 4:6b). This

emphasizes the fact that Sodom's punishment was lighter than Israel's. They did not
endure such a terror as siege. Their overthrow was instantaneous; Israel's lasted
seventy years, beginning with this unspeakably tragic siege.
"Her nobles" (Lamentations 4:7-8). These were the "upper crust" of Jerusalem's
society. They were the nobility, dressed in scarlet, living in extravagant luxury,
faring sumptuously every day; and now! During the siege, like everyone else, they
were starving to death.
"They that are slain with the sword ... better than they that are slain with hunger"
(Lamentations 4:9). It is better to die instantly than to suffer for a long time starving
to death. Many of the people, no doubt, prayed for a sudden death.
"The pitiful women ... have boiled their own children ... they were their food"
(Lamentations 4:10). This is the climax of this terrible paragraph. Second Kings,
chapter 6 (2 Kings 6:24-30) has the account of a similar disaster suffered by the
orthern Israel (Samaria) during the siege of that city by Benhadad king of Syria.
Yes, indeed, the punishment of Israel, whose sins were worse than the sins of
Sodom, was divinely punished by a destruction that was also far worse than what
happened to Sodom.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "Verses 1-12
CO TRASTS
Lamentations 4:1-12
I form the fourth elegy is slightly different from each of its predecessors. Following
the characteristic plan of the Book of Lamentations, it is an acrostic of twenty-two
verses arranged in the order of the Hebrew alphabet. In it we meet with the same
curious transposition of two letters that is found in the second and third elegies; it
has also the peculiar metre of Hebrew elegaic poetry-the very lengthy line, broken
into two unequal parts. But, like the first and second, it differs from the third elegy,
which repeats the acrostic letters in three successive lines, in only using each acrostic
once at the beginning of a fresh verse; and it differs from all the three first elegies,
which are arranged in triplets, in having only two lines in each verse.
This poem is very artistically constructed in the balancing of its ideas and phrases.
The opening section of it, from the beginning to the twelfth verse, consists of a pair
of duplicate passages-the first from verse one to verse six, the second from verse
seven to verse eleven, the twelfth verse bringing this part of the poem to a close by
adding a reflection on the common subject of the twin passages. Thus the
parallelism which we usually meet with in individual verses is here extended to two
series of verses, we might perhaps say, two stanzas, except that there is no such
formal division.
In each of these elaborately-wrought sections the elegist brings out a rich array of
similes to enforce the tremendous contrast between the original condition of the

people of Jerusalem and their subsequent wretchedness. The details of the two
descriptions follow closely parallel lines, with sufficient diversity, both in idea and in
illustration, to avoid tautology and to serve to heighten the general effect by mutual
comparisons. Both passages open with images of beautiful and costly natural objects
to which the elite of Jerusalem are compared. ext comes the violent contrast of
their state after the overthrow of the city. Then turning aside to more distant scenes,
each of which is more or less repellent-the lair of wild beasts in the first case, in the
second the battle-field-the poet describes the much more degraded and miserable
condition of his people. Both passages direct especial attention to the fate of
children-the first to their starvation, the second to a perfectly ghastly scene. At this
point in each part the previous daintiness of the upbringing of the more refined
classes is contrasted with the condition of degradation worse than that of savages to
which they have been reduced. Each passage concludes with a reference to those
deeper facts of the case which make it a sign of the wrath of heaven against
exceptionally guilty sinners.
The elegist begins with an evident allusion to the consequences of the burning of the
temple, which we learn from the history was effected by the Babylonian general
ebuzar-adan. [2 Kings 25:9] The costly splendour with which this temple at
Jerusalem was decorated allowed of a rare glitter of gold, such as Josephus
describes when writing of the later temple; gold not like that of the domes of St.
Mark’s, mellowed by the climate of Venice to a sober depth of hue, but all ablaze
with dazzling radiance. The first effect of the smoke of a great conflagration would
be to cloud and soil this somewhat raw magnificence, so that the choice gold became
dull. That the precious stones stolen from the temple treasury would be flung
carelessly about the streets, as our Authorised Version would seem to suggest, is not
to be supposed in the case of the sack of a city by a civilised army, whatever might
happen if a Vandal host swept through it. "The stones of the sanctuary,"
[Lamentations 4:1] however, might be the stones with which the building had been
constructed. Still, even with this interpretation the statement seems very improbable
that the invaders would take the trouble to cart these huge blocks about the city in
order to distribute them in heaps at all the street corners. We are driven to the
conclusion that the poet is speaking metaphorically, that he is meaning the Jews
themselves, or perhaps the more favoured classes, "the noble sons of Zion" of whom
he writes openly in the next verse. [Lamentations 4:2] This interpretation is
confirmed when we consider the comparison with the parallel passage, which starts
at once with a reference to the "princes." [Lamentations 4:7] It seems likely then
that the gold that has been so sullied also represents the choicer part of the people.
The writer deplores the destruction of his beloved sanctuary; and the image of that
calamity is in his mind at the present time; and yet it is not this that he is most
deeply lamenting. He is more concerned with the fate of his people. The patriot loves
the very soil of his native land, the loyal citizen the very streets and stones of his city.
But if such a man is more than a dreamer or a sentimentalist, flesh and blood must
mean infinitely more to him than earth and stones. The ruin of a city is something
else than the destruction of its buildings; an earthquake or a fire may effect this,
and yet, like Chicago, the city may rise again in greater splendour. The ruin that is
most deplorable is the ruin of human lives.

This somewhat aristocratic poet, the mouthpiece of an aristocratic age, compares
the sons of the Jewish nobility to purest gold. Yet he tells us that they are treated as
common earthen vessels, perhaps meaning in contrast to the vessels of precious
metal used in the palaces of the great. They are regarded as of no more value than
potter’s work, though formerly they had been prized as the dainty art of a
goldsmith. This first statement only treats of insult and humiliation. But the evil is
worse. The jackals that he knows must be prowling about the deserted ruins of
Jerusalem even while he writes suggest a strange, wild image to the poet’s mind.
[Lamentations 4:3] These fierce creatures suckle their young, though not in the tame
manner of domestic animals. It is singular that the nurture of princes amid the
refinements of wealth and luxury should be compared to the feeding of their cubs
by. scavengers of the wilderness. But our thoughts are thus directed to the wide
extent, the universal exercise of maternal instincts throughout the animal world,
even among the most savage and homeless creatures. Startling indeed is it to think
that such instincts should ever fail among men, or even that circumstances should
ever hinder the natural performance of the functions to which they point with
imperious urgency. Although the second passage tells of the violent reversal of the
natural feelings of maternity under the maddening influence of famine, here we
read how starvation has simply stopped the tender ministry which mothers render
to their infants, with a vague hint at some cruelty on the part of the Jewish mothers.
A comparison with the supposed conduct of ostriches in leaving their eggs suggests
that this is negative cruelty; their hearts being frozen with agony, the wretched
mothers lose all interest in their children. But then there is not food for them. The
calamities of the times have staunched the mother’s milk; and there is no bread for
the older children. [Lamentations 4:4] It is the extreme reversal of their fortunes
that makes the misery of the children of princely homes most acute; even those who
do not suffer the pangs of hunger are flung down to the lowest depths of
wretchedness. The members of the aristocracy have been accustomed to live
luxuriously; now they wander about the streets devouring whatever they can pick
up. In the old days of luxury they used to recline on scarlet couches; now they have
no better bed than the filthy dunghill. [Lamentations 4:5]
The passage concludes with a reflection on the general character of this dreadful
condition of Israel. [Lamentations 4:6] It must be closely connected with the sins of
the people. The drift of the context would lead us to judge that the poet does not
mean to compare the guilt of Jerusalem with that of Sodom, but rather the fate of
the two cities. The punishment of Israel is greater than that of Sodom. But this is
punishment; and the odious comparison would not be made unless the sin had been
of the blackest dye. Thus in this elegy the calamities of Jerusalem are again traced
back to the ill-doings of her people. The awful fate of the cities of the plain stands
out in the ancient narrative as the exceptional punishment of exceptional
wickedness. But now in the race for a first place in the history of doom Jerusalem
has broken the record. Even Sodom has been eclipsed in the headlong course by the
city once most favoured by heaven. It seems well-nigh impossible. What could be
worse than total destruction by fire from heaven? The elegist considers that there
are two points in the fate of Jerusalem that confer a gloomy pre-eminence in misery.

The doom of Sodom was sudden, and man had no hand in it; but Jerusalem fell into
the hands of man-a calamity which David judged to be worse than falling into the
hands of God; and she had to endure a long, lingering agony.
Passing on to the consideration of the parallel section, we see that the author follows
the same lines, though with considerable freshness of treatment. Still directing
especial attention to the tremendous change in the fortunes of the aristocracy, he
begins again by describing the splendour of their earlier state. This had been
advertised to all eyes by the very complexion of their countenances. Unlike the
toilers who were necessarily bronzed by working under a southern sun, these
delicately nurtured persons had been able to preserve fair skins in the shady
seclusion of their cool palaces, so that in the hyperbole of the poem they could be
described as "purer than snow" and "whiter than milk." [Lamentations 4:7] Yet
they had no sickly pallor. Their health had been well attended to; so that they were
also ruddy as "corals," while their dark hair glistened "like sapphires," But now see
them! Their faces are "darker than blackness." [Lamentations 4:8] We need not
enquire after a literal explanation of an expression which is in harmony with the
extravagance of Oriental language, although doubtless exposure to the weather, and
the grime and smoke of the scenes these children of luxury had passed through,
must have had a considerable effect on their effeminate countenances. The language
here is evidently figurative. So it is throughout the passage. The whole aspect of the
lives and fortunes of these delicately nurtured lordlings has been reversed. They tell
their story by the gloom of their countenances and by the shrivelled appearance of
their bodies. They can no longer be recognised in the streets, so piteous a change
have their misfortunes wrought in them. Withered and wizen, they are reduced to
skin and bone by sheer famine. Sufferers from such continuous calamities as these
fallen princes are passing through are treated to a worse fate than that which
overtook their brethren who fell in the war. The sword is better than hunger. The
victims of war, stricken down in the heat of battle but in the midst of plenty, so that
they leave the fruits of the field behind them untouched because no longer needed,
are to be counted happy in being taken from the evil to come.
The gruesome horror of the next scene is beyond description. [Lamentations 4:10]
More than once history has had to record the absolute extinction, nay, we must say
the insane reversal, of maternal instincts under the influence of hunger. We could
not believe it possible if we did not know that it had occurred. It is a degradation of
what we hold to be most sacred in human nature; perhaps it is only possible where
human nature has been degraded already, for we must not forget that in the present
case the women who are driven below the level of she-wolves are not children of
nature, but the daughters of an effete civilisation who have been nursed in the lap of
luxury. This is the climax. Imagination itself could scarcely go further. And yet
according to his custom throughout, the elegist attributes these calamities of his
people to the anger of God. Such things seem to indicate a very "fury" of Divine
wrath; the anger must be fierce indeed to kindle such "a fire in Zion."
[Lamentations 4:11] But now the very foundations of the city are destroyed even
that terrible thirst for retribution must be satisfied.

These are thoughts which we as Christians do not care to entertain; and yet it is in
the ew Testament that we read that "our God is a consuming fire"; [Hebrews
12:29] and it is of our Lord that John the Baptist declares: "He will throughly purge
His threshing-floor." [Matthew 3:12] If God is angry at all His anger cannot be
light; for no action of His is feeble or ineffectual. The subsequent restoration of
Israel shows that the fires to which the elegist here calls our attention were
purgatorial. This fact must profoundly affect our view of their character. Still they
are very real, or the Book of Lamentations would not have been written.
In view of the whole situation so graphically portrayed by means of the double line
of illustrations the poet concludes this part of his elegy with a device that reminds us
of the function of the chorus in the Greek drama. We see the kings of all other
nations in amazement at the fate of Jerusalem. [Lamentations 4:12] The mountain
city had the reputation of being an impregnable fortress, at least so her fond citizens
imagined. But now she has fallen. It is incredible! The news of this wholly
unexpected disaster is supposed to send a shock through foreign courts. We are
reminded of the blow that stunned St. Jerome when a rumour of the fall of Rome
reached the studious monk in his quiet retreat at Bethlehem. Men can tell that a
severe storm has been raging out in the Atlantic if they see unusually great rollers
breaking on the Cornish crags. How huge a calamity must that be the mere echo of
which can produce a startling effect in far countries! But could these kings really be
so astonished, seeing that Jerusalem had been captured twice before? The poet’s
language rather points to the overweening pride and confidence of the Jews, and it
shows how great the shock to them must have been since they could not but regard
it as a wonder to the world. Such then is the picture drawn by our poet with the aid
of the utmost artistic skill in bringing out its striking effects. ow before we turn
away from it let us ask ourselves wherein its true significance may be said to lie.
This is a study in black and white. The very language is such; and when we come to
consider the lessons that language sets forth with so much sharpness and vigour, we
shall see that they too partake of the same character.
The force of contrasts-that is the first and most obvious characteristic of the scene.
We are very familiar with the heightening of effects by this means, and it is needless
to repeat the trite lessons that have been derived from the application of it to life.
We know that none suffer so keenly from adversity as those who were once very
prosperous. Marius in the Mamertine dungeon, apoleon at St. Helena,
ebuchadnezzar among the beasts, Dives in Hell, are but notorious illustrations of
what we may all see on the smaller canvas of everyday life. Great as are the
hardships of the children of the "slums," it is not to them, but to the unhappy
victims of a violent change of circumstances, that the burden of poverty is most
heavy. We have seen this principle illustrated repeatedly in the Book of
Lamentations. But now may we not go behind it, and lay hold of something more
than an indubitable psychological law? While looking only at the reversals of
fortune which may be witnessed on every hand, we are tempted to hold life to be
little better than a gambling bout with high stakes and desperate play. Further
consideration, however, should teach us that the stakes are not so high as they
appear; that is to say, that the chances of the world do not so profoundly affect our

fate as surface views would lead us to suppose. Such things as the pursuit of mere
sensation, the life of external aims, the surrender to the excitement of the moment,
are doubtless subject to the vicissitudes of contrast; but it is the teaching of our
Lord that the higher pursuits are free from these evils. If the treasure is in heaven
no thief can steal it, no moth or rust can corrupt it; and therefore, since where the
treasure is there will the heart be also, it is possible to keep the heart in peace even
among the changes that upset a purely superficial life with earthquake shocks.
Sincere as is the lament of the elegist over the fate of his people, a subtle thread of
irony seems to run through his language. Possibly it is quite unconscious; but if so it
is the more significant, for it is the irony of fact which cannot be excluded by the
simplest method of statement. It suggests that the grandeur which could be so easily
turned to humiliation must have been somewhat tawdry at best.
But unhappily the fall of the pampered youth of Jerusalem was not confined to a
reversal of external fortune. The elegist has been careful to point out that the
miseries they endured were the punishments of their sins. Then there had been an
earlier and much greater collapse. Before any foreign enemy had appeared at her
gates the city had succumbed to a fatal foe bred within her own walls. Luxury had
undermined the vigour of the wealthy; vice had blackened the beauty of the young.
There is a fine gold of character which will be sullied beyond recognition when the
foul vapours of the pit are permitted to break out upon it. The magnificence of
Solomon’s temple is poor and superficial in comparison with the beauty of young
souls endowed with intellectual and moral gifts, like jewels of rarest worth. Man is
not treated in the Bible as a paltry creature. Was he not made in the image of God?
Jesus would not have us despise our own native worth. Hope and faith come from a
lofty view of human nature and its possibilities. Souls are not swine; and therefore
by all the measure of their superiority to swine souls are worth saving. The shame
and sorrow of sin lie just in this fact, that it is so foul a degradation of so fair a thing
as human nature. Here is the contrast that heightens the tragedy of lost souls. But
then we may add, in its reversal this same contrast magnifies the glory of
redemption-from so deep a pit does Christ bring back His ransomed, to so great a
height does He raise them!
PARKER, "Dimming of the Gold
Lamentations 4:1
ot changed in a moment, but changed imperceptibly. It evil things would only
come at specified times, we should know how to prepare for them and to defend
ourselves against them. Had the strong man known at what hour the thief would
come, he would not have suffered his house to be broken through. But we cannot tell
the time, nor the way, nor the speciality of the attack, nor the exact scope that will
be taken by the enemy. "What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." It would seem
as if life needed continual culture. ature seems to teach us this, in so far as it is
under our control. We cannot let a day go by in neglect without suffering loss, or
being conscious of some change for the worse. The garden will not stand still. If you
say, "Leave the garden to the laws of nature," the laws of nature will choke your

garden, filling it with weeds, causing it to live with life not agreeable to you. So with
your own person; so with everything round about you. Every day must have its own
washing, cleansing, sweeping, watching. Life would seem to be set in circumstances
necessitating continual critical and religious inspection and culture. This illustration
can be carried all round the circle of life, and made to preach to us a great and
powerful discourse. We cannot live one day in negligence, things slip down so
suddenly and completely. The change, too, is written upon the man. It matters not
how skilful the dissimulation, how perfect even to exquisiteness of management the
whole hypocrisy, the evil nature will sign itself in unmistakable tokens upon the face
and upon the manner of the man who succumbs to evil. He will not change in a
moment; you will begin to wonder what has taken place in his thought of you and
his relation to you; you will examine yourself to know if the reason be in you. He is
not so punctual as he used to be, or regular; not so vivacious; not marked by that
abandonment of perfect confidence which used to characterise his intercourse. He is
more suspicious, more difficult to deal with, less easy to please. What is it that has
taken place in the man? The revelation is there—at present in dim characters and
symbols, but it will grow into fuller expression and leave no doubt as to the origin of
the change which you have watched with dislike. "How is the gold become dim! how
is the most fine gold changed!"
We might so far alter the obvious meaning of the text as to lay great stress upon the
meaning of the word "How"—as if it involved a mystery rather than declared the
fact. How is it pos sible? It is gold, but it is dim; it is fine gold, but it is changed—
how has it been done? Marvellous is the history of deterioration. The late
Archbishop Trench in his most instructive little book upon "Words" has shown this
in a very vivid manner in the matter of certain expressions and phrases which have
gradually but completely changed their meaning in English speech and intercourse.
Some of the instances given by Dr. Trench are of a striking character. He quotes the
word "innocent." What could be more beautiful in its original application? A word
of gold, yea, of fine gold, indicating beauty of character, simplicity of spirit,
incapability of double-mindedness or ambiguity of thought and intent; all so plain,
so pure, so straightforward. How is the word now employed in many cases? It is
now used to indicate, the Archbishop tells us, people who have lost mental strength,
or people who never had mental strength; weak-minded people; even those who are
little short of imbeciles are described as "innocent"—those having no longer any
responsibility; having out-lived the usual obligations of life or never having come
under them; persons from whom nothing may be expected. "How is the gold become
dim! how is the most fine gold changed!" A change of that kind does not take place
on the surface; changes of that sort have history underneath them as their cause and
explanation; the soul has got wrong in order to allow a word like that to be
perverted from its original beauteousness. Another instance he gives is the word
"silly." Originally the word silly meant holy. He quotes a poet who describes the
Saviour as "that harmless, silly Babe," meaning "that harmless, holy Babe,"—the
word, with a little variety of form, being used today in the German nation with the
same old meaning of holy. But now what does it mean? Frivolous, senseless, pithless,
worthless. "How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!"

This is not a trick in merely vocal transition; underneath this is a sad moral history.
Even words may indicate the moral course which a nation has taken. So with many
other words. We find the change upon the gold even in the matter of speech. But
why say "even in the matter of speech"? as though that were of secondary
importance. The speech is the man. "The Word was God," and the word is man. We
must not trifle with language, or endeavour to deceive ourselves by using soft words
in place of hard ones. That is an evil game to play. It shows that already the heart
has lost its jointing and true setting in God, and is abroad seeking for excuse,
inventing palliations, and trying by tampering and conjuring with language to give
a new view to moral nature, to moral action. Watch! Be careful even about the very
words you use. Choose the very hardest word you can when speaking of wrong-
doing, and do not deceive yourselves. I would say—involving myself most of all in
the great application of the sentiment—Do not seek by a mere wizardry in the use of
words to soften the accusation which ought to be addressed to every wrong-thinker
and wrongdoer.
I will quote one more instance from the Archbishop"s book. It is of another kind,
but strikingly illustrates the uses to which the highest dignities may be dragged. The
greatest of all the orators of his day was Cicero; and now the man in Italy who can
show you over galleries of art and describe glibly what you see is called a
"Cicerone," a follower, a descendant of Cicero, a talker, a chatterer, a man who can
amuse you and partly inform you, or otherwise entertain you, by long speeches
about paintings and statuaries and things curious and historical. "How is the gold
become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!" That ragged, ill-kept Prayer of
Manasseh , chattering about things he does not know, has come from the mere
fluency of his speech to be called a little Cicero. It is thus that we trace many a
declension, and thus we may trace many an apostasy in our own case. Unhappy
phrases we have altered to fine euphemistic speeches, which fail to strike between
the eyes the crimes which we ought to abhor.
What is true of words is true also of merely social manners. "How is the gold
become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!" How different you are now in
some of your social relations from what you used to be! We need not go into detail of
a special and vivid kind, but every man will supply his own illustration of the point
towards which we direct attention. How civil we used to be; how courteous; how
prompt in attention; how critical in our behaviour; how studious not to wound!
What delicate phrases we used; what gracious compliments we paid! How we
endeavoured to incarnate the very spirit of courtesy and chivalry! "How is the gold
become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!" How rough we are, and brusque!
How blunt—and we call our bluntness frankness! How positive, stubborn, self-
willed, resolute, careless of the interests of others! What off-handed speeches we
make! What curt answers we return! Where is the old gallantry, the old
gentlemanliness, the fine old courtesy? "How is the gold become dim! how is the
most fine gold changed!"—perhaps not changed upon one side more than upon the
other, but still changed; the old patience buried, the old forbearance done away
with; questions that could be asked in earlier times with ease and directness have
now to be almost smuggled into conversation in order to extract information needful

for the proper upholding and direction of the household. The gold has become dim.
o suspicion is thrown upon the original character and value of the gold; but it has
become dim. It is not enough to say, "It is still gold,"—it is the dimness we are
speaking about in this immediate connection. It will not do to set ourselves up in
righteousness and sterling honour and unquestionable veracity, and say, "We are as
golden as ever." What about the dimness? the change of surface? Who can tell what
that dimness may lead to? And the more sure you are of the gold, the more careful
you ought to be of the dimness. What if that dimness should so deepen and extend as
to lead some persons to question the reality of the gold? In these matters we must as
Christian men be careful, thoughtful, watchful, critical. There is nothing little that
concerns the integrity and the fulness of Christian character.
What is true of words and of manner is also true of the high ideals with which we
began life. Let us be thankful for ideals. We cannot always live up to the ideal, but
we can still look at it and cherish it; and from our uplifted ideal we may sometimes
draw healing when we have been beaten by some flying fiery serpent whose bite has
flung us in agony upon the ground for a while, like worsted and mortally wounded
things. We cannot have ideals too lofty, too pure, too heavenly. Be ye holy as your
Father in heaven is holy; be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect Behold
the real lying in the dust; see the divinely ideal shining with infinite lustre in the
skies. "Aim high; shoot afar, higher than he who means a star—than he who means
a tree." Let this wisdom of George Herbert be carried up into all our relations. We
cannot strike the star, but the arrow goes the higher for the point is was aimed at.
What ideals we used to have! Who dares bring back to memory all the ideals with
which he started life? Where are they? "How is the gold become dim! how is the
most fine gold changed!" When I—for I will speak thus in the first instance upon
narrow grounds—wished to become a preacher of the eternal Word, how lofty was
the ideal! how devoted was to have been the life! how long and agonistic the prayers!
how ardent the appeal! every sermon a sacrifice, every call delivered through the
learning of God. "I am determined not to know anything among men, save Jesus
Christ, and him crucified." "God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:
and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved me, and gave himself for me." Do I not thus quoting my own early ideal and
purpose touch the experience and the pensive recollection of every minister of the
Cross? "How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!" What
deference to the customs of the times! What fear of offending men! What study to
win the approbation of all! What resource to unhappy and unholy expedients in
order to keep men together in unbroken consolidation, lest any evil-speaker should
charge the preacher with want of public success. What a desire to accommodate the
prayer and the sermon to the regulation hour of conventional impatience! What fear
of striking directly and heavily! What temptation to be hard upon the absent, but to
let the present go free from the scorching fire of divine criticism, and the appalling
judgment of the eternal righteousness.
What is true of the minister is true also of nearly all other men. What a life yours

was to have been in business! I think I see you now, when a fair-faced boy, without a
wrinkle on your bonnie brow, how you said that when you began life in business,
you would show how business was to be done: there should be no moral blot upon
any stationery upon which you wrote; everything should be exact, liberal, just; you
would endeavour to found a model business. Bless God for the boyish fancy that
wants to found "model" things! I would not curb the boy who was going to be a
model preacher, a model merchant, a model politician, or a model anything else that
was really healthy and good. You used to like the word "model"; we used to detect it
in your speech frequently, and point it out, and wonder when you would use it next.
You would be a model man of business—model in punctuality and regularity in
payment; in all the relations involved in active commerce. Where is the ideal now? It
is thirty years ago since you spoke thus about your model life; produce your books,
let us see your record; what have you done in that span of a generation? You will
not show the books? I know why. You turn my attention away from the record to
the latest news from Egypt and Ireland. I understand. "How is the gold become
dim! how is the most fine gold changed!" But is it gold still? Be sure: you may have
substituted the clay for the gold; you may have bartered away the fine gold for
stones without value. I will not press the impeachment, for it cannot be urged in
your direction without coming with added recoil in the direction which I myself
occupy. What an ideal of home-life you used to have! You remember when you
walked between the green hedges in the springtime among blossoms and singing
birds, you used to remark upon the life which other people were living in the
house—such querulous lives, so discontented, so ill-kept, so wanting in natural and
proper discipline, and you used to say that when you had a house of your own, it
should be as beautiful outside as inside; all its windows should, morally and socially,
look towards the south and the south-west, and the house should be full of music,
and though you could not afford expensive pictures, yet whatever you had, even in
the way of a little engraving, it should be of the very best thing of its kind, and you
said that by a little giving and taking and little concession that a home might be
made into a kind of heaven. I remember your sweet words; they were beautiful: how
have they been realised? I have not been in your house for the last fifteen years: how
are you going on now? Do not speak aloud; answer mentally: how is your house? It
is not a big one, but is it a beautiful one? It is not full of riches that can be sold by
auction, but is it full of the wealth of the soul and the mind and the heart? Is Love
the spirit of the house? Is the good old altar standing just where it was? Is the big
family Bible still the centre of the house and the chief of its riches? Do not answer
me: answer yourself, answer God. But may we not say of some family life?—"How
is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!" The meals are no
longer sacramental; the sleep is no longer prefigurative of true rest, out of which
shall come physical and moral recruital and preparation for the next day"s fight;
the front door is no longer so high or so wide, nor does it swing back so easily upon
its hinges as used to be the case in the early time. Everything is wrong now: the old
armchair is never in its former place, the fire is always dull, and stir it as you will
you cannot get back the old glow and the old hospitable warmth. Everything is out
of place, and everybody but you is to be blamed. "How is the gold become dim! how
is the most fine gold changed!"

Then what a church-life you were going to live—all of us. When we entered the
church, what a model career we were going to complete! We were going to be gentle,
courteous, true-minded, large-hearted; we were never going to take offence at
anything; we were never going to listen with the ears of criticism, but with the inner
ears of necessity, appreciation, penitence, and thankfulness; we were going to do
everything in our power to make the church we attended such a place as was hardly
to be found in any other part of the globe; we would not curl our nostrils even if an
ill-dressed person came and sat next us in the pew; we were never going to complain
of anything; the minister we were going to hold up in prayer and to sustain in love;
our faces were to become bright at his coming, and the answer to his appeals was to
be instantaneous and complete. How is it now? You remember the poor person that
wanted to come into your pew, and you pointed her to the other end of the church.
How is it now? Any critical remarks? Any desire to show your supernatural
quickness in detecting mistakes and want of continuity in the discourse? Any little
self-idolatrous pranks and antics of a kind unworthy of the holy Church of God?
Any unkind and bitter little speeches about other people? Do not say "Yes." I ask
questions. Oh! may the answer be such that you may not have to say, "How is the
gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!"
Let me add to the criticism the gospel which says, We may every one begin again. I
feel as if I had spoken a great warm truth that will go into every home, every
church, and there do its gracious work. Brothers, fellow-breakers of the ideal we
started with, common criminals, we may every one begin again. What say you to
that gospel opportunity and gospel challenge? Let each say, "I will arise and go to
my Father"; let each one say, "I will arise and go to my ideal, and say, I have
wounded thee, dishonoured thee, fallen infinitely short of thee in every particular. I
am no more worthy that thou shouldst be associated with my poor name." We may
begin again. We have finished this immediate page that is now under our hands, and
now we may turn over a new leaf—white as snow, no trace of the bad writing upon
it. We may begin at the very top, and write, line by line, down to the finis, without
an erasure, a mistake, a blot, a blur. O brother! thy life"s new page is now laid
before thee, take heed how thou writest thereupon! At the end the best writer
amongst us will have to say, "What is writ is writ; would it were worthy!"
PETT, "Verses 1-11
The Sad Condition Of The People Of Jerusalem Due To The Anger Of YHWH
(Lamentations 4:1-11).
Lamentations 4:1
(Aleph) How is the gold become dim!
How is the most pure gold changed!
The (precious) stones of the sanctuary are poured out,
At the head of every street.
What is in mind here are not the gold and precious stones of the Temple, but the
gold and precious stones as representing the people of Israel (so Lamentations 4:2).
ote how in Lamentations 4:2 the sons of Zion are ‘weighed as fine gold’. That is

why it can grow dim and be changed. And that is why it can be poured out at the
end of every street (compare Lamentations 2:19 where it is said of the children). The
precious stones of the sanctuary may represent the priests.
Some do see it as signifying what happened to the Temple, but this lament is not
about the Temple and what happened to it, but about the people.
2 How the precious children of Zion,
once worth their weight in gold,
are now considered as pots of clay,
the work of a potter’s hands!
BAR ES, "The precious sons of Zion - The whole nation was consecrated to God,
and formed “a kingdom of priests” Exo_19:6 : in this respect, a type of the Christian
Church 1Pe_2:5.
Comparable to fine gold - literally, “weighed with” solid gold, and so equal to their
weight in it. With this is contrasted the hollow pitcher easily broken, and made of
materials of no intrinsic value.
CLARKE, "The precious sons of Zion - The Jewish priests and Jewish believers.
Comparable to fine gold - Who were of the pure standard of holiness; holy,
because God who called them is holy; but now esteemed no better than earthen pitchers
- vessels of dishonor in comparison of what they once were.
GILL, "The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold,.... This explains
what is meant in Lam_4:1; by gold, fine gold, and stones of the sanctuary; not Josiah
and his sons, as some Jewish interpreters; but all the sons of Zion, or children of God;
not the inhabitants of Zion literally, but spiritually; see Zec_9:13. Zion is the church; her
sons are her spiritual seed and offspring that are born of her, she being the mother of
them all, and born in her, by means of the word; and brought up by her, through the
ordinances, and so are regenerate persons; and these the sons of God: and who are
"precious", not in themselves, being of the fallen race of Adam; of the earth, earthly, as

he was; of the same mass and lump with the rest of mankind; in no wise better than
others, by nature; and have no intrinsic worth and value in them, but what comes by and
from the grace of God; nor are they precious in their own esteem, and much less in the
esteem of the men of the world; but in the eye of God, and of his son Jesus Christ, and of
the blessed Spirit, and in the opinion of other saints; see Psa_16:3; in what sense these
are comparable to fine gold; see Gill on Lam_4:1;
how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the
potter! they are indeed earthen vessels with respect to their bodies, frail, weak, and
mortal; but they are the work of God's hands, even as creatures, and particularly as new
creatures, and are a curious piece of his workmanship, and so valuable, and especially by
him, who is as tender and as careful of them as the apple of his eye; and yet these are
greatly disesteemed by carnal men, are reckoned as the faith of the world, and the
offscouring of all things; as earthen vessels, fit for no use but common or dishonourable
ones, or to be broke in pieces, and rendered useless and contemptible: see Psa_31:12.
HE RY, "The princes and priests, who were in a special manner the sons of Zion,
were trampled upon and abused, Lam_4:2. Both the house of God and the house of
David were in Zion. The sons of both those houses were upon this account precious, that
they were heirs to the privileges of those two covenants of priesthood and royalty. They
were comparable to fine gold. Israel was more rich in them than in treasures of gold and
silver. But now they are esteemed as earthen pitchers; they are broken as earthen
pitchers, thrown by as vessels in which there is no pleasure. They have grown poor, and
are brought into captivity, and thereby are rendered mean and despicable, and every one
treads upon them and insults over them. Note, The contempt put upon God's people
ought to be matter of lamentation to us.
JAMISO , "comparable to ... gold — (Job_28:16, Job_28:19).
earthen pitchers — (Isa_30:14; Jer_19:11).
CALVI , "The Prophet comes now to the people, though he does not include the
whole people, but brings forward those who were renowned, and excelled in honor
and dignity. He then says, that they were become like earthen vessels and the work
of the potter’s hands, which is very fitly added. Then by the sons of Sion, whom he
calls precious or glorious, he means the chief men and the king’s counselors and
those who were most eminent. And he seems to allude to that prophecy which we
before explained’ for he had said that the people were like earthen vessels; and he
went into the house of the potter, that he might see what was made there. When the
potter made a vessel which did not please him, he remodeled it, and then it assumed
another form; then God declared that the people were in his hand and at his will, as
the clay was in the hand of the potter. (Jeremiah 18:2.) When he now says, that the
chief men were stripped of all dignity, and reduced to another form, so as to become
like earthen vessels, he no doubt sets forth by this change the judgment of God,
which the Jews had for a time disregarded.
And we must bear in mind the Prophet’s object: he described the ruin of the Temple
and city, that he might remind the people of the punishment which had at length
been inflicted; for we know that the people had not only been deaf, but had also

scoffed at and derided all prophecies and threatenings. As, then, they had not
believed the doctrine of Jeremiah, he now shews that what he had predicted was
really fulfilled, and that the people were finding to their cost that God did not trifle
with them when he had so often threatened what at length happened. And hence we
may conclude, that there was then a superfluous splendor in garments, for we read
that they had been clad or clothed in gold; surely it was a display too sumptuous.
There is, however, no wonder, for we know that Orientals are far too much given to
such trumperies.
ow, if the other reading, that the sons of Sion had been before compared to gold,
(208) be more approved, the passage must be extended to all their dignity and to all
those gifts by which they had been favored and had become illustrious. I have
already reminded you, that the work of the potter’s hands is here to be taken for the
vessels or the earthen flagons; but it was the Prophet’s object to enlarge on that
reproach, which ]lad been before incredible. It follows —
The sons of Sion were precious,
Of worth equal to pure gold;
How is this! they have been deemed as earthen vessels,
The work of the hands of the potter.
— Ed.
CO STABLE, "The enemy had regarded the citizens of Jerusalem, who were more
valuable to it than gold, as worth nothing more than earthenware pots. The
Chaldeans had smashed many of them. Earthenware pottery was of such little value
in the ancient ear East, that people would not repair it but simply replace it.
TRAPP, "Verse 2
Lamentations 4:2 The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they
esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!
Ver. 2. The precious (a) sons of Zion.] Those porphyrogeniti, as the Greek
emperor’s children were called, because born and bred up in a room made up of
precious stones. Understand it of the Jews in general - God’s peculiar people,
precious in his sight, and therefore honourable; [Isaiah 43:4] of Zedekiah’s sons in
particular, who - as did also the rest of the Jewish nobility, if Josephus (b) may be
believed - powdered their hair with gold dust, to the end that they might glitter and
sparkle against the beams of the sun. The precious children of the Church are all
glorious within by means of the graces of the Spirit, that golden oil, [Zechariah 4:12]
and the blessings of God "out of Zion," [Psalms 134:3] which are far beyond all
other the blessings of heaven and of earth.
As earthen pitchers.] Weak and worthless.

PETT, "Lamentations 4:2
(Beth) The precious sons of Zion,
Weighed out with fine gold,
How they are esteemed as earthen pitchers,
The work of the hands of the potter!
The thought is of the ‘precious sons of Zion’, representing all the people of the city,
who are YHWH’s holy nation and kingdom of priests, a treasure wholly for YHWH
(Exodus 19:5-6). When these sons of Zion were put in the scales the only thing
originally which was suitable for weighing them was fine gold. But now they are
simply esteemed as earthenware pitchers, something of little value, worked by the
hands of the potter. The reference to the potter is a reminder of Jeremiah 19 where
the city was to be broken like an earthenware pot.
3 Even jackals offer their breasts
to nurse their young,
but my people have become heartless
like ostriches in the desert.
BAR ES, "Sea monsters - Rather, jackals.
Their young ones - “Their” whelps. The term is applied only to the young of dogs,
lions, and the like.
CLARKE, "Even the sea monsters draw out the breast - The whales give suck
to their young ones. The word ‫תנין‬ tannin, signifies all large and cruel creatures, whether
aquatic or terrestrial; and need not here be restrained to the former sort. My Old MS.
Bible translates curiously: Not and the cruel bestis that ben clepid Lamya, and thei
nakeden ther tetis, geve ther whelpis souken.
Like the ostriches in the wilderness - For her carelessness about her eggs, and
her inattention to her young, the ostrich is proverbial.

GILL, "Even the sea monsters draw out the breast,.... Which some interpret of
dragons; others of seals, or sea calves; but it is best to understand it of whales, as the
word is rendered in Gen_1:21; and elsewhere: and Bochart (d) has proved, out of various
writers, that these have breasts and milk; but that their breasts, or however their paps,
are not manifest, but are hid as in cases, and must be drawn out: and so Jarchi observes
that they draw their breasts out of a case, for their breasts have a covering, which they
uncover: so Ben Melech. Aristotle (e) says, that whales, as the dolphin, sea calf, and
balaena, have breasts or paps, and milk, which he makes to be certain species of the
whale; and each of these, he elsewhere says, have milk, and suckle their young: the
dolphin and sturgeon, he observes (f) have milk, and are sucked; and so the sea calf, he
says (g), lets out milk as a sheep, and has two breasts, and is sucked by its young, as four
footed beasts are. Agreeably to which Aelianus (h) relates, that the female dolphins have
paps like women, and suckle their young, with great plenty of milk; and the balaena, he
says (i), is a creature like a dolphin, and has milk. And Pliny, speaking of the dolphins,
observes (k), that they bring forth their "whelps", and so the young of this creature are
called here in the next clause in the Hebrew text (l), and nourish them with their breasts,
as the balaena; and of the sea calves the same writer says (m) they feed their young with
their paps; but the paps of these creatures are not manifest, as those of four footed
beasts, as Aristotle observes; but are like two channels or pipes, out of which the milk
flows, and the young are suckled;
they give suck to their young ones; as they do, when they are hungry; which is
mentioned, as an aggravation of the case of the Jewish women, with respect to their
behaviour towards their children, by reason of the famine, during the siege of Jerusalem;
which here, and in the following verses, is described in the sad effects of it; and which
had a further accomplishment at the destruction of the same city by the Romans: now,
though the monsters suckled their young when hungry, yet these women did not suckle
theirs;
the daughter of my people is become cruel; or, is "unto a cruel one" (n): that is, is
changed unto a cruel one, or is like unto one, and behaves as such, though of force and
necessity: the meaning is, that the Jewish women, though before tenderhearted mothers,
yet, by reason of the famine, having no milk in their breasts, could give none to their
children, and so acted as if they were cruel to them; nay, in fact, instead of feeding them,
they fed upon them, Lam_4:10;
like the ostriches in the wilderness; which lay their eggs, and leave them in places
easily to be crushed and broken; and when they have any young ones, they are hardened
against them, as if they were none of theirs, Job_39:13; and this seemed now to be the
case of these women; or, "like the owls", as the word is sometimes rendered; and which
also leave their eggs, and for want of food will eat their young, as those women did. So
Ben Melech says, it is a bird which dwells in the wilderness, and causes a voice of
hooping to be heard.
HE RY 3-4, "Little children were starved for want of bread and water, Lam_4:3,
Lam_4:4. The nursing-mothers, having no meat for themselves, had no milk for the
babes at their breast, so that, though in disposition they were really compassionate, yet
in fact they seemed to be cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness, that leave their eggs
in the dust (Job_39:14, Job_39:15); having no food for their children, they were forced
to neglect them and do what they could to forget them, because it was a pain to them to

think of them when they had nothing for them; in this they were worse than the seals, or
sea-monsters, or whales (as some render it), for they drew out the breast, and gave
suck to their young, which the daughter of my people will not do. Children cannot shift
for themselves as grown people can; and therefore it was the more painful to see the
tongue of the sucking-child cleave to the roof of his mouth for thirst, because there was
not a drop of water to moisten it; and to hear the young children, that could but just
speak, ask bread of their parents, who had none to give them, no, nor any friend that
could supply them. As doleful as our thoughts are of this case, so thankful should our
thoughts be of the great plenty we enjoy, and the food convenient we have for ourselves
and for our children, and for those of our own house.
JAMISO , "sea monsters ... breast — Whales and other cetaceous monsters are
mammalian. Even they suckle their young; but the Jewish women in the siege, so
desperate was their misery, ate theirs (Lam_4:10; Lam_2:20). Others translate,
“jackals.”
ostriches — see on Job_39:14; see on Job_39:16, on their forsaking their young.
K&D, "Lam_4:3
This disregard or rejection of the citizens of Zion is evidence in Lam_4:3 and onwards
by many examples, beginning with children, ascending to adults (3-5), and ending with
princes. The starvation to death of the children (Lam_4:3, Lam_4:4) is mentioned first;
and the frightful misery that has befallen Jerusalem is vividly set forth, by a comparison
of the way in which wild animals act towards their young with the behaviour of the
mothers of Jerusalem towards their children. Even jackals (‫ין‬ִ ַ for ‫ים‬ִ ַ , see on Jer_9:10)
give their breasts to their young ones to suck. ‫צוּ‬ ְ‫ֽל‬ ָ‫ח‬ , extrahunt mammam = they present
their breast. As Junius has remarked, the expression is taken a mulieribus lactantibus,
quae laxata veste mammam lactanti praebent; hence also we are not, for the sake of
this expression, to understand ‫ין‬ִ ַ as meaning cetus (Bochart and Nägelsbach),
regarding which animal Bochart remarks (Hieroz. iii. p. 777, ed. Rosenmüller), ceti
papillas non esseᅚπιφανεሏς, quippe in mammis receptae tanquam in vaginis conduntur.
Rosenmüller has already rejected this meaning as minus apta for the present passage.
From the combination of jackals and ostriches as inhabiting desert places (Isa_13:21.;
Job_30:29), we have no hesitation in fixing on "jackals" as the meaning here. "The
daughter of my people" (cf. Lam_2:11) here means the inhabitants of Zion or Jerusalem.
‫ר‬ָ‫ז‬ ְ‫כ‬ፍ ְ‫,ל‬ "has become cruel." The Kethib ‫כי‬ ‫ענים‬ instead of ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ֵ‫ע‬ְ‫י‬ ַⅴ (Qeri) may possibly have
arisen from a purely accidental separation of the letters of the word in a MS, a reading
which was afterwards painfully retained by the scribes. But in many codices noted by
Kennicott and De Rossi, as well as in several old editions, the word is found correctly
joined, without any marginal note. ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ֵ‫ע‬ְ‫י‬ means ostriches, usually ‫ת‬ ַ ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ַ‫י‬ ("daughter of
crying," or according to Gesenius, in his Thesaurus, and Ewald, following the Syriac,
"the daughter of gluttony"), the female ostrich. The comparison with these animals is to
be understood in accordance with Job_39:16 : "she (the female ostrich) treats her young
ones harshly, as if they were not her own." This popular belief is founded on the fact that
the animal lays her eggs in the ground, - after having done no more than slightly
scratching up the soil, - and partly also, when the nest is full, on the surface of the

ground; she then leaves them to be hatched, in course of time, by the heat of the sun: the
eggs may thus be easily broken, see on Job_39:14-16.
CALVI , "This verse is harshly explained by many, for they think that the
daughter of the people is called cruel, because she acted towards her children as
serpents do to their young ones. But this meaning is not suitable, for the word ‫,בת‬
beth, is well known to be feminine. He says that the daughter of the people had come
to a savage or cruel one, the latter word is masculine. Then the Prophet seems to
mean that the whelps (such is the word) of serpents are more kindly dealt with than
the Jews. Serpents are void of all humanity, yet they nourish their brood and give
them the breast,. Hence the Prophet by this comparison amplifies the miseries of the
people, that their condition was worse than that of serpents, for the tender brood
are nourished by their mothers; but the people were without any help, so that they
in vain implored the protection of their mother and of others. ‘We now see the real
meaning of the Prophet.
The particle ‫,גם‬ gam, is emphatical; for had he spoken of animals, such as are
careful to nourish their young, it would not have been so wonderful; but so great
seems to be the savageness and barbarity of serpents, that they might be expected to
east away their brood. ow he says that even serpents draw out the breast The Jews
say that the breasts of serpents are covered with scales, as though they were hidden;
but this is one of their figments. It is a common phrase, taken from t common
practice; for a woman draws out the breast when she gives suck to her infant; so
serpents are said to draw out the breast when they give suck to their whelps; for
‫,גורים‬ gurim, are the whelps of lions or of bears; but in this place the word is applied
to serpents. The daughter, then, of my people has come to the cruel one, for the
people had to do with nothing but cruelty, there being no one to bring them help or
to succor them in their miseries. He, then, does not accuse the people of cruelty, that
they did not nourish their children, but on the contrary he means that they were
given up to cruel enemies. (209)
As the ostriches, or the owls, he says, in the wilderness. If we understand the ostrich
to be intended, we know that bird to be very stupid; for as soon as she lays an egg,
she forgets and leaves it. The comparison, then, would be suitable, were the
daughter of the people said to be cruel, because she neglected her children; but the
Prophet, as I think, means, on the contrary, that the Jews were so destitute of every
help, as though they were banished into solitary places beyond the sight of men; for
birds in solitude in vain seek the help of others. As, then, the ostrich Or the owl has
in the desert no one to bring it help, and is without its own mother, so the Prophet
intimates that there was no one to stretch forth a hand to the distressed people to
relieve their extreme miseries. It follows, —
Even dragons have drawn out the breast,
They have suckled their young ones:
The daughter of my people has been for cruelty
Like the ostriches in the desert.

It is said that the ostrich lays her eggs and forsakes them. See Job 39:15. The verb,
to be, is understood, as the case often is, but it must ever be in the same tense as the
verb or verbs connected with the sentence. — Ed.
CO STABLE, "The horrors of the siege of Jerusalem had turned the once-
compassionate women of Judah into selfish creatures unwilling to give of themselves
for the welfare of their young. Like ostriches that do not care for their offspring (cf.
Job 39:14-18), these women had abandoned and even eaten their children. They
behaved worse than loathsome jackals, which nurse their young.
TRAPP, "Verse 3
Lamentations 4:3 Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their
young ones: the daughter of my people [is become] cruel, like the ostriches in the
wilderness.
Ver. 3. Even the sea monsters.] (a) Heb., Whales or seals, which, being amphibii,
have both a willingness and a place convenient to suckle their whelps.
The daughter of my people is become cruel.] She is so perforce, being destitute of
milk for want of food, but much more by feeding upon them. [Lamentations 4:10;
Lamentations 2:20] Oh, what a mercy is it to have meat! and how inexcusable are
those unnatural mothers that neglect to nurse their children, not out of want, but
wantonness! Surely as there is a blessing of the womb to bring forth, so of the
breasts to give suck; [Genesis 49:25] and the dry breasts and barren womb have
been taken for a curse, [Hosea 9:14] as some interpret that text.
PETT, "Lamentations 4:3-4
(Gimel) Even the jackals draw out the breast,
They give suck to their young ones,
The daughter of my people is become cruel,
Like the ostriches in the wilderness.
(Daleth) The tongue of the sucking child,
Cleaves to the roof of his mouth for thirst,
The young children ask bread,
And no man breaks it to them.
The sad condition of the people is brought out by the fact that they are not even on a
par with the despised jackals. The jackals breastfeed their young, but, like the
ostriches in the wilderness, renowned for their casualness with their young
(compare Job 39:16), the women of Jerusalem (the daughter of my people) are
unable or unwilling to do so because they are so starved of food. They hold back
their milk because they are starving.
In consequence the tongue of the normally breastfed child cleaves to the roof of its
mouth because of its dryness, and when the young children ask for bread no one
provides it for them, for there is none to give.

4 Because of thirst the infant’s tongue
sticks to the roof of its mouth;
the children beg for bread,
but no one gives it to them.
CLARKE, "The tongue of the sucking child - See the note on Lam_2:12 (note).
GILL, "The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for
thirst,.... Through want of the milk of the breast, which is both food and drink unto it:
the young children ask bread; of their parents as usual, not knowing how the case
was, that there was a famine in the city; these are such as were more grown, were
weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts, and lived on other food, and were
capable of asking for it:
and no man breaketh it unto them: distributes unto them, or gives them a piece of
bread; not father, friend, or any other person; it not being in their power to do it, they
having none for themselves.
JAMISO , "thirst — The mothers have no milk to give through the famine.
K&D, "Lam_4:4-5
Sucking infants and little children perish from thirst and hunger; cf. Lam_2:11-12. ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ
= ‫ס‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ , as in Mic_3:3, to break down into pieces, break bread = divide, Isa_58:7; Jer_
16:7. In Lam_4:5 it is not children, but adults, that are spoken of. ‫ים‬ִ ַ‫ד‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ַ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ is variously
rendered, since ‫ל‬ ַ‫כ‬ፎ occurs nowhere else in construction with ְ‫.ל‬ Against the assumption
that ְ‫ל‬ is the Aramaic sign of the object, there stands the fact that ‫ל‬ ַ‫כ‬ፎ is not found thus
construed with ְ‫,ל‬ either in the Lamentations or elsewhere, though in Jer_40:2 ְ‫ל‬ is so
used. Gerlach, accordingly, would take ‫ים‬ִ ַ‫ד‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ַ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ adverbially, as meaning "after their

heart's desire," prop. for pleasures (as to this meaning, cf. Pro_29:17; 1Sa_15:32), in
contrast with ‫ל‬ ַ‫כ‬ፎ ‫ע‬ ַ‫שׂב‬ ָ‫,ל‬ to eat for satisfaction, Exo_16:3; Lev_25:19, etc. But "for
pleasure" is not an appropriate antithesis to satisfaction. Hence we prefer, with Thenius,
to take ‫ל‬ ַ‫כ‬ፎ ְ‫ל‬ in the sense of nibbling round something, in which there is contained the
notion of selection in the eating; we also take ‫ים‬ִ ַ‫ד‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ַ‫,מ‬ as in Gen_49:20, to mean dainties.
‫וּ‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ָ‫,נ‬ to be made desolate, as in Lam_1:13, of the destruction of happiness in life; with
‫ּות‬‫צ‬‫חוּ‬ ַ , to sit in a troubled or gloomy state of mind on the streets. ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ֻ‫מ‬ ֱ‫א‬ ָ‫,ה‬ those who (as
children) were carried on purple (‫ע‬ ָ‫ּול‬ for ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ rof ‫ּו‬ towla`at ‫ת‬ ַ‫ע‬ ַ‫ּול‬ , cochineal, crimson),
embrace (i.e., cling to) dung-heaps, seek them as places or rest.
CALVI , "He says that sucking children were so thirsty, that the tongue was as it
were fixed to the palate; and it was a dreadful thing; for mothers would willingly
pour forth their own blood to feed their infants. When, therefore, the tongue of a
child clave to his mouth, it seemed to be in a manner beyond nature. Among other
calamities, then, the Prophet names this, that infants pined away with thirst, and
also that children sought bread in vain. He speaks not in the latter instance of
sucklings, but. of children three or four years old. Then he says that they sought or
asked for bread, but that there was no one to give. (210)
He describes here the famine of the city, of which he had predicted, when he
declared that it would be better with the slain than with the people remaining alive,
for a harder conflict with famine and want would await the living. But this was not
believed. ow, then, the Prophet upbraids the Jews with their former perverseness.
He afterwards adds, —
Cleave did the tongue of the suckling
To his palate through thirst;
Children asked bread,
A breaker, none was to them.
— Ed
TRAPP, "Lamentations 4:4 The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of
his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, [and] no man breaketh [it] unto
them.
Ver. 4. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth.] For want of suck. That was a
miracle which is recorded of the old woman of Bolton, in Lancashire, who took up a
poor child that lay crying at the breasts of her dead mother - slain, among many
others, by Prince Rupert’s party - and laying it to her own dry breasts, that had not
yielded suck for above twenty years before, on purpose to still it, had milk came to
nourish it, to the admiration and astonishment of all beholders. This and another
like example of God’s good providence for the relief of little ones whom their
mothers could not relieve, may be read of in Mr Clark’s "Mirror for Saints and

Sinners," edit. 3, fol. 495, 507.
And no man breaketh it unto them.] The parents either not having it for them, or
not having a heart to part with it to them.
5 Those who once ate delicacies
are destitute in the streets.
Those brought up in royal purple
now lie on ash heaps.
BAR ES, "They that were brought up in scarlet - literally, “those that were
carried upon scarlet;” young children in arms and of the highest birth now lie on the
dirt-heaps of the city.
CLARKE, "Embrace dunghills - Lie on straw or rubbish, instead of the costly
carpets and sofas on which they formerly stretched themselves.
GILL, "They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets,.... That were
brought up in the king's palace, or in the houses of noblemen; or, however, born of
parents rich and wealthy, and had been used to good living, and had fared sumptuously
and deliciously every day, were now wandering about in the streets in the most forlorn
and distressed condition, seeking for food of any sort, but could find none to satisfy their
hunger; and so, as the Vulgate Latin version renders it, perished in the ways or streets:
they that were brought up in scarlet: in dyed garments, as Jarchi; clothed with
scarlet coloured ones, as was the manner of the richer and better sort of people, Pro_
31:21; or, "brought up upon scarlet" (o); upon scarlet carpets, on which they used to sit
and eat their food, as is the custom of the eastern people to this day: these
embrace dunghills, are glad of them, and with the greatest eagerness rake into them,
in order to find something to feed upon, though ever so base and vile; or to sit and lie
down upon. Aben Ezra interprets it of their being cast here when dead, and there was

none to bury them.
HE RY, " Persons of good rank were reduced to extreme poverty, Lam_4:5. Those
who were well-born and well bred, and had been accustomed to the best, both for food
and clothing, who had fed delicately, had every thing that was curious and nice (they call
it eating well, whereas those only eat well who eat to the glory of God), and fared
sumptuously every day; they had not only been advanced to the scarlet, but from their
beginning were brought up in scarlet, and were never acquainted with any thing mean
or ordinary. They were brought up upon scarlet (so the word is); their foot-cloths, and
the carpets they walked on, were scarlet, yet these, being stripped of all by the war, are
desolate in the streets, have not a house to put their head in, nor a bed to lie on, nor
clothes to cover them, nor fire to warm them. They embrace dunghills; on them they
were glad to lie to get a little rest, and perhaps raked in the dunghills for something to
eat, as the prodigal son who would fain have filled his belly with the husks. Note, Those
who live in the greatest pomp and plenty know not what straits they may be reduced to
before they die; as sometimes the needy are raised out of the dunghill. Those who were
full have hired out themselves for bread, 1Sa_2:5. It is therefore the wisdom of those
who have abundance not to use themselves too nicely, for then hardships, when they
come, will be doubly hard, Deu_28:56.
JAMISO , "delicately — on dainties.
are desolate — or, “perish.”
in scarlet embrace dunghills — Instead of the scarlet couches on which the
grandees were nursed, they must lie on dunghills.
embrace — They who once shrank sensitively from any soil, gladly cling close to
heaps of filth as their only resting-place. Compare “embrace the rock” (Job_24:8).
CALVI , "Here he goes on farther, and says, that they had perished with famine
who had been accustomed to the most delicate food. He had said generally that
infants found nothing in their mothers’ breasts, but pined away with thirst, and also
that children died through want of bread. But he now amplifies this calamity by
saying, that this not only happened to the children of the common people, but also to
those who had been brought up delicately, and had been clothed in scarlet and
purple.
Then he says that they perished in the streets, and also that they embraced the
dunghills, because they had no place to lie down, or because they sought food, as
famished men do, on dunghills. (211) It seems to be a hyperbolical expression; but if
we consider what the Prophet has already narrated and will again repeat, it ought
not to appear incredible, that those who had been accustomed to delicacies
embraced dunghills; for mothers cooked their own children and devoured them as
beef or mutton. There is no doubt but that the siege, of which we have before read,
drove the people to acts too degrading to be spoken of, especially when they had
become blinded through so great a pertinacity, and had altogether hardened
themselves in their madness against God. It follows, —
They who had fed on delicacies
Perished in the streets;
They who had been brought up on scarlet

Embraced the dunghills.
— Ed
TRAPP, "Lamentations 4:5 They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets:
they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills.
Ver. 5. They that did feed delicately.] Such uncertainty there is of outward
affluence. Our Richard II was famished to death. (a) Henry Holland, Duke of
Exeter, grandchild to John of Gaunt, was seen to run on foot bare legged after the
Duke of Burgundy’s train, begging his bread for God’s sake. This I saw, saith Philip
de Comines. This Henry was brother-in-law to King Edward IV, from whom he
fled.
They that were brought up in scarlet.] Qui nutriebantur in croceis seu cocceis, that
were gorgeously arrayed, or, that rolling on their rich beds, wrapped themselves in
costly quilts.
Embrace dunghills.] (b) There take up their lodgings, and there also are glad to find
anything to feed on, though never so coarse and homely. The lapwing is made a
hieroglyphic of infelicity, because he hath as a coronet upon the head, and yet
feedeth upon the worst of excrements. It is pity that any child of God, washed in
Christ’s blood, should bedabble his scarlet robe in the stinking guzzle of the world’s
dunghill; that anyone who hath heretofore soared as an eagle should now creep on
the ground as a beetle, or wallow as a swine in the mire of sensuality.
COKE, "Lamentations 4:5. They that did feed delicately, &c.— See the note on 1
Samuel 2:8 where it has been observed that it was usual in the east to burn dried
dung, and consequently to lay up heaps of it for use in their cottages. The author of
the Observations thinks that this will serve to explain the expression in this verse of
embracing dunghills. "This taking refuge in dunghills (says he) is not mentioned in
European descriptions of the horrors of war; but if they in the east burned dung
anciently, as much as they do now, and preserved a stock of it with the solicitude of
these times, it will appear quite natural to complain that those who had fed
delicately, were wandering without food in the ways; and they who had been
covered not only with clean garments, but with robes of magnificence, were forced
by the destruction of their palaces, to take up their abode in places designed for the
reception of this sort of turf, and to sit down upon those heaps of dried dung." See
Observations, p. 137.
PETT, "Lamentations 4:5
(He) They who fed delicately,
Are desolate in the streets,

They who were carried in scarlet,
Embrace dunghills.
The rich are affected equally with the poor. Those who were used to rich food are
now starving in the streets, those who had once been borne in scarlet cloth (cloth
dyed with Tyrian purple or crimson), the cloth of the rich, now clung to dunghills,
possibly as their only source of food.
6 The punishment of my people
is greater than that of Sodom,
which was overthrown in a moment
without a hand turned to help her.
BAR ES, "Rather, “For” the iniquity “of the daughter of my people was greater than”
the sin “of Sodom.” The prophet deduces this conclusion from the greatness of Judah’s
misery (compare Jer_30:11; see also Luk_13:1-5).
No hands stayed on her - Or, “no hands were round about her.” Sodom’s sufferings
in dying were brief: there were no starving children, no mothers cooking their offspring
for food.
CLARKE, "For the punishment - He thinks the punishment of Jerusalem far
greater than that of Sodom. That was destroyed in a moment while all her inhabitants
were in health and strength; Jerusalem fell by the most lingering calamities; her men
partly destroyed by the sword, and partly by the famine.
Instead of no hands stayed on her, Blayney translates, “Nor were hands weakened in
her.” Perhaps the meaning is, “Sodom was destroyed in a moment without any human
labor.” It was a judgment from God himself: so the sacred text: “The Lord rained down
fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” See Gen_19:24.
GILL, "For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people,.... In
the long siege of their city, and the evils that attended it, especially the sore famine:
is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom; which was destroyed at once
by fire from heaven: or it may be rendered, "the iniquity of the daughter of my people is

greater than the sin of Sodom" (p); though the men of Sodom were great sinners, the
Jews were greater, their sins being more aggravated; to this agrees the Targum, which
renders the word "sin", and paraphrases the words following thus,
"and there dwelt not in her prophets to prophesy unto her, and turn her by repentance;''
as the Jews had, and therefore their sin was the greater; both senses are true, and the
one is the foundation of the other; but the first seems best to agree with what follows:
that was overthrown as in a moment; by a shower of fire from heaven, which
consumed it at once; whereas the destruction of Jerusalem was a lingering one, through
a long and tedious siege; the inhabitants were gradually wasted and consumed by
famine, pestilence, and sword, and so their punishment greater than Sodom's:
and no hand stayed on her; that is, on Sodom; the hand of God was immediately
upon her, and dispatched her at once, but not the hands of men; as the hands of the
Chaldeans were upon the Jews, afflicting and distressing them a long time, which made
their ease the worse.
JAMISO , "greater than ... Sodom — (Mat_11:23). No prophets had been sent to
Sodom, as there had been to Judea; therefore the punishment of the latter was heavier
than that of the former.
overthrown ... in a moment — whereas the Jews had to endure the protracted and
manifold hardships of a siege.
no hands stayed on her — No hostile force, as the Chaldeans in the case of
Jerusalem, continually pressed on her before her overthrow. Jeremiah thus shows the
greater severity of Jerusalem’s punishment than that of Sodom.
K&D, "Lam_4:6
The greatness of their guilt is seen in this misery. The ‫ו‬ consecutive joined with ‫ל‬ ַ ְ‫ג‬ִ‫י‬
here marks the result, so far as this manifests itself: "thus the offence (guilt) of the
daughter of my people has become greater than the sin of Sodom." Most expositors take
‫ָון‬ּ‫ע‬ and ‫את‬ ָ ַ‫ה‬ dna here in the sense of punishment; but this meaning has not been
established. The words simply mean "offence" and "sin," sometimes including their
consequences, but nowhere do they mean unceremonious castigation. But when Thenius
is of opinion that the context demands the meaning "punishment" (not "sin"), he has
inconsiderately omitted the ‫ו‬ consec., and taken a wrong view of the context. ְ‫ך‬ ַ‫פ‬ ָ‫ה‬ is the
usual word employed in connection with the destruction of Sodom; cf. Gen_19:21, Gen_
19:25; Deu_29:22, etc. '‫ּא‬‫ל‬ְ‫ו‬ ‫לוּ‬ ָ‫ח‬ ‫וגו‬ is translated by Thenius, et non torquebatur in ea
manus, i.e., without any one wringing his hands. However, ‫חוּל‬ (to go in a circle) means
to writhe with pain, but does not agree with ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ד‬ָ‫,י‬ to wring the hands. In Hos_11:6 ‫חוּל‬ is
used of the sword, which "circles" in the cities, i.e., cuts and kills all round in them. In
like manner it is here used of the hands that went round in Sodom for the purpose of
overthrowing (destroying) the city. Nägelsbach wrongly derives ‫לוּ‬ ָ‫ח‬ from ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ח‬ to become
slack, powerless. The words, "no hands went round (were at work) in her," serve to

Lamentations 4 Commentary: Gold and Stones Metaphors Explained

Lamentations 4 Commentary: Gold and Stones Metaphors Explained

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (9)

Ähnlich wie Lamentations 4 Commentary: Gold and Stones Metaphors Explained

Ähnlich wie Lamentations 4 Commentary: Gold and Stones Metaphors Explained (20)

Mehr von GLENN PEASE

Mehr von GLENN PEASE (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Lamentations 4 Commentary: Gold and Stones Metaphors Explained