John Calvin Commentary Lamentations 4

Here Jeremiah, following the order of the alphabet the fourth time, deplores the ruin of the city, and the destruction of the priesthood and of the kingdom. For they are mistaken who think that the death of Josiah is here lamented; for there are here many things, which we shall see as we proceed, which do not suit that event. There is no doubt that this mournful song refers to the destruction of the Temple and city; but when Josiah was killed, the enemy had not come to the city, and the stones of the Temple were not then cast forth into the streets and the public roads. There are also other things which we shall see, which did not then happen. It follows then that here is described the terrible vengeance of God, which we have had already to consider.

He begins by expressing his astonishment, How obscured is the gold! and the precious gold! for כתם, catam, is properly the best gold, though the word good, הטוב ethub, is added to it. We may thus conclude that it generally denotes gold only. He mentions, then, gold twice, but they are two different words in Hebrew, זהב, zaeb, and כתם, catam. Now he speaks figuratively in the former part of the verse; but there is no doubt that by the gold, and the finest gold, as it is rendered, he means the splendor of the Temple; for God had designed the Temple to be built, as it is well known, in a very magnificent manner. Therefore, he calls what was ornamental in the Temple gold.

He then speaks without a figure, and says, that the stones were thrown here and there in all directions. Some, indeed, think that these words refer to the sacred vessels, of which there was a large quantity, we know, in the Temple. But this opinion is not probable, for the Prophet does not complain that the gold was taken away, but that it was obscured, and changed.

It is then, no doubt, a metaphorical expression. But he afterwards explains himself when he says that the stones of the sanctuary were cast forth here and there along all the streets. It was indeed a sad spectacle; for God had consecrated that temple to himself, that he might dwell in it. When therefore the stones of the sanctuary were thus disgracefully scattered, it must have grievously wounded the minds of all the godly; for they saw that God’s name was thus exposed to reproaches. Nor is there a doubt that the Chaldeans vomited forth many reproaches against God when they thus scattered the stones of the temple. It therefore appears, that the Prophet did not without reason exclaim, How has this happened! for such a sight must have justly astonished all the godly, seeing as they did the degradation of the temple connected with a reproach to God himself.

The Prophet now comes to the people, though he does not include all the people, but brings forward those who were renowned and excelled in honor and dignity. He then says that they had become like earthen vessels and the work of the potter’s hands, which is very fittingly added.

Then by the sons of Sion, whom he calls precious or glorious, he means the chief men and the king's counselors and those who were most eminent. And he seems to allude to that prophecy which we explained before; for he had said that the people were like earthen vessels, and he went into the house of the potter, that he might see what was made there.

When the potter made a vessel which did not please him, he remodeled it, and then it assumed another form; then God declared that the people were in his hand and at his will, as the clay was in the hand of the potter (Jeremiah 18:2; Jeremiah 19:11). When he now says that the chief men were stripped of all dignity and reduced to another form, so as to become like earthen vessels, he no doubt sets forth by this change the judgment of God, which the Jews had for a time disregarded.

And we must bear in mind the Prophet's object: he described the ruin of the Temple and city, that he might remind the people of the punishment which had at last been inflicted; for we know that the people had not only been deaf but had also scoffed at and derided all prophecies and warnings. As, then, they had not believed the doctrine of Jeremiah, he now shows that what he had predicted was really fulfilled, and that the people were finding to their cost that God did not trifle with them when he had so often threatened what at last happened.

And hence we may conclude that there was then a superfluous splendor in garments, for we read that they had been clad or clothed in gold; surely it was a display too sumptuous. There is, however, no wonder, for we know that Eastern peoples are far too much given to such vanities.

Now, if the other reading, that the sons of Sion had previously been compared to gold, is more approved, the passage must be extended to all their dignity and to all those gifts by which they had been favored and had become illustrious. I have already reminded you that the work of the potter’s hands is here to be understood as the vessels or the earthen flagons; but it was the Prophet's object to enlarge on that reproach, which had previously been incredible.

This verse is harshly explained by many, for they think that the daughter of the people is called cruel because she acted toward her children as serpents do toward their young. But this interpretation is not suitable, for the word בת, beth, is well known to be feminine. He says that the daughter of the people had come to a savage or cruel one; the latter word is masculine.

Therefore, the Prophet seems to mean that the whelps (for that is the word) of serpents are more kindly treated than the Jews. Serpents are devoid of all humanity, yet they nourish their brood and give them the breast. Hence, the Prophet by this comparison amplifies the miseries of the people: their condition was worse than that of serpents, because the tender brood are nourished by their mothers, but the people were without any help, so that they vainly implored the protection of their mother and of others. We now see the real meaning of the Prophet.

The particle גם, gam, is emphatic; for if he had spoken of animals that are careful to nourish their young, it would not have been so remarkable. But the savageness and barbarity of serpents seem so great that they might be expected to cast away their brood. Now he says that even serpents draw out the breast. The Jews say that the breasts of serpents are covered with scales, as though they were hidden; but this is one of their fabrications.

It is a common phrase, taken from common practice; for a woman draws out the breast when she nurses her infant; so serpents are said to draw out the breast when they nurse their whelps. For גורים, gurim, are the whelps of lions or of bears, but in this place the word is applied to serpents.

The daughter, then, of my people has come to the cruel one, because the people had to do with nothing but cruelty, as there was no one to bring them help or to succor them in their miseries. He, then, does not accuse the people of cruelty—that they did not nourish their children—but on the contrary, he means that they were given up to cruel enemies.

As the ostriches, or the owls, he says, in the wilderness. If we understand the ostrich to be intended, we know that bird is very stupid, because as soon as it lays an egg, it forgets and leaves it.

The comparison, then, would be suitable if the daughter of the people were said to be cruel because she neglected her children. But the Prophet, as I think, means, on the contrary, that the Jews were so destitute of all help, as though they were banished into solitary places beyond the sight of humans, because birds in solitude vainly seek the help of others.

As, then, the ostrich or the owl in the desert has no one to bring it help and is without its own mother, so the Prophet intimates that there was no one to stretch out a hand to the distressed people to relieve their extreme miseries.

He says that nursing infants were so thirsty that their tongues, as it were, stuck to the roofs of their mouths. This was a dreadful thing, for mothers would willingly pour out their own blood to feed their infants. Therefore, when a child's tongue clung to his mouth, it seemed to be something beyond nature.

Among other calamities, then, the Prophet names this: that infants pined away with thirst, and also that children sought bread in vain. He is not speaking in the latter instance of nursing infants, but of children three or four years old. Then he says that they sought or asked for bread, but there was no one to give.

He describes here the famine of the city, which he had predicted when he declared that it would be better for the slain than for the people remaining alive, for a harder conflict with famine and want would await the living. But this was not believed. Now, then, the Prophet upbraids the Jews for their former perverseness.

Here he goes on further and says that those who had been accustomed to the most delicate food had perished from famine. He had said generally that infants found nothing in their mothers’ breasts but pined away with thirst, and also that children died from lack of bread. But he now amplifies this calamity by saying that this happened not only to the children of the common people but also to those who had been brought up delicately and had been clothed in scarlet and purple.

Then he says that they perished in the streets, and also that they embraced the dunghills, because they had no place to lie down, or because they sought food, as famished men do on dunghills. It seems to be a hyperbolical expression; but if we consider what the Prophet has already narrated and will again repeat, it should not seem incredible that those who had been accustomed to delicacies embraced dunghills, for mothers cooked their own children and devoured them as beef or mutton. There is no doubt that the siege, about which we have read before, drove the people to acts too degrading to be spoken of, especially when they had become blinded through such great obstinacy and had completely hardened themselves in their madness against God.