3:25–27 In the Hebrew text each verse/bicolon here begins with the word “good.” The word itself is somewhat surprising, given that the book is predominantly concerned with lamenting the affliction of God’s judgment. Yet now for the first time we hear that “the Lord is good” and that certain things are good. The first bicolon uses the word “good” to describe the Lord’s action toward those who wait for him and seek him in the midst of affliction (v. 25): the Lord is good to those who wait for him. The next two bicola relate the word to what is good for the man who suffers: it is good for a man to wait in silence for the Lord’s salvation and for him to bear a yoke of affliction in his youth (vv. 26–27). The idea of suffering is conveyed by the preceding context and the metaphor of the man carrying a yoke on his shoulders (v. 27).

The repetition of the key descriptor geber, which introduced the man at the beginning of the poem, indicates that, as a strong man/warrior, he was made to bear a burden. The focus in these verses, however, is not so much on bearing the yoke of suffering but on waiting upon the Lord in suffering. Two different words are used in the Hebrew text, but both convey the same idea. No explanation is given for what exactly is good about waiting in suffering or why exactly it is good for a man to bear the burden of affliction in his youth. However, the opening statement at the beginning of the stanza encourages the sufferer to trust in the Lord’s goodness even if he cannot quite understand all the mechanics of the good in his suffering. A direct correlation is made between the Lord and salvation in verses 25–26. In verse 25 the afflicted person is to wait for the Lord and seek him; in verse 26 this entails waiting for the salvation of the Lord. In other words there is no salvation for the sufferer outside of the Lord himself. The mention of salvation (v. 26) following a period of suffering under the judgment of God (vv. 1–18) reflects the two-beat rhythm of judgment-salvation that sounds throughout redemptive history. The aspect of waiting in silence in verse 26, which becomes a focus in the next stanza, highlights the fact that the life of the sufferer is a life of persevering faith, not perceiving sight.

3:28–30 These verses pick up on the aspect of suffering in silence and develop it in hortatory form. Imperfect jussive forms are used in sequence to provide exhortations that encourage a willing acceptance of the suffering. The person who suffers is encouraged to adopt a solitary, silent posture to the suffering. The silence is conveyed not only by the command but also by anatomical parts of the body used for speech being disabled: the mouth must be put in the dust (v. 29; cf. 2:10), while the cheek must be given to the fist (3:30). The silence communicates the acceptance. But so too does the posture: there is a lowering down (in the dust; v. 29) and a leaning forward (to the one who strikes; v. 30). There is also the acceptance of insults, letting himself be filled with them. Two reasons are given for the accepting disposition: First, because83 God lays the affliction of suffering on the person (v. 28)—there is no point in pushing against it or trying to get out of it.84 Second, because there may yet be hope—since God laid it on, he can lift it off (v. 29). The word “yet” can also be translated “perhaps” (cf. Jonah 1:6). The adverb maintains God’s sovereignty: he is free to give hope to whomever he wishes. But, since we know the kind of God that he is (cf. Lam. 3:22–24), when he is in the picture there is hope.

In short, what God calls for in suffering is “the quiet humility, born of penitence and sustained by hope.”85 It should also be noted that the language of verses 28–30 shares strong affinities with the suffering servant of Isaiah, with his remaining silent (v. 28; cf. Isa. 53:7, 9), giving his cheek to be struck (Lam. 3:30; cf. Isa. 50:6), and exposing himself to insults (Lam. 3:30; cf. Isa. 53:3).86 In both cases there is solitary, silent suffering.

3:31–33 This stanza and the next form the statistical center of chapter 3 and the literary center of the whole book. Nearly all the key terms in the stanza are repeated from elsewhere in the book: “cast off” (Lam. 3:31; cf. 2:7; 3:17), “cause grief” (v. 32; cf. 1:4, 5, 12; 3:33), “compassion” (v. 32; cf. v. 22), “steadfast love” (v. 32; v. 22), “afflict” (v. 33; cf. 1:3, 7, 9; 3:1, 19; cf. also 5:11), and “heart” (3:33; cf. 1:20, 22; 2:18, 19; 3:21; cf. also v. 65; 5:15, 17). The repetition is not incidental but intentional. The prophet is a pastor, seeking to bring comfort to the sufferer by addressing the very real, and raw, issue of their rejection by God and the grief and affliction he has caused them. In a sense, the prophet-pastor picks up all the pain and anguish of the laments expressed thus far in the book and applies the balm of the “long view.” In the midst of immense pain he encourages the sufferer to lift up his bowed head and look beyond his suffering to the Lord, who will not cast off forever but will show compassion according to his steadfast love, for he does not afflict from the heart. In essence these verses are a call to live by faith and not by sight as the sufferer looks to his covenant God for deliverance from his suffering.

The stanza provides three reasons for waiting with a humble and accepting attitude for providential suffering from the Lord. Each verse/bicolon begins with the conjunctive ki and is best translated consistently as “for.” The three “for” clauses could relate to the exhortations in verses 28–30 as three distinct reasons unrelated to each other or the reasons could relate to each other in a stepped subordination of causality. On this interpretation the argument runs as follows:

Let a person submit himself to a humble acceptance of providential suffering. (vv. 28–30)

For the Lord will not cast off forever, (v. 31)

For, though he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of steadfast love; (v. 32)

For he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. (v. 33)

In other words the point of the “causal” material is to reassure sufferers that, in God’s economy, suffering is not forever, but God’s steadfast love is; when he causes suffering, he does not do it willingly (“from [the] heart”) as an end in itself. In other words after judgment comes salvation; after grief comes compassion; after affliction comes some higher purpose. Moreover, God’s punishment of his people is his “strange [or “reluctant”] work,” while the forgiveness of his people is his “natural [or “desired”] work”—and all this is because of the kind of God he is, a God slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.87

In addition to the stepped subordination in the “for” clauses, the text displays a neat chiasm at the level of conceptuality. Verses 31 and 33 are negative, stating what the Lord will not do and does not do: he will not reject forever, and he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. Verse 32 is positive, stating what God does do and will do: he does cause grief, but after grief he will have compassion according to his steadfast love. Conceptually, the stanza looks like this:

verse 31: God-enacted rejection

verse 32: God-enacted compassion

verse 33: God-enacted affliction

Thus it becomes clear that at the center of this stanza, and thus near the center of the whole book, is a focus on God’s showing compassion to his suffering people according to his steadfast love.

3:34–36 Along with the previous stanza, this one forms the literary and theological center of the book. Its juxtaposition to the preceding verses reveals that the lesson in suffering involves more than simply affirming the love of God; it also involves defending the justice of God. God’s steadfast love is a balm in the midst of suffering, but that does not resolve all questions related to suffering. In this case a question remains concerning the justice of God: Has the punishment that Jerusalem-Judah received from the hand of God via merciless agents of destruction been just?

The stanza is structured around three infinitive clauses that concern merciless or unjust scenarios. Placing the infinitive clauses first focuses the issue of injustice. The difficulty comes in how to interpret the final line of verse 36, and in particular the verb “approve” (Hb. raʾah). The ESV renders the verb as an affirmation of what the Lord does not approve: “To do X, Y, Z, the Lord does not approve,” conveying the mood of complaint. We could also interpret the line as a rhetorical question: “To do X, Y, Z, does the Lord not see [the most common translation of raʾah]?” (with the obvious answer: “Yes, of course. God does see and God will deal with such injustices and put them all to rights.”88). In the context of the prophet’s delivering a lesson in suffering this interpretation would prepare for his request for God to see the wrong done to the prophet and thus repay all evildoers (vv. 59–66).

3:37–39 Now that the difficulty of the justice of God in suffering has been addressed, the final stanza of the section turns to the issue of God’s sovereignty in suffering. Three rhetorical questions structure the stanza. The first two concern the sovereignty of God, while the third returns to the issue of his justice. The first question alludes to creation, when the Lord spoke and it was so (v. 37). The question is a candid affirmation that the Lord commands whatsoever comes to pass: as in the creation of the world (Genesis 1), so in the destruction of Jerusalem (Lam. 2:17). God’s sovereignty is highlighted by the title “Lord” as well as its fronted position in the Hebrew colon. The second question, still focused on God’s commands seen via the reference to what comes out of the mouth of the Most High, affirms the same thing, only this time in binary terms: God commands both bad and good (3:38; cf. Job 2:10; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 18:11; Amos 3:6).89 The stark, unqualified affirmation enters the realm of mystery, since elsewhere the Bible clearly affirms that God is not the author of evil (cf. Deut. 32:4; James 1:13). Taking into account that God uses the Babylonians as intermediate agents of the destruction reveals that he does not stand behind evil in the same way he stands behind good. Nevertheless, texts such as Lamentations 3:38 make clear that, ultimately, all things happen in line with what God commands according to the counsel of his immutable will.

With the final rhetorical question in verse 39 the prophet makes a dramatic shift. Having taken us into the realm of the mystery of God’s sovereignty in suffering, he immediately pulls back from any suggestion of theodicy, because the suffering in this case is a simple case of cause and effect, of sin and punishment. When a person has suffered punishment for his own sins, there is no injustice or mystery to his suffering. If he has sinned, then he has simply received what he deserves. With Jerusalem-Judah, personified and represented by the prophet, this is exactly the case. Verse 39 thus brings us back full circle to verse 1 via the word geber, to the man who has seen affliction under the rod of God’s wrath—and justly so.