HABAKKUK

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. The Prophet

Beyond his name, which does not occur again, nothing is known of the Prophet. The word Ḥabaḳḳuḳ probably means “embrace,” or, if its doubly intensive form be taken into account, “ardent embrace.” The Greek form of the name, Hambakoum[10], would rather suggest the pronunciation Habbakuk. It is possible that the abstract “embrace” was used for object of embrace, darling or delight, a natural enough name for a child (2 Kings 4:16). In Assyrian ḥambaḳûḳu is said to be the name of a plant.

[10] So Swete, Septuagint, Ἁμβακούμ.

The superscription to the Septuagint rendering of Bel and the Dragon states that the story was taken “From the prophecy of Hambakoum, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi.” Whether such an Apocryphal prophecy ever existed may be doubtful. The Levitical origin of the prophet is most likely an inference from the musical notes to ch. 3, particularly the last words of the chapter “on my stringed instruments” (though Sept. reads his for my). According to Epiphanius Habakkuk belonged to Bethzochar or Bethzachar (which is probably Bethzacharias in the south of Judah, 1Ma 6:32, Joseph. Bell. Jud. I. 1, 5), of the tribe of Simeon. It is said that when Jerusalem fell in 586 he fled to Ostracine on the borders of Egypt, but returned to his native place on the withdrawal of the Chaldeans (cf. Jeremiah 40:11-12), and died two years before the return of the exiles from Babylon. His tomb was pointed out in Keilah. The story of Bel and the Dragon (v. 33 seq.) says: “Now there was in Jewry the prophet Habakkuk, who had made pottage, and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field, for to bring it to the reapers. But the angel of the Lord said unto Habakkuk, Go carry the dinner that thou hast into Babylon unto Daniel, in the lions’ den.… Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown, and lifted him up by the hair of the head, and with the blast of his breath set him in Babylon over the den.” This took place after Babylon had fallen, when Cyrus was king. It may be questioned if any grain of truth can be found among these fables. Both traditions extend the lifetime of Habakkuk to about the downfall of Babylon before Cyrus (b.c. 538), and it would be in conformity with the sense of the traditions to infer that Habakkuk’s prophetic message could not have been delivered long before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586. The internal evidence of the prophecy itself points to the same conclusion.

§ 2. The Prophecy

There are very great difficulties connected with the exposition of the prophecy. First, it is not clear whether ch. Habakkuk 1:1-4 refer to internal evil and wrong on the part of Israelites to each other, or to acts of violence and oppression committed upon Israel by a conqueror from without. And secondly, the Chaldeans are referred to in ch. Habakkuk 1:5-11 in a way not quite easy to understand, Habakkuk 1:5-6 seeming to say that they are about to be raised up, while Habakkuk 1:7-11 appear to describe them and their operations in war as if they were already familiar. If they are referred to in ch. Habakkuk 1:12-17, as is natural to conclude from the connexion, the prophet’s acquaintance with them is if possible more evident, and the words in ch. Habakkuk 2:17 “the violence done to Lebanon shall cover thee” plainly imply that their depredations had already extended to Palestine.

i. Ch. Habakkuk 1:1-4 may be understood as a complaint regarding internal wrong and injustice in Israel, in the manner of all the ancient prophets. This is the most natural sense of the verses and of the words used in them (see notes). On this view the progress of thought would be the following: (1) the prophet complains that his outcries against the evil, the injustice and lawlessness in Judah remain unheard by Jehovah, who disregards the evil. (2) In answer to his complaint the rise of the Chaldeans is announced. The fierceness of the people is described—a bitter and hasty nation; the lightning-like movements of their cavalry; their contempt of all resistance; and finally their impious deifying of their own might (Habakkuk 1:5-7). (3) But the wrongdoing of the Chaldean is more unbearable than the evil it was meant to punish. The Chaldean is the scourge of mankind. The moral problem before the prophet—how God can silently look upon wrong and inhumanity—is not eased but intensified. In ch. Habakkuk 1:1-4 he asked how Jehovah could endure evil in Israel; now he has to ask how His pure eyes can behold it upon the stage of the world, and in a degree infinitely aggravated. The character of the Chaldeans fills his mind, their pride and selfishness, their brutal inhumanity which drags all nations into their net like fishes, and heaps men together like creeping things, their deifying their own strength, and he asks in despair if God will permit all this to go on for ever (Habakkuk 1:12-17). (4) Baffled before the obscurities and anomalies of God’s government the prophet betakes himself to his watch-tower to look forth if God will vouchsafe an answer to his “plea.” The answer comes in the shape of a moral distinction: “his soul is not upright in him, but the righteous shall live in his faithfulness.” The different characters of the Chaldean and the righteous carry in them their different destinies. The moral distinction involves its final verification in events, though this may not come at once (Habakkuk 2:1-5). It is, however, certain; and the downfall of the Chaldean is predicted in a series of woes so instinct with moral feeling that not only men (Habakkuk 2:6-8), but inanimate things (Habakkuk 2:11), are endowed with a conscience that rises against the barbarous inhumanity of the oppressor (Habakkuk 2:6-20).

On this view it is plain that when the prophet writes, the Chaldeans are already long on the stage of history, and well known in western Asia and even in Palestine. This indeed is plain on any hypothesis if chs. 1, 2 form a unity, as the remarks in the beginning of this section shew. Therefore ch. Habakkuk 1:5-11 is not a prophecy of the raising up of the Chaldeans except in form. It is a reference to the past, an explanation merely of their presence and meaning as instruments of Jehovah. The real subject of the prophet’s Book is the destruction of the Chaldean (ch. 2). Ch. 1 (or at least ch. Habakkuk 1:1-11) is preliminary, and has the dramatic form of a dialogue between the prophet and Jehovah. It is a discussion or exhibition of principles, the first draft of questionings that at a later time often found expression. Ch. 1 is a moral weighing of the meaning of Israel’s history. In this history these things come into view: first, the sin of Israel—looked at exclusively in a moral light. This sin is confessed and bewailed, and Jehovah is appealed to how He can look upon it. The historical meaning of the appeal is that He cannot look upon it, has not looked upon it. The nation’s condition is His judgment upon it. For, secondly, the Chaldean is the punishment of it.

In these two points the prophet reads his people’s history as all the prophets do. And the preexilic prophets do not usually, except in glimpses, see further. To them the Chaldeans were so much the instruments of Jehovah in chastising the sins of Israel that their own excesses were little attended to. The evil in Israel seemed so flagrant that the cruelties of the conquerors appeared only just punishment of it. This is the view of Jeremiah and particularly of Ezekiel. It is only later, during the exile, and in particular toward the end of it, as in Isaiah 13, 14, Isaiah 21:1-10; Isaiah 40 seq., that the excesses of the Chaldeans are viewed as demanding God’s vengeance (Isaiah 47). But thirdly, already this view is prominent in Habakkuk. It is not the mere occurrence of a denunciation of the Chaldeans that is surprising, it is the almost entire devotion of the prophecy to it in the manner of writers of a later time. Preexilic prophets predict the downfall of Babylon, e.g. Jeremiah 51:59-64 and in other places. It is also tacitly assumed by Ezekiel when he promises restoration to Egypt and Israel after forty years. And a similar conception of providence appears in Isaiah, who prophesies the destruction of the Assyrian when God’s work by him shall be accomplished (Isaiah 8:9-10; Isaiah 8:10; Isaiah 14:24; Isaiah 17:12; Isaiah 18:4). But in all these prophets it is the sin of Israel and its chastisement that occupies the foreground, while the destruction of the oppressor is seen only as the distant culmination of God’s providential rule of the world in the interests of His kingdom. In Habakkuk on the contrary the excesses and violence of the oppressor occupy nearly the whole field of the prophet’s vision. This could hardly be if he was only predicting the rise of the Chaldeans. Their barbarities were familiar. And the thought rises in the prophet’s mind that though Israel might be sinful the instrument used to chastise them was even more the foe of God, as he was the scourge of mankind. Such thoughts could not arise early in the Chaldean period, hardly one would think before the deportation of the people under Jehoiachin in 597. The vision of the prophet in ch. 2 is the answer to these reflections. It is to be noticed that the relief promised is not represented as going to be immediate: the vision may tarry and must be waited for (Habakkuk 2:3). Jeremiah had predicted that the Chaldean supremacy would last two generations. The problem here raised for the first time by Habakkuk continued to oppress the minds of pious Israelites all down the people’s history. It is the problem of Job and of many psalms; and when the Romans destroyed the Temple and nation the mystery appeared only deeper than before: 2Es 3:29-31, “Are the deeds of Babylon better than those of Sion? Or is there any other nation that knoweth thee beside Israel?” Cf. Apoc. of Baruch, 11:2, 3.

ii. The construction of the Book just stated has something artificial in it. To regard the prophet’s complaints in Habakkuk 1:1-4 as not strictly real but only a method of stating one of the terms of a problem, viz. Israel’s sinfulness, is rather unnatural. And similarly to take the announcement of the rise of the Chaldeans and the description of their prowess in war, as only a method of stating the second term of the problem, viz. that the Chaldean invasion is the chastisement of Israel’s sin, certainly puts a strain upon the natural sense. To many expositors ch. Habakkuk 1:1-4 seem rather to refer to oppressions suffered by Israel from an external foe, presumably the Chaldeans. But if Habakkuk 1:1-4 already describe the oppressive acts of the Chaldeans it is obvious that Habakkuk 1:5-11, which speak of raising them up, are out of place. Hence some scholars have proposed to put these verses before Habakkuk 1:1-4[11], while others would remove them altogether, regarding them as a fragment of some prophecy of the rise of the Chaldeans by another prophet, which has accidentally drifted into its present awkward place[12]. The proposal to read Habakkuk 1:5-11 before Habakkuk 1:1-4 will not commend itself, while the removal of Habakkuk 1:5-11 from the prophecy altogether rather cuts the knot than looses it.

[11] Giesebrecht, Beiträge zur Jesaiakritik, p. 197 (1890).

[12] Wellhausen, Skizzen v. Other earlier solutions of the difficulty are noticed by Kuenen, Onderz. § 76.

iii. An entirely different and very interesting way of reading the prophecy has recently been suggested by Prof. Budde[13]. This scholar agrees with the writers just named in regarding ch. Habakkuk 1:1-4 as descriptive of oppressions suffered by Israel from an external foe. He therefore also considers Habakkuk 1:5-11 to be out of place; the order of ch. 1 Isaiah vv1-4, 12-17. In ch. 1 the Chaldean has no place. It is not he that is the oppressor of Israel, but another—the Assyrian. The prophecy predicts the destruction of the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans are God’s instruments who are to be raised up for this purpose. The passage ch. Habakkuk 1:5-11 is authentic, but has been misplaced. Its right position is after ch. Habakkuk 2:4.

[13] Stud. u. Krit. 1893, Heft 2, Expositor, May, 1895.

In the way of this attractive hypothesis there are rather serious difficulties, some of which may be mentioned.

(1) The transposition of Habakkuk 2:5-11 from their true place after ch. Habakkuk 2:4 into ch. 1 is difficult to account for. Budde offers a very ingenious explanation. In the original prophecy of Habakkuk the Chaldeans were represented as the destroyers of Assyria and the liberators of Israel. This rôle of redeemers of Israel was so little verified in history that at a later time it appeared incredible that such an idea could ever have been expressed. And in the process of editing the Book an effort was made to remove so strange a mistake. The part played by the Chaldean was changed. Instead of the liberator of Israel he was made the oppressor, and instead of the destroyer of another he became himself the one to be destroyed. And a prophecy that really referred to the Assyrian was henceforth read as applying to the Chaldean. Such an alteration would not be made earlier than 538, when the Babylonian empire fell before Cyrus.

This is possible; if it be true, criticism is not without its romance.

(2) It is strange that in a prophecy of two chapters against the Assyrian his name should nowhere occur. The suggestion that the name Asshur possibly lies concealed in the word “and offend”[14] (Habakkuk 1:11) is little probable, for though the passage be difficult a reference to Assyria could hardly find place.

[14] Expositor, l. c.

(3) To the objection that in Habakkuk 1:5-11 the Chaldeans and their methods of warfare appear well known the author replies that so far from this being true the description of the Chaldean is quite phantastic and imaginative, and similar to Isaiah’s picture of the Assyrians before they became known, Isaiah 5:26-30. This is not the impression which Habakkuk 1:5-11 leaves on other minds; the description appears quite as realistic as that in Habakkuk 1:12-17, supposed to refer to the Assyrians. Both passages certainly have something singular about them. On the ordinary view that Habakkuk 1:5-11 is in its right place, and that the Chaldean is raised up to chastise Israel, it is strange that not a word is said of Israel in all the passage; it is the Chaldean’s demeanour among the nations of the world universally that is described. And the same is true of Habakkuk 1:12-17, where the only reference to Israel is in the phrase “we shall not die,” and a change of text adopted by many would remove even this reference. The prophet’s reference to the nations in general is due to the universality of his moral conception, for it is not Israel alone that is “righteous” in contrast to the conqueror, but other peoples also (Habakkuk 1:13). His view is similar to that of Nahum 2, 3.

(4) Budde would date the prophecy about b.c. 621–15, in the years immediately following Josiah’s reformation. During these years Israel had a “good conscience,” which would explain the term “righteous” applied to the people (Habakkuk 1:4; Habakkuk 1:13). It is not Israel alone, however, that is called righteous but other nations also (Habakkuk 1:13); and even as applied to Israel the term “righteous” is a very uncertain criterion of date. The claim to “righteousness” is really a claim to be worshippers of the true God, and this claim was not made for the first time under Josiah (Numbers 23:10); neither did it cease to be made after Josiah’s death. Ezekiel 25:8 appears to intimate that even the nations were not unaware of Israel’s claim to this preeminence. The epithet “wicked” bestowed on the nations is the counterpart of “righteous” applied to Israel, and means primarily that the nations did not know Jehovah the true God. The antithesis is clearly expressed in Jeremiah 10:24-25, where Israel prays: “O Lord, correct me, but with judgment … pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and on the peoples that call not on thy name.” And the antithesis is current in all subsequent literature; cf. Isaiah 13:11; Isaiah 14:5; Isaiah 53:9; Isaiah 26:10; Habakkuk 3:13. And on the claim of the people to righteousness even after the fall of the city, cf. Lamentations 5:7. See also 2 Kings 24:3; Jeremiah 31:29; Ezekiel 18:2.

To the date 621–15 b.c. there are several objections on the theory that the Assyrians are the subject of the prophecy. It is true that not much is known of the history of Assyria after the death of Assurbanipal in 626, but it is certain that its hold over the western provinces had become greatly relaxed. If ch. Habakkuk 1:1-4 refer to violence and oppression on the part of the Assyrians the terms are greatly exaggerated if applied to the condition of Judah at the time. The phrase “the Torah is slacked,” i.e. paralysed, does not consist well with the fact that Josiah was at the time carrying his reforming movement into the northern kingdom without hindrance, and that a little later he disputed with Necho the possession of Galilee. Neither is the language “spoiling and violence are before me,” “strife and contention riseth up,” natural when applied to Judah of that day, which was virtually independent. Such language far exceeds what is said in Nahum 1.

Again, the knowledge possessed by the prophet of the Chaldeans, and the great rôle of destroyers of the Assyrian power assigned to them, are not very probable at a date so early as 621–15. Nabopolassar, the Chaldean ruler of Babylon, was still probably the nominal vassal of Assyria. The virtual independence of Babylon was a thing that had occurred too often in history, and too often disappeared to awaken any great expectations. The Chaldeans, one of whose princes had seized the throne of Babylon, formed several small principalities about the mouths of the two great rivers and on the Persian Gulf, but there was nothing in their movements hitherto to suggest the great part they were to play after the fall of Nineveh made them heirs of an empire almost without a stroke. It is not certain whether they took part in the attack on Nineveh to which it succumbed; Herodotus ascribes the capture of the city to the Medes and does not refer to Babylon[15]. The Medes were satisfied with the acquisition of Assyria proper, a country like their own, while the Chaldeans naturally pushed northward into Mesopotamia, meeting with no resistance till they encountered the Egyptians at Carchemish on the fords of the Euphrates. The description of the Chaldeans in ch. Habakkuk 1:5-11, the rush of their cavalry, the rapidity of their siege operations, the velocity of their movements, and their irresistible might, is scarcely conceivable before the battle of Carchemish (605–4). It is at this date that the Chaldeans first come within the horizon of Jeremiah (ch. 25, 46), for the foe from the North of his earlier prophecies is rather, as most scholars suppose, the Scythians. And as late as the battle of Megiddo (b.c. 608) the historian still speaks of Assyria as the only power to be encountered in the East, saying: “In his (Josiah’s) days Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates” (2 Kings 23:29; cf. 2 Chronicles 35:20).

[15] Winckler, Altorient. Untersuch., i. 63, ii. 170, The Medes and the Fall of Nineveh. Clay tablets found in Nippur shew that Babylon was still an Assyrian province in the fourth year of Assur-etil-ilani, the successor of Assurbanipal, and probably it continued to be so even in the reign of the last king. See Mürdter-Delitzsch, Gesch. Babyloniens und Assyriens, pp. 234, 235. See Appendix.

(5) The woes pronounced in ch. Habakkuk 2:5 ff. might be applied either to the Assyrians or Chaldeans; there is little in them that favours one application more than another. The pride and overbearing demeanour referred to in ch. Habakkuk 2:4 is elsewhere spoken of as characteristic of the Chaldeans; the term “pride” is a name given to Babylon, Jeremiah 50:31-32; comp. Habakkuk 1:7. The charge of “spoiling” all nations and being the foe and oppressor of mankind, though made by Nahum against Assyria (ch. Habakkuk 3:1; Habakkuk 3:19), is elsewhere brought against Babylon: “How art thou cut down to the ground that didst lay prostrate the nations!” “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof?” (Isaiah 14:6; Isaiah 14:12; Isaiah 14:16; cf. Habakkuk 1:10). The reference to “violence toward Lebanon” (ch. Habakkuk 2:17) finds a parallel in Isaiah 14:8, “the fir-trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down no feller cometh up against us,” though of course the Assyrians used the wood of Lebanon for their buildings no less than the Babylonians. The charge of contemptuous humiliation of conquered nations and kings, under the figure of making them drunk and looking on their shame, is one that might be made against any ancient conqueror (Jeremiah 51:7). Perhaps the language “to set his nest on high” (ch. Habakkuk 2:9) is more suitable to Nineveh than Babylon, but little stress can be laid on words in any case figurative.

There is, however, one point which is rather adverse to the supposition that different nations are referred to in Habakkuk 1:5-11 and Habakkuk 1:12-17. In Habakkuk 1:16 the nation spoken of deifies its might or its weapons, “they sacrifice to their net, and burn incense unto their drag.” In Habakkuk 1:11 virtually the same thing is said of the Chaldeans, “this his power becometh his god.” It is improbable that the same thing should be said of two different nations; and is it not doubly improbable that such an impious trait should be attributed to the Chaldeans at the same time that they are represented as Jehovah’s instruments for overthrowing the godless Assyrians? Equally strange is the statement in Habakkuk 1:9, “they come all for violence,” or, “wrong,” if said of a people who were going to play the part of liberators of Israel.

The verses ch. Habakkuk 1:5-11 would not read quite naturally after ch. Habakkuk 2:4. It may be the case that Habakkuk 2:5 does not follow Habakkuk 2:4 naturally, but the true reading of Habakkuk 2:5 has been lost. And finally, in the woes pronounced on the oppressor it is all the remnant of the peoples that shall rise up against him and spoil him (Habakkuk 2:7-8), and not a particular nation such as the Chaldeans.

It must be acknowledged that the way in which the oppressor is spoken of in Habakkuk 1:12-17; Habakkuk 1:2 : implies close acquaintance with him. If he is the Chaldean, Judah must already have suffered from the ravages of that people. If the oppressor could be supposed to be the Assyrian, the prophet’s familiarity with him would be quite natural. The prophecy would then form a complete parallel to that of Nahum, to which in any case it has many similarities. The difficulties, however, in the way of supposing the Assyrian the subject of the prophecy, some of which have been mentioned, are very considerable. Upon the whole the first mentioned theory, which accepts ch. 1 as it stands, and explains Habakkuk 1:1-4 of wrong doing on the part of the people of Judah themselves, is the one which has fewest difficulties, though it must be confessed that the interpretation which is put upon ch. Habakkuk 1:1-11 is not quite natural.

§ 3. Integrity of the Prophecy

The difficulties connected with ch. Habakkuk 1:5-11 have been sufficiently adverted to in § 2. A number of scholars have contended that the passage ch. Habakkuk 2:9-20 is an addition to the genuine prophecy of Habakkuk, which itself goes no further than Habakkuk 2:8. The objections to the genuineness of Habakkuk 2:9-20 do not appear of great weight. They are fully stated by Kuenen, Vol. II. 388.

Kuenen has the feeling that the strophe Habakkuk 2:9-11, “Woe to him that gaineth evil gains for his house that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the hand of evil” &c., could hardly have been said of the Chaldean. It is not quite clear where the difficulty lies. Surely “delivered from the hand of evil” need not imply present danger but might be said of prospective or possible calamity. There may be some uncertainty as to the text of Habakkuk 2:10, but the idea expressed in it “thou hast consulted shame to thy house,” finds a parallel in Isaiah 14:20, “thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people.” Hitzig thought that the passage applied to Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 22:13), but another commentator has well asked, Did Jehoiakim cut off many peoples? (Jeremiah 22:10).

The originality of the strophe Jeremiah 22:15-17 is also doubted by Kuenen, partly on account of the repetition of Jeremiah 22:8 in Jeremiah 22:17; and partly because devastations of Lebanon are mentioned, “of which nothing is known.” The repetition of a refrain is of course usual; the repetition rather tends to shew that Jeremiah 22:17 is by the same author as Jeremiah 22:8, which is acknowledged to be authentic. The statement that “nothing is known” of devastations of Lebanon by the Chaldeans is strange; certainly the author of Isaiah 14:8 knew of them: “The fir-trees rejoice over thee, the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down no feller cometh up against us.” Kuenen also appears to think that the words “woe to him that giveth his neighbour drink” refer to some actual occurrence. It is said that Cyaxares made the Scythian chiefs drunk at a banquet and then murdered them. Whether the story be true or not there is not much likelihood that a writer in Judah had heard of it. At all events the charge against the Chaldean here is different; it is that he made his neighbour drunk, not in order to murder him, but to look upon his shame. The figurativeness of the whole passage is evident from the threat that the Chaldean himself shall be treated in the same way: he also shall be made drunk and lie uncovered; and it is the cup of Jehovah’s right hand of which he shall drink.

It appears improbable to Kuenen that the strophe Isaiah 14:18-20 can refer to the Chaldeans, because the prophet could hardly have blamed a heathen nation for its idolatry; the idolaters whom he has in view must be people “who knew better” (i.e. some persons not heathens). The whole scope of the passage is against Kuenen’s interpretation of it. What the prophet assails in these verses is idolatry in itself, the idolatry of the heathen. It is in writers of a somewhat later date that this theoretical condemnation of idolatry is common, e.g. Isaiah 40:18 seq., Isaiah 44:9 seq., Isaiah 46:5 seq., Jeremiah 10:1-10 (verses later than Jer.), Psalm 115:4-8, earlier prophets usually condemn idolatry in Israel. The prophet, however, anticipates in so remarkable a manner several modes of thought common at a later time that the difficulty cannot be called serious; and as to the improbability of a prophet condemning the heathen for their idolatry, it may be said that the prophets sometimes judge the conduct of the heathen from their own point of view rather than from that of the heathen themselves. Thus in Isaiah 47:10 a consciousness of wrongdoing is ascribed to Babylon which she can scarcely have had, “Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, thou hast said, None seeth me”; and Isaiah 10:10-11 makes the king of Assyria call the idols of the nations “vanities,” which is Isaiah’s own word for them. Comp. remarks, Ezekiel, Cambridge Bible, pp. 179, 180.

More plausible is the objection to the strophe Isaiah 10:12-14, which appears to contain reminiscences of several passages, some of which are late. Thus Isaiah 10:12 is similar to Micah 3:10; Micah 5:14 to Isaiah 11:9; Isaiah 5:13 to Jeremiah 51:58. Both Micah and Isaiah are earlier than Habakkuk, but Jeremiah 51. in its present form is probably later. The words in Jer., apart from the transposition of “vanity” and “fire,” have something unusual in their construction, and seem rather loosely connected with the preceding clause. The words therefore may be original in Habakkuk, and this all the more, seeing that Jeremiah 50, 51 are so greatly coloured by reminiscences from earlier prophecies. The phrase, “Behold is it not of the Lord of hosts?” (Habakkuk 2:13) is peculiar, and the reading followed by the Sept., “Are not these things from the Lord of hosts?” is simpler. Even this reading does not imply that what follows, “the peoples shall labour for the fire,” is a quotation, though it permits that sense. These (i.e. the following) things may refer to the contents of the statement, and these may be the prophet’s own. Opinions will differ on the question whether Habakkuk was likely to quote Isaiah and Micah.

The question whether ch. 3 belong to the prophecy of Habakkuk, or be an independent poem, cannot be answered with certainty. The musical directions with which the poem is provided shew that it was at some time or other used in the musical service of the Temple. Such musical directions may be assumed to be post-exile; at all events they are probably in no case due to the authors of the hymns to which they are appended (see notes on Habakkuk 3:19). Kuenen has inferred from the musical notes that the hymn once belonged to a book of sacred songs, from which it has been transferred to the Book of the prophet, possibly because ascribed to him in a Title, just as certain psalms are ascribed in the Sept. to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Psalms 146 ff.). On this supposition the authorship of Habakkuk would be very uncertain, for even in the Psalter the names of authors given in the Titles to the Psalms are in many cases nothing more than conjectures or traditions of more or less antiquity. The alternative supposition would be that, though an integral part of the prophecy, the poem was used in the liturgical service, and that the musical directions with which it was provided for this purpose continued to stand. Such a use of any part of a prophetic book has no parallel.

The passage is very indefinite, giving no clue to the occasion on which it was written, and it has few points of contact with the prophecy, ch. Habakkuk 1:2 The “day of trouble” (ch. Habakkuk 3:16) cannot be the Chaldean invasion (ch. Habakkuk 1:5 ff.), for the whole scope of the prophecy shews that the Chaldeans were already present; neither does the prophecy suggest any approaching aggravation in the Chaldean oppression; all that is stated is that immediate relief from it cannot be guaranteed (ch. Habakkuk 2:3). The “day of trouble” is manifestly a theophany, a manifestation of Jehovah for the deliverance of His people, like that of the Exodus; such a manifestation is terrible even though its issue be salvation (Isaiah 21:1-10). The passage, ch. Habakkuk 2:4, which contains an implicit promise of the destruction of the oppressor, does not suggest a theophany, and in the following woes the judgment is executed on the Chaldean not by the Lord directly but by the nations, who rise up and spoil their spoiler. At the same time it is possible that the prophet might have idealized the destruction of the Chaldean as a great interposition and revelation of Jehovah, as other prophets do (Isaiah 13). The last verse of ch. 2, “Be silent before him all the earth,” perhaps suggests a self-revelation of the Lord which all flesh shall behold, and ch. 3 attaches itself very well to these words.

There is little else in the poem that has any bearing on date or authorship. The application of the term “anointed” to the people might suggest that the royal house no longer existed (Psalm 105:15). The tone of reflection on Providence which is characteristic of the prophecy (cf. Jeremiah 12:1 ff.), and which makes the Book read almost like a chapter from the literature of the Wisdom, is very unlike the manner of ch. 3, which has affinities rather with lyrics of a pretty late age. At the same time the date of the hymn cannot be brought down very low, for traces of its influence appear in Psalm 77:15-20.

§ 4. Contents of the Book

Chap. 1 (1) The prophet complains that his appeals to God against the violence and wrongdoing in Israel remain unheard by Jehovah, who beholds the evil in silence (Psalm 77:1-4).

(2) In answer to his complaint the prophet’s view is directed to the Chaldeans. This people is described—their fierceness, the lightning-like movements of their cavalry, their irresistible onset, their contempt for kings who oppose them, and fortresses that bar their way, and finally their deifying their own might (Psalm 77:5-11).

(3) The answer does not ease but rather aggravates the moral problem before the prophet—how the righteous Ruler of the world can look in silence upon the wrongs perpetrated on the earth. The character of the Chaldeans fills his mind, their cruelties and inhumanity, their remorseless and contemptuous trampling upon the nations of the earth, whom they sweep into their net as if they were fishes of the sea and creeping things, and he asks in despair, Will God suffer all this to go on for ever? (Psalm 77:12-17).

Ch. 2 (1) The prophet’s “plea” or remonstrance (Habakkuk 2:12-17) is finished, and he sets himself as a watchman to look forth if God will vouchsafe an answer to his pleading. He is bidden write the answer, when it comes, on the tablets, that all may read it easily. The answer is given in the shape of a moral distinction, and this distinction carries in it the different destinies of the Chaldean and the Righteous—destruction on the one side and life on the other (Habakkuk 2:1-4).

(2) The destruction of the Chaldean is predicted in a series of woes upon the evil traits of his nature and upon his deeds (Habakkuk 2:5-17). (a) Woe upon his insatiable lust of conquest (Habakkuk 2:5-8). (b) Woe on his rapacity and self-aggrandisement (Habakkuk 2:9-11). (c) Woe on his oppression of the peoples to gratify his architectural pride (Habakkuk 2:12-14). (d) Woe on his contemptuous humiliation of prostrate potentates and nations (Habakkuk 2:15-17). (e) Woe upon his irrational idolatries (Hab_2:18–20).

Chap. 3 (1) A prayer that Jehovah would renew His great ancient “work” in delivering His people. It is the community or people into whose mouth the prayer is put. Though fear seizes them when they hear or think of His terrible revelation of Himself at the Exodus (cf. Exodus 14:30-31), nevertheless they pray that He would renew this work again at this late time in their history; only when He comes forth in wrath let Him remember mercy! (Exodus 14:1-2).

(2) Brilliant description of the ancient Theophany (Exodus 14:3-15). (a) The Theophany in the form of a tempest in which Jehovah reveals Himself in awful light. The terror of nature and men at His presence (Exodus 14:3-7). (b) The poet asks, What is the purpose of Jehovah’s manifestation? Is His wrath against the rivers and the sea? The question is a rhetorical way of giving expression to the destructive effects on nature of Jehovah’s revelation of Himself, and leads to a new description of these effects. The mountains tremble, the sea rises in wild commotion, and sun and moon hide themselves in terror at His glittering arrows as they fly (Exodus 14:6-11). (c) The question of the purpose of Jehovah’s appearing is answered: He is come forth for the salvation of His people, His anointed. Description of the destruction of their adversaries, Pharaoh and his host, who thought to swallow them up (Exodus 14:12-15). Exodus 14:16 expresses anew the alarm which the recital or thought of Jehovah’s manifestation occasions.

(3) Conclusion (Exodus 14:17-19). The people expresses its joy in the Lord. Though earthly blessings fail He remains their portion. And from Him they draw a freshness of life, a sense of freedom and power, which are unfailing.

The prophet’s language is forcible, and his style, owing to the form of dialogue into which he throws his thoughts, highly dramatic. If the interpretation adopted in the notes be correct, ch. Habakkuk 1:1-4 refers to sin and wrongdoing in Israel; if the opinion of many interpreters of the prophecy be accepted, these verses relate to acts of oppression suffered by Israel. In the latter case the prophet would make hardly any reference to the sin of his own people (ch. Habakkuk 1:12), and the prophecy would in this respect be similar to that of Nahum. In any case the two prophets have several points of agreement. First, while Nahum makes no reference to the sin of his own people, the reference in Habakkuk occupies a subordinate place. In both it is the cruelty and atrocious inhumanity of the oppressor that engrosses attention. Secondly, the view of both prophets is universal, embracing the world. The oppressor is denounced, not merely for his unrighteous acts against Israel, but because he is the enemy of mankind. In contrast to him other nations besides Israel are “righteous” (ch. Habakkuk 1:13). And thirdly, both prophets have the same lofty conception of Jehovah, God of Israel. His rule embraces the world, the destinies of the nations and mankind universally are in His hand. It is their universalistic conception of Jehovah which explains the broad view which they take of the history of nations and the life of mankind over all the earth. But while Nahum’s strong faith in the power and righteousness of Jehovah assured him of the speedy downfall of the oppressor, the more contemplative mind of his contemporary Habakkuk found a hard moral problem in the fact that God looked on in silence while men perpetrated their deeds of violence upon the earth. To all reflective minds in Israel the problem of problems was God. “It is God,” says Job, “that maketh my heart faint, and the Almighty that troubleth me” (Job 23:16). It is to God eventually that all that happens in the history of nations and in the life of men must be referred. As the problem before the prophet is moral, and therefore universal, so the solution which he reaches is also moral and of universal validity. The different characters of the oppressor and those who are oppressed respectively carry in them their different destinies (ch. Habakkuk 2:4).

The subordinate place given by the prophet to the sin of Israel, and the strong light into which he throws the ruthlessness of their oppressor, in such vivid contrast to his contemporaries, Zephaniah and Jeremiah, is remarkable (cf. § 2, p. 48 f.). Equally remarkable is his reflection on the moral problems raised by the history of his people and of the nations. Both peculiarities are characteristic of a later period in the literature of Israel. If the date of Habakkuk had to be fixed from the circle of his ideas alone he might be assigned to the end of the Exile or later. The instance shews how precarious it is to draw inferences as to the date of a passage or a writing solely from the ideas which it contains. The literature is far too scanty to enable us to trace the course of religious thought and language with any such certainty as to fix the dates at which particular ideas or expressions arose. Even when it can be said of a mode of thought and language that it is characteristic of a particular time, as for example the post-Exile period, it should not be forgotten that a mode never arises all at once. An earlier period may be expected to shew individual instances of what is observed to be the fashion of a later period. The argument that, if similar ideas occur in two passages or two writings, they may be assigned to the same age, leaves no room for individuality in the different writers. The Books of Jeremiah and Habakkuk shew conclusively enough how different the reflections were which God’s Providence in His treatment of His people awoke in the minds of two contemporary prophets.