The stereotypical nature of the language, its use of metaphor and hyperbole, "limits what we can say with certainty about its historical background. It certainly seems impossible in the light of this to make any decision between 597 and 587 B.C.E."FN4 Provan asserts we cannot even be sure that it must be one of these dates either.

In the end, Provan's arguments are not enough to overturn the scholarly consensus, and the events of 587 remain the most likely historical background. His basic premise that the reconstructed historical background is not essential to the understanding of Lamentations bears thinking about, however, and has implications for the way we should preach from it which will be taken up below.

The authorship of Lamentations has been disputed. Even the earliest textual traditions are not unanimous in ascribing authorship, or in placement in the canon. The book itself does not name its author, nor do historical allusions in the text make it possible with any certainty to ascribe authorship to characters mentioned in historical texts such as Kings or Chronicles.

The most common ascription of authorship, ancient or modern, is to Jeremiah the prophet, son of Hilkaiah. Whilst this is possible, scholars have proposed good reasons for thinking it unlikely that Jeremiah wrote Lamentations. Delbert Hillers applies to this problem the same procedure as that for resolving textual variants, that is, to ask the question "which is best able to account for the existence of the other?" It is quite easy to see how ancient scholars, following the common tendency to ascribe anonymous works to a well known biblical hero, could have chosen Jeremiah, whose person and circumstances seem to fit so well. It is very difficult, on the other hand, to devise a textual history for the book by which an original ascription of authorship to Jeremiah could have been lost or ignored. This argument, though only by nature dealing in probabilities, is the most cogent against Jeremian authorship. FN5

Other arguments against Jeremiah are less convincing. Some note that the viewpoint of the lamenter changes in various chapters, sometimes giving a perspective that does not accord with Jeremiah's known historical movements at the time.FN6 Furthermore, one must ask how the lamenter in those places in chapters 3,4, & 5 where he includes himself as partaking in the sinful attitudes of Judah which led to her downfall, could possibly be the Jeremiah who preached against these very things. But such arguments fail to take account enough of the literary form and devices of Lamentations, and also ignore parallel passages in Scripture which exhibit similar characteristics. For example, if Daniel 9:4-19 existed only as an isolated prayer with an ascription of authorship to Daniel, the same question would occur to our minds: if it were Daniel that wrote this, how could he confess to national sins he personally was not guilty of? Here, and in several other places in Scripture, there is sometimes a close association of a prophet or servant of God with the sin of his people, even if he himself was not personally culpable.

In any event, no great theological or biblical truths hang in the balance over the question of authorship. It is best to conclude that, for the present at least, we cannot be sure whether the author was Jeremiah or some other, but it does not matter very much anyway.

The only thing that all scholars agree on is that Lamentations is poetry. Various students of the text point to features of metre, parallelism and style in an attempt to refine this into more specific categories. Many argue that it is largely in the form of a funeral lament. This is based largely on the predominance of a particular metre, but as Hillers points out, the common garden variety Hebrew metre is also found in Lamentations, the allegedly funereal (Qînåh) metre is used elsewhere in scripture, even in praises, and there are elegies in Scripture without it. Daniel Grossberg agrees: "not all elegies show the qînåh meter and some poems clearly not elegies do evidence the meter."FN7

Form criticism in fact contributes little to our understanding of the book, especially from a homiletical point of view. The content of the poems themselves mark them out as a lament, without our having to look elsewhere, and whether they have a form typical of the lament over someone who has died, is of academic interest only.

Fortunately for the exegete and preacher of Lamentations, there are no significant textual problems. Perhaps because of the rigid acrostic structure of the poems, the text of Lamentations is in a very good state of repair, and has lost little to scribal errors. Those corruptions that do occur, however, have little chance of recovery, as they happened at a very early stage of transmission and are reflected in practically all MSS. For example, there is a half line missing at 3:31, and any attempt to regain the meaning is sheerly speculative. None of the textual problems have much bearing on the overall message or theology of the book.

The freedom and hyperbole of the poetic form of Lamentations is contained within a rigid framework of highly structured acrostics. The structure and content of the book are easily discernible, and cause little or no scholarly controversy. Everyone agrees that the book consists of 5 separate laments, which are bound together as a unity by their themes and acrostic structure. They are most probably the work of a single author, or at the least a very clever editor. The rigid system of acrostics enables us to divide the chapters and verses pretty much as the author intended, which is useful.

The five poems are all shaped by the Hebrew alphabet, though only the first four are completely acrostic.FN8 Chapters 1 and 2 have twenty-two stanzas of three lines each, in which only the first line of the stanza begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Chapter 3, thematically as well as structurally the centre of the book, is more elaborate: all three lines in each of the twenty-two stanzas are made to conform to the alphabet. Chapter 4 is like the first two chapters but has only two lines per stanza. Chapter 5 has twenty-two lines.

The chapters/poems are also structured thematically in relation to each other, in a way that again suggests one author. Though the basic theme of them all is a lament for the fall of Jerusalem, there are important differences in emphasis and perspective:

The first half of chapter 1 is from the objective perspective of a narrator describing the misery of "the lonely ruin" which is Jerusalem. In the second half, vv 12-22, Zion is personified as a woman lamenting her downfall. The dominant personal pronouns of chapter 1's lament are "she/her" and "I/my" (referring to Jerusalem personified).

Chapter 2 is an observer's lament, including an address to "beloved Jerusalem" and a prayer to Yahweh to reconsider what he is doing to her. Whereas chapter 1 was from the viewpoint of Jerusalem, chapter 2 begins with the scene from Yahweh's viewpoint, (though via the observer, in the third person): "The Lord has humiliated...he has thrown down...he has destroyed...he has broken...," etc. The second half of chapter 2 is from the viewpoint of the observer himself. In chapter 2 the dominant personal pronoun is "He/You," that is the Lord, and the emphasis is on His acts of judgement.

Chapter 3, beginning "I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of God's wrath," is an intensely personal lament, containing both deep despair and hope. It is the centre, the climax of the book. Here all mention of wider perspectives ceases. Here all literary devices, such as personification of the city, which keep the agony at arm's length, give way. The destruction of Jerusalem is narrowed to a bitterly sharp point in the experience of one man. Yet, his agony, whilst personal, is not individualistic, and for most of the chapter after verse 24, the lamenter speaks not just of himself, but of "we" and "us," revealing his conception of himself as having no existence apart from the community of God's people.

Chapter 4 is anticlimactic, both in structure, with its two-line semi-acrostic stanzas, and in perspective, as it returns to the observer's position. Like chapter 2, the observer describes things from Yahweh's perspective as well as from his own. Chapters 2 to 4 are chiastic with regard to the perspective of the text:

Again, we see clearly that chapter 3 is the highlight, or more accurately, the lowlight, of the book. The turning point as far as hope for the afflicted Jerusalem happens in chapter 3, and chapter 4 contains glimmers of hope and mercy that are absent from chapter 2.

Chapter 5 is a corporate lament and prayer for mercy from the Lord. It ends on a note of uncertainty, a mixture of hope in the Lord's mercy and despair at Jerusalem's continuing situation which suggests that the book was written no later than the exile.

Provan's thesis, discussed previously, has some validity. In our sermon preparation and delivery, we would do well to avoid spending an inordinate amount of time detailing the historical background of the poems. Most time should be spent interacting with the text itself, and the existential questions with which its author is struggling.

However, whilst the exact historical events may not be so important to an understanding of the text itself, a knowlege of the relationship of the tragic events described to the redemptive historical theology of Israel is essential. Even the intense grief and bitterness of the poems is not given its full impact or meaning until we explain the significance of the downfall of Jerusalem to the author. This cannot be done without reference to the historical fulfilment of the Davidic covenant and the theology of Zion. Only then can we see that "the fall of Jerusalem was...much more than a catastrophic military defeat, much more than a severe political setback; rather it represented a crisis of faith."FN9

Slight references to Israel's redemptive history are scattered through the book. Terms like Jacob (3x); Israel (3x); Judah (3x); and Zion (16x) need to be given their full weight. The significance of the term "daughter Zion"FN10 and "virgin daughter Zion" must be investigated: it calls to mind similar usages in for example, Ezekiel 16 and 23. I'm not convinced by Hillers' explanation that it is only a metrical device. It is more than that in other 6th century BC scriptures. It is a rhetorical device that attaches to the personification of Zion (or Judah) as a woman and allows the author to heighten images of Judah's violation and degradation.

Most importantly, the preacher needs to understand himself, and communicate to others, the place that Zion occupied in the theological thought of the author. Zion was the centre of the universe, for it was the nexus between heaven and earth, the place of God's rule from where he was symbolically enthroned in His Temple. This rule was effected temporally through the Davidic Messiah, who ruled as "God's son," as revealed especially in the theology of II Samuel 7; and Psalms 2; 46; 48; 72; 76; 84; 87; 89; 101; 132, and others. Zion is the seat of God's rule in Israel and from there to all the earth, and the centre of His Presence amongst his chosen people. Only when set against this "Zion theology" is the destruction in Lamentations given its full import.FN11 Compare Psalm 87:1,2,5 "On the holy mount stands the city he founded; the LORD loves the gates of Zion...for the Most High himself will establish it," with Lamentations 4:11 "The Lord gave full vent to his wrath; he poured out his hot anger, and kindled a fire in Zion that consumed its foundations." And Psalm 2 with Lamentations 4:20 "The Lord's anointed, the breath of our life, was taken in their pits - the one of whom we said, "under his shadow we shall live among the nations."

If possible, it may be a good idea to preach on Lamentations in a series which also includes a sermon on Psalm 87 or some similar passage, to lay the foundation for a greater understanding that the fall of Zion represented just about the end of the lamenter's world.

Some effort must be made, in our preaching, to convey to the congregation something of the brilliant structure and literary composition of the book, since Lamentations heightens the poignancy of its message by this structure. Especially we need to ensure people see that chapter 3, with its turning point from despair to hope, is the climax of the work. Lamentations is a book in which meaning is enhanced by structure and form. Wherever possible, it ought to be read through at one sitting. Where this is not possible, each chapter as it is spoken about, must be set in its relative context within the structure of the book. Since chapter 3 is the climax of the book, one valid preaching method would be to preach two or three sermons: one or two on chapters 1, 2, 4, & 5; and the final one on chapter 3.

The grievous lament of the book is more than the heartache of a people who have been defeated and subjugated, but a fundamental crisis of faith, set against the particular redemptive historical significance of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the nature of the grief it portrays, and the central message of the book in chapter three, have an existential nexus point in the experience of every human being who has suffered, and particularly of those of the family of faith. It will be particularly poignant to many migrant Australians in our congregations. It is grief akin to that revealed in the sad songs about Saigon as she used to be before 1975, or the anguish Chinese feel over Tiananmen Square, or the Lebanese at the rending of Beirut.

It is no accident that there is no "theology of Zion," in chapter 3, but only the man and his suffering and his people and his God. It is real suffering, that will strike a greater chord with people who have experienced it than with those of us who have not. It is grief that goes on and on with the same repetitive refrain, and returns to it even after the realisation of God's mercies in 3:21-42.

The other existential link with the text is faith. Like the Lamenter, we exist in the world of Exile, away from the heavenly perfection that was symbolised by the first city of Zion. As Paul says in 2 Cor 5:7, we walk by faith and not by sight. Lamentations is about the age old problem of reconciling the reality of an evil capricious world with faith in a loving Lord. The cutting edge of Lamentations is that it is not a theological treatise, but a personal experience. As such, it is more effective than any academic argument for God's goodness and mercy.

The bitter realism of the suffering and grief highlight the theocentric faith of the Lamenter, and the reality of the journey in chapter three from darkness to light. Lamentations is the cry, not of unbelief, but of faith. But it is so throughout, not just at the highpoint of 3:21-23, because even the protests and complaints are, as Paul Bowers says, "overwhelmingly theocentric." He goes on, "Here is anguish of the believer when the unbelievable happens. Look, O God, see what you have done! How could God have done this? The incongruity is experienced precisely because of an intense awareness of the reality and control of God. The staggered faith itself resides within a faith. [It] wonders if God is good - but the very problem roots itself in a conviction of the reality of God."FN12

Perhaps Lamentations may be helpful to some undergoing similar crises of suffering and faith. That it is a testimony of faith under trial is undeniable. But perhaps it is actually too stark and brutally honest, too vivid and real, too harrowing an experience, to be comfort for those who are still in the midst of suffering. To quote Bowers again, "perhaps...Lamentations was not really meant to comfort the grieving, but rather to discomfort the ungrieving - to acquaint them with grief; to offer an in-depth emotional understanding of this unavoidable aspect of life by means of the stark, aching memory of one such experience poetically expressed."FN13

Like all the Old Testament, Lamentations finds its `Yes' and `Amen' in Christ, and our preaching needs to reflect this. We have an advantage over the lamenting Jews of the Exile. We are able to be comforted in the trials of our faith, not only by recalling God's faithfulness and mercy shown in the redemptive history of Israel, but by the knowlege that God, through Christ, has entered into our world of suffering. In Lamentations, "the Lord has scorned his altar, disowned his sanctuary..." Indeed, Zion's punishment was "for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests." The New Covenant, on the other hand, reveals how we have in the sinless Son of God, Jesus, "a merciful and faithful High Priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of people. Because he himself has suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested."FN14

And unlike the Lord's anointed of Lamentations 4:20, the true Messiah has come up out of the pit, and now sits at God's right hand, calling his people to follow him on the path of faith that leads through suffering to glory, and empowering them to do so by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Hillers, Robert Lamentations, (Anchor Bible Series) NY: Doubleday, 1972.

Bowers, Paul `Acquainted With Grief: The Special Contributions of the Book of Lamentations,' Af.JET, Vol 9:2, 1990, 33-39.

Lewis, C. S. A Grief Observed, London: Faber, 1664.

Raphael, Chaim The Walls of Jerusalem London: Chatto & Windus, 1968.

Grossberg, Daniel Centripetal & Centrifugal Sctructures in Biblical Poetry, SBLM 39, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989, Chapter 3, `Lamentations' pages 83-104.