Lamentations 2:20 · Bible study
Lamentations 2:20 Commentary: The Question of Unthinkable Judgment
Hebrew · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
An exegetical study of Lamentations 2:20, examining the raw plea for God to see the horror of mothers eating children and priests slain in the sanctuary.
Research Summary
- Meaning: A raw plea for God to see the unthinkable horrors of His judgment on His own people.
- Key words: רְאֵה (see), הִבִּיט (look), עוֹלַלְתָּ (dealt severely), פֶּרִי (fruit/offspring), טִפֻּחִים (tender care/dandling).
- Main debate: Whether the questions imply a plea for mercy based on covenant (Calvin, Keil) or an accusation of excessive severity (some interpreters).
- Theological theme: The terror of divine judgment against covenant unfaithfulness, yet the persistence of lament as an act of faith.
- Best use: A solemn call to recognize the depth of sin's consequences and the freedom to bring honest grief before God.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Look, O LORD, and consider: Whom have You ever treated like this? Should women eat their offspring, the infants they have nurtured? Should priests and prophets be killed in the sanctuary of the Lord?
WEB World English Bible 2000
“Look, Yahweh, and see to whom you have done thus! Should the women eat their offspring, the children that they held and bounced on their knees? Should the priest and the prophet be killed in the sanctuary of the Lord?
KJV King James Version 1769
Behold, O Lord, and consider to whom thou hast done this. Shall the women eat their fruit, and children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?
ASV American Standard Version 1901
See, O Jehovah, and behold to whom thou hast done thus! Shall the women eat their fruit, the children that are dandled in the hands? Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
See, O Jehovah, and look attentively, To whom Thou hast acted thus, Do women eat their fruit, infants of a handbreadth? Slain in the sanctuary of the Lord are priest and prophet?
Darby Darby Bible 1890
See, Jehovah, and consider to whom thou hast done this! Shall the women eat their fruit, the infants that they nursed? Shall priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Res. Behold, O Lord, and consider whom thou hast thus dealt with: shall women then eat their own fruit, their children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Mira, oh Jehová, y considera á quién has hecho así. ¿ Han de comer las mujeres su fruto, los pequeñitos de sus crías? ¿ Han de ser muertos en el santuario del Señor el sacerdote y el profeta?
Olha, SENHOR, e considera a quem fizeste de tal modo; por acaso as mulheres comerão do seu próprio fruto, as criancinhas que carregam nos braços? Por acaso serão o sacerdote e o profeta mortos no santuário do Senhor?
Vois, Éternel, regarde qui tu as ainsi traité!
HERR, schaue und siehe doch, wen du so verderbt hast! Sollen denn die Weiber ihres Leibes Frucht essen, die Kindlein, so man auf Händen trägt? Sollen denn Propheten und Priester in dem Heiligtum des Herrn erwürgt werden?
Resch. Zie, HEERE, aanschouw toch, aan wien Gij alzo gedaan hebt; zullen dan de vrouwen haar vrucht eten, de kinderkens, die men op de handen draagt? Zullen dan de profeet en de priester in het heiligdom des Heeren gedood worden?
“Guarda, o Eterno, considera! Chi mai hai trattato così? Delle donne han divorato il frutto delle loro viscere, i bambini che accarezzavano! Sacerdoti e profeti sono stati massacrati nel santuario del Signore!
Izali mają niewiasty jeść płód swój, niemowlątka ucieszne? Izali zamordowany być ma w świątnicy Pańskiej kapłan i prorok?
"Воззри, Господи, и посмотри: кому Ты сделал так, чтобы женщины ели плод свой, младенцев, вскормленных ими? чтобы убиваемы были в святилище Господнем священник и пророк?
耶和華啊，求你觀看！見 你向誰 這樣 行？婦人 豈可 吃 自己所生育 手裡所搖弄的 嬰孩嗎？祭司 和先知 豈可 在主 的聖所中 被殺戮嗎？
Look! O Lord, see to whom you have done this! Are the women to take as their food the fruit of their bodies, the children who are folded in their arms? are the priest and the prophet to be put to death in the holy place of the Lord?
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Lamentations 2:20
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that Lamentations 2:20 functions as a desperate prayer, not an accusation of injustice. Calvin argues the people appeal to God's covenant: “See, Jehovah, to whom thou hast done this”, they are not strangers but His heritage. Keil and Delitzsch echo this, noting the question asks “to what nation?”, not a heathen one, but the people of God's choice. Clarke connects the imagery to the covenant curses of Leviticus 26:29 and Deuteronomy 28:53-57, showing the siege fulfills prior warnings. The rhetorical form uses two questions: one about mothers eating their children, the other about priests and prophets killed in the sanctuary. Both are designed to move God to action. The word “see” (רְאֵה) and “look” (הַבִּיט) imply intimacy, God is invited to witness what His judgment has brought upon His own.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Plea for mercy based on covenant: Calvin and Keil: the question 'to whom' stresses God's chosen people, implying an appeal to the covenant relationship.
- Accusatory complaint: Some interpreters: the rhetorical questions seem to charge God with bringing excessive suffering, as seen in Thenius (cited in Keil).
What is clear: The horrors described are literal and fulfill the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The purpose of the rhetorical questions | Commentators agree the questions are a genuine appeal for God to see the horror, not a philosophical challenge to His justice. | Calvin and Keil argue they are a covenant-based plea for mercy; some earlier interpreters (e.g., Thenius, referenced in Keil) understand them as a protest against God's severity. |
| The identity of the children | The children are the literal offspring of the women, and the cannibalism is a historical reality during the siege, fulfilling covenant curses. | The phrase 'children of a span long' (KJV) may indicate very small infants, but the Hebrew טִפֻּחִים ('tender care') suggests children young enough to be carried and handled lovingly regardless of exact age. |
| God's role in the violence | The poet holds God directly responsible ('to whom you have done thus'), acknowledging the judgment as from God's hand. | Some traditions see this as an accusation of excessive punishment; Calvin emphasizes it is a recognition of covenant fidelity, God is fulfilling His warnings. |
| The propriety of lament | The verse is a prayer, indicating that such raw expressions can be directed to God. | Some Christian traditions caution against complaining against God; others cite Lamentations as biblical precedent for honest, even angry, lament within trust. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Lamentations 2:20 is set in the immediate aftermath of Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon in 586 BC. The prolonged siege produced extreme famine, as described in 2 Kings 6:28-29 where women boiled their own sons. The covenant curses in Leviticus 26:29 and Deuteronomy 28:53-57 had warned that such cannibalism would come as a result of persistent disobedience. The two Hebrew words for “look” and “see” (רְאֵה, הַבִּיט) are imperative calls for God's attention, a demand that He turn His gaze toward the horror. Specifically, “the children that they held and bounced on their knees” (WEB) translates the rare word טִפֻּחִים (tipuchim), which describes the tender handling of infants. This detail magnifies the unnaturalness: the very children who were lovingly cared for are now devoured. The second question targets the sanctuary, the place of atonement and divine presence. Killing priests and prophets there was a direct assault on the holy order. The Hebrew word for “sanctuary” (מִקְדַּשׁ) refers to the Temple, the holiest site. By contrasting maternal tenderness with cannibalism, and religious service with murder, the poet exposes the total collapse of both natural and covenantal life.
Textual Notes
The consulted commentators note no significant textual variants for this verse. The wording is stable across Hebrew manuscripts and ancient translations.
Reception History
In Jewish tradition, this verse is read during Tisha B'Av, the commemoration of the Temples' destruction, as part of the book of Lamentations. Early Christian commentators like Calvin used it to illustrate the severity of divine judgment and the mercy of God allowing such prayer. The Middle Ages saw it cited in discussions of theodicy. Modern pastoral theology often draws on it as a model for lament in the face of atrocity. No major creedal statement or hymn directly references this verse, but it has shaped Christian understandings of suffering and protest within faith.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The depth of suffering: God's judgment reaches the most intimate bonds, mothers and children, priests and sanctuary.
- The persistence of prayer: Even when words fail, the community cries out, using questions to express the incomprehensible.
- The appeal to covenant: The basis of the plea is God's own relationship with His people, “to whom” underscores they are His.
Five-point outline
- Raw honesty: The verse does not sanitize the horror; it names cannibalism and sacrilege directly.
- Covenant memory: The curses in Deuteronomy and Leviticus are now reality.
- God's role: The poet holds God responsible, yet does not abandon prayer, an act of faith.
- Canonical context: Lamentations as a whole moves from grief to hope (chapter 3:22-23), but here hope is hidden behind agony.
- Pastoral caution: This passage must be handled with care, allowing space for lament without quick answers.
Illustration hooks
- A news report of mothers in a war zone forced to choose between children, the cry “Where is God?” echoes Lamentations.
- Stories from Christian martyrs whose churches were desecrated, the sanctuary no longer a refuge.
- A hospital nursery: contrast the image of careful handling of babies with the unnatural act of harm, the poet uses that contrast dramatically.
Questions your congregation is asking
- How can we reconcile God's goodness with stories of extreme suffering like this?
- Is it acceptable to be angry with God when life becomes unbearable?
- What do we do when the church itself becomes a place of pain rather than safety?
Leading a Discussion
Lamentations 2:20 presents one of Scripture's most disturbing scenes. Rather than avoid it, the Bible invites us to bring our most painful questions to God. This group discussion explores how we can lament honestly while trusting God's character.
Discussion questions
- What emotions does this verse stir in you? Why do you think the poet included these specific details?
- How does the covenant background (Deuteronomy 28 blessings and curses) shape the meaning of this verse?
- In what ways do you see parallels between this ancient situation and suffering in the world today? How can we pray for those in extreme distress?
- Is it appropriate to question God as the poet does? What limits, if any, should we place on lament?
- How does this passage challenge common Christian sayings about suffering?
- The poet calls for God to “see” and “look.” What does it mean to ask God to see our pain? How do we pray when we feel invisible?
- How can this text shape the way our church responds to global crises?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 32:11 | Moses begged Yahweh his God, and said, “Yahweh, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, that you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? |
| Leviticus 26:29 | You will eat the flesh of your sons, and you will eat the flesh of your daughters. |
| Deuteronomy 9:26 | I prayed to Yahweh, and said, “Lord Yahweh, don’t destroy your people and your inheritance that you have redeemed through your greatness, that you have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand. |
| Deuteronomy 28:53 | You will eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters, whom Yahweh your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies will distress you. |
| Deuteronomy 28:57 | toward her young one who comes out from between her feet, and toward her children whom she bears; for she will eat them secretly for lack of all things in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy will distress you in your gates. |
| II Kings 6:28 | Then the king asked her, “What is your problem?” She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’ |
| II Kings 6:29 | So we boiled my son and ate him; and I said to her on the next day, ‘Give up your son, that we may eat him;’ and she has hidden her son.” |
| Psalms 78:64 | Their priests fell by the sword, and their widows couldn’t weep. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke reads the verse as an appeal to God as a loving Father who would not destroy his own helpless children. He acknowledges the prophecy of mothers eating their children in the siege, but finds the parent-child metaphor more natural and better supported by the surrounding context.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes draws attention to the specific horror of mothers eating infants who are still so young they must be nursed and carried. His point is that the greatest possible breakdown of natural affection is shown when women consume children who remain utterly dependent on them for care.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin argues that the people are not comparing their suffering to other nations. Instead, they appeal directly to God’s covenant: we are your chosen heritage, your own children. Their severe affliction seems a contradiction of that relationship, so they ask God to see and look on the indignity.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible notes that the questions here are rhetorical, asking if God will look unconcerned at these horrors, even though the verbs use future tense. The phrase about those dandled in hands highlights maternal tenderness toward children, making the scene of their suffering even more painful.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva annotators highlight the shocking desperation of the lament: women are forced to eat their own infants, and priests and prophets are killed in God's sanctuary. The plea calls God to see that judgment has reached an unimaginable low, with the worst horrors striking the most sacred and innocent.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill notes that the church does not accuse God of injustice but humbly submits her misery to His compassion. He highlights the specific horrors: starving women eating their own newborn infants and priests and prophets slain in the sanctuary itself, seeing these as fulfillments of earlier warnings.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB sees the verse as a direct fulfillment of the Old Testament curse where starving mothers would eat their own children during siege. He notes uncertainty over "span long," suggesting it may mean infants still carried in their mothers' arms.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch insists the prayer's question "to whom" does not ask about innocent victims but about the nation itself: God has done this to His own chosen people, not to a pagan one. They also note the description of women eating their children is presented not as a disjunctive question but as a two-part indirect inquiry, and the prayer is a complaint to move God to action, not an explicit request.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes the devastating irony that this judgment falls not on pagans but on God's own people. He focuses on the extreme degradation: women are reduced to such desperation that they consume the fruit of their own bodies. The horror lies in this being the fate of the covenant community.