Lamentations 4:22

[Chris Watts]

תַּם עֲוֺנֵךְ בַּת צִיּוֹן לֹא יוֹסִיף לְהַגְלוֹתֵךְ ◎ פָּקַד עֲוֺנֵךְ בַּת אֱדוֹם גִּלָּה עַל חַטֹּאתָיִךְ

It is this phrase that I am interested in: לֹא יוֹסִיף לְהַגְלוֹתֵךְ

How Should it read: "He will not prolong/increase your captivity/exile" or "He will no more send you into captivity". The latter seems highly improbable due to 70 and 73 AD. But many English translations translate it as the latter. I feel the former translation to be accurate, but with this translation: He will not prolong/increase your captivity/exile, I am confused about the prefix lamed?

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Shalom, Chris.

The prefixed lamed is just part of the infinitive construct, which is functioning as a complementary infinitive of the verb יוֹסִיף. We should expect an infinitive construct after this verb. Sometimes it appears with the lamed, and sometimes without it—but an infinitive construct either way.

Without context, I would read it as saying that God would not send Israel into exile again. It is interpretation restrictions that would make you translate it otherwise. I don’t think that the author of Lamentations knew that 70 CE (or even 135 CE) would happen, and I wouldn’t translate based on my theological presuppositions.

[Chris Watts]

Shalom, Chris.

The prefixed lamed is just part of the infinitive construct, which is functioning as a complementary infinitive of the verb יוֹסִיף. We should expect an infinitive construct after this verb. Sometimes it appears with the lamed, and sometimes without it—but an infinitive construct either way.

Without context, I would read it as saying that God would not send Israel into exile again. It is interpretation restrictions that would make you translate it otherwise. I don’t think that the author of Lamentations knew that 70 CE (or even 135 CE) would happen, and I wouldn’t translate based on my theological presuppositions.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is very unwise to translate with prejudicial theological perceptions. However, to declare that God would not send Israel into Captivity again is not something Jeremiah would have dared say simply because he would have known about Joel and Obadiah and Amos and Isaiah, and contained within these prophetic accounts are clear indications to the contrary, Jeremiah would have refrained from making such a daring claim iknowing full well the historical tendencies of His people to slide away even just after a blessing. It would be like me saying to my children after they had knowingly and willfully done something quite wrong, well they will never be sent to their bedrooms again.

So may I ask at least this: Is there any grammatical justification for the verse לֹא יוֹסִיף לְהַגְלוֹתֵךְ to be construed as: "not prolong your exile" is it feasible? Jeremiah might, I say might, have already written the words about the 70 years and based this bold assertion upon what God had already told him?

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

So may I ask at least this: Is there any grammatical justification for the verse לֹא יוֹסִיף לְהַגְלוֹתֵךְ to be construed as: "not prolong your exile" is it feasible? Jeremiah might, I say might, have already written the words about the 70 years and based this bold assertion upon what God had already told him?

Chris watts

That’s how I read it, seeing as it was written before the Babylonian captivity.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

So may I ask at least this: Is there any grammatical justification for the verse לֹא יוֹסִיף לְהַגְלוֹתֵךְ to be construed as: "not prolong your exile" is it feasible? Jeremiah might, I say might, have already written the words about the 70 years and based this bold assertion upon what God had already told him?

Chris watts

That’s how I read it, seeing as it was written before the Babylonian captivity.

Karl W. Randolph.

Thank you Karl.