Lamentations - The Sermon Depository

ut with whom he had made a perpetual covenant, should thus be forsaken
by him. For though men were a hundred times perfidious, yet God never
changes, but remains unchangeable in his faithfulness; and we know that
his covenant was not made to depend on the merits of men. Whatsoever,
then, the people might be, yet it behooved God to continue in his purpose,
and not to annul the promise made to Abraham. Now, when Jerusalem was
reduced to desolation, there was as it were all abolition of God’s covenant.
There is, then, no wonder that the Prophet here exclaims, as on account of
some prodigy, How can it be that God hath clouded or darkened, etc.
We must, however, observe at the same time, that the Prophet did not
mean here to invalidate the fidelity or constancy of God, but thus to rouse
the attention of his own nation, who had become torpid in their sloth; for
though they were pressed down under a load of evils, yet they had become
hardened in their perverseness. But it was impossible that any one should
really call on God, except he was humbled in mind, and brought the
sacrifice of which we have spoken, even a humble and contrite spirit.
(Psalm 51:19.) It was, then, the Prophet’s object to soften the
hardness which he knew prevailed in almost the whole people. This was
the reason why he exclaimed, in a kind of astonishment, How has God
clouded, etc. F26
Some render the words, “How has God raised up,” etc., which may be
allowed, provided it be not taken in a good sense, for it is said, in his
wrath; but in this case the words to raise up and to cast down ought to be
read conjointly; for when one wishes to break in pieces an earthen vessel,
he not only casts it on the ground, but he raises it up, that it may be
thrown down with greater force. We may, then, take this meaning, that
God, in order that he might with greater violence break in pieces his
people, had raised them up, not to honor them, but in order to dash them
more violently on the ground. However, as this sense seems perhaps too
refined, I am content with the first explanation, that God had clouded the
daughter of Zion in his wrath; and then follows an explanation, that he had
cast her from heaven to the earth. So then God covered with darkness his
people, when he drew them down from the high dignity which they had
for a time enjoyed. He had, then, cast on the earth all the glory of Israel,
and remembered not his footstool.
The Prophet seems here indirectly to contend with God, because he had
not spared his own sanctuary; for God, as it has been just stated, had
chosen Mount Sion for himself, where he designed to be prayed to,
because he had placed there the memorial of his name. As, then, he had not
spared his own sanctuary, it did not appear consistent with his constancy,
and he also seemed thus to have disregarded his own glory. But the design
of the Prophet is rather to shew to the people how much God’s wrath had
been kindled, when he spared not even his own sanctuary. For he takes
this principle as granted, that God is never without reason angry, and
never exceeds the due measure of punishment. As, then, God’s wrath was
so great that he destroyed his own Temple, it was a token of dreadful
wrath; and what was the cause but the sins of men? for God, as I have
said, always preserves moderation in his judgments. He, then, could not
have better expressed to the people the heinousness of their sins, than by
laying before them this fact, that God remembered not his footstool.
And the Temple, by a very suitable metaphor, is called the footstool of
God. It is, indeed, called his habitation; for in Scripture the Temple is often
said to be the house of God. It was then the house, the habitation, and the
rest of God. But as men are ever inclined to superstition, in order to raise
up their thoughts above earthly elements, we are reminded, on the other
hand, in Scripture, that the Temple was the footstool of God. So in the
Psalms,
“Adore ye before his footstool,” (Psalm 99:5;)
and again,
“We shall adore in the place where his feet stand.”
(Psalm 132:7.)
We, then, see that the two expressions, apparently different, do yet well