The interpretation timeline

Lam 1:7

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

1 Jewish · 1 Catholic · 1 Reformed · 1 Lutheran

Lam 1:7 · Douay-Rheims
“Zain. Jerusalem hath remembered the days of her affliction, and prevarication of all her desirable things which she had from the days of old, when her people fell in the enemy’s hand, and there was no helper: the enemies have seen her, and have mocked at her sabbaths.”
Scholastic c. 1100 – 1500
1105
A.D.
Rashi Jewish
1040–1105
“Jerusalem recalls in her exile. the days of her poverty the days of her destruction, which brought her to poverty. and her miseries Heb. וּמְרוּדֶיהָ. This is an expression of pain, like (Jud. 11:37): “and I wailed (וְיָרַדְתִּי) upon the mountains”; (Ps. 55:3): “I lament (אָרִיד) in my speech, and I moan.” all her precious things And she remembered all the good of her precious things that were from days of old. gloating on her desolation Heb. מִשְּׁבַּתֶיהָ. They rejoiced over the cessation of her festivals, her New Moons, and her Sabbaths; and the Midrash Aggadah (Lam. Rabbah) interprets it as a different expression, that they rested in exile on the Sabbaths and festivals and observed the seventh year, and the heathens ridiculed them and said, “Fools! In your land you did not keep the Sabbatical Year, and now in exile you keep it? In your land, you did not keep the Sabbath, and now in exile you keep it?””
Source
744 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Post-Reformation c. 1650 – 1900
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“Of all. She compares her past happiness with her present chastisement. — Sabbaths, or days of rest. The pagans derided them as so much lost time. Ignava et partem vitæ non attigit ullam. (Juvenal v.; Seneca, apud St. Augustine, City of God vi. 11.) — If none of their legislators thought of such an institution, it was because they had not the spirit of Moses: their feasts were dissolute. (Calmet)”
Source
1871
A.D.
1871
“remembered--rather, "remembers," now, in her afflicted state. In the days of her prosperity she did not appreciate, as she ought, the favors of God to her. Now, awakening out of her past lethargy, she feels from what high privileges she has fallen. when her people fell, &c.--that is, after which days of prosperity "her people fell." mock at her sabbaths--The heathen used to mock at the Jews' Sabbath, as showing their idleness, and term them Sabbatarians [MARTIAL, 4.4]. Now, said they ironically, ye may keep a continuous Sabbath. So God appointed the length of the captivity (seventy years) to be exactly that of the sum of the Sabbaths in the four hundred ninety years in which the land was denied its Sabbaths (Lev 26:33-35). MAURER translates it "ruin." But English Version better expresses the point of their "mocking," namely, their involuntary "Sabbaths," that is, the cessation of all national movements. A fourth line is added in this stanza, whereas in all the others there are but three. So in Lam 2:19.”
Source
1875
A.D.
Keil & Delitzsch Lutheran
1861–1875
“The loss of all her magnificence (Lam 1:7) brings to the remembrance of the sorrowing city, in her trouble, the former days of her now departed glory. "Jerusalem" is not the totality of those who are carried away (Thenius), but the city personified as the daughter of Zion (cf. Lam 1:6). "The days of her affliction," etc., is not the direct object of "remembers," as Pareau and Kalkschmidt assume, with the lxx; the object is "all her pleasant things." If "the days of her affliction" were also intended to be the object, "all her pleasant things" would be preceded by the copula w, which Pareau indeed supplies, but arbitrarily. Moreover, the combination of the days of misery with the glory of bygone days is inappropriate, because Jerusalem feels her present misery directly, and does not need first to call them to remembrance. "The days of her affliction," etc., is the accusative of duration. Living through the times of her adversity, Jerusalem thinks of former happy times, and this remembrance increases her sorrow. מרוּדים occurs only here, in Lam 3:19 and in Isa 58:7 : in meaning it is connected with רוּד, vagari, and signifies roaming, - not voluntary, but compulsory, - rejection, persecution; while the adjective מרוּדים, found in Isaiah, is, as regards its form, taken from מרד, which is cognate with רוּד. מחמדּים or מחמוּדים (Lam 1:11, Kethib) is perhaps used in a more general sense than מחמדּים, Lam 2:4 and Lam 1:11 (Qeri), an signifies what is costly, splendid, viz., gracious gifts, both of a temporal and spiritual kind, which Israel formerly possessed, while מחמדּים signifies costly treasures. "The days of old" are the times of Moses and Joshua, of David and Solomon. In the words, "when her people fell," etc., the days of misery are more exactly specified. The suffix in ראוּה refers to Jerusalem. צרים are the foes into whose power Jerusalem fell helplessly, not specially the escorts of those who were carried away (Thenius). They made a mockery of her משׁבּתּים. This word is ἅπ. λεγ. It is not identical in meaning with ,שׁבּתותsabbata (Vulgate, Luther, etc.), though connected with it; nor does it signify deletiones, destructions (Gesenius), but cessationes. This last rendering, however, is not to be taken according to the explanation of Rosenm׬ller: quod cessasset omnis ille decor, qui nominatus este ante, principatus et prosper rerum status; but rather as L. Cappellus in his nott. crit. expresses it: quod nunc terra ejus deserta jacet nec colitur et quasi cessat et feriatur, though he does not quite exhaust the meaning. As Gerlach rightly remarks, the expression is "evidently used with reference to the threatenings given in the law, Lev 26:34-35, that the land would observe its Sabbaths, - that it will keep them during the whole period of the desolation, when Israel is in the land of his enemies." We must not, however, restrict the reference merely to the uncultivated state of the fields, but extend it so that it shall be applied to cessation from all kinds of employment, even those connected with the worship of God, which were necessary for the hallowing of the Sabbath. The mockery of enemies does not apply to the Jewish celebration of the Sabbath (to which Grotius refers the words), but to the cessation of the public worship of the Lord, inasmuch as the heathen, by destroying Jerusalem and the temple, fancied they had not only put an end to the worship of God of the Jews, but also conquered the God of Israel as a helpless national deity, and made a mock of Israel's faith in Jahveh as the only true God.”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.