Habakkuk: Hero of the Faith
I recently taught for a class at my church about Bible characters we considered to be our heroes. This article is based off that lesson plus some additional material (since I've no time constraints).
Let’s start with a very simple question about Habakkuk, which is, who was he? To be honest, not much is given about his backstory, almost nothing. Certainly there have been apocryphal and legendary writings that have sprung up throughout the centuries (such as Bel and the Dragon, The Lives of the Prophets, and the rabbinic writings), but these are all unauthoritative, lacking inspiration or true historical value. Some scholars have tried to glean more from the text, making a few interesting speculations. For one, some have argued that Habakkuk was associated with the temple choir in Jerusalem, and the reasons why this association is made is explained by F.F. Bruce:
From the liturgical nature of both parts of the book, especially the second part, it has been inferred that he was a cultic prophet on the staff of the Jerusalem temple—perhaps even one of the temple singers. In 1 Chronicles 25:1 the temple staff is said to include men who were to ‘prophesy with lyres, harps, and cymbals’ (the lyres and harps may be compared to the ‘stringed instruments’ of Hab. 3:19a).1
If this is a legitimate connection then it could provide some insight into Habakkuk’s troubles. Being a temple prophet, Habakkuk would’ve been responsible for receiving faithful Jews who came on pilgrimages or to make offerings and had supplications to make to God.2 This position would’ve provided Habakkuk with the right position from which to experience and observe the problems in Israelite society, although often this position of temple prophet resulted in being part of the problem.3 All told, what we know for sure is far less than what we know implicitly. What we do know for a fact is what we are told explicitly by the words of Scripture: Habakkuk was a prophet who lamented the sorry state of Israel during his life.
Now, as a “minor prophet” Habakkuk can be overlooked. His is a small book, one you can read through rather quickly, with only 56 verses to his name. From experience I know that many people only know Habakkuk by name, but not of his prophecy and what he goes through. I must confess I was like this before I commenced my study of him, prompted by a short video lesson on him I watched that deeply resonated with me. This title of “minor” shouldn’t give us any negative preconceptions about them, as the theological weight of these prophets can far outsize their volume. “Minor Prophets” is simply of a quantitative, rather than qualitative, nature. Augustine of Hippo, one of the earliest writers to use the term, explains that
These twelve are called “minor” prophets because their discourses are brief in comparison with those called “major” by reason of the lengthy volumes they composed.4
Take, for example, Malachi, one of the Minor Prophets. His prophecy is the same size as Habakkuk (56 verses as well), yet he has a huge influence on the New Testament. The prophecies of Malachi tie into John the Baptist, Jesus, and are even subsumed into the teachings of Paul.
Now, this being said, what exactly about Habakkuk can be said to be “heroic”? This can be a somewhat obscure term, so permit me the time to wax poetic about it. A definition I’ve heard for “hero” is, “Ordinary people doing extraordinary things.” Now, that’s a start, but I think we can do better. I do want to state before I continue that I have something of a background in heroes (although I admit “background” can sound a bit too formal). A unit of my senior English class was focused on heroes, and so we went over characters such as Hercules and Beowulf, and analyzed them and what made them what they were. The final project in this unit was to create a poster detailing the hero’s journey of a certain character of our choice. I’m not one for the visual arts (I appreciate them greatly, I just can’t participate in them), so fortunately my teachers provided the class with the option (if we so desired) to instead write an essay. I, of course, made them sorely regret that decision by pulling out all the academic resources and highfalutin vocabulary and wrote a 35-page essay on King David.5 Suffice to say, I’ve looked into this matter, but I digress. Now, fundamentally, heroes are protagonists, but they’re representative of something greater, and this is why they’re often found in myths and tales, where their greater calling or higher purpose can be more eloquently depicted.
Art is one of the most enduring and influential works of mankind, so ancient and universal it is certainly a natural and basic outworking of the energies God has designed us with. and literature is an important form of art. Heroes are, in a sense, literary masterpieces. They are to literature what an excellent color scheme or choice of lighting can do for a painting, or what a lively crescendo or marvelous timbre can do for a song. Consider some artistic depictions of the heroic, like Leutze’s Washington Crossing the Delaware, Pollaiuolo’s Hercules and the Hydra, Raphael’s Saint George and the Dragon, or Gustave Dore’s The Triumph of Christianity over Paganism. These convey something powerful, we can see in them the indications of something great and noble. Heroes in literature convey something powerful, they are emblematic of some Good (which often constitutes the moral of the story).
Here is the thing: most people, throughout history and even today, will not rise to fame, they will not make history. Such grandeur is not their lot in life. This is not to say that the majority of people are nobodies and unimportant; you can be important yet obscure. Beowulf is famous for the Germans, but the guy in your neighborhood who just saved a cat from a tree is famous in your neighborhood. It is often the case that a language and its principles are changed, or abused, when a culture shifts.6 Our (Western/American) culture has certainly shifted over the past few generations, and a tendency in our linguistic practices that has been noted is that of overusing or conflating words with important distinctions and qualities. Take, for example, the word “gentleman,” which originated as a term identifying a certain type of nobles (usually not as great as the dukes and lords) that were landed, could own arms, were affluent, had servants, and were dignified (the “gentle” part of the word being derived from “gentry”). Probably no one knows this today since we have come to apply the term so broadly, to anyone of refined manners and good social standing, the change engendered by certain social and economic developments that are summarized by the Encyclopedia Britannica:
That it once existed has been sufficiently shown; but the whole spirit and tendency of English constitutional and social development tended to its early destruction. … The word “gentleman” as an index of rank had already become of doubtful value before the great political and social changes of the 19th century gave to it a wider and essentially higher significance. The change is well illustrated in the definitions given in the successive editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In the 5th edition (1815) “a gentleman is one, who without any title, bears a coat of arms, or whose ancestors have been freemen.” … In the 8th edition (1856) this is still its “most extended sense”...but the writer adds, “By courtesy this title is generally accorded to all persons above the rank of common tradesmen when their manners are indicative of a certain amount of refinement and intelligence.” The Reform Bill of 1832 has done its work; the “middle classes” have come into their own; and the word “gentleman” has come in common use to signify not a distinction of blood, but a distinction of position, education and manners.7
So, since more and more Britons were owning land, arms, and had workers, particularly Britons whose families had, just generations earlier, been peasants, the aristocratic provenance of the terminology of the gentry became marginalized and thus the terms themselves became meaningless, signifying whoever was liked in society. Plenty of adjectives existed to describe a person of good character and constitution regardless of their social and class background, not “noble” or “chivalrous” or “gentle,” but “valiant,” “virtuous,” or “Christlike.” If the collapse of all positive adjectives such as “good,” “excellent,” “fantastic,” and “best” into “good” and variations thereof (such as “doubleplusgood”) is bad, how different are any other manner of gross grammatical or rhetorical simplifications?
Right, we’re talking about Habakkuk, or more specifically heroes, at the moment. Well, what this prolegomenon on linguistic conservatism8 amounts to is that this whole concept of a “hero” has become diluted through over- and misuse, like so many other words in our culture. I’m sorry, but raising money for charity or saving a kitten doesn’t make you a hero, but it does make you virtuous or saintly. Heroes are far greater than these things, amounting to, what I’d call, “icons for edification.” Let me quote from that essay of mine I mentioned earlier:
By hoping to raise oneself up to a higher caliber, exemplified in great men of their culture, people do indeed act to raise oneself up. The hero, therefore, seems to promote virtue and honor in the audience.
It is an uncontroversial fact in sociology and psychology that role models are truly influential on one’s behavior. This is why having mentors in the virtues are so important for people, especially in their early and formative years (cf. the father absence crisis). Heroes are so much more than mere role models, however, because they are immortalized, idolized, handed down across generations, and instilled into the minds of an entire culture. That’s on a whole other level. Beowulf, a major historical example of a hero, exemplifies the Anglo-Saxon virtues (and senses) of valor, strength, bravery, and chivalry,9 and Beowulf was an enduring and popular tale for the Anglo-Saxons.
With all this in mind, I propose that, in a manner different from the definition I referenced earlier (although not necessarily rebuking it), we see heroes as extraordinary people doing (extraordinary) things for ordinary people. Beowulf (an extraordinary person) at the request of Hrothgar and the Danes (ordinary people, especially in the sense of being side characters) saves them from Grendel’s cruelty (a thing done for ordinary people). This is what heroes are, and how we should understand them. Now, this doesn’t marginalize the characters of Scripture, because they are all heroes, this is still true, and this is owed to the fact that they all represent something important (virtues, acts, beliefs, worship). Not a single word has been included in Scripture by inspiration of the Spirit that is without “useful[ness] for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).10 Abraham, David, Paul, Moses, Jeremiah, all these people, all the way down to Christ Himself, they are all heroes. Now, certainly, it’s important to remember that they are sinners all the same, and what is most important about their heroism is how it glorifies God. Paul is confident that “it is a minor matter that I am judged by you… The one who judges me is the Lord” (1 Cor. 4:3, 4), all that matters if God, yet he declares “I am the worst of them [sinners]” (1 Tim. 1:15). Gee, Paul, I think Satan is a bit more terrible than you, or Judas (if we’re speaking about humans strictly), but, as we know, humility, even self-defacing humility, is one of the paramount virtues of the Christian faith (Prov. 11:2; 22:4; Jas. 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:6; Phil. 2:1-11). In being so mortifying Paul is being heroic as well, as a paragon of the life lived in Christ.
Regarding Habakkuk, in being what is he also being heroic? Well, I say that in being lamentful Habakkuk is being heroic. Habakkuk is a character in Scripture who demonstrates what exactly is good about wrestling with God. This is something many Christians shy away from (I’ve seen it), as there is this misconception that such an act is blasphemous. What I say in response to that is what truly matters is the attitude or the heart with which you approach your struggles and doubts, not the fact that you’re struggling. Since this is such an important theme in Scripture I find it surprising that not more have caught onto this. The Prophets repeatedly cry out to God (Habakkuk will at one point in his book cry, “How long, O LORD?” which is is a lament echoed by several prophets), Jacob literally wrestled with God and was later named Israel (יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisrael, “He who struggles with God”) as a result, Abraham pleaded with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even Christ’s disciples went back and forth with Him over all the theological and Messianic presuppositions and preconceptions He challenged.
These instances of men wrestling with God are subsidiary to a biblical motif that I’ve seen theologians refer to as the “divine covenant lawsuit.”11 The covenant, of course, is one of the most central concepts in Christianity. A covenant is a sign of relationship, but far more than a mere pact or treaty, and in the Semitic background of the Bible they often invoked the gods as witnesses and enforcers (covenant-making was such a big deal that the very heavens were involved).12 We learn in Scripture that from the beginning of time mankind’s relationship with God has been expressed through the covenant. Adam and Eve had their covenant with God, as outlined in Gen. 1-2, and we Christians exist now under the New Covenant (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 7:22; 8:6-8; cf. Jer. 31).
Since a covenant brings with it obligations and duties that must be upheld the violation of a covenant brings legal action (consider Abraham’s blood covenant in Gen. 1513). With that in mind, I’d like us to also observe how Scripture shows a constant concern on God’s part for His “Name.” Two scriptures in particular that I think help demonstrate this, or contribute toward a demonstration of such, are:
Psa. 31:3—“For You are my rock and my stronghold; for the sake of Your own reputation You lead me and guide me.”
Psa. 109:21— “O Yahweh my Lord, intervene on my behalf for the sake of Your reputation.”
In either of these verses the word that we read here as “reputation” is in fact שֵׁם (shem), which more often than not means name. A most notable example of this is Ex. 20:7—“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold guiltless anyone who takes His name in vain.” What we see here is that there is a clear connection between the words “reputation” and “name” in the Hebrew mindset, and this makes complete sense when you think about it. Names often do bear one’s reputation. Imagine you are naming your child, you’re trying to find something that fits and is meaningful, and your spouse recommends “George.” Well, suppose that George is the name of some coworker of yours you absolutely detest because they have a trashy and miserable personality. You wouldn’t want to think of that every time you called out your child’s name, would you? Indeed, the traditional biblical language of “bearing” God’s “name” makes more sense when we have “reputation” in mind, because, in case you haven’t noticed, you can’t bear names! Names aren’t physical entities, they’re sounds or concepts. But, do you know what can be borne? An (the) ark of the covenant, the symbolic and tangible representation of God’s covenantal presence amid His people that they carried before them wherever they went (and thus was often what foreign nations would first see of the Israelites; e.g., Num. 10:33; Josh. 3:6, 14; 6:6-13).14
God, then, is slandered by the sinfulness of mankind and works to defend Himself from us. In a way, God is put on trial by sin, precipitated by the evil that festers because of sin which reflects poorly on God (His reputation, as loving and just). In the words of Richard Davidson:
Before God executes judgment (either positively or negatively) toward an individual or a people, He first conducts legal proceedings, not for Him to know the facts, but to reveal in open court, as it were, that He is just and fair in all of His dealings, and that He has done all that He can to save as many as He can. Such mini-lawsuits constitute a microcosm of the macrocosmic final “assize,” the apocalyptic cosmic divine lawsuit described in such passages as Daniel 7 and throughout the book of Revelation.
[T]he ultimate purpose of the divine covenant lawsuit directed toward Israel is to vindicate the juridical and moral correctness of Yahweh in the face of disasters that Israel experiences (see, e.g., Jer 30:11; 46:28; Ezek 5:13; Mic 6:3–5). The covenant lawsuit is a statement of theodicy! In the case of 50 positive covenant lawsuits, the purpose is also to vindicate Yahweh as well as His people.15
The divine covenant lawsuit itself is microcosmic of the whole cosmic struggle in Scripture between Good and Evil, God and Satan. Making mention of Satan is very appropriate, in fact, as “Satan” itself is a legal title rather than, strictly, a name. הַשָּׂטָ֖ן (haśśāṭān) is the Hebrew word found 16 times in the Old Testament that means, more explicitly, “the adversary” or “accuser.” This is not a proper noun, and is, again, a legal title.16 The very thing that Satan is infamous for is his prosecution of mankind over our wickedness in order to claim our souls. Job, for example, is one big courtroom drama, indicated by how it begins with God on His throne, the sons of God convening before Him, and Satan (the accuser) coming before Him and charging Job with iniquity (Job 1:6-12; 2-6). Jude 9, a relevant albeit enigmatic verse, describes a story wherein Satan and the archangel Michael debate (dispute) over the body of Moses; as Richard Bauckham has noted the Greek verbage here is indicative of court procedure, i.e., Satan was judicially disputing the eternal destiny of Moses: perdition with Satan, or paradise with Michael.17
In the court of God, scenes of which you can find in Daniel 7 and all through Revelation, Satan is the prosecuting attorney, God is the judge, and the Holy Spirit is our Advocate (Jn. 14:16). Oh, and there we have another legal term found in the Bible: advocate! The Paraclete defends us on behalf of Satan’s lies18 and works to vindicate us (the biblical term is justification) from Satan’s prosecution.19
What each instance of a person struggling with God constitutes is a sample of the cosmic courtroom and of the trial that God has been put on by our wickedness. With each struggle a portion of the grand trial is addressed, all heading towards what Davidson calls the “macrocosmic final ‘assize’” that will be convened by God at the End. Thus, taking all this into consideration, Habakkuk wrestles with God and shows us how God’s holy and righteous character can be vindicated even through our tempests and trials.
In his prophecy Habakkuk’s struggle primarily concerns the wickedness of his days and God’s concern (or seeming lack thereof) over it. Habakkuk is looking at the world around him and has no idea how to make sense of it per his notions of God’s justice, sovereignty, and holiness. For those who know me it might (not) surprise them that I’ve had to deal with this question myself in recent times. Although, I must say that this constitutes one of the reasons I love Scripture, for in it one can find an answer to just about anything. I think that makes complete sense and shouldn’t surprise anyone, however, because if Scripture is the word of God, if in it we find His eternal and divine wisdom, and if God is life (Jn. 14:6) then it makes complete sense that by studying and obeying His wisdom we shall be able to live life more authentically and properly; knowing how to be godly is knowing how to live.
Some, of course, doubt this, and think that to seek Scripture’s guidance on every last thing is a bit too much. The way that such people phrase their doubts that so consistently border the line of blasphemy is to me sufficient proof of their invalidity. Such people cannot discern the universality of God’s wisdom because of several issues in their own approach to the matter. In five ways I believe they are erring:
They might be looking for something too specific rather than general rules and wisdom. For example, Scripture won’t tell you what car to get, but it will advise you to be prudent and weigh your options carefully).
They might not know what to interpret what they’re reading and this leads them to deriving foolishness rather than wisdom from Scripture. A big example I see of this, which many pastors and theologians lament, is Jeremiah 29:11. This verse is a favorite of feel-good and Prosperity Gospel “Christians.” Jeremiah here is speaking to the Israelites, particularly the faithful remnant going through the exile, and he is telling them that despite all that’s happening to them God is still in control and that He has good plans, plans that will culminate in Christ (the Messiah), Who will restore Israel and bring the glory of God to the ends of the world. The funny thing is that if this verse was supposed to preach materialistic prosperity and that those who do good receive good then the verse wouldn’t make sense at all as it’s being directed to faithful Israelites who’ve nonetheless received persecution and exile. The very context of the verse disproves its widespread misinterpretation.
Speaking of context, that’s also what impacts one’s ability to discern wisdom in Scripture, missing out on important context.
Another issue is that they are not oriented toward Christ in their study of Scripture. The road to Emmaus is a great example of how once we place Christ before Scripture, seeing it through/by Him, all sorts of gems are illuminated for us.
Finally, their issue might be that they haven’t looked at the issue from every angle. I’ve heard a few times a joke be made by Christians, oriented towards husbands, about how we’re called to be honest, to tell the truth, and to respect our wives and treat them with dignity. However, if our wives were to ask us, “Does this dress make me look fat (or ugly)?” answering honestly (if this is the case) would be disrespectful and not dignifying. The Bible doesn’t shy away from telling harsh truth (sin and the damnation of Hell are pretty harsh), and the thing is: honesty is still honesty and respect is still respect even if you insult someone. If you honestly and kindly meant something, the fault isn’t on you but the other, and that’s what many miss when making this joke: the other. We’re all sinners, we’ve all missed and do miss the mark, and so we at times don’t do what we should: in asking “Does this make me look fat” if we receive an honest answer we should take it and respond accordingly, but if we are offended because someone answered us in a way we don’t like we’re just being wrongfully vain. Yes, husbands can insultingly rather than honestly answer the question, but the same logic would apply: if we receive an honest question and respond inappropriately we’re just being wrongfully hateful.
All this to say that Scripture is abundantly and entirely applicable. (I know, when are we ever going to get to Habakkuk and stay there?) Being abundantly and entirely applicable, we find that in Habakkuk’s story he raises important and meaningful questions about God’s justice, sovereignty, and response to evil. It is through this willingness to approach God and seek Him out earnestly that I find heroism in Habakkuk’s story.
Now we can take a look directly at Habakkuk to see how all this plays out throughout the 56 verses of his story. The basis of Habakkuk’s whole problem is laid out in the opening passage (1:2-4):
How long, Lord, must I cry for help? But you do not listen! I call out to you, “Violence!” But you do not deliver! Why do you force me to witness injustice? Why do you put up with wrongdoing? Destruction and violence confront me; conflict is present and one must endure strife. For this reason the law lacks power, and justice is never carried out. Indeed, the wicked intimidate the innocent. For this reason justice is perverted.
Habakkuk is experiencing abundant wrongdoing and wickedness in his day, and he demands to know from God “Why do you continually allow me to see [this]?” As I mentioned earlier “How long, O LORD?” appears throughout Scripture as a common lament, a common struggle, raised to God. F.F. Bruce clarifies:
The question How long? occurs repeatedly in the Psalter to express bewilderment and expostulation at Yahweh’s apparent inaction in the face of unconscionable brutality on the part of those in power and the downtrodden wretchedness of those who remain loyal to Him.20
Habakkuk likely was living during the times of King Jehoiakim, a wicked king whose deeds would lead to Jeremiah cursing him on God’s behalf (Jer. 36). God, in Jehoiakim’s day, was planning to deliver disasters unto Israel for its apostasy (Jer. 36:3). As Habakkuk describes in vv. 3-4 this wickedness has thoroughly corrupted society:
Destruction and violence are before me; conflict is present and one must endure strife. For this reason the law is paralyzed, and justice is never carried out. Indeed, the wicked intimidate the innocent. For this reason justice is perverted.
For Habakkuk it appears that God “[puts] up with wrongdoing” (v. 3), but clearly this doesn’t make sense if God is just and wrathful, so why is Judah’s iniquity being left to fester? Fortunately, immediately after Habakkuk lodges his complaint we get God’s response (1:5-11):
Look at the nations and pay attention! You will be shocked and amazed! For I will do something in your lifetime that you will not believe even though you are forewarned. Look, I am about to empower the Babylonians, that ruthless and greedy nation. They sweep across the surface of the earth, seizing dwelling places that do not belong to them. They are frightening and terrifying; they decide for themselves what is right. Their horses are faster than leopards and more alert than wolves in the desert. Their horses gallop, their horses come a great distance; like vultures they swoop down quickly to devour their prey. All of them intend to do violence; every face is determined. They take prisoners as easily as one scoops up sand. They mock kings and laugh at rulers. They laugh at every fortified city; they build siege ramps and capture them. They sweep by like the wind and pass on. But the one who considers himself a god will be held guilty.
At this time in the ancient Near East a lot was happening. The Babylonians, who had previously merely been subjects of the Assyrians, were in the process of (successfully) overthrowing them, usurping the dominance they had in the region for centuries. A major shift in power was happening in the region, and a lot of dust was getting kicked up. In light of this God tells Habakkuk to, “Look at the nations and pay attention!” God is saying, “I will perform wonders out of this.” As we learn quite explicitly in Daniel, God is the sovereign hand behind history. To us He might seem disconnected, but in all things He is working. When He says, “you will not believe even though you are forewarned,” God is addressing the fact that often we cannot comprehend how God can be working in history through particular historical circumstances, and this is what permeates much of Habakkuk and is what God will ultimately address
Habakkuk is then told by God what exactly will happen: the Babylonians will be raised up and used as an instrument of divine wrath. God would similarly tell Isaiah that Assyria served as “a cudgel with which I angrily punish [Israel]” (Isa. 10:5). Thus, Israel’s punishment for her apostasy has been laid out. For forsaking justice and oppressing the poor Israel will be devastated by a nation that represents their sins, a careless, vainglorious, wicked nation driven by delusions of might.
Habakkuk’s not having it, however. What God says, at first glance, essentially boils down to this:
Because Israel is so evil and wicked I’m going to allow another nation to be even more evil and wicked and take out their anger on you and slaughter thousands of innocents, oppress the poor, ravage thousands of pregnant women and their children, and do all this other cool stuff.
Habakkuk hears this and goes, “Wait, what!?” This isn’t something he can just blindly agree with. But that’s what I love about Habakkuk! He’s willing and able to see what doesn’t make sense about this, and in doing so he can better understand and love God. He doesn’t have a blind or passive faith, he has what Anselm called “fides quaerens intellectum,” a “faith seeking understanding.” He has had divine wisdom placed before him, and, wrestling with the noetic effects of sin, attempts to make sense of this wisdom per the notions his reasoning, culture, history, and own personality supply him with. This is an active, or proactive, faith, which doesn’t inertly receive but dynamically accepts. Let’s look at what exactly Habakkuk says:
Lord, you have been active from ancient times; my sovereign God, you are immortal. Lord, you have made them your instrument of judgment. Protector, you have appointed them as your instrument of punishment. You are too just to tolerate evil; you are unable to condone wrongdoing. So why do you put up with such treacherous people? Why do you say nothing when the wicked devour those more righteous than they are? You made people like fish in the sea, like animals in the sea that have no ruler. The Babylonian tyrant pulls them all up with a fishhook; he hauls them in with his throw net. When he catches them in his dragnet, he is very happy. Because of his success he offers sacrifices to his throw net and burns incense to his dragnet; for because of them he has plenty of food, and more than enough to eat.Will he then continue to fill and empty his throw net? Will he always destroy nations and spare none?
The first two verses here contain what we can say is Habakkuk’s scruple sandwiched between two platitudes. Now is when I’d like you to remember what I said earlier, how it is the attitude or heart behind your struggle that matters, not the fact that you’re struggling. Habakkuk takes more time here praising God than questioning Him to show he is still faithful and obedient but is just trying to get his mind around all this
Habakkuk affirms that God is eternal and supreme, saying, “Are you not from of old, O Yahweh my God, my Holy One?”, and that God is all-loving and just: “You are too just to tolerate evil; you are unable to condone wrongdoing.” Habakkuk wholeheartedly and genuinely believes and trusts in this, and that’s why he’s driven to clarify, “O Yahweh, You have made them Your instrument of judgment.”21 What his complaint comes down to is: “But why, O God, would You tolerate such treachery and wickedness before Your holy sight?”
What Habakkuk says next is essentially a repetition of what God had said, detailing the cruelty of Babylon. The intent here is essentially to say, “Yeah, that’s what they’re like, so why deal with them?” If God is just and He does in fact wish to punish Israel, why is He using sinful means (it seems)? The conflict raging in Habakkuk’s mind is becoming more apparent.
I also want to take a moment to point out that Habakkuk’s complaint raises an interesting observation about the nature of human evil. He says (in vv. 14-15), “You made people like fish in the sea, like animals in the sea that have no ruler. The Babylonian tyrant pulls them all up with a fishhook; he hauls them in with his throw net. When he catches them in his dragnet, he is very happy.” Do you happen to notice anything in this passage? Humans are compared to fish, fish that are subdued by the Babylonians. Where else do we also read about the subjugation of fish? (Jeopardy!’s “Think!” melody.) That would be during the Creation narrative, all the way back in Genesis 1. See the following Hebrew texts:
Gen. 1:24, 26: Wayyōʾmer ʾĔlōhîm, tôṣēʾ hāʾāreṣ na‘ăśeh ḥayyāh lemînāh, behēmāh wāremeś weḥayt̲ôʾereṣ, lemînāh; wayhîk̲ēn. … Wayyōʾmer ʾĔlōhîm, naʿăśeh ʾād̲ām beṣalmēnû kid̲mût̲ēnû; weyirdû b̲id̲g̲at̲ hayyām ûb̲eʿôp̲ hashshāmayim, ûb̲abbehēmāh ûb̲ek̲ol-hāʾāreṣ, ûb̲ek̲ol-hāremeś, hārōmēś ʿal-hāʾāreṣ.”
Hab. 1:14—Wattaʿăśeh ʾād̲ām, kid̲g̲ê hayyām–keremeś, lōʾmōshēl bô.
The bolded words (dag and remes) are those which appear in either narrative. What Habakkuk is communicating here is that the Babylonians are defiling God’s creation, they are transgressing the creation mandate and showing absolutely no respect for human dignity. This is further driven home by how Habakkuk explains that those who are made mad and vain by power make gods of these things: “He offers sacrifices to his throw net and burns incense to his dragnet.” The Babylonians and their wickedness, then, are disrupting the very order of Creation itself.22
Now, in the face of all of this Habakkuk remains faithful and loyal to God, and he makes sure to end his complaint respectfully: “I will stand at my watch post; I will remain stationed on the city wall.” He is not going to demand anything of God, he will not force God’s hand, rather he will put matters into God’s hands and patiently, faithfully wait for God. Fortunately for Habakkuk, God does indeed answer him (which also demonstrates that God is willing to engage in this argument: the struggle isn’t bad!), saying (2:2-6):
The Lord responded: “Write down this message. Record it legibly on tablets so the one who announces it may read it easily. For the message is a witness to what is decreed; it gives reliable testimony about how matters will turn out. Even if the message is not fulfilled right away, wait patiently; for it will certainly come to pass—it will not arrive late. Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, but the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness.
Indeed, wine will betray the proud, restless man! His appetite is as big as Sheol’s; like death, he is never satisfied. He gathers all the nations; he seizes all peoples. “But all these nations will someday taunt him and ridicule him with proverbial sayings: ‘Woe to the one who accumulates what does not belong to him (How long will this go on?)—he who gets rich by extortion!’”
God begins by laying out the mindset His people ought to have when facing the question of God’s sovereignty and operation in and through history:
For the message is a witness to what is decreed; it gives reliable testimony about how matters will turn out. Even if the message is not fulfilled right away, wait patiently; for it will certainly come to pass—it will not arrive late. Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, but the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness.
What is established here in Habakkuk is that God is in control, He knows how it’s going to turn out, and so we must trust His “reliable testimony.” We mustn’t get ourselves into a twist or overcomplicate matters, we must simply “wait patiently; for it will certainly come to pass—it will not arrive late.” God appearing late must be one of the most perennial issues for believers, and to see Scripture itself address it is a bit disappointing (for why haven’t we noticed it yet?). As I mentioned earlier, one cry that is raised often in Scripture is that of “How long, O LORD?” We cry nowadays, “Jesus come soon!” (maranatha). God tells us: wait patiently. Honestly, do you think God has gone somewhere? Think back to Habakkuk’s earlier statement, “Are you not from of old, O Yahweh my God, my Holy One? You shall not die.” This is an affirmation of the eternality, infinitude, and sovereignty of God. God isn’t going anywhere and He hasn’t gone anywhere.
Here’s the thing: God knows exactly when to wrap things up, and He has a meticulous, significant, and ancient plan for how to do so. The incarnation, resurrection, and salvation of Christ, His whole mission, was foreordained from an eternity’s past by God, before mankind even existed and required redemption (1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:19-20), so I ask, do you think He doesn’t have the future figured out? We are told to eagerly await him and to look for His return (Phil. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:7; Tit. 2:13), but we can’t rush it, and we shouldn’t rush it. As Peter says, “The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you because He does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). God knows exactly what He’s doing, but do we? C.S. Lewis drove this point home in saying:
Christians think [God] is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. … God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks onto the stage the play is over.23
God makes it clear, “The person of righteousness will live because of his faithfulness.” “Faithfulness,” that is, trust and obedience towards God, truly believing and expecting that God is in control, has a plan, and is our Lord. With this we will be able to weather anything, because hoping in God is a firm foundation while hoping in anything else is sinking sand.
Having established all this, what God tells us next is the answer to all of Habakkuk’s issues, and thus ours.24 In a series of five woes God condemns the Babylonians (vv. 6-20), all of which highlight the wrongs that the Babylonains have committed: they’re greedy, they’re conceited, they’re violent, they’re dishonest, they’re sinners par excellence. These woes are also annotated by praises of God: “For recognition of the Lord’s sovereign majesty will fill the earth, just as the waters fill up the sea, and, “But Yahweh is in His holy temple, let all the earth be silent before Him.” What these praises demonstrate is Who exactly the Babylonians have affronted: God. It is God Who is holy, God Who is just, and God Who is the Judge and Who will judge everyone. No, Habakkuk, God doesn’t “put up with such treacherous people,” rather He looks at them and His righteous anger burns against them.
God’s answer is simple: Babylon (sin) will perish. This whole book has been affirming God’s holiness and righteousness and justice, but these things have been overshadowed by Babylon’s cruelty. God, our light, shines through the smog and shows us: “I am the Heavenly Judge, I will punish accordingly.” Habakkuk laments at the beginning that in Israel “justice is never carried out.” The hope that we receive from God is that He will carry out justice. Men cannot be trusted, but God can. How is Habakkuk’s concern over Babylon answered? God affirms Habakkuk’s appraisal of the situation, that Israel is hopelessly wicked, that Babylon is hopelessly wicked, and God is (supposed to be) just and wrathful. However, what God denies is that one’s first impression from this situation is correct, that God is passive or uninvolved. Rather, God says, “This is your doing, I will work things out.” Israel will be punished, Babylon will fall, Christ will return. Indeed, on the other side of the Cross, with the powers and principalities humiliated, with the Messiah enthroned, we have every reason to appraise the situation differently from Habakkuk. We have the complete picture set before us, Habakkuk’s was still unfolding.
Habakkuk receives these words from God, and chews on them, and in the end all he can do is praise God. I mentioned earlier that chapter 3 is regarded by scholars to be psalmic or musical in nature, so we can say that Habakkuk was literally taken to song by his trust and love for God and His justice. Now, chapter 3 is long, and there is a lot to go over, many pages of exegetical content can be mined from it, but to keep things simple: Habakkuk’s concerns have been resolved, He understands where and how God is working in his days and that the God of Israel is one of holiness, justice, righteousness, steadfastness, and mercy
In all these things Habakkuk is truly heroic. He is heroic for knowing God is good, for struggling to prove (and understand) that, for trusting God, and for desiring justice and peace. In conclusion Habakkuk makes some important statements. First he declares, “I long for the day of distress to come upon the people who attack us” (Hab. 3:16). Because now he understands how God works and that all that awaits the Babylonians and their pride and might is Sheol, the underworld (cf. Rev. 20-21). He also says, “Yet I will rejoice in Yahweh; I will exult in the God of my salvation.” He knows that God is in control, that He is the King of kings. If God is on His throne, if we truly believe that, then what can we fear? Hard times are not outside of God’s control, they don’t surprise Him or confuse Him, and neither should they do so to us. Habakkuk teaches us all this.
F.F. Bruce, “Habakkuk,” in The Minor Prophets, 2 vols., ed. Thomas McComiskey, 2:832.
Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy, 201-256; cf. Bruce, “Habakkuk,” 2:832.
We can see this in the suffering and persecution of various canonical prophets by wicked kings and priests, such as Jeremiah, Amos, Elijah, the Apostles, and others (cf. Amos 7:9-17; Heb. 11:35-40; Jer. 38; Matt. 17:17; Ac. 7:51-53).
Augustine of Hippo, City of God, tr. Henry Bettenson, 796.
Perhaps I will upload that essay to this blog sometime in the future.
It is a touchy subject still among cultural critics and sociologists that linguistic practices and cultural wellbeing are linked; mainstream-liberal newspaper The Guardian harumphs, “Why it’s time to stop worrying about the decline of the English language.” Yet, anyone (among them neurologists, linguists, learning theorists, historians, and developmental psychologists) will tell you that linguistic proficiency is an intellectual ambrosia, with people who know just two languages having marked neurological and intellectual advances in comparison to their monolingual, or unlearned, counterparts. Now, imagine if a language structurally, lexically, and grammatically simplifies to the point where one’s cognitive faculties are barely worked in the process of forming thoughts and forming those thoughts into speech. Simply learning the classics of one’s language can improve one’s sophistication (again, this is widely attested), so if the “classics” of one’s day are barely refined or cultured in any sense they can’t prove to be intellectually transformative. I could say a lot about this, and I might in the future, but this is what it comes down to. Some reading for you: “Bilingual Effects in the Brain,” “How language proficiency correlates with cognitive skills,” “How learning a new language changes your brain,” “How a second language can boost the brain.”
Walter Alison Phillips, “Gentleman,” in The Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.), 29 vols., ed. Hugh Chisholm, 11:605.
Meant in a more philosophical or ideological sense than its usual technical meaning. (Am I violating my own standards by doing that? Oh dear. Certainly not, I’m not trying to change an established meaning, rather I just don’t have another phrase for what I’m conveying.)
If you’ve ever had to read Beowulf in school, as I have, and perform a character or symbolism analysis or theme research you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Important hermeneutical note: especially when seen by/through Christ.
John Peckham, Theodicy of Love, 91-103; Richard Davidson, “The Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective”; cf. Kevin Vanhoozer, Faith Speaking Understanding, 102-110.
On the covenant and its background studies see Mabio Coelho, “The Covenants in the Bible and Ancient Near East Literature, and the Relationship between God and Men”; John Walton, Covenant; Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants (Part 1)”; idem, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants (Part 2)”; Koert van Bekkum, “Biblical Covenants in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in Covenant, eds. Hans Burger, Gert Kwakkel, and Michael Mulder, 43-78; cf. Richard Hess, He Swore an Oath (2nd ed.), esp. 55-65.
Hess, He Swore an Oath, 55-65.
More theological work is being done in recent years that corrects these traditional renderings of biblical language and the misconceptions that can be built off of them. On the Ark, covenants, and the representation (or imaging) of God by His people I strongly recommend Carmen Joy Imes’ Bearing God’s Name.
Davidson, “The Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective,” 83, 69.
Without getting into the complexities and nuances of the progress of revelation, as it concerns the identity of Satan in the Old Testament (which I’ve been meaning to write an article about) he was seen not as one unified figure, but as a generic supernatural obstacle to God’s will, not necessarily the father of lies (and not strictly connected with the Serpent of Eden, although forerunners of that diabology can certainly be found in the Prophets). Just put a pin in it for now, it’s really not that big of a deal (it’s fine, albeit simplistic, to say that haśśāṭān is Satan as we know him).
Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50, 60.
I often like calling Satan a dirty lawyer, as he tries to ensure for us a verdict of guilty by entrapping us with sin (oh, doesn’t that interestingly line up with 2 Tim. 2:26?). If you’ve ever seen the movie The Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves this’ll come off as even more on-the-money.
Lochlan Shelfer, “The Legal Precision of the Term ‘πάράkλητος’.”
Bruce, “Habakkuk,” 2:844.
I feel like Habakkuk might’ve asked this with a tone of confusion, e.g., “You have made them Your instrument of judgment?”
Indeed, this is a concept found through Scripture, although it’s nuanced and one of those things that must be gleaned through study. The evils of the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus are another notable example of this anti-creational aspect of sin; see Terence Fretheim, “The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster.”
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 65.
I just want to say that I also really like how my translation titles this section: “The Proud Babylonians Are as Good as Dead.”