TEXT [Commentary]

  C.   Second Perplexity: How Can God Employ the Wicked Babylonians? (1:12–2:1)

12 O LORD my God, my Holy One, you who are eternal—

surely you do not plan to wipe us out?

O LORD, our Rock, you have sent these Babylonians to correct us,

to punish us for our many sins.

13 But you are pure and cannot stand the sight of evil.

Will you wink at their treachery?

Should you be silent while the wicked

swallow up people more righteous than they?

14 Are we only fish to be caught and killed?

Are we only sea creatures that have no leader?

15 Must we be strung up on their hooks

and caught in their nets while they rejoice and celebrate?

16 Then they will worship their nets

and burn incense in front of them.

“These nets are the gods who have made us rich!”

they will claim.

17 Will you let them get away with this forever?

Will they succeed forever in their heartless conquests?

CHAPTER 2

1 I will climb up to my watchtower

and stand at my guardpost.

There I will wait to see what the LORD says

and how he[*] will answer my complaint.

NOTES

1:12 my Holy One. This phrase, with its inclusion of “my,” occurs only here in the OT. Therefore, some editions of the Hebrew text suggest reading, “my Holy God.” But the title “Holy One” here anticipates its use in the epic psalm of the third chapter (3:3). It is also appropriate as a basis for the ethical dimension of the present context. A similar title, “the Holy One of Israel,” is used often in Isaiah.

eternal. The Hebrew form means lit., “from aforetime” but is usually employed in the sense of (1) “from of old” (Neh 12:46; Ps 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:9), (2) “from most ancient times” (Ps 74:12), or (3) “from everlasting” (Mic 5:2). Any of its common meanings is possible here, and each has its advocates. Thus R. L. Smith (1984) favors the first and the NJB the second. Most English versions (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV) and conservative expositors have followed the third alternative because the focus of the passage is more on God’s existence than on his past deeds (which come into view in ch 3). The NLT follows the third option.

wipe us out? The NLT rendering gives the sense of the Hebrew (lo’ namuth [TH3808/4191, ZH4202/4637], “we shall not die”), turning it into a question for divine consideration. Interestingly, Roberts (1991:101) cites this as one of the “corrections of the scribes,” restores the text as lo’ tamuth, and views it as a rhetorical question, “You will not die, will you?” Yet, as Robertson (1990:157-158) points out, the text as it stands is a statement of prophetic faith: “Instead of serving as an instrument of annihilation, the enemy being raised up by God against Israel must function as the divine tool for justice and for rebuke.”

our Rock. The term “rock” (tsur) is often used symbolically of God himself (cf. 1 Sam 2:2) as a place of refuge (Ps 18:2) for the trusting believer (Deut 32:15). Another word for “rock,” sela‘ [TH5553, ZH6152], is similarly used. The image of God as a rock is applied to Christ in the NT (1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 2:6-8).

1:13 the wicked. The identity of the wicked has been the subject of some controversy and has played a role in the argument over the setting of the book. If 1:5-11 is excised as a late interpolation (e.g., Wellhausen 1963), one could conceivably view the wicked in 1:4 and 1:13 as being the same. In such a case, they could be identified not only with godless Judahites but also with Egyptians (G. A. Smith 1929), Assyrians (Weiser 1961), or Chaldeans (Wellhausen 1963). The case for identifying the wicked with the Babylonians here is defended by Johnson (1985:257-266), who theorizes that the Babylonian oppression of Judah occasioned a severe questioning of God by his prophet. Habakkuk had expected the blessing of God for the keeping of the Torah and justice in association with the Josianic reforms but instead saw only great evil and, rather than relief, the threat of increased Babylonian violence. One could also follow Duhm 1875 in assuming the wicked to be the Greeks on the basis of the identification of the kasdim [TH3778, ZH4169] with the kittiyim [TH3794, ZH4183] (cf. 1:6).

By following the MT in 1:6, however, the wicked must be the Babylonians who are dubbed the “fishermen” in 1:15-17. Thus, they are not identical with the wicked in Judah of 1:4. Habakkuk’s argument is therefore a fortiori: As wicked as the Judahites were, they scarcely matched the Babylonians for wickedness.

swallow up people. Roberts (1991:103) suggests an allusion to the Ugaritic myth in which “Mot, the god of death swallows Baal” (Herdner 1963:5, i 5-8; ii 2-4). While this is possible, the remote time difference between Habakkuk and Ugaritic literature and the availability of this phrase as an image of defeat or the meting out of justice in Hebrew literature (e.g., Exod 15:12; Num 16:30-34) make the presumed allusion less than certain.

1:14 sea creatures. Although usually used of land creatures, the noun could refer also to gliding sea creatures (Ps 104:25).

1:15 nets. This plural noun translates two nouns in the Hebrew text: kherem [TH2764A, ZH3052] (dragnet) and mikmereth [TH4365, ZH4823] (fishnet). The latter word can also be used of a hunter’s net (e.g., Mic 7:2), as can its cognates mikmar [TH4364, ZH4821] and makmor [TH4364A, ZH4821], both meaning “net” or “snare” (e.g., Ps 141:10; Isa 51:20). The Hebrew word kherem is perhaps related to the Arabic root harama, meaning “perforate,” whereas mikmereth is cognate with Akkadian kamaru (trap with a snare). Though precise differentiation between the two words is difficult, Armerding (1985:507) seems to be correct in suggesting that “they appear to correspond to the two main types of net, the throw-net and the seine, used in New Testament times and up to the present in Palestine.” Ezekiel 47:10 seems to relate kherem to nets that are cast by fishermen standing on the shore, while the mikmereth is mentioned by Isaiah (Isa 19:8) as being employed by fishermen on the water.

rejoice. The NLT verb renders the compound verbal expression for rejoicing in the original text: yismakh weyagil [TH8055/1523, ZH8523/1635] (he rejoices and is glad). While the former verb appears to emphasize the general feeling of joyfulness of disposition that a person “feels all over,” the latter lays stress on the more emotional, enthusiastic, and, at times, spontaneous expression of joy. As in Ugaritic, so in Hebrew, they appear together as set parallel terms to express total gladness (e.g., Pss 14:7; 32:11).

1:16 worship . . . burn incense. Armerding (1985:508) points out that when these verbs occur together they always have connotations of illegitimate worship; hence the prophet was complaining that the Babylonians were cheating God of the honor due to him alone.

nets. This term may serve as a metaphor for the Babylonians’ devotion to the military prowess that brought them such a high standard of living. “Adopting the imagery of fishing, Habakkuk portrays the scenario that God has set in motion as one of fishermen (Chaldeans), who use their sophisticated and powerful hooks and nets (Neo-Babylonian military might and methods) to catch helpless fish and creatures of the sea (the various conquered peoples)” (Patterson 1991:159).

1:17 Will you let them get away with this forever? The Hebrew text reads, “Shall he therefore keep on emptying his dragnet?” Various proposals for emending the text have been made, however. For the MT’s khermo [TH2764A/2050.2, ZH3052/2257] (his net), Cathcart (1984:575-576) suggests romekho [TH7420/2050.2, ZH8242/2257] (his spear), while Roberts (1991:100-101) follows the lead of 1QpHab 6:8, which reads kharbo [TH2719/2050.2, ZH2995/2257] (his sword). Although “sword” makes good sense with the verb “empty” and the two words do occur together in the OT (e.g., Exod 15:9; Lev 26:33; Ezek 12:14), it is best to follow the MT, which preserves the imagery of fishing and the net found in the previous verses. For a discussion of further textual problems in the rest of the verse, see Patterson 1991:167.

2:1 I will climb up to my watchtower. Habakkuk reports his intention to assume the role of a watchman. As the city watchman manned his post atop the walls to look for any approaching danger (Ezek 33:2-6) or messenger (2 Sam 18:24-28; Isa 21:6-8; 52:7-10), or to keep watch over current events (1 Sam 14:16-17; 2 Kgs 9:17-20), so the OT prophet looked for the communication of God’s will so as to deliver it to the waiting people (Jer 6:17; Ezek 3:16-21; 33:7-9; Hos 9:8).

watchtower. The Hebrew text carries with it the sense of standing watch (mishmereth [TH4931, ZH5466]) at the ramparts or at one’s guard post (matsor [TH4692, ZH5189]). The noun mishmereth, although used at times with reference to a general post (Isa 21:8), stresses more the idea of watching as an activity (cf. Josh 22:3) or the object of such activity (cf. Deut 11:1). Accordingly, it is translated “watch” (KJV, NIV, RSV), whereas the place where such activity is carried on (i.e., a [guard] post; note NASB, NJB) is denoted by the cognate noun mishmar [TH4929, ZH5464] (“guard post,” Neh 4:9 [3]). Thus, the emphasis here is probably more on the activity of standing watch, the place itself being supplied in the parallel line by matsor.

complaint. The NLT follows the lead of a great many commentators and translations in reading tokakhath [TH8433A, ZH9350] as “complaint.” However, a number of commentators (e.g., Armerding 1985, Pusey 1953, Roberts 1991, Robertson 1990) and translations (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB) opt for “rebuke.” Some think it is Habakkuk’s rebuke of God, while others take it to mean God’s rebuke of Habakkuk. Either way, “rebuke” is a better choice than “complaint” for two reasons: (1) The Hebrew noun is based on the verbal root found in 1:12 (yakakh [TH3198, ZH3519], “reprove,” “correct”) and thus is intentionally chosen both as a play on meanings and as a bookend to form an inclusio (1:12–2:1). (2) A confused, not criticizing, prophet awaited the Lord’s response and rebuke. Habakkuk was not so much challenging God with a complaint as he was desiring to have his perplexities alleviated and his viewpoint corrected. His reaction to God’s reproof would have a telling effect on his own spiritual condition and the effectiveness of his entire ministry. It was a crucial moment for God’s prophet, and he was to prove worthy of the test. Thus, Armerding (1985:509) remarks, “He revealed a mature wisdom in his determination that this response be shaped by what God Himself would say. It is a wise man who takes his questions about God to God for the answers.”

COMMENTARY [Text]

In reacting to God’s first explanation, Habakkuk reminded himself of God’s eternality and covenant relationship to Israel. By calling on Yahweh, Habakkuk revealed his awareness of the fact that God has seen it all. Despite any misgivings Habakkuk might have had, he put his confidence in the Lord who is eternal. As such, God alone was sufficient for his need. He not only is the eternally existent one but also has remained Israel’s covenant God since the days of their forefathers (cf. Deut 7:6; Ps 89:1-37).

Habakkuk also addressed God with other familiar names and titles. He is ’elohim [TH430, ZH466] (God), the sovereign and preeminent one. Habakkuk also called God “my Holy One.” Because holiness is represented in the Scriptures as being the quintessential attribute of God (Exod 15:11; Ps 99:9; Isa 6:3), and is therefore the dynamic of the believer’s ethic (Exod 19:6; Lev 11:44; 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16), God is often called “the Holy One” (e.g., Job 6:10; Isa 57:15) and especially the “Holy One of Israel” (Pss 71:22; 89:18; and 26 times in Isaiah!). Habakkuk also called God a rock. The word found here was often used symbolically of God himself (1 Sam 2:2) as a place of refuge (Ps 18:2) for the trusting believer (Deut 32:15). To whom else could Habakkuk turn?

Taken at face value, Habakkuk’s words are a statement of the prophet’s ultimate confidence in God. They reflect Habakkuk’s firm grasp of covenant truth: Despite Israel’s certain chastisement, God would remain faithful to his promise to the patriarchs (Gen 17:2-8; 26:3-5; 28:13-15), to Israel (Exod 3:3-15; Deut 7:6; 14:1-2; 26:16-18), and to the house of David (2 Sam 7:12-29).

While he rehearsed important scriptural truths relative to God’s person, Habakkuk also used them to challenge God’s method of operation in the present circumstances. Since God is a just God, how could he use an even more wicked nation as an agent to chastise his own people? The prophet had lost sight of several facts: (1) God’s ways are not always in accordance with human thinking. (2) God truly was sovereign in this matter and therefore should be trusted. (3) God is a God of justice and will mete out the merited judgment for sin, even though the means of punishment may not be immediately understood. Habakkuk had momentarily lost track of the kind of God he served.

Lest we be too critical of God’s prophet, we need to remember that Habakkuk was bringing his honest queries to God and laying them before him. Furthermore, there is every reason to think that he himself had second thoughts concerning his own line of argumentation (see note on 2:1, “complaint”). Where genuine doubt and perplexities exist, God patiently brings the needed reproof (cf. Jonah 4:10-11) and correction (cf. Ps 73:18-25). This would also be Habakkuk’s experience (cf. 3:17-19). Habakkuk had noted that the Babylonians had been sent to reprove and correct the Judahites. Similarly, he expected and deserved God’s correction concerning his doubts and his understanding of the full scope of God’s plans for the future. Robertson (1990:167) observes, “Habakkuk braces himself for the rebuke of the Lord. He has presumed to breach the silence enshrouding the relation of his people to their God. Now having entered this dialogue, he must prepare to respond to the reproof that is sure to come.”

This section reinforces the need of proper prayer and full honesty before God. Only thus can one’s prayers be properly formed. The believer must desire God’s will, not his own perception of it, to be done and to be willing to accept God’s answer, even if it comes in a way totally foreign to his own thinking.

This portion of Scripture also stands as a firm reminder to evaluate life’s priorities. The Babylonians, rather than thanking God for their success, worshiped that which brought them bounty: raw power. For each of us, this poses the question of how we handle our successes. How easy it is to make such a thing our god—whether it be prestige, power, position, wealth, or even home and family. John’s warning is a timeless one: “Keep away from anything that might take God’s place in your hearts” (1 John 5:21).