In spite of the historical significance of these events, the real story must be understood theologically. This was not simply the destruction of another city of some nation, such as Hiroshima, Japan during World War 2. Rather, it represented God’s judgment upon the very nation He had chosen to represent Him in the world.

Genesis
To understand the theological significance of the destruction of Jerusalem, we must begin in Genesis. Faced with the continual failure of mankind to fulfill the divinely appointed role of representing the Creator in creation, God began His salvation work with Abraham. God chose to work through Abraham to bring mankind back to Him. While in Egypt, Abraham’s descendants grew into a great nation (Dt. 26:5). Then God delivered them from Egypt so they would represent Him to all the earth’s nations (Ex. 19:3-6).¹ At this time the nation became a special possession of God, which required them to properly represent Him. It is when God called out this special people for Himself that the requirement for holiness was instituted.² Thus the Mosaic Law was given, outlining the principles of this new relationship. Of course, the most fundamental issue of the Law was complete loyalty to the Lord. As a blessing for loyalty to the Lord, Israel would receive the blessing of land and a fruitful life.³

Joshua–Kings
The history of the nation as presented in Joshua through Kings reviews the failure of Israel to be set apart to God and represent Him well to the surrounding peoples. In fact, it appears that this history was written for the purpose of making this point. A close reading of Kings in comparison to Chronicles raises a great deal of questions as to the differences between the two historical accounts. Whereas Kings focuses upon the failure of the line of kings, Chronicles focuses on their successes, particularly in connection with the temple. Therefore, given this different perspective, these histories must be seen as more than two distinct accounts of historical facts. Rather, they are a presentation of the different theological issues which are displayed through viewing those facts from different perspectives. And these issues have direct bearing on understanding Lamentations.

Upon close review of the histories of Joshua–Kings and Chronicles, it appears that they were written at two different periods in Israel’s history ⁴ and had two different issues in mind. Kings was written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic succession of kings in an apparent contradiction of the Lord’s promises (2 Sam. 7:1-17). The burning theological questions for that generation were: “Has God failed?”, “How could this have happened to us?” and “Is the god of Babylon more powerful than Yahweh?” ⁵ The history in Kings recounts the events of the Davidic dynasty up to that point in a way that shows that God has not failed, but has actually been faithful to His promises to judge the nation and disperse them if they failed to faithfully follow Him (Dt. 29-30).

Chronicles
Chronicles, on the other hand, was written later, during the return of the remnant to Jerusalem. The burning theological issues of this community were different. They were not wondering, “How could this have happened?”, but rather “Are we still the people of God?”, “Is God still interested in us?”and “What do God’s promises to Israel, Jerusalem, and David (before the exile) have to do with us?” ⁶ Kings answers the questions of why these terrible things could happen, while Chronicles deals with doubts about God’s continued interest in His people in the face of their sin. In this respect, the latter presents the basis for the hope of the remnant: the promises of God are sure in spite of previous failure.

This historical and theological perspective is important to a consideration of Lamentations, which provides a bridge between these two presentations of history – “Why the tragedy?” and “Why the hope?” However, instead of providing that bridge via history, it does it through a poetic presentation of the experience of those who lived through that judgment – namely, utter sorrow, dismay and bewilderment. What goes through the mind of those who experience divine judgment, especially when they realize it is their fault? Is there any hope in this situation? Lamentations gives a perspective on these questions by presenting a theology of judgment and a theology of hope. Judgment is divine, from God Himself, but there is hope again, from God Himself.

Jerusalem
The five poems that make up Lamentations actually present little information regarding the sins which were the basis of the judgment. The focus is rather on the fact of divine judgment. The basis is understood – it is the failure of the chosen people of God to be loyal to Him, and to faithfully represent Him. This is evident in the fact that the lament is over Jerusalem. Why was there no such lament over Samaria, when the northern tribes were taken into captivity? Why was there no lament over Lachish, southwest of Jerusalem, which had fallen earlier? The answer is that Jerusalem was the city which exemplified the relationship between God and His people, the city in which God had chosen to place His name. It was where corporate worship was to take place at the annual feasts and celebrations. It was where the creed was to be publically proclaimed (Dt. 26:1-11). The lament was over Jerusalem, the city which proclaimed the glory of the Lord to the nations. The fall of that city demonstrated clearly that the Lord had turned His back on His people. Lamentations acknowledges the horror of this very significant event, bewails the terrors of the judgment, recognizing that it is because of their own sin and failure. Yet, even in that terrible sorrow, there is hope.

The five poems move – in emotion, teaching, and theological affirmation – progressively up to the climax of 3:22-27. From there they slowly descend again to the personal experience of the Israelites’ present situation. This progression begins in chapter 1 by focusing on the city of Jerusalem and the temple. The lament moves from impersonal observation (“he,” “she”) to personal lament (“I,” me”).⁷ Chapter 2 continues this intensification by moving to an increasingly personal perspective.⁸ The emotional climax is reached in chapter 3 which presents the Lord’s close association with the suffering.⁹ He is the source of the suffering, and the remedy. The pinnacle of the book is Lamentations 3:22-24: “It is of the Lord’s loving-kindness we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not, they are new every morning. Great is thy faithfulness! The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope in Him.” Chapter 4 begins to relax the intensity, recounting the sins of the people, once again from the impersonal third person perspective. The book ends with a poem of supplication, and the final plea: “Turn us back to you, O Lord!”

Today
Lamentations is a series of poems about suffering God’s judgment for sin and failure. The basis for divine judgment is failure to be loyal to God and properly represent Him in this world. Whereas this responsibility to represent God is the fundamental purpose of mankind in creation, and the specific purpose of believers, Lamentations presents the seriousness of this failure. The tendency of society today is to be self-centered and individualistic. However, this is not the reason we exist as mankind or the people of God. It is a serious matter when we continue to willfully live for our own interests. Sooner or later, if we persist in our self-centered ways, we will experience God’s judgment. However, regardless of the sorrow that comes with judgment, there is always hope, because, “It is of the Lord’s lovingkindness we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not, they are new every morning. Great is thy faithfulness!”

Let’s be careful not to be found, as ancient Israel was, living for our own gratification, lest we experience similar judgment. However, if we are so found, let’s confidently wait on the Lord with repentant hearts. As Micah wrote: “Though I fall, I shall arise. When I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord – for I have sinned against Him – until He plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: He will bring me forth to the light” (Mic. 7:8-9).

END NOTES
1. Due to Hebrew syntax, Exodus 19:6 should read “kingdom of priests” rather than “kings and priests.” “This kingdom of God will be comprised of a priestly people. All the Israelites would be living wholly in God’s service, and enjoying access to Him. And, as priests, they would be representing God to the nations, following the duties of priests – proclaiming God’s word, interceding for people, and making provision for people to find God through atonement (Dt. 33:9-10).” NET Bible, (Biblical Studies Press, ’96), Exodus 19:6 note 15.
2. The Hebrew word qadash reveals that holiness is not presented as a requirement for mankind until he is closely associated with God as His representative (Lev. 19:2). If man is to represent God, he must be separated unto God, otherwise that representation will not be accurate. An ambassador cannot properly represent the leader of his nation if he is living for his own interests in the foreign land.
3. This is a repeated theme throughout Deuteronomy.
4. A comparative study of the lexicography and grammar used in these two histories supports the idea that Chronicles was written at a later date than Kings.
5. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ’94), p. 173.
6. Dillard, p. 173.
7. K. C. Hanson, “Alphabetical Acrostics: A Form Critical Study” (Dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, ’84), p. 235.
8. Hanson, p. 250.
9. Hanson, p. 265.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Tom Keiser is a Ph.D. candidate in Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Prior to attending DTS he was a health-care administrator for 25 years in Maryland.