John Calvin Commentary Lamentations 2:6

"And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his place of assembly: Jehovah hath caused solemn assembly and sabbath to be forgotten in Zion, And hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest." — Lamentations 2:6 (ASV)

Then he says first, that his tabernacle had been overthrown by God. Those who translate it as “cottage” diminish too much what is being said; nor does the Prophet simply compare the sanctuary of God to a cottage. Therefore, I understand tabernacle in a positive sense. Regarding the verb חמם, chemes, since it means to migrate, I believe those who translate it as God having removed his tabernacle are correct; nor do I disapprove of repeating the word tabernacle.

God, then, had removed his tabernacle, as if it were a cottage in a garden. Watchmen, as it appears from Isaiah 1, then had cottages in their gardens, but only for a time, as is the case today with those who watch over their vineyards; they have, until the vintage, small shelters in which they conceal themselves.

The Prophet then says that though God’s tabernacle was honorable and of high dignity, it was still like a cottage in a garden. It is not, however, a simple comparison, as stated before, and therefore I reject the opinion of those who translate it as cottage, for it is not suitable, and it would be meaningless. God, then, has removed his tabernacle like a garden, that is, the sanctuary where he dwelled. And how did he remove it? Just like a garden cottage. And as garden watchers were accustomed to construct their little shelters from tree leaves and flimsy materials, so the Prophet, in order to evoke greater pity, says that the sacred dwelling place of God was like a cottage in a garden, because it was removed from one place to another. Thus he intimates that God regarded as nothing what he had previously adorned with unique splendors.

He then adds that God had destroyed his testimony. By the word מועד, muod, he means the same thing throughout; but some confine it to the ark of the covenant, and I do not disapprove of this. Yet we must bear in mind the Prophet's design, which was to show that by the entire ruin of the Temple, the covenant of God was, in a way, abolished.

It is, indeed, certain that God had not forgotten his faithfulness and constancy, but this abolition of his covenant refers to how things appeared to people. He then says that the sanctuary, which was, so to speak, the testimony of God’s favor, had been overthrown. Now, as he repeats the word מועד, muod, again, it may be that he refers in this way to the Tabernacle, either because the holy assemblies met there, or because it had been solemnly dedicated so that God might commune with his people there.

For מועד, muod, means a fixed time, an assembly, a festival, and sometimes a sacrifice; and all these meanings are suitable. Yet when he says that God had destroyed his testimony, I apply this to the Tabernacle itself or, if anyone prefers, to the ark of the covenant; though the former is the most suitable, because it was a place consecrated, as has been stated, for mutual communion.

Later, he says that God had forgotten the assembly, the sacrifice, or the tabernacle; for it is the same word again, but it does not seem to be taken in the same sense. Therefore, I think that מועד, muod, is to be understood here as the assembly. Just as he had previously said that the place where the holy assemblies met had been overthrown or destroyed, so now he says that God had no care for all those assemblies, as if they had been buried in perpetual oblivion; for he also mentions the Sabbath, which corresponds with the subject.

God, then, had forgotten all the assemblies as well as the Sabbath. Here again, with this last word, a part represents the whole, for this word was undoubtedly intended to include all the festivals. The meaning of the passage, therefore, is that the impiety of the people had been so great that God, having, so to speak, forgotten his covenant, had inflicted such a dreadful punishment that religion, for a time, was, in a way, trodden underfoot.

Finally, he says that the king and the priest had been rejected by God. We have already said that these were like two pledges of God’s paternal favor. For, on the one hand, he who reigned from the descendants of David was a living image of Christ; and on the other hand, there was always a high priest from the descendants of Aaron to reconcile people to God. It was then as if God showed himself in every way favorable to the chosen people. Therefore, their true happiness was founded on the kingdom and the priesthood; for the kingdom was, so to speak, a mark of God’s favor for their defense, and the priesthood was for them the means by which reconciliation with God was obtained. When, therefore, God wholly disregarded the king and the priest, it became evident from this that he was greatly displeased with his people, having thus, in a way, obliterated his favors.