4:11–12 For the first time in the chapter Yahweh is mentioned as being directly involved in the devastation of Jerusalem, as he poured out his fierce anger on Zion. Reference to the face of the Lord in verse 16 forms an inclusio of divine involvement in the deterioration of Zion’s leadership structure. Verse 11 may serve as a hinge verse, providing the agency behind the deterioration of the community in verses 1–10 as well as that of the leadership in verses 13–16. The language of God’s “wrath” and “hot anger” recalls the dread and darkness of the day of God’s anger in 2:1–2, 21–22.

Two different images are employed to communicate the revelation of God’s wrath: he “kindled a fire” in Zion (a destructive element associated with judgment) and he “consumed” (“ate”) Zion’s foundations.104 In Psalm 137 it was Edom who called for Jerusalem to be laid bare, “down to its foundations” (Ps. 137:7). While Yahweh has been acknowledged throughout the book as the ultimate agent in Jerusalem’s destruction (Lam. 1:5, 15; 2:1–10, 17; 3:1–18), this reality ought still to shock readers familiar with Scripture. The Songs of Zion, for example, boasted of the impenetrability of Zion on the basis that “God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved” (Ps. 46:5). Yet here is God in her midst, in a hot rage, setting his beloved Zion on fire and devouring its foundations! With God turned against his own city, it is no surprise that the enemy “could enter into the gates of Jerusalem” with such apparent ease (Lam. 4:12)—it was as if Yahweh had opened the gates for them from the inside. Of course, not only did they enter after an eighteen-month siege (cf. 2 Kings 25), but, when they did, they met hardly any resistance. Given how inviolable Jerusalem had been on the world stage, the whole world looked on in surprise (Lam. 4:12). This intense interest in Jerusalem and its people by the earth’s kings and inhabitants is reflected in several OT passages (cf. Ex. 15:14–16; Deut. 29:24; Ezek. 36:22–23).

4:13 This verse defends the justice of God in venting his hot anger on his people. Jerusalem fell not because God is volatile but because the city’s leaders (prophet and priest) were sinful (cf. Jer. 6:13). In Lamentations 2:20 the prophet asked God if he had allowed things to go too far, with priest and prophet being killed in his sanctuary, thus defiling it. But now we are told the justice of it all: priest and prophet deserved for their blood to be shed because they themselves had shed the blood of the righteous. Exactly what “shed in the midst of her the blood of the righteous” refers to is unclear. It may be a metaphor for idolatry (cf. Ezek. 22:1–5) or it could refer to the death threats directed at Jeremiah (Jer. 26:7–11). However, the people never did shed his blood. More likely it refers to the killing of the righteous prophet Uriah (Jer. 26:20–23). In any case the principle of lex talionis is clearly at work.

4:14–16 Verses 14–16 outline the judgment on prophet and priest for their murderous behavior in the community. The judgment is conveyed in the form of divine reversals, beginning with the prophets (v. 14a) but then mainly focused on the priests (vv. 14b–16). Although the subject of the first bicolon is indefinite, the reference to the “blind” suggests a pun on the prophets, who were known as “seers,” those who would “see” visions from the Lord. In chapter 2 the writer spoke of prophets who had “seen” for the community false and deceptive things (2:14); now they cannot “see” at all. More than that, the shedding of innocent blood has defiled the holy men of God in the community. The subject for the second line of the first bicolon remains indefinite but seems to shift to the priests, with the reference to their “garments,” which they are now unable to touch. The priests were known for their “holy garments” (Ex. 28:2, 4). They were also known for being the pronouncers of uncleanness (Leviticus 13 passim). What they used to say to others is now said of them, as they hear the words “Away! Unclean!” pronounced over them.

More than that, they become social outcasts as they flee and wander among the nations (Lam. 4:15). The priests were the “in people” in Judahite society, with access to God and his holy things, but now they are the “out people,” unwelcome wherever they sojourn (v. 15). Their situation is belabored with an extra bicolon, breaking the regular two-bicolon pattern in the chapter. It is as if the prophet wants to lengthen their lostness. The reintroduction of Yahweh in verse 16 indicates that the rejection is not just by men but also by God.

Verse 16 contains puns and irony to heighten the divine reversal. The opening words in the Hebrew text read “The face of the Lord” (cf. ESV mg.). The phrase normally denotes the presence of the Lord, which is what the priests enjoyed most intimately in their service at the temple. Yet now the presence of God has scattered them among the nations rather than gathered them into his house. God had high regard for the priests, given their role in his sanctuary as guardians and mediators. Yet now he regards them no longer. The Hebrew text reads literally “He will not again look for them.” The verb “look” plays on the plea the people have made to Yahweh to “look” upon their plight and do something about it (1:11, 20; 2:20). But he will not look—not even on the priests, his favored intercessors. The punning continues in the second bicolon. The people of the nations do not (lit.) “lift up” the “face of the priests,” that is, they do not show them honor. The same is true for the elders: they are shown no “favor/grace.” In both cases the language echoes the Aaronic blessing that the priests would speak over the people. In this blessing the priests pronounced that Yahweh would be gracious to the people and lift up his face upon them (cf. Num. 6:24–26). By recalling this language the prophet makes a deft pun: the blessing the priests gave to others has been withheld from themselves—a sign that they have indeed been rejected by God and men.