Heb “they languished together.” The verbs אָבַּלּ (’ aval , “to lament”) and אָמַל (’ amal , “languish, mourn”) are often used in contexts of funeral laments in secular settings. The Hebrew prophets often use these terms to describe the aftermath of the Lord ’s judgment on a nation. Based on parallel terms, אָמַל (’ amal ) may describe either mourning or deterioration and so makes for a convenient play on meaning when destroyed objects are personified. Incorporating this play into the translation, however, may obscure the parallel between this line and the deterioration of the gates beginning in v. 9 .


Heb “have sunk down.” This expression, “her gates have sunk down into the ground,” is a personification, picturing the city gates descending into the earth, as if going down into the grave or the netherworld. Most English versions render it literally (KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS); however, a few paraphrases have captured the equivalent sense quite well: “Zion’s gates have fallen facedown on the ground” (CEV) and “the gates are buried in rubble” (TEV).


Heb “he has destroyed and smashed her bars.” The two verbs אִבַּד וְשִׁבַּר (’ ibbad vÿshibbar ) form a verbal hendiadys that emphasizes the forcefulness of the destruction of the locking bars on the gates. The first verb functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal sense: “he has smashed to pieces.” Several English versions render this expression literally and miss the rhetorical point: “he has ruined and broken” (RSV, NRSV), “he has destroyed and broken” (KJV, NASB), “he has broken and destroyed” (NIV). The hendiadys has been correctly noted by others: “smashed to pieces” (TEV, CEV) and “smashed to bits” (NJPS).


Heb “her bars.” Since the literal “bars” could be misunderstood as referring to saloons, the phrase “the bars that lock her gates” has been used in the present translation.


Heb “are among the nations.”


Heb “there is no torah” or “there is no Torah” ( אֵין תּוֹרָה , ’ en torah ). Depending on whether תּוֹרָה ( torah , “instruction, law”) is used in parallelism with the preceding or following line, it refers to (1) political guidance that the now-exiled king had formerly provided or (2) prophetic instruction that the now-ineffective prophets had formerly provided (BDB 434 s.v. תּוֹרָה 1.b). It is possible that the three lines are arranged in an ABA chiastic structure, exploiting the semantic ambiguity of the term תּוֹרָה ( torah , “instruction”). Possibly it is an oblique reference to the priests’ duties of teaching, thus introducing a third group of the countries leaders. It is possible to hear in this a lament in reference to the destruction of Torah scrolls that may have been at the temple when it was destroyed.


Heb “they cannot find.”


Consonantal ישׁבו ( yshvy ) is vocalized by the MT as יֵשְׁבוּ ( yeshvu ), Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from יָשַׁב ( yashav , “to sit”): “they sit on the ground.” However, the ancient versions (Aramaic Targum, Greek Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate) reflect an alternate vocalization tradition of יָשְׁבוּ ( yashvu ), Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from שׁוּב ( shuv , “to return”): “they return to the ground (= the grave).” The parallelism with the following line favors the MT.


Heb “they sit on the ground, they are silent.” Based on meter, the two verbs יִדְּמוּ … יֵשְׁבוּ ( yeshvu … yidÿmu , “they sit…they are silent”) are in the same half of the line. Joined without a ו ( vav ) conjunction they form a verbal hendiadys. The first functions in its full verbal sense while the second functions adverbially: “they sit in silence.” The verb יִדְּמוּ ( yidÿmu ) may mean to be silent or to wail.


Heb “they have girded themselves with sackcloth.” sn Along with putting dirt on one’s head, wearing sackcloth was a sign of mourning.


Heb “the virgins of Jerusalem.” The term “virgins” is a metonymy of association, standing for single young women who are not yet married. These single women are in grief because their potential suitors have been killed. The elders, old men, and young women function together as a merism for all of the survivors (F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations [IBC], 92).


Heb “have bowed down their heads to the ground.”


Heb “my eyes are spent” or “my eyes fail.” The verb כָּלָה ( kalah ) is used of eyes exhausted by weeping ( Job 11:20; 17:5 ; Ps 69:4 ; Jer 14:6; 4:17 ), and means either “to be spent” (BDB 477 s.v. 2 .b) or “to fail” ( HALOT 477 s.v. 6 ). It means to have used up all one’s tears or to have worn out the eyes because of so much crying. It is rendered variously: “my eyes fail” (KJV, NIV), “my eyes are spent” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, NJPS), “my eyes are worn out” (TEV), and “my eyes are red” (CEV).


Heb “because of tears.” The plural noun דִּמְעוֹת ( dim ’ ot , “tears”) is an example of the plural of intensity or repeated behavior: “many tears.” The more common singular form דִּמְעָה ( dim ’ ah ) normally functions in a collective sense (“tears”); therefore, the plural form here does not indicate simple plural of number.


Heb “my bowels burn” or “my bowels are in a ferment.” The verb חֳמַרְמְרוּ ( khomarmÿru ) is an unusual form and derived from a debated root: Poalal perfect 3rd person common plural from III חָמַר ( khamar , “to be red,” HALOT 330 s.v. III חמר ) or Pe`al`al perfect 3rd person common plural from I חָמַר ( khamar , “to ferment, boil up,” BDB 330 s.v. I חָמַר ). The Poalal stem of this verb occurs only three times in OT: with פָּנִים ( panim , “face,” Job 16:16 ) and מֵעִים ( me ’ im , “bowels,” Lam 1:20; 2:11 ). The phrase חֳמַרְמְרוּ מֵעַיּ ( khomarmÿru me ’ ay ) means “my bowels burned” ( HALOT 330 s.v.) or “my bowels are in a ferment,” as a euphemism for lower-intestinal bowel problems (BDB 330 s.v.). This phrase also occurs in later rabbinic literature ( m. Sanhedrin 7:2). The present translation, “my stomach is in knots,” is not a literal equivalent to this Hebrew idiom; however, it is an attempt to approximate the equivalent English idiom.


Heb “my liver,” viewed as the seat of the emotions.


Heb “on account of the breaking.”


Heb “the daughter of my people.” Rather than a genitive of relationship (“daughter of X”), the phrase בַּת־עַמִּי ( bat- ’ ammi ) is probably a genitive of apposition. The idiom “Daughter X” occurs often in Lamentations: “Daughter Jerusalem” (2x), “Daughter Zion” (7x), “Virgin Daughter Zion” (1x), “Daughter of My People” (5x), “Daughter Judah” (2x), and “Virgin Daughter Judah” (1x). In each case, it is a poetic description of Jerusalem or Judah as a whole. The idiom בַּת־עַמִּי ( bat- ’ ammi , lit., “daughter of my people” is rendered variously by the English versions: “the daughter of my people” (KJV, RSV, NASB), “my people” (NIV, TEV, CEV), and “my poor people” (NJPS). The metaphor here pictures the people as vulnerable and weak.


Heb “they”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “to their mother,” understood as a collective singular.


Heb “Where is bread and wine?” The terms “bread” and “wine” are synecdoches of specific (= bread, wine) for general (= food, drink).


Heb “as they faint” or “when they faint.”


Heb “as their life is poured out.” The term בְּהִשְׁתַּפֵּךְ ( bÿhishtappekh ), Hitpael infinitive construct + the preposition בּ ( bet ), from שָׁפַךְ ( shafakh , “to pour out”) may be rendered “as they expire” (BDB 1050 s.v. שָׁפַךְ ), referring to the process of dying. Note the repetition of the word “pour out” with various direct objects in this poem at 2:4, 11, 12, and 19 .


Heb “chest, lap.”


The MT reads אֲעִידֵךְ (’ a ’ idekh ), Hiphil imperfect 1st person common singular + 2fs suffix from עָדָה (’ adah , “to testify”): “[How] can I testify for you?” However, Latin Vulgate comparabo te reflects the reading אֶעֱרָךְ (’ e ’ erakh ), Qal imperfect 1st person common singular from עָרַךְ (’ arakh , “to liken”): “[To what] can I liken [you]?” The verb עָרַךְ (’ arakh ) normally means “to lay out, set in rows; to get ready, set in order; to line up for battle, set battle formation,” but it also may denote “to compare (as a result of arranging in order), to make equal” (e.g., Pss 40:6; 89:6 [HT 7]; Job 28:17, 19 ; Isa 40:18; 44:7 ). The BHS editors suggest the emendation which involves simple orthographic confusion between ר ( resh ) and ד ( dalet ), and deletion of י ( yod ) that the MT added to make sense of the form. The variant is favored based on internal evidence: (1) it is the more difficult reading because the meaning “to compare” for עָרַךְ (’ arakh ) is less common than עָדָה (’ adah , “to testify”), (2) it recovers a tight parallelism between עָרַךְ (’ arakh , “to liken”) and דָּמָה ( damah , “to compare”) (e.g., Ps 89:6 [HT 7]; Isa 40:18 ), and (3) the MT reading: “How can I testify for you?” makes little sense in the context. Nevertheless, most English versions hold to the MT reading: KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, TEV, CEV. This textual emendation was first proposed by J. Meinhold, “Threni 2,13,” ZAW 15 (1895): 286.


The MT reads מָה אַשְׁוֶה־לָּךְ וַאֲנַחֲמֵךְ ( mah ’ ashveh-lakh va ’ anakhamekh , “To what can I compare you so that I might comfort you?”). The LXX reflects a Vorlage of מִי יוֹשִׁיעַ לָךְ וְנִחַמְךָ ( mi yoshia ’ lakh vÿnikhamÿkha , “Who will save you so that he might comfort you?”). This textual variant reflects several cases of orthographic confusion between similarly spelled words. The MT best explains the origin of the LXX textual variants. Internal evidence of contextual congruence favors the MT as the original reading.


The ו ( vav ) prefixed to וַאֲנַחֲמֵךְ ( va ’ anakhamekh , “I might comfort you”) denotes purpose: “so that….”


Heb “as great as the sea.”


The MT reads כָּיָּם ( kayyam , “as the sea”), while the LXX reflects a Vorlage of כּוֹס ( kos , “a cup”). The textual variant is probably due to simple orthographic confusion between letters of similar appearance. The idiomatic expression favors the MT.


Heb “emptiness and whitewash.” The nouns שָׁוְא וְתָפֵל ( shv ’ vÿtafel ) form a nominal hendiadys. The first noun functions adjectivally, modifying the second noun that retains its full nominal sense: “empty whitewash” or “empty deceptions” (see following translation note on meaning of תָּפֵל [ tafel ]). The noun תָּפֵל ( tafel , “whitewash”) is used literally in reference to a white-washed wall ( Ezek 13:10, 11, 14, 15 ) and figuratively in reference to false prophets ( Ezek 22:28 ).


The Kethib שְׁבִיתֵךְ ( shÿvitekh ) and Qere שְׁבוּתֵךְ ( shÿvutekh ), which is preserved in many medieval Hebrew mss here and elsewhere ( Ps 85:1 Heb 85:2; 126:4; Job 42:10 ), are struggling with the root. The ancient versions take it from ָָשׁבָה ( shavah ) meaning “captivity.” Such a meaning is not tenable for the Job passage, which along with a similar phrase in the Sefire inscription suggest that the proper meaning is “to restore someone’s fortunes.”


The nouns שָׁוְא וּמַדּוּחִים ( shav ’ umaddukhim , lit., “emptiness and enticements”) form a nominal hendiadys. The first functions adjectivally, modifying the second noun that retains its nominal sense: “empty enticements” or “false deceptions.” The noun מַדּוּחַ ( madduakh ), meaning “enticement” or “transgression” is a hapax legomenon (term that appears only once in the Hebrew OT). It is related to the verb נָדָח ( nadakh , “to entice, lead astray”) which is often used in reference to idolatry.


Heb “clap their hands at you.” Clapping hands at someone was an expression of malicious glee, derision and mockery ( Num 24:10 ; Job 27:23 ; Lam 2:15 ).


Heb “of which they said.”


Heb “perfection of beauty.” The noun יֹפִי ( yofi , “beauty”) functions as a genitive of respect in relation to the preceding construct noun: Jerusalem was perfect in respect to its physical beauty.


Heb “the joy of all the earth.” This is similar to statements found in Pss 48:2 and 50:2 .


Heb “they have opened wide their mouth against you.”


Heb “We have swallowed!”


Heb “We have attained, we have seen!” The verbs מָצָאנוּ רָאִינוּ ( matsa ’ nu ra ’ inu ) form a verbal hendiadys in which the first retains its full verbal sense and the second functions as an object complement. It forms a Hebrew idiom that means something like, “We have lived to see it!” The three asyndetic 1st person common plural statements in 2:16 (“We waited, we destroyed, we saw!”) are spoken in an impassioned, staccato style reflecting the delight of the conquerors.


The verb בָּצַע ( batsa ’) has a broad range of meanings: (1) “to cut off, break off,” (2) “to injure” a person, (3) “to gain by violence,” (4) “to finish, complete” and (5) “to accomplish, fulfill” a promise.


Heb “His word.” When used in collocation with the verb בָּצַע ( batsa ’, “to fulfill,” see previous tn ), the accusative noun אִמְרָה (’ imrah ) means “promise.”


Heb “commanded” or “decreed.” If a reference to prophetic oracles is understood, then “decreed” is preferable. If understood as a reference to the warnings in the covenant, then “threatened” is a preferable rendering.


Heb “from days of old.”


Heb “He has overthrown and has not shown mercy.” The two verbs חָרַס וְלֹא חָמָל ( kharas vÿlo ’ khamal ) form a verbal hendiadys in which the first retains its verbal sense and the second functions adverbially: “He has overthrown you without mercy.” וְלֹא חָמָל ( vÿlo ’ khamal ) alludes to 2:2 .


Heb “He has exalted the horn of your adversaries.” The term “horn” ( קֶרֶן , qeren ) normally refers to the horn of a bull, one of the most powerful animals in ancient Israel. This term is often used figuratively as a symbol of strength, usually in reference to the military might of an army ( Deut 33:17 ; 1 Sam 2:1, 10 ; 2 Sam 22:3 ; Pss 18:3; 75:11; 89:18, 25; 92:11; 112:9 ; 1 Chr 25:5 ; Jer 48:25 ; Lam 2:3 ; Ezek 29:21 ), just as warriors are sometimes figuratively described as “bulls.” To lift up the horn often means to boast and to lift up someone else’s horn is to give victory or cause to boast.


The MT reads צָעַק לִבָּם אֵל־אֲדֹנָי ( tsa ’ aq libbam el- ’ adonay , “their heart cried out to the Lord”) which neither matches the second person address characterizing 2:13-19 nor is in close parallel to the rest of verse 18 . Since the perfect צָעַק ( tsa ’ aq , “cry out”) is apparently parallel to imperatives, it could be understood as a precative (“let their heart cry out”), although this understanding still has the problem of being in the third person. The BHS editors and many text critics suggest emending the MT צָעַק ( tsa ’ aq ), Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular, to צָעֲקִי ( tsa ’ aqi ), Qal imperative 2nd person masculine singular: “Cry out!” This restores a tighter parallelism with the two 2nd person masculine singular imperatives introducing the following lines: הוֹרִידִי ( horidi , “Let [your tears] flow down!”) and אַל־תִּתְּנִי (’ al-tittni , “Do not allow!”). In such a case, לִבָּם ( libbam ) must be taken adverbially. For לִבָּם ( libbam , “their heart”) see the following note. The adverbial translation loses a potential parallel to the mention of the heart in the next verse. Emending the noun to “your heart” while viewing the verb as a precative perfect would maintain this connection.


Heb “their heart” or “from the heart.” Many English versions take the ־ם ( mem ) on לִבָּם ( libbam ) as the 3rd person masculine plural pronominal suffix: “their heart” (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, CEV). However, others take it as an enclitic or adverbial ending: “from the heart” (cf. RSV, NRSV, TEV, NJPS margin). See T. F. McDaniel, “The Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations,” VT 18 (1968): 203-4.


The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “the Lord”) here rather than יהוה (YHWH, “the Lord ”). See the tc note at 1:14 .


The wall is a synecdoche of a part standing for the whole city.


Heb “day and night.” The expression “day and night” forms a merism which encompasses everything in between two polar opposites: “from dawn to dusk” or “all day and all night long.”


Heb “the daughter of your eye.” The term “eye” functions as a metonymy for “tears” that are produced by the eyes. Jeremiah exhorts personified Jerusalem to cry out to the Lord day and night without ceasing in repentance and genuine sorrow for its sins.


The Kethib is written בַּלַּיִל ( ballayil ) a defective spelling for בַּלַּיְלָה ( ballaylah , “night”). The Qere reads בַּלַּיְלָה ( ballaylah , “night”), which is preserved in numerous medieval Hebrew mss . tn The noun בַּלַּיְלָה ( ballaylah , “night”) functions as an adverbial accusative of time: “in the night.”


Heb “at the head of the watches.”


The noun לֵבָב ( levav , “heart”) functions here as a metonymy of association for the thoughts and emotions in the heart. The Hebrew לֵבָב ( levav ) includes the mind so that in some cases the translation “heart” implies an inappropriate division between the cognitive and affective. This context is certainly emotionally loaded, but as part of a series of admonitions to address God in prayer, these emotions are inextricably bound with the thoughts of the mind. The singular “heart” is retained in the translation to be consistent with the personification of Jerusalem (cf. v. 18 ).


Heb “on account of the life of your children.” The noun נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) refers to the “life” of their dying children (e.g., Lam 2:12 ). The singular noun נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh , “life”) is used as a collective, as the plural genitive noun that follows makes clear: “your children.”


The BHS editors and many commentators suggest that the fourth bicola in 2:19 is a late addition and should be deleted. Apart from the four sets of bicola in 1:7 and 2:19 , every stanza in chapters 1-4 consists of three sets of bicola. tn Heb “who are fainting.”


Heb “Look, O Lord ! See!” When used in collocation with verbs of cognition, רָאָה ( ra ’ ah ) means “to see for oneself” or “to take notice” ( 1 Sam 26:12 ). The parallelism between seeing and understanding is often emphasized (e.g., Exod 16:6 ; Isa 5:19; 29:15 ; Job 11:11 ; Eccl 6:5 ). See also 1:11 and cf. 1:9, 12, 20; 3:50, 59, 60; 5:1 . sn Integral to battered Jerusalem’s appeal, and part of the ancient Near Eastern lament genre, is the request for God to look at her pain. This should evoke pity regardless of the reason for punishment. The request is not for God to see merely that there are misfortunes, as one might note items on a checklist. The cognitive (facts) and affective (feelings) are not divided. The plea is for God to watch, think about, and be affected by these facts while listening to the petitioner’s perspective.


For the nuance “afflict” see the note at 1:12 .


Heb “their fruit.” The term פְּרִי ( pÿri , “fruit”) is used figuratively to refer to children as the fruit of a mother’s womb (e.g., Gen 30:2 ; Deut 7:13; 28:4, 11, 18, 53; 30:9 ; Pss 21:11; 127:3; 132:11 ; Isa 13:18 ; Mic 6:7 ).


Heb “infants of healthy childbirth.” The genitive-construct phrase עֹלֲלֵי טִפֻּחִים (’ olale tippukhim ) functions as an attributive genitive construction: “healthy newborn infants.” The noun טִפֻּחִים ( tippukhim ) appears only here. It is related to the verb טָפַח ( tafakh ), meaning “to give birth to a healthy child” or “to raise children” depending on whether the Arabic or Akkadian cognate is emphasized. For the related verb, see below at 2:22 . sn Placing the specific reference to children at the end of the line in apposition to clarify that it does not describe the normal eating of fruit helps produce the repulsive shock of the image. Furthermore, the root of the word for “infants” ( עוֹלֵל , ’ olel ) has the same root letters for the verb “to afflict” occurring in the first line of the verse, making a pun (F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations [IBC], 99-100).


The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “the Lord”) here rather than יהוה (YHWH, “the Lord ”) as at the beginning of the verse. See the tc note at 1:14 .


Heb “virgins.” The term “virgin” probably functions as a metonymy of association for single young women.


Heb “in the day of your anger.” The construction בָּיוֹם ( bayom , “in the day of…”) is a common Hebrew idiom, meaning “when…” (e.g., Gen 2:4 ; Lev 7:35 ; Num 3:1 ; Deut 4:15 ; 2 Sam 22:1 ; Pss 18:1; 138:3 ; Zech 8:9 ). This temporal idiom refers to a general time period, but uses the term “day” as a forceful rhetorical device to emphasize the vividness and drama of the event, depicting it as occurring within a single day. In the ancient Near East, military minded kings often referred to a successful campaign as “the day of X” in order to portray themselves as powerful conquerors who, as it were, could inaugurate and complete a victory military campaign within the span of one day.


The MT reads לֹא חָמָלְתָּ ( lo ’ khamalta , “You showed no mercy”). However, many medieval Hebrew mss and most of the ancient versions (Aramaic Targum, Syriac Peshitta and Latin Vulgate) read וְלֹא חָמָלְתָּ ( vÿlo ’ khamalta , “and You showed no mercy”).


The syntax of the line is awkward. English versions vary considerably in how they render it: “Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about” (KJV), “Thou hast called, as in the day of a solemn assembly, my terrors on every side” (ASV), “You did call as in the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (NASB), “Thou didst invite as to the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (RSV), “As you summon to a feast day, so you summoned against me terrors on every side” (NIV), “You summoned, as on a festival, my neighbors from roundabout” (NJPS), “You invited my enemies to hold a carnival of terror all around me” (TEV), “You invited my enemies like guests for a party” (CEV).


The term “enemies” is supplied in the translation as a clarification.


Heb “my terrors” or “my enemies.” The expression מְגוּרַי ( mÿguray , “my terrors”) is difficult and may refer to either enemies, the terror associated with facing enemies, or both.


Heb “surrounding me.”


The meaning of the verb טָפַח ( tafakh ) is debated: (1) BDB suggests that it is derived from טָפַה ( tafah , “to extend, spread” the hands) and here means “to carry in the palm of one’s hands” (BDB 381 s.v. טָפַה 2). (2) HALOT 378 s.v. II טָפַח suggests that it is derived from the root II טָפַח ( tafakh ) and means “to give birth to healthy children.” The recent lexicons suggest that it is related to Arabic tafaha “to bring forth fully formed children” and to Akkadian tuppu “to raise children.” The use of this particular term highlights the tragic irony of what the army of Babylon has done: it has destroyed the lives of perfectly healthy children whom the women of Israel had raised.


This entire line is an accusative noun clause, functioning as the direct object of the following line: “my enemy has destroyed the perfectly healthy children….” Normal word order in Hebrew is: verb + subject + direct object. Here, the accusative direct object clause is moved forward for rhetorical emphasis: those whom the Babylonians killed had been children born perfectly healthy and well raised … what a tragic loss of perfectly good human life!


The noun גֶּבֶר ( gever , “man”) refers to a strong man, distinguished from women, children, and other non-combatants whom he is to defend. According to W. F. Lanahan the speaking voice in this chapter is that of a defeated soldier (“The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations” JBL 93 [1974]: 41-49.) F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp ( Lamentations [IBC], 108) argues that is the voice of an “everyman” although “one might not unreasonably suppose that some archetypal communal figure like the king does in fact stand in the distant background.”


The verb רָאָה ( ra ’ ah , “to see”) has a broad range of meanings, including (1) “to see” as to learn from experience and (2) “to see” as to experience (e.g., Gen 20:10 ; Ps 89:49 ; Eccl 5:17 ; Jer 5:12; 14:13; 20:18; 42:14 ; Zeph 3:15 ). Here it means that the speaker has experienced these things. The same Hebrew verb occurs in 2:20 where the Lord is asked to “see” (translated “Consider!”), although it is difficult to maintain this connection in an English translation.


The noun שֵׁבֶט ( shevet , “rod”) refers to the weapon used for smiting an enemy ( Exod 21:20 ; 2 Sam 23:21 ; 1 Chr 11:3 ; Isa 10:15 ; Mic 4:14) and instrument of child-discipline ( Prov 10:13; 22:15; 29:15 ). It is used figuratively to describe discipline of the individual ( Job 9:34; 21:9; 37:13 ; 2 Sam 7:14 ; Ps 89:33 ) and the nation ( Isa 10:5, 24; 14:29; 30:31 ).


The verb נָהַג ( nahag ) describes the process of directing (usually a group of) something along a route, hence commonly “to drive,” when describing flocks, caravans, or prisoners and spoils of war ( 1 Sam 23:5; 30:2 ). But with people it may also have a positive connotation “to shepherd” or “to guide” ( Ps 48:14; 80:1 ). The line plays on this through the reversal of expectations. Rather than being safely shepherded by the Lord their king, he has driven them away into captivity.


The Hiphil of הָלַךְ ( halakh , “to walk”) may be nuanced either “brought” (BDB 236 s.v. 1 ) or “caused to walk” (BDB 237 s.v. 5 .a).


The two verbs יָשֻׁב יַהֲפֹךְ ( yashuv yahafokh , “he returns, he turns”) form a verbal hendiadys: the second verb retains its full verbal sense, while the first functions adverbially: “he repeatedly turns…” The verb שׁוּב ( shuv , lit., “to return”) functions adverbially to denote repetition: “to do repeatedly, do again and again” (GKC 386-87 §120. d , g ) ( Gen 26:18; 30:31 ; Num 11:4 ; Judg 19:7 ; 1 Sam 3:5, 6 ; 1 Kgs 13:33; 19:6; 21:3 ; 2 Chr 33:3 ; Job 10:16; 17:10 ; Ps 7:13 ; Jer 18:4; 36:28 ; Lam 3:3 ; Dan 9:25 ; Zech 5:1; 6:1 ; Mal 1:4 ).


The idiom “to turn the hand against” someone is a figurative expression denoting hostility. The term “hand” ( יָד , yad ) is often used in idioms denoting hostility ( Exod 9:3, 15 ; Deut 2:15 ; Judg 2:15 ; 1 Sam 5:3, 6, 9; 6:9 ; 2 Sam 24:16 ; 2 Chr 30:12 ; Ezra 7:9 ; Job 19:21 ; Ps 109:27 ; Jer 15:17; 16:21 ; Ezek 3:14 ). The reference to God’s “hand” is anthropomorphic.


Heb “all of the day.” The idiom כָּל־הַיּוֹם ( kol-hayom , “all day”) means “continually” or “all day long” ( Gen 6:5 ; Deut 28:32; 33:12 ; Pss 25:5; 32:3; 35:28; 37:26; 38:7, 13; 42:4, 11; 44:9, 16, 23; 52:3; 56:2, 3, 6; 71:8, 15, 24; 72:15; 73:14; 74:22; 86:3; 88:18; 89:17; 102:9; 119:97 ; Prov 21:26; 23:17 ; Isa 28:24; 51:13; 52:5; 65:2, 5 ; Jer 20:7, 8 ; Lam 1:13, 14, 62 ; Hos 12:2 ).


Heb “my flesh and my skin.” The two nouns joined with ו ( vav ), בְשָׂרִי וְעוֹרִי ( basari vÿ ’ ori , “my flesh and my skin”), form a nominal hendiadys: the first functions adjectivally and the second retains its full nominal sense: “my mortal skin.”


Heb “he has built against me.” The verb בָּנָה ( banah , “to build”) followed by the preposition עַל (’ al , “against”) often refers to the action of building siege-works against a city, that is, to besiege a city (e.g., Deut 20:2 ; 2 Kgs 25:1 ; Eccl 9:14 ; Jer 52:4 ; Ezek 4:2; 17:17; 21:27 ). Normally, an explicit accusative direct object is used (e.g., מָצוֹד [ matsor ] or מָצוֹדִים [ matsorim ]); however, here, the expression is used absolutely without an explicit accusative [BDB 124 s.v. בָּנָה 1a. η ]).


The verb נָקַף ( naqaf , “to surround”) refers to the military action of an army surrounding a besieged city by placing army encampments all around the city, to prevent anyone in the city from escaping ( 2 Kgs 6:14; 11:8 ; Pss 17:9; 88:18 ; Job 19:6 ).


Heb “with bitterness and hardship.” The nouns רֹאשׁ וּתְלָאָה ( ro ’ sh utÿla ’ ah , lit. “bitterness and hardship”) function as adverbial accusatives of manner: “ with bitterness and hardship.” The two nouns רֹאשׁ וּתְלָאָה ( ro ’ sh utÿla ’ ah , “bitterness and hardship”) form a nominal hendiadys: the second retains its full nominal sense, while the first functions adverbially: “bitter hardship.” The noun II רֹאשׁ ( ro ’ sh , “bitterness”) should not be confused with the common homonymic root I רֹאשׁ ( ro ’ sh , “head”). The noun תְּלָאָה ( tÿla ’ ah , “hardship”) is used elsewhere in reference to the distress of Israel in Egypt ( Num 20:14 ), in the wilderness ( Exod 18:8 ), and in exile ( Neh 9:32 ).


The plural form of the noun מַחֲשַׁכִּים ( makhashakkim , “darknesses”) is an example of the plural of intensity (see IBHS 122 §7.4.3a).


The verb גָּדַר ( garad ) has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) “to build up a wall” with stones, and (2) “to block a road” with a wall of stones. The imagery depicts the Lord building a wall to seal off personified Jerusalem with no way of escape out of the city, or the Lord blocking the road of escape. Siege imagery prevails in 3:4-6 , but 3:7-9 pictures an unsuccessful escape that is thwarted due to blocked roads in 3:7 and 3:9 .


Heb “he has made heavy my chains.”


Heb “I call and I cry out.” The verbs אֶזְעַק וַאֲשַׁוֵּעַ (’ ez ’ aq va ’ asha ’ vvea ’, “I call and I cry out”) form a verbal hendiadys: the second retains its full verbal sense, while the first functions adverbially: “I cry out desperately.”


The verb שׁוע (“to cry out”) usually refers to calling out to God for help or deliverance from a lamentable plight (e.g., Job 30:20; 36:13; 38:41 ; Pss 5:3; 18:7, 42; 22:25; 28:2; 30:3; 31:23; 88:14; 119:147 ; Isa 58:9 ; Lam 3:8 ; Jon 2:3 ; Hab 1:2 ).


The verb שָׂתַם ( satam ) is a hapax legomenon (term that appears in the Hebrew scriptures only once) that means “to stop up” or “shut out.” It functions as an idiom here, meaning “he has shut his ears to my prayer” (BDB 979 s.v.).


The verb גָּדַר ( garad ) has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) “to build up a wall” with stones, and (2) “to block a road” with a wall of stones. The collocated terms דְּרָכַי ( dÿrakhay , “my roads”) in 3:9 clearly indicate that the second category of meaning is in view.


Heb “my roads.”


Heb “he had made my paths crooked.” The implication is that the paths by which one might escape cannot be traversed.


Heb “he is to me [like] a bear lying in wait.”


The Kethib is written אַרְיֵה (’ aryeh , “lion”), while the Qere is אֲרִי (’ ari , “lion”), simply a short spelling of the same term (BDB 71 s.v. אַרְיֵה ).


Heb “a lion in hiding places.”


Or “he made my paths deviate.”


“Since the Heb. וַיְפַשְּׁחֵנִי ( vaypashÿkheni ) occurs only here, and the translation relies on the Syriac and the Targum, it is not certain that the image of God as a predatory animal continues into this verse especially since [the beginning of the verse] is also of uncertain meaning” (D. R. Hillers, Lamentations [AB], 54).


Heb “bent.”


Heb “and set me as the target.”


The Hiphil stem of בוֹא ( bo ’, lit., “cause to come in”) here means “to shoot” arrows.


Heb “sons of his quiver.” This idiom refers to arrows (BDB 121 s.v. בֵּן 6). The term “son” ( בֵּן , ben ) is often used idiomatically with a following genitive, e.g., “son of flame” = sparks ( Job 5:7 ), “son of a constellation” = stars ( Job 38:22 ), “son of a bow” = arrows ( Job 41:2 ), “son of a quiver” = arrows ( Lam 3:13 ), “son of threshing-floor” = corn ( Isa 21:10 ).


Heb “my kidneys.” In Hebrew anthropology, the kidneys are often portrayed as the most sensitive and vital part of man. Poetic texts sometimes portray a person fatally wounded, being shot by the Lord ’s arrows in the kidneys ( Job 16:13 ; here in Lam 3:13 ). The equivalent English idiomatic counterpart is the heart, which is employed in the present translation.


The MT reads עַמִּי (’ ammi , “my people”). Many medieval Hebrew mss read עַמִּים (’ ammim , “peoples”), as reflected also in Syriac Peshitta. The internal evidence (contextual congruence) favors the variant עַמִּים (’ ammim , “peoples”).


The noun נְגִינָה ( nÿginah ) is a musical term: (1) “music” played on strings ( Isa 38:20 ; Lam 5:14 ), (2) a technical musical term ( Pss 4:1; 6:1; 54:1; 55:1; 67:1; 76:1 ; Hab 3:19 ) and (3) “mocking song” ( Pss 69:13; 77:7 ; Job 30:9 ; Lam 3:14 ). The parallelism with שׂחוֹק “laughingstock” indicates that the latter category of meaning is in view.


Heb “all of the day.” The idiom כָּל־הַיּוֹם ( kol-hayyom , “all day”) means “continually” ( Gen 6:5 ; Deut 28:32; 33:12 ; Pss 25:5; 32:3; 35:28; 37:26; 38:7, 13; 42:4, 11; 44:9, 16, 23; 52:3; 56:2, 3, 6; 71:8, 15, 24; 72:15; 73:14; 74:22; 86:3; 88:18; 89:17; 102:9; 119:97 ; Prov 21:26; 23:17 ; Isa 28:24; 51:13; 52:5; 65:2, 5 ; Jer 20:7, 8 ; Lam 1:13; 3:3, 62 ; Hos 12:2 ).


Heb “wormwood” or “bitterness” (BDB 542 s.v. לַעֲנָה ; HALOT 533 s.v. לַעֲנָה ).


Heb “crushed.”


The Hiphil stem of כָּפַשׁ ( kafash ) means “to tread down” or “make someone cower.” It is rendered variously: “trampled me in the dust” (NIV), “covered me with ashes” (KJV, NKJV), “ground me into the dust” (NJPS), “made me cower in ashes” (RSV, NRSV), “rubbed my face in the ground” (TEV) and “rubbed me in the dirt” (CEV).


Heb “my soul.” The term נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is used as a synecdoche of part (= my soul) for the whole person (= I ).


The MT reads וַתִּזְנַח ( vattiznakh ), vav ( ו ) consecutive + Qal preterite 3rd person feminine singular from זָנַח ( zanakh , “to reject”), resulting in the awkward phrase “my soul rejected from peace.” The LXX καὶ ἀπώσατο ( kai apwsato ) reflects a Vorlage of וַיִּזְנַח ( vayyiznakh ), vav ( ו ) consecutive + Qal preterite 3rd person masculine singular from זָנַח ( zanakh ): “He deprives my soul of peace.” Latin Vulgate repulsa est reflects a Vorlage of וַתִּזָּנַח ( vattizzanakh ), vav ( ו ) consecutive + Niphal preterite 3rd person feminine singular from זָנַח ( zanakh ): “My soul is excluded from peace.” The MT best explains the origin of the LXX and Vulgate readings. The מ ( mem ) beginning the next word may have been an enclitic on the verb rather than a preposition on the noun. This would be the only Qal occurrence of זָנַח ( zanakh ) used with the preposition מִן ( min ). Placing the מ ( mem ) on the noun would have created the confusion leading to the changes made by the LXX and Vulgate. HALOT 276 s.v. II זנח attempts to deal with the problem lexically by positing a meaning “to exclude from” for זָנַח ( zanakh ) plus מִן ( min ), but also allows that the Niphal may be the correct reading.


Heb “from peace.” H. Hummel suggests that שָׁלוֹם ( shalom ) is the object and the מ ( mem ) is not the preposition מִן ( min ), but an enclitic on the verb (“Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially in Hebrew” JBL 76 [1957]: 105). שָׁלוֹם ( shalom ) has a wide range of meaning. The connotation is that there is no peace within; the speaker is too troubled for any calm to take hold.


Heb “goodness.”


Heb “and my hope from the Lord .” The hope is for deliverance. The words, “I have lost all…” have been supplied in the translation in order to clarify the Hebrew idiom for the English reader.


The LXX records ἐμνήσθην ( emnhsqhn , “I remembered”) which may reflect a first singular form זָכַרְתִּי ( zakharti ) whereas the MT preserves the form זְכָר ( zÿkhor ) which may be Qal imperative 2nd person masculine singular (“Remember!”) or infinitive construct (“To remember…”). A 2nd person masculine singular imperative would most likely address God. In the next verse נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is the subject of זְכָר ( zÿkhor ). If נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi ) is also the subject here one would expect a 2fs Imperative זִכְרִי ( zikhri ) a form that stands in the middle of the MT’s זְכָר ( zÿkhor ) and the presumed זָכַרְתִּי ( zakharti ) read by the LXX. English versions are split between the options: “To recall” (NJPS), “Remember!” (RSV, NRSV, NASB), “Remembering” (KJV, NKJV), “I remember” (NIV). tn The basic meaning of זָכַר ( zakhar ) is “to remember, call to mind” ( HALOT 270 s.v. I זכר ). Although it is often used in reference to recollection of past events, it can also describe consideration of present situations: “to consider, think about” something present (BDB 270 s.v. 5 ).


The two nouns עָנְיִי וּמְרוּדִי (’ onyi umÿrudi , lit., “my poverty and my homelessness”) form a nominal hendiadys in which one noun functions adjectivally and the other retains its full nominal sense: “my impoverished homelessness” or “homeless poor” (GKC 397-98 §124. e ). The nearly identical phrase is used in Lam 1:7 and Isa 58:7 (see GKC 226 §83. c ), suggesting this was a Hebrew idiom. Jerusalem’s inhabitants were impoverished and homeless.


Heb “wormwood and gall.” The two nouns joined by ו ( vav ), לַעֲנָה וָרֹאשׁ ( la ’ ana varo ’ sh , “wormwood and bitterness”) form a nominal hendiadys. The first retains its full verbal sense and the second functions adjectivally: “bitter poison.”


The MT reads נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”); however, the Masoretic scribes preserve an alternate textual tradition, marked by the Tiqqune Sopherim (“corrections by the scribes”) of נַפְשֶׁךָ ( nafshekha , “your soul”). tn Heb “my soul.” The term נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is used as a synecdoche of part (= my soul) for the whole person (= I ). The verb תִּזְכּוֹר ( tizkor ) is Qal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular and the subject is נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”), though the term does not appear until the end of the verse functioning as the subject of both verbs. Due to the synecdoche, the line is translated as though the verb were 1st person common singular.


The infinitive absolute followed by an imperfect of the same root is an emphatic rhetorical statement: זָכוֹר תִּזְכּוֹר ( zakhor tizkor , “continually think”). Although the basic meaning of זָכַר ( zakhar ) is “to remember, call to mind” ( HALOT 270 I זכר ), here it refers to consideration of a present situation: “to consider, think about” something present (BDB 270 s.v. זָכַר 5). The referent of the 3rd person feminine singular form of תִּזְכּוֹר ( tizkor ) is the feminine singular noun נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”).


The MT reads נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”); however, the Masoretic scribes preserve an alternate textual tradition, included in some lists of the Tiqqune Sopherim (“corrections by the scribes”) of נַפְשֶׁךָ ( nafshekha , “your soul”). tn Heb “my soul…” or “your soul…” The term נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is used as a synecdoche of part (= my soul) for the whole person (= I ). Likewise, נַפְשֶׁךָ ( nafshekha , “your soul”) is also a synecdoche of part (= your soul) for the whole person (= you).


The MT preserves the Kethib וְתָשִׁיחַ ( vÿtashiakh ), Qal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular from II שׁוּחַ ( shuakh ) + vav ( ו ) consecutive, while the Qere reads וְתָשׁוֹחַ ( vÿtashoakh ), Hiphil imperfect 3rd person feminine singular from II שׁוּחַ ( shuakh ) + vav ( ו ) consecutive. According to D. R. Hillers ( Lamentations [AB], 56), the Kethib implies a Hiphil of שׁוּחַ ( shuakh ) which is unclear due to a lack of parallels, and reads the Qere as from the root שָׁחַח ( shakhakh ) which has close parallels in Ps 42:6, 7, 11; 43:5 . The conjectured meaning for שׁוּחַ ( shuakh ) in BDB 1005 s.v שׁוּחַ is that of שָׁחַח ( shakhakh ). HALOT 1438-39 s.v. שׁוח reads the root as שָׁחַח ( shakhakh ) but the form as Qal. tn Heb “and my soul sinks down within me.” The verb II שׁוּחַ ( shuakh , “to sink down”) is used here in a figurative sense, meaning “to be depressed.”


Heb “I cause to return.”


Heb “to my heart.” The noun לֵבָב ( levav , “heart”) has a broad range of meanings, including its use as a metonymy of association, standing for thoughts and thinking = “mind” (e.g., Deut 32:46 ; 1 Chr 29:18 ; Job 17:11 ; Ps 73:7 ; Isa 10:7 ; Hag 1:5, 7; 2:15, 18 ; Zech 7:10; 8:17 ).


It is difficult to capture the nuances of the Hebrew word חֶסֶד ( khesed ). When used of the Lord it is often connected to his covenant loyalty. This is the only occasion when the plural form of חֶסֶד ( khesed ) precedes the plural form of רַחֲמִים ( rakhamim , “mercy, compassion”). The plural forms, as with this one, tend to be in late texts. The plural may indicate several concrete expressions of God’s kindnesses or may indicate the abstract concept of his kindness.


The MT reads תָמְנוּ ( tamnu ) “indeed we are [not] cut off,” Qal perfect 1st person common plural from תָּמַם ( tamam , “be finished”): “[Because of] the kindnesses of the Lord , we are not cut off.” However, the ancient versions (LXX, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targum) and many medieval Hebrew mss preserve the alternate reading תָּמּוּ ( tammu ), Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from תָּמַם ( tamam , “to be finished”): “The kindnesses of the Lord never cease.” The external evidence favors the alternate reading. The internal evidence supports this as well, as the parallel B-line suggests: “his compassions never come to an end.” Several English versions follow the MT: “It is of the Lord ’s mercies that we are not consumed” (KJV, NKJV), “Because of the Lord ’s great love we are not consumed” (NIV). Other English versions follow the alternate textual tradition: “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases” (RSV, NRSV), “The Lord ’s lovingkindnesses indeed never cease” (NASB), “The kindness of the Lord has not ended” (NJPS) and “The Lord ’s unfailing love still continues” (TEV).


The plural form of רַחֲמִים ( rakhamim ) may denote the abstract concept of mercy, several concrete expressions of mercy, or the plural of intensity: “great compassion.” See IBHS 122 §7.4.3a.


Heb “they are new.”


The adjective רַב ( rav ) has a broad range of meanings: (1) quantitative: “much, numerous, many (with plurals), abundant, enough, exceedingly” and (2) less often in a qualitative sense: “great” (a) of space and location, (b) “strong” as opposed to “weak” and (c) “major.” The traditional translation, “great is thy faithfulness,” is less likely than the quantitative sense: “your faithfulness is abundant” [or, “plentiful”]. NJPS is on target in its translation: “Ample is your grace!”


Heb “My soul said…” The term נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is a synecdoche of part (= my soul) for the whole person (= I ).


Heb “wait for him”


Heb “to the soul…” The term נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh , “soul”) is a synecdoche of part (= “the soul who seeks him”) for the whole person (= “the person who seeks him”).


Heb “waiting and silently.” The two adjectives וְיָחִיל וְדוּמָם ( vÿyakhil vÿdumam , “waiting and silently”) form a hendiadys: The first functions verbally and the second functions adverbially: “to wait silently.” The adjective דוּמָם ( dumam , “silently”) also functions as a metonymy of association, standing for patience or rest ( HALOT 217 s.v.). This metonymical nuance is captured well in less literal English versions: “wait in patience” (TEV) and “wait patiently” (CEV, NJPS). The more literal English versions do not express the metonymy as well: “quietly wait” (KJV, NKJV, ASV), “waits silently” (NASB), “wait quietly” (RSV, NRSV, NIV).


Heb “deliverance of the Lord .” In the genitive-construct, the genitive יהוה (YHWH, “the Lord ”) denotes source, that is, he is the source of the deliverance: “deliverance from the Lord .”


See note at 3:1 on the Hebrew term for “man” here.


Heb “that he bear.”


Heb “in his youth.” The preposition ב ( bet ) functions in a temporal sense: “when.”


Heb “him.” The speaking voice in this chapter continues to be that of the גֶּבֶר ( gever , “man”). The image of female Jerusalem in chs. 1-2 was fluid, being able to refer to the city or its inhabitants, both female and male. So too the “defeated soldier” or “everyman” (see note at 3:1 on “man”) is fluid and can represent any member of the Jewish community, male and female. This line especially has a proverbial character which can be extended to any person, hence the translation. But masculine pronouns are otherwise maintained reflecting the Hebrew grammatical system and the speaking voice of the poem.


Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord ) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “has laid it on him.” The verb נָטַל ( natal ) is used 4 times in Biblical Hebrew; the related noun refers to heaviness or a burden. The entry of BDB 642 s.v. is outdated while HALOT 694 s.v. נטל is acceptable for the Qal. See D. R. Hillers, Lamentations (AB), 57. Hillers’ suggestion of a stative meaning for the Qal is followed here, though based on 2 Sam 24:12 “impose” is also possible.


Heb “Let him put his mouth in the dust.”


Heb “to the smiter.”


The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “the Lord”) here rather than יהוה (YHWH, “the Lord ”). See the tc note at 1:14 .


The verse is unusually short and something unrecoverable may be missing.


Heb “Although he has caused grief.” The word “us” is added in the translation.


Heb “He will have compassion.” The words “on us” are added in the translation.


The Kethib preserves the singular form חַסְדּוֹ ( khasdo , “his kindness”), also reflected in the LXX and Aramaic Targum. The Qere reads the plural form חֲסָדָיו ( khasadayv , “his kindnesses”) which is reflected in the Latin Vulgate.


Heb “he does not afflict from his heart.” The term לֵבָב ( levav , “heart”) preceded by the preposition מִן ( min ) most often describes one’s initiative or motivation, e.g. “of one’s own accord” ( Num. 16:28; 24:13 ; Deut. 4:9 ; 1Kings 12:33 ; Neh. 6:8 ; Job 8:10 ; Is. 59:13 ; Ezek. 13:2, 17 ). It is not God’s internal motivation to bring calamity and trouble upon people.


Heb “sons of men.”


Heb “prisoners of earth/land.” The term ארצ may refer to (1) the earth or (2) a country or (3) the promised land in particular (as well as other referents). “Earth” is chosen here since the context presents God’s general principles in dealing with humanity. Given the historical circumstances, however, prisoners from the land of Israel are certainly in the background.


The speaking voice is still that of the גֶּבֶר ( gever , “man”), but the context and line are more universal in character.


Heb “to turn away a man’s justice,” that is, the justice or equitable judgment he would receive. See the previous note regarding the “man.”


Heb “the Lord does not see.” The verb רָאָה ( ra ’ ah , “to see”) is here used in reference to mental observation and approval: “to gaze at” with joy and pleasure (e.g., 2 Kgs 10:16 ; Mic 7:9 ; Jer 29:32 ; Isa 52:8 ; Job 20:17; 33:28 ; Pss 54:9; 106:5; 128:5; Son 3:11; 6:11 ; Eccl 2:1 ). If the line is parallel to the end of v. 35 then a circumstantial clause “the Lord not seeing” would be appropriate. The infinitives in 34-36 would then depend on the verbs in v. 33 ; see D. R. Hillers, Lamentations (AB), 71.


Heb “Who is this, he spoke and it came to pass?” The general sense is to ask whose commands are fulfilled. The phrase “he spoke and it came to pass” is taken as an allusion to the creation account (see Gen 1:3 ).


Heb “From the mouth of the Most High does it not go forth, both evil and good?”


The Hebrew word here is אָדָם (’ adam ) which can mean “man” or “person.” The second half of the line is more personalized to the speaking voice of the defeated soldier using גֶּבֶר ( gever , “man”). See the note at 3:1 .


Kethib reads the singular חֶטְאוֹ ( khet ’ o , “his sin”), which is reflected in the LXX. Qere reads the plural חֲטָאָיו ( khata ’ ayv , “his sins”) which is preserved in many medieval Hebrew mss and reflected in the other early versions (Aramaic Targum, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate). The external and internal evidence are not decisive in favor of either reading. tn Heb “concerning his punishment.” The noun חֵטְא ( khet ’) has a broad range of meanings: (1) “sin,” (2) “guilt of sin” and (3) “punishment for sin,” which fits the context of calamity as discipline and punishment for sin (e.g., Lev 19:17; 20:20; 22:9; 24:15 ; Num 9:13; 18:22, 32 ; Isa 53:12 ; Ezek 23:49 ). The metonymical (cause-effect) relation between sin and punishment is clear in the expressions חֵטְא מִשְׁפַט־מָוֶת ( khet ’ mishpat-mavet , “sin deserving death penalty,” Deut 21:22 ) and חֵטְא מָוֶת ( khet ’ mavet , “sin unto death,” Deut 22:26 ). The point of this verse is that the punishment of sin can sometimes lead to death; therefore, any one who is being punished by God for his sins, and yet lives, has little to complain about.


Heb “Let us test our ways and examine.” The two verbs וְנַחְקֹרָה … נַחְפְּשָׂה ( nakhpÿsah … vÿnakhqorah , “Let us test and let us examine”) form a verbal hendiadys in which the first functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal force: “Let us carefully examine our ways.”


The MT reads the singular noun לְבָבֵנוּ ( lÿvavenu , “our heart”) but the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate) and many medieval Hebrew mss read the plural noun לְבָבֵינוּ ( lÿvavenu , “our hearts”). Hebrew regularly places plural pronouns on singular nouns used as a collective (135 times on the singular “heart” and only twice on the plural “hearts”). The plural “hearts” in any Hebrew construction is actually rather rare. The LXX renders similar Hebrew constructions (singular “heart” plus a plural pronoun) with the plural “hearts” about 1/3 of the time, therefore it cannot be considered evidence for the reading. The Vulgate may have been influenced by the LXX. Although a distributive sense is appropriate for a much higher percentage of passages using the plural “hearts” in the LXX, no clear reason for the differentiation in the LXX has emerged. Likely the singular Hebrew form is original but the meaning is best represented in English with the plural.


The Heb emphasiszes the pronoun “We – we have sinned….” Given the contrast with the following, it means “For our part, we have sinned….” A poetic reading in English would place vocal emphasis on “we” followed by a short pause.


Heb “We have revolted and we have rebelled.” The two verbs פָשַׁעְנוּ וּמָרִינוּ ( pasha ’ nu umarinu , “we have revolted and we have rebelled”) form a verbal hendiadys in which the synonyms emphasize the single idea.


The Heb emphasiszes the pronoun “You – you have not forgiven.” Given the contrast with the preceding, it means “For your part, you have not forgiven.” A poetic reading in English would place vocal emphasis on “you” followed by a short pause.


Heb “covered.” The object must be supplied either from the next line (“covered yourself”) or from the end of this line (“covered us”).


Heb “offscouring and refuse.” The two nouns סְחִי וּמָאוֹס ( sÿkhi uma ’ os ) probably form a nominal hendiadys, in which the first noun functions as an adjective and the second retains its full nominal sense: “filthy refuse,” i.e., “filthy scum.”


Heb “in the midst of.”


Heb “open wide their mouths.”


The similar sounding nouns פַּחַד וָפַחַת ( pakhad vafakhat , “panic and pitfall”) are an example of paronomasia.


Similar to the paronomasia in the preceding line, the words הַשֵּׁאת וְהַשָּׁבֶר ( hashe ’ t vÿhashaver , “devastation and destruction”) form an example of alliteration: the beginning of the words sound alike.


Heb “canals.” The phrase “canals of water” (eye water = tears) is an example of hyperbole. The English idiom “streams of tears” is also hyperbolic.


Heb “my eyes flow down with canals of water.”


Heb “the daughter of my people,” or “the Daughter, my people.”


Heb “because of the destruction of [the daughter of my people].”


Heb “my eye flows.” The term “eye” is a metonymy of association, standing for the “tears” which flow from one’s eyes.


Heb “without stopping.” The noun הַפוּגָה ( hafugah , “stop”) is a hapax legomenon (word that occurs only once in Hebrew scriptures). The form of the noun is unusual, probably being derived from the denominative Hiphil verbal stem of the root פּוּג ( pug , “to grow weary, ineffective; numb, become cold”).


The phrase “what has happened” is added in the translation for smoother English style and readability.


Heb “my eye causes grief to my soul.” The term “eye” is a metonymy of association, standing for that which one sees with the eyes.


Heb “my soul.” The term נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is a synecdoche of part (= my soul) for the whole person (= me).


Heb “at the sight of all the daughters of my city.” It is understood that seeing the plight of the women, not simply seeing the women, is what is so grievous. To make this clear, “suffering” was supplied in the translation.


Heb “without cause.”


The construction צוֹד צָדוּנִי ( tsod tsaduni , “they have hunted me down”) is emphatic: Qal infinitive absolute of the same root of Qal perfect 3rd person common plural + 1st person common singular suffix.


Heb “my life.”


Heb “I said,” meaning “I said to myself” = “I thought.”


Heb “I was about to be cut off.” The verb נִגְזָרְתִּי ( nigzarti ), Niphal perfect 1st person common singular from גָּזַר ( gazar , “to be cut off”), functions in an ingressive sense: “about to be cut off.” It is used in reference to the threat of death (e.g., Ezek 37:11 ). To be “cut off” from the hand of the living means to experience death ( Ps 88:6 ).


Heb “from a pit of lowest places.”


The verb could be understood as a precative, “hear my plea,” parallel to the following volitive verb, “do not close.”


Heb “my voice.”


The preposition ל ( lamed ) continues syntactically from “my plea” in the previous line (e.g. Ex 5:2 ; Josh 22:2 ; 1 Sam 8:7; 12:1 ; Jer 43:4 ).


The verb could be understood as a precative (“Draw near”). The perspective of the poem seems to be that of prayer during distress rather than a testimony that God has delivered.


The verb could be understood as a precative (“Say”).


The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “the Lord”) here rather than יהוה (YHWH, “the Lord ”) as in the following verse. See the tc note at 1:14 .


This verb, like others in this stanza, could be understood as a precative (“Plead”).


Heb “the causes of my soul.” The term נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is a synecdoche of part (= my soul) for the whole person (= me).


Heb “Please judge my judgment.”


The MT reads לִי ( li , “to me”); but many medieval Hebrew mss and the ancient versions (Aramaic Targum, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate) all reflect a Vorlage of עָלָי (’ alay , “against me”).


The verb could be understood as a precative (“Hear”).


Heb “the lips of my assailants and their thoughts.”


Heb “their rising and their sitting.” The two terms שִׁבְתָּם וְקִימָתָם ( shivtam vÿqimatam , “their sitting and their rising”) form a merism: two terms that are polar opposites are used to encompass everything in between. The idiom “from your rising to your sitting” refers to the earliest action in the morning and the latest action in the evening (e.g., Deut 6:7 ; Ps 139:3 ). The enemies mock Jerusalem from the moment they arise in the morning until the moment they sit down in the evening.


Heb “Please cause to return.” The imperfect verb תָּשִׁיב ( tashiv ), Hiphil imperfect 2nd person masculine singular from שׁוּב ( shuv , “to return”), functions in a volitional sense, like an imperative of request. The Hiphil stem of שׁוּב ( shuv , in the Hiphil “to cause to return”) often means “to make requital, to pay back” (e.g., Judg 9:5, 56 ; 1 Sam 25:39 ; 1 Kgs 2:32, 44 ; Neh 3:36; Prov 24:12, 29 ; Hos 12:3 ; Joel 4:4, 7) (BDB 999 s.v. שׁוּב 4.a).


Heb “recompense to them.” The noun גְּמוּל ( gÿmul , “dealing, accomplishment”) has two metonymical (cause-effect) meanings: (1) positive “benefit” and (2) negative “retribution, requital, recompense,” the sense used here (e.g., Pss 28:4; 94:2; 137:8 ; Prov 19:17 ; Isa 35:4; 59:18; 66:6 ; Jer 51:6 ; Lam 3:64 ; Joel 4:4, 7). The phrase תָּשִׁיב גְּמוּל ( tashiv gÿmul ) means “to pay back retribution” (e.g., Joel 4:4, 7), that is, to return the deeds of the wicked upon them as a display of talionic or poetic justice.


Heb “their hands.” The term “hand” is a synecdoche of part (= hands) for the whole person (= they).


Heb “according to the work of their hands.”


The noun מְגִנַּה ( mÿginnah ) is a hapax legomenon . Its meaning is debated; earlier lexicographers suggested that it meant “covering” (BDB 171 s.v.), but more recent lexicons suggest “shamelessness” or “insanity” ( HALOT 546 s.v.). The translation is based on the term being parallel to “curse” and needing to relate to “heart.” Cf. NRSV “anguish of heart.”


Heb “pursue.” The accusative direct object is implied in the Hebrew, and inserted in the translation.


See the note at 1:1


Heb “had grown dim.” The verb יוּעַם ( yu ’ am ), Hophal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from עָמַם (’ amam , “to conceal, darken”), literally means “to be dimmed” or “to be darkened.” Most English versions render this literally: the gold has “become dim” (KJV, NKJV), “grown dim” (RSV, NRSV), “is dulled” (NJPS), “grown dull” (TEV); however, but NIV has captured the sense well: “How the gold has lost its luster.”


The verb יִשְׁנֶא ( yishne ’, Qal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular) is typically taken to be the only Qal imperfect of I שָׁנָהּ ( shanah ). Such a spelling with א ( aleph ) instead of ה ( he ) is feasible. D. R. Hillers suggests the root שָׂנֵא ( sane ’, “to hate”): “Pure gold is hated”. This maintains the consonantal text and also makes sense in context. In either case the point is that gold no longer holds the same value, probably because there is nothing available to buy with it. tn Heb “changes.” The imagery in this verse about gold is without parallel in the Bible and its precise nuance uncertain.


Heb “the stones of holiness/jewelry.” קֹדֶשׁ ( qodesh ) in most cases refers to holiness or sacredness. For the meaning “jewelry” see J. A. Emerton, “The Meaning of אַבְנֵי־קֹדֶשׁ in Lamentations 4:1 ” ZAW 79 (1967): 233-36.


Heb “at the head of every street.”


Heb “they are regarded as.”


Heb “the work of the hands of a potter.”


The noun תַּנִּין ( tannin ) means “jackals.” The plural ending ־ִין (- in ) is diminutive (GKC 242 §87. e ) (e.g., Lam 1:4 ).


Heb “draw out the breast and suckle their young.”


Heb “the daughter of my people.”


The MT Kethib form כִּי עֵנִים ( ki ’ enim ) is by all accounts a textual corruption for כַּיְעֵנִים ( kay ’ enim , “like ostriches”) which is preserved in the Qere and the medieval Hebrew mss , and reflected in the LXX.


Heb “bread.” The term “bread” might function as a synecdoche of specific (= bread) for general (= food); however, the following parallel line does indeed focus on the act of breaking bread in two.


Heb “there is not a divider to them.” The term פָּרַשׂ ( paras ), Qal active participle ms from פָּרַס ( paras , “to divide”) refers to the action of breaking bread in two before giving it to a person to eat ( Isa 58:7 ; Jer 16:7 ; Lam 4:4 ). The form פָּרַשׂ ( paras ) is the alternate spelling of the more common פָּרַס ( paras) .


Heb “eaters of delicacies.” An alternate English gloss would be “connoisseurs of fine foods.”


Heb “are desolate.”


Heb “were reared.”


Heb “in purple.” The term תוֹלָע ( tola ’, “purple”) is a figurative description of expensive clothing: it is a metonymy of association: the color of the dyed clothes (= purple) stands for the clothes themselves.


Heb “embrace garbage.” One may also translate “rummage through” (cf. NCV “pick through trash piles”; TEV “pawing through refuse”; NLT “search the garbage pits.”


The Hebrew word אַשְׁפַּתּוֹת (’ ashpatot ) can also mean “ash heaps.” Though not used as a combination elsewhere, to “embrace ash heaps” might also envision a state of mourning or even dead bodies lying on the ash heaps.


The noun עֲוֹן (’ avon ) has a basic two-fold range of meanings: (1) basic meaning: “iniquity, sin” and (2) metonymical cause for effect meaning: “punishment for iniquity.”


Heb “the sin of.” The noun חַטָּאת ( khatta ’ t ) often means “sin, rebellion,” but here it probably functions in a metonymical (cause for effect) sense: “punishment for sin” (e.g., Zech 14:19 ). The context focuses on the severity of the punishment of Jerusalem rather than the depths of its degradation and depravity that led to the judgment.


Heb “without a hand turned.” The preposition ב ( bet ) after the verb חוּל ( khul ) in Hos 11:6 is adversative “the sword will turn against [Assyria’s] cities.” Other contexts with חוּל ( khul ) plus ב ( bet ) are not comparable ( ב [ bet ] often being locative). However, it is not certain that hands must be adversarial as the sword clearly is in Hos 11:6 . The present translation pictures the suddenness of Sodom’s overthrow as an easier fate than the protracted military campaign and subsequent exile and poverty of Judah’s survivor’s.


Heb “Nazirites” (so KJV). The Nazirites were consecrated under a vow to refrain from wine, contact with the dead, and from cutting their hair. In Gen 49:26 and Deut 33:16 Joseph, who was not a Nazirite, is called the “Nazir” of his brothers. From context, many translate this as “prince” (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT), though the nuance is uncertain. If it is valid, then princes might be understood in this context as well.


The noun גִּזְרָה ( gizrah ) is used primarily in Ezekiel 41-42 (seven of its nine uses), where it refers to a separated area of the temple complex described in Ezekiel’s vision. It is not used of people other than here. Probably based on the reference to a precious stone BDB 160 s.v. 1 postulated that it refers to the cutting or polishing of precious stones, but this is conjecture. The English versions handle this variously. D. R. Hillers suggests beards, hair, or eyebrows based on other ancient Near Eastern comparisons between lapis lazuli and the body ( Lamentations [AB], 81).


Heb “lapis lazuli.” Lapis lazuli is a dark blue semi-precious stone.


Heb “their outline” or “their form.” The Hebrew noun תֹּאַר ( to ’ ar , “outline, form”) is related to the Phoenician noun תֹּאַר ( to ’ ar , “something gazed at”), and Aramaic verb תָּאַר ( ta ’ ar , “to gaze at”). It is used in reference to the form of a woman ( Gen 29:17 ; Deut 21:11 ; 1 Sam 25:3 ; Esth 2:7 ) and of a man ( Gen 39:11 ; Judg 8:18 ; 1 Sam 16:18; 28:14 ; 1 Kgs 1:6 ; 1 Chr 17:17 ; Isa 52:14; 53:2 ). Here it is used in a metonymical sense: “appearance.”


Heb “those pierced of the sword.” The genitive-construct denotes instrumentality: “those pierced by the sword” ( חַלְלֵי־חֶרֶב , khalle-kherev ). The noun חָלָל ( khalal ) refers to a “fatal wound” and is used substantivally to refer to “the slain” ( Num 19:18; 31:8, 19 ; 1 Sam 17:52 ; 2 Sam 23:8, 18 ; 1 Chr 11:11, 20 ; Isa 22:2; 66:16 ; Jer 14:18; 25:33; 51:49 ; Lam 4:9 ; Ezek 6:7; 30:11; 31:17, 18; 32:20 ; Zeph 2:12 ).


Heb “those slain of hunger.” The genitive-construct denotes instrumentality: “those slain by hunger,” that is, those who are dying of hunger.


Heb “who…” The antecedent of the relative pronoun שֶׁהֵם ( shehem , “who”) are those dying of hunger in the previous line: מֵחַלְלֵי רָעָב ( mekhalle ra ’ av , “those slain of hunger”).


Heb “they flow away.” The verb זוּב ( zuv , “to flow, gush”) is used figuratively here, meaning “to pine away” or “to waste away” from hunger. See also the next note.


Heb “pierced through and through.” The term מְדֻקָּרִים ( mÿduqqarim ), Pual participle masculine plural from דָּקַר ( daqar , “to pierce”), is used figuratively. The verb דָּקַר ( daqar , “to pierce”) usually refers to a fatal wound inflicted by a sword or spear ( Num 25:8 ; Judg 9:54 ; 1 Sam 31:4 ; 1 Chr 10:4 ; Isa 13:15 ; Jer 37:10; 51:4 ; Zech 12:10; 13:3 ). Here, it describes people dying from hunger. This is an example of hypocatastasis: an implied comparison between warriors being fatally pierced by sword and spear and the piercing pangs of hunger and starvation. Alternatively “those who hemorrhage ( זוּב [ zuv , “flow, gush”]) [are better off] than those pierced by lack of food” in parallel to the structure of the first line.


The preposition מִן ( min , “from”) denotes deprivation: “from lack of” something (BDB 580 s.v. 2 .f; HALOT 598 s.v. 6 ).


Heb “produce of the field.”


Heb “the hands of compassionate women.”


Heb “eating.” The infinitive construct (from I בָּרָה , barah ) is translated as a noun. Three passages employ the verb ( 2 Sam 3:35; 12:17; 13:5,6,10 ) for eating when ill or in mourning.


Heb “the daughter of my people.”


Heb “in the destruction of the daughter of my people.”


Heb “has completed.” The verb כִּלָּה ( killah ), Piel perfect 3rd person masculine singular from כָּלָה ( kalah , “to complete”), has a range of closely related meanings: (1) “to complete, bring to an end,” (2) “to accomplish, finish, cease,” (3) “to use up, exhaust, consume.” Used in reference to God’s wrath, it describes God unleashing his full measure of anger so that divine justice is satisfied. This is handled admirably by several English versions: “The Lord has given full vent to his wrath” (NIV), “The Lord gave full vent to his wrath” (RSV, NRSV), “The Lord vented all his fury” (NJPS), “The Lord turned loose the full force of his fury” (TEV). Others miss the mark: “The Lord has accomplished his wrath/fury” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB).


Heb “the heat of his anger.”


The term יְסוֹד ( yÿsod , “foundation”) refers to the ground-level and below ground-level foundation stones of a city wall ( Ps 137:7 ; Lam 4:11 ; Mic 1:6 ).


Heb “inhabitants of the mainland.”


Heb “they did not believe that.” The verb הֶאֱמִינוּ ( he ’ eminu ), Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural from אָמַן (’ aman , “to believe”), ordinarily is a term of faith and trust, but occasionally it functions cognitively: “to think that” ( Job 9:16; 15:22 ; Ps 116:10 ; Lam 4:12 ) and “to be convinced that” ( Ps 27:13 ) ( HALOT 64 s.v. I אמן hif.1). The semantic relationship between “to believe” = “to think” is metonymical, that is, effect for cause.


These words do not appear in the Hebrew, but are supplied to make sense of the line. The introductory causal preposition מִן ( min ) (“because”) indicates that this phrase – or something like it – is implied through elision.


There is no main verb in the verse; it is an extended prepositional phrase. One must either assume a verbal idea such as “But it happened due to…” or connect it to the following verses, which themselves are quite difficult. The former option was employed in the present translation.


“They” are apparently the people, rather than the prophets and priests mentioned in the preceding verse.


The Hebrew word עִוְרִים (’ ivrim ) appears to be an adjective based on the root I עִוֵּר (’ ivver , “blind”). The LXX, using a rare perfect optative of ἐγείρω ( egeirw ), seems to have read a form of II עוּר (’ ur , “to rise”), while the Syriac reads “her nobles,” possibly from reading שָׂרִים ( sarim ). The evidence is unclear.


Heb “defiled with blood.”


The translation is conjecture. The MT has the preposition ב ( bet , “in,” “by,” “with,” “when,” etc.), the negative particle לֹא ( lo ’), then a finite verb from יָכַל ( yakhal , Qal impfect 3rd person masculine plural): “in not they are able.” Normally יָכַל ( yakhal ) would be followed by an infinitive, identifying what someone is or is not able to do, or by some other modifying clause. לֹא יָכַל ( lo ’ yakhal ) on its own may mean “they do not prevail.” The preposition ב ( bet ) suggests possible dependence on another verb (cp. Jer 2:11 , the only other verse with the sequence ב [ bet ] plus לֹא [ lo ’] plus finite verb). The following verb נָגַע ( naga ’, “touch”) regularly indicates its object with the preposition ב ( bet ), but the preposition ב ( bet ) is already used with “their garments.” If both are the object of נָגַע ( naga ’), the line would read “they touched what they could not, their garments.” As this makes no sense, one should note that any other verb on which the phrase would be dependent is not recoverable. The preposition ב ( bet ) can also introduce temporal clauses, though there are no examples with לֹא ( lo ’) plus a finite verb. A temporal understanding could yield “when they could not succeed, they touched [clutched?] their garments” or “while no one is able [to ?] they touch their garments.” In Jer 49:10 the meaning of יָכַל ( yakhal ) is completed by a finite verb (though it is not governed by the preposition ב [ bet ]). If so here, then we may understand “while ( ב [ bet ]) no one dares ( יָכַל , yakhal ) to touch their garments.” This gives the picture of blind people stumbling about while others cannot help because they are afraid to touch them.


Heb “They say among the nations.”


Heb “the face of the Lord .” The term פָּנֶה ( paneh , “face”) is a synecdoche of part (= face) for the whole person (= the Lord himself). The phrase is often translated “the presence of the Lord .” The term “face” also functions anthropomorphically, depicting the invisible spirit God as though he had a physical face.


The MT reads the plural verb לֹא נָשָׂאוּ ( lo ’ nasa ’ u , “they did not lift up”), Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from נָשָׂא ( nasa ’, “to lift up” the face); however, the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) have singular verbs, reflecting a Vorlage of לֹא נָשָׂא ( lo ’ nasa ’, “he did not lift up”), Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular from נָשָׂא ( nasa ’). D. R. Hillers suggests that the MT plural is an intentional scribe change, to avoid the appearance that God brought about evil on the priests and elders. Equally possible is that consonantal לא חננו ( l ’ khnnv ) should be revocalized as Qal passive perfect 3rd person common plural, and that כֹהֲנִים ( kohanim , “the priests”) functions as the subject of a passive verb rather than the accusative direct object of an active verb: “(the faces of ) the priests were not lifted up.” tn Heb “did not lift up.” The verb נָשָׂא ( nasa ’) means “to lift up” (the face); however, the specific contextual nuance here is probably “to show consideration” (e.g., Deut 28:50 ; Lam 4:16 ) (BDB 670 s.v. 1 .b.3).


The MT reads the plural verb לֹא חָנָנוּ ( lo ’ khananu , “they did not show favor”), Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from חָנַן ( khanan , “to show favor, be merciful”); however, the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) have singular verbs, reflecting a Vorlage of לֹא חָנַן ( lo ’ khanan , “he did not show favor”), Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular from חָנַן ( khanan ). D. R. Hillers suggests that the MT plural is an intentional scribe change, to avoid the appearance that God brought about evil on the priests and elders. Equally possible is that consonantal לא חננו ( l ’ khnnv ) should be revocalized as Qal passive perfect 3rd person common plural, and that זְקֵנִים ( zÿqenim , “the elders”) functions as the subject of a passive verb rather than the accusative direct object of an active verb: “the elders were not shown favor/mercy.” tn The basic meaning of the verb חָנַן ( khanan ) is “to show favor [to], be gracious [to].” In some contexts this can mean “to spare” the lives of someone ( Deut 7:2; 28:50 ; Job 19:21 ; Lam 4:16 ) (BDB 336 s.v. 1 .c), though it is not clear whether that is the case here.


Heb “Our eyes failed in vain for help.”


Heb “they”; this has been specified in the translation as “our enemies” for clarity.


Heb “they hunted our steps.”


Heb “our days were full.”


The bird referred to here could be one of several species of eagles, but more likely is the griffin-vulture (cf. NEB “vultures”). However, because eagles are more commonly associated with swiftness than vultures in contemporary English, “eagles” was used in the translation.


Or “in the heavens.” The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם ( shamayim ) may be translated “heaven(s)” or “sky” depending on the context.


Heb “the anointed one of the Lord .” The term “king” is added in the translation to clarify the referent of the phrase “the Lord ’s anointed.”


Heb “was captured in their pits.”


Heb “of whom we had said.”


Heb “under his shadow.” The term צֵל ( tsel , “shadow”) is used figuratively here to refer the source of protection from military enemies. In the same way that the shade of a tree gives physical relief and protection from the heat of the sun (e.g., Judg 9:15 ; Job 40:22 ; Ps 80:11 ; Song 2:3 ; Ezek 17:23; 31:6, 12, 17 ; Hos 4:13; 14:8 ; Jon 4:5, 6 ), a faithful and powerful king can provide “shade” (= protection) from enemies and military attack ( Num 14:19 ; Ps 91:1 ; Isa 30:2, 3; 49:2; 51:16 ; Jer 48:45 ; Lam 4:20 ).


The phrase “for now” is added in the translation to highlight the implied contrast between the present joy of the Gentiles ( 4:21 a) and their future judgment ( 4:21 b).


Heb “O Daughter of Edom.”


Heb “the cup.” Judgment is often depicted as a cup of wine that God forces a person to drink, causing him to lose consciousness, red wine drooling out of his mouth – resembling corpses lying on the ground as a result of the actual onslaught of the Lord ’s judgment. The drunkard will reel and stagger, causing bodily injury to himself – an apt metaphor to describe the devastating effects of God’s judgment. Just as a cup of poison kills all those who are forced to drink it, the cup of God’s wrath destroys all those who must drink it (e.g., Ps 75:9 ; Isa 51:17, 22 ; Jer 25:15, 17, 28; 49:12; 51:7 ; Lam 4:21 ; Ezek 23:33 ; Hab 2:16 ).


The imperfect verb “will pass” may also be a jussive, continuing the element of request, “let the cup pass…”


Heb “O Daughter Zion.”


Heb “your iniquity.” The noun עָוֹן (’ avon ) has a broad range of meanings, including: (1) iniquity, (2) guilt of iniquity, and (3) consequence or punishment for iniquity (cause-effect metonymical relation). The context suggests that “punishment for sin” is most appropriate here (e.g., Gen 4:13; 19:15 ; Exod 28:38, 43 ; Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; 10:17; 16:22; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; 22:16; 26:39, 41, 43 ; Num 5:31; 14:34; 18:1, 23; 30:15 ; 1 Sam 25:24; 28:10 ; 2 Sam 14:9 ; 2 Kgs 7:9 ; Job 10:14 ; Pss 31:11; 69:28; 106:43 ; Prov 5:22 ; Isa 5:18; 30:13; 40:2; 53:6, 11; 64:5, 6 ; Jer 51:6 ; Lam 4:22; 5:7 ; Ezek 4:4-6, 17; 7:16; 14:10; 18:19-20; 21:30, 34; 24:23; 32:27; 35:5; 39:23; 44:10, 12 ).


Heb “will be completed.” The perfect tense verb תַּם ( tam ), Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular from תָּמַם ( tamam , “to be complete”), could be taken as a precative perfect expressing a request (“may your punishment be complete”). The translation understands it as an example of the so-called “prophetic perfect.” The perfect tense often describes actions that are viewed as complete (normally past- or present-time events). When the perfect tense describes a future event, it often depicts it as “complete,” that is, “as good as done” or certain to take place from the viewpoint of the prophet. Thus, by using the perfect tense, Jeremiah may be emphasizing the certainty that the exile will eventually come to an end. It has also been viewed as a simple perfect “your punishment is ended.”


The verb לֹא יוֹסִיף ( lo ’ yosif ) could be taken as a precative perfect, making a request to God. See the note at the beginning of the verse.


The basic meaning of זָכַר ( zakhar ) is “to remember, call to mind” ( HALOT 270 s.v. I זכר ). Although often used of recollection of past events, זָכַר ( zakhar , “to remember”) can also describe consideration of present situations: “to consider, think about” something present (BDB 270 s.v. 5 ), hence “reflect on,” the most appropriate nuance here. Verses 1-6 describe the present plight of Jerusalem. The parallel requests הַבֵּיט וּרְאֵה ( habbet urÿ ’ eh , “Look and see!”) have a present-time orientation as well. See also 2:1; 3:19-20 .


Heb “Look!” Although often used in reference to visual perception, נָבַט ( navat , “to look”) can also refer to cognitive consideration and mental attention shown to a situation: “to regard” (e.g., 1 Sam 16:7 ; 2 Kgs 3:14 ), “to pay attention to, consider” (e.g., Isa 22:8 ; Isa 51:1, 2 ).


Although normally used in reference to visual sight, רָאָה ( ra ’ ah ) is often used in reference to cognitive processes and mental observation. See the note on “Consider” at 2:20 .


Heb “Our inheritance”; or “Our inherited possessions/property.” The term נַחֲלָה ( nakhalah ) has a range of meanings: (1) “inheritance,” (2) “portion, share” and (3) “possession, property.” The land of Canaan was given by the Lord to Israel as its inheritance ( Deut 4:21; 15:4; 19:10; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1 ; Josh 20:6 ) and distributed among the tribes, clans and families ( Num 16:14; 36:2 ; Deut 29:7 ; Josh 11:23; 13:6; 14:3, 13; 17:4, 6, 14; 19:49; 23:4 ; Judg 18:1 ; Ezek 45:1; 47:22, 29 ). Through the family, the family provided an inheritance (property) to its children with the first-born receiving pride of position ( Gen 31:14 ; Num 27:7-11; 36:3, 8 ; 1 Kgs 21:3, 4 ; Job 42:15 ; Prov 19:14 ; Ezek 46:16 ). Here, the parallelism between “our inheritance” and “our homes” would allow for the specific referent of the phrase “our inheritance” to be (1) land or (2) material possessions, or given the nature of the poetry in Lamentations, to carry both meanings at the same time.


Heb “our homes [are turned over] to foreigners.”


Heb “silver.” The term “silver” is a synecdoche of species (= silver) for general (= money).


Heb “We drink our water for silver.”


Heb “our wood comes for a price.”


Heb “We are hard-driven on our necks”


Heb “we have given the hand”; cf. NRSV “We have made a pact.” This is a Semitic idiom meaning “to make a treaty with” someone, placing oneself in a subservient position as vassal. The prophets criticized these treaties.


Heb “bread.” The term “bread” is a synecdoche of specific (= bread) for the general (= food).


Heb “fathers,” but here the term also refers to “forefathers,” i.e., more distant ancestors.


Heb “and are no more.”


The Kethib is written אֲנַחְנוּ (’ anakhnu , “we”) but the Qere reads וַאֲנַחְנוּ ( va ’ anakhnu , “but we”). The Qere is supported by many medieval Hebrew mss , as well as most of the ancient versions (Aramaic Targum, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate). The ו ( vav ) prefixed to וַאֲנַחְנוּ ( va ’ anakhnu ) functions either in a disjunctive sense (“but”) or resultant sense (“so”).


Heb “so we bear.”


Heb “their iniquities.” The noun עָוֹן (’ avon ) has a broad range of meanings, including: (1) iniquity, (2) guilt of iniquity, and (3) consequence or punishment for iniquity (cause-effect metonymical relation). The context suggests that “punishment for sin” is most appropriate here (e.g., Gen 4:13; 19:15 ; Exod 28:38, 43 ; Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; 10:17; 16:22; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; 22:16; 26:39, 41, 43 ; Num 5:31; 14:34; 18:1, 23; 30:15 ; 1 Sam 25:24; 28:10 ; 2 Sam 14:9 ; 2 Kgs 7:9 ; Job 10:14 ; Pss 31:11; 69:28; 106:43 ; Prov 5:22 ; Isa 5:18; 30:13; 40:2; 53:6, 11; 64:5, 6 ; Jer 51:6 ; Lam 4:22; 5:7 ; Ezek 4:4-6, 17; 7:16; 14:10; 18:19-20; 21:30, 34; 24:23; 32:27; 35:5; 39:23; 44:10, 12 ).


Heb “slaves.” While indicating that social structures are awry, the expression “slaves rule over us” might be an idiom for “tyrants rule over us.” This might find its counterpart in the gnomic truth that the most ruthless rulers are made of former slaves: “Under three things the earth quakes, under four it cannot bear up: under a slave when he becomes king” ( Prov 30:21-22 a).


Heb “hand.”


Heb “at the cost of our lives.” The preposition ב ( bet ) here denotes purchase price paid (e.g., Gen 30:16 ; Exod 34:20 ; 2 Sam 3:14; 24:24 ) (BDB 90 s.v. בְּ 3.a). The expression בְּנַפְשֵׁנוּ ( bÿnafshenu ) means “at the risk of our lives.” Similar expressions include בְנַפְשׁוֹ ( bÿnafsho , “at the cost of his life,” 1 Kgs 2:23 ; Prov 7:23 ) and בְּנַפְשׁוֹתָם ( bÿnafshotam , “at peril of their lives,” 2 Sam 23:17 ).


Heb “our soul.” The noun נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh , “soul”) is used as a metonymy (= soul) of association (= life) (e.g., Gen 44:30 ; Exod 21:23 ; 2 Sam 14:7 ; Jon 1:14 ).


Heb “because of the sword.” The term “sword” is a metonymy of instrument (= sword) for the persons who use the instrument (= murderers or marauders).


Heb “because of the burning heat of famine.”


Heb “ravished.”


Heb “elders were shown no respect.” The phrase “shown no respect” is an example of tapeinosis, a figurative expression of understatement: to show no respect to elders = to terribly mistreat elders.


The text is difficult. Word by word the MT has “young men hand mill(?) they take up” Perhaps it means “they take [our] young men for mill grinding,” or perhaps it means “the young men take up [the labor of] mill grinding.” This expression is an example of synecdoche where the mill stands for the labor at the mill and then that labor stands for performing menial physical labor as servants. The surface reading, “young men carry hand mills,” does not portray any great adversity for them. The Vulgate translates as an abusive sexual metaphor (see D. R. Hillers, Lamentations [AB], 99), but this gives no known parallel to the second part of the verse.


Heb “boys trip over wood.” This phrase makes little sense. The translation adopts D. R. Hillers’ suggestion ( Lamentations [AB], 99) of בְּעֶצֶב כָּשָׁלוּ ( bÿ ’ etsev kashalu ). Due to letter confusion and haplography the final ב ( bet ) of בְּעֶצֶב ( bÿ ’ etsev ) which looks like the כ ( kaf ) beginning the next word, was dropped. This verb can have an abstract noun after the preposition ב ( bet ) meaning “from, due to” rather than “over.”


Heb “the joy of our heart has ceased.”


Heb “are faint” or “are sick.” The adjective דַּוָּי ( davvay , “faint”) is used in reference to emotional sorrow (e.g., Isa 1:5 ; Lam 1:22 ; Jer 8:18 ). The related adjective דָּוֶה ( daveh ) means “(physically) sick” and “(emotionally) sad,” while the related verb דָּוָה ( davah ) means “to be sad.” The cognate Aramaic term means “sorrow,” and the cognate Syriac term refers to “misery.”


Heb “our eyes are dim.” The physical description of losing sight is metaphorical, perhaps for being blinded by tears or more abstractly for being unable to see (= envision) any hope. The collocation “darkened eyes” is too rare to clarify the nuance.


The phrase “through our tears” is added in the translation for the sake of clarification.


Heb “jackals.” The term “jackals” is a synecdoche of species (= jackals) for general (= wild animals).


The Hebrew verb “forget” often means “to not pay attention to, ignore,” just as the Hebrew “remember” often means “to consider, attend to.” sn The verbs “to forget” and “to remember” are often used figuratively in scripture when God is the subject, particularly in contexts of judgment (God forgets his people) and restoration of blessing (God remembers his people). In this case, the verb “to forget” functions as a hypocatastasis (implied comparison), drawing a comparison between God’s judgment and rejection of Jerusalem to a person forgetting that Jerusalem even exists. God’s judgment of Jerusalem was so intense and enduring that it seemed as though he had forgotten her. The synonymous parallelism makes this clear.


The Kethib is וְנָשׁוּב ( vÿnashuv , “and we will return,” ו [ vav ] conjunction + Qal imperfect 1st person common plural from שׁוּב [ shuv , “to return”]). The Qere is וְנָשׁוּבָה ( vÿnashuvah , “and let us return,” ו [ vav ] conjunction + Qal cohortative 1st person common plural from שׁוּב [ shuv , “to return”]). tn The cohortative after a volitive indicates purpose (“so that”). There is a wordplay in Hebrew between “Bring us back” (Hiphil imperative of שׁוּב [ shuv , “to return”]) and “let us return” (Qal imperfect of שׁוּב [ shuv , “to return”]). This repetition of the root שׁוּב ( shuv ) is significant; it depicts a reciprocal relationship between God’s willingness to allow the nation to return to him on one hand and its national repentance on the other.


Heb “our days.” The term “days” is a synecdoche of time (= days) for what is experienced within that time span (= life) (e.g., Gen 5:4, 8, 11; 6:3; 9:29; 11:32; 25:7; 47:8, 9 ; Deut 22:19, 29; 23:7 ; Josh 24:31 ; Judg 2:7, 18 ; 2 Sam 19:35 ; Job 7:1, 16, 18 ; Pss 8:9; 39:5, 6; 90:9, 10, 12, 14; 103:15 ; Prov 31:12 ; Eccl 2:3; 5:17, 19; 6:3 ).


Heb “as of old.”


The compound conjunction כִּי אִם ( ki ’ im ) functions to limit the preceding clause: “unless, or…” (e.g., Ruth 3:18 ; Isa 65:6 ; Amos 3:7 ) (BDB 474 s.v. 2 .a): “Bring us back to yourself… unless you have utterly rejected us” (as in the present translation) or “Bring us back to yourself… Or have you utterly rejected us?” It is Jeremiah’s plea that the Lord be willing to relent of his anger and restore a repentant nation to himself; however, Jeremiah acknowledges that this wished-for restoration might not be possible if the Lord has become so angry with Jerusalem/Judah that he is determined to reject the nation once and for all. Then, Jerusalem/Judah’s restoration would be impossible.


Heb “Or have you utterly rejected us?” The construction מָאֹס מְאַסְתָּנוּ ( ma ’ os mÿ ’ astanu ), Qal infinitive absolute + Qal perfect 2nd person masculine singular from מָאַס ( ma ’ as , “to reject”) is emphatic: the root מָאַס ( ma ’ as ) is repeated in these two verbal forms for emphasis.


Heb “Are you exceedingly angry with us?” The construction עַד־מְאֹד (’ ad-mÿ ’ od ) means “up to an abundance, to a great degree, exceedingly” (e.g., Gen 27:33, 34 ; 1 Sam 11:15; 25:36 ; 2 Sam 2:17 ; 1 Kgs 1:4 ; Pss 38:7, 9; 119:8, 43, 51, 107 ; Isa 64:9, 12 ; Lam 5:22 ; Dan 8:8; 11:25 ). Used in reference to God’s judgment, this phrase denotes total and irrevocable rejection by God and his refusal to forgive the sin and restore the people to a status under his grace and blessings, e.g., “Do not be angry beyond measure ( עַד־מְאֹד , ’ ad-mÿ ’ od ), O Lord ; do not remember our sins forever” ( Isa 64:9 ) and “Will you keep silent and punish us beyond measure ( עַד־מְאֹד , ’ ad-mÿ ’ od )?” ( Isa 64:12 ). The sentiment is expressed well in TEV, “Or have you rejected us forever? Is there no limit to your anger?” and CEV, “Or do you despise us so much that you don’t want us?”


Or “saw visions from God.” References to divine visions occur also in Ezek 8:3; 40:2


Or “to Ezekiel son of Buzi the priest.”


Heb “Chaldeans.” The name of the tribal group ruling Babylon, “Chaldeans” is used as metonymy for the whole empire of Babylon. The Babylonians worked with the Medes to destroy the Assyrian Empire near the end of the 7th century b.c . Then, over the next century, the Babylonians dominated the West Semitic states (such as Phoenicia, Aram, Moab, Edom, and Judah in the modern countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel) and made incursions into Egypt.


Or “power.” sn Hand in the OT can refer metaphorically to power, authority, or influence. In Ezekiel God’s “hand” being on the prophet is regularly associated with communication or a vision from God ( 3:14, 22; 8:1; 37:1; 40:1 ).


The word הִנֵּה ( hinneh , traditionally “behold”) indicates becoming aware of something and has been translated here as a verb.


Heb “fire taking hold of itself,” perhaps repeatedly. The phrase occurs elsewhere only in Exod 9:24 in association with a hailstorm. The LXX interprets the phrase as fire flashing like lightning, but it is possibly a self-sustaining blaze of divine origin. The LXX also reverses the order of the descriptors, i.e., “light went around it and fire flashed like lightning within it.”


Or “radiance.” The term also occurs in 1:27 b.


Or “was in it”; cf. LXX ἐν τῷ μέσῳ αὐτοῦ ( en tw mesw autou , “in its midst”).


The LXX translates חַשְׁמַל ( khashmal ) with the word ἤλεκτρον ( hlektron , “electrum”; so NAB), an alloy of silver and gold, perhaps envisioning a comparison to the glow of molten metal.


Heb “from its midst” ( מִתּוֹכָהּ , mitokhah ). The LXX reads ἐν τῷ μέσῳ ( en tw mesw , “in the midst of it”). The LXX also reads ἐν for מִתּוֹךְ ( mitokh ) in v. 4 . The translator of the LXX of Ezekiel either read בְּתוֹךְ ( bÿtokh , “within”) in his Hebrew exemplar or could not imagine how מִתּוֹךְ could make sense and so chose to use ἐν . The Hebrew would be understood by adding “ from its midst emerged the forms of four living beings.”


Heb “form, figure, appearance.”


The Hebrew term is feminine plural yet thirty-three of the forty-five pronominal suffixes and verbal references which refer to the living beings in the chapter are masculine plural. The grammatical vacillation between masculine and feminine plurals suggests the difficulty Ezekiel had in penning these words as he was overcome by the vision of God. In ancient Near Eastern sculpture very similar images of part-human, part-animal creatures serve as throne and sky bearers. For a discussion of ancient Near Eastern parallels, see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 1:26-31. Ezekiel’s vision is an example of contextualization, where God accommodates his self-revelation to cultural expectations and norms.


The MT reads “his hand” while many Hebrew mss as well as the Qere read “hands of.” Two similar Hebrew letters, vav and yod , have been confused.


Heb “They each went in the direction of one of his faces.”


The MT has an additional word at the beginning of v. 11 , וּפְנֵיהֶם ( ufÿnehem , “and their faces”), which is missing from the LXX. As the rest of the verse only applies to wings, “their faces” would have to somehow be understood in the previous clause. But this would be very awkward and is doubly problematic since “their faces” are already introduced as the topic at the beginning of v. 10 . The Hebrew scribe appears to have copied the phrase “and their faces and their wings” from v. 8 , where it introduces the content of 9-11. Only “and (as for) their wings” belongs here.


See the note on “straight ahead” in v. 9 .


Or “wind.”


The MT reads “and the form of the creatures” ( וּדְמוּת הַחַיּוֹת , udÿmut hakhayyot ). The LXX reads “and in the midst of the creatures,” suggesting an underlying Hebrew text of וּמִתּוֹךְ הַחַיּוֹת ( umittokh hakhayyot ). The subsequent description of something moving among the creatures supports the LXX.


The MT reads “and the form of the creatures – their appearance was like burning coals of fire.” The LXX reads “in the midst of the creatures was a sight like burning coals of fire.” The MT may have adjusted “appearance” to “their appearance” to fit their reading of the beginning of the verse (see the tc note on “in the middle”). See M. Greenberg, Ezekiel (AB), 1:46.


The LXX omits v. 14 and may well be correct. The verse may be a later explanatory gloss of the end of v. 13 which was copied into the main text. See M. Greenberg, Ezekiel (AB), 1:46. tn Lit., “like the appearance of lightning.” The Hebrew term translated “lightning” occurs only here in the OT. In postbiblical Hebrew the term refers to a lightning flash.


The MT adds “at the living beings” which is absent from the LXX.


The Hebrew word may be translated either “earth” or “ground” in this context.


This word is omitted from the LXX.


Heb “Tarshish stone.” The meaning of this term is uncertain. The term has also been translated “topaz” (NEB); “beryl” (KJV, NASB, NRSV); or “chrysolite” (RSV, NIV).


Or “like a wheel at right angles to another wheel.” Some envision concentric wheels here, while others propose “a globe-like structure in which two wheels stand at right angles” (L. C. Allen, Ezekiel [WBC], 1:33-34). The description given in v. 17 favors the latter idea.


The MT reads וְיִרְאָה לָהֶם ( vÿyir ’ ah lahem , “and fear belonged to them”). In a similar vision in 10:12 the wheels are described as having spokes ( יִדֵיהֶם , yideyhem ). That parallel would suggest יָדוֹת ( yadot ) here (written יָדֹת without the mater ). By positing both a ד / ר ( dalet / resh ) confusion and a ת / ה ( hey / khet ) confusion the form was read as וְיָרֵה ( vÿyareh ) and was then misunderstood and subsequently written as וְיִרְאָה ( vÿyir ’ ah ) in the MT. The reading וְיִרְאָה does not seem to fit the context well, though in English it can be made to sound as if it does. See W. H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC), 8-9. The LXX reads καὶ εἶδον αὐτά ( kai eidon auta , “and I saw”), which assumes וָאֵרֶא ( va ’ ere ’). The existing consonants of the MT may also be read as “it was visible to them.”


Or “wind”; the same Hebrew word can be translated as either “wind” or “spirit” depending on the context.


The MT adds the additional phrase “the spirit would go,” which seems unduly redundant here and may be dittographic.


Or “wind.” The Hebrew is difficult since the text presents four creatures and then talks about “the spirit” (singular) of “the living being” (singular). According to M. Greenberg ( Ezekiel [AB], 1:45) the Targum interprets this as “will.” Greenberg views this as the spirit of the one enthroned above the creatures, but one would not expect the article when the one enthroned has not yet been introduced.


The LXX reads “when it went, they went; when it stood, they stood.” tn Heb “when they went, they went; when they stood, they stood.”


Or “like a dome” (NCV, NRSV, TEV).


Or “like crystal” (NRSV, NLT).


Heb “each had two wings covering and each had two wings covering,” a case of dittography. On the analogy of v. 11 and the support of the LXX, which reads the same for v. 11 and this verse, one should perhaps read “each had two wings touching another being and each had two wings covering.”


Heb “Shaddai” (probably meaning “one of the mountain”), a title that depicts God as the sovereign ruler of the world who dispenses justice. The Old Greek translation omitted the phrase “voice of the Almighty.”


The only other occurrence of the Hebrew word translated “tumult” is in Jer 11:16 . It indicates a noise like that of the turmoil of a military camp or the sound of an army on the march.


The MT continues “when they stood still they lowered their wings,” an apparent dittography from the end of v. 24 . The LXX commits haplography by homoioteleuton, leaving out vv. 25 b and 26a by skipping from רֹאשָׁם ( rosham ) in v. 25 to רֹאשָׁם in v. 26 .


See Ezek 1:4 .


The LXX lacks this phrase. Its absence from the LXX may be explained as a case of haplography resulting from homoioteleuton, skipping from כְּמַרְאֵה ( kÿmar ’ eh ) to מִמַּרְאֵה ( mimmar ’ eh ). On the other hand, the LXX presents a much more balanced verse structure when it is recognized that the final words of this verse belong in the next sentence.


The vision closes with the repetition of the verb “I saw” from the beginning of the vision in 1:4 .


The phrase “as he spoke to me” is absent from the LXX.


Or “spirit.” NIV has “the Spirit,” but the absence of the article in the Hebrew text makes this unlikely. Elsewhere in Ezekiel the Lord’s Spirit is referred to as “the Spirit of the Lord” ( 11:5; 37:1 ), “the Spirit of God” ( 11:24 ), or “my (that is, the Lord’s) Spirit” ( 36:27; 37:14; 39:29 ). Some identify the “spirit” of 2:2 as the spirit that energized the living beings, however, that “spirit” is called “the spirit” ( 1:12, 20 ) or “the spirit of the living beings” ( 1:20-21; 10:17 ). Still others see the term as referring to an impersonal “spirit” of strength or courage, that is, the term may also be understood as a disposition or attitude. The Hebrew word often refers to a wind in Ezekiel ( 1:4; 5:10, 12; 12:4; 13:11, 13; 17:10, 21; 19:12; 27:26; 37:9 ). In 37:5-10 a “breath” originates in the “four winds” and is associated with the Lord’s life-giving breath (see v. 14). This breath enters into the dry bones and gives them life. In a similar fashion the breath of 2:2 (see also 3:24 ) energizes paralyzed Ezekiel. Breath and wind are related. On the one hand it is a more normal picture to think of breath rather than wind entering someone, but since wind represents an external force it seems more likely for wind rather than breath to stand someone up (unless we should understand it as a disposition). It may be that one should envision the breath of the speaker moving like a wind to revive Ezekiel, helping him to regain his breath and invigorating him to stand. A wind also transports the prophet from one place to another ( 3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5 ).


The Hebrew reads “sons of,” while the LXX reads “house,” implying the more common phrase in Ezekiel. Either could be abbreviated with the first letter ב ( bet ). In preparation for the characterization “house of rebellion,” in vv. 5, 6, and 8 , “house” is preferred (L. C. Allen, Ezekiel [WBC], 1:10 and W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel [Hermeneia], 2:564-65).


Heb “to the rebellious nations.” The phrase “to the rebellious nations” is omitted in the LXX. Elsewhere in Ezekiel the singular word “nation” is used for Israel ( 36:13-15; 37:22 ). Here “nations” may have the meaning of “tribes” or refer to the two nations of Israel and Judah.


This word is omitted from the LXX. tn The Hebrew term used here is the strongest word available for expressing a covenant violation. The word is used in the diplomatic arena to express a treaty violation ( 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7 ).


Heb “sons.” The word choice may reflect treaty idiom, where the relationship between an overlord and his subjects can be described as that of father and son.


Heb “stern of face and hard of heart.” The phrases “stern of face” and “hard of heart” are lacking in the LXX.


The phrase “thus says [the Lord ]” occurs 129 times in Ezekiel; the announcement is identical to the way messengers often introduced their messages ( Gen 32:5; 45:9 ; Exod 5:10 ; Num 20:14 ; Judg 11:15 ).


Heb “they”; the phrase “And as for them” has been used in the translation for clarity.


The Hebrew word implies obedience rather than mere hearing or paying attention.


This Hebrew adjective is also used to describe the Israelites in Num 17:25 and Isa 30:9 .


The Hebrew term occurs only here in the OT.


The Hebrew term is found elsewhere in the OT only in Ezek 28:24 . sn Here thorns may be a figure for hostility ( Ezek 28:24 ; Mic 7:4 ).


Heb “of their faces.”


Heb “on the face.”


Heb “eat what you find.”


Heb “I ate,” a first common singular preterite plus paragogic he ( ה ). The ancient versions read “I ate it,” which is certainly the meaning in the context, and indicates they read the he as a third feminine singular pronominal suffix. The Masoretes typically wrote a mappiq in the he for the pronominal suffix but apparently missed this one. sn I ate it . A similar idea of consuming God’s word is found in Jer 15:16 and Rev 10:10 , where it is also compared to honey and may be specifically reminiscent of this text.


Heb “deep of lip” (in the sense of incomprehensible).


Heb “heavy of tongue.” Similar language occurs in Exod 4:10 ; Isa 33:19 .


The conjunction “but” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied from the context.


Heb “hear.”


The MT reads “if not” but most ancient versions translate only “if.” The expression occurs with this sense in Isa 5:9; 14:24 . See also Ezek 34:8; 36:5; 38:19 .


Heb “hard of forehead and stiff of heart.”


Heb “strong, resolute.”


The Hebrew term translated “diamond” is parallel to “iron” in Jer 17:1 . The Hebrew uses two terms which are both translated at times as “flint,” but here one is clearly harder than the other. The translation “diamond” attempts to reflect this distinction in English.


Heb “to the sons of your people.”


This translation accepts the emendation suggested in BHS of בְּרוּם ( bÿrum ) for בָּרוּךְ ( barukh ). The letters mem ( מ ) and kaph ( כ ) were easily confused in the old script while בָּרוּךְ (“blessed be”) both implies a quotation which is out of place here and also does not fit the later phrase, “from its place,” which requires a verb of motion.