AN EXEGESIS ON HABAKKUK 2:1-4

CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY DIVINITY SCHOOL

BUIES CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA

APRIL 2009

BY JOEL M. USINA

© 2010 Joel M. Usina

A King Messiah Fellowship Contribution

kingmessiah.org

1

I will take my stand at my watchpost and station myself on the tower, and look

out to see what he will say to me, and what I will answer concerning my

complaint. And the LORD answered me: “Write the vision; make it plain on

tablets, so he may run who reads it. For still the vision awaits its appointed time;

it hastens to the end--it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely

come; it will not delay. Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him,

but the righteous shall live by his faith.”

Habakkuk 2:1-4; ESV1

How can the Creator of heaven and earth, YHWH Elohim—who unilaterally entered into

covenant with Abram [cf. Gen 15:9-17], who chose Israel to be his treasured possession [cf. Ex

19:5], who is “the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him

and keep his commandments” [cf. Deut 7:9], whose throne is established on righteousness and

justice [cf. Ps 97:2]—“idly look at traitors and [remain] silent when the wicked swallows up the

man more righteous than he” [Hab 1:13; emendation mine]?

Habakkuk, in similar form as many who preceded and succeeded him, considered this

apparent contradiction: YHWH is righteous and just, yet, this does not coincide with what

happens on earth. Abraham, as he questions YHWH's method of judging Sodom and Gomorrah,

declares to YHWH, “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the

wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all

the earth do what is just?” [Gen. 18:25; emphasis mine]. Although the contexts of Abraham's

and Habakkuk's inquiries differ, the question in focus is the same: Where is the justice of YHWH

in the face of evil?

1 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture will be quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

(ESV), copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL.

2

Even now, over two millennia later, theodicy is alive and relevant to humanity. Truly, as

O'Brien states, this topic is “timeless.” 2

The pericope of this study possesses what Mark Seifrid calls the Apostle Paul's “grounds”

for his gospel,3 and what Rabbi Simlai describes in the Talmud as the most succinct summary of

the Torah;4ve] ְוַצִּדיק ֶּבֱאמּוָנתֹו ִיְחֶיה

tsaddîq bě’emŭnātô yĭcheyěh],“The righteous shall live by his

faith.” Considering these statements, plus the relevance of theodicy, the task at hand is no light

endeavor. Nevertheless, the potential yield of fruit is far too great to avoid such an effort, which

will undoubtedly aim at contributing practical thoughts to what is considered a foundational

piece of Scripture.

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

While approaching the book of Habakkuk, it will be informative to first see the varying time

periods that scholars have placed the prophet within. Freedman mentions that “the medieval

kabbalistic commentary Sefer ha-Zohar [c. AD 1300] identifies [Habakkuk] as the son of the

Shunammite woman saved by the prophet Elisha” [mid 9th century BC].5 Another early date,

Freedman points out, is made by W. R. Betteridge, who puts Habakkuk in the time period of

King Hezekiah [716-687 BC].6 The “wicked” in 1:4 would then be a reference to the Assyrians

who conquered northern Israel and came against Jerusalem [cf. 2 Kings 18-19]. Andersen

provides a date from Karl Budde, who claimed that Habakkuk lived during the reign of

2 Julia O'Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004),

58. 3 Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul's Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: Reflections on Israel's Exile in Romans,”

in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. Sang-Won

(Aaron) Son, 133-49 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 134. 4 Soncino Talmud, Seder Nezekin, Tractate Makkoth, Folio 23b - 24a.

5 David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 3:2.

6 W. R. Betteridge, The Interpretation of the Prophecy of Habakkuk. (AJ 7: 1903), 647–61. In Freedman,

ibid.

3

Manasseh [697-643 BC].7 Fohrer suggests that the text ought to be placed somewhere between

626 and 622 BC, based on the conclusion that the “wicked” in 1:4 are the Assyrians.8 One of the

latest dates is made by Torrey, who claimed that the conqueror is Alexander the Great, putting

Habakkuk in the 4th century BC.9 However, Roberts and Freedman both comment that most

contemporary scholars place Habakkuk somewhere between the dates 612 and 587 BC.10

Based on the range of these conclusions, it can be observed that settling on dates and

details to describe the historical context surrounding Habakkuk is difficult. The three main

reasons for this are: (1) the text does not provide the reader with a helpful superscription, like

that of Zechariah, for example; (2) any reference to people[s] is somewhat ambiguous; and (3)

there are no circumstances mentioned that speak clearly of a known event in history. However,

despite lacking these helpful pieces, Habakkuk does contain certain grammatical and literary

clues that aid in determining a likely context for the book.11

The reference to the ַּכְׂשִּדים [kăśedîm; “Chaldeans”] in 1:6 is one of the most, if not the

most insightful hints the text offers.12

In 2 Kings 25, Nebuchadnezzar and the ַּכְׂשִּדים laid siege

against Jerusalem [587-586 BC]. Assyria had been the dominant empire in the region for well

over a century, but when Nineveh was destroyed by the Babylonians in 612 BC, the Babylonian

empire took a large leap toward its rise to power. Habakkuk 2:20 seems to allude to the temple

still existing in Jerusalem, which would then place the text, or at least portions of it, sometime

7 Karl Budde, Habakkuk ZDMG NF 9 84:139-47, 1930, cited in Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk. The

Anchor Bible Vol. 25 (New York: Double Day, 2001), 24. 8 Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 455.

9 C. C. Torrey, “The Prophecy of Habakkuk,” in Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut, eds. S.

Baron and A. Marx (New York. 1935), 565–82. 10

J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John

Knox, 1991), 83; Freedman, ibid. 11

Freedman, 3:3. 12

The Chaldeans are also known as the Babylonians. These are used interchangeably here.

4

before 587 BC. Therefore, based on what is recorded in 2 Kings and the description of these

people provided by Habakkuk, it seems appropriate and accurate to place Habakkuk in and

around the time of the rise of the Babylonians [c. 612-587 BC].

Examining the text further will reveal that the conversation between Habakkuk and

YHWH seems to indicate a significant time lapse between certain sections. A compelling

explanation for this can be deduced by zooming in on 1:5-6. Roberts suggests that in order for

God's plan to be unbelievable [1:5], it must have been the case that the Chaldeans, at the time

when this response [1:5-11] was given, were not a serious threat to Judah.13

In order for this to

have been the case, this portion of Habakkuk must have been given prior to the Babylonians

defeating the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 BC. With the Chaldean army on the Philistine

coast after this battle, YHWH's plan would not have been hard to believe. The content in 1:14-17

and in 2:5-19 suggests that the author had been living for some time under the oppression of the

Babylonians, which began around the turn of the century.14

In other words, it would be the case

that these latter sections were conversations that took place sometime between c. 604 and 587

BC.

The following will provide a more descriptive background for the likely historical context

of Habakkuk.

In 609 BC, King Josiah was killed by Pharaoh Neco [cf. 2 Kings 23:29-30; 2 Chron

35:21-24]. Josiah's son, Jehoahaz, succeeded his father. After three short months, however,

Neco dethroned Jehoahaz, deported him to Egypt, and placed Jehoahaz's brother, Jehoiakim, on

the throne [cf. 2 Kings 23:31-35; 2 Chron 36:1-4]. From 609-605 BC, King Jehoiakim and the

residents of Judah were under the hand of the Egyptians. It is very probable that the first lament

13

Roberts, 82-83. 14

Ibid.

5

and oracle of Habakkuk [cf. Hab 1:2-11] was made and received some time during these years of

Jehoiakim's reign. The atrocities Habakkuk speaks of in 1:3-4 could then be applied to the

inhabitants of Judah and possibly to the Egyptian oppression [but not to the Assyrians, nor even

the Chaldeans]. Habakkuk's reference to the torah being paralyzed and justice going forth

perverted [1:4] suggests internal corruption, based on the demand of torah obedience being

applied only to Israel.

Sometime between 605 and 598 BC [likely soon after the battle of Carchemish],

Jehoiakim and the kingdom of Judah were made a servant to Nebuchadnezzar [cf. 2 Kings 24:1].

Jehoiakim rebelled against the king and as a result, in 598 BC, Nebuchadnezzar campaigned

against Judah, killed Jehoiakim, and placed Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, on the throne [cf. 2

Kings 24:2-6]. However, in 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar dethroned Jehoiachin and proceeded to

deport the king and thousands of other Judean residents, including many from the upper class

and military leaders, back to Babylon [cf. 2 Kings 24:10-17]. Nebuchadnezzar then placed

Zedekiah on the throne as a vassal king. Zedekiah paid tribute to Babylon, but rebelled against

Nebuchadnezzar in 588-587 BC. Habakkuk 1:14-2:20 likely occurred sometime during the reign

of Zedekiah [598-587 BC]. Again, Habakkuk 2:20 mentions YHWH still in his temple; therefore,

the temple must be standing at this point.

As was mentioned earlier as well, 2 Kings 25 describes the destruction of the temple, and

Jerusalem, by the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the ַּכְׂשִּדים [kăśedîm], which took place in 587

BC. It may be fitting then to attribute the prayer, or psalm, of Habakkuk in chapter 3 to a time

period after the ruin of Jerusalem and second deportation of Judeans to Babylon. The temple

being destroyed surely would have caused any prophet of YHWH to cry out, clinging to YHWH for

salvation [3:17-19].

6

In both the Jewish [Tanakh] and Christian canon, the book of Habakkuk can be found

within what is commonly known as the “Book of the Twelve.”15

Christian tradition labels this

collection of books the “Minor Prophets” [“minor” referring to their size, not importance]. The

Christian canon places these books at the end of the Old Testament, whereas in the Tanakh, they

can be found in the middle. Regardless of their placement, these books possess a wide range of

prophetic material and informative descriptions of historical events. Also, they have been the

source of hope for anticipatory events, and even, in part, have become evidence [proof-texts] for

the messiah-ship of Jesus and the gospel his disciples proclaim(ed) [cf. Mic 4:5, Luke 1:17; Hos

11:1, Matt 2:15; Hab 2:4, Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Hos 1:10, 2:3, Rom 9:25-26].

O'Brien points out that the book of Habakkuk is “autobiographical” in nature.16

She

further comments that Habakkuk immediately speaks in the first person [1:2], and his “own

person” is not “obscured behind” his role as God's messenger.17

Habakkuk unabashedly opens

himself up to YHWH and laments in response to what he observes happening on earth. Atypical

of most other prophetic material, Habakkuk only directs his “passion and despair to God himself,

rather than at the king.”18

This may only indicate, however, that what is recorded from

Habakkuk is only a piece of his entire prophetic ministry. It is likely that he did speak to the

king on occasion and those encounters were not recorded.

Habakkuk includes two superscriptions [1:1 and 3:1], which could act like dividers of the

text.19

There is a clear distinction between the material in 1:2-2:20 and 3:2-19. Within these two

sections there are three main genres: (1) dialogue [containing laments] between Habakkuk and

15

These include Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,

Zechariah, and Malachi. 16

O'Brien, 59. 17

Ibid. 18

David Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah, and Habakkuk: Listening to the Voice of God (Downers Grove:

Inter-Varsity, 1998), 203. 19

Freedman, ibid.

7

YHWH [1:1-2:6a], (2) woe oracles [2:6b-20], and (3) Habakkuk's prayer, or psalm [3:1-19].20

Andersen suggests these “separate” parts may indicate they have been written by different

people. Although editorial emendations were likely made at a later date and the process of

transmission may have affected some parts of the material, there is no need, however, to further

suggest that what is recorded is actually from someone other than Habakkuk. This may be

doubly true here, on the grounds that there is very little known about Habakkuk in the first

place.21

FORM, STRUCTURE, MOVEMENT

Habakkuk 2:1-4 is found at the latter end of a “conversation” between YHWH and Habakkuk.

After the superscription [1:1], Habakkuk cries out a lament to YHWH [1:2-4]. In 1:5-11, YHWH

responds to Habakkuk's cry; but rather than assure Habakkuk the wicked were going to be

destroyed right then [as was Habakkuk's likely preference], YHWH says the exact opposite. At

some point, seemingly after a significant time lapse, Habakkuk cries out to YHWH again [1:12-

13]. This time Habakkuk references YHWH's character, perhaps to re-assert his faith in the face

of troubling, contradicting observations. Habakkuk then describes in further detail the

godlessness and pride of the Chaldeans, or maybe just their king [1:14-17]. Chapter 2 begins

with what seems like a later description of an internal thought Habakkuk had when he realized

that he still needed an [adequate] answer to his question “Where is the justice of YHWH?” [cf.

1:13; 2:1]. The “conversation” stops here, leaving the rest of chapter 2 for YHWH's “woe

20

Andersen, 15. 21

Cf. Andersen, 199.

8

oracles.” Chapter 3 is Habakkuk's psalm, which is apocalyptic in content and is comparable to

Psalms 92-97, and 110.

The beginning of YHWH's response in v. 2 is the imperative ְּכתֹוב [ketôb; “write”],

referring to the vision, followed by another imperative ּוָבֵאר [ûbā’ēr; “(and) make plain”],

referring to the content of the vision. In v. 3, YHWH seems to qualify the vision with an

estimated time of arrival [ETA]. Unfortunately, however, the ETA is not very descriptive and

hints to a considerable distant future. In the meantime, prior to the vision happening and/or

being fulfilled, v. 4 seems to describe two options for how one can live in response to the vision.

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Upon my watch I will stand, and station myself upon the siege-

work; and I will watch to see what YHWH says in me, and what

I will return concerning my reproof. 22

Similar to the beginning of the book, chapter 2 begins with Habakkuk's initiative.23

This

statement is in the first person and, as was mentioned earlier, seems to suggest that it was

initially an internal thought written down later to describe what the prophet did to receive the

vision from YHWH.24

Furthermore, this [later] explanation could also have been an attempt to

validate Habakkuk's prophetic ministry and/or the vision that he had received. Because a

prophet was generally a part of the religious cultic institution, a validation may have been

necessary due to the often contradicting messages of “true” and “false” prophets [cf. Jer 28; Hos

9:7-9; Mic 3:5; Zeph 3:5]. In other words, to be sure Habakkuk's vision would be heard and

22

Each verse [v. 1-4] in bold font provided here, and below, are the authors translation. 23

O'Brien, 74. 24

Andersen, 191. Andersen calls it a “soliloquy.”

9

received, he described his intent and actions as being consistent with true prophet form [cf. 2

Sam 18:24; 2 Kings 9:17; Is 21:8; 62:6].

Prior states, “The role of the watchman in Israel was crucial. It was an essential

ingredient of any prophet's ministry [cf. Hos 9:8].”25

Similarly, Roberts says, “This language [v.

1] probably derives from a widespread self-understanding of the prophet as a spiritual watchman

for the people” [cf. Is 21:8; Ezk 3:17-21].26

The picture of a prophet [watchman] standing,

kneeling, and/or laying prostrate on the walls of Jerusalem, with the intent of hearing from

YHWH, is the scene being portrayed here. This deliberate behavior displays one's intent to

commune with the Creator; surely this must invoke his presence.

The first part of this verse does not seem to cause much variation in translation.

However, the latter part of this verse, similar to others in this pericope, has been disputed.

It is interesting that most popular translations [i.e.,,, NIV, NRSV, ESV, KJV, NASB]

render the preposition ִּבי [bî] as “to me,” rather than “in me,” or “from me,” or even “with me.”

If the text had ִלי [lî] instead of ִּבי, it could easily be translated “to me.” However, that is not the

case. Therefore, the text may be suggesting that Habakkuk expected YHWH's answer to be

personal, in the sense that the answer will come from within Habakkuk, as opposed to an audible

voice or sign from outside him. It could also suggest that Habakkuk, like a good prophet, knew

that he was going to be the one from whom YHWH's answer will come and/or be proclaimed to

others through. This subtle difference does add dimension to the text.

25

Prior, 234. 26

Roberts, 108.

10

Another difficult phrase is ּוָמה ָאִׁשיב ַעל־ּתֹוַכְחִּתי [ŭmāh ’āshîv ‘ǎl-tôkǎchtǐ] – “what [I? or

he?] will return [concerning? or upon?] my reproof.”27

How should this be translated? There are

considerable differences between the four choices [although only three would make sense]. The

imperfect, first, common, singular form of the verb ׁשּוב [shŭv; “to return”] suggests that, since

Habakkuk is speaking, the first choice would be “I,” not “he,” as in YHWH. Roberts suggests,

however, that Habakkuk is waiting for YHWH's response to his reproof [1:12-13], so to translate

this verb literally would be “dubious.”28

Despite what one settles on for the verb, the second

choice has potential to either describe Habakkuk receiving reproof from YHWH, or adding to his

already-given “reproof” in 1:12-13. There is ample ground for either argument.

On one hand, Habakkuk might expect to be reproved by YHWH for being carnal minded;

therefore, he deliberately prepares for an appropriate response. This expected “reproof,”

however, is unlikely to be a correction for doing something wrong, but rather a rebuttal of sorts.

Doubtful Habakkuk crossed lines in speaking to YHWH [at least in this text].

On the other hand, Habakkuk could be planning to further provoke YHWH to act

according to his justice, so, likewise, preparing for this response might be prudent.29

Following

Leclerc's observation that Habakkuk does play a role of “intercessor,” it would be expected that

he would plead for YHWH to intervene and bring justice, which could take the form of

provocation.30

27

If one settles on the word “upon,” then it would mean something like “when I am reproved.” Also, these

latter two options are not the only ones to choose from, but do convey the basic difference in suggested translations. 28

Ibid., 105. 29

This would assume “watch” carries the idea of “preparing,” or “determining.” 30

Thomas L. Leclerc. Introduction to the Prophets: Their Stories, Sayings, and Scrolls ( New York: Paulist

Press, 2007), 232. Note as well, “provoke” here does not imply to “instigate” in the sense that Habakkuk has an ill

intent behind his words; rather, “provoke” in the sense of referring to YHWH's character with the intent of getting

him to respond according to it.

11

Even though both renderings could be argued, it seems more likely that Habakkuk is

expecting to add to his already-given “reproof.” Not only does the verb form hint in this

direction, but also taking into account that theodicy naturally contradicts sound logic, Habakkuk

may still be in search for an [adequate] answer to the questions he asked YHWH earlier [1:3, 12-

13]. This does not imply, nor necessitate, that the Divine is unable to answer sufficiently, but,

rather would suggest that a human is often incapable of understanding adequately.

And YHWH answered me saying, “Write the vision and

make it plain upon the tablets in order that he who

reads may run with it.

Similar to the above verse, the first portion of this sentence is not typically contested.

Habakkuk recognizes that YHWH is responding to his complaint and describes what YHWH

initially said. The vision has not been given, nor is it received in this verse, but, preparatory

commands are provided in order to handle it correctly when it is given; “write ... and make it

plain.” The reason for these commands could have been two-fold: (1) So that people will have a

source for guidance and reassurance, and (2) similar to Deut. 31:26, the vision could have been

and/or still be a witness against the people who did or do not believe [cf. Is. 30:8-11].31

It is noteworthy to mention that there is no definite article [ ַה] attached to ָחזֹון [chāzôn;

“(a) vision”], but one is attached to ַהֻּלחֹות [hăllŭchôt; “the tablets”]. Accordingly, this phrase

could be rendered “Write a vision upon the tablets.” Andersen comments that ָחזֹון can be forced

into a definite state based on this section not being in proper prose form.32

Also, the article on

should receive one ָחזֹון may be enough to suggest [hǎyyăyǐn; “the wine” (v.5a)] ַהַּיִין and ַהֻּלחֹות

31

Roberts, 110. 32

Andersen, 199.

12

too.33

The context does not have any indicators that Habakkuk is free to write just any vision,

but only the one YHWH reveals. This would cause this vision to be definite. This is important

based on the fact that this vision contains YHWH's answer to Habakkuk's laments, both from 1:2

and especially 1:12-13.

As far as the significance of tablets are concerned, Prior states, “It was common in

Habakkuk's time and place to erect tablets, probably of wood, in public places, so that notices of

general interest and importance could be fixed to them [cf. Is 8:1-4; 30:7-8].”34

Prior then

comments that “the tablets” could be referring to the ones given at Mt. Sinai [cf. Ex 24:12;

31:18; Deut 4:13; 5:22; 9:9-11].35

The idea is the vision will be displayed in some public place

for all to see and in some manner be connected to God's torah. This may not be too much of a

stretch, based on YHWH's constant message to turn back to torah [e.g., 2 Kings 17; Ezk 18; Jer

6:16].

The description of the tablets make it seem like they are specific, familiar tablets being

referred to, rather than random slabs of clay, stone, or wood. This could be nothing more than a

reference to tablets Habakkuk may have had in his possession. The text does not provide enough

evidence to support any one conclusion.

The latter part of this verse poses difficulty in translating. This may easily be seen by the

various translations of the Bible. Unfortunately, as a result of the difficulty, the meaning of the

passage can differ significantly. Is the one who reads supposed to run with the vision? Or, is the

one who runs supposed to be able to read the vision clearly? Following the Jewish Publication

Society Bible [JPS]: Is the one who reads to read the vision “swiftly”? Similarly, the NET Bible

33

Ibid. 34

Prior, 234. 35

Ibid.

13

translates the passage as: “...so the one who announces it may read it easily.”36

Heflin suggests

that “the Hebrew here clearly puts the emphasis on the running of the reader, not the reading of

the runner.”37

He goes on to explain that “It means that the person who reads the message will

adopt it as a guide for living … will run through life according to it.”38

The translation provided

above follows this train of thought.

The preposition בֹו [bô; “in/from/with it”] at the end of the sentence is often a trouble spot

for translation. Roberts states:

The construal of the suffixed preposition discussed above is probably the one that would

occur to a reader first, but there is a slight grammatical problem with it. In all the

examples cited [cf. Deut. 17:19; Jer. 36:8, 10, 13; Neh. 8:3, 18; 13:1 2 Chron. 34:18] it is

the document [sêpher], not the contents [tôrâh] of the document, from which one reads.

If the construction in Habakkuk followed that pattern, one would expect the masculine

plural suffix on the preposition, since the document is designated as "tablets," a

masculine plural noun. The only masculine singular antecedent for the suffix to refer to

is the vision, the contents written on the tablets. This difficulty, as slight as it may be,

suggests that one try construing בֹו, not with the participle קֹוֵרא, but with the verb רּוץ.39

Based on this observation, Roberts offers a “double meaning” for this phrase. The first

translation he provides is: “Write the vision legibly on the tablets so that the one reading from it

can read quickly.” The other he suggests reads: “Write the vision on the tablets and make its

import plain so that the one reading it can take refuge in it.”40

Roberts bases this latter

translation on similar word form found in Proverbs 18:10. The idea, he suggests, would be that

the one who reads the vision can take refuge in it “while awaiting its fulfillment.”41

Roberts

36

The NET Bible [InterNET,or New English Translation] can be found at www.bible.org. 37

J. N. Boo Heflin, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Haggai (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 89-90. 38

Ibid. 39

Roberts, 109. 40

Ibid. 41

Ibid.

14

claimed he is inclined to think that Habakkuk “intentionally played with such a double

meaning.”42

Andersen, Roberts, and Walvoord agree that the vision ought to be written plainly so the

one who reads can do something with it [e.g., run with it, proclaim it as a herald, take refuge in

it].43

Barker, on the other hand, holds that the vision is supposed to be written clearly so the one

running can read it.44

This latter conclusion, however, does not seem to fit the context, and even

despite the context, possesses a quite senseless meaning.

Habakkuk has asked YHWH to respond to all the injustices that he sees. Habakkuk has

cried out for salvation [1:2] and has revealed his desire for YHWH to judge the wicked [1:12-13].

Therefore, YHWH, who does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets [cf.

Amos 3:7] and who longs for his people to return to him [cf. Ezk 18:23-32], is more likely to

insist his message is clearly communicated in order that the readers have ample opportunity to

respond accordingly, rather than hoping one who is running by can read it clearly, or even

suggesting one read it “swiftly.” Whether one who reads is supposed to run with it as a herald,

or use it as a guide to live, or be able to take refuge in it, the gist is clear—the vision is, in part,

meant to provoke a response.

For the vision is yet for the appointed time, and it will witness

to the end, and it will not disappoint. If it lingers, wait for it;

for it will surely come and won't be late.

42

Ibid, 110. 43

John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 1:1512. Roberts, 109. Andersen, 204. 44

Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, The New American Commentary. Vol. 20

(Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 298. (electronic ed., Logos Library System)

15

As was mentioned earlier, YHWH seems to qualify the vision [that has yet to be given]

with an estimated time of arrival. If one considers the greater context, it would seem pertinent

that Habakkuk receive from YHWH some response in reference to when YHWH is going to act

against the injustices on earth. Moreover, having been told when YHWH is going to intervene,

despite the lack of precision, seems to be sufficient for Habakkuk evidenced by his words in

3:17-19. Therefore, it may be that this was really all Habakkuk needed to know: YHWH has

heard your complaint and will take care of the problem, when it's the right time – but, now is not

that time.

Roberts mentions how the usage of the nouns מֹוֵעד [mô‘êd; “appointed time”] and ֵקץ

[qēts; “end”] gives the impression that this time [whenever it is] is fixed; it cannot be altered.45

The word ֵדמֹוע comes from the verb ָיַעד [yā‘ǎd; “to fix, appoint, assemble”].46

It may then be

appropriate to think of this time as having been written down in YHWH's Day-Timer.

Furthermore, the prepositional prefix ְל combined with the patach vowel [ ַל], makes this a definite

time [ַלּמֹוֵעד; lămmô‘êd]. In other words, the vision will not happen at “an appointed time,”

rather, “the appointed time.”

Only nine other times is ַלּמֹוֵעד found in the Scriptures [cf. Gen 17:21; 18:14; 21:2; Josh

8:14; 1 Sam 9:24; 13:8; 2 Kings 4:16-17; Dan 11:29]. In each instance [except maybe Dan

11:29], the time/location/event appointed is not only “fulfilled,” but when it is set, the one

making the “appointment” seems to have a premeditated, intentional reason for it [e.g., YHWH's

promise to Abraham was going to be delivered, Ai's army went to battle against Israel, Samuel

45

Roberts, Ibid. 46

Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and A. Briggs (BDB), Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 2006), 416.

16

was supposed to eat with the guests]. There was no randomness or unexpectedness surrounding

these set times and events that took place.47

Based on these observations, it may be that when Habakkuk received this description

from YHWH, he thought of YHWH's “appointed feasts” [cf. Lev 23; especially v. 1-2]. Prior to

Israel entering Canaan under Joshua, YHWH gave them his torah, or instructions. Within these

instructions, YHWH commanded his people to observe certain מֹוֲעִדים [mô‘ădîm; plural of מֹוֵעד;

“appointed times”; typically rendered “appointed feasts,” cf. Lev 23]. The initial description of

these set times provides the reason for the aforementioned suggestion; namely, YHWH declares,

“These are the appointed times of YHWH.” And again YHWH says, “they are my appointed times”

[cf. v. 2; emphasis added]. YHWH's description gives the reader the impression that these times

not only belong to him, but also that he is giving them to Israel for a reason.48

The connection suggested here is that “the appointed time” for the vision may be

referring to one of these set times of YHWH. Again, the definite article suggests specificity. It

seems appropriate that one of these already-set times of YHWH, which Israel was/is to observe,

may be the reference.

Suggesting that Habakkuk thought the reference to “the end” was in referring to the

eschaton would be anachronistic. Yes, it may be, in part, an allusion to this time, but here in this

passage, it is highly doubtful Habakkuk, and even the readers, thought of it in the same way

contemporary readers do. Habakkuk more likely had a more immediate frame of reference;

47

One could try and argue about the situation with Saul's premature sacrifice, and say that Samuel was

“late.” However, the context puts Saul in the wrong, not Samuel. Saul, perhaps, was the kind of person who was

“presumptuous” and whose “soul was not upright.” See below. 48

There are seven מֹוֲעִדים given to Israel; Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Pentecost,

Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles. Due to biased presuppositions based on misinformation, these

appointed times are often anachronistically called “Jewish” holidays. The text makes it clear they belong to

YHWH—they are his. The implications drawn from the timing of Jesus' death and resurrection, and also the

descending of the Spirit in Acts 2 seem quite significant, and relative to the connections presented here.

17

specifically the end of the Babylonian oppression. In fact, the “apocalyptic” psalm in chapter 3

was probably initially proclaimed in reference to YHWH judging the wicked oppressors of that

time, not necessarily the entire world, as on judgment day. With this said, however, there is a

difference between what Habakkuk [and the original readers] thought, verses what all YHWH

intended to communicate in passages such as this. In other words, just because in this context

Habakkuk may not have associated the vision with the “end of the world,” does not mean that

connection is invalid. Granted, hindsight is always 20/20.

The thrust of the remainder of the verse seems clear; the vision is in reference to a future

date, so be patient until it comes. What is not clear, however, is who or what is performing the

verbs. Andersen suggests that the answer is an implied person. For instance, he renders the

phrase ְולֹא ְיַכֵּזב [vel’ō y

ekăzzēb] as, “he will not deceive.”

49 In fact, all the third, masculine,

singular verbs he renders as “he” instead of “it.”; although, grammatically this may be a valid

option, it does not seem to flow with the first phrase of the verse; it is the “vision,” not a person,

that appears as the subject of the verbs. To suggest a person here personifies the “vision,” which

is not necessary since it's not the vision itself that will do anything, but the one of whom the

vision speaks—YHWH. Moreover, as we will see, the content of the vision, which has yet to be

given, is not just about a person(s), but also about judgment. In other words, there is likely a

“he” within the content of the vision as Roberts suggests, but using “he” in this passage does not

grasp the scope of its meaning as well as “it.”

YHWH reassures Habakkuk that the content of the vision, which takes the form of a

promise here, is sure to come about. YHWH has heard Habakkuk's cry and has made it known

that he will respond as was requested. Contrary to Habakkuk's personal preference, however,

49

Andersen, 198, 207

18

YHWH will bring about the plan contained in the vision when it's the right time. Verse 4 explains

the means of how one should live in this intermediate period.

Behold the presumptuous, his soul is not upright within

him. But a righteous one, by his faithfulness, will live.

This verse not only presents great difficulty in translating, but more especially what may

be the most significant contrast in practical understanding depending on how it is translated. For

example, Andersen says that the righteous person will live by the trustworthiness of the vision,

as opposed to his own ֱאמּוָנה [‘ĕmûnāh; “faithfulness”].50

The reverse gives the credit [for

living] to the righteous person, not the vision [or even YHWH, as is implied by Andersen's

translation]. Roberts' conclusion agrees with Andersen's, stating that the “faithfulness” of the

vision will cause the righteous one to live.51

If Andersen and Roberts are correct in connecting

the ֱאמּוָנה to the vision [and even to YHWH], then the phrase would be redundant with v. 3, it no

longer contrasts with the aforementioned person, and it alludes to a passivity on the part of “a

righteous one,” all three of which would disagree with the immediate and larger context.

Considering these varying translations, in an apparent attempt to reconcile both

perspectives, Hobbins comments:

However one interprets the particulars of 2:4b, the gist … remains the same: the upright

person, in the face of injustice and calamity, will live out his life on the basis of trust in

the trustworthiness of the vision vouchsafed to the prophet, namely, that an end to the

calamitous situation will come, and not delay.52

50

Ibid., 198. 51

Roberts, 111. 52

John Hobbins, “Habakkuk 2:4” from Ancient Hebrew Poetry, 2009.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/03/habakkuk-24.html [accessed 4.1.2009]

19

Along these same lines, O'Brien says, “When 2:4 is read as underscoring the faithfulness of the

vision rather than of the individual, the theological import of the verse is not altered radically, in

that it still stresses the trustworthiness of God.”53

The reason for these variations will be explored further below.

Unlike the previous verses, all of v. 4 presents difficulty in translating. When initially

approaching this verse, much debate and variations have come out of trying to locate the first

verb ֻעְּפָלה [‘ǔpplāh]. One influence contributing to the specific word chosen above [i.e.,,,

“presumptuous”], is an apparent same-root verb found in Numbers 14:44.54

The Israelites

refused to obey YHWH to fight the Canaanites in order take hold of the land that YHWH was

giving them. After Moses declared they were to die in the wilderness because of their unbelief

and disobedience, they rallied for war as if to now obey the original command with hopes of

persuading YHWH to change his mind. Moses told them that YHWH was not going to fight with

them if they went to battle. The text then reads: “But they presumed to go up to the heights of

the hill country, although neither the ark of the covenant of the LORD nor Moses departed out of

the camp” [Num. 14:44]. The word ַוַּיְעִּפלּו [văyyă‘pĭlû] is translated here, “But they presumed,”

which has the same root עפל [‘pl; “to presume, be heedless”] as the word in 2:4a.55

Also, in order

to keep intact the juxtaposition of the two kinds of people being displayed in this verse, this word

choice seems to work.

Roberts explains how this verb is probably in a corrupted form, and then suggests that the

root is עיף [‘yp; vb. “to be faint”; adj. “faint, weary”]56

instead of עפל.57

Roberts then translates

53

O'Brien, 77-78. 54

These are the only two places in the Hebrew Scriptures with the same [apparent] root. 55

BDB, 779. 56

Ibid., 746. 57

Roberts, 106-107.

20

the Hebrew as: “Now the fainthearted.”58

He further explains how this would make sense

following the idea in v. 3 of one having to wait for the vision to arrive.59

One could hardly argue

with this correlation. For the second part of this phrase, Roberts offers the following: “his soul

will not walk in it.” He gathers this from the same word order found in 1 Samuel 6:12, where it

speaks of the cows walking straight, turning neither to the right nor to the left. This particular

translation cannot be argued against here either. The translation offered above does not

significantly conflict with Roberts’ [i.e., a “presumptuous” one will, in a sense, “faint away,” in

that he loses patience at some point. And, one's soul who does not “walk in it” is a person whose

soul is “not upright”].

Andersen translates the noun ַנְפׁשֹו [năfshô] as “throat,” and provides the translation:

“Behold, swollen, not straight, is his throat in him.”60

He bases this on the same word being used

in 2:5, which he also renders as “throat” [“who enlarged his throat like Sheol”].61

There is no

need, however, to read into the commonly used noun ֶנֶפׁש [něfěsh] a meaning other than its basic,

most common meaning—soul. In the context of this verse, and pericope, it fits rather well. The

soul that is not ָיַׁשר [yāshǎr; “upright”], is indeed the opposite of one that is ַצִּדיק [“righteous”;

also, to see how ָיַׁשר and ַצִּדיק are used synonymously cf. Ps 11:7; 32:11; 33:1; 64:10; 112:4;

Prov 21:18; 29:27; Is 26:7; Hos 14:9].

The second part of this verse, as was alluded to in the introduction, could be considered

the most important focus of the entire work presented here. If it is true, as Seifrid suggests, that

the Apostle Paul's “ground” for his gospel is this phrase, and like Rabbi Simlai stated, it is the

58

Ibid., 105. 59

Ibid., 106-107. 60

Andersen, 198. 61

Ibid.

21

most succinct summary of Torah, then a lot would be riding on an accurate translation, and

especially interpretation.

Although the third, masculine, singular, possessive suffix ֹו could, according to

grammatical rules, legitimately be translated as “it,” the context, in and surrounding this verse,

gives more support to translate it as “his.”62

On top of the aforementioned observations, the

usage of ִהֵּנה [hĭnnēh; “behold!” or “look!”] at the beginning of this sentence, similar to most

other usages of it throughout the Scriptures, is an indicator of a shift in focus. In other words,

YHWH has been talking about one thing in vv. 2-3 [i.e., the vision] and now brings Habakkuk's

attention to something else. This does not imply a sharp change in subjects per se, but maybe a

slight head turn to address something new that is applicable to what was just stated.

To begin, it might be most important that one translate the noun in ֶּבֱאמּוָנתֹו correctly.

Most Protestant Bibles translate ֱאמּוָנה as “faith” [i.e., “his faith”].63

O'Brien admits that this

“traditional” rendering is based on Paul's use of it in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11.64

No

where else in the Hebrew Scriptures is ֱאמּוָנה translated as “faith”; therefore, based on these two

observations, it would be anachronistic to suggest this translation. This is important to

underscore because, unfortunately, there is in today's common usage a disconnect between one

having “faith” and one being “faithful.”65

The noun ֱאמּוָנה means “firmness, steadfastness, fidelity.” It's rooted in the verb ָאַמן

[’āmǎn], which means “to be firm, to build up, to support, to nurture, or to establish.” 66

This

.on the end is the possessive suffix ֹו the - [bě’emŭnātô] ֶּבֱאמּוָנתֹו 6263

See the NIV, NRSV, NASB, KJV. Some, however, footnote the alternate “faithfulness.” 64

O'Brien, 77. Also see R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook

of the Old Testament [TWOT]. Vol. 1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 52. 65

See John B. Cobb and David J. Lull, “Romans,” in Chalice Commentaries for Today (St. Louis: Chalice

Press, 2005), 38. 66

BDB, 52-53.

22

leaves no doubt that a certain, appropriate response is expected by the person who possess ֱאמּוָנה,

whether YHWH or a human. Biblically speaking, to “have faith” and “be faithful” mean the same

thing.67

Furthermore, it is entirely pertinent here for one to see and understand the consistent

correlation between ֱאמּוָנה and YHWH's covenant relationship with Israel.

The word ֱאמּוָנה, in some form, is found forty-nine times throughout the Hebrew

Scriptures. Twenty-two of those times occur in the Psalms [cf. Ps 33.4; 36.5; 37.3; 40.20; 88.11;

89.1, 2, 5, 8, 24, 33, 49; 92.2; 96.13; 98.3; 100.5; 119.30, 75, 86, 90, 138; 143.1] and in all but

one of those instances ֱאמּוָנה is generally translated as “faithfulness.” It is used in connection to

YHWH as a sort of “divine attribute.”68

An example of this common usage is Psalm 100:5.

Psalm 119:30 uses the term when describing YHWH’s design for living.

For the LORD is good; His loving kindness is everlasting

and His faithfulness to all generations. [Psalm 100:5; italics indicates location]

I have chosen the faithful way;

I have placed Your ordinances before me. [Psalm 119:30]

With this mind, going back to the first use of ֱאמּוָנה in the Scriptures would be further

indicative of the concept behind the word. The term used here describes Moses’ hands as he

held his staff in the air during Israel’s battle with the Amalekites:

But Moses' hands were heavy. Then they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on

it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Thus

his hands were steady until the sun set. [Exodus 17:12; italics indicates location]

67

This is the idea of behind James 2:18-26. 68

BDB, 53.

23

To say “his hands were steady” begs the question: What were Moses’ hands being steady in

reference to? His hands were not ‘steady’ in the lowered position, but rather in an uplifted

position. Likewise, throughout the Psalms when the word ֱאמּוָנה is used in connection to YHWH,

the same consideration should be given: What is YHWH being “faithful” in relation to? What

else is YHWH’s faithfulness in reference to but his covenant promise to his chosen people?

Admittedly, this line of thought supports the connection of ֱאמּוָנה to the vision [or

YHWH], as Roberts and Andersen suggest. However, the idea of a “righteous one” living

according to his faithfulness to the covenant is equally valid, and again, in this context more

descriptive of what YHWH seems to be communicating. The “presumptuous” one, similar to

Israel who went to battle contrary to YHWH's command, does not live by his faithfulness to

YHWH's covenant instructions; “his soul is not upright in him.” The “righteous one,” however,

who apparently has already been deemed “righteous,” lives according to his faithfulness to

YHWH.69

This “living” is in no way here a soteriological description in the modern sense of the

term, rather, it is a label for the kind of life YHWH has ordained for his chosen people. [This

latter point will be addressed further below.]

Whether or not the connection was originally intended, the latter part of v. 4 is not only

a contrast to the first part, but it also seems to be antithetical to the description of the Chaldean

[king?] in 1:15-16. The picture being portrayed in these verses is that of an individual [or nation]

who, because of his success in plundering others with his “net” and “dragnet,” which create the

luxurious life and fills his belly with rich food, he then turns and “sacrifices to his net.” Implied

is the idea that this person relies on his net for his livelihood.70

Therefore, “he sacrifices to his

69

See Andersen, p. 215 for a more descriptive reason why he concludes the “faithfulness” is attached to the

vision and not to the righteous one. 70

Both the ESV and NIV translations pick up this idea.

24

net and makes offerings to his dragnet.” Israel was to make sacrifices and bring offerings to

YHWH, which, according to their theology, was a part of what YHWH commanded them in order

that they may live [cf. Deut 6:24-25; 30:16].

Therefore, it seems appropriate and accurate that the “faithfulness” of a “righteous one”

is the means by which that person will experience the kind of life that YHWH intended for his

people. In other words, just as the Chaldean relies on his net to provide “life,” in contrast, a

righteous person, by his faithfulness to YHWH, will establish and maintain a kind of living that is

in accord with YHWH's design; which would be what is considered “real” living, as opposed to

the Chaldean who was living amiss. Roberts catches the observation behind this when he says:

In the context of Habakkuk's oracle, however, the verb "will live" refers to the life in the

interim before the time fixed for the fulfillment of the vision … Because the righteous

person trusts in the reliability of God's promise contained in the vision, he or she is free to

live in the present, no matter how unjust or oppressive it may be.71

YHWH turns Habakkuk's attention to how one can respond to the vision [which has yet to

be given]. One can be presumptuous, that is, go his own way as if he knows better than YHWH,

thinking his actions might deter YHWH's “fixed” time. The one whose soul is not upright is

characteristic of those who turn to the right hand or to the left [cf. Deut 5:32; 17:20; 28:14; Prov

4:26-27; Josh 23:6]. The other option is the one who is faithful to what YHWH has already

commanded in his torah. The dichotomy displayed here is one of the most fundamental and

significant contrasts in all the Scriptures – the righteous and unrighteous.

71 Roberts, 112. Cf. also Walvoord, 1:1512.

25

SYNTHESIS

Habakkuk sees wickedness daily. His soul is weary and grieves from the injustices and

perversion of YHWH's law [1:4]. He calls upon YHWH for salvation, but YHWH answers with an

ubelievable plan that eventually stirs up the Chaldeans who strap their yoke upon Judah causing

the injustices continue. Habakkuk's burden grows heavy so he stations himself at his “watch”

with the sole purpose of obtaining an answer from YHWH regarding his earlier complaint and

question [1:12-17]. Some unknown amount of time passes, and then, YHWH answers: “Write it

down on the tablets, and make it plain...” Habakkuk is given the impression that this answer—

the vision—is supposed to be a vehicle of hope for Israel; “Make sure it's clear! It will come at

the appointed time, so if it seems to delay, be patient. What I'm going to say will indeed come

about. And just to be sure you understand what is most important, recall the way of the

arrogant, how his soul is not upright. Remember, the righteous person, the one who trusts in me,

walks in the way and there, finds life.” Not only is Habakkuk given the assurance that YHWH has

heard his cry and plans to act in accord to it, but he also receives an encouraging reminder and

promise—A righteous one, by his faithfulness, will live.

Andersen's words are fitting here:

The two realities—God and the world—do not seem to fit. The task of making

them fit is daunting. When the misery of existence becomes intolerable there are two

ways out, both extreme, by denying one or the other of the two realities. God can be

detached from the world; either he isn't interested, or he isn't even there. A person can

detach from the world; the world can be rejected as meaningless, corrupt, or even an

illusion. In its most radical form, such disengagement can deny the reality of both God

and the world, seeking relief in the nirvana of nothingness.

26

Biblical faith holds on tenaciously to both realities. The world is real; the God

who made it all is also real. This is what Habakkuk believes. He manages somehow to

survive by faith [2:4b].72

Habakkuk 2:1-4 seem to be an introduction to the vision [which is the answer from

YHWH concerning Habakkuk's complaint]. Despite the location of this introduction, the vision

does not seem to be given until 3:3, which continues through verse 15. The remainder of chapter

2 consists of the “woe oracles,” which are first against the oppressive nation, Babylon, but then

also the unrighteous natives of Judah [cf. 2:15-19]. These five woes can probably be applied

universally, as well.73

Chapter 3 begins with another superscription, Habakkuk acknowledges

YHWH, intercedes for Israel, and then the vision is recorded [cf. 3:3-15].74

Contrary to this conclusion, however, Heschel states:

Habakkuk's vision remains unknown to us. Its content is not put into words. It clearly

was a vision of redemption at the end of days. There is an answer to Habakkuk's

question. It is an answer, not in terms of thought, but terms of events. God's answer will

happen, but it cannot be spelled out in words. The answer will surely come; "if it seems

slow, wait for it." True, the interim is hard to bear; the righteous one is horrified by what

he sees. To this the great answer is given: "The righteous shall live by his faith." It is an

answer, again not in terms of thought, but in terms of existence. Prophetic faith is trust in

Him [sic], in Whose [sic] presence stillness is a form of understanding.75

Also contrary to the above conclusion, Andersen states that the vision “consists precisely of the

'woe oracles'” [cf. 2:6-19].76

O'Brien comments, “The traditional translation of 2:4 sets this

verse as the answer of God to the problem of injustice.”77

However, Brueggemann supports that

72

Andersen, 11. 73

They resemble many of the Proverbs in their principles. 74

Roberts, 148-149. 75

Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets: An Introduction (New York: Harper&Row, 1962), 143. 76

Andersen, 17. 77

O'Brien, 79.

27

the vision is made up of 3:3-15. He says, “The posing of the issue of theodicy posed in the first

complaint [1:2-4] is answered by eschatological anticipation expressed as theophany [3:3-15].”78

These varying conclusions about what the vision is provides further evidence that translating and

understanding the book of Habakkuk possesses significant difficulty.

REFLECTION

One who reads the Apostle Paul's letters, especially Romans and Galatians, may, like Seifrid,

conclude that Paul's gospel is in fact grounded upon the statement made in Habakkuk 2:4—“The

righteous shall live by faith” [cf. Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11]. Similarly, it is a bold and an examine-

worthy assertion by Rabbi Simlai to suggest that the entire Torah of YHWH can be summarized

by these three Hebrew words, ְוַצִּדיק ֶּבֱאמּוָנתֹו ִיְחֶיה. The remainder of this work will examine

Paul's and the author of Hebrews' usage of this passage, while taking into account the detailed

analysis provided above.

To begin, enveloped within Seifrid's claim is also his description of how Paul imputed a

new meaning into Hab 2:4b. In other words, Paul took this passage in Habakkuk and caused it to

mean something different than its original meaning.79

Leclerc suggests the same thing when he

says, “As is obvious, Paul's reinterpretation of this verse in personal and immediate terms is quite

different from its meaning in Habakkuk.”80

It is contended here that neither Paul, nor the author

of Hebrews made this passage in Habakkuk mean something different than its original meaning.

In order to “use” the Scriptures to support their points [or any points], Paul and the author of

78

Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination.

(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 244. 79

Seifrid, 135-136. 80

Leclerc, 233.

28

Hebrews [and all the New Testament authors] had to use them in a legitimate fashion [i.e.,,, in

such a way as to remain within the accepted method of interpretation].

Paul opens up his letter to the believers in Rome assuring them that the gospel he was set

apart for was indeed the gospel of YHWH [God];81

the one that concerns his son, Jesus, [in accord

with prophecy; cf. v.2] who was a descendant of David [in accord with prophecy], who was also

vindicated as the Son of YHWH by his resurrection from the dead [in accord with prophecy].

Furthermore, Paul was to be an apostle of Messiah Jesus to preach this gospel to the Gentile

world. Despite the controversy this job description provoked among many of Paul's kinsmen [cf.

Rom. 9:1-3; 11:13-14], Paul was not ashamed to declare the glad tidings of YHWH to the non-

Jews. Why? Because Paul knew that this gospel “is the power of YHWH for salvation to

everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” [cf. Rom 1:16]. He continues,

“For in [this gospel] the righteousness of YHWH is revealed from faithfulness for faithfulness, as

it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faithfulness’” [Rom. 1:17].82

Here we see Paul alluding to a fairly descriptive interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4. More

than simply wanting to refer to just the latter part of the verse, Paul is also hinting at the fact that

the vision has, in some way, arrived or been displayed in the gospel; hence, Paul says “from

faithfulness for faithfulness.” This means that the ETA of the vision has, in some sense, come to

pass through this revelation of YHWH's righteousness, which proves YHWH faithful to this

promise—“from faithfulness.” YHWH's faithfulness is, and always has been, displayed to the

world, and especially to his people, with at least one motive being to provoke humanity to

respond in faithfulness to him—“for faithfulness”; thus, “The righteous shall live by

81

“God,” used by Paul here, was surely YHWH, the El [God]of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 82

The Greek word πίστις [pistis] can be translated as “faith,” “faithfulness,” “belief,” and also “believe.”

The LXX renders ֱאמּוָנה [emunah] in Hab. 2:4b with this Greek word; therefore, it possess a similar meaning. In

keeping with the original meaning in Hab. 2:4b, it is left as “faithfulness.” Also see Cobb, p. 17, 32-33.

29

faithfulness.” On the basis of these observations, one would find ample ground to claim that

God's “righteousness” can be synonymous with his covenant faithfulness. Although this seems

to be one of the main points behind these verses, the “forensic” righteousness, or the

righteousness of Messiah imputed [or imparted] to the believer, should not be excluded as a

legitimate facet of what is being communicated in these passages.83

For indeed, this

imputation/impartation is a part of YHWH's faithfulness.

Therefore, Paul's use of Habakkuk 2:4b here in Romans is a description of how a

righteous person is supposed to respond to YHWH's faithfulness. In another place, Paul talks

about how he “[walks] by faith, not by sight” [cf. 2 Cor 5:7]. Both passages allude to the means

through which a righteous person is supposed to approach and walk through life—his or her faith

in God.

Turning now to Galatians, it is important for one to accurately understand the over-

arching issue behind the entire letter before attempting to handle its parts [especially the one

being addressed]. The misapplication of God's torah by some was leading the believers to

prioritize a man-made tradition above YHWH's law [cf. Matt 15:1-9; Mark 7:6-8]. There was in

Paul's day a belief among the Jews [especially some of the religious leaders] that any non-Jew

who wanted to become a “believer” [or a part of the Covenant People of YHWH] needed to go

through a four-part conversion ceremony, for which “circumcision” was a common

circumlocution. In other words, one had to become a “Jew” through ritual conversion in order to

be a part of YHWH's people.84

This belief contradicted Paul's gospel, it mishandled YHWH's

83

Cobb, 35. 84

This parallels John the Immerser's accusation against the religious leaders who came to be baptized by

him in Matthew 3:9. The belief was, if one was a “child of Abraham,” then he was “saved,” and circumcision was a

part of this becoming-a-child-of-Abraham ceremony. This is also a significant background piece of information to

properly understand statements such as Gal. 3:28 and the like. Also see b. Vevamot 47a and b.

30

righteous law, and most especially misrepresented God the Savior; therefore, Paul says, “I wish

those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” [Gal 5:12].

In chapter three, Paul sets out to explain the real purpose and proper use of the law.

First, the law was never meant to “save” anyone, in the sense of one acquiring a “righteousness”

that justifies him or her before YHWH [cf. Gen 15:6; Gal 3:11a, 16-18]. Moreover, faith is not

produced by law, but given by YHWH [thus Paul's “human example” in vv. 15-18; cf. Gal 3:12a;

Gen 15:6]. Rather, YHWH's Torah is the guide for how one who already has faith ought to live;

thus, “The one who does them shall live by them” [cf. Lev 18:5; 3:12b]. Paul's use of this quote

here carries the same meaning as the suggestion earlier that describes the meaning of “will live”

in Hab 2:4b.

Another important detail that needs to be considered here is the description of who it is

that lives by faith. It is “the righteous” in Paul's letters, and “a righteous one” in Habakkuk and

Hebrews. This innately implies that a person is deemed “righteous” on some other grounds than

his or her observance of YHWH's law [i.e., his or her belief in YHWH; Gen 15:6; Rom 4:1-17]. In

other words, in this phrase, the one who “lives by faith,” or by “his faithfulness,” is already

considered “righteous” [or “saved”]. His obedience, or faithfulness in keeping YHWH's

instructions, were not and are not the means that made him righteous, but rather the evidence that

he is righteous [cf. 1 Cor 5:7a]. This is what Paul is trying to communicate, and what Habakkuk

2:4 suggests as well.

Andersen comments that the author of Hebrews seems to carry a “fair reading” of

Habakkuk 2:3-4.85

More than being a “fair reading,” the use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Hebrews 10:37-

85

Andersen, 212.

31

38 offers the clearest understanding of its original meaning.86

Similar to Andersen, the author of

Hebrews understood that a part of the vision was about a person. The author of Hebrews alludes

to Jesus being this person when it states: “and the coming one will come and will not delay.”

Again, although the vision includes a person, it also contains the actions of that person [i.e.,

judgment; cf. Hab 3:3-15].

The contexts of the Hebrews passage and Habakkuk's are strikingly similar. The

circumstance is some kind of struggle or oppression, which calls for the individual to persevere

in the will of God. The author of Hebrews references the passage in Habakkuk to stir up hope,

reminding the believers that Messiah is to return [which attests to an eschatological reference of

the vision]. The important observation to note here, similar to the above statements, is that the

author of Hebrews clearly portrays his audience as the “righteous one[s]” and indicates that they

are to live by their faithfulness [cf. 10:36]. This speaks of a commitment to obedience, in

contrast to the one who “shrinks back.” Again, Hab 2:4b is used to describe how a “righteous

one” is supposed to live.

In short, in all three uses of Habakkuk 2:4 found in the New Testament, not one is meant

to explain how one acquires a saving righteousness. Rather, it is used as a description of both

the manner and the means of how a saved person [i.e., a “righteous one”] lives – in faithfulness

to God. By no means does this imply one is not justified by faith; for again, this phrase innately

suggests that. Recognizing the difference explained here has potential to not only re-orient

YHWH's people to the way of life he has designed, but also bring clarity and consistency to the

commonly held belief that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever [cf. Ps 90:2, 4; 102:25-

27; Mal 3:6; James 1:17].

86

This does not imply a negation, or a lesser meaning in Paul's usage. Paul and the author of Hebrews

reference this verse for different reasons, which all compliment the original meaning, not contradict.

32

In conclusion, Seifrid's assertion is correct if he means that Paul's gospel was grounded

on “the obedience of faith for the sake of [Jesus'] name among the nations” [cf. Rom 1:5]. This is

not, however, what Seifrid means. His statement concerns the doctrine of justification.87

R.

Simlai’s comment, on the other hand, holds solid ground; for, the essence of Torah is one’s

faithfulness to YHWH.88

To support both comments, it would be pertinent, and actually further

informative, to reference Paul's description of how one receives salvation and why one is saved:

For by grace you have been saved through [believing]. And this is not your own doing; it

is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his

workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand,

that we should walk in them. [Ephesians 2:8-10; emendation and emphasis mine]

“As the reason for works consists in faith, so the strength of faith consists in works.” 89

87 Seifrid, 134-135.

88 That is why YHWH, before giving Israel the Ten Commandments [and the rest of torah], reminds them,

“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” [Ex. 20:2]. In

essence, YHWH says, “Because I've saved you, obey me.” 89

Leo the Great, Tractatus septem et nonaginta. Edited by A. Chavasse. CCL 138 and 138A (Turnhout,

Belgium: Brepols, 1973), Cl. 1657, cited from Alberto Ferrerio and Thomas C. Oden, eds. Ancient Christian

Commentary on Scripture: The Twelve Prophets (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 2003), 187.

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk. The Anchor Bible Vol. 25. New York: Double Day, 2001.

Barker, Kenneth L. “Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,” electronic ed., Logos Library

System; The New American Commentary. Vol. 20. Nashville: Broadman & Holman

Publishers, 2001, c1999.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver and A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 2006.

Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian

Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Cobb, John B. and David J. Lull. "Romans," in Chalice Commentaries for Today. St. Louis:

Chalice Press, 2005.

Ferrerio, Alberto, and Thomas C. Oden, eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: The

Twelve Prophets. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 2003.

Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988.

Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1996.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old

Testament [TWOT]. Vol. 1. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Heflin, J. N. Boo. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Haggai. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets: An Introduction. New York: Harper&Row, 1962.

Leclerc, Thomas L. Introduction to the Prophets: Their Stories, Sayings, and Scrolls. New

York: Paulist Press, 2007.

O'Brien, Julia. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Nashville:

Abingdon, 2004.

Prior, David. The Message of Joel, Micah, and Habakkuk: Listening to the Voice of God.

Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1998.

Roberts, J. J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster

John Knox, 1991.

34

Seifrid, Mark A. "Paul's Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: Reflections on Israel's Exile in

Romans." In History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for

His 80th Birthday, edited by Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, 133-49. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge

Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985.