John Calvin Commentary Lamentations 2

The Prophet again exclaims in wonder that an incredible thing had happened, which was like a prodigy. For at first sight, it seemed very unreasonable that a people whom God had not only received into favor, but with whom He had made a perpetual covenant, should thus be forsaken by Him.

For though men were a hundred times faithless, yet God never changes, but remains unchangeable in His faithfulness; and we know that His covenant was not made to depend on the merits of men. Whatever, then, the people might be, yet it was fitting for God to continue in His purpose and not to annul the promise made to Abraham.

Now, when Jerusalem was reduced to desolation, there was, as it were, an abolition of God’s covenant. There is, then, no wonder that the Prophet here exclaims, as on account of some prodigy, How can it be that God has clouded or darkened.

We must, however, observe at the same time that the Prophet did not mean here to invalidate the fidelity or constancy of God, but thus to rouse the attention of his own nation, who had become numb in their idleness. For though they were pressed down under a load of evils, yet they had become hardened in their perverseness.

But it was impossible that anyone should really call on God, unless he was humbled in mind and brought the sacrifice of which we have spoken, even a humble and contrite spirit (Psalms 51:19). It was, then, the Prophet’s object to soften the hardness which he knew prevailed in almost the whole people. This was the reason why he exclaimed, in a kind of astonishment, How has God clouded.

Some render the words, “How has God raised up,” which may be allowed, provided it is not taken in a good sense, for it is said, in His wrath; but in this case the words “to raise up” and “to cast down” ought to be read conjointly. For when one wishes to break into pieces an earthen vessel, he not only casts it on the ground, but he raises it up, that it may be thrown down with greater force.

We may, then, take this meaning: that God, in order that He might with greater violence break into pieces His people, had raised them up, not to honor them, but in order to dash them more violently on the ground. However, as this sense seems perhaps too refined, I am content with the first explanation, that God had clouded the daughter of Zion in His wrath; and then follows an explanation, that He had cast her from heaven to the earth.

So then God covered His people with darkness when He drew them down from the high dignity which they had for a time enjoyed. He had, then, cast on the earth all the glory of Israel, and remembered not His footstool.

The Prophet seems here indirectly to contend with God, because He had not spared His own sanctuary. For God, as it has been just stated, had chosen Mount Zion for Himself, where He intended to be prayed to, because He had placed there the memorial of His name. Since, then, He had not spared His own sanctuary, it did not appear consistent with His constancy, and He also seemed thus to have disregarded His own glory.

But the design of the Prophet is rather to show to the people how much God’s wrath had been kindled, when He did not spare even His own sanctuary. For he takes this principle for granted, that God is never angry without reason, and never exceeds the due measure of punishment.

Since, then, God’s wrath was so great that He destroyed His own Temple, it was a token of dreadful wrath; and what was the cause but the sins of men? For God, as I have said, always preserves moderation in His judgments. He, then, could not have better expressed to the people the heinousness of their sins than by laying before them this fact, that God remembered not His footstool.

And the Temple, by a very suitable metaphor, is called the footstool of God. It is, indeed, called His habitation; for in Scripture the Temple is often said to be the house of God. It was then the house, the habitation, and the rest of God. But as men are ever inclined to superstition, in order to raise their thoughts above earthly elements, we are reminded, on the other hand, in Scripture, that the Temple was the footstool of God. So in the Psalms: Adore you before His footstool, (Psalms 99:5); and again, We shall adore in the place where His feet stand (Psalms 132:7).

We, then, see that the two expressions, apparently different, yet agree well: that the Temple was the house of God and His habitation, and yet it was only His footstool.

It was the house of God because the faithful found by experience that He was present there; since, then, God gave signs of His presence, the Temple was rightly called the house of God, His rest, and habitation.

But so that the faithful might not fix their minds on the visible sanctuary—and thus, by indulging a gross imagination, fall into superstition and put an idol in the place of God—the Temple was called the footstool of God.

For as it was a footstool, it was fitting for the faithful to rise higher and to know that God was truly sought only when they raised their thoughts above the world. We now perceive what was the purpose of this mode of speaking.

God is said not to have remembered His Temple, not because He had wholly disregarded it, but because the destruction of the Temple could produce no other opinion in men. All, then, who saw that the Temple had been burnt by profane hands, and torn down after it had been plundered, thought that the Temple was forsaken by God; and so also He speaks by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 10:18).

Then this oblivion, or not remembering, refers to the thoughts of men. For however God may have remembered the Temple, yet He seemed for a time to have disregarded it.

We must, at the same time, bear in mind what I have said: that the Prophet here did not intend to dispute with God, or to contend with Him, but, on the contrary, to show what the people deserved.

For God was so indignant on account of their sins that He allowed His own Temple to be profaned. The same thing also follows respecting the kingdom —

He pursues the same subject, but in other words. He first says that God had without pardon destroyed all the habitations of Jacob; some read, “all the beauty (or the ornament) of Jacob.” But the other rendering is more suitable: that he had destroyed all the habitations of Jacob. Then, he says that God had demolished in his indignation, etc. The word is derived from a term meaning excess. However, we know that all words signifying wrath are applied to God, though they do not properly belong to him. God, then, in his violent wrath had demolished all fortresses and cast them to the ground; and afterwards, that he had profaned, etc.

This profanation of the kingdom and of the princes corresponds with the former verse, where he said that God had not remembered his footstool, for we know that the kingdom was sacerdotal and consecrated to God. When, therefore, it was polluted, it follows that God, in a way, exposed his name to reproach, because the mouths of all the ungodly were thus opened, so that they insolently poured forth their slanders. That God, then, did not spare the kingdom nor the Temple; it therefore followed that his wrath against the Jews was dreadful. Now, as he is a righteous judge, it follows that such was the greatness of the sins of the Jews that they bore the blame for this extreme sacrilege, for it was through their sins that God’s name was exposed to reproach regarding both the Temple and the kingdom.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as you set before us today those ancient examples by which we perceive with what heavy punishments you chastised those whom you had adopted — O grant, that we may learn to regard you, and carefully to examine our whole life, and duly consider how indulgently you have preserved us to this day, so that we may always patiently bear your chastisements, and with a humble and sincere heart flee to your mercy, until you are pleased to raise up your Church from that miserable state in which it now lies, and so to restore it, that your name may, through your only-begotten Son, be glorified throughout the whole world. — Amen.

Jeremiah expresses the same thing in various ways; but all that he says tends to show that it was an evidence of God’s extreme vengeance when the people, the city, and the Temple were destroyed. But it should be observed that God is here represented as the author of that calamity: the Prophet would have otherwise lamented in vain over the ruin of his own country; but as in all adversities he acknowledged the hand of God, he later added that God had a just reason why He was so grievously displeased with His own people.

He then says that every horn had been broken by God. We know that by horn is meant strength as well as excellence or dignity, and I am inclined to include both here, though the word "breaking" seems rather to refer to strength or power. But the whole clause must be noted: that God had broken every horn of Israel in the indignation of His wrath.

The Prophet intimates that God had not been angry with His people as though He had been offended by slight transgressions, but that the measure of His wrath had been unusual, precisely because the impiety of the people had burst forth to such an extent that the offense given to God could not have been slight.

Then, by indignation of wrath, the Prophet does not mean an excess, as though God had, through a violent impulse, rushed forth to take vengeance; but he rather intimates that the people had become so wicked that it did not befit God to punish in an ordinary way an impiety so inveterate.

He then adds that God had withdrawn His right hand from before the enemy, and that at the same time He had burned like a fire, the flame of which had devoured all around. The Prophet here refers to two things. The first is that though God had been accustomed to help His people and to oppose their enemies, as they had experienced His aid in the greatest dangers, yet now His people were forsaken and left destitute of all hope.

The first clause, then, declares that God would not be the deliverer of His people as formerly, because they had forsaken Him. But he speaks figuratively, that God had drawn back His right hand; and God’s right hand means His protection, as is well known. The Prophet’s meaning is by no means obscure: that there was henceforth no hope that God would confront the enemies of His people and thus preserve them in safety, for He had drawn back His hand.

But a second thing is added: that God’s hand burned like fire. Now, it was in itself a grievous thing that the people had been so rejected by God that no help could be expected from Him; but it was still a harder thing that He went forth armed to destroy His people. And the metaphor of fire should be noted; for had He said that God’s right hand was against His people, the expression would not have been so forcible; but when He compared God’s right hand to fire that burned, and whose flame consumed all Israel, it was a much more dreadful thing.

Moreover, by these words the Israelites were reminded that they were not to lament their calamities in an ordinary way but should, on the contrary, have seriously considered the cause of all their evils: namely, the provoking of God’s wrath against themselves. And not only so, but they were reminded that God was angry with them to an unusual degree, and yet justly, so that they had no reason to complain.

He now employs another metaphor: God, who was accustomed to defend His people, now took up arms against them. For, in stating a part for the whole, he includes in the bow every other weapon. When, therefore, he says that God had bent His bow, it is the same as if He said that He was fully armed.

The bow, then, as we have seen before, means every kind of weapon. He then adds that His right hand stood as an adversary. Here he describes more plainly what he had touched upon before: namely, that God had not only given up His people to the will of their enemies, but that He Himself had held up a banner to their enemies and went before them with an armed hand.

Nor is there any doubt that by "the right hand of God" he means all their enemies. For it was necessary to impress this fact carefully on the minds of the people: that the war had not been brought by the Chaldeans, but that God had resolved thereby to punish the wickedness of the people, and especially their desperate obstinacy, for He had omitted nothing to restore the people to the right way.

Whenever, then, God is mentioned here, let us understand that the people are reminded, as I have already said, that they had to do with God, lest they should forget this, or think that it was misfortune, or dream of some other causes of evils, as people are accustomed in this respect to be very ingenious in deceiving themselves.

And we shall see this more clearly later, where it is said that God had resolved to destroy the wall of Jerusalem; but this resolution was the same as His decree. Then the Prophet explains there more fully what is substantially found here: namely, that God was thus brought before the people, that they might learn to humble themselves under His mighty hand.

The hand of God was not indeed visible, but the Prophet shows that the Chaldeans were not to be regarded in isolation; rather, the hidden hand of God, by which they were guided, should have been seen by the eyes of faith. It was, then, this hand of God that stood against the people.

It then follows, He slew all the chosen men; some read, “all things desirable,” but it seems more suitable to consider men as intended, as if he had said that the flower of the people perished by the hand of God in the tabernacle of the daughter of Sion. Though the last clause would unite better with the end of the verse, that on the tabernacle of the daughter of Sion God had poured forth His wrath, or His anger, as fire.

He repeats the metaphor which he had used in the last verse, and this is what we should carefully note, for God threatens by Isaiah that He would be a fire to devour His enemies:

“The light of Israel shall be a fire, and His Holy One a flame of fire, and it shall devour all briers and all kinds of wood” (Isaiah 10:7).

There God threatened the Chaldeans, as if He had said that His vengeance would be dreadful, when, as a patron and defender of His people, He would contend with the Chaldeans. He there calls Himself the light of Israel and the Holy One; and hence He said that He would be a fire and a flame to the Chaldeans. But what does he say here? Namely, that God had poured forth His wrath as fire, that its flame had devoured all around whatever was beautiful to be seen in Israel. Hence, we see that the people had provoked against themselves the vengeance of God, which would otherwise have been poured forth on their enemies; and thus the sin of the people was doubled.

These words might seem superfluous, since the Prophet has often repeated that God had become an enemy to his own people; but we shall later see that, though they were extremely afflicted, they still did not rightly consider from where their calamity arose. As, then, they had become so stupefied by their evils that they did not turn their eyes to God, they were for this reason often urged and stimulated, so that they might at last understand from their evils that God was a judge. Now, as it was difficult to convince them of this truth, the Prophet did not think it enough to touch on it briefly, but found it necessary to dwell on it extensively, so that the people might at last be roused from their insensibility.

He then says that God himself was to them as an enemy, to prevent the Israelites from fixing their eyes on the Chaldeans and thus thinking that they had been the primary instigators of the war. He therefore says that they had undertaken that war through the secret influence of God, and had carried it on successfully, because God endowed them with his own power.

And from this the faithful ought to have concluded that nothing could have been more grievous than to have God as their adversary; for as long as they had allowed themselves to be defended by the hand of God, they were, we know, victorious over all their enemies, so that they could then brave all dangers with impunity.

The Prophet now reminds them that, as they had been successful and prosperous under the defense and protection of God, so now they were miserable for no other reason than that God fought against them. But we ought at the same time to bear in mind the truth, which we have noted, that God is never angry with people without reason; and since he was especially inclined to show favor to his people, we must understand that he would not have been so indignant if necessity had not constrained him.

He has destroyed Israel, he says; he has destroyed all his palaces; and afterwards, he has dissipated or demolished all his fortresses; and finally, he has increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation; תאניה ואניה tanie veanie, words derived from the same root, but joined together for the sake of amplification, not only in this place, but also in Isaiah 29 and in other places. The meaning is that God had not put an end to his vengeance, because the people had not resolved to put an end to their obstinate wickedness. He afterwards adds—