² tn Heb “to contain, endure,” from כוּל (khul). Since that sense is difficult here, most take the text to read either “to consume” or “for destruction.” GKC 186 §68.i suggests that the form represents the Hiphil of אָכַל (’akhal, “consume”). The ’alef (א) would have dropped out, as it sometimes does and might do with אָכַל in Ezek 42:5. D. I. Block (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:693) prefers seeing כוּל as a byform of כָּלָה (kalah, “be complete”), with a meaning like “consume” in the Hiphil. The weakness of Block’s suggestion is that כָּלָה does not elsewhere exhibit a Hiphil.

¹ tc The Hebrew text reads “knew” but is apparently the result of a ד/ר (dalet/resh) confusion. For a defense of the emendation, see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 1:284. However, Allen retains the reading “widows” as the object of the verb, which he understands in the sense of “do harm to,” and translates the line: “He did harm to women by making them widows” (p. 282). The line also appears to be lacking a beat for the meter of the poem.

¹ tn The traditional interpretation is that Ezekiel embarked on his mission with bitterness and anger, either reflecting God’s attitude toward the sinful people or his own feelings about having to carry out such an unpleasant task. L. C. Allen (Ezekiel [WBC], 1:13) takes “bitterly” as a misplaced marginal note and understands the following word, normally translated “anger,” in the sense of fervor or passion. He translates, “I was passionately moved” (p. 4). Another option is to take the word translated “bitterly” as a verb meaning “strengthened” (attested in Ugaritic). See G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 152.

¹ tn Heb “their outline” or “their form.” The Hebrew noun תֹּאַר (toʾar, “outline, form”) is related to the Phoenician noun תֹּאַר (toʾar, “something gazed at”) and the Aramaic verb תָּאַר (taʾar, “to gaze at”). It is used in reference to the forms of a woman (Gen 29:17; Deut 21:11; 1 Sam 25:3; Esth 2:7) and a man (Gen 39:11; Judg 8:18; 1 Sam 16:18; 28:14; 1 Kgs 1:6; 1 Chr 17:17; Isa 52:14; 53:2). Here it occurs in a metonymical sense: “appearance.”

⁴ tc The verb יִשְׁנֶא (yishneʾ, Qal imperfect third person feminine singular) is typically taken to be the only Qal imperfect of I שָׁנָהּ (shanah). Such a spelling with א (alef) instead of ה (he) is feasible. D. R. Hillers suggests the root שָׂנֵא (saneʾ, “to hate”): “Pure gold is hated.” This maintains the consonantal text and also makes sense in context. In either case the point is that gold no longer holds the same value, probably because there is nothing available to buy with it.

¹ sn According to W. F. Lanahan (“The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations” JBL 93 [1974]: 48), the persona or speaking voice in chap. 4 is a bourgeois, the common man. This voice is somewhat akin to the reporter in chs 1-2 in that much of the description is in the third person. However, “the bourgeois has some sense of identity with his fellow-citizens,” seen in the shift to the first person plural. The alphabetic acrostic structure reduces to two bicola per letter. The first letter of only the first line in each stanza spells the acrostic.

¹ tn Heb “Please cause to return.” The imperfect verb תָּשִׁיב (tashiv), Hiphil imperfect second person masculine singular from שׁוּב (shuv, “to return”), functions in a volitional sense, like an imperative of request. The Hiphil stem of שׁוּב (shuv, in the Hiphil “to cause to return”) often means “to make requital, to pay back” (e.g., Judg 9:5, 56; 1 Sam 25:39; 1 Kgs 2:32, 44; Neh 3:36 HT [4:4 ET]; Prov 24:12, 29; Hos 12:3; Joel 4:4, 7 HT [3:4, 7 ET]) (BDB 999 s.v. שׁוּב 4.a).

³ tn Heb “with bitterness and hardship.” The nouns רֹאשׁ וּתְלָאָה (roʾsh ut^elaʾah, lit. “bitterness and hardship”) serve as adverbial accusatives of manner: “with bitterness and hardship.” These nouns רֹאשׁ וּתְלָאָה form a nominal hendiadys where the second retains its full nominal sense while the first functions adverbially: “bitter hardship.” The noun II רֹאשׁ (roʾsh, “bitterness”) should not be confused with the common homonymic root I רֹאשׁ (roʾsh, “head”). The noun תְּלָאָה (t^elaʾah, “hardship”) is used elsewhere in reference to the distress of Israel in Egypt (Num 20:14), in the wilderness (Exod 18:8), and in exile (Neh 9:32).

² tn Heb “he has destroyed and smashed her bars.” The two verbs אִבַּד וְשִׁבַּר (ʾibbad v^eshibbar) form a verbal hendiadys that emphasizes the forcefulness of the destruction of the locking bars on the gates. The first verb functions adverbially, and the second retains its full verbal sense: “he has smashed to pieces.” Several English versions render this expression literally and miss the rhetorical point: “he has ruined and broken” (RSV, NRSV), “he has destroyed and broken” (KJV, NASB), and “he has broken and destroyed” (NIV). The hendiadys has been correctly noted by others: “smashed to pieces” (TEV, CEV) and “smashed to bits” (NJPS).

¹⁰ tc The MT reads מִשְׁבַּתֶּהָ (mishbatteha, “her annihilation”) from the noun מִשְׁבָּת (mishbat, “cessation, annihilation”), which is derived from the root שָׁבַת (shavat, “to cease”). The LXX mistakenly connected this with the root יָשַׁב (yashav, “to dwell”), reading μετοικεσίᾳ αὐτῆς (metoikesia autēs) which reflects שִׁבְתָּהּ (shivtah, “her dwelling”). The MT is favored on the basis of internal evidence: (1) The MT is the more difficult reading, being a hapax legomenon, (2) the LXX is guilty of simply misunderstanding the root and wrongly vocalizing the consonantal text, and (3) the LXX does not make good sense contextually, while the MT does.

³ tn Heb “from lack of.” The construction מִבְּלִי (mibb^eli) is composed of the preposition מִן (min), functioning in a causal sense (BDB 580 s.v. מִן 2.f), and the adverb of negation בְּלִי (b^eli) to denote the negative cause: “from want of” or “without” (HALOT 133 s.v. בְּלִי 4; BDB 115 s.v. בְּלִי 2.c) (Num 14:16; Deut 9:28; 28:55; Eccl 3:11; Isa 5:13; Jer 2:15; 9:11; Hos 4:6; Ezek 34:5).

² tc The translation follows the suggestion of KBL 707 s.v. עָלַז and a number of modern commentaries (e.g., Bright, J. A. Thompson, and W. L. Holladay) in reading יְעֻלְּפוּ (yeʿull^efu), in the sense of “swoon away” or “grow faint” (see KBL 710 s.v. עָלַף Pual), instead of יַעֲלֹזוּ (yaʿalozu; “they will exult”). The former appears to be the verb read by the LXX (the Greek version) when they translated καρωθῶσιν (karōthōsin, “they will be stupefied”). For parallel usage KBL cites Isa 51:20. This fits the context much better than the Masoretic reading.

¹ tc The text and consequent meaning of these first two lines are uncertain. The Masoretic reads literally, “Against let him string. Let him string, the one who strings his bow, and against let him raise himself up in his coat of armor.” This makes absolutely no sense, and the ancient versions and Hebrew mss did not agree in reading this same text. Many Hebrew mss and all the versions, as well as the Masoretes themselves (the text is left unpointed with a marginal note not to read it), delete the second “let him string.” The LXX (or Greek version) left out the words “against” at the beginning of the first two lines. It reads, “Let the archer bend his bow, and let the one who has armor put it on.” The Lucianic recension of the LXX and some Targum mss supplied the missing object “it” and thus read, “Let the archer ready his bow against it, and let him array himself against it in his coat of mail.” This makes good sense but does not answer the question of why the Hebrew text left off the suffix on the preposition twice in a row. Many Hebrew mss and the Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate (the Latin version) change the pointing of “against” (אֶל [ʾel]) to “not” (אַל [ʾal]) and thus read, “Let the archer not string the bow, and let him not array himself in his armor.” However, many commentators feel that this does not fit the context because it would apparently be addressed to the Babylonians, not the enemy, which would create a sudden shift in addressee with the second half of the verse. However, if it is understood in the sense taken here, it refers to the enemy not allowing the Babylonian archers to get ready for the battle, i.e., a surprise attack. This sense is suggested as an alternative in J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB), 346, n. u-u, and J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 747, n. 5, and is the interpretation adopted in TEV, and probably also in NIrV.

¹ tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” For explanation of the rendering see the study note on 21:4. There is no verb in this clause. Therefore it is difficult to determine whether this should be understood as a command or as a prediction. The presence of vav (ו) consecutive perfects after a similar construction in vv. 36b, d, 37c, 38a, and the imperfects after “therefore” (לָכֵן, lakhen), all suggest the predictive or future nuance. However, the vav consecutive perfect could be used to carry on the nuance of command (cf. GKC 333 §112.q), but not in the sense of purpose as NRSV and NJPS render them.

¹ tn This verb is a little difficult to render here. The word is used in the sense of taking note of something and acting according to what is noticed. It is the word that has been translated several times throughout Jeremiah as “punish [someone].” Contrariwise, it can also mean to take note and “show consideration for” (or “care for;” see, e.g., Ruth 1:6). Here the nuance is positive and is further clarified by God’s actions that follow, bringing the people back and restoring them.

² sn For the use of this word in a literal sense see Jonah 1:4. For its use to refer to the wrath of the Lord that will rage over the wicked, see Jer 23:19 and 30:23. Here it refers to the mighty Babylonian army that will come bringing destruction over all the known world. The same prophecy has just been given under the figure of the nations drinking the wine of God’s wrath (vv. 15-29).

² tc Or “I will give away your wealth, all your treasures, and your places of worship…” The translation follows the emendation suggested in the footnote in BHS, reading בִּמְחִיר (bimkhir) in place of בָּמֹתֶיךָ (bamotekha). The forms are graphically very close, and one could explain the origin of either from the other. The parallel in 15:13-14 reads לֹא בִּמְחִיר (loʾ bimkhir). The text here may be a deliberate play on that one. The emended text makes decidedly better sense contextually than the MT unless some sardonic reference to their idolatry is intended.

⁵ tc Or reading with the Greek version, “God does not see what we are doing.” In place of “what will happen to us (אַחֲרִיתֵנוּ, ʾakharitenu, “our end”) the Greek version understands a Hebrew text which reads “our ways” (אָרְחוֹתֵנו, ʾorkhotenu), which is graphically very close to the MT. The Masoretic is supported by the Latin and is retained here on the basis of external evidence. Either text makes good sense in the context. Some identify the “he” with Jeremiah and understand the text to be saying that the conspirators are certain that they will succeed and he will not live to see his prophecies fulfilled.

² tc The Hebrew text reads, “I will turn streams into coastlands [or “islands”].” Scholars who believe that this reading makes little sense have proposed an emendation of אִיִּים (ʾiyyim, “islands”) to צִיּוֹת (tsiyyot, “dry places”; cf. NCV, NLT, TEV). However, since all the versions support the MT reading, there is insufficient grounds for an emendation here. Although the imagery of changing rivers into islands is somewhat strange, J. N. Oswalt describes this imagery against the backdrop of rivers of the Near East. The receding of these rivers at times occasioned the appearance of previously submerged islands (Isaiah [NICOT], 2:126).

² tn Heb “and the inhabitants of the world do not fall.” The term נָפַל (nafal) apparently means here, “be born,” though the Qal form of the verb is not used with this nuance anywhere else in the OT. (The Hiphil appears to be used in the sense of “give birth” in v. 19, however.) The implication of verse 18b seems to be that Israel hoped its suffering would somehow end in deliverance and an increase in population. The phrase “inhabitants of the world” seems to refer to the human race in general, but the next verse, which focuses on Israel’s dead, suggests the referent may be more limited.