The words “of her wrath” are not in the Hebrew text but are supplied in the translation to help those readers who are not familiar with the figure of the “cup of the Lord ’s wrath.” sn The figure of the cup of the Lord ’s wrath invoked in Jer 25:15-29 is invoked again here and Babylon is identified as the agent through which the wrath of the Lord is visited on the other nations. See the study note on 25:15 for explanation and further references.


Heb “upon the grounds of such conditions the nations have gone mad.”


The verbs in this verse and the following are all in the Hebrew perfect tense, a tense that often refers to a past action or a past action with present results. However, as the translator’s notes have indicated, the prophets use this tense to view the actions as if they were as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). The stance here is ideal, viewed as already accomplished.


The words “Foreigners living there will say” are not in the text but are implicit from the third line. These words are generally assumed by the commentaries and are explicitly added in TEV and NCV which are attempting to clarify the text for the average reader.


Heb “Leave/abandon her.” However, it is smoother in the English translation to make this verb equivalent to the cohortative that follows.


This is an admittedly very paraphrastic translation that tries to make the figurative nuance of the Hebrew original understandable for the average reader. The Hebrew text reads: “For her judgment [or punishment (cf. BDB 1078 s.v. מִשְׁפָּט 1.f) = ‘execution of judgment’] touches the heavens, and is lifted up as far as the clouds.” The figure of hyperbole or exaggeration is being used here to indicate the vastness of Babylon’s punishment which is the reason to escape (vv. 6, 9 c). For this figure see Deut 1:28 in comparison with Num 13:28 and see also Deut 9:1 . In both of the passages in Deut it refers to an exaggeration about the height of the walls of fortified cities. The figure also may be a play on Gen 11:4 where the nations gather in Babylon to build a tower that reaches to the skies. The present translation has interpreted the perfects here as prophetic because it has not happened yet or they would not be encouraging one another to leave and escape. For the idea here compare 50:16 .


The words “The exiles from Judah will say” are not in the text but are implicit from the words that follow. They are supplied in the translation to clearly identify for the reader the referent of “us.”


There is some difference of opinion as to the best way to render the Hebrew expression here. Literally it means “brought forth our righteousnesses.” BDB 842 s.v. צְדָקָה 7.b interprets this of the “righteous acts” of the people of Judah and compares the usage in Isa 64:6 ; Ezek 3:20; 18:24; 33:13 . However, Judah’s acts of righteousness (or more simply, their righteousness) was scarcely revealed in their deliverance. Most of the English versions and commentaries refer to “vindication” i.e., that the Lord has exonerated or proven Israel’s claims to be true. However, that would require more explanation than the idea of “deliverance” which is a perfectly legitimate usage of the term (cf. BDB 842 s.v. צְדָקָה 6.a and compare the usage in Isa 46:13; 51:6, 8; 56:1 ). The present translation interprets the plural form here as a plural of intensity or amplification (GKC 397-98 §124. e ) and the suffix as a genitive of advantage ( IBHS 147 §9.5.2e). This interpretation is also reflected in REB and God’s Word.


The meaning of this word is debated. The most thorough discussion of this word including etymology and usage in the OT and Qumran is in HALOT 1409-10 s.v. שֶׁלֶט , where the rendering “quiver” is accepted for all the uses of this word in the OT. For a more readily accessible discussion for English readers see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 2:422-23. The meaning “quiver” fits better with the verb “fill” than the meaning “shield” which is adopted in BDB 1020 s.v. שֶׁלֶט . “Quiver” is the meaning adopted also in NRSV, REB, NAB, and NJPS.


Heb “The Lord has stirred up the spirit of…” The verb is rendered here as a prophetic perfect. The rendering “arouse a spirit of hostility” is an attempt to render some meaning to the phrase and not simply ignore the word “spirit” as many of the modern English versions do. For a fuller discussion including cross references see the translator’s note on v. 1 .


Heb “For it is the vengeance of the Lord , vengeance for his temple.” As in the parallel passage in 50:28 , the genitival construction has been expanded in the translation to clarify for the English reader what the commentaries in general agree is involved. sn Verse 11 c-f appears to be a parenthetical or editorial comment by Jeremiah to give some background for the attack which is summoned in vv. 11-12 .


Heb “Raise a banner against the walls of Babylon.”


Heb “Strengthen the watch.”


Heb “Station the guards.”


Heb “Prepare ambushes.” sn The commands are here addressed to the kings of the Medes to fully blockade the city by posting watchmen and setting men in ambush to prevent people from escaping from the city (cf. 2 Kgs 25:4 ).


Heb “For the Lord has both planned and done what he said concerning the people living in Babylon,” i.e., “he has carried out what he planned.” Here is an obvious case where the perfects are to be interpreted as prophetic; the commands imply that the attack is still future.


Heb “You who live upon [or beside] many waters, rich in treasures, your end has come, the cubit of your cutting off.” The sentence has been restructured and paraphrased to provide clarity for the average reader. The meaning of the last phrase is debated. For a discussion of the two options see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 2:423. Most modern commentaries and English versions see an allusion to the figure in Isa 38:12 where the reference is to the end of life compared to a tapestry which is suddenly cut off from the loom. Hence, NRSV renders the last line as “the thread of your life is cut” and TEV renders “its thread of life is cut.” That idea is accepted also in HALOT 141 s.v. בצע Qal.1.


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of this rendering see the study note on 2:19 .


Heb “has sworn by himself.” See the study note on 22:5 for background.


Heb “I will fill you with men like locusts.” The “you” refers to Babylon (Babylon is both the city and the land it ruled, Babylonia) which has been alluded to in the preceding verses under descriptive titles. The words “your land” have been used because of the way the preceding verse has been rendered, alluding to people rather than to the land or city. The allusion of “men” is, of course, to enemy soldiers and they are here compared to locusts both for their quantity and their destructiveness (see Joel 1:4 ). For the use of the particles כִּי אִם ( ki ’ im ) to introduce an oath see BDB 475 s.v. כִּי אִם 2.c and compare usage in 2 Kgs 5:20 ; one would normally expect אִם לֹא (cf. BDB 50 s.v. אִם 1.b[2]).


The participle here is intended to be connected with “ Lord who rules over all” in the preceding verse. The passage is functioning to underline the Lord ’s power to carry out what he has sworn in contrast to the impotence of their idols who will be put to shame and be dismayed ( 50:2 ).


Heb “For he is the former of all [things] and the tribe of his inheritance.” This is the major exception to the verbatim repetition of 10:12-16 in 51:15-19 . The word “Israel” appears before “the tribe of his inheritance” in 10:16 . It is also found in a number of Hebrew mss , in the Lucianic recension of the LXX (the Greek version), the Aramaic Targums, and the Latin Vulgate. Most English versions and many commentaries assume it here. However, it is easier to explain why the word is added in a few of the versions and some Hebrew than to explain why it was left out. It is probable that the word is not original here because the addressees are different and the function of this hymnic piece is slightly different (see the study note on the next line for details). Here it makes good sense to understand that the Lord is being called the creator of the special tribe of people he claims as his own property (see the study note on the first line of 10:16 ).


Or “Media.” The referent is not identified in the text; the text merely says “you are my war club.” Commentators in general identify the referent as Babylon because Babylon has been referred to as a hammer in 50:23 and Babylon is referred to in v. 25 as a “destroying mountain” (compare v. 20 d). However, S. R. Driver, Jeremiah , 317, n. c maintains that v. 24 speaks against this. It does seem a little inconsistent to render the vav consecutive perfect at the beginning of v. 24 as future while rendering those in vv. 20 b-23 as customary past. However, change in person from second masculine singular (vv. 20 b-23) to the second masculine plural in “before your very eyes” and its position at the end of the verse after “which they did in Zion” argue that a change in address occurs there. Driver has to ignore the change in person and take “before your eyes” with the verb “repay” at the beginning to maintain the kind of consistency he seeks. The vav ( ו ) consecutive imperfect can be used for either the customary past (GKC 335-36 §112. dd with cross reference back to GKC 331-32 §112. e ) or the future (GKC 334 §112. x ). Hence the present translation has followed the majority of commentaries (and English versions like TEV, NCV, CEV, NIrV) in understanding the referent as Babylon and v. 24 being a transition to vv. 25-26 (cf., e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 356-57, and J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 756-57). If the referent is understood as Media then the verbs in vv. 20-23 should all be translated as futures. See also the translator’s note on v. 24 .


This Hebrew word ( מַפֵּץ , mappets ) only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible, but its meaning is assured from the use of the verbs that follow which are from the same root ( נָפַץ , nafats ) and there is a cognate noun מַפָּץ ( mappats ) that occurs in Ezek 9:2 in the sense of weapon of “smashing.”


Heb “I smash nations with you.” This same structure is repeated throughout the series in vv. 20 c-23.


Heb “horse and its rider.” However, the terms are meant as generic or collective singulars (cf. GKC 395 §123. b ) and are thus translated by the plural. The same thing is true of all the terms in vv. 21-23 b. The terms in vv. 20 c-d, 23c are plural.


These two words are Akkadian loan words into Hebrew which often occur in this pairing (cf. Ezek 23:6, 12, 23 ; Jer 51:23, 28, 57 ). BDB 688 s.v. סָגָן ( sagan ) gives “prefect, ruler” as the basic definition for the second term but neither works very well in a modern translation because “prefect” would be unknown to most readers and “ruler” would suggest someone along the lines of a king, which these officials were not. The present translation has chosen “leaders” by default, assuming there is no other term that would be any more appropriate in light of the defects noted in “prefect” and “ruler.”


Or “Media, you are my war club…I will use you to smash…leaders. So before your very eyes I will repay…for all the wicked things they did in Zion.” For explanation see the translator’s note on v. 20 . The position of the phrase “before your eyes” at the end of the verse after “which they did in Zion” and the change in person from second masculine singular in vv. 20 b-23 (“I used you to smite”) to second masculine plural in “before your eyes” argue that a change in referent/addressee occurs in this verse. To maintain that the referent in vv. 20-23 is Media/Cyrus requires that this position and change in person be ignored; “before your eyes” then is attached to “I will repay.” The present translation follows J. A. Thompson ( Jeremiah [NICOT], 757) and F. B. Huey ( Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC], 423) in seeing the referent as the Judeans who had witnessed the destruction of Zion/Jerusalem. The word “Judean” has been supplied for the sake of identifying the referent for the modern reader.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


The word “Babylon” is not in the text but is universally understood as the referent. It is supplied in the translation here to clarify the referent for the sake of the average reader.


Heb “I will reach out my hand against you.” See the translator’s note on 6:12 for explanation.


Heb “I am against you, oh destroying mountain that destroys all the earth. I will reach out my hand against you and roll you down from the cliffs and make you a mountain of burning.” The interpretation adopted here follows the lines suggested by S. R. Driver, Jeremiah , 318, n. c and reflected also in BDB 977 s.v. שְׂרֵפָה . Babylon is addressed as a destructive mountain because it is being compared to a volcano. The Lord , however, will make it a “burned-out mountain,” i.e., an extinct volcano which is barren and desolate. This interpretation seems to this translator to fit the details of the text more consistently than alternative ones which separate the concept of “destroying/destructive” from “mountain” and explain the figure of the mountain to refer to the dominating political position of Babylon and the reference to a “mountain of burning” to be a “burned [or burned over] mountain.” The use of similes in place of metaphors makes it easier for the modern reader to understand the figures and also more easily incorporates the dissonant figure of “rolling you down from the cliffs” which involves the figure of personification. sn The figure here involves comparing Babylon to a destructive volcano which the Lord makes burned-out, i.e., he will destroy her power to destroy. The figure of personification is also involved because the Lord is said to roll her off the cliffs; that would not be applicable to a mountain.


This is a fairly literal translation of the original which reads “No one will take from you a stone for a cornerstone nor a stone for foundations.” There is no unanimity of opinion in the commentaries, many feeling that the figure of the burned mountain continues and others feeling that the figure here shifts to a burned city whose stones are so burned that they are useless to be used in building. The latter is the interpretation adopted here (see, e.g., F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC], 423; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 2:426; NCV). sn The figure here shifts to that of a burned-up city whose stones cannot be used for building. Babylon will become a permanent heap of ruins.


Heb “Raise up a standard on the earth. Blow a ram’s horn among the nations. Consecrate nations against her.” According to BDB 651 s.v. נֵס 1, the raising of a standard was a signal of a war – a summons to assemble and attack (see usage in Isa 5:26; 13:2 ; Jer 51:12 ). The “blowing of the ram’s horn” was also a signal to rally behind a leader and join in an attack (see Judg 3:27; 6:34 ). For the meaning of “consecrate nations against her” see the study note on 6:4 . The usage of this phrase goes back to the concept of holy war where soldiers had to be consecrated for battle by the offering of a sacrifice. The phrase has probably lost its ritual usage in later times and become idiomatic for making necessary preparations for war.


The translation of this line is uncertain because it includes a word which only occurs here and in Nah 3:17 where it is found in parallelism with a word that is only used once and whose meaning in turn is uncertain. It is probably related to the Akkadian word tupsharru which refers to a scribe ( Heb “a tablet writer”). The exact function of this official is disputed. KBL 356 s.v. טִפְסָר relates it to a “recruiting officer,” a sense which is reflected in NAB. The majority of modern English versions render “commander” or “marshal” following the suggestion of BDB 381 s.v. טִפְסָר . G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers ( Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 351) translate “recruiter (scribe)” but explain the function on p. 371 as that of recording the plunder captured in war. The rendering here follows that of TEV and God’s Word and is the nuance suggested by the majority of modern English versions who rendered “appoint a marshal/commander against it.”


Heb “Bring up horses like bristly locusts.” The meaning of the Hebrew word “bristly” ( סָמָר , samar ) is uncertain because the word only occurs here. It is generally related to a verb meaning “to bristle” which occurs in Job 4:15 and Ps 119:120 . Exactly what is meant by “bristly” in connection with “locust” is uncertain, though most relate it to a stage of the locust in which its wings are still encased in a rough, horny casing. J. A. Thompson ( Jeremiah [NICOT], 759) adds that this is when the locust is very destructive. However, no other commentary mentions this. Therefore the present translation omits the word because it is of uncertain meaning and significance. For a fuller discussion of the way the word has been rendered see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 2:427.


See the first translator’s note on 51:27 and compare also 6:4 and the study note there.


See the translator’s note at 51:23 for the rendering of the terms here.


The Hebrew text has a confusing switch of possessive pronouns in this verse: “Consecrate the nations against her, the kings of the Medes, her governors and prefects, and all the land of his dominion.” This has led to a number of different resolutions. The LXX (the Greek version) renders the word “kings” as singular and levels all the pronouns to “his,” paraphrasing the final clause and combining it with “king of the Medes” to read “and of all the earth.” The Latin Vulgate levels them all to the third masculine plural, and this is followed by the present translation as well as a number of other modern English versions (NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NCV). The ASV and NJPS understand the feminine to refer to Media, i.e., “her governors and all her prefects” and understand the masculine in the last line to be a distributive singular referring back to the lands each of the governors and prefects ruled over. This is probably correct but since governors and prefects refer to officials appointed over provinces and vassal states it amounts to much the same interpretation that the Latin Vulgate, the present translation, and other modern English versions have given.


Heb “For the plans of the Lord have been carried out to make the land of Babylon…” The passive has been turned into an active and the sentence broken up to better conform with contemporary English style. For the meaning of the verb קוּם ( qum ) in the sense used here see BDB 878 s.v. קוּם 7.g and compare the usage in Prov 19:21 and Isa 46:10 .


The verbs in this verse and v. 30 are all in the past tense in Hebrew, in the tense that views the action as already as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). The verb in v. 31 a, however, is imperfect, viewing the action as future; the perfects that follow are all dependent on that future. Verse 33 looks forward to a time when Babylon will be harvested and trampled like grain on the threshing floor and the imperatives imply a time in the future. Hence the present translation has rendered all the verbs in vv. 29-30 as future.


Heb “Their strength is dry.” This is a figurative nuance of the word “dry” which BDB 677 s.v. נָשַׁת Qal.1 explain as meaning “fails.” The idea of “strength to do battle” is implicit from the context and is supplied in the translation here for clarity.


Heb “They have become women.” The metaphor has been turned into a simile and the significance of the comparison drawn out for the sake of clarity. See 50:37 for the same figure.


Heb “Her dwelling places have been set on fire. Her bars [i.e., the bars on the gates of her cities] have been broken.” The present translation has substituted the word “gates” for “bars” because the intent of the figure is to show that the bars of the gates have been broken giving access to the city. “Gates” makes it easier for the modern reader to understand the figure.


Heb “Runner will run to meet runner and…” The intent is to portray a relay of runners carrying the news that follows on in vv. 31 d-33 to the king of Babylon. The present translation attempts to spell out the significance.


Heb “Runner will run to meet runner and messenger to meet messenger to report to the king of Babylon that his city has been taken in [its] entirety.” There is general agreement among the commentaries that the first two lines refer to messengers converging on the king of Babylon from every direction bringing news the sum total of which is reported in the lines that follow. For the meaning of the last phrase see BDB 892 s.v. קָצֶה 3 and compare the usage in Gen 19:4 and Isa 56:11 . The sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.


The words “They will report that” have been supplied in the translation to show the linkage between this verse and the previous one. This is still a part of the report of the messengers. The meaning of the word translated “reed marshes” has seemed inappropriate to some commentators because it elsewhere refers to “pools.” However, all the commentaries consulted agree that the word here refers to the reedy marshes that surrounded Babylon. (For a fuller discussion regarding the meaning of this word and attempts to connect it with a word meaning “fortress” see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 2:427.) sn Babylon was a city covering over a thousand acres. The city itself was surrounded by two walls, the inner one 21 feet (6.3 m) thick and the outer 11 feet (3.3 m) thick. To provide further security, walls were built to the south and east of the city and irrigation ditches and canals north and east of the city were flooded to prevent direct access to the city. The reference to “fords” here is to the river crossings of the Euphrates River which ran right through the city and the crossings at the ditches and canals. The reference to the “reed marshes” refers to the low lying areas around the city where reeds grew. The burning of the reed marshes would deprive any fugitives of places to hide and flush out any who had already escaped.


Heb “Daughter Babylon will be [or is; there is no verb and the tense has to be supplied from the context] like a threshing floor at the time one tramples it. Yet a little while and the time of the harvest will come for her.” It is generally agreed that there are two figures here: one of leveling the threshing floor and stamping it into a smooth, hard surface and the other of the harvest where the grain is cut, taken to the threshing floor, and threshed by trampling the sheaves of grain to loosen the grain from the straw, and finally winnowed by throwing the mixture into the air (cf., e.g., J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 760). The translation has sought to convey those ideas as clearly as possible without digressing too far from the literal. sn There are two figures involved here: one of the threshing floor being leveled and stamped down hard and smooth and the other of the harvest. At harvest time the stalks of grain were cut down, gathered in sheaves, taken to the harvest floor where the grain was loosened from the husk by driving oxen and threshing sleds over them. The grain was then separated from the mixture of grain, straw and husks by repeatedly throwing it in the air and letting the wind blow away the lighter husks and ground-up straw. The figure of harvest is often used of judgment in the OT. See, e.g., Joel 3:13 ( 4:13 Hebrew text) and Hos 6:11 and compare also Mic 4:12-13 and Jer 51:2 where different steps in this process are also used figuratively in connection with judgment. Babylon will be leveled to the ground and its people cut down in judgment.


This verse is extremely difficult to translate because of the shifting imagery, the confusion over the meaning of one of the verbs, and the apparent inconsistency of the pronominal suffixes here with those in the following verse which everyone agrees is connected with it. The pronominal suffixes are first common plural but the versions all read them as first common singular which the Masoretes also do in the Qere . That reading has been followed here for consistency with the next verse which identifies the speaker as the person living in Zion and the personified city of Jerusalem. The Hebrew text reads: “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon devoured me [cf. 50:7, 17 ] and threw me into confusion. He set me down an empty dish. He swallowed me like a monster from the deep [cf. BDB 1072 s.v. תַּנִּין 3 and compare usage in Isa 27:1 ; Ezek 29:3; 32:2 ]. He filled his belly with my dainties. He rinsed me out [cf. BDB s.v. דּוּח Hiph.2 and compare the usage in Isa 4:4 ].” The verb “throw into confusion” has proved troublesome because its normal meaning does not seem appropriate. Hence various proposals have been made to understand it in a different sense. The present translation has followed W. L. Holladay ( Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 2:428) in understanding the verb to mean “disperse” or “route” (see NAB). The last line has seemed out of place and has often been emended to read “he has spewed me out” (so NIV, NRSV, a reading that presupposes הִדִּיחָנִי [ hiddikhani ] for הֱדִיחָנִי [ hedikhani ]). The reading of the MT is not inappropriate if it is combined with the imagery of an empty jar and hence is retained here (see F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC], 425, n. 59; H. Freedman, Jeremiah [SoBB], 344; NJPS). The lines have been combined to keep the imagery together. sn The speaker in this verse and the next is the personified city of Jerusalem. She laments her fate at the hands of the king of Babylon and calls down a curse on Babylon and the people who live in Babylonia. Here Nebuchadnezzar is depicted as a monster of the deep who has devoured Jerusalem, swallowed her down, and filled its belly with her riches, leaving her an empty dish, which has been rinsed clean.


Heb “‘The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon,’ says the one living in Zion. ‘My blood be upon those living in Chaldea,’ says Jerusalem.” For the usage of the genitive here in the phrase “violence done to me and my relatives” see GKC 414 §128. a (a construct governing two objects) and IBHS 303 §16.4d (an objective genitive). For the nuance of “pay” in the sense of retribution see BDB 756 s.v. עַל 7.a(b) and compare the usage in Judg 9:24 . For the use of שְׁאֵר ( shÿ ’ er ) in the sense of “relatives” see BDB 985 s.v. שְׁאֵר 2 and compare NJPS. For the use of “blood” in this idiom see BDB 197 s.v. דָּם 2.k and compare the usage in 2 Sam 4:11 ; Ezek 3:18, 20 . The lines have been reversed for better English style.


Heb “I will avenge your vengeance [= I will take vengeance for you; the phrase involves a verb and a cognate accusative].” The meaning of the phrase has been spelled out in more readily understandable terms.


Heb “I will dry up her [Babylon’s] sea and make her fountain dry.” “Their” has been substituted for “her” because “Babylonians” has been inserted in the previous clause and is easier to understand than the personification of Babylon = “her.” sn The reference to their sea is not clear. Most interpreters understand it to be a figurative reference to the rivers and canals surrounding Babylon. But some feel it refers to the reservoir that the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, Queen Nictoris, had made.


Heb “a heap of ruins, a haunt for jackals.” Compare 9:11 .


Heb “without an inhabitant.”


Heb “They [the Babylonians] all roar like lions. They growl like the cubs of lions.” For the usage of יַחְדָו ( yakhdav ) meaning “all” see Isa 10:8; 18:6; 41:20 . The translation strives to convey in clear terms what is the generally accepted meaning of the simile (cf., e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 358, and J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 762).


Heb “When they are hot.”


The translation follows the suggestion of KBL 707 s.v. עָלַז and a number of modern commentaries (e.g., Bright, J. A. Thompson, and W. L. Holladay) in reading יְעֻלְּפוּ ( ye ’ ullÿfu ) for יַעֲלֹזוּ ( ya ’ alozu ) in the sense of “swoon away” or “grow faint” (see KBL 710 s.v. עָלַף Pual). That appears to be the verb that the LXX (the Greek version) was reading when they translated καρωθῶσιν ( karwqwsin , “they will be stupefied”). For parallel usage KBL cites Isa 51:20 . This fits the context much better than “they will exult” in the Hebrew text.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “I will bring them down like lambs to be slaughtered, like rams and he goats.” sn This statement is highly ironic in light of the fact that the Babylonians were compared to lions and lion cubs (v. 38 ). Here they are like lambs, rams, and male goats which are to be lead off to be slaughtered.


Heb “How Sheshach has been captured, the pride of the whole earth has been seized! How Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations!” For the usage of “How” here see the translator’s note on 50:23 . sn This is part of a taunt song (see Isa 14:4 ) and assumes prophetically that the city has already been captured. The verbs in vv. 41-43 a are all in the Hebrew tense that the prophets often use to look at the future as “a done deal” (the so-called prophetic perfect). In v. 44 which is still a part of this picture the verbs are in the future. The Hebrew tense has been retained here and in vv. 42-43 but it should be remembered that the standpoint is prophetic and future.


For the meaning “multitude” here rather than “tumult” see BDB 242 s.v. הָמוֹן 3.c, where reference is made that this refers to a great throng of people under the figure of an overwhelming mass of waves. The word is used of a multitude of soldiers, or a vast army in 1 Sam 14:16 ; 1 Kgs 20:13, 18 (cf. BDB 242 s.v. הָמוֹן 3.a for further references).


Heb “The sea has risen up over Babylon. She has been covered by the multitude of its waves.” sn This is a poetic and figurative reference to the enemies of Babylon, the foe from the north (see 50:3, 9, 51:27-28 ), which has attacked Babylon in wave after wave. This same figure is used in Isa 17:12 . In Isa 8:7-8 the king of Assyria (and his troops) are compared to the Euphrates which rises up and floods over the whole land of Israel and Judah. This same figure, but with application to Babylon, is assumed in Jer 47:2-3 . In Jer 46:7-8 the same figure is employed in a taunt of Egypt which had boasted that it would cover the earth like the flooding of the Nile.


Heb “Its towns have become a desolation, [it has become] a dry land and a desert, a land which no man passes through them [referring to “her towns”] and no son of man [= human being] passes through them.” Here the present translation has followed the suggestion of BHS and a number of the modern commentaries in deleting the second occurrence of the word “land,” in which case the words that follow are not a relative clause but independent statements. A number of modern English versions appear to ignore the third feminine plural suffixes which refer back to the cities and refer the statements that follow to the land.


Heb “And I will punish Bel in Babylon…And the nations will not come streaming to him anymore. Yea, the walls of Babylon have fallen.” The verbs in the first two lines are vav consecutive perfects and the verb in the third line is an imperfect all looking at the future. That indicates that the perfect that follows and the perfects that precede are all prophetic perfects. The translation adopted seemed to be the best way to make the transition from the pasts which were adopted in conjunction with the taunting use of אֵיךְ (’ ekh ) in v. 41 to the futures in v. 44 . For the usage of גַּם ( gam ) to indicate a climax, “yea” or “indeed” see BDB 169 s.v. גַּם 3. It seemed to be impossible to render the meaning of v. 44 in any comprehensible way, even in a paraphrase. sn In the ancient Near East the victory of a nation over another nation was attributed to its gods. The reference is a poetic way of referring to the fact that God will be victorious over Babylon and its chief god, Bel/Marduk (see the study note on 50:2 for explanation). The reference to the disgorging of what Bel had swallowed is to captured people and plundered loot that had been taken to Babylon under the auspices of the victory of Bel over the foreign god (cf. Dan 5:2-4 ). The plundered treasures and captive people will be set free and nations will no longer need to pay homage to him because Babylon will be destroyed.


Heb “Go out from her [Babylon’s] midst, my people. Save each man his life from the fierce anger of the Lord .” The verb has been paraphrased to prevent gender specific terms. sn Compare Jer 50:8-10; 51:6 where the significance of saving oneself from the fierce anger of the Lord is clarified.


Heb “That being so, look, days are approaching.” לָכֵן ( lakhen ) often introduces the effect of an action. That may be the case here, the turmoil outlined in v. 46 serving as the catalyst for the culminating divine judgment described in v. 47 . Another possibility is that לָכֵן here has an asseverative force (“certainly”), as in Isa 26:14 and perhaps Jer 5:2 (see the note there). In this case the word almost has the force of “for, since,” because it presents a cause for an accompanying effect. See Judg 8:7 and the discussion of Isa 26:14 in BDB 486-87 s.v. כֵּן 3.d.


Or “all her slain will fall in her midst.” In other words, her people will be overtaken by judgment and be unable to escape. The dead will lie in heaps in the very heart of the city and land.


The infinitive construct is used here to indicate what is about to take place. See IBHS 610 §36.2.3g.


Heb “the slain of Israel.” The words “because of” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The preceding context makes it clear that Babylon would be judged for its atrocities against Israel (see especially 50:33-34; 51:10, 24, 35 ).


The juxtaposition of גַם … גַם ( gam...gam ), often “both…and,” here indicates correspondence. See BDB 169 s.v. גַּם 4. Appropriately Babylon will fall slain just as her victims, including God’s covenant people, did.


Heb “don’t stand.”


Heb “let Jerusalem go up upon your heart.” The “heart” is often viewed as the seat of one’s mental faculties and thought life. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Heb “we have heard an insult.”


Heb “disgrace covers our face.”


Or “holy places, sanctuaries.”


Heb “that being so, look, days are approaching.” Here לָכֵן ( lakhen ) introduces the Lord’s response to the people’s lament (v. 51 ). It has the force of “yes, but” or “that may be true.” See Judg 11:8 and BDB 486-87 s.v. כֵּן 3.d.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Or “ascends [into] heaven.” Note the use of the phrase in Deut 30:12 ; 2 Kgs 2:11 ; and Amos 9:2 .


Heb “and even if she fortifies her strong elevated place.”


Heb “from me destroyers will go against her.”


The antecedent of the third masculine plural pronominal suffix is not entirely clear. It probably refers back to the “destroyers” mentioned in v. 53 as the agents of God’s judgment on Babylon.


Or “mighty waters.”


Heb “and the noise of their sound will be given,”


Heb “for a destroyer is coming against her, against Babylon.”


The Piel form (which would be intransitive here, see GKC 142 §52. k ) should probably be emended to Qal.


Or “God of retribution.”


The infinitive absolute emphasizes the following finite verb. Another option is to translate, “he certainly pays one back.” The translation assumes that the imperfect verbal form here describes the Lord ’s characteristic actions. Another option is to take it as referring specifically to his judgment on Babylon, in which case one should translate, “he will pay (Babylon) back in full.”


For the title “Yahweh of armies” see the study note on Jer 2:19 .


The text has the plural “walls,” but many Hebrew mss read the singular “wall,” which is also supported by the ancient Greek version. The modifying adjective “thick” is singular as well.


The infinitive absolute emphasizes the following finite verb. Another option is to translate, “will certainly be demolished.”


Heb “for what is empty.”


Heb “and the nations for fire, and they grow weary.”


Heb “an officer of rest.”


Or “wrote.”


Or “disaster”; or “calamity.”


Heb “words” (or “things”).


Heb “see [that].”


The word “River” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied for clarity.


For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Some textual witnesses support the Kethib (consonantal text) in reading “Hamital.”


Heb “what was evil in the eyes of the Lord .”


Heb “Surely (or “for”) because of the anger of the Lord this happened in Jerusalem and Judah until he drove them out from upon his face.” For the phrase “drive out of his sight,” see 7:15 .


Or “against.”


Heb “the people of the land.”


For location see Map5-B2 ; Map6-E1 ; Map7-E1 ; Map8-E3 ; Map10-A2 ; Map11-A1 .


Heb “fetters of bronze.” The more generic “chains” is used in the translation because “fetters” is a word unfamiliar to most modern readers.


The parallel account in 2 Kgs 25:8 has “seventh.”


For the meaning of this phrase see BDB 371 s.v. טַבָּח 2 and compare the usage in Gen 39:1 .


Heb “stood before.”


Heb “poor of the people.”


Heb “Nebuzaradan, the captain of the royal guard.” However, the subject is clear from the preceding and modern English style would normally avoid repeating the proper name and title.


Heb “poor of the land.”


Heb “with which they served (or “fulfilled their duty”).”


The translation follows the LXX (Greek version), which reflects the description in 1 Kgs 7:25-26 . The Hebrew text reads, “the twelve bronze bulls under the movable stands.” הַיָּם ( hayyam , “The Sea”) has been accidentally omitted by homoioarcton; note that the following form, הַמְּכֹנוֹת ( hammÿkhonot , “the movable stands”), also begins with the article.


Heb “eighteen cubits.” A “cubit” was a unit of measure, approximately equivalent to a foot and a half.


Heb “twelve cubits.” A “cubit” was a unit of measure, approximately equivalent to a foot and a half.


Heb “four fingers.”


Heb “five cubits.” A “cubit” was a unit of measure, approximately equivalent to a foot and a half.


Heb “men, from the people of the land” (also later in this verse).


Heb “struck them down and killed them.”


Heb “these are the people.”


Heb “lifted up the head of.”


Heb “made his throne above the throne of


The subject is unstated in the Hebrew text, but Jehoiachin is clearly the subject of the following verb.


The LXX and Vulgate (dependent on the LXX) include a preface that is lacking in the MT: “And it came to pass after Israel had been taken captive and Jerusalem had been laid waste, Jeremiah sat weeping and lamented this lament over Jerusalem, and said….” Scholars generally view the preface in the LXX and Vulgate as a later addition, though the style is Hebrew rather than Greek.


The adverb אֵיכָה (’ ekhah ) is used as an exclamation of lament or desperation: “How!” (BDB 32 s.v.) or “Alas!” ( HALOT 40 s.v. 1 .e). It is often the first word in laments ( Isa 1:21 ; Jer 48:17 ; Lam 1:1; 2:1; 4:1, 2 ). Like the less emphatic exclamation אֵיךְ (’ ekh , “Alas!”) ( 2 Sam 1:19 ; Isa 14:4, 12 ; Ezek 26:17 ), it is used in contexts of lament and mourning. sn The term אֵיכָה (’ ekhah , “Alas!”) and counterpart אֵיךְ (’ ekh , “Alas!”) are normally uttered in contexts of mourning as exclamations of lament over a deceased person ( 2 Sam 1:19 ; Isa 14:4, 12 ). The prophets borrow this term from its normal Sitz im Leben in the funeral lament and rhetorically place it in the context of announcements or descriptions of God’s judgment ( Isa 1:21 ; Jer 48:17 ; Ezek 26:17 ; Lam 1:1; 2:1; 4:1, 2 ). This creates a personification of the city/nation which is either in danger of imminent “death” or already has “died” as a result of the Lord ’s judgment.


Heb “great of people.” The construct רַבָּתִי עָם ( rabbati ’ am , “great of people”) is an idiom for large population: “full of people, populous” (BDB 912-13 s.v. I רַב ; HALOT 1172 s.v. 7 .a). The hireq-campaginis ending on רַבָּתִי ( rabbati ), from the adjective רַב ( rav , “great”), is a remnant of the old genitive-construct case (GKC 253 §90. l ). By contrast to the first half of the line, it is understood that she was full of people formerly. רַבָּתִי עָם ( rabbati ’ am ) may also be construed as a title. sn Two thirds of Lamentations is comprised of enjambed lines rather than Hebrew poetry’s more frequent couplets of parallel phrasing. This serves a rhetorical effect not necessarily apparent if translated in the word order of English prose. Together with the alphabetic acrostic form, these pull the reader/hearer along through the various juxtaposed pictures of horror and grief. For further study on the import of these stylistic features to the function of Lamentations see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations (IBC), 12-20; idem, “The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1),” ZAW 113/2 (2001): 219-39; idem, “The Effects of Enjambment in Lamentations,” ZAW 113/5 (2001): 1-16. However, for the sake of English style and clarity, the translation does not necessarily reflect the Hebrew style and word order.


The noun בָּדָד ( badad , “isolation, alone”) functions as adverbial accusative of state. After verbs of dwelling, it pictures someone sitting apart, which may be linked to dwelling securely, especially of a city or people ( Num 23:9 ; Deut 33:28 ; Jer 49:31 ; Ps 4:8 [HT 9]), or to isolation ( Lev 13:46 ; Jer 15:17; 3:28 ). Applied to personified Jerusalem, it contrasts a possible connotation of dwelling securely, instead stating that Lady Jerusalem is abandoned and connoting that the city is deserted.


Heb “great.” The adjective רַב ( rav , “great”) is used in reference to a position of prominence, leadership ( Ps 48:3 ; Dan 11:3, 5 ) or strength ( Isa 53:12; 63:1 ; 2 Chr 14:10 ) (BDB 913 s.v. 2 .b; HALOT 1172 s.v. 6 ). The hireq-campaginis ending on רַבָּתִי ( rabbati ) from the adjective רַב ( rav , “great”) is a remnant of the old genitive-construct case (GKC 253 §90. l ). This adjective is the same word mentioned at the beginning of the verse in the phrase “full of people.” These may also be construed as epithets.


The kaf ( כּ ) prefixed to אַלְמָנָה (’ almanah , “widow”) expresses identity (“has become a widow”) rather than comparison (“has become like a widow”) (see HALOT 453 s.v. 1 ; BDB 454 s.v. כְּ 1.d). The construction emphasizes the class of widowhood.


The noun שָׂרָתִי ( sarati , “princess”) is in construct with the following noun. The hireq-campaginis ending on שָׂרָתִי ( sarati ) is a remnant of the old genitive-construct case (GKC 253 §90. l ). sn Judah was organized into administrative districts or provinces under the rule of provincial governors ( שָׂרִים , sarim ) ( 1 Kgs 20:14, 17, 19 ). The feminine term שָׂרָה ( sarah , “princess, provincial governess”) is a wordplay alluding to this political background: personified Jerusalem had ruled over the Judean provinces.


Heb “princess among the provinces.” The noun מְדִינָה ( mÿdinah ) is an Aramaic loanword which refers to an administrative district or province in the empire (e.g., Ezek 19:8 ; Dan 8:2 ) (BDB 193 s.v. 2 ; HALOT 549 s.v.).


Following the verb הָיָה ( hayah , “to be”), the preposition ל ( lamed ) designates a transition into a new state or condition: “to become” (BDB 512 s.v. לְ 4.a; e.g., Gen 2:7 ; 1 Sam 9:16; 15:1 ).


The noun מַס ( mas ) means “forced labor, corveé slave, conscripted worker.” It refers to a subjugated population, subject to forced labor and/or heavy taxes ( Gen 49:15 ; Exod 1:11 ; Deut 20:11 ; Josh 16:10; 17:13 ; Judg 1:28, 30, 33, 35 ; 1 Kgs 5:28; 9:15, 21; 12:18; 2 Chr 10:18 ; Isa 31:8 ; Lam 1:1 ).


Heb “her tears are on her cheek.”


Heb “lovers.” The term “lovers” is a figurative expression (hypocatastasis), comparing Jerusalem’s false gods and foreign political alliances to sexually immoral lovers. Hosea uses similar imagery ( Hos 2:5, 7, 10, 13 ). It may also function as a double entendre, first evoking a disconcerting picture of a funeral where the widow has no loved ones present to comfort her. God also does not appear to be present to comfort Jerusalem and will later be called her enemy. The imagery in Lamentations frequently capitalizes on changing the reader’s expectations midstream.


Heb “Judah.” The term “Judah” is a synecdoche of nation (= Judah) for the inhabitants of the nation (= people).


There is a debate over the function of the preposition מִן ( min ): (1) temporal sense: “after” ( HALOT 598 s.v. 2 .c; BDB 581 s.v. 4 .b) (e.g., Gen 4:3; 38:24 ; Josh 23:1 ; Judg 11:4; 14:8 ; Isa 24:22 ; Ezek 38:8 ; Hos 6:2 ) is adopted by one translation: “After affliction and harsh labor, Judah has gone into exile” (NIV). (2) causal sense: “because” ( HALOT 598 s.v. 6 ; BDB 580 s.v. 2 .f) (e.g., Isa 5:13 ) is adopted by many English versions: “Judah has gone into exile because of misery and harsh oppression/servitude” (cf. KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NJPS). (3) instrumentality: “by, through” (BDB 579 s.v. 2 .e): “Judah has gone into exile under affliction, and under harsh servitude” (NASB). The issue here is whether this verse states that Judah went into exile after suffering a long period of trouble and toil, or that Judah went into exile because of the misery and affliction that the populace suffered under the hands of the Babylonians. For fuller treatment of this difficult syntactical problem, see D. R. Hillers, Lamentations (AB), 6-7.


Heb “great servitude.” The noun עֲבֹדָה (’ avodah , “servitude”) refers to the enforced labor and suffering inflicted upon conquered peoples who are subjugated into slavery ( Exod 1:14; 2:23; 5:9, 11; 6:9 ; Deut 26:6 ; 1 Kgs 12:4 ; 1 Chr 26:30 ; 2 Chr 10:4; 12:8 ; Isa 14:3 ; Lam 1:3 ).


The antecedent of “she” is “Judah,” which functions as a synecdoche of nation (= Judah) for the inhabitants of the nation (= people). Thus, “she” (= Judah) is tantamount to “they” (= former inhabitants of Judah).


The preposition בִּין ( bin ) is used in reference to a location: “between” (BDB 107 s.v. 1 ). The phrase בִּין הַמְּצָרִים ( bin hammÿtsarim , “between the narrow places”) is unparalleled elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures; however, this line is paraphrased in “The Thanksgiving Psalm” from Qumran (Hodayoth = 1QH v 29) which adds the phrase “so I could not get away.” Following the interpretation of this line at Qumran, it describes a futile attempt to flee from the enemies in narrow straits which thwarted a successful escape.


Heb “distresses.” The noun מֵצַר ( metsar , “distress”) occurs only here and in Ps 118:5 (NIV, “anguish”). Here, the plural form מְצָרִים ( mÿtsarim , lit., “distresses”) is an example of the plural of intensity: “intense distress.” The phrase בִּין הַמְּצָרִים ( bin hammÿtsarim , “between the narrow places”) is unparalleled elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures; however, this line is paraphrased in “The Thanksgiving Psalm” from Qumran (Hodayoth = 1QH v 29) which adds the phrase “so I could not get away.” Following the interpretation of this line at Qumran, it describes a futile attempt to flee from the enemies in narrow straits which thwarted a successful escape.


Heb “roads of Zion.” The noun צִיּוֹן ( tsiyyon , Zion) is a genitive of direction (termination) following the construct noun, meaning “roads to Zion.” sn The noun דַּרְכֵי ( darkhe , “roads”) is normally masculine in gender, but here it is feminine (e.g., Exod 18:20 ) (BDB 202 s.v.) as indicated by the following feminine adjective אֲבֵּלּוֹת (’ avelot , “mourning”). This rare feminine usage is probably due to the personification of Jerusalem as a bereaved woman throughout chap. .


The adjective אֲבֵּלּוֹת (’ avelot , “mourning”) functions as a predicate of state. sn The term אָבַּלּ (’ aval , “mourn”) refers to the mourning rites for the dead or to those mourning the deceased ( Gen 37:35 ; Job 29:25 ; Ps 35:14 ; Jer 16:7 ; Esth 6:12 ; Sir 7:34; 48:24). The prophets often use it figuratively to personify Jerusalem as a mourner, lamenting her deceased and exiled citizens ( Isa 57:18; 61:2, 3 ) (BDB 5 s.v.; HALOT 7 s.v.).


Heb “from lack of.” The construction מִבְּלִי ( mibbÿli ) is composed of the preposition מִן ( min ) functioning in a causal sense (BDB 580 s.v. מִן 2.f) and the adverb of negation בְּלִי ( bÿli ) to denote the negative cause: “from want of” or “without” ( HALOT 133 s.v. בְּלִי 4; BDB 115 s.v. בְּלִי 2.c) ( Num 14:16 ; Deut 9:28; 28:55 ; Eccl 3:11 ; Isa 5:13 ; Jer 2:15; 9:11 ; Hos 4:6 ; Ezek 34:5 ).


Heb “those coming of feast.” The construct chain בָּאֵי מוֹעֵד ( ba ’ e mo ’ ed ) consists of (1) the substantival plural construct participle בָּאֵי ( ba ’ e , “those who come”) and (2) the collective singular genitive of purpose מוֹעֵד ( mo ’ ed , “for the feasts”).


The MT reads שְׁעָרֶיהָ ( shÿ ’ areha , “her gates”). The BHS editors suggest revocalizing the text to the participle שֹׁעֲרֶיהָ ( sho ’ areha , “her gate-keepers”) from שֹׁעֵר ( sho ’ er , “porter”; BDB 1045 s.v. שֹׁעֵר ). The revocalization creates tight parallelism: “her gate-keepers”//“her priests,” but ruins the chiasm: (A) her gate-keepers, (B) her priests, (B’) her virgins, (A’) the city itself.


The verb שָׁמֵם ( shamem ) normally means “to be desolated; to be appalled,” but when used in reference to land, it means “deserted” ( Isa 49:8 ; Ezek 33:28; 35:12, 15; 36:4 ) (BDB 1030 s.v. 1 ).


Heb “groan” or “sigh.” The verb אָנַח (’ anakh ) is an expression of grief ( Prov 29:2 ; Isa 24:7 ; Lam 1:4, 8 ; Ezek 9:4; 21:11 ). BDB 58 s.v. 1 suggests that it means “sigh” but HALOT 70-71 s.v. prefers “groan” here.


The MT reads נּוּגוֹת ( nugot , “are grieved”), Niphal participle feminine plural from יָגָה ( yagah , “to grieve”). The LXX ἀγόμεναι ( agomenai ) reflects נָהוּגוֹת ( nahugot , “are led away”), Qal passive participle feminine plural from נָהַג ( nahag , “to lead away into exile”), also reflected in Aquila and Symmachus. The MT reading is an unusual form (see translator’s note below) and best explains the origin of the LXX which is a more common root. It would be difficult to explain the origin of the MT reading if the LXX reflects the original. Therefore, the MT is probably the original reading. tn Heb “are grieved” or “are worried.” The unusual form נּוּגוֹת ( nugot ) is probably best explained as Niphal feminine plural participle (with dissimilated nun [ ן ]) from יָגָה ( yagah , “to grieve”). The similarly formed Niphal participle masculine plural construct נוּגֵי ( nuge ) appears in Zeph 3:18 (GKC 421 §130. a ). The Niphal of יָגָה ( yagah , “to grieve”) appears only twice, both in contexts of sorrow: “to grieve, sorrow” ( Lam 1:4 ; Zeph 3:18 ).


Heb “and she is bitter to herself,” that is, “sick inside” ( 2 Kgs 4:27 )


Heb “her foes became [her] head” ( הָיוּ צָרֶיהָ לְרֹאשׁ , hayu tsareha lÿro ’ sh ) or more idiomatically “have come out on top.” This is a Semitic idiom for domination or subjugation, with “head” as a metaphor for leader.


The nuance expressed in the LXX is that her enemies prosper (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV, NLT).


Heb “because of her many rebellions.” The plural פְּשָׁעֶיהָ ( pÿsha ’ eha , “her rebellions”) is an example of the plural of repeated action or characteristic behavior (see IBHS 121 §7.4.2c). The 3rd person feminine singular suffix (“her”) probably functions as a subjective genitive: “her rebellions” = “she has rebelled.”


The singular noun שְׁבִי ( shÿvi ) is a collective singular, meaning “captives, prisoners.” It functions as an adverbial accusative of state: “[they] went away as captives.”


Heb “the daughter of Zion.” This phrase is used as an epithet for the city. “Daughter” may seem extraneous in English but consciously joins the various epithets and metaphors of Jerusalem as a woman, a device used to evoke sympathy from the reader.


Heb “all her splendor.” The 3rd person feminine singular pronominal suffix (“her”) functions as a subjective genitive: “everything in which she gloried.” The noun הָדָר ( hadar , “splendor”) is used of personal and impersonal referents in whom Israel gloried: Ephraim ( Deut 33:17 ), Jerusalem ( Isa 5:14 ), Carmel ( Isa 35:2 ). The context focuses on the exile of Zion’s children ( 1:5 c) and leaders ( 1:6 bc). The departure of the children and leaders of Jerusalem going away into exile suggested to the writer the departure of the glory of Israel.


Heb “It has gone out from the daughter of Zion, all her splendor.”


Heb “they fled with no strength” ( וַיֵּלְכוּ בְלֹא־כֹחַ , vayelÿkhu bÿlo ’ -khoakh ).


Heb “the pursuer” or “chaser.” The term רָדַף (“to chase, pursue”) here refers to a hunter (e.g., 1 Sam 26:20 ). It is used figuratively (hypocatastasis) of military enemies who “hunt down” those who flee for their lives (e.g., Gen 14:15 ; Lev 26:7, 36 ; Judg 4:22 ; Ps 7:6; 69:27; 83:16; 143:3 ; Isa 17:13 ; Lam 5:5 ; Amos 1:11 ).


For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Heb “the days of her poverty and her homelessness,” or “the days of her affliction and wandering.” The plural construct יְמֵי ( yÿme , “days of”) functions in the general sense “the time of” or “when,” envisioning the time period in which this occurred. The principal question is whether the phrase is a direct object or an adverb. If a direct object, she remembers either the season when the process happened or she remembers, i.e. reflects on, her current season of life. An adverbial sense, “during” or “throughout” normally occurs with כֹּל ( kol , “all”) in the phrase “all the days of…” but may also occur without כֹּל ( kol ) in poetry as in Job 10:20 . The adverbial sense would be translated “during her poor homeless days.” Treating “days” adverbially makes better sense with line 7b, whereas treating “days” as a direct object makes better sense with line 7c.


The 3rd person feminine singular suffixes on the terms עָנְיָהּ וּמְרוּדֶיהָ (’ onyah umÿrudeha , “her poverty and her homelessness,” or “the days of her affliction and wandering”) function as subjective genitives: “she became impoverished and homeless.” The plural noun וּמְרוּדֶיהָ ( umÿrudeha , lit. “her homelessnesses”) is an example of the plural of intensity. The two nouns עָנְיָהּ וּמְרוּדֶיהָ (’ onyah umÿrudeha , lit., “her poverty and her homelessness”) form a nominal hendiadys in which one noun functions adjectivally and the other retains its full nominal sense: “her impoverished homelessness” or “homeless poor” (GKC 397-98 §124. e ). The nearly identical phrase עֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים (’ aniyyim mÿrudim , “homeless poor”) is used in Isa 58:7 (see GKC 226 §83. c ), suggesting this was a Hebrew idiom. Jerusalem is personified as one of its inhabitants who became impoverished and homeless when the city was destroyed.


The BHS editors suggest that the second bicola in 1:7 is a late addition and should be deleted. Apart from the four sets of bicola here in 1:7 and again in 2:19 , every stanza in chapters 1-4 consists of three sets of bicola. Commentators usually suggest dropping line b or line c. Depending on the meaning of “days” in line a (see note on “when” earlier in the verse) either line makes sense. The four lines would make sense as two bicola if “days of” in line 7a is understood adverbially and 7b as the direct object completing the sentence. Lines 7c-d would begin with a temporal modifier and the rest of the couplet describe conditions that were true at that time.


Heb “into the hand of.” In such phrases “hand” represents power or authority.


Heb “and there was no helper for her.” This phrase is used idiomatically in OT to describe the plight of a city whose allies refuse to help ward off a powerful attacker. The nominal participle עוֹזֵר II (’ oser ) refers elsewhere to military warriors ( 1 Chr 12:1, 18, 22 ; 2 Chr 20:23; 26:7; 28:23; 26:15 ; Ps 28:7; 46:6 ; Ezek 12:14; 30:8; 32:21 ; Dan 11:34 ) and the related noun refers to military allies upon whom an attacked city calls for help (Lachish Letters 19:1).


Heb “the adversaries” ( צָרִים , tsarim ). The 3rd person feminine singular pronoun “her” is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and good English style.


The verb רָאָה ( ra ’ ah , “to look”) has a broad range of meanings, including “to feast the eyes upon” and “to look down on” or “to gloat over” fallen enemies with exultation and triumph (e.g., Judg 16:27 ; Pss 22:18; 112:8; 118:7 ; Ezek 28:17 ; Mic 7:10 ; Obad 12, 13 ). This nuance is clarified by the synonymous parallelism between רָאוּהָ ( ra ’ uha , “they gloated over her”) in the A-line and שָׂחֲקוּ עַל־מִשְׁבַּתֶּהָ ( sakhaqu ’ al-mishbatteha , “they mocked at her downfall”) in the B-line.


Heb “laughed” or “sneered.” The verb שָׂחַק ( sakhaq , “to laugh”) is often used in reference to contempt and derision (e.g., Job 30:1 ; Pss 37:13; 52:8; 59:9 ; Lam 1:7 ).


The MT reads חֵטְא ( khet ’, “sin”), but the BHS editors suggest the vocalization חָטֹא ( khato ’, “sin”), Qal infinitive absolute.


Heb “she has become an object of head-nodding” ( לְנִידָה הָיָתָה , lÿniydah hayatah ). This reflects the ancient Near Eastern custom of shaking the head in scorn (e.g., Jer 18:16 ; Ps 44:15 [HT 14]), hence the translation “object of scorn.” There is debate whether נִידָה ( nidah ) means (1) “object of head-shaking” from נוּד ( nud , “to shake,” BDB 626-27 s.v. נוּד ); (2) “unclean thing” from נָדַה ( nadah , “to be impure”); or (3) “wanderer” from נָדַד ( nadad , “to wander,” BDB 622 s.v. I נָדַד ). The LXX and Rashi connected it to נָדַד ( nadad , “to wander”); however, several important early Greek recensions (Aquila and Symmachus) and Syriac translated it as “unclean thing.” The modern English versions are split: (1) “unclean thing” (NASB); “unclean” (NIV); (2) “a mockery” (NRSV).


The verb הִזִּילוּהָ ( hizziluha ) is generally understood as a rare form of Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural + 3rd person feminine singular suffix from I זָלַל ( zalal , “to despise”): “they despise her.” This follows the I nun ( ן ) pattern with daghesh (dot) in zayin ( ז ) rather than the expected geminate pattern הִזִילּוּהָ ( hizilluha ) with daghesh in lamed ( ל ) (GKC 178-79 §67. l ).


Heb “groan” or “sigh.” The verb אָנַח (’ anakh , appearing only in Niphal) means “sigh” (BDB 58 s.v. 1 ) or “groan” ( HALOT 70-71 s.v.) as an expression of grief ( Prov 29:2 ; Isa 24:7 ; Lam 1:4, 8 ; Ezek 9:4; 21:11 ). The word גַּם ( gam ) is usually a particle meaning “also,” but has been shown from Ugaritic to have the meaning “aloud.” See T. McDaniel, “Philological Studies in Lamentations, I-II,” Bib 49 (1968): 31-32.


Heb “and turns backward.”


Heb “uncleanness.” The noun טֻמְאָה ( tum ’ ah , “uncleanness”) refers in general to the state of ritual uncleanness and specifically to (1) sexual uncleanness ( Num 5:19 ); (2) filthy mass ( Ezek 24:11 ; 2 Chr 29:16 ); (3) ritual uncleanness ( Lev 16:16, 19 ; Ezek 22:15; 24:13; 36:25, 29; 39:24 ; Zech 13:2 ); (4) menstrual uncleanness ( Lev 15:25, 26, 30; 18:19 ; Ezek 36:17 ); (5) polluted meat ( Judg 13:7, 14 ). Here, Jerusalem is personified as a woman whose menstrual uncleanness has soiled even her own clothes; this is a picture of the consequences of the sin of Jerusalem: uncleanness = her sin, and soiling her own clothes = consequences of sin. The poet may also be mixing metaphors allowing various images (of shame) to circulate in the hearer’s mind, including rape and public exposure. By not again mentioning sin directly (a topic relatively infrequent in this book), the poet lays a general acknowledgment of sin in 1:8 alongside an exceptionally vivid picture of the horrific circumstances which have come to be. It is no simplistic explanation that sin merits such inhumane treatment. Instead 1:9 insists that no matter the legal implications of being guilty, the Lord should be motivated to aid Jerusalem (and therefore her people) because her obscene reality is so revolting.


Heb “her uncleanness is in her skirts.”


Heb “her skirts.” This term is a synecdoche of specific (skirts) for general (clothing).


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 or consideration of present situations, it also may mean “to consider, think about” the future outcome of conduct (e.g., Isa 47:7 ) (BDB 270 s.v. 5 ). The same term is used a.


Heb “she did not consider her end.” The noun אַחֲרִית (’ akharit , “end”) here refers to an outcome or the consequences of an action; in light of 1:8 here it is the consequence of sin or immoral behavior ( Num 23:10; 24:20 ; Deut 32:20, 29 ; Job 8:7 ; Pss 37:37; 73:17 ; Prov 14:12; 23:32; 25:8 ; Eccl 7:8 ; Isa 46:10; 47:7 ; Jer 5:31; 17:11 ; Dan 12:8 ).


The MT reads וַתֵּרֶד ( vattered ) vav ( ו ) consecutive + Qal preterite 3rd person feminine singular from יָרַד ( yarad , “to go down”). Symmachus καὶ κατήχθη ( kai kathcqh , “and she was brought down”) and Vulgate deposita est use passive forms which might reflect וַתּוּרַד ( vatturad , vav consecutive + Pual preterite 3rd person feminine singular from from יָרַד [ yarad , “to go down”]). External evidence favors the MT (supported by all other ancient versions and medieval Hebrew mss ); none of the other ancient versions preserve/reflect a passive form. Symmachus is known to have departed from a wooden literal translation (characteristic of Aquila) in favor of smooth and elegant Greek style. The second edition of the Latin Vulgate drew on Symmachus; thus, it is not an independent witness to the passive reading, but merely a secondary witness reflecting Symmachus. The MT is undoubtedly the original reading. tn Heb “and she came down in an astonishing way” or “and she was brought down in an astonishing way.”


The noun פֶּלֶא ( pele ’) means not only “miracle, wonder” (BDB 810 s.v.) but “something unusual, astonishing” ( HALOT 928 s.v.). The plural פְּלָאִים ( pÿla ’ im , lit., “astonishments”) is an example of the plural of intensity: “very astonishing.” The noun functions as an adverbial accusative of manner; the nature of her descent shocks and astounds. Rendering פְּלָאִים וַתֵּרֶד ( vattered pÿla ’ im ) as “she has come down marvelously” (cf. BDB 810 s.v. 1 and KJV, ASV) is hardly appropriate; it is better to nuance it “in an astonishing way” ( HALOT 928 s.v. 3 ) or simply “was astonishing.”


The words “she cried” do not appear in the Hebrew. They are added to indicate that personified Jerusalem is speaking.


The MT reads עָנְיִי (’ onyi , “my affliction”) as reflected in all the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) and the medieval Hebrew mss . The Bohairic version and Ambrosius, however, read “her affliction,” which led the BHS editors to suggest a Vorlage of עָנְיָהּ (’ onyah , “her affliction”). External evidence strongly favors the MT reading. The 3rd person feminine singular textual variant probably arose out of an attempt to harmonize this form with all the other 3rd person feminine singular forms in 1:1-11 a. The MT is undoubtedly the original reading.


Heb “an enemy.” While it is understood that the enemy is Jerusalem’s, not using the pronoun in Hebrew leaves room to imply to God that the enemy is not only Jerusalem’s but also God’s.


Heb “stretched out his hand.” The war imagery is of seizure of property; the anthropomorphic element pictures rape. This is an idiom that describes greedy actions (BDB 831 s.v. פָרַשׂ ), meaning “to seize” ( HALOT 976 s.v. 2 ).


The Kethib is written מַחֲמוֹדֵּיהֶם ( makhamodehem , “her desired things”); the Qere and many medieval Hebrew mss read מַחֲמַדֵּיהֶם ( makhamaddehem , “her desirable things”). The Qere reading should be adopted. tn Heb “all her desirable things.” The noun מַחְמָד ( makhmad , “desirable thing”) refers to valuable possessions, such as gold and silver which people desire (e.g., Ezra 8:27 ). This probably refers, not to the valuable possessions of Jerusalem in general, but to the sacred objects in the temple in particular, as suggested by the rest of the verse. For the anthropomorphic image compare Song 5:16 .


Heb “she watched” or “she saw.” The verb רָאָה ( ra ’ ah , “to see”) has a broad range of meanings, including “to see” a spectacle causing grief ( Gen 21:16; 44:34 ; Num 11:15 ; 2 Kgs 22:20 ; 2 Chr 34:28 ; Esth 8:6 ) or abhorrence ( Isa 66:24 ). The words “in horror” are added to “she watched” to bring out this nuance.


Heb “her sanctuary.” The term מִקְדָּשָׁהּ ( miqdashah , “her sanctuary”) refers to the temple. Anthropomorphically, translating as “her sacred place” would also allow for the rape imagery.


Heb “enter.” The Hebrew term בּוֹא ( bo ’) is also a sexual metaphor.


The noun קָהָל ( qahal , “assembly”) does not refer here to the collective group of people assembled to worship the Lord , but to the place of their assembly: the temple. This is an example of a synecdoche of the people contained (= assembly) for the container (= temple). The intent is to make the violation feel more personal than someone walking into a building. sn This is a quotation from Deut 23:3 , “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord , even down to the tenth generation.” Jeremiah applies this prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites to the Babylonians who ransacked and destroyed the temple in 587/586 b.c . This hermeneutical move may be explained on the basis of synecdoche of species (= Ammonites and Moabites) for general (= unconverted Gentiles as a whole). On a different note, the prohibition forbidding Ammonites and Moabites from entering the “assembly” ( קָהָל , qahal , Deut 23:2-8 ) did not disallow Gentile proselytes from converting to Yahwism or from living within the community (= assembled body) of Israel. For example, Ruth the Moabitess abandoned the worship of Moabite gods and embraced Yahweh, then was welcomed into the community of Bethlehem in Judah ( Ruth 1:15-22 ) and even incorporated into the lineage leading to King David ( Ruth 4:18-22 ). This Deuteronomic law did not disallow such genuine conversions of repentant faith toward Yahweh, nor their incorporation into the life of the Israelite community. Nor did it discourage Gentiles from offering sacrifices to the Lord ( Num 15:15-16 ). Rather, it prohibited Gentiles from entering into the tabernacle/temple (= place of assembly) of Israel. This is clear from the reaction of the post-exilic community when it realized that Deut 23:3-5 had been violated by Tobiah the Ammonite who had been given living quarters in the temple precincts ( Neh 13:1-9 ). This is also reflected in the days of the Second Temple when Gentile proselytes were allowed to enter the “court of the Gentiles” in Herod’s temple, but were forbidden further access into the inner temple precincts.


Heb “bread.” In light of its parallelism with אֹכֶל (’ okhel , “food”) in the following line, it is possible that לֶחֶם ( lekhem , “bread”) is used in its broader sense of food or nourishment.


Heb “they sell.”


Heb “their desirable things.” The noun מַחְמָד ( makhmad , “desirable thing”) refers to valuable possessions, such as gold and silver which people desire (e.g., Ezra 8:27 ).


The preposition ב ( bet ) denotes the purchase price paid for an object (BDB 90 s.v. בְּ III.3; HALOT 105 s.v. בְּ 17) (e.g., Gen 23:9; 29:18, 20; 30:16 ; Lev 25:37 ; Deut 21:14 ; 2 Sam 24:24 ).


The noun נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) functions as a metonymy (= soul) of association (= life) (e.g., Gen 44:30 ; Exod 21:23 ; 2 Sam 14:7 ; Jon 1:14 ). When used with נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ), the Hiphil הָשִׁיב ( hashiv ) of שׁוּב ( shuv , “to turn, return”) may mean “to restore a person’s vitality,” that is, to keep a person alive ( Lam 1:14, 19 ).


The Heb לוֹא אֲלֵיכֶם ( lo ’ ’ alekhem , “not to you”) is awkward and often considered corrupt but there is no textual evidence yet adduced to certify a more original reading.


The line as it stands is imbalanced, such that the reference to the passersby may belong here or as a vocative with the following verb translated “look.”


Heb “He.” The personal pronoun “he” and the personal name “the Lord ,” both appearing in this verse, are transposed in the translation for the sake of readability. In the Hebrew text, “He” appears in the A-line and “the Lord ” appears in the B-line – good Hebrew poetic style, but awkward English style.


Heb “which was afflicted on me.” The Polal of עָלַל (’ alal ) gives the passive voice of the Polel. The Polel of the verb עָלַל (’ alal ) occurs ten times in the Bible, appearing in agricultural passages for gleaning or some other harvest activity and also in military passages. Jer 6:9 plays on this by comparing an attack to gleaning. The relationship between the meaning in the two types of contexts is unclear, but the very neutral rendering “to treat” in some dictionaries and translations misses the nuance appropriate to the military setting. Indeed it is not at all feasible in a passage like Judges 20:45 where “they treated them on the highway” would make no sense but “they mowed them down on the highway” would fit the context. Accordingly the verb is sometimes rendered “treat” or “deal severely,” as HALOT 834 s.v. poel.3 suggests for Lam 3:51 , although simply suggesting “to deal with” in Lam 1:22 and 2:20 . A more injurious nuance is given to the translation here and in 1:22; 2:20 and 3:51 .


Heb “in the day of.” The construction בְּיוֹם ( bÿyom , “in the day of”) is a common Hebrew idiom, meaning “when” or “on the occasion of” (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 ).


Heb “on the day of burning anger.”


Heb “He sent fire from on high.” Normally God sends fire from heaven. The idiom מִמָּרוֹם ( mimmarom , “from on high”) can still suggest the location but as an idiom may focus on the quality of the referent. For example, “to speak from on high” means “to presume to speak as if from heaven” = arrogantly ( Ps 73:8 ); “they fight against me from on high” = proudly ( Ps 56:3 ) (BDB 928-29 s.v. מָרוֹם ). As a potential locative, מִמָּרוֹם ( mimmarom , “from on high”) designates God as the agent; idiomatically the same term paints him as pitiless.


The MT reads וַיִּרְדֶּנָּה ( vayyirdennah , “it prevailed against them”), representing a vav ( ו ) consecutive + Qal preterite 3rd person masculine singular + 3rd person feminine plural suffix from רָדָה ( radah , “to prevail”). The LXX κατήγαγεν αὐτό ( kathgagen auto , “it descended”) reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of וַיֹּרִדֶנָּה ( vayyoridennah , “it descended against them”), representing a vav ( ו ) consecutive + Hiphil preterite 3rd person masculine singular + 3rd person feminine plural suffix from יָרָד ( yarad , “to go down”), or הֹרִידָהּ ( horidah , “it descended against her”), a Hiphil perfect ms + 3rd person feminine singular suffix from from יָרָד ( yarad , “to go down”). Internal evidence favors the MT. The origin of the LXX vocalization can be explained by the influence of the preceding line, “He sent down fire from on high.”


Heb “net.” The term “trapper’s” is supplied in the translation as a clarification.


The consonantal text נשקד על פּשעי ( nsqd ’ l ps ’ y ) is vocalized by the MT as נִשְׂקַד עֹל פְּשָׁעַי ( nisqad ’ ol pÿsha ’ ay , “my transgression is bound by a yoke”); but the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) and many medieval Hebrew mss vocalize the text as נִשְׁקַד עַל פְּשָׁעַי ( nishqad ’ al pÿsha ’ ay , “watch is kept upon my transgression”). There are two textual deviations: (1) the MT vocalizes the verb as נִשְׂקַד ( nisqad , Niphal perfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׂקַד [ saqad , “to bind”]), while the alternate tradition vocalizes it as נִשְׁקַד ( nishqad , Niphal perfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׁקַד [ shaqad , “to keep watch”]); and (2) the MT vocalizes על (’ l ) as the noun עֹל (’ ol , “yoke”), while the ancient versions and medieval Hebrew mss vocalize it as the preposition עַל (’ al , “upon”). External evidence favors the alternate vocalization: all the early versions (LXX, Targum, Vulgate, Peshitta) and many medieval Hebrew mss versus the relatively late MT vocalization tradition. However, internal evidence favors the MT vocalization: (1) The MT verb שָׂקַד ( saqar , “to bind”) is a hapax legomenon (BDB 974 s.v. שָׂקַד ) which might have been easily confused for the more common verb שָׂקַד ( saqar , “to keep watch”) which is well attested elsewhere ( Job 21:32 ; Pss 102:8; 127:1 ; Prov 8:34 ; Isa 29:20 ; Jer 1:12; 5:6; 31:28; 44:27 ; Ezr 8:29 ; Dan 9:14 ) (BDB 1052 s.v. שָׂקַד Qal.2). (2) The syntax of the MT is somewhat awkward, which might have influenced a scribe toward the alternate vocalization. (3) The presence of the noun עֻלּוֹ (’ ullo , “his yoke”) in the following line supports the presence of the same term in this line. (4) Thematic continuity of 1:14 favors the MT: throughout the verse, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are continually compared to yoked animals who are sold into the hands of cruel task-masters. The alternate vocalization intrudes into an otherwise unified stanza. In summary, despite strong external evidence in favor of the alternate vocalization tradition, even stronger internal evidence favors the MT. tn Heb “my transgressions are bound with a yoke.”


The MT reads עָלוּ (’ alu , “they went up”), Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from עָלָה (’ alah , “to go up”). However, several important recensions of the LXX reflect an alternate vocalization tradition: Lucian and Symmachus both reflect a Vorlage of עֻלּוֹ (’ ullo , “his yoke”), the noun עֹל (’ ol , “yoke”) + 3rd person masculine singular suffix. The Lucianic recension was aimed at bringing the LXX into closer conformity to the Hebrew; therefore, this is an important textual witness. Internal evidence favors the readings of Lucian and Symmachus as well: the entire stanza focuses on the repeated theme of the “yoke” of the Lord . The MT reading is obscure in meaning, and the 3rd person common plural form violates the syntactical flow: “[my sins] are lashed together by his hand; they have gone up upon my neck, he has weakened my strength; the Lord has handed me over ….” On the other hand, the Lucian/Symmachus reflects contextual congruence: “My sins are bound around my neck like a yoke , they are lashed together by his hand; his yoke is upon my neck, he has weakened my strength; he has handed me over to those whom I am powerless to resist.”


Heb “his yoke is upon my neck.”


Heb “he has caused my strength to stumble.” The phrase הִכְשִׁיל כֹּחִי ( hikhshil kokhi , “He has made my strength stumble”) is an idiom that means “to weaken, make feeble.”


Here the MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “the Lord”), the perpetual Qere reading for יהוה (YHWH, “Yahweh”), but a multitude of Hebrew mss read consonantal יהוה (YHWH, traditionally translated “the Lord ”).


Heb “The Lord has given me into the hands of.”


The verb סָלַה ( salah ) occurs only twice in OT; once in Qal ( Ps 119:118 ) and once here in Piel. It is possibly a by-form of סָלַל ( salal , “to heap up”). It may also be related to Aramaic סלא ( sl ’) meaning “to throw away” and Assyrian salu/shalu meaning “to hurl (away)” ( AHw 1152) or “to kick up dust, shoot (arrows), reject, throw away?” ( CAD 17:272). With people as its object shalu is used of people casting away their children, specifically meaning selling them on the market. The LXX translates סָלַה ( salah ) as ἐξῆρεν ( exhren , “to remove, lead away”). Thus God is either (1) heaping them up (dead) in the city square, (2) putting them up for sale in the city square, or (3) leading them out of the city (into exile or to deprive it of defenders prior to attack). The English “round up” could accommodate any of these and is also a cattle term, which fits well with the use of the word “bulls” (see following note).


Heb “bulls.” Metaphorically, bulls may refer to mighty ones, leaders or warriors. F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp ( Lamentations [IBC], 69) insightfully suggests that the Samek stanza presents an overarching dissonance by using terms associated with a celebratory feast (bulls, assembly, and a winepress) in sentences where God is abusing the normally expected celebrants, i.e. the “leaders” are the sacrifice.


The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “the Lord”) here rather than יהוה (YHWH, “the Lord ”); this occurs again a second time later in this verse. See the tc note at 1:14 .


The verb is elided and understood from the preceding colon. Naming “my Lord” as the subject of the verb late, as it were, emphasizes the irony of the action taken by a person in this position.


The MT reads the preposition בּ ( bet , “in”) prefixed to קִרְבִּי ( qirbi , “my midst”): בְּקִרְבִּי ( bÿkirbi , “in my midst”); however, the LXX reads ἐκ μέσου μου ( ek mesou mou ) which may reflect a Vorlage of the preposition מִן ( min , “from”): מִקִּרְבִּי ( miqqirbi , “from my midst”). The LXX may have chosen ἐκ to accommodate understanding סִלָּה ( sillah ) as ἐξῆρεν ( exhren , “to remove, lead away”). The textual deviation may have been caused by an unusual orthographic confusion. tn Or “out of my midst.” See the preceding tc note.


Heb “an assembly.” The noun מוֹעֵד ( mo ’ ed , “assembly”) is normally used in reference to the annual religious festive assemblies of Israel ( Ezek 45:17 ; Hos 9:5 ; Zeph 3:18 ; Zech 8:19 ), though a number of English versions take this “assembly” to refer to the invading army which attacks the city (e.g., NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT).


Heb “a winepress he has stomped.” The noun גַּת ( gat , “winepress”) functions as an adverbial accusative of location: “in a winepress.” The translation reflects the synecdoche that is involved – one stomps the grapes that are in the winepress, not the winepress itself.


The MT and several medieval Hebrew mss read עֵינִי עֵינִי (’ eni , ’ eni , “my eye, my eye”). However, the second עֵינִי (’ eni ) does not appear in several other medieval Hebrew mss , or in Old Greek, Syriac Peshitta or Latin Vulgate. tn Heb “My eye, my eye.” The Hebrew text repeats the term for literary emphasis to stress the emotional distress of personified Jerusalem.


Heb “with water.” The noun מַּיִם ( mayim , “water”) functions as an adverbial accusative of manner or impersonal instrument. The term מַּיִם ( mayim , “water”) is a metonymy of material (= water) for the thing formed (= tears).


Heb “For a comforter is far from me.”


The phrase מֵשִׁיב נַפְשִׁי ( meshiv nafshi , “one who could cause my soul to return”) is a Hebrew idiom that means “one who could encourage me.” The noun נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi ) refers to the whole person (e.g., Gen 27:4, 25; 49:6 ; Lev 26:11, 30 ; Num 23:10 ; Judg 5:21; 16:30 ; Isa 1:14 ; Lam 3:24 ). When used with the noun נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) the Hiphil הָשִׁיב ( hashiv ) of שׁוּב ( shuv , “to turn, return”) means “to encourage, refresh, cheer” a person emotionally ( Ruth 4:15 ; Pss 19:8; 23:3 ; Prov 25:13 ; Lam 1:11, 16, 19 ).


Heb “my sons.” The term “my sons” ( בַנַי , banay ) is a figurative description (hypocatastasis) of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem/Judah personified as the Lady Jerusalem’s children. Jerusalem mourns (and views) their devastation like a mother would her children.


The verb שָׁמֵם ( shamem ) means “to be desolated.” The verb is used used in reference to land destroyed in battle and left “deserted” ( Isa 49:8 ; Ezek 33:28; 35:12, 15; 36:4 ). When used in reference to persons, it describes the aftermath of a physical attack, such as rape ( 2 Sam 13:20 ) or military overthrow of a city ( Isa 54:1 ; Lam 1:13, 16; 3:11 ).


Heb “his neighbors,” which refers to the surrounding nations.


The noun II נִדָּה ( niddah , “unclean thing”) has three basic categories of meaning: (1) biological uncleanness: menstruation of a woman ( Lev 12:2, 5; 15:19-33 [9x]; Num 19:9, 13, 20; 31:23 ; Ezek 18:6; 22:10; 36:17 ); (2) ceremonial uncleanness: moral impurity and idolatry ( Lev 20:21 ; 2 Chr 29:5 ; Ezra 9:11 ; Zech 13:1 ); and (3) physical uncleanness: filthy garbage ( Lam 1:17 ; Ezek 7:19, 20 ).


The MT reads בֵּינֵיהֶם ( bÿnehem , “in them” = “in their midst”). The BHS editors suggest that this is a textual corruption for בְּעֵינֵיהֶם ( be ’ enehem , “in their eyes” = “in their view”). The ע ( ayin ) might have dropped out due to orthographic confusion. tn Or “in their eyes.” See the preceding tc note.


Heb “The Lord himself is right.” The phrase “to judge me” is not in the Hebrew, but is added in the translation to clarify the expression.


Heb “His mouth.” The term “mouth” ( פֶּה , peh ) is a metonymy of instrument (= mouth) for the product (= words). The term פֶּה ( peh ) often stands for spoken words ( Ps 49:14 ; Eccl 10:3 ; Isa 29:13 ), declaration ( Gen 41:40 ; Exod 38:21 ; Num 35:30 ; Deut 17:6 ; Ezra 1:1 ) and commands of God ( Exod 17:1 ; Num 14:41; 22:18 ; Josh 15:13 ; 1 Sam 15:24 ; 1 Chr 12:24 ; Prov 8:29 ; Isa 34:16; 62:2 ). When the verb מָרָה ( marah , “to rebel”) is used with the accusative direct object פֶּה ( peh , “mouth”) to connote disobedience to God’s commandments ( Num 20:24 ; 1 Sam 12:14, 15 ; 1 Kgs 13:21 ) (BDB 805 s.v. פֶּה 2.c).


The Kethib is written עַמִּים (’ ammim , “peoples”), but the Qere, followed by many medieval Hebrew mss and the ancient versions (LXX and Aramaic Targum), read הָעַמִּים ( ha ’ ammim , “O peoples”). The Qere is probably the original reading. tn Heb “O peoples.” Here Jerusalem addresses the peoples of the surrounding nations (note the use of “neighbors” in the preceding verse).


Here the conjunction כּי ( ki ) functions in (1) a temporal sense in reference to a past event, following a perfect: “when” (BDB 473 s.v. 2 .a; cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV) or (2) a concessive sense, following a perfect: “although” ( Pss 21:12; 119:83 ; Mic 7:8 ; Nah 1:10 ; cf. BDB 473 s.v. 2 .c. β ) or (3) with an intensive force, introducing a statement with emphasis: “surely, certainly” (BDB 472 s.v. 1 .e). The present translation follows the third option.


The vav ( ו ) prefixed to וַיָשִׁיבוּ ( vayashivu ) introduces a purpose clause: “they sought food for themselves, in order to keep themselves alive.”


The noun נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) functions as a metonymy (= soul) of association (= life) (e.g., Gen 44:30 ; Exod 21:23 ; 2 Sam 14:7 ; Jon 1:14 ). When used with נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ), the Hiphil הָשִׁיב ( hashiv ) of שׁוּב ( shuv , “to turn, return”) may mean “to preserve a person’s life,” that is, to keep a person alive ( Lam 1:14, 19 ).


The LXX adds καὶ οὐχ εὗρον ( kai ouc Jeuron , “but they did not find it”). This is probably an explanatory scribal gloss, indicated to explicate what appeared to be ambiguous. The LXX often adds explanatory glosses in many OT books.


Heb “because I have distress” ( כִּי־צַר־לִי , ki-tsar-li ).


Heb “my bowels burn” or “my bowels are in a ferment.” The verb חֳמַרְמָרוּ ( khamarmaru ) 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 מֵעַי חֳמַרְמָרוּ ( me ’ ay khamarmaru ) 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.


The participle נֶהְפַּךְ ( nehpakh ), Niphal participle masculine singular הָפַךְ ( hafakh , “to turn over”) functions verbally, referring to progressive present-time action (from the speaker’s viewpoint). The verb הָפַךְ ( hafakh ) is used here to describe emotional distress (e.g., Ezek 4:8 ).


Heb “because I was very rebellious.” The Hebrew uses an emphatic construction in which the root מָרַה ( marah , “to rebel”) is repeated: מָרוֹ מָרִיתִי ( maro mariti ), Qal infinitive absolute from מָרָה ( marah ) followed by Qal perfect 1st person common singular from מָרָה ( marah ). When an infinitive absolute is used with a finite verb of the same root, it affirms the verbal idea (e.g., Gen 2:17; 18:10; 22:17; 31:15; 46:4 ; Num 16:13; 23:11 ; Judg 4:9; 15:13; 20:39 ; 1 Sam 2:30; 9:6 ; 2 Sam 24:24 ; Isa 6:9 ; Ezek 16:4 ). See IBHS 585-86 §35.3.1f.


Heb “in the street the sword bereaves.” The words “a mother of her children” are supplied in the translation as a clarification.


Heb “in the house it is like death.”


The MT reads שָׁמְעוּ ( sham ’ u , “They heard”), Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from שָׁמַע ( shama ’, “to hear”). The LXX ἀκούσατε ( akousate ) reflects the vocalization שִׁמְעוּ ( shim ’ u , “Hear!”), Qal imperative 2nd person masculine plural from שָׁמַע ( shama ’, “to hear”). Internal evidence favors the MT. Elsewhere in Lamentations, personified Jerusalem urges God with singular imperatives (“Look! See!”); however, nowhere else is a plural imperative used. In fact, the Qal perfect 3rd person common plural form שָׁמְעוּ ( sham ’ u , “They hear”) appears in the following line. The referent of שָׁמְעוּ ( sham ’ u ) is the enemy who has destroyed Jerusalem and now mocks her when they hear her laments. The MT vocalization is undoubtedly original. Most English versions follow the MT: “They hear” (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, CEV); but several follow the LXX and revocalize the text as an imperative: “Hear!” (RSV, NRSV, TEV).


“You” here and in the following line refers to the Lord .


Heb “that You have done it.”


The verb הֵבֵאתָ ( heve ’ ta ) Hiphil perfect 2nd person masculine singular from בּוֹא ( bo ’, “to bring” in the Hiphil) probably functions, not as a simple past-time perfect, but as a precative perfect, an unusual volitional nuance similar to the imperative of request. The precative is used in reference to situations the speaker prays for and expects to be realized; it is a prayer or request of confidence (e.g., 2 Sam 7:29 ; Job 21:16; 22:18 ; Pss 3:8; 4:2; 7:7; 22:22; 31:5-6; 71:3 ; Lam 1:21 ). See IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4c, d. This volitional precative nuance is reflected in the Syriac Peshitta which translates this verb using an imperative. Most English versions adopt the precative nuance: “Bring on the day you have announced” (NRSV), “Oh, that Thou wouldst bring the day which Thou hast proclaimed” (NASB), “May you bring the day you have announced” (NIV), “Bring the day you promised” (TEV), “Oh, bring on them what befell me!” (NJPS), “Hurry and punish them, as you have promised” (CEV). A few English versions adopt a prophetic perfect future-time nuance: “thou wilt bring the day that thou hast called” (KJV, NKJV, ASV).


The term יוֹם ( yom , “day”) is often used as a metonymy of association, standing for the event associated with that particular time period: judgment (e.g., Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9 ; Jer 46:10 ; Lam 2:22 ; Ezek 13:5; 30:3 ; Amos 5:18, 20 ; Obad 15 ; Zeph 1:7, 14 ; Zech 14:1 ; Mal 3:23) (BDB 399 s.v. 3 ).


Heb “proclaimed.”


Heb “and.” Following a volitive use of the perfect, the vav ( ו ) prefixed to וְיִהְיוּ ( vÿyihyu , “and let it be!”) introduces a purpose/result clause in a dependent volitive construction: “so that they may be like me!”


Heb “that they be like me.”


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


The parallel statements “afflict them” and “just as you have afflicted me” in the translation mirror the Hebrew wordplay between עוֹלֵל לָמוֹ (’ olel lamo , “May you deal with them”) and עוֹלַלְתָּ לִי (’ olalta li , “you dealt with me”).


Heb “all my rebellions,” that is, “all my rebellious acts.”


See the note at 1:1 .


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


The verb יָעִיב ( ya ’ iv ) is a hapax legomenon (a term that appears only once in Hebrew OT). Most lexicons take it as a denominative verb from the noun עָב (’ av , “cloud,” HALOT 773 s.v. II עָב ; BDB 728 s.v. עוּב ): Hiphil imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from עוֹב (’ ov ) meaning “cover with a cloud, make dark” ( HALOT 794 s.v. עוב ) or “becloud” (BDB 728 s.v.): “the Lord has covered Daughter Zion with the cloud of His anger.” This approach is followed by many English versions (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV). However, a few scholars relate it to a cognate Arabic verb “to blame, revile” (Ehrlich, Rudolph, Hillers): “the Lord has shamed Daughter Zion in His anger.” Several English versions adopt this (NRSV, NJPS, CEV). The picture of cloud and wrath concurs with the stanza’s connection to “day of the Lord” imagery.


The common gloss for זָכַר ( zakhar ) is “remember.” זָכַר ( zakhar ) entails “bearing something in mind” in a broader sense than the English gloss “remember.” When God “bears someone in mind,” the consequences are beneficial for them. The implication of not regarding his footstool is to not esteem and so not care for or protect it.


Heb “the footstool of His feet.” The noun הֲדֹם ( hadom , “footstool”), always joined with רַגְלַיִם ( raglayim , “feet”) is always used figuratively in reference to the dwelling place of God (BDB 213 s.v. הֲדֹם ). It usually refers to the Lord ’s temple in Jerusalem ( Isa 60:13 ; Lam 2:1 ) or to the ark as the place above which the Lord is enthroned ( Pss 99:5; 132:7 ; 1 Chr 28:2 ).


Heb “in the day of His anger.” As a temporal reference this phrase means “when he displayed his anger.” The Hebrew term “day,” associated with the “day of the Lord” or “day of his wrath” also functions as a title in a technical sense.


Heb “has swallowed up.”


The Kethib is written לֹא חָמַל ( lo ’ khamal , “without mercy”), while the Qere reads וְלֹא חָמַל ( vÿlo ’ khamal , “and he has shown no mercy”). The Kethib is followed by the LXX, while the Qere is reflected in many Hebrew mss and the ancient versions (Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate). The English versions are split between the Kethib: “The Lord swallowed all the dwellings of Jacob without mercy” (cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, NJPS) and the Qere: “The Lord swallowed all the dwellings of Jacob, and has shown no mercy” (cf. KJV, NASB, CEV). As these words occur between a verb and its object ( חָמַל [ khamal ] is not otherwise followed by אֵת [’ et , direct object marker]), an adverbial reading is the most natural, although interrupting the sentence with an insertion is possible. Compare 2:17, 21; 3:43 . In contexts of harming, to show mercy often means to spare from harm.


Heb “all the dwellings of Jacob.”


Heb “the strongholds.”


Heb “He brought down to the ground in disgrace the kingdom and its princes.” The verbs חִלֵּל … הִגִּיע ( higgi ’… khillel , “he has brought down…he has profaned”) function as a verbal hendiadys, as the absence of the conjunction ו ( vav ) suggests. The first verb retains its full verbal force, while the second functions adverbially: “he has brought down [direct object] in disgrace.”


The MT reads אַף (’ af , “anger”), while the ancient versions (LXX, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate) reflect אַפּוֹ (’ appo , “His anger”). The MT is the more difficult reading syntactically, while the ancient versions are probably smoothing out the text.


Heb “cut off, scattered.”


Heb “every horn of Israel.” 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, 17 ; Ezek 29:21 ) (BDB 901 s.v. 2 ), just as warriors are sometimes figuratively described as “bulls.” Cutting off the “horn” is a figurative expression for destroying warriors ( Jer 48:25 ; Ps 75:10 [HT 11]).


Heb “he caused his right hand to turn back.” The implication in such contexts is that the Lord ’s right hand protects his city. This image of the right hand is consciously reversed in 2:4 .


Heb “from the presence of the enemy.” This figurative expression refers to the approach of the attacking army.


Heb “he burned in Jacob like a flaming fire.”


Or “He burned against Jacob, like a raging fire consumes all around.”


Heb “bent His bow.” When the verb דָּרַךְ ( darakh ) is used with the noun קֶשֶׁת ( qeshet , “archer-bow”), it means “to bend [a bow]” to string it in preparation for shooting arrows ( 1 Chr 5:18; 8:40 ; 2 Chr 14:7 ; Jer 50:14, 29; 51:3 ). This idiom is used figuratively to describe the assaults of the wicked ( Pss 11:2; 37:14 ) and the judgments of the Lord ( Ps 7:13 ; Lam 2:4; 3:12 ) (BDB 202 s.v. דָּרַךְ 4). The translation “he prepared his bow” is the slightly more general modern English idiomatic equivalent of the ancient Hebrew idiom “he bent his bow” – both refer to preparations to get ready to shoot arrows.


Heb “His right hand is stationed.”


Heb “the ones who were pleasing to the eye.”


The singular noun אֹהֶל (’ ohel , “tent”) may function as a collective, referring to all tents in Judah. A parallel expression occurs in verse 2 using the plural: “all the dwellings of Jacob” ( כָּל־נְאוֹת יַעֲקֹב , kol-nÿ ’ ot ya ’ aqov ). The singular “tent” matches the image of “Daughter Zion.” On the other hand, the singular “the tent of Daughter Zion” might be a hyperbolic synecdoche of container (= tent) for contents (= inhabitants of Zion).


Heb “swallowed up.”


Heb “his.” For consistency this has been translated as “her.”


Heb “He increased in Daughter Judah mourning and lamentation.”


Heb “His booth.” The noun שׂךְ ( sokh , “booth,” BDB 968 s.v.) is a hapax legomenon (term that appears only once in the Hebrew OT), but it is probably an alternate spelling of the more common noun סֻכָּה ( sukkah , “booth”) which is used frequently of temporary shelters and booths (e.g., Neh 8:15 ) (BDB 697 s.v. סֻכָּה ). Related to the verb שָׂכַךְ ( sakhakh , “to weave”), it refers to a temporary dwelling constructed of interwoven boughs. This is a figurative description of the temple, as the parallel term מוֹעֲדוֹ ( mo ’ ado , “his tabernacle” or “his appointed meeting place”) makes clear. Jeremiah probably chose this term to emphasize the frailty of the temple, and its ease of destruction. Contrary to the expectation of Jerusalem, it was only a temporary dwelling of the Lord – its permanence cut short due to sin of the people.


The MT reads כַּגַּן ( kaggan , “like a garden”). The LXX reads ὡς ἄμπελον ( Jw" ampelon ) which reflects כְּגֶפֶן ( kÿgefen , “like a vineyard”). Internal evidence favors כְּגֶפֶן ( kÿgefen ) because God’s judgment is often compared to the destruction of a vineyard (e.g., Job 15:33 ; Isa 34:4 ; Ezek 15:2, 6 ). The omission of פ ( pe ) is easily explained due to the similarity in spelling between כְּגֶפֶן ( kÿgefen ) and כַּגַּן ( kaggan ).


Heb “The Lord has caused to be forgotten in Zion both appointed festival and Sabbath.” The verb שִׁכַּח ( shikkakh , “to cause someone to forget”), Piel perfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׁכַח ( shakhakh , “to forget”) is used figuratively. When people forget “often the neglect of obligations is in view” (L. C. Allen, NIDOTTE 4:104). When people forget the things of God, they are in disobedience and often indicted for ignoring God or neglecting their duties to him ( Deut 4:23, 31; 6:12; 8:11, 19; 26:13; 31:21; 32:18 ; Judg 3:7 ; 1 Sam 12:9 ; 2 Kgs 17:38 ; Is 49:14; 51:13; 65:11 ; Jer 18:15 ; Exek 23:35 ; Hos 4:6 ). The irony is that the one to whom worship is due has made it so that people must neglect it. Most English versions render this in a metonymical sense: “the Lord has brought to an end in Zion appointed festival and sabbath” (RSV), “[he] did away with festivals and Sabbaths” (CEV), “he has put an end to holy days and Sabbaths” (TEV), “the Lord has ended…festival and sabbath” (NJPS), “the Lord has abolished…festivals and sabbath” (NRSV). Few English versions employ the gloss “remember”: “the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten” (KJV) and “the Lord has made Zion forget her appointed feasts and her sabbaths”(NIV).


Heb “In the fury of his anger” ( זַעַם־אפּוֹ , za ’ am- ’ appo ). The genitive noun אפּוֹ (’ appo , “his anger”) functions as an attributed genitive with the construct noun זַעַם ( za ’ am , “fury, rage”): “his furious anger.”


The verb נָאַץ ( na ’ ats , “to spurn, show contempt”) functions as a metonymy of cause (= to spurn king and priests) for effect (= to reject them; cf. CEV). Since spurning is the cause, this may be understood as “to reject with a negative attitude.” However, retaining “spurn” in the translation keeps the term emotionally loaded. The most frequent term for נָאַץ ( na ’ ats ) in the LXX ( παροξύνω , paroxunw ) also conveys emotion beyond a decision to reject.


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


The Heb verb זָנַח ( zanakh ) is a rejection term often used in military contexts. Emphasizing emotion, it may mean “to spurn.” In military contexts it may be rendered “to desert.”


Heb “His sanctuary.” The term מִקְדָּשׁוֹ ( miqdasho , “His sanctuary”) refers to the temple (e.g., 1 Chr 22:19 ; 2 Chr 36:17 ; Ps 74:7 ; Isa 63:18 ; Ezek 48:21 ; Dan 8:11 ) (BDB 874 s.v. מִקְדָּשׁ ).


Heb “He delivered into the hand of the enemy.” The verb הִסְגִּיר ( hisgir ), Hiphil perfect 3rd person masculine singular from סָגַר ( sagar ), means “to give into someone’s control: to deliver” ( Deut 23:16 ; Josh 20:5 ; 1 Sam 23:11, 20; 30:15 ; Job 16:11 ; Pss 31:9; 78:48, 50, 62 ; Lam 2:7 ; Amos 1:6, 9 ; Obad 14 ).


Heb “they.”


Heb “they gave voice” ( קוֹל נָתְנוּ , kol natno ). The verb נָתַן ( natan , “to give”) with the noun קוֹל ( kol , “voice, sound”) is an idiom meaning: “to utter a sound, make a noise, raise the voice” (e.g., Gen 45:2 ; Prov 2:3 ; Jer 4:16; 22:20; 48:34 ) ( HALOT 734 s.v. נתן 12; BDB 679 s.v. נָתַן 1.x). Contextually, this describes the shout of victory by the Babylonians celebrating their conquest of Jerusalem.


Heb “as on the day of an appointed time.” The term מוֹעֵד ( mo ’ ed , “appointed time”) refers to the religious festivals that were celebrated at appointed times in the Hebrew calendar (BDB 417 s.v. 1 .b). In contrast to making festivals neglected (forgotten) in v 6 , the enemy had a celebration which was entirely out of place.


Heb “he stretched out a measuring line.” In Hebrew, this idiom is used (1) literally: to describe a workman’s preparation of measuring and marking stones before cutting them for building ( Job 38:5 ; Jer 31:39 ; Zech 1:16 ) and (2) figuratively: to describe the Lord ’s planning and preparation to destroy a walled city, that is, to mark off for destruction ( 2 Kgs 21:13 ; Isa 34:11 ; Lam 2:8 ). It is not completely clear how a phrase from the vocabulary of building becomes a metaphor for destruction; however, it might picture a predetermined and carefully planned measure from which God will not deviate.


Heb “He did not return His hand from swallowing.” That is, he persisted until it was destroyed.