Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of YHWH that you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?”
2 Kings 20:19
Contrast Hezekiah's selfish words with those of the atheist Thomas Paine: "I prefer peace, but if trouble must come, let it be in my time so that my children can live in peace." No man is perfectly wise nor perfectly foolish.
Also realize that an offensive, merciless war today is often better than many years of drawn out conflict and brutality later.
Isaiah said, “Bring a cake of figs. And let them take and lay it on the boil, that he may recover.”
2 Kings 20:7
Why figs? It looks like medical intervention and Isaiah even attributes the healing to the figs. Isaiah's prophecies were sometimes of a very practical nature, and God often responds to our foolishness by ensuring that we suffer the natural consequences without divine rescue.
Figs are symbolic of fruitfulness, which Hezekiah had not been. He did not have an heir yet, which threatened the entire lineage of David because the previous generation had been wiped out by wicked people.
The flowers are on the inside of the fruit. Tiny fig wasps enter the fruit to lay eggs and often die inside the fruit. Their bodies are dissolved by enzymes in the fruit, but this is a picture of how fruitfulness often requires conflict, uncleanness, and interaction with things that appear to be forbidden.
110725 / 15th day of the 8th month 5786
WORD FOR TODAY “are you ready”: Rom 14:12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
WISDOM FOR TODAY: Pro 20:20 He who curses his father or his mother, His lamp will go out in time of darkness.
Ask the LORD how you can serve HIM better
www.BGMCTV.org
BIBLE STUDY --- THE FIVE SCROLLS OF THE TANAKH [MEGILLOT]
THE SCROLL OF ESTHER
Old Testament book telling the story of a Jewish woman’s protection of her people after her marriage to a gentile king.
AUTHOR
The book of Esther is an anonymous composition. The reference in 9:20 that Mordecai “recorded these things” implies that part, if not all, of the book was written by him. The absence of YHVH’s name in the book of Esther may be due to the fact that the author intended the book to become part of the official Persian court record. The use of YHVH’s name might have prevented that from happening. The author of the book had considerable knowledge of Persian court life and customs. Thus, Mordecai might be identified with a Morduka mentioned as a Persian court official in the reign of Darius I {521–486 BC} and Xerxes {486–464 BC}.
DATE, ORIGIN, AND PURPOSE
Immediate impressions favour a date for the book of Esther shortly after 465 BC, if Ahasuerus is identified with Xerxes, who died that year. Many contemporary scholars, however, favour a later date. The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, written about 180 BC, refers to that period. Jewish heroes are mentioned there, but Esther and Mordecai are not included. Some also suggest the period of the Maccabees as the time of the book’s writing. Others have identified it with a cultic story from ancient Babylon, associating Esther with the goddess Ishtar and Mordecai with the god Marduk. The earliest post biblical reference to the Feast of Purim is 2 Maccabees 15:36, probably written about 75 BC. The book of Esther claims to record events in Persia sometime during the fifth century BC, surrounding the selection of Esther as queen. If a later date is preferred, the book can be viewed as written to encourage Jews during a time of persecution. One definite purpose of the book of Esther is to explain the origin of the Jewish Feast of Purim {Esther 9:16-28}. The term “Purim” is probably related to the Assyrian word Puru, meaning a small stone used for casting lots.
CANONICITY
The major theological problem with the book of Esther is the absence of any mention of YHVH and the lack of even an intimation of divine providence. As a result, some scholars in both Jewish and believer circles question its canonicity. But closer observation reveals an obvious providential dimension in the book. The reference to fasting in 4:16, for example, implies prayer as well as abstinence from food. Esther’s being in the right place at the right time is no accident. The fall of Haman is also not accidental. On the negative side, the extreme measures taken in hanging Haman’s sons reflects a collective view of guilt that is not acceptable today {9:13-14}. Implicit, too, is the theme of YHVH’s protection of his Covenant people even in times of persecution. That fact has made the book of Esther a favourite of Jews throughout history. Its practical implications however, have not kept some from questioning the book’s genuineness as a part of the Bible. The book of Esther appears in the third part of the Jewish canon, as part of the five scrolls known as the Megillot; its companions there are Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations. The Septuagint {Greek version of the Old Testament} contains 107 extra verses in the book of Esther. These additions form part of the Apocrypha in English versions of the Bible. Even as late as the Reformation era, Esther’s canonicity was being debated, and some contemporary evangelicals have raised doubts about its value. Its canonicity is favoured by
1 -- its history of acceptance in both Judaism and the Christian church, and
2 -- its illustrative value for teaching YHVH’s providential care of the Jewish people {see Romans 9–11; Revelation 7, 14}.
BACKGROUND
A number of historical problems have been noted:
1 -- Xerxes’ known wife was named Amestris, according to the historian Herodotus. But it is likely that the king had more than one wife.
2 -- The implication that Mordecai went into exile in 597 BC would have made him about 120 years old during the reign of Xerxes. But the text of 2:5-6 might mean that Mordecai’s great-grandfather was the original exile rather than Mordecai.
3 -- Various details seem fanciful to some modern readers: a banquet lasting 180 days; Esther’s 12-month beauty treatment; a gallows 83 feet {25.3 meters} tall; the Jews killing 75,000 of Xerxes’ subjects {see 1:4; 2:7, 12; 7:9; 9:16}. But what appears mythological sometimes turns out to be historical.
Several elements in the book of Esther point to a genuinely historical setting for the book. Ahasuerus is usually identified with Xerxes. Xerxes’ father was Darius, from whom have come some notable inscriptions and relief sculptures, one of them showing Darius seated on his throne with Xerxes standing behind him. Xerxes is believed to have been a weak-willed man in domestic affairs, easily influenced by flattering and scheming courtiers. On the field of battle, however, he was a vigorous leader who ferociously pursued his objectives. His energetic suppression of a revolt in Egypt was a prelude to mustering a navy to attack Athens. Only the skill and daring of the Greek forces at the naval battle of Salamis {480 BC} saved Greece from complete Persian occupation. Xerxes eventually lost the war and retired to his elegant palaces at Persepolis and Susa. He rejected the traditional gods of Egypt and Babylon and became a devotee of Ahuramazda, the Persian spirit of good.
CONTENT
The book of Esther portrays the reign of King Ahasuerus, whose empire stretched from India to Ethiopia {1:1-9}. The centre of his empire was in Susa {Shushan}, in Persia. Because Queen Vashti disgraced the king by refusing his order to appear in court, she was removed, and a search began for a new queen {1:10-22}. A young Jewish woman named Hadassah, without parents and living with her kinsman Mordecai, was selected to replace Queen Vashti {2:1-18}. Early in her reign Esther and Mordecai helped to save the king’s life {verses 19-23}. A man named Haman, who was promoted to an influential position in the palace court, plotted to kill the Jews because he hated Mordecai {chapter 3}. Mordecai intervened through Queen Esther, and the queen called on the Jews in Susa to fast for deliverance {chapter 4}. Esther’s intervention with the king led to a sleepless night for Ahasuerus {5:1–6:1}. He reviewed the records of “memorable deeds,” and discovered that Mordecai’s earlier help had gone un-rewarded. When Haman arrived to initiate his plot against the Jews, the king ordered him to honour Mordecai {chapter 6}. When Haman’s plot was then discovered, the schemer was hanged {chapter 7}. The king honoured Mordecai and sent out an edict protecting the Jews from harm {chapter 8}. The Jews, by the king’s permission, killed the soldiers who would earlier have killed them in Haman’s plot {9:1-16}. To celebrate their national deliverance, the Jews planned a great celebration {9:17–10:3}. That celebration became the Festival of Purim -- a time of feasting and distribution of gifts to all, especially to the poor.
BIBLE STUDY --- THE FIVE SCROLLS OF THE TANAKH [MEGILLOT]
THE SCROLL OF ECCLESIASTES
Old Testament book of Wisdom Literature. Ecclesiastes is philosophical in character, posing deep questions about the meaning and nature of human existence. “Ecclesiastes” is the Greek title for the book and has come into English from the Septuagint {Greek translation of the Old Testament}. In keeping with an early Jewish practice of adopting the first few words of a book as the title, the Hebrew title of Ecclesiastes is “The Words of Koheleth, the Son of David, King in Jerusalem.” It is also known simply as “Koheleth.” The term “Koheleth” is the author’s title for himself throughout the book {Ecclesiastes 1:1-2, 12; 7:27; 12:8-10}. It is the Hebrew participial form of a verb meaning “to assemble,” and thus it seems to designate one who speaks in an assembly. The word has often been translated “the Preacher” in English. Because of the philosophical nature of the book however, the title possibly indicates the author’s function or station as a leader in the community of wise men.
AUTHOR
The authorship of Ecclesiastes presents complex questions, on which biblical scholars disagree. Early Jewish tradition was divided over the issue, ascribing the book to King Hezekiah and his school, as well as to King Solomon. Internal evidence is often appealed to for support of Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes. The first verse ascribes the authorship of the book to “the son of David.” Other passages {e.g., 1:16-17; 2:6-7} also seem to refer to Solomon, who succeeded David as king of the united kingdom of Israel. Those who reject Solomonic authorship interpret such references as literary devices, written by a later unknown author in order to use Solomon’s devotion to wisdom as a context for his own ideas about life’s purpose and meaning. A number of passages in the book have been appealed to in support of non-Solomonic authorship. Some scholars allege that if the book had been written by Solomon, he would not have used the past tense about his reign “over Israel in Jerusalem” {1:12}. Proponents of Solomonic authorship point out however, that the Hebrew verb “was” can also mean “became,” thus stating that Solomon had become king in Jerusalem. It is also alleged that 1:16 supports a date of writing by an author who lived much later than Solomon. They say that Solomon could not have said that he was wiser than “all who were over Jerusalem before me,” for that would point to a long succession of kings before him. But the author may have meant prominent wise men rather than kings {see 1 Kings 4:31}. One of the chief difficulties with Solomonic authorship is the fact that Old Testament history does not record a period of spiritual revival in Solomon’s life as a context for the book of Ecclesiastes. That is not a conclusive argument however, for the thoughts recorded in the book are intensely personal in nature. The historical books of the Old Testament deal primarily with historical developments, mentioning personal aspects of human life only where they bear upon YHVH’s purposes as reflected in the national history. It would, in fact, be surprising if the extremely personal struggles recorded in Ecclesiastes were cited by the historical writers. The question of authorship is a difficult one, but there seems to be no conclusive evidence against Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes.
DATE
The majority of scholars who hold to the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes date the book in Solomon’s final years as king {c. 940 BC}. The book would then have been written in the golden era of Israelite wisdom, by one of the foremost proponents of wisdom teaching. Those who deny Solomonic authorship disagree among themselves as to when the book was written, but most date it in the postexilic period. A Maccabean date {c. 165 BC} is difficult to maintain, because fragments of the book, dated in the second century BC, have been found at the Dead Sea site of Qumran. Also, the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, probably written in the early second century BC, was heavily influenced by Ecclesiastes. Such factors would allow little time for the writing and circulation of the book in the Maccabean period. A number of conservative scholars, such as Franz Delitzsch and E. J. Young, have assigned a fifth-century BC date to the book. Many others consider it a third-century BC document.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
Attempts have been made to determine the date of the book of Ecclesiastes from alleged historical allusions. But the somewhat gloomy observations found in such passages as 1:2-11 and 3:1-15 need be nothing more than the author’s conclusions about the emptiness of life. They do not necessarily indicate that the book was written in a time of national decline or social decay within Israel, a time that would not fit with the reign of Solomon. It is also alleged that the book contains allusions to Greek philosophical concepts. That would indicate that it was written sometime after the Hellenization of the Syro-Palestinian world effected by the conquests of Alexander the Great {356–323 BC}. One of those philosophical concepts is the “golden mean” propounded by Aristotle. The golden mean calls for avoiding extremes in the pursuit of satisfaction in life, and it is reflected in Ecclesiastes 7:14-18. The same concept is found in Egyptian wisdom literature {Instruction of Amen-em-opet 9.14}, as well as in Aramaic wisdom literature. In one of the finest examples of Aramaic wisdom, The Words of Ahiqar, the golden mean is expressed in the words “Be not {too} sweet, lest they [swallow you]; be not {too} bitter [lest they spit you out].” But the golden mean concept need not indicate one particular period of thought; it may simply represent a basic kind of wisdom shared by people of all times and all ethnic backgrounds.
LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS
The most critical issue in dating Ecclesiastes is the nature of the book’s language. The Hebrew of Ecclesiastes is unique, differing stylistically and linguistically from such fifth-century Old Testament books as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah. Some scholars maintain that the language of Ecclesiastes was heavily influenced by Aramaic, and thus the book was written at a time when the Aramaic language was influential in the Hebrew-speaking world. Others have argued that the peculiarities of the Hebrew should be understood as affinities with Canaanite-Phoenician dialects. It is often asserted that the Hebrew of the book is similar to later Mishnaic Hebrew, particularly in its use of the relative pronoun. Yet the language of Ecclesiastes is dissimilar to the Mishnah in other ways. The linguistic evidence could point to a late date for the book, but it is also possible that Solomon wrote in a literary style that was heavily influenced by Phoenician literature. Such a style may have become a standard for the literary genre into which Ecclesiastes falls. During the reign of Solomon, contacts between Palestine and Phoenicia were quite common.
PURPOSE AND THEOLOGICAL TEACHING
The book of Ecclesiastes demonstrates the meaninglessness of a worldview that does not press beyond the limits of human experience to include YHVH. It seeks to show that meaningful satisfaction may be attained in a universe that seems to be nothing more than a succession of wearying cycles -- a universe into which people are locked with no apparent means of escape. According to Koheleth, freedom can be achieved by fearing YHVH and believing that YHVH will ultimately judge everything fairly. Thus, life has a goal and purpose that it will reach, although in the course of history and the processes of the physical world, it may not look that way. The book’s chief theological tenet is that YHVH is not disinterested in the course of human events with its gross injustices. He will judge every deed. Life, therefore, has a purpose, and human deeds have meaning. Koheleth is often accused of having a pessimistic view of life. One cannot read such passages as 1:12-14, 18 and 2:1-9, 18-23 without feeling his helplessness as he viewed what seemed an empty existence. But Koheleth’s pessimism had to do with life apart from YHVH. To him such a life had no meaning. A positive good emerges from the book however, even though it is often overlooked. Koheleth speaks in terms of absolutes as he spins his argument. There is an absolute good for people as they live in a seemingly meaningless world. That good is the enjoyment of YHVH’s gifts to his people. Thus, Koheleth is not an utter pessimist. When he lifts the horizons of his worldview to include the hand of YHVH at work in the world, he becomes an optimist. But when he looks at life without YHVH, he is pessimistic, for such a view offers only despair. Koheleth’s “theology of contentment” is clear in such passages as 2:24-25, 3:10-13, and 3:22. The first passage seems to express a hedonistic view of life, making eating and drinking the main purpose. The expression “eat and drink” is a Semitic idiom that seems to express the everyday routines of life {cf. Jeremiah 22:15; Luke 17:27-28}. Koheleth’s use of the phrase, then, simply means that one should enjoy YHVH’s providence. Life is meant to be enjoyed, not endured. In 3:10-13 Koheleth sets forth the great enigma of humankind: YHVH has put the knowledge of eternity in the human mind. That is, he has made the mind able to go beyond the limits of physical existence. Yet even that ability to conceptualize the eternal does not explain all of YHVH’s purposes. Therefore, it is good for a person simply to accept human limitation and enjoy whatever knowledge YHVH gives. Ecclesiastes 3:16 - 4:3 is a difficult section of the book. There Koheleth observes the inequities of life and concludes that YHVH allows such things for the purpose of “sifting” people to show them that they are no more than animals. The same principle appears in 8:11, where Koheleth observes that when evil goes unpunished, the wicked are encouraged to continue to do evil. In 3:18 he asserts that injustice is present in the world to distinguish the good from the wicked. The Hebrew in that assertion should be translated “in and of themselves.” That is viewed alone, apart from YHVH, humankind is no better than animals. If one adopts a worldview that omits YHVH, there can be no way of knowing what lies beyond the grave {3:21}. The inequities that Koheleth observes will be corrected only in the Day of Judgment. Thus, it is best for a person to be content with YHVH’s providence and not to be anxious about tomorrow {3:22}. The key to understanding the book of Ecclesiastes is the recurring phrase “under the sun.” That phrase defines Koheleth’s perspective. He is not judging all human experience as vain. Rather, he is observing life “under the sun,” or apart from YHVH, as vain. The apostle Paul rendered the same verdict on the created world in Romans 8:20-23, but he went on to say that YHVH uses all things in his world to work out good results for his people {Romans 8:28}. Koheleth’s viewpoint is similarly helpful. Koheleth has often been interpreted as expressing an Epicurean view of life, that eating and drinking are humanity’s highest good. In 2:1-8, however, he tests pleasure and finds it futile. He concludes that pleasure is not an absolute good. The passages that speak of eating and drinking refer only to the enjoyment of those good and necessary things that come from YHVH’s hand.
CONTENT
THE VANITY OF THE CYCLE OF HISTORY AND NATURE {1:1-11}
Koheleth begins his recital of the vanity of life by observing its emptiness and the apparent lack of purpose in the processes of nature. Human toil is fruitless {1:3}, and the endless cycle of life and history is meaningless {1:4-11}.
THE VANITY OF KOHELETH’S OWN EXPERIENCE {1:12–2:26}
In this dramatic section Koheleth looks back to observe the futility of aspects of his life that some might have regarded as possessing great value. He recalls his search for wisdom, but pronounces human philosophy futile {1:12-18}. His search for pleasure {2:1-11} also ended in futility. In the light of this conclusion, Koheleth hardly sets forth the attainment of pleasure as life’s highest good. The search for valid philosophical verities is wearisome and futile in its outcome {verses 12-17}. Human toil is also vain {verses 18-23}, because one can never be sure who will inherit the reward of one’s toil {verse 21}. Koheleth concludes that the greatest good is to accept YHVH’s providence joyfully {verses 24-26}, an optimistic note in his message.
THE PLIGHT OF HUMANITY APART FROM YHVH {3:1-22}
Koheleth’s familiar statement that everything in life has its time {3:1-9} has often been interpreted as crassly fatalistic. But those verses more probably set forth the inalterability of life’s circumstances. Humankind is locked into a continuum from which there is no escape, yet people are able to think in terms that go beyond the physical {verse 11}. That is the enigma of humankind. Viewed apart from YHVH, people really are no better than animals {verses 19-20}.
CONCLUSIONS RESULTING FROM KOHELETH’S OBSERVATIONS {4:1-16}
The author begins with a gloomy outlook on life {4:1-3} but goes on to draw conclusions of permanent value. He points out, for example, that life’s difficulties are better faced with a partner than alone {verses 9-12}.
THE VANITY OF LIVING ONLY FOR ONESELF {5:1–6:12}
Koheleth gives a powerful denunciation of a self-seeking life by focusing on YHVH {5:1-2, 4-6}. His condemnation of the misuse of riches and his concern for the poor {5:8–6:9} are themes later emphasized in the New Testament.
WISDOM FOR LIVING {7:1–8:17}
This fine example of Old Testament Wisdom Literature uses a proverbial pattern {7:1-13} and personal references {verses 23-29} to give insight into how one may find true satisfaction. The whole passage upholds the virtue of godly wisdom. Koheleth’s theology of contentment underlies his observation that YHVH is the source of adversity as well as prosperity {verse 14}. He affirms that one should accept both as coming from YHVH. Applying wisdom to governmental authority {8:2-9}, Koheleth counsels the reader to obey the authorities. The apostle Paul gave the same advice in Romans 13. Koheleth strikes an optimistic note {Ecclesiastes 8:13}, exalting the fear of YHVH. The author is not totally pessimistic, for he shows that fearing YHVH leads to genuine satisfaction.
OBSERVATIONS ON LIFE’S SEEMING INJUSTICES {9:1-18}
“Under the sun,” that is, apart from YHVH, there are no apparent differences among human beings {9:1-6, 11-12}. Great deeds often go unnoticed and un-thanked {verses 13-16}. A person should nonetheless be content, for life does offer certain benefits {verses 7-10}.
WISDOM AND FOLLY {10:1-20}
Wisdom in the Old Testament basically means knowing YHVH, and folly is rejection of YHVH. Koheleth shows how wisdom can lead to honour and satisfaction, and folly can lead to ruin.
KOHELETH’S CONCLUSION -- FEAR YHVH {11:1–12:14}
The book of Ecclesiastes began with a pronouncement of vanity on all creation, and it ends with Koheleth looking beyond his gloomy vistas to see YHVH. Chapter 11 begins with a statement of human inability to understand the ways of YHVH. Though people are meant to enjoy life, they must remember that the future will bring YHVH’s judgment {11:9-10}. After giving a beautiful description of old age {12:1-8} and encouraging the reader to fear YHVH in youth, Koheleth states his conclusion. A person’s whole duty is to fear YHVH {verses 13-14}. The pleasure of youth will burst like a bubble and, without YHVH, one will finally have nothing. Satisfaction can come only as one fears YHVH. Life without YHVH is the ultimate vanity.
BIBLE STUDY --- THE FIVE SCROLLS OF THE TANAKH [MEGILLOT]
THE SCROLL OF LAMENTATIONS
Book consisting of five poems that constitute a formal dirge lamenting the fall of Jerusalem.
AUTHOR
The book of Lamentations has been traditionally ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah. This ascription is supported by the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint. The Jeremaic authorship of the book has been questioned by many scholars, however. The chief reasons for this are the different literary styles of the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations and the alleged conflicting viewpoints in the two books. The literary styles of these books are strikingly different. The prophecies of the book of Jeremiah are flowing pronouncements that create an impression of spontaneity and are quite unlike the contrived literary structures of Lamentations. But it is somewhat arbitrary to assert that Jeremiah could not have written the book of Lamentations on the basis of style. The choice of the acrostic form would naturally limit the scope of the writer’s freedom and profoundly affect his style. It is clear from 2 Chronicles 35:25 that Jeremiah composed the same type of material as that found in Lamentations. Since the sermons of the book of Jeremiah were intended for public proclamation, they would naturally have a spontaneity that the book of Lamentations would not possess. Certainly, the sensitive nature reflected in Jeremiah’s prophecies characterized the author of Lamentations as well. Typical of the alleged differences of viewpoint used to deny Jeremaic authorship is the role of the nations in the destruction of Jerusalem. In his prophecy Jeremiah saw the invading Babylonians as a tool of YHVH’s punishment, and appealed to the Jews to surrender to the invaders {Jeremiah 28:3}. The book of Lamentations seems to make YHVH the direct author of the punishment and sees the enemy nations only as onlookers who will also experience YHVH’s wrath {Lamentations 1:21; 3:59-66}. It must be noted however, that the enemies referred to in Lamentations are not only the Babylonians but all of the hostile powers that threatened Judah and gloated over its destruction {1:21}. The assurance that YHVH will judge these enemies is not a denial of the message of the book of Jeremiah, for it would be artificial for Jeremiah to suppose that the Babylonians, even though they were an instrument of YHVH’s anger, were exempt from punishment. Such a concept is at variance with Jeremiah 12:14-17. A number of phrases used in the book of Jeremiah are found in Lamentations as well. The expressions “terrors on every side” {Lamentations 2:22; cf. Jeremiah 6:25; 20:10} and “wormwood” {Lamentations 3:15, 19; cf. Jeremiah 9:15; 23:15} are examples of these. This fact lends support to the concept of Jeremaic authorship of the book. Other reasons cited for the denial of Jeremaic authorship are the absence of the name of Jeremiah in Lamentations and the position of the book in the Writings, not the Prophets, in the Hebrew Bible. The absence of Jeremiah’s name is not a cogent argument against his authorship; there are a significant number of Old Testament books whose authors are not cited. Since the book of Lamentations is a formal dirge, and is thus unlike the book of Jeremiah with its numerous autobiographical references, one would not expect personal allusions by the author. The position of Lamentations in the third division of the Hebrew Bible is sometimes appealed to by those who question Jeremaic authorship. Since Jeremiah is in the second division, it is argued that Lamentations was written too late for it to have been authored by Jeremiah. It should be noted however, that there is a lack of unity in the early lists of the canonical books in the third division. It is difficult to assign a late date to a book of the third division only because of its inclusion in that division. The early church father Jerome indicated that Lamentations was once on the same scroll with Jeremiah.
DATE
If the book of Lamentations was written by Jeremiah, the time of writing would be shortly after the fall of Jerusalem {586 BC}. It is extremely difficult to imagine an author living in later times writing such a poignant lament over Jerusalem’s fall. The vivid descriptions of the suffering endured by the inhabitants of Jerusalem support the position that the book was written by an eyewitness to the events.
BACKGROUND
After many months of siege by the Babylonian armies, Jerusalem fell, and the final deportation of the people of Judah took place. Extrabiblical confirmation of the devastation caused by the Babylonian invasion may be found in the Lachish letters, which record the message from a soldier in the field who indicates that he is watching for the signals of Lachish but cannot see the signals of Azekah {cf. Jeremiah 34:7}. The time preceding Jerusalem’s fall was one of internal strife and political intrigue. Jeremiah counselled surrender, while the chauvinistic leaders of Jerusalem tried to encourage the Judahites to fight on against the Babylonian onslaught. The role of Jeremiah in those final events was a tenuous one. His life was threatened, and he suffered numerous imprisonments. The fall of Jerusalem meant more than ignominious defeat and exile. While these would have been hard to bear, the theological emergency brought about by the event would have been the most difficult thing for believing Jews to comprehend. The fall of the city in which YHVH chose to reveal himself would have signalled the end of YHVH’s promises. The Old Testament clearly set forth a glorious future for Jerusalem. It was to be the centre of the messianic kingdom in the end time {Micah 4}. The destruction of the city would cause many to question the veracity of YHVH’s Word. The laments in this book are not only for the suffering that accompanied the fall of the city but also for the deep spiritual questions posed by its demise.
STRUCTURE
Each poem has a distinct symmetrical pattern. The first {Lamentations 1} is an elaborate acrostic composed of three-line segments. There are 22 segments, each beginning with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, proceeding in order from the first to the last. The second poem {chapter 2} is similar except for a transposition of two Hebrew letters. The third poem {chapter 3} is also composed of three-line segments, but each line begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, rather than only the first line of each segment as in the first two poems. The same Hebrew letters are transposed. The fourth poem {chapter 4} is an acrostic composed of two-line segments. The first line of each segment begins with the appropriate Hebrew letter. The last poem {chapter 5} is not an acrostic, but it contains the same number of letters as the Hebrew alphabet. The reason for this complex structure is unknown. It has been suggested that it is a device to aid memorization. Another suggestion is that the Hebrews may have seen the alphabet as representing the concept of totality or completeness. This idea derives from the fact that the Hebrew alphabet represented numbers as well as letters. This concept of totality may be reflected in the reference to the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet in Revelation 1:8: “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” It is quite possible that the expression of lamentation in the structure of the Hebrew alphabet could have represented the full range of sorrow felt by the author as he pondered the fall of the city of Jerusalem.
PURPOSE AND THEOLOGICAL TEACHING
A major purpose of the book of Lamentations was to give expression to the deep grief that Jeremiah felt as a result of Jerusalem’s catastrophe. By writing the book, he expressed the grief of all the Jews of his time and gave them a vehicle that would give vent to their sorrow. The book does not contain only lamentation however, for it expresses hope and comfort as well. Thus, another of its purposes was to lift the hearts of the people and point them to YHVH, the source of all comfort. One of the greatest expressions of hope in the book is found in 3:22-23: “The unfailing love of Adonai never ends! By his mercies we have been kept from complete destruction. Great is his faithfulness; his mercies begin afresh each day”. Perhaps the most important purpose of the book was to explain the theological reason for the catastrophe. The book places the reason for Jerusalem’s fall in clear focus and demonstrates what can be learned about YHVH from this. The reason given for Jerusalem’s demise is the sin of the people {1:8-9, 14; 4:13}. The fall of the city is a vivid illustration of YHVH’s justice in not overlooking sin even in those who are his own {1:18}. It demonstrates the fact that YHVH may seem like an enemy to his people when they are disobedient {2:5-7}. It shows that the catastrophe was not outside the purposes of YHVH {verse 17} and vividly describes the results that can come from wilful disobedience. But YHVH is envisioned as a YHVH of mercy and faithfulness as well. Even though Jeremiah saw his beloved homeland crumbling about him, there remained one great element of stability: YHVH’s loyalty to his promises. Jeremiah knew that this was not the end, for he trusted in the steadfast love of Adonai and learned to wait quietly for YHVH to act in his time {3:22-27}.
CONTENT
The first chapter is a lamentation over the captivity of the citizens of Jerusalem and the resultant desolation of the city. The author alludes to Deuteronomy 28:64-65 at the beginning of the first lamentation {Lamentations 1:3}. In that passage Moses warned the people that their disobedience to YHVH would result in their dispersion among the nations, with no resting place. Lamentations 1:3 says that this warning has been realized. The cause of Israel’s misfortune was their sin {1:8a}. This is a remarkable example of the results of disobedience to YHVH. The dire results of sin permeate this first lamentation in a series of pictures of deep pathos {verses 11-12, 16-17}. In the midst of this suffering Israel confesses that YHVH was in the right {verse 18}. The righteousness of YHVH involves his acting in integrity. He punishes sin even in his own people. The first lamentation ends with a prayer in which the people cry out for YHVH’s judgment on their enemies {1:21-22}. Such imprecations are the Old Testament believer’s way of expressing his longing for an end to evil as it was personified in the godless nations. The second lamentation also concerns the destruction of Jerusalem but places more emphasis on YHVH’s judgment. The tone is more strident than in the previous lamentation. Throughout the passage words expressing anger appear {2:1-3, 6-7}. It is as though the terrible wrath of YHVH evident in the destruction of the city is still vivid in the mind of the writer. The author lays the blame for YHVH’s anger squarely on the false prophets {2:14}; but he does not exempt the people from guilt, as is clear from other passages {e.g., 1:5, 8}. It was the false prophets of the time who failed to warn the people of the results of their sin {2:14}. Because of this, destruction came, and the writer can give no comfort to the people {verse 13}. The second lamentation begins with a reference to YHVH’s footstool {2:1}, probably referring to the Ark of the Covenant {1 Chronicles 28:2}. The Ark was the focal point of YHVH’s revelation of himself. This verse reflects the theological emergency of the time; the writer laments the fact that YHVH has not remembered his “footstool.” Even the holy Ark, which marked YHVH’s presence with his people, has not prevented YHVH from destroying Jerusalem. The same thought is expressed in verses 6-7, where the traditional aspects of Israelite worship, as well as the sanctuary, are seen as having been destroyed by YHVH. This important truth demonstrates the viewpoint of the whole book, which sees YHVH as the direct cause of the misfortune. The third lamentation is very personal. At its conclusion, sorrow and complaint pass into a prayer of assurance {3:61-66}. In the first 18 verses of this chapter, the writer describes how Adonai has afflicted him. He refers to YHVH in the third person, not addressing him as Adonai until he speaks the words of verse 18. Only after he has poured out his grief in this fashion can he speak the name of Adonai. This poignant grief suddenly changes to an expression of joy. He can affirm the Covenant faithfulness of Adonai, and in the midst of the deepening sorrow, he sees YHVH’s mercies as new every morning {verses 22-24}. The chapter closes with a sudden burst of assurance {verses 58-66}, in which the writer affirms his belief that YHVH will vindicate him before his enemies. Only after he meditates on the nature of YHVH’s loving-kindness {verses 22-27} can he speak these words. The desperate isolation and separation from YHVH expressed in verses 1-17 give way as he affirms YHVH’s goodness. Assurance comes as he reflects on the nature and goodness of YHVH. The fourth lamentation emphasizes the fact that the judgment was well deserved. The author describes the various classes of the population {4:1-16} and indicates how each has been affected by Jerusalem’s downfall. Verses 12-20 affirm that the judgment of YHVH is a direct consequence of sin. This lamentation also becomes a joyous statement of hope {verses 21-22}, as the writer affirms that YHVH will punish Israel’s enemies. Israel’s sin will be forgiven, and the guilt of “the daughter of Edom” will be punished. The “daughter of Edom” undoubtedly stands for all the enemy nations. {Edom is used in Isaiah 63:1 in the same fashion.} This salvation of the nation of Judah will not take place until their guilt is atoned for. It occurs when YHVH conquers the godless nations. This conquest of the nations is an event that takes place in the end time, according to numerous Old Testament and New Testament passages. It represents the manifestation of YHVH’s total sovereignty over his creation. The last chapter is a poignant prayer in which the author describes their sufferings and asks YHVH to restore the fortunes of the people. It begins with a request to YHVH, asking him to consider all that has befallen the people {5:1-18}. Part of the ignominy of the captive Jews is that “slaves” rule over them {verse 8}. This is an apparent reference to the Babylonian captors, who themselves were subject to despotic rule for many decades. The author’s perspective changes in verse 19, where he affirms that Adonai reigns forever. While Jerusalem, the earthly dwelling place of Adonai, has come to an end, Adonai’s throne endures forever. Because his throne is everlasting, the author asks, “Why do you continue to forget us? Why have you forsaken us for so long? Restore us, O ADONAI, and bring us back to you again! Give us back the joys we once had! Or have you utterly rejected us? Are you angry with us still?” {5:20-22}. The question is based on the belief that because YHVH’s reign is eternal, he cannot utterly forsake his people. He will restore his kingdom. The book of Lamentations is neglected by many believers. It deserves to be studied more. Its powerful statement concerning the blessings that may come from tragedy is a relevant message in any age, and it is one of the most powerful illustrations of the results of sin to be found in the Old Testament. Its theology is clear and precise, painting a brilliant picture of YHVH’s faithfulness against the dark background of the collapse of the city of Zion.
I read a small sign while in an office yesterday “You will never achieve greatness while you are in your comfort zone.” I’ve spoken before about how our Creator never leaves us in our comfort zone but have not given the definition of the Hebrew word used for comfort or comfortable which is a place of rest. So the sign was right, you will never achieve greatness while resting.
TTN Music 
TTN Promo 
