Renner

1
Adam Renner
Bible 3000 Final Paper
April 20, 2009
Lamentations III
The Book of Lamentations is a part of the Old Testament that is known
by the miserable cries from the prophet Jeremiah. Following his book of
prophecy (as placed by the canon of the church), this text exemplifies the
misery a follower of Yahweh felt when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred.
This book is written in a traditional Hebrew lament format, namely chapter
III, in which all of the lines begin with subsequent letters of the Hebrew
alphabet, aleph three times, beth three times, and so on (Jeremias).This
chapter of Lamentations, while being poetical in nature, is confusing in
substance. The text flows in the pattern of Hebrew language, yet the context
is both seemingly meaningless in parts and conflicting in others. The
interpretation of this passage is generally left untouched by most ancient
theologians and Church Fathers, yet some dare to quote from the
infrequently used material. This passage, though seemingly conflicting in
nature, is almost constantly used as a justification tool, similar to Job, for the
destruction and strife that occurs in the human experience.
To begin, Lamentations chapter III discusses a man, namely known as
the prophet Jeremiah by many, described his utter misery after the fall of
Jerusalem. He describes his anguish and strife, all which is, according to this
chapter, attributed to the Lord. However, one cannot be angry at God, for
God is just, benevolent, and never abandons those who follow His ways

Renner
2
earnestly1. This contrast of punishment for sins in the earthly realm is
consistent with traditional Hebrew beliefs and is therefore not contemplated
to the greatest extent by early Christian writers. However, few use this
passage to address the benevolence of God in a post-Jesus world-view.
Following the coming of Jesus, sin and punishment had to be addressed in a
new light; unlike in the Old Testament when the good prospered and the evil
suffered, the current age was converse to earlier times. An early writer who
attempts to reconcile this new theology is Athanasius. In Athanasius XIII
Letter he states that They would easily [have] borne the afflictionsfor
when He abases, He is gracious (Athanasius, 540). In his letter to
Marcellinus Probinus he professes that, despite what Lamentations III says,
the works of evil do not come from the Mouth of the Lord2. Instead,
Athanasius assures, the works of evil come from the wicked, but they should
not sway the follower away from God, for though these pains may be many,
they are but temporal (and Gods Grace is eternal). He addresses this
passage by interpreting it in a theological and allegorical manner; the
suffering that one endures now is not relevant and is not from God, but
rather sin has destroyed this life and sanctuary from it rests only in the
future. Thus begins (and continues) a tradition of neglecting the present and
looking towards the future.

1 Lamentations iii:lviii- Thou hast judged, O Lord, the cause of my soul, thou
the Redeemer of my life.
2 Lamentations iii:xxxviii- Shall not both evil and good proceed out of the
mouth of the Highest?

Renner
3
Cyprian is another individual from North Africa who stated this ideal (though
several years before Athanasius). In his writings, few as they may be, he
holds close to scripture and lets it speak for itself, as it were. One work of his,
Exhortation to Repentance, is dependent nearly entirely on scripture, though
just by picking out select passages he gives the reader the message he
intends; those who transgress against the Lord will be punished, yet they will
not be troubled forever (Cyprian, 593). Once again, the interpreter looks
beyond the literal meaning of the text and attempts to draw teleological3
conclusions from the writing. A message of hope is given by these early
writers, but they do not address the current situation of trouble. Cyprian, who
wrote earlier and perhaps less forgivingly than Athanasius, sought to say that
God deals the evils in life, but He also relieves them accordingly. The later
Athanasius states that God relieves accordingly (deals the good so to speak)
but the evil is not from Him.
Methodius of Olympus, from roughly the same era as the previously
mentioned writers, was situated far across the Mediterranean in Greece. His
interpretation of Lamentations III is distinctly different from those of the
African churchmen; rather than focus on the issue of divine punishment and
relief of that he directs his attention to the moral aspects of the passage.
Methodius quotes Lamentations4 and follows with his analysis:

3 Teleological means the study or philosophy of events leading towards an

ultimate cause in nature (in this case, a Divine Plan, Gods Will, etc).
4 Lamentations iii:xxvii- It is good for a man, when he hath borne the yolk
from his youth.

Renner
4
It is good, indeed, from boyhood, to submit the neck
to the divine Hand, and not to shake off, even to old
age, the Rider who guides with pure mind, when the
Evil One is ever dragging down the mind to which is
worse (Methodius, 326).
This being the case, it is argued that despite the temptations of evil, one
should always allow the reign of God in their life. The focus for Methodius is
not on the strife, nor the reward even, but rather living the life of a divinely
guided individual for the sake of trusting Gods Hand in your existence. Thus
an allegorical response to the text states that Gods Will guides all of
humankind; the teleological argument appears once more.
Perhaps the most bizarre turn of interpretation, even compared to others
who were contemporary interpreters, are the claims of Melito the
Philosopher. Melito sought to use passages in the scripture to understand
God in a very unusual way: physical knowledge of the divine being. His
passage, from The Key, incorporates lines thirty-eight5 and forty-two6 into
describing the features of God. Methodius takes the text into a very literal
understanding (not just with Lamentations, but with all passages he
selected) into finding out what God looks like, as if He was a physical being
(Methodius, 760). What many other interpreters at this time consider
allegorical text, Methodius takes quite literally. Nevertheless, this
interpretation, though seemingly taken out of context, is the first literal one
5 See n.1
6 Lamentations iii:xlii- We have done wickedly, and provoked thee to wrath;
therefore thou art inexorable.

Renner
5
without any stipulation on the subsequent parts (such as Athanasius, who, as
stated previously, disregarded the latter portion of the text he dealt with).
A more distinguished individual who led the interpretation of Christian text is
St. Jerome, who wrote, in regards to Lamentations, on the saving grace of
God. According to chapter three in his text Against the Pelagians, he states
that every creature is subject and stands in need of His [Gods] mercy
(Jerome, 343). Following this claim, he quotes from Lamentations and notes
that where Gods mercy flows, sin preceded it7. However, he regresses in
theology with his next point, which references Lamentations iii:xlii8; he
returns once more to the traditional Jewish stance of God giving judgment in
accordance to sins, and likewise rewarding those who repent. His view on
Lamentations III can thus be stated as one of acceptance of Gods power
over the lives of individuals and His mercy that likewise flows in accordance
with the amount of repentance shown by the person. He sees this passage as
a literal meaning for what God has done, but also as an allegorical meaning
of what Jesus will do (i.e. save no matter how far the person is from God).
St. Augustine, perhaps being more distinguished than St. Jerome, also
comments on Lamentations (though in a rather brief way). In his
Confessions: Book X, Augustine references Lamentations forty-eight9 and
states that God knows of the suffering individuals go through with their daily
tribulations. However, these afflictions are not portrayed as coming from God
7 Lamentations iii:xxxii- For if he hath cast off, he will also have mercy,
according to the multitude of his mercies.
8 See n.5
9 Lamentations iii:xlviii- My eye hath run down with streams of water.

Renner
6
(as Lamentations claims). Similar to Athanasius, Augustine brushes over the
concept of a vicious God who strikes down with misery those who do not
truly repent. The literal meaning of the passage is dispensed and every verse
that deals with God dealing judgment is allegorically interpreted to fit the
new Christian outlook on the Father. Furthermore, the interpretation lends
credence to the idea of an omniscient God who knows everything about an
individual; more than individuals know about themselves.
The Lord humbles all the prisoners of the earth under His feet (Ambrose).
This is a seemingly sweetened version of the misery Lamentations expresses
at the Lords vengeance. St. Ambrose sees the passages of Lamentations III
as a way to express how all people on earth are subject to the judgment of
the Lord. However, like Augustine and Athanasius, Ambrose does not think
that God will reduce those who believe in His ways, despite the sin they may
have amassed within their hearts. Rather, Ambrose states, For He brings not
down with His whole heart Who reserves the intention of forgiving
(Ambrose). It is difficult to understand the interpretation method used here;
the seeming dismissal of lines eight10, thirteen11, and eighteen12 is too much
to bear ignorance to. These all seem to explicitly label Gods wrath towards
humanity; the person is detached from God, struck with His arrows, and all
10 Lamentations iii:viii- Yea, and when I cry, and entreat, He hath shut out
my prayer.
11 Lamentations iii:xiii- He hath shot into my reins the daughters of His
quiver.
12 Lamentations iii:xviii- And I said: My end and my hope is perished from
the Lord.

Renner
7
hope is removed from being saved. St. Ambrose, and many other ancient
writers, disagrees with literally interpreting these parts. After all, the new
understanding of God was one of forgiveness and acceptance. This line of
reasoning that the early church writers took greatly shaped the way this
passage came to be understood.
This transition from a Hebrew text with dismal ideas about the relation of
God and man, to a Christian text that tells of how Gods mercy falls despite
how terrible life seems to be pivotal in the theology of the church. However,
despite this seeming importance, very few writers comment directly on this
text; much less in fact than many other passages in the Old Testament. It is
curious to think that it would be overlooked so often. It is plausible that this
passage is thought to be not worthwhile to understanding the Christian God,
or that it has lines that conflict too much with the God of Jesus teachings.
Whatever the reasons for neglecting this chapter, the foundational work of
the early writers paved the road for further interpretation with the
emergence of the medieval era and later the Reformation writers.
As shown above, ancient era interpreters were concerned with the
saving knowledge of the New Testament, thus overlooking poetic works and
literature of the Old Testament and not examined them thoroughly. This
neglect towards a great deal of archaic text of the Hebrews was curbed in
the Reformation era. The rise of humanism in Europe led to the development
of educational reforms, which, especially in northern Europe, led to the
acceptance and prevalence of Hebrew studies. This resurgence of scholarly
work of the Old Testament allowed several notable theologians to prepare

Renner
8
more thorough analysis and commentaries on the works in the Bible.
Individuals such as John Calvin, a key reformer of the era, analyzed the text
with rigor and adept scholastic methods. Other theologians, such as Martin
Luther, still managed to disregard some Old Testament texts, such as
Lamentations, due to conflicting theological ideals. However, the practices
begun in the Renaissance and Reformation era prevailed into the coming
eras, as is evident with the later works by Matthew Henry. Due to the scope
of their commentaries, this section in the history of Lamentations
interpretation will focus exclusively on their two interpretations.
Following the lead of several other Reformers, John Calvin began to
work on his own commentary of Scripture starting in the early 1540s. Due to
his knowledge of the Hebrew language, his commentaries on the Old
Testament are of great significance. His comments are of academic value
and not simply a personalized theological quagmire that some ancient
scholars were quite capable of producing. Calvin constantly uses the Hebrew
language to understand the subtle linguistic meanings in passages and
chapters, such as Lamentations. This linguistic analysis seems to be rather
new in the field of Old Testament studies. The methods of allegory have been
set aside while the technique of language studies has taken its place (at
least in Calvins case). This concentrated effort is able to produce a very
interesting and helpful understanding of the Hebrew text.
First, John Calvin identifies Lamentations as authored by the prophet
Jeremiah. Calvin, however, does not think that this book was written when
the prophet was cast into prison, as the common perception held; rather,

Renner
9
Jeremiah writes this as a personal account that is reflective of the whole
Hebrew people. The book is reflective of both the destruction of Jerusalem
and the seemingly incessant suffering of the Jews. However, one needs to
interpret this in the context of the New Testament in order to explain how
God is not a simply a causation of suffering. God has caused the prophet
and the people immense pain and strife in their lives; God is angry with His
people (Calvin, 386). The metaphors for the immense pain the people are
suffering are as numerous as the reasons people seem to give for just
(righteous) evil from God.
The prophet Jeremiah states that his flesh andskin hath He made
old; He hath broken my bones (Calvin, 391). Calvin interprets this passage
metaphorically to mean that the trying nature of Gods commands has
withered the strength from the Hebrew people so that they are tired and
appear to be ill and old. He continues in his interpretation of the text to the
sixth verse13 and decides that the prophet is discussing the dead of ages, a
peculiar term that means those who have been buried and nearly forgotten
i.e. a decayed or destroyed body (here is where Calvins linguistic skills are
especially helpful to the reader). This further exemplifies the horror and
sorrow felt by the seeming dismissal of Gods salvation and the onset of His
wrath.
One of the most interesting lines Jeremiah scribed is the eighth verse:
Also when I cry and shout he shutteth out my prayer. Calvin quickly

13 Lamentations iii:vi He hath set me in dark places, as they that be dead of

old.

Renner
10
dismisses this as folly, a mere reaction of our humanistic misery, by citing
other passages in Scripture, such as Proverbs xviii. x.14 as well as Joel ii.
xxxii.15 Therefore, Calvin continues to state that God is always there for the
individual, no matter the strife currently being experienced. However, Calvin
adds that sometimes God defers His aid to try their patience (Calvin,
394).16 He means to defend the notion that, though suffering occurs God
never leaves the believer. However, seemingly contradictory to what Calvin
interprets; verse nine of the third chapter in Lamentations is as follows: He
hath enclosed my ways with hewn stone; he hath made my paths crooked.
Once again Calvin sees this as the fault of the believer, and not divine
harshness. Further into the text, verse ten claims that God is a lion and bear
waiting for Jeremiah. John Calvin cringes at the thought and quickly and
sufficiently explains that even the most faithful (a prophet) can falter when
faced with the mighty wrath of God; once more, God is not the problem or
the cause of pain, but rather the follower is the source of his own anguish
(Calvin, 397).
The following passages until near the end of the chapter are similar
metaphors and verses concerned with the conflict the prophet feels in lieu of
Gods wrath exercised upon him. This conflict was a questioning of self and
14 The strongest tower is the name of the Lord, to it will the righteous flee
and shall be safe.
15 Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
16 Why a benevolent God would hold back His salvation from those in need
is something these interpreters do not even ask; Christians must wait
another three centuries before such questions are logically discussed.

Renner
11
relationship to God; who is causing this suffering (God or self), and why isnt
God helping me? A shift in tone occurs later in the chapter with verse twentytwo: It is of the Lords mercies that we are not consumed, because his
compassions fail not. Calvin elucidates the idea that, as he has said many
times earlier, God never leaves the individual no matter how trying the
circumstances are. Gods compassions and mercies are renewed daily, Calvin
states, so that God is known as the fountain of all blessings (Calvin, 409).
This contrasts with the notion presented in verse thirty-eight, the most
discussed verse in the chapter: Out of the mouth of the most High
proceedeth not evil and good? Calvin deftly navigates this passage by
explaining that though good things and bad things proceed from God, it is
not God that causes men to do their wicked deeds (Calvin, 427). This
construed idea is complicated and conflicting if one thinks on it for more than
a just few moments; if God causes the good and evil events, yet somehow
not the evil actions of men, then how can sin be explained as anything but a
persuasion from Gods will? Calvin thinks that Christians should refrain from
asking such questions and that they should learn not to subject God to
our judgment, but adore His judgment (Calvin, 429). It is with this idea of
God and His works that Calvin continues his commentary on Jeremiahs
literature.
Nearly eight score later a Protestant named Matthew Henry wrote his
own commentary on the entire Bible. His version, much less analytical and
linguistically focused than John Calvins was meant to be used as a

Renner
12
devotional, or study aid, for the laity at large. His understanding of the text is
much more of a general synopsis of what he thinks the Old Testament writer
was attempting to convey with the text. Instead of working at the chapter
one verse at a time, as Calvin does, Henry simply starts writing about the
layout and meaning, as he sees it to be evident. His thoughts of
Lamentations III are broken into five main sections: first is Jeremiahs
complaint of Gods wrath, second a few words of comfort, next an idea of
duty in lieu of the afflicted state, then a return to anger towards God, and
finally encouragement for Gods salvation (Henry, 570).
On the first page of the interpretation, Henry begins by examining the
affliction that plagues the individual in this chapter. He takes verses from
Lamentations and interprets them allegorically, similar to how ancient
theologians did. The idea of why Jeremiah is suffering is not from Gods
pointless rage, but rather from a just temper: the rod of His wrath. This
rod, a correcting tool, is used not to destroy the Children of God, but rather
to help discipline them to the right path once more. Naturally, God is not
actually using a rod; it is a symbol that conveys discipline in the meaning.
The paternal idea of God is evident both in this passage and interpretation,
and perhaps this fatherly figure can comfort those in times of despair.
However, it remains to be asked then, what of the justification of suffering for
the purpose of a lesson? Surely a father would only go so far to teach his son
correct behavior; by Gods rod, this can sometimes mean death. Neither
Henry nor Calvin helps clear this issue for the believer.

Renner
13
The meaning for this first section, however, is how humans deal with
the suffering. The believer, even the most pious one as Calvin stated, can
become consumed with anger from the afflictions to such a degree that there
is negligence of others and of God. As humans cannot see the meaning
behind His works of wrath, they therefore become angry and frustrated at
God. However, by Gods wrath and afflictions, the believers are humbled and
can turn back to the correct path once more. This argument is nothing new;
this was the argument Jeremiah seemed to have intended in his writings.
Having described the premise for the concern of Gods wrath Henry
then moves to elaborate on the comforting nature of God. The main idea that
Henry suggests is that, as believers, people ought to be glad their suffering
is not far worse than what it is already (Henry, 572). Humans are afflicted by
Gods wrath, but it is only because of His mercy that the faithful are saved
from outright destruction. Once again, justification for misery is present; the
afflictions are like the fire that refines silver lumps into purer essence as he
puts it on page 572. Recalling Gods Grace lends faith and hope to the heart
for the passing of the afflictions, and furthermore, those who deal with
God, as Henry words it, will not find it vain to trust in Him. Once more, the
question of why suffering is justifiable is not explained or contemplated in
any other way than the acts of lamenting and destruction are actually helpful
for individuals in their path to righteousness. This idea of justifiable suffering
is explained in a simple quote, The same hand afflicted the wound and
healed it (Henry, 573).

Renner
14
The most interesting, and perhaps upsetting, idea is presented on page
574 by Matthew Henry in response to the thirty-eighth verse (commented on
similarly by Calvin many years before): Men are but tools which the great
God makes use of, and manages as He pleases. Such a blatant claim to
predestination and destruction of free will for the human soul apparently did
not trouble Henry, nor did it trouble the readers of his works. However, he
conflicts with himself on the following page when he further interprets this
claim to determination by stating that all human suffering is caused by
human error. If God determines all, how is it that humans are responsible for
the evil done to them (or caused by them)? Henry simply explains what the
passage states in a metaphorical sense, and due to the belief in inerrant
Scripture, no conflict arises. This conflicting logic is thus unapparent to this
interpreter (as well as many others individuals from all eras).
The final parts of Lamentations III are briefly covered by Henry as an
appeal to the mercy and justice of God in regards to the warranted suffering
of the individual. As Henry states on page 577, the believer feels the
presence of God even in times of great turmoil. The graciousness the faithful
can give to God in these circumstances seems to be quite amazing; the God
is still receiving the blessing and prayers from the ones being oppressed by
His very hand. In this context, or way of rephrasing, it seems eerily similar to
the situation Jesus the Christ was placed in; the faithful are Jesus and God is
the torturer. This is a concept that neither Calvin nor Henry will discuss in

Renner
15
their interpretations; it simply is not how they have come to understand the
nature of God.
The reformation era was a time of great leaps in Scriptural
interpretation, yet still many conflicting doctrines and ideas abounded within
the text, especially in regards to Lamentations III. Writers such as John Calvin
and Matthew Henry were well versed and educated yet seemingly failed to
understand how to explain God in ways that were not conflicting. Their
interpretations of the Old Testament scripture were not as allegorical or
typological, which was an advance from the ancient writers, yet they were
not quite as scholastic as the modern era would allow scriptural exegesis to
be.
Having concluded examining the third chapter of Lamentations in both
the ancient and reformation context it is finally pertinent to look at the
passage using a modern standpoint and exegetical method. There is a great
accumulation of modern translations, commentaries, and the like. The
standpoint that many of the modern texts take is one of philologist17; they
look specifically at the language used in the chapter and analyze what is
meant by the Hebrew sentence structure. A few commentaries actually offer
rather allegorical interpretations and commentaries on the text as well. Most,
however, rely on the former of the two methods to explain to the readers
what was literally meant, granted, through figurative wording, by the
language.

17 By philologist, it means one who studies linguistics and engages in

comparative literature.

Renner
16
The first work to be addressed is a commentary by William D. Reyburn, late
missionary as well as Bible translator. His comments on Lamentations focus
strongly on the language being used in the passages because he is writing
the text for Biblical translators. His method, therefore, is a lexical-syntactical
method. For example, he describes how the shift in one word can alter the
entire meaning of a sentence; the same word on line five (bitterness) can
also be translated as poison, misery, torment, and/or suffering (Reyburn 78,
82). Another philological tool implemented is searching for similar terms and
sentence structure in other parts of the Bible to aid interpretation methods.
Reyburn refers back to the story of Job by remarking that, like Lamentations
3:13, Job 16:13 also speaks of Jobs kidneys as the target of Gods arrows
(ibid. 81).
Aside from searching for the meaning through language alone, he also
employs figural methods of understanding the text. Lamentations 3:30 states
let him give his cheek to the smiter, which, Reyburn writes, hearkens to
Jesus (Note also turnthe other cheek, [in] Matt 5:39) (ibid. 91). Thus
Reyburn goes beyond merely remarking on the linguistic structure of the
passage and moves on to give it theological importance as a prelude to the
coming Christ. He claims that, though he and modern Christians can see
teleological meaning, he realizes the Jews at the time would not have
thought of this passage as a prelude to Christ.
Another author of a commentary on Lamentations is Delbert Hillers,
professor of Semitic language and studies at John Hopkins University. His
study focuses on the text in much the same way as Reyburns; the

Renner
17
interpretation is based mainly on the translation method employed, looking
nearly exclusively at the text via the lexical-syntactical method, but with
more focus on cultural relevance. For example, on page 67 Hillers writes,
He makes me sit in the dark is a semi-figurative expression for He put me
in prison. At the same time, the picture of sitting or dwelling in darkness
suggests the realm of the deadindeed the Dark is a poetic term for
Sheol. Here the text can be taken either as a literal darkness, semifigurative (in prison), or even allude to an underworld (which, of course, is a
rather figural interpretation of the passage).
Aside from the strict philological analysis Hillers does, he also suggests
other Biblical texts that fit alongside portions of Lamentations. His approach,
unlike Reyburns, is not teleological; the passages Hiller cites are all located
in the Old Testament and he makes no claims to prophecy fulfilled or
precursors to the New Testament. Rather, what he focuses on is examining
the similarities and differences between writers of the Old Testament in order
to extrapolate a clearer meaning in other passages. These are the waters of
Sheol, a traditional image for really desperate trouble; cf. Jonah 2:5-6; II Sam
22:5-6=Pss 18:4-5; 69:1-2, 14-15 (ibid. 74). This type of hermeneutics,
historical/cultural, is helpful in order to find cultural relevance in other parts
of the text as well as find the meaning of an unclear phrase.
The work by Adele Berlin, professor of Hebrew Bible at University of
Maryland, starts interestingly by stating that Lamentations III is not formally
marked as a lament (Berlin 84). Due to the literary construction of the
passage, she does not agree with many other scholars in classifying it as a

Renner
18
Hebrew Lament. Nevertheless, she does recognize the grief expressed in this
poem by the speaker, whom she states is a personified voice of the exile
and not just a man reflecting his own strife (ibid. 84). It seems, based on her
writing, that she believes Lamentations III is a metaphorical story used to tell
the plight of the Jews.
The language used by this personified entity describes the hardships
encountered from God and the march into exile. Here is where Berlins
commentary is very intriguing; she attempts to use extra-Biblical sources in
order to verify and understand the truthfulness of the march into exile (ibid.
87). Rather than simply presume, like several other authors have seemingly
done, she turns towards archaeological and historical work to understand the
conditions of deportations by Assyria and Babylon. Doing so grants a fuller
view on the text by giving literal language to couple with the figurative that
is prevalent in the passage.
At last an interpreter finally addresses an issue that in Lamentations III
has been overlooked since the ancient commentators; Lamentations 3:404418. This passage focuses on a very important theological concept: does
God forgive after one commits a sin? With the coming of Christ in the New
Testament, it is obvious that all sins are forgiven if one repents. However, it
seems that in the Old Testament if one repents such forgiveness is not
necessarily granted. This leads to two stark theological conclusions: God has

18 Let us lift up our hearts and our hands to God in heaven. We have sinned
and rebelled; you have not forgiven. You have screened yourself off in anger
and pursued us, you killed without pity. You have screened yourself in that
cloud of yours, so no prayer could pass through, (ibid. 80).

Renner
19
changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament, or, God was
interpreted incorrectly by the Jews in the 6th century BC (at least by Christian
standards). Unlike in the book of Jeremiah, both of which are believed to
have been produced by the same individual, God seemingly sees no reason
to forgive in lieu of the peoples cries for forgiveness (Contrary to Jeremiah
18:5-12there is no direct relationship between repentance and
forgiveness) (ibid. 96).
The final author examined here that comments on Lamentations is F.W.
Dobbs-Allsopp, an assistant professor of Old Testament at Princeton
University. He views Lamentations as a metaphorical expression of grief that
the Jews were experiencing at that time; the poet heaps metaphor upon
metaphor, drawing images, as it were, from whatever realm imaginable
(Dobbs-Allsopp 111). Recognizing the powerful language in this passage is
vital to understanding the meaning it might have had for the Israelites at the
time it was produced. Aside from the language, Dobbs-Allsopp also traces
correlations to other texts, similar to how Hiller did thirty years before (in
fact, Hiller is cited in Dobbs-Allsopps work many times). Dobbs-Allsopp
mainly focuses on a cultural understanding of the text; what would the
Israelites have felt, known, or understood when this passage was recited.
Could they ever take comfort knowing that even repenting does not sway
Gods Hand from dealing judgment? Gods innermost will for humanity is not
suffering but love and well-being (ibid. 125). How can this be so when so
much evil and suffering occurs?

Renner
20
And the manstands as the paradigmatic survivor, not triumphant
but alive (ibid. 128). If survival is the goal, than it stands to reason that the
third chapter of Lamentations ends in hope, but only in the sense that Gods
wrath shifts from the Israelites to their enemies. This passage, thus, seems
to be literature explaining the suffering and anger Israel has expressed
towards God. Though they repent, they are not saved. Though they realize
what has occurred, and that God is punishing them, they still trust in Him. It
would be odd for Christians to use this passage today; it cannot cross the
cultural boundaries (ancient Israel to the modern world) and seems to have
little teleological merit in explaining the New Testament. Based on the literal,
allegorical, lexical, teleological, philological, and cultural interpretation of
Lamentations III, it can be surmised that the passage can be read to have
many different meanings. It stands to historical inquiry that seemingly the
most rational approach at understanding the passage labels it as a Hebrew
Lament, not a prophecy towards Christ, and certainly not a way of
understanding the Christian concept of God.