Cultic Images of Jerusalem in Lamentations 2:1–8

The City under a Cloud

The verbal form יעיב‎ in 2.1 is a hapax legomenon, and its meaning is not totally certain, but traditionally it has been read as a denominative verb (‘to becloud’) generated from the noun עב‎ (‘cloud’) (cf. LXX ἐγνόφωσεν). ¹² It is possibly the Hiphil imperfect of the root עוב‎ (BDB 728) (e.g. RSV ‘How the Lord in his anger has set the daughter of Zion under a cloud!’). Derivation from alternative roots has been suggested, but the familiar meaning suits the present context, ¹³ given the thematizing of the day of the Lord in this section (cf. Joel 2.2; Amos 518–20; Zeph. 1.15). ¹⁴ This understanding of the term is supported by Bertil Albrektson, who writes: ‘The expression may be chosen here in conscious contrast to the idea of the cloud as the sign of Yhwh’s merciful presence … as Yhwh formerly descended to Zion in the cloud and filled the temple with his glory, so he now overclouds the daughter of Zion—in his anger.’ ¹⁵ Along those lines, a comparison may be drawn with the image of Mount Zion as a cultic centre in Isa. 4.5, where a different word for cloud (ענן‎) is used, but the choice of a verb based in the noun עב‎ in Lam. 2.1 may be due to a desire for wordplay (assonance) on the word for ‘anger’ (אף‎) that immediately follows the verb. ¹⁶ In other words, the cloud that elsewhere signifies the presence of God in Jerusalem here becomes the image of darkening skies signifying God’s wrath against his chosen city. This suggests there is a certain slant to the way in which the city of Jerusalem is viewed in this poetic section, namely, the focus is on its cultic significance as the site of the (now ruined) temple. ¹⁷ Often commentators see a spotlight on the cult only emerging in verses 6–7. ¹⁸

The Beauty of Israel

The expression ‘he has cast down from heaven to earth the beauty (תפארת‎) of Israel’ (2.1) continues the theology of reversal found in Lamentations from the first verse (1.1) and may allude to the past glory of the covenant nation, the theological nuance suggested by the use of the name ‘Israel’. However, we know from Isa. 13.19 that the noun ‘beauty’ can be used of a city, such as Babylon (‘the splendour [תפארת‎] of the pride of the Chaldeans’, Isa. 13.19), ¹⁹ so that in Lam. 2.1, it may refer to the city of Jerusalem, or even more specifically to the temple within it, as it can elsewhere (cf. Isa. 64.11 [MT 10]: ‘Our holy and beautiful [ותפארתנו‎] house’; 60.13: ‘to beautify [לפאר‎] the place of my sanctuary’). ²⁰ Another verse in Lamentations that reminisces about the past beauty of the city, though using different terms, is 2.15. ²¹ If the meaning in this poetic context is allowed to be a little slippery, the intended referent sliding between sanctuary and city, the upshot is that what is in mind is the image of Jerusalem as a cultic centre. As will be seen in what follows, many of the ways of alluding to Zion in Lam. 2.1–8 have this nuance. The idea of a demotion from heaven to earth in 2.1 may refer to the loss of status suffered by Mount Zion, which, as the site of the temple (היכל‎), ²² had been the throne of the heavenly king (e.g., Pss. 11.4; 80.1 [MT 2]). ²³ In terms of the link of the motif of beauty with the temple, when Ezra speaks for himself near the end of Ezra 7, it is revealed that his devotion to God’s law is a means to the greater end of beautifying the house of God by supplying it with the resources for financing sacrifices (7.27: ‘to beautify [לפאר‎] the house of the Lord’), and the contents of the letter of King Artaxerxes favours the understanding of adornment in terms of offerings (7.17). The idea of beautifying the temple by supplying it with a rich sacrificial cult is in line with Isa. 60.7 (‘and I will beautify [אפאר‎] my beautiful [תפארתי‎] house’), ²⁴ for in the Isaianic context, these words are preceded by mention of the provision of flocks for the altar. There is no call to posit direct links between the cited texts in Isaiah, Ezra and Lamentations, but they may reflect similar circumstances, namely, a time when the fortunes of Jerusalem were at a low ebb and there is the hope for something better. With regard to Isaiah 60, Christopher Jones dates it to the early Persian period and states, ‘Most of Isa 60 was probably composed in the late sixth or early fifth century, a time when Jerusalem was a pale shadow of both its former glory and of the eschatological splendor promised to it by the Isaianic tradition.’ ²⁵ The renewal of temple worship, financed by tribute from foreign nations, was part of that hope.

His footstool

Finally, in Lam. 2.1, a reference to ‘his footstool’ (הדם־רגליו‎) follows and could be understood to refer to the temple, as spelled out by the interpretive paraphrase of the Targum, ‘the house of his sanctuary’ (בית מקדשיה‎). ²⁶ In terms of the use of this terminology elsewhere, in Ps. 99.5, the psalmist issues the instruction, ‘worship at [ל‎] his footstool’, and a similar exhortation is given in Ps. 132.7 (‘let us worship at [ל‎] his footstool’). In Psalm 99, the intended reference is possibly to Jerusalem, given the parallel phraseology in 99.9 (‘[worship] at his holy mountain [להר קדשׁו‎]’). The only explicit mention of the ark in the Psalter is 132.8 (‘the ark of your might [עזך‎]’), a way of naming that reflects the object’s holy war associations (cf. 2 Chron. 6.41). ²⁷ In 1 Chron. 28.2, the footstool mentioned appears to be equated with the ark (‘a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and [= that is] for the footstool of our God’), if the Hebrew conjunction is understood to be a waw-explicative, and Kraus views the ark (die Lade) as the intended reference in Lam. 2.1. ²⁸ In Jer. 3.17, Jerusalem is called ‘the throne of Yhwh’, and Isa. 60.13 uses the expression ‘the place of my feet’ (מקום רגלי‎) with reference to the temple, but ‘footstool’ in Lam. 2.1 possibly refers to the ark (1 Chron. 28.2; cf. 2 Chron. 9.18). ²⁹ It may be possible to detect a movement in the three lines of this verse from city to temple to ark. However, there is no need for dispute over whether the temple or the ark is in mind, for as Salters says, ‘While it may be that the Ark was originally thought to be Yahweh’s footstool, the concept may have expanded to include the temple and, indeed, the city.’ ³⁰ It is such ambiguity that gives poetry its evocative power.

The Tent of the Daughter of Zion

Adele Berlin sees the mention of ‘the tent (אהל‎) of the daughter of Zion’ in 2.4 as referring to the people’s homes (e.g. Job 19.11–12). ³¹ The word can have the sense of a person’s domicile, for example in the formula ‘To your tents, O Israel!’ (e.g. 1 Kgs 12.16; cf. 2 Sam. 20.1), and some scholars regard its use in Lam. 2.4 as a collective (‘tents’). ³² Despite the uncertainty expressed by some commentators, ³³ the phrase ‘in the tent (אהל‎) of the daughter of Zion’ is best viewed as a reference to Jerusalem under the figure of a tent (cf. Jer. 10.20; Isa. 54.2). ³⁴ This is the case, whether the phrase is linked to what precedes or to what follows. In many modern versions, the phrase is joined to what precedes (e.g. RSV), so that the city is designated the site of the slaughter of God’s people. On the other hand, if the phrase is linked to what follows, following Masoretic accentuation (athnaḥ), the city is specified as the place upon which God poured out his wrath like fire, as in Lam. 4.11 (‘he poured out his hot anger; and he kindled a fire in Zion’) (cf. Ezek. 9.8). Either connection favours equating ‘tent’ and city. Though dignitaries were killed in the temple, ³⁵ nothing in Lamentations suggests that the slaughter was limited to persons in the temple (cf. 2.21), and a similar text in 4.11 combines the ideas of the pouring out of God’s wrath, the metaphor of fire and reference to the city of Zion.

What is not always noticed by commentators, however, is that alluding to Zion under the figure of a ‘tent’ signifies a special interest in its role as a cultic centre, a conceptual link that dates back to the time when David brought the ark to Jerusalem and put it in a tent (אהל‎) (2 Sam. 6.17; 7.2), the same ‘tent of the Lord’ to which Joab fled for asylum to grasp the altar with horns (1 Kgs 2.28–34). God’s sanctuary is regularly referred to as a tent (אהל‎) and, by extension, this was applied to the later temple, ‘especially in connection with the idea of asylum (Ps. 27.5; 61.4 [MT 5]; cf. 15.1; 78.60).’ ³⁶ In Isaiah, when the focus is the security of ‘Zion, the city of our appointed feasts’, Jerusalem is called ‘an immovable tent’ (אהל‎) (33.20), ³⁷ and the temple may be particularly in mind, given the mention of the annual feasts in this verse. ³⁸ And the same collation of ideas is found in Lam. 2.6 (see below). The references in the Psalter and Isaiah show that the tent used by David to house the ark and which was later transferred to the temple (1 Kgs 8.4) became a metaphor applied to Jerusalem as the site of the temple. There is, however, no David-link in Lam. 2.4, and the expression is democratised (‘the tent of the daughter of Zion’).

Similarly, Isa. 16.5 speaks of ‘the tent (אהל‎) of David’, and this is another text that preserves a reminiscence of the Davidic tent which, prior to the temple, was the cultic centre of the nation. ³⁹ In line with the idea of the temple as a place of asylum (noted above), the preceding verses (16.1–4) describe Moabite emissaries seeking asylum from the Davidic ruler who sits enthroned (ישׁב‎) ‘in the tent of David’ (16.5). As noted by Hans Wildberger, the word ‘tent’ is borrowed from temple ideology. ⁴⁰ He also makes the point that the borrowing is facilitated by the fact that, like Yhwh’s sanctuary in Jerusalem, the king’s palace is called a היכל‎. David ‘tarried (ישׁב‎) before Yhwh’ to pray (2 Sam. 7.18), ⁴¹ presumably in the tent-shrine which he had erected for the ark.

The expression ‘the tent of David’ in Isa. 16.5 is often understood to refer to the royal residence (Wohnsitz), ⁴² the Davidic kingdom (that once included Moab), ⁴³ or the Davidic dynasty, ⁴⁴ but ‘the tent (אהל‎) of David’ more likely refers to the sanctuary-city, Jerusalem in which the promised Davidide is enthroned. ⁴⁵ This unique biblical phrase has received little scholarly attention. At times, it has been excised as a late redactional addition, so not taken into consideration at all. ⁴⁶ The identification with the temple mount is hinted at in the present passage as early as 16.1, where it is said that a tribute is to be sent ‘to the mount (הר‎) of the daughter of Zion’. The wider use of this key term in Isaiah shows that it denotes the temple mount in particular (e.g. 2.2–3; 4.5; 8.18). ⁴⁷ So too, certain terms found in the Moabite appeal for asylum suggest a link to the temple mount (16.3–4a). The embassy asks for the provision of ‘shade’ (צל‎) and for the Jerusalemites to ‘hide’ the outcasts and to be a ‘hiding-place’ for them (both words based on the root סתר‎). Along with the word ‘booth’ (סכה‎) (see below), these terms are used in Isa. 4.6 for the theophanic cloud, smoke and fire that will cover future Zion: ‘It will be for a pavilion (סכה‎), a shade (צל‎) by day from the heat, and for a refuge and a shelter (מסתור‎) from the storm and rain’ (RSV adapted; following MT versification). ⁴⁸

I am arguing, therefore, that the mention of the ‘tent’ in Isa. 16.5 is a synecdoche for the sanctuary-city of Jerusalem. The clinching argument for identifying ‘tent’ and city in this verse is the fact that the promised Davidide is said to sit enthroned ‘in the tent (באהל‎) of David.’ ⁴⁹ This rules out any simple equation of the Davidic ‘tent’ with the Jerusalem temple, for the king must be seated in his palace, and in line with this understanding, Targum Jonathan provides an interpretive translation of the phrase ‘in the city of David’ (בקרתא דדויד‎). ⁵⁰ My argument is that what starts as a reference to the tent erected by David to accommodate the ark is later used as a metaphorical designation for the temple as a place of refuge. This, in turn, led to a broadening of the application of אהל‎ to the city where the temple is situated, and all these associations come together in Lam 2.4, where the security of the city is breached due to the outpouring of God’s wrath. As in the earlier discussion of the motif of beauty, tantalising similarities are found between Isaiah and Lamentations, though in the case of their common use of the motif of the ‘tent’, the explanation for the convergence may lie in the dependence of both Isaiah and Lamentations on the Psalmic tradition of the ‘tent’ applied to the temple in connection with the idea of asylum (Ps. 27.5–6; 61.4 [MT 5]). The poems of Lamentations are in the same tradition as the communal laments over the destruction of the temple found in the Psalter itself (e.g. Pss. 44, 74, 79), and it should come as no surprise that Psalmic motifs are picked up and reused in Lamentations.

His booth

The next image of Jerusalem in Lamentations 2 is that of a booth. He has broken down his booth (שׂכו‎) like that in a garden’ (2.6 כגן‎), ⁵¹ an image explained by the location of the temple there (cf. Ps. 27.5), and the word ‘booth’ (סכו‎) is in parallel with ‘his dwelling’ (מעונתו‎) in Ps. 76.2 (MT 3). ⁵² Some 20 Hebrew manuscripts (edited by Kennicott) have the expected spelling (סכו‎) and what is found in the MT may simply be a variant spelling. ⁵³ This is also the likely meaning of Amos 9.11, which is another text that focusses on the sanctuary character of Zion, to which the phrase ‘the booth (סכה‎) of David’ points, viewing the temple and city as a unit. ⁵⁴ According to Andersen and Freedman, ‘[the booth of David in Amos 9.11] could stand for one or more of the buildings of the capital city that had symbolic significance’, and they opt for the tent housing the ark ‘because that is the one structure presumably erected by David for which we do not have a name’. ⁵⁵ In other words, they think that David’s ‘booth’ is best understood as a reference to Jerusalem as a cultic centre, ⁵⁶ and Jason Radine sees Lam 2.6 as having a similar meaning. ⁵⁷

The most common interpretation of the cryptic phrase ‘the booth of David’ in Amos 9.11 is that it is a metaphor for the Davidic dynasty and kingdom (cf. 2 Sam. 7.5, 11; 1 Kgs 11.38; Targum: ‘the kingdom of the house of David’). ⁵⁸ That house is now only a fallen ‘booth,’ and the restoration of the divided kingdom and lost empire is promised. God’s promise in Amos 9.11 to ‘raise [it] up’ (קום‎ [x2]) and ‘rebuild (בנה‎) it as in the days of old’ may possibly be connected to 2 Sam. 7.12 and 27, respectively. However, the other terms used in Amos 9.11 (‘repair, breaches, ruins’) do not particularly suit the flimsy structure of a ‘booth’ but refer to the object to which the metaphor points, ⁵⁹ that is to say, the phrase has in mind a city and the oracle concerns the restoration of Jerusalem. ⁶⁰ God promises in Amos 9.11 to repair the ‘breaches’ (פרצים‎) in its city walls, this being the most common sense of the term (e.g. Isa. 58.12; 1 Kgs 11.27; Neh. 6.1). ⁶¹ The verb ‘to repair’ (גדר‎) means building with stone or putting up a stone wall (Hos. 2.6 [MT 8]; Ezek. 22.30; Lam. 3.7–9), so that this term also suits application to a city. ⁶² As noted by Kenneth Pomykala, the term ‘booth’ is applied to forlorn Jerusalem in Isa. 1.8 (‘And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard’), and he says the same thought association is present in Lam. 2.6 (‘[his booth] like that of a garden’). Often, however, commentators on 2.6 only see ‘booth’ representing fragility (cf. Jonah 4.5; Job 27.18) and miss the cultic nuance it regularly carries. ⁶³ A further argument used by Radine for specifically linking the mention of the ‘booth’ with the temple in Amos 9.11 is the strong association of Sukkoth, the Feast of Booths (חג הסכות‎), with the temple. ⁶⁴ The dedication of the first temple took place at the time of Sukkoth in the seventh month (1 Kgs 8.2, 65–66), and the same significant date applies to Haggai’s prophecy of the results that will follow the construction of the second temple (Hag 2.1), the rebuilding of its altar (Ezra 3.4), and its rededication by the Maccabees (2 Macc. 1.18; 10.6). ⁶⁵ The fragility of booths made their use as temporary dwellings at the festival appropriate, reminding the participant at the feast of their existential dependence on God during the wilderness years, but the word ‘booth’ is used and applied to judged Jerusalem in Lam. 2.6, not just because of the fragile nature of such shelters.

As noted by Pomykala, the terminology of the booth of David that is ‘fallen’ (נפלת‎) in Amos 9.11 can apply to destroyed cities (e.g. ‘Fallen [נפלה‎], fallen is Babylon’ [Isa. 21.9]). Vital for interpretation is the recognition that Amos 9.11 echoes and reverses earlier prophecies of judgement in the book. ⁶⁶ In the present case, 9.11 recalls both ‘Fallen, no more to rise, is Virgin Israel’ (5.2), and ‘they [those involved in degenerate cults] shall fall, and never rise again’ (8.14 [addition mine]). All three verses make use of the Hebrew roots קום‎ and נפל‎. ⁶⁷ Given the cultic context of the lament in 5.2 (n.b. 5:4–6) and the cultic content of 8.14, the parallels make it likely that 9.11 also has a cultic focus, that is, it refers to Jerusalem as a cultic centre, with the temple as its focal point.

Another parallel to Lam. 2.6 is found in Isa. 4.6 where the word ‘booth’ is used of the cloud, smoke and fire that will cover future Zion: ‘It will be for a pavilion (סכה‎), a shade by day from the heat, and for a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain’ (RSV adapted; following MT versification). The mention of cloud, smoke and fire recalls the wilderness wanderings of the exodus period. These theophanic elements are depicted most often as providing divine guidance (e.g., Num. 14.14; Neh. 9.12), though they have a protective role in a couple of other passages (Exod. 14.19–20, 24–25; Ps. 105.39). In addition, cloud and fire are connected to God’s presence in the tabernacle (Exod. 40.38) and the theophanic cloud filled the newly dedicated temple (1 Kgs 8.10–11). As often noted, Isa. 4.2–6 is a companion passage to Isa. 2.1–4 about ‘the mountain of the house of the Lord’, ⁶⁸ and this suggests that the temple is also in view in Isaiah 4, though not explicitly mentioned. This supposition is supported by the reference to ‘her [Zion’s] assemblies’ (מקרא‎) (4:5 RSV), namely festal gatherings (cf. Lev. 23.2, 4, 7–8, 37; Isa 1.13), and Blenkinsopp says that this alludes to ‘ceremonies carried out in the temple’. ⁶⁹ Here, then, Isaiah 4 depicts the eschatological state of salvation and relates the term ‘booth’ to God’s protection of Zion as a cultic centre. Now, of course, in Lam. 2.6, these prophetic expectations have sadly failed, and God in his wrath has judged ‘his booth’.

The context provided by the rest of verse 6 supports the supposition that the ‘booth’ mentioned in the first half-line is the city of Jerusalem viewed as a cultic centre. The booth is identified as belonging to or connected to God (‘his booth’), and this explicit link with God is immediately echoed in the next half-line, where God’s booth is identified as ‘the place of his appointed feasts’. Also, like the opening verse of the chapter (2.1), according to my interpretation, each of the three poetic lines that make up 2.6 is connected to the cultic sphere, with the mention of ‘feast and sabbath’ and ‘king and priest’ in the next two lines. ⁷⁰ In this one verse, therefore, the reader is meant to see allusions, in turn, to the cultic place, the ceremonies that take place there, and the personnel who take a lead in these cultic activities. God’s actions have disabled every part of the cultic machinery.

The Place of His Appointed Feasts

Due to the ruination of ‘his appointed place’ (מועדו‎) by God himself (the first line of 2.6), the cultic practices normally associated with the ‘appointed feasts’ (מועד‎) and sabbaths no longer take place (the second line of 2.6). ⁷¹ The first use of the word מועד‎ in this verse refers to the site of festivals (RSV ‘the place of his appointed feasts’), namely, Jerusalem and its temple, and the second use denotes the set festivals themselves (מועד‎), and in verse 7, its third use has the regular festive gatherings in mind (‘like the day of [כיום‎] an appointed feast’). This key word picks up its first use in the book in 1.4 (‘for none come to the appointed feasts [מועד‎]’). That the first use in 2.6 is indeed referring to a place is indicated by the fact that the verb used needs a material object (RSV ‘[he] laid in ruins [שׁחת‎] the place of his appointed feasts’), ⁷² and this finds further support in the parallel with ‘his booth’ in the preceding poetic line in the same verse. ⁷³ The religious implications of the use of this term are brought out by Salters: ‘The term “meeting place” alludes to where Yahweh was wont to meet his people, cf. Exod. 25.22. The possibility of meeting Yahweh is no more, and that lack is the work of the one who had made it possible in the first place.’ ⁷⁴ Moreover, due to the divine judgement that has fallen upon the city, there is no longer any ‘king and priest’ to take their usual leading roles in such ceremonies (the third line of 2.6). ⁷⁵

His Altar … His Sanctuary

The sanctuary focus of the description of Jerusalem continues with the report that the Lord has scorned his altar, disowned his sanctuary’ (2.7), ⁷⁶ such that the raised voices (נתנו קול‎) heard in the house of the Lord are the shouts of the enemies, not the joyful shouts of the usual Israelite worshippers (the implied contrast). Something similar is found in Psalm 74, a psalm that appears to be a communal lament over the destruction of the temple at the hands of foreign invaders. Here, it is said that God’s foes have ‘roared’ (שׁאג‎) (74.4), with the enemies likened to lions (cf. 74.23), and the foes have done so ‘in the midst of your appointed place (מועד‎)’, that is to say, the place where, previously, at the God-appointed times, the prescribed festivals were held. The fact that what is described is the reversing of earlier cultic privileges granted by God to the city is conveyed by the repeated use of the third-person personal pronoun (‘his altar … his sanctuary’), and the result is that God himself has incapacitated the means of worship in Jerusalem.

The Significance of the Cultic Focus

The significance of the cultic focus of the descriptions of destroyed Jerusalem in 2.1–8 is not stated in so many words, leaving the reader with the task of looking for an explanation. Is the implied point that there is no means of atonement and that reconciliation with God must come by some other means? ⁷⁷ According to Salters, ‘He [= the poet] was, however, observing that Yahweh’s relationship with his people did not consist of the paraphernalia of the cult, albeit dedicated to him (cf. Jer. 7.22), for he himself had destroyed them. They were not of the essence: they had merely been the props.’ ⁷⁸ The lesson suggested by Salters is, no doubt, a useful one to learn, and it is taught elsewhere in the Old Testament and may even be dubbed an axiom of prophetic teaching (e.g., 1 Sam. 15.22; Hos. 6.6; Amos 5.21–27; Mic. 6.6–8). This would be a pertinent warning to sound before the judgement fell, but the lesson that cultic practice is not the essence of relationship with Yhwh is too pedantic for a setting in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. It hardly seems likely that God destroyed the city and temple just to teach his people that they were not to place too much reliance on the machinery of corporate worship.

Maybe a little different, but still working with the same basic idea, is Provan, who thinks that the poet is possibly seeking ‘to lead Israel back to faith in a person rather than a place’. ⁷⁹ Similarly, Dobbs-Allsopp, who refers to Provan, sees the book as decentralizing ‘the importance that was attached to the geographical location of God’s holy dwelling’. ⁸⁰ The implication is ‘that somehow the locus of divine accessibility and redemption, in the light of the 586 catastrophe, had to move from geography to humanity’. ⁸¹ It must be said, however, that this book, consisting as it does of laments over the destruction of a city, retains an extraordinary emphasis on place, and nothing in 2.1–8 suggests that the now-destroyed city and temple no longer matter or have lost their significance. Though not the intention of either Provan or Dobbs-Allsopp, such an interpretive move runs the risk of downplaying the crisis, whereas the first eight verses of chapter 2, as I have sought to demonstrate, in several ways intensify the theological dimension of the crisis.

More likely, the message and implication is that the breakthrough must come from God’s side, for the normal channels of reconciliation are disabled. The main support for such an answer to the heightened crisis of 2.1–8 is found in what is said in the rest of chapter 2, and so brief consideration of its contents is in order. The fact that only God can resolve the crisis does not mean that the people are to do nothing – quite the opposite. The daughter of Zion is urged to cry out to God (2.18–19), and Zion responds to this exhortation and does cry out in the final verses of the chapter (2.20–22). ⁸² It was earlier stated by the poet that ‘the Lord destroyed, he did not show mercy (לא חמל‎)’ (2.2 my translation), and Zion reminds God of this: ‘you slaughtered, you did not show mercy’ (לא חמלת‎) (2.21 my translation). Zion says that God acted in this way ‘on the day of the anger (אף‎) of the Lord’ (2.22), phraseology that also reiterates what the poet said near the start of the chapter (cf. 2.1: ‘in the day of his anger [אפו‎]’), forming an inclusio around the chapter. ⁸³ Like the poet, Zion also makes mention of the temple (2.20: ‘Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?’), and keeping alive the cultic imagery, Zion likens the slaughter of the people of Jerusalem by gathered foreign forces to what happens on ‘the day of an appointed feast’ (מועד‎) (2.22). ⁸⁴ The points of correlation between what the poet says (2.1–8) and what Zion says (2.20–22) show that it is not arbitrary to seek an indication of how the exacerbated crisis depicted in 2.1–8 may be resolved in what is found later in the same chapter. In addition, as noted above, it is the poet who urges Zion to call out to God (2.18–19), so it is to be expected that Zion will give voice to both their pleas.

Nancy C. Lee identifies Jeremiah as one of the two primary poetic ‘voices’ who are in dialogue in this polyphonic book, wherein neither perspective is privileged over the other. ⁸⁵ The other identified speaker is the personified city, using the appellative ‘Daughter Zion’, who is also heard in the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 4.19–21). ⁸⁶ Lee assigns the verses of Lamentations 1 to the two poetic singers as follows: the first poetic singer (= Jeremiah) in verses 1–9b, 10–11a, 15c, 17, with the second poetic singer (= ‘Jerusalem’s poet’) in verses 9c, 11b–15b, 16, 18–22. ⁸⁷ It is plain, even from a cursory look at the distribution of the verses that neither voice is allowed to drown out the other, so that multiple viewpoints are allowed to stand. ⁸⁸ This pattern is continued in chapter 2, though the voice of Jerusalem’s poet (= Zion) is reserved for the last part of the chapter. Carleen R. Mandolfo carries this approach further with her dialogic reading of Lamentations. ⁸⁹ One significant observation she makes is that the ‘Didactic Voice’ (basically equivalent to the first poetic singer of Nancy Lee) does not take God’s part or defend Yhwh’s goodness and justice. Though acknowledging some responsibility on Zion’s part for what has happened (1.5, 8), the Didactic Voice shows empathy with the pain of Daughter Zion and at least to some extent adopts her point of view (e.g. 1.17; 2.1–2), ⁹⁰ so that this could be viewed as an adjustment of the Jeremianic tradition. The Didactic Voice dominates chapter 2 (2.1–19), but according to Kathleen O’Connor, it is ‘an altered voice’, which no longer attributes blame to the city, ⁹¹ and Daughter Zion is again allowed to speak, even invited to speak (2.20–22).

As noted above, the poet and Zion in Lamentations 2 agree as to God’s direct involvement in and responsibility for the suffering of his people. ⁹² Scholars differ in their evaluation of how accusatory the final speech by Zion is, but it does contain the implied but unarticulated hope that God will cease to be angry and will again show mercy. Certainly, the mention of the plight of the children by both the poet (2.19; cf. 2.11b–12) and Zion (2.20) seems designed to evoke God’s compassion. Ever so subtly, the noted features in these final verses anticipate the creedal material at the centre of the book that describes God’s gracious character (3.22–33; cf. Exod. 34.6–7). ⁹³ However, anything more than a hint at this stage would play havoc with the rhetoric of 2.1–8 that describes an angry God who has destroyed city and temple, cutting off any means of cultic rapprochement and making repair of the relationship from the human side impossible, and who does not appear to want to be found by his needy people.

Conclusions

Lamentations 2.1–8 is a unit focused on the violent assault of God on the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Almost every verb in this section has God as its subject, and the result is a significant heightening of the theological dimension of the crisis compared with what is found in chapter 1. This perspective is reinforced by the way in which the city is presented in these verses, with many of the images portraying the city as the God-ordained centre of worship for Judah. The interest in the Jerusalemite cult is not limited to the mention of feasts, sabbath, altar and sanctuary in 2.6–7 but is immediately evident in the allusion to the city as being ‘under a cloud’ and descriptions of the city as ‘the beauty of Israel’ and God’s ‘footstool’ (2.1), and the first verse sets the tone for the unit as a whole. This way of viewing Jerusalem is reinforced by use of the images of ‘the tent of the daughter of Zion’ (2.4) and of God’s ‘booth’ (2.6a), which both depict Zion as a cultic centre. God’s action against Zion signals the breakdown of the relationship between Yhwh and his people, and it also disables the usual cultic mechanisms for repairing that relationship. These eight verses heighten the crisis rather than resolve it, but they may also imply where an answer must be found, namely that God alone is in a position to repair the relationship, though there is no sign of his willingness to do so in these verses.