Complete Jeremiah
by
Damien
F. Mackey
Part One: The Name
The obscure prophet Habakkuk is identified
in this series as the far better known Jeremiah.
“Habakkuk the prophet” (חֲבַקּוּק הַנָּבִיא)
(Habakkuk 1:1) is perfectly matchable, I think, with the great Jeremiah, as to:
- his era (Part Two);
- his geographical location (Part Three);
- his status or office (Part Four);
- his style and content (Part Five)
but, obviously, his name (Part One)
is quite different from that of Jeremiah (יִרְמְיָהוּ).
The name, Habakkuk - which I am always in danger of
misspelling - strikes me as being a most unusual one. Consequently, I am happy
to learn that it may actually have been a foreign name, despite it often being
taken for a Hebrew word meaning “embrace”.
According to J.
Roberts (Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Zephaniah: A Commentary, p. 86): “Habakkuk appears to derive from Akkadian ḫabbaququ, the name of a plant”.
Another
commentator, puzzling over who the most obscure Habakkuk may have been, goes so
far as to suggest that he was “an Akkadian by birth” (http://www.arlev.co.uk/habakkuk.htm):
2. Who was Habakkuk?
The easiest answer to the
question posed by the header above is that your guess is as good as anybody
else’s! There’s simply not enough reliable information concerning the
man for us to justify more than a tentative guess - indeed, most of our guesses
are so misleading simply because they’re based upon suppositions which are
unprovable.
First and foremost, though, we know that Habakkuk was regarded as a prophet (Hab 1:1, 3:1) even though this superscription is more likely to have been written by a later copyist as an explanation of who the person was. There’s no reason to doubt it, however, even though his method of pronouncement to the nation wasn’t by the mouth but through the pen (Hab 2:2).
If he was, indeed, a prophet who declared God’s word to the nation, it seems surprising that only one pronouncement and one prayer have been recorded for us - but the reason could be simply that this message (Habakkuk chapters 1-2) was the only one which he was instructed to record so that it’s the only one which survives.
Having noted that Habakkuk was a prophet, we can say almost nothing more about him - he appears on the scene of Jewish history with neither father nor mother, nor even the location in the land where he lived (though we normally assume that, as his message was to the land of Judah, he must have been a resident there - his name may indicate otherwise).
We don’t know his occupation (though many have speculated that he was one of the Levites or priests in the Temple in Jerusalem because the final chapter of the Book was put to music - this means no more than we might say a poet was a rock musician because one of their writings was taken by a band and developed into a song! There is another note in one of the manuscripts of the apocryphal Bel and the Dragon - mentioned below - that he was a son of Joshua who was, himself, a Levite), how long he lived or, as we discussed in the previous section, we can’t be sure about when he lived and in what reign he prophesied.
Habsmith gives a fairly wide range of the opinions of commentators down through the ages, each of which seem to be able to be disregarded with a fair amount of certainty. Habakkuk’s name, also, is fairly unusual in that it doesn’t appear to be Hebraic (though Zondervan is certain that it is) and is more likely to be Akkadian (according to Habbaker), a word used
‘...for some plant or fruit tree’
even though Habsmith notes that some of the ancient rabbis associated his name with the Hebrew for ‘embrace’ - it could even have been an assumed name which lent the message further significance or importance and which, because we don’t live in the same culture, is lost on us.
Habbaker goes on to state that Akkadian speakers were
‘...intimately involved in the life of Israel at this period’
but his reference to his notes further on in the Book don’t exist! If this could be conclusively shown, it might even be possible to tentatively suggest that Habakkuk was an Akkadian by birth and that, having thrown in his lot with the people of God, was now being used by Him to speak to the nation. However, Habsmith is probably correct when he concludes only that it would
‘...indicate a high degree of foreign influence on Israel [sic ‘Judah’] at that time’
something which appears to have been true throughout the period which began with king Solomon and his ‘import’ of many foreign wives with their servants and cultures. In a recent Biblical Archaeology Review article (‘Biblical Detective work identifies the Eunuch’ in the March/April 2002 edition), it’s also pointed out that the word translated by the RSV as ‘chamberlain’ is
‘...a loan word...from Akkadian...’
which further demonstrates that during the reign
of Josiah, Akkadian terms had begun to become a part of the Hebrew language,
showing that to be called by an Akkadian name as Habakkuk was wouldn’t have
been thought to have been out of place.
[End of quote]
My suggestion
Habakkuk was the foreign name by which this Hebrew
prophet (I think, Jeremiah) was known amongst the Chaldeans. For instance, he
emerges again in “Bel and the Dragon”, when Daniel, in Babylon, was
languishing in the lions’ den (Daniel 14:33-34): “The prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He mixed some bread in
a bowl with the stew he had boiled, and was going to bring it to the reapers in
the field, when an angel of the Lord told him, ‘Take the meal you
have to Daniel in the lions’ den at Babylon’.”
Now, Jeremiah was known to the Chaldeans, known to, for
instance:
“Nebuzaradan, commander of the imperial guard” (Jeremiah 40:1-5):
The word came
to Jeremiah from the Lord after Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard had released him
at Ramah. He had found Jeremiah bound in chains among all the captives from
Jerusalem and Judah who were being carried into exile to Babylon. When the commander of the guard found Jeremiah, he said to him, ‘The
Lord your God decreed this disaster for this place. And now the Lord has brought it about; he has done just as he said he would. All
this happened because you people sinned against the Lord and did not obey him. But today I am
freeing you from the chains on your wrists. Come with me to Babylon, if you
like, and I will look after you; but if you do not want to, then don’t come.
Look, the whole country lies before you; go wherever you please’. However, before Jeremiah turned to go, Nebuzaradan added, ‘Go back
to Gedaliah son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon has
appointed over the towns of Judah, and live with him among the people, or go
anywhere else you please’.
Known even to the king himself:
“Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon” (Jeremiah 39:11-12):
Now
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had given these orders about Jeremiah through
Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard: ‘Take him
and look after him; don’t harm him but do for him whatever he asks’.
Given virtual carte
blanche by the Chaldean king, it appears.
This Jeremiah
was no mean person!
Now, it is only
to be expected that the Chaldeans, who liked to apply Mesopotamian (Akkadian;
Sumerian; Babylonian) names to the Hebrews (Daniel and his three friends were
given such names, which generally had no likeness to their original Hebrew
ones, Daniel 1:7), would have applied a, say, Akkadian, name to the
well-known Jeremiah as well.
I suggest,
therefore, that the name they gave to Jeremiah was the Akkadian, ḫabbaququ
(Habakkuk), a name that was apparently superscripted on to this record (Book of
Habakkuk) of the prophet’s writings.
Part Two: The Era
(i) in Book of Habakkuk
“Habakkuk was a contemporary of Jeremiah, who also warned that an invading country (Chaldea)
would serve as the divine instrument against Judah (compare Habakkuk 1:6ff with
Jeremiah 6:22-23)”.
Introduction
There are two biblical (at least, Catholic Bible)
documents that are relevant to the prophet Habakkuk and the historical era to
which he belonged. And these two are quite separate in time.
The better known of these is (i) the Book of
Habakkuk, the subject of this present article.
The other one, usually termed “apocryphal”, is
found in (ii) Daniel 14, “Bel and the Dragon”.
This latter one (ii) will be examined in the article to follow this one.
Habakkuk
and the Chaldeans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“This chronology places Habakkuk shortly after
Nahum,
and makes him also a contemporary of Jeremiah”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
general opinion about our prophet appears to be along the lines that “Habakkuk was a contemporary of Jeremiah, who also warned that an invading country (Chaldea) would serve as the
divine instrument against Judah (compare Habakkuk 1:6ff with Jeremiah 6:22-23)”
http://biblescripture.net/Habakkuk.html
It is a view shared by, for instance, R. Murphy (O.P.),
in his article “Habakkuk”, written for The Jerome Biblical Commentary
(1968). Fr. Murphy is, however, somewhat tentative, and he complicates the
matter unnecessarily, I think (in the face of Habakkuk 1:6, see below), by
entertaining the possibility that “the Assyrians”, or even “King Jehoiakim of
Judah”, may have been “the oppressor” intended by the prophet (Murphy, 18:34):
Uncertainty still prevails regarding the circumstances
surrounding the prophecy of Habakkuk and whether the oppressor was the
Assyrians, the Chaldeans, or King Jehoiakim of Judah (609-598), under whom the
deplorable practices of Manasseh’s reign had been resumed (cf. Jer. 22:13-17).
On the whole, the Chaldeans are most probable, being named (1:6) as God’s
instruments for the chastisement of his people; it is against them that Yahweh
will take the field. One might date the prophecy between the defeat of Neco by
Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish (605) and the siege of Jerusalem (597). This chronology places Habakkuk shortly after
Nahum, and makes him also a contemporary of Jeremiah.
[End of quote]
Habakkuk 1:6: ‘For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs’.
Murphy will cross-reference various parts of the
Book of Habakkuk with passages to be found in the Book of Jeremiah, further
encouraging me in my view that Habakkuk was Jeremiah.
Now, I have discovered a 2004 article in which a
plausible attempt has been made to locate the writings of the prophet Jeremiah
according to their proper chronological order, with dates. (http://nabataea.net/jeremiah.html):
The Chronology of
Jeremiah
(and the Lachish Letters)
When I compare Fr. Murphy’s Habakkukian
cross-references with Jeremiah, I get - in relation to the above-mentioned
Jeremian chronology, a range from 627-593 BC. This is somewhat longer than
Murphy’s estimated 605-597 BC, which (given Habakkuk’s reference to the
Chaldeans in 1:6) I would prefer. It is all fairly clear cut.
Part Two: The Era
(ii) in Book of Daniel
“Then the angel of the Lord took [Habakkuk] by the crown of his head
and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in
Babylon, right over the den”.
Daniel 14:36
Introduction
What has so far been a fairly straightforward road
towards the realisation of my suspicion that the ‘little known’ Habakkuk was
none other than the great prophet Jeremiah hits a bit of a chronological road
block here in this Daniel 14 account of the obscure prophet.
Habakkuk, whose name I have suggested (Part One)
was simply a foreign Mesopotamian one as typically applied by the Chaldeans to
the Hebrews (and others) - and so applied to Jeremiah who was well-known to the
Chaldeans - conveniently was found to belong firmly to the era of the prophet
Jeremiah (Part Two (i)).
But now, with the introduction of our second text
pertaining to Habakkuk, the Septuagint’s “Bel and the Dragon” of Daniel 14, we
are suddenly pitched into quite a later era, after that of the Chaldeans: the
era of Medo-Persia. The Persian king Cyrus, who is the ruler involved in this
tale (Daniel 14:1), is generally considered to have begun to reign as Great
King in 539 BC.
That is almost half a century after the Fall of
Jerusalem (587 BC, conventional dating)!
Could Jeremiah still have been alive and active at
this late time (as Habakkuk)? My answer to this is ‘yes’, but it can only be
realised with a strangling of the conventional chronology.
Tracking
Jeremiah
We tend to lose all trace of Jeremiah, qua
Jeremiah, shortly after the catastrophic fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
of its Temple by the Chaldean army of king Nebuchednezzar II. The prophet will
be, against his will, taken to Egypt (Jeremiah 43) where some think he died (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jeremiah-Hebrew-prophet): “According to a
tradition that is preserved in extrabiblical sources, he was stoned to death by
his exasperated fellow countrymen in Egypt”.
Though some think he
later went to Babylon (and perhaps to Palestine again even after that) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8586-jeremiah “... he
remained until that country [Egypt] was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar and he was
carried to Babylon (Seder 'Olam R. xxvi.; comp. Ratner's remark on the passage,
according to which Jeremiah went to Palestine again)”.
According to yet
another view, Jeremiah ultimately went to Ireland, there to set up the throne
of Judah https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/what-happened-jeremiah-and-his-company
Each to his own. What I do like, however, about this particular article is that
it has appreciated that Jeremiah still had work to do, over and beyond his
quite pessimistic rôle as far as it is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah:
When Jeremiah was still a child (JEREMIAH 1:6), God
told him what his commission was going to be (JEREMIAH 1:10): “See, I have this day set
thee over the NATIONS and over the KINGDOMS, to root out, and to pull down, and
to destroy, and to throw down, TO BUILD AND TO PLANT.”
It is interesting to note here several things:
Firstly, Jeremiah was set NOT ONLY OVER ONE NATION BUT OVER NATIONS AND
KINGDOMS - clearly NOT ONLY Judah. Secondly, his job was both to destroy AND TO
PLANT. It is clear that the rooting out, pulling down and destroying happened
in Judah. There was not much left after the Babylonians had destroyed the city
of Jerusalem and led the people away into captivity. But WHERE DID THE BUILDING
AND PLANTING HAPPEN? It could not have happened in Judah - as the Jews only
returned 70 years later from their Babylonian captivity when Jeremiah was no
longer around!! And even though other people came to live in Palestine, you
could certainly not call that a planting and building process OF NATIONS AND
KINGDOMS BY JEREMIAH?
“Jeremiah was no longer around” after the
Babylonian Captivity, we read here.
Well, according to my revised chronology, the
prophet Jeremiah, though admittedly very old, was still alive then.
Indeed, he had to be to complete the original assignment given him by the Lord,
“to build and to plant”.
Most relevant to all of this, too, is my view that
the biblical king Cyrus (the ruler when Habakkuk was angelically transported to
Babylon) was the same as Darius the Mede, and that Daniel’s imprisonment in the
den of lions, now by Darius (Daniel 6:1-28), now by Cyrus, was simply the one same
event, under the one same king. See my:
Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den?
With the assistance of what we know about the
geography of Habakkuk - albeit meagre, but sufficient - and presuming that
Habakkuk was Jeremiah, then we can properly GPS the movements of Jeremiah, from
Judah to Egypt (Book of Jeremiah), and back to Judah (Daniel 14:33):
“Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea; he had made a
stew and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it
to the reapers”. Then, for the first time - and not until the reign of Cyrus - to
Babylon (cf. 14:1, 35): “Habakkuk said, ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon,
and I know nothing about the den’.” Then, immediately back to Judah
(14:39): “So Daniel got up and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned
Habakkuk to his own place”.
And it was there, in Jerusalem, that the aged prophet would continue
his mission.
Meanwhile, in Babylon, there was probably no prophet other than
Jeremiah with whom Daniel would, at this particular point in time
(Darius/Cyrus), have wished to confer (Daniel 9:1-2):
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the
number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the
prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Jeremiah’s Age
So, how old would Jeremiah have been when the exiles returned in the
first year of king Cyrus?
According to my drastically revised Chaldean and Medo-Persian
history, Nebuchednezzar II was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach, who was the
“Belshazzar” of the Book of Daniel. Conventional neo-Babylonian history adds to
these three more kings, who are actually duplicates, even triplicates of these.
And Belshazzar was succeeded by Darius the Mede, who was Cyrus.
Say Jeremiah was about 17 (as a na’ar נַעַר, Jeremiah 1:6) when called by the Lord. Jeremiah 1:1-2: “The
words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth …. The word of the Lord came to him in the
thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah … of Judah”. Twenty-three years later
(cf. Jeremiah 25: 1, 3) was the first year of Nebuchednezzar.
Jeremiah was about 40.
He would thus have been in his mid-eighties when the exiles returned
(43 Nebuchednezzar; approximately 3 Belshazzar; 1st year of
Darius/Cyrus). Jeremiah’s 40 + 43 + 3 = 86.
That is quite reasonable.
Who was he after the Exile?
There is only one thing left to decide.
If Jeremiah did indeed continue on into, say, his eighties, and
continued to prophesy even after the Jews had returned from Babylon, then who
was he?
We do not find any prophet named Jeremiah, or even his alter ego
(as I think), Habakkuk, prophesying at this late time.
I shall attempt to answer this in Part Two
(iii).
Part Two: The Era
(iii) post-exilic activity
“This title (han-nâbî) is applied only to Habakkuk, Haggai, and Zechariah”.
According to Ellicott's
Commentary for English Readers with regard to the superscription, Habakkuk
1:1: “This title
(han-nâbî) is applied only to Habakkuk, Haggai, and Zechariah”.
With Habakkuk looming in this series as an alter ego of the great prophet Jeremiah
himself, and with the likelihood – yea, necessity – that Jeremiah had continued
his mission to Judah right into the post-exilic era of Medo-Persia, then the
most obvious post-exilic identification of Jeremiah would be as the prophet
Haggai. That is, Jeremiah = Habakkuk = Haggai.
“The name Haggai is assigned to only one person in
the Bible …”,
according to which (Abarim) the meaning of the
name is not definite: “The name Haggai is quite possibly derived from the Hebrew verb חגג (hagag),
meaning to celebrate …”.
Haggai (חַגַּי),
one of the three biblical names whose owner is thus designated “the prophet” (הַנָּבִיא) han-nâbî, now becomes the logical choice
for post-exilic Jeremiah via Habakkuk.
Habakkuk, as we know from Daniel 14,
lived during post-exilic times. He bears the same prophetic status as does
Haggai, whose singular name is probably now to be regarded as simply an hypocoristicon of the foreign name
Habakkuk.
Both names, Haggai and Habakkuk, commence with a chet.
Haggai, or Chaggai, may perhaps be rendered
Chaqqai = Cha(ba)qqu(k) (Habakkuk).
Now, Haggai was to do what Jeremiah had been told
to do at the very beginning of his vocation (Jeremiah 1:9), “to build and to plant”. To build
the new Temple of Yahweh in fact. Thus Haggai 1:8: “‘Go up into the
mountains and bring down timber and build my House, so that I may take pleasure
in it and be honored’, says the Lord”.
Though Haggai’s style would generally be considered inferior to that
of Jeremiah, qua Jeremiah, that fact
is well explained here (http://biblehub.com/topical/h/haggai.htm):
Haggai's style is suited to
the contents of his prophecies. While he is less poetical than his
predecessors, yet parallelism is not altogether wanting in his sentence (Haggai 2:8). Compared with the
greater books of prophecy, his brief message has been declared "plain and
unadorned," "tame and prosaic"; yet it must be acknowledged that
he is not wanting in pathos when he reproves, or in force when he exhorts.
Though he labors under a poverty of terms, and frequently repeats the same
formulas, yet he was profoundly in earnest, and became the most successful in
his purpose of all his class. He was especially fond of interrogation. At best
we have only a summary, probably, of what he actually preached.
[End of quote]
If the “King Darius”, in whose
“second year” is contained the entire short career of Haggai, qua Haggai, is a Persian king who came
after Darius/Cyrus, then this would further extend the age of Jeremiah, well
beyond the mid-eighties that I previously estimated for him as Habakkuk. Haggai
1:1: “In the second year of King Darius, on the first day of
the sixth month, the word of the Lord came through the
prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua
son of Jozadak, the high priest”.
But Haggai,
perhaps as Habakkuk, perhaps as Jeremiah, may force us further to re-evaluate
the kings and chronology of Medo-Persian history.
Part Three (i): The Geography
We know at least that, before the incident
of the lions’ den during the reign of king Cyrus, Habakkuk had never actually
been to Babylon (Daniel 14:35):
‘Sir,
I have never seen Babylon, and I do not know the den!’
Really, the geography of our prophet has already
been discussed by now, in Part Two (ii),
in the section “Tracking Jeremiah”.
The prophet Jeremiah we found, typically stationed
in Judah, was removed to Egypt against his will after the Chaldeans, under king
Nebuchednezzar II, had taken the city of Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple of
Yahweh.
Traditions about what became of Jeremiah after this
are hazy and conflicting: e.g., martyred in Egypt;
taken to Babylon afterwards by a
Nebuchednezzar victorious over Egypt; returning to Palestine.
Thanks to our connection of Jeremiah with Habakkuk,
that I think has become increasingly more likely as this series has progressed
- though that is up to scholars to determine - I suggest that we can be more
definite than these traditions about the fate of Jeremiah after Egypt. And it
was a good one.
Jeremiah eventually, after his sojourn in Egypt,
returned to Judah (Judea).
There we find him later, in the reign of king
Cyrus, as Habakkuk (Daniel 14: 33-34): “The prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He mixed some bread in a bowl with the stew he had
boiled, and was going to bring it to the reapers in the field, when an angel of
the Lord told him, ‘Take the meal you have to Daniel in the lions’ den at
Babylon’.”
After his brief flight upon angelic wings to
Babylon, to visit Daniel, the prophet returned to his usual abode of Judah.
For Jeremiah, whose prophetic work during the
Chaldean period had been largely the negative
one (Jeremiah 1:10): ‘See, today I appoint you over
nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow …’, he
would finally now, in the Medo-Persian period, be able to realise its positive aspect, ‘to build and to
plant’.
And he was to do this, as I have suggested, under the guise of
Haggai (and still in Judah).
The prophet Haggai had urged the Jews (Haggai 1:7):
‘Go up into the mountains and bring
down timber and build my House,
so that I may take pleasure in it and
be honored’, says the Lord.
Part Three (ii):
The Status or Office
Are “priest” and “prophet” common to
Habakkuk
as well as to his proposed alter ego, Jeremiah?
Jeremiah, we are specifically told, was a priest (Jeremiah 1:1): “The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth
in the territory of Benjamin”.
And he was also most definitely a prophet (1:5): ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I
set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’.
Habakkuk was clearly a prophet (Habakkuk 1:1): “The prophecy that Habakkuk the prophet received”.
And commentators think that Habakkuk may also have been a priest.
For example, we read this at: https://www.insight.org/resources/bible/the-minor-prophets/habakkuk:
“Habakkuk also could have been a priest involved with the
worship of God at the temple. This assumption is based on the book’s final,
psalm-like statement: “For the choir director, on my stringed instruments” (Habakkuk 3:19)”. And again:
We know little of Habakkuk beyond the two mentions of his
name in this book of prophecy. Both times, he identified himself as “Habakkuk
the prophet” (Habakkuk 1:1; 3:1), a term that seems to indicate Habakkuk was a
professional prophet. This could mean that Habakkuk was trained in the Law of
Moses in a prophetic school, an institution for educating prophets that cropped
up after the days of Samuel (1 Samuel 19:20; 2 Kings 4:38).
Fr. R. Murphy (O.P.) has written similarly
in “Habakkuk” (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, 18:34): “From the
liturgies (e.g., 1:2-2:4) some have deduced that he was a member, possibly a
leader, of the Temple choir …”.
According to a Septuagint (LXX)
tradition found in the title to Daniel’s Bel and the Dragon, Habakkuk was of the tribe of Levi.
Commenting on this tradition, we read the following https://bible.org/seriespage/2-habakkuk
Was Habakkuk, then,
a Levite?237 Was he at least a prophet of the cultus, as many
(e.g., Humbert, Lindblom) confidently affirm?238 Though the scriptural evidence indicates that
Levites functioned in a musical ministry in the Temple (1 Chron. 6:31-48; 15:16-24; 16:4-6, 37, 41-42; 23:5; 25:1-8), a fact that accords well
with the musical notations in chap. 3, and although the Scriptures attest the
existence of prophets who were also priests (e.g., Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Zephaniah),239 a lack of proof makes it impossible to say more
than that Habakkuk was a prophet who likely lived in Judah in the seventh
century B.C. and who was burdened by what he perceived to be the divine
indifference to the moral decay and spiritual apostasy that surrounded him
(1:2-4).
Further on here we read:
Occasion, Purpose, And Teachings
…. The book also
rehearses Habakkuk’s theophanic experience that came as a climax to his
spiritual wrestling and the prophet’s victorious movement from a position of
questioning God to one of casting himself upon his Redeemer. If Habakkuk was
also a Levite or in some way connected with the Temple cultus, the book’s final
prayer and theophany were of such a magnitude to Habakkuk personally that he
set them down in words and form intended for use in Temple worship. In any
event, the whole prophecy is designed to serve as an exemplary testimony of
God’s continued concern for His people and His dealings in the affairs of all
mankind.
According to Fr. Murphy again (op. cit., ibid.): “… [Habakkuk]
certainly … was a deep thinker and a man of considerable literary skill, a
“wrestler with God” (Jerome)”.
Further to this, we read https://bible.org/seriespage/2-habakkuk
2. Habakkuk
Occasion, Purpose, And Teachings
If the above
conclusions with regard to the date and authorship of Habakkuk’s prophecy are
more or less accurate, the book has its origin in recounting the prophet’s
intense personal experience with God. Specifically it records Habakkuk’s
spiritual perplexities as to God’s seeming indifference in an era of moral
decay and spiritual apostasy, and God’s patient responses to his prophet. The
book also rehearses Habakkuk’s theophanic experience that came as a climax to
his spiritual wrestling and the prophet’s victorious movement from a position
of questioning God to one of casting himself upon his Redeemer. If Habakkuk was
also a Levite or in some way connected with the Temple cultus, the book’s final
prayer and theophany were of such a magnitude to Habakkuk personally that he
set them down in words and form intended for use in Temple worship. In any
event, the whole prophecy is designed to serve as an exemplary testimony of
God’s continued concern for His people and His dealings in the affairs of all
mankind.
In God’s answers to
Habakkuk, He gives him wise insight into the basic issues of life for
individuals and societies:259 wealth is not in itself wrong, but unjust gain will
not be tolerated (2:6-11); civic growth and prosperity are not condemnable but
cannot be accomplished at the expense of mankind’s rights (2:14-20); the misuse
of another person to gain one’s own ends is despicable (2:15-17). The
individual is also reminded that anything he puts ahead of God’s rightful place
as the center of his life is idolatry (2:18-20). This last point serves as the
culminating observation to a discussion of the spiritual and social evils for
which Babylon must be judged and touches upon another major theme in the
book—the problem of evil:
Thus the problem of the
book is the problem of evil—in world history, in the church, in the human
heart, the realization that every human “solution” contains the seed of its own
dissolution and often only exacerbates the problem.... Pagan dualism and
fatalism could (and can) always attribute the problem to other “gods” or
inscrutable forces immanent in the universe, but a monotheistic belief in one
righteous and holy God must somehow reconcile the continued power of evil with
His governance—and perhaps ultimately with His very existence.260
Did Jeremiah, too, wrestle with God?
Yes, according to this piece:
3. Jeremiah: A Prophet Wrestles
with God….
The Reading: Jeremiah 12:1-5; 15:15-20; 17:14-18; 20:7-9 Jeremiah Complains to God (Jer 12:1-3)
12You
will be in the right,
O LORD, when I lay charges
against you; but let me put my case
to
you.
Why
does the way of the
guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?
2 You
plant them, and they take
root;
they grow
and bring forth fruit;
you are near in their
mouths
yet
far from their hearts.
3 But
you, O
LORD, know me;
You
see me and test me—my heart is with you.
Pull
them out
like sheep for
the slaughter, and set them apart for
the
day of slaughter….
God Replies to Jeremiah (Jer 12:5)
5 If you have raced with foot-runners and
they have wearied
you, how will you compete
with horses?
and
if in a safe land you fall down,
how will you fare in the
thickets of the Jordan?
Finally, a brief consideration again of Haggai,
with whom we have also sought to identify Jeremiah/Habakkuk.
Only one person is named in Jeremiah’s ancestry. He
was “Jeremiah son of Hilkiah”. Habakkuk, however -
Haggai, however - is provided with no genealogy at all.
So we cannot do any ancestral comparisons.
Haggai, too, was clearly a
prophet (Haggai 1:1): “In the second year of
King Darius, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the Lord came through the prophet Haggai …”.
Moreover, as we learned in Part Two (iii), from Ellicott's
Commentary for English Readers with regard to “the prophet” (הַנָּבִיא) in Habakkuk 1:1: “This title (han-nâbî) is applied only to Habakkuk, Haggai, and Zechariah”.
4 Baldwin writes, According to an early Christian
tradition Haggai was a priest and was buried with honour near the sepulchers of
the priests. The fact that in the Versions certain Psalms are attributed to
Haggai may add support to his priestly lineage. The LXX, for example, prefaces Psalms 138 and
146-149 with the names Haggai and Zechariah, indicating perhaps that they were
responsible for the recension from which the Greek translation was being made.
Hebrew tradition on the other hand did not reckon Haggai among the priests, and
the modern Rabbi Eli Cashdan writes: 'Evidently he was not of the priestly
tribe, seeing that he called on the priests of his day for a ruling on
levitical uncleanness (ii.II).' The point is hardly proved on this evidence,
however (Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction &
Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 28).
Part Three (iii):
The Style and Content
“Habakkuk is intensely occupied with the
problem of evil,
the perennial stumbling block for all
thoughtful men”.
Introduction
Just like the prophet Job before him, Habakkuk will
agonise over certain actions on the part of God that do not seem worthy of his
holiness or of his justice.
Fr. R. Murphy (O.P.) writes of the
prophet’s great consternation in his article, “Habakkuk” (The Jerome
Biblical Commentary, 1968, 18:34):
…. Judah had sinned, but why should
God, the holy one whose eyes are too pure to gaze upon evil, have chosen to
punish evil-doers with those who are more wicked than themselves? Can it be
that the Lord is on the side of injustice? He is intensely occupied with the problem of evil, the perennial
stumbling block for all thoughtful men.
[End of quote]
‘How long, Lord, must I call for help,
but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, “Violence!”
but you do not save?
Why do you make me look at injustice?
Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?’
Habakkuk 1:2-3
And Jeremiah
47:6: “Ah, sword of the LORD! How long till you are quiet? Put yourself into
your scabbard; rest and be still!”
Rabbi Moshe
Reiss has written of “Jeremiah, the Suffering Prophet” in somewhat Habakkukian
terms http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/09_jeremiah.htm
Jeremiah suffers from
existential pain and loneliness; feels truly alone in the world. As a human
being he reacts to the seeming injustice of his position. Believing in a God of
justice he feels like Job, his theological successor [sic]. Both tried to
understand a world that is not just. 12 ‘Why do the wicked succeed and
all those who commit evil flourish’? (12:1) Despite God, by definition being
right ‘You have to be in the right O Lord . . . nevertheless I will bring
certain cases to Your attention (12:1). If God is justice then Jeremiah has a
right to accuse Him. ‘Should evil be awarded with good. I speak for good’
(18:20). They ‘build a trap for me . . . they wish my death’ (18:22-23). As Job
(and Jesus) he accuses God of having forsaken him. ‘For You have filled me with
gloom [and are] ‘as undependable waters’ (15:17-18). God’s first response to
Jeremiah’s addresses his complaint about his family and neighbors (11:18-20).
Stop talking to them, ‘I will bring evil to the men of Anatoth’ (11:23).
‘O Lord You have seduced me, and I am seduced; You have raped me and I am
overcome’ 13. . . Daily I have been an object of ridicule . . the word of
the Lord has become for a constant source of shame’ (20:7-8). The term
used by Jeremiah as translated by A.J. Heschel is ‘raped by God’ is extraordinary.
14 As Job becomes a public spectacle 15 so with Jeremiah.
[End of quote]
Justice, a
constant theme throughout the books of Jeremiah and Job, and in the Book of
Habakkuk, gets picked up later in that most famous of Platonic dialogues, The Republic, which I believe was
influenced, in part, by the Book of Job:
Prophet Daniel and
'Plato'
Plato and Likely Borrowings
from the Book of Job
There can be a similarity in thought between
Plato and the Jewish sages, but not always a similarity in tone. Compared with
the intense atmosphere of the drama of the Book of Job, for instance, Plato’s Republic, and his other dialogues, such
as the Protagoras, brilliant as they
are, come across sometimes as a bit like a gentlemen’s discussion over a glass
of port. W. Guthrie may have captured something of this general tone in his Introduction to Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin,
1968), when he wrote (p. 20):
… a feature of the conversation which cannot
fail to strike a reader is its unbroken urbanity and good temper. The keynote
is courtesy and forbearance, though these are not always forthcoming without a
struggle. Socrates is constantly on the alert for the signs of displeasure on
the part of Protagoras, and when he detects them, is careful not to press his
point, and the dialogue ends with mutual expressions of esteem. ….
[End of quote]
Compare this gentlemanly tone with e.g. Job’s ‘How long will you torment me, and break me in pieces with words? These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me?’ (19:1-3), and Eliphaz’s accusations of the holy man: ‘Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities [which supposed types of injustice on the part of Job Eliphaz then proceeds to itemise]’ (22:5).
In Plato’s dialogues, by contrast, we get
pages and pages of the following sort of amicable discussion taken from the Republic (Bk. 2, 368-369):
[Socrates] ‘Justice can be a characteristic
of an individual or of a community, can it not?’
[Adeimantus] ‘Yes’.
[Socrates] ‘And a community is larger than an
individual?’
[Adeimantus] ‘It is”.
[Socrates] ‘We may therefore find that the
amount of justice in the larger entity is greater, and so easier to recognize.
I accordingly propose that we start our enquiry …’.
[Adeimantus] ‘That seems a good idea’, he
agreed.
….
Though Protagoras is a famous Sophist, whose
maxim “Man is the measure of all things, of those that are that they are, and
of those that are not that they are not” (Plato’s Theaetetus 152) I have often quoted in a philosophical context {–
and also in}:
The Futile Aspiration to Make ‘Man
the Measure of All Things’
this Protagoras may actually be based upon -
according to my new estimation of things - the elderly Eliphaz of the Book of
Job. Whilst Eliphaz was by no means a Sophist along the Greek lines, he was,
like Protagoras with Socrates, largely opposed to his opponent’s point of view.
And so, whilst the God-fearing Eliphaz would never have uttered anything so
radical or atheistic as “man is the measure of all things”, he was however
opposed to the very Job who had, in his discussion of wisdom, spoken of God as
‘apportioning out by measure’ all the things that He had created (Job 28:12,
13, 25).
Now, whilst Protagoras would be but a pale
ghost of the biblical Eliphaz, some of the original (as I suspect) lustre does
still manage to shine through - as with Protagoras’s claim that knowledge or
wisdom was the highest thing in life (Protagoras 352C, D) (cf. Eliphaz in Job
22:1-2). And Guthrie adds that Protagoras “would repudiate as scornfully as
Socrates the almost bestial type of hedonism advocated by Callicles, who says
that what nature means by fair and right is for the strong man to let his
desires grow as big as possible and have the means of everlastingly satisfying
them” (op. cit., p. 22).
Eliphaz was later re-invented (I think) as
Protagoras the Sophist from Abdera, as a perfect foil to Socrates (with Job’s
other friends also perhaps emerging in the Greek versions re-cast as Sophists).
Protagoras stated that, somewhat like Eliphaz, he was old enough to be the
father of any of them. “Indeed I am getting on in life now – so far as age goes
I might be the father of any one of you …” (Protagoras
317 C). That Eliphaz was old is indicated by the fact that he was the first to
address Job and that he also refered to men older than Job’s father (Job
15:10). Now, just as Fr. R. MacKenzie (S.J.) in his commentary on “Job”, in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, tells of
Eliphaz’s esteem for, and courtesy towards, Job (31:23):
Eliphaz is presumably the oldest of the three
and therefore the wisest; he is certainly the most courteous and the most
eloquent. He has a genuine esteem for Job and is deeply sorry for him. He knows
the advice to give him, the wisdom that lays down what he must do to receive
relief from his sufferings.
[End of quote],
so does Guthrie, reciprocally (I suggest),
say: “Protagoras – whom [Socrates] regards with genuine admiration and liking”
(op. cit., p. 22).
But, again, just as the righteous Job had
scandalised his friends by his levity, according to St. Thomas Aquinas
(“Literal Exposition on Job”, 42:1-10), “And here one should consider that
Elihu had sinned out of inexperience whereas Job had sinned out of levity, and
so neither of them had sinned gravely”, so does Guthrie use this very same
word, “levity”, in the context of an apparent flaw in the character of Socrates
(ibid., p. 18):
There is one feature of the Protagoras which
cannot fail to puzzle, if not exasperate, a reader: the behaviour of Socrates.
At times he treats the discussion with such levity, and at other times with
such unscrupulousness, that Wilamowitz felt bound to conclude that the dialogue
could only have been written in his lifetime. This, he wrote, is the human
being whom Plato knew; only after he had suffered a martyr’s death did the need
assert itself to idealize his character.
[End of quote]
Job’s tendency towards levity had apparently
survived right down into the Greek era. Admittedly, the Greek version does get
much nastier in the case of Thrasymachus, and even more so with Callicles in
the Gorgias, but in the Republic at least it never rises to the
dramatic pitch of Job’s dialogues with his three friends. Here is that least
friendly of the debaters, Thrasymachus, at his nastiest (Republic, Bk. I, 341):
[Socrates] Well, said I, ‘so you think I’m
malicious, do you Thrasymachus?’
[Thrasymachus] ‘I certainly do’.
[Socrates] ‘You think my questions were
deliberately framed to distort your argument?’
[Thrasymachus] ‘I know perfectly well they
were. But they won’t get you anywhere; you can’t fool me, and if you don’t you
won’t be able to crush me in argument’.
[Socrates] ‘My dear chap, I wouldn’t dream of
trying’, I said ….
Socrates and Plato are similarly (like the
Sophists) watered down entities by comparison with the Middle Eastern
originals. Such is how the Hebrew Scriptures end up when filtered through the
Greeks, [and, in the case of Plato, perhaps through the Babylonians before the
Greeks, hence a double filtering]. Even then, it is doubtful whether the finely
filtered version of Plato that we now have could have been written by pagan
Greeks. At least some of it seems to belong clearly to the Christian era, e.g.
“The just man … will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned … and after enduring
every humiliation he will be crucified” (Republic,
Bk. 2, 362).
I submit that this statement would not likely
have been written prior to the Gospels.
“Plato and Porphyry each made certain statements which might have brought them both to become Christians if they had exchanged them with one another”, wrote St. Augustine (City of God, XXII, 27).
What is clear is that the writings of Plato
as we now have them had reached an impressive level of excellence and
unparalleled literary sophistication.
*
* * * *
A Common Source
The Book of Job is often considered to be the most like the Book of
Jeremiah (and Lamentations), the two perhaps having :”a common source”:
Both Jeremiah and Job contend with their sense of
loneliness and betrayal by cursing the day of their birth. This particular
parallel may serve as a key case test for establishing the relationship between
Jeremiah and Job …. Most believe that Jeremiah and Job are drawing on a common source or
generic template ....
Habakkuk, too, seems to have imbibed from that “source”.
I take some random sections from
…. the problem of the book is
the problem of evil—in world history, in the church, in the human heart, the realization
that every human “solution” contains the seed of its own dissolution and often
only exacerbates the problem.... Pagan dualism and fatalism could (and can)
always attribute the problem to other “gods” or inscrutable forces immanent in
the universe, but a monotheistic belief in one righteous and holy God must
somehow reconcile the continued power of evil with His governance—and perhaps
ultimately with His very existence.260
1:2
† עַד־אָנָה
(“how long”): The interrogative adverb אָן (“where”) with augmented ָה ( a‚) is often combined with עַד (“for”) to form, as here, a compound interrogative
particle of time (cf. Ex. 16:28; Num. 14:11; Josh. 18:3; Jer. 47:6). Here it introduces the prophet’s invocation.
1:2-3 The cry “Violence” and the need for divine
help are reminiscent of Job’s lament (Job
9:7). Jeremiah (Jer. 6:7; 20:8)
also complains of the violence and destruction of Judahite society, a charge
echoed by Ezekiel (Ezek. 45:9).
In any case Habakkuk takes his place
beside many others, such as Job (Job
7:16-21; 9:21-24; 12:4-6; 21:1-16; 24:1-16,
21-25; 27:1-12), the psalmist Asaph (Ps. 73), Jeremiah (Jer.
11:18-19; 12:1-4; 15:15-18; 17:15-18; 20:7-18),
and Malachi (Mal. 2:17), who questioned God as to His fairness in handling
the problems of evil and injustice. Like these other questioners, Habakkuk will
be shown the necessity of resting fully in God (Hab. 2:4, 20).
Nevertheless, Habakkuk ends his
complaint with a renewed statement of his confidence in God (2:1). He also
reports his intention to assume the role of a watchman. As the city watchman
manned his post atop the walls to look for the approach of danger (Ezek. 33:2-6) or
a 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 Kings 9:17-20), so the OT prophet looked for the communication of
God’s will to the waiting people (Jer. 6:17; Ezek. 3:16-21;
33:7-9; Hos.
9:8). Habakkuk would assume the role of a
prophetic watchman, taking his post on the ramparts* to watch* for the Lord’s
reply. The word “watch” suggests an active, earnest waiting for the Lord’s
message; the “ramparts” (cf. 2 Chron. 8:5;
11:5) imply that just as the civil
watchman assumed a particular post on the city wall (cf. Nah. 2:1 [HB
2:2]), so the prophet had his assigned post of responsibility (cf. Jer. 1:17-19; Amos 3:6-7).
† שָׁמֵן
and בְּרִאָה both mean “fat.” The translations “abundant” and
“plenteous” are ad sensum. These adjectives testify to the luxurious
lifestyle of the Chaldeans gained as a result of their rapacious looting. The
NJB not inappropriately translates: “For by these they get a rich living and
live off the fat of the land.” Though the root שָׁמֵן
can be employed to describe God-given prosperity (Isa. 30:23; Ezek. 34:14),
like its companion adjective (cf. the masc. sing. form בָּרִיא in Ps. 73:4) it can be employed with regard to the wicked who
have gained their riches through ungodly living (Jer. 5:26-28; Ezek. 34:16).
Habakkuk
was told to write* the issue of the divine reply upon tablets*. If Habakkuk was
literally to write down the divine dispatch, the question arises as to its
extent. Various suggestions have been offered, some identifying the text of the
message with v. 4 (Craigie, Feinberg), some with vv. 4b-5 (Brownlee, Humbert),
others with all of vv. 4 and 5 (Ward), and still others deciding that the
length of the communication is uncertain (e.g., Laetsch).341
To reach a final solution one must
consider the word “tablets.” Though these could be viewed as large stones, such
as in the case of the Ten Commandments (Ex.
24:12; see Additional Notes), the author
could intend small tablets of whatever material.342 That
the word is plural could suggest multiple copies to be hand carried by men
serving as heralds that others might hear the message (cf. Jer. 51:59-64).
That the heralds would carry a written dispatch rather than an oral
communication would emphasize the seriousness of the divine directive. If this
was the case, the message was doubtless a short one, probably encompassing no
more than v. 4. But to whom would these dispatches be carried? Would they go to
Judah’s leaders (cf. Jer. 36), or perhaps to foreign nations (cf. Isa. 30:8)? Lack
of clarity as to this latter question warns against too quickly adopting the
idea of heralds carrying several tablets.
The message was to be written
plainly* so that those who passed by* might be able to understand it and bear
the news to others. Though the figure of reading and running may indicate the
activity of a prophet (Keil) or may simply intend that all who pass by may read
it (S. R. Driver, Feinberg, Laetsch), it raises again the possibility of the
literary motif of a herald “whose role would thus be to ‘run with the message’
(cf. 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 18:19-27; Esther 3:13,
15; 8:10, 14; Jer. 51:31).”343 That
the text reads “he who reads it may run” rather than “he who runs may read”
favors strongly the motif of the herald (NIV). But because not only Habakkuk
but all who read God’s communication were to serve as heralds, all three of
these views are in a sense complementary, the figure of the herald being
adopted in order that prophets and all others might understand God’s Word and
carry it on to others. The message was for all.
….
The verse proceeds with a reference
to the Chaldeans’ building projects. An implied comparison with the eagle is
probably intended. If so, just as an eagle seeks security by building his nest
on the upper-most cliffs, so the Chaldeans will raise high—that is, strengthen
mightily—their fortifications (cf. Jer.
49:16; Obad.
4). Although Nebuchadnezzar mentions such
fortifying work elsewhere, it was particularly true of Babylon, which he enclosed
with two massive walls, the outermost of which was surrounded by a moat on its
east side that stretched westward to the Euphrates on the city’s northern and
southern sides.
Jeremiah’s words reinforce
those of Habakkuk:
The arrogant one will
stumble and fall
and no one will help her
up;
I will kindle a fire in
her towns
that will consume all who
are around her.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is what the LORD
Almighty says:
“Babylon’s thick wall will
be leveled
and her high gates set on
fire;
the peoples exhaust
themselves for nothing,
the nations’ labor is only
fuel for the flames.”
As invective turns to threat (v. 16)
the allegory depicts the giver of the drink as one who is forced to imbibe of
his own drink and suffer the disgrace of exposure. Several familiar biblical
motifs and expressions are contained in vv. 15-16. The cup as a motif of
judgment is well attested elsewhere (e.g., Pss.
11:6; 75:8 [HB 75:9]; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15-28; 49:12;
Ezek. 23:31-34). Particularly enlightening for the understanding of Habakkuk’s fourth
woe is Jeremiah’s use of the cup to portray God’s relation with Babylon (Jer. 51:6-8). For
Jeremiah, Babylon is God’s cup, a golden cup (cf. Daniel’s head of gold, Dan. 2:36-38),
which in God’s hand had passed on His judgment to the nations. Those who drink
of that cup lose all sense of perspective and become oblivious to the danger
they are in. But Babylon will become a broken cup, for she will be smashed and
never repaired.
Habakkuk makes the same point,
although the image is slightly different. The Chaldean will be God’s cup of
judgment (cf. 1:5-11), but rather than being conscious of his privileged
responsibility, the Chaldean will use his position to take advantage of others
and enslave them politically and economically.
The image of shame is heightened by
the double figure of drunkenness and nakedness (cf. Gen. 9:21-23).
The first is condemned both by our Lord (Luke
21:34) and elsewhere in the Scriptures
(e.g., Eph. 5:18). Nakedness is likened to a shameful thing (cf. Gen. 2:25 with
3:7), and he who was stripped of clothing felt degraded (2 Sam. 10:4; Ezek. 16:39; 23:29).
Both figures are used elsewhere to symbolize divine judgment (Nah. 3:5, 11).
All three symbols occur together in Lam.
4:21 where Jeremiah portrays the
Israelites’ taunt of Edom. That nation, which had so often taken advantage of
Israel’s misfortune, will be given the cup of judgment, become drunk, and be
stripped naked.
By the violence done to Lebanon some
understand a figurative reference to Israel’s own land. Thus Armerding remarks:
“Lebanon” is used as a symbol of Israel (2
Kings 14:9; cf. Jer. 22:6, 23)
and more specifically of Israel as a victim of Babylonian aggression (Ezek. 17:3).”424 But
a literal interpretation is not impossible. The Mesopotamian kings had boasted
of their exploitation of the forests of Lebanon since the earliest days.425
The noun שֹׁד … is used of great devastation or destruction. It
occurs at times with שֶׁבֶר … “breaking/shattering”; Isa. 51:19; 60:18;
Jer. 48:35),
such as in depicting the work of evil men (Isa.
59:7). Sóo„d is also parallel
to עָמָל ( àa„ma„l, “trouble”) used of the dangers in associating with
the wicked (Prov. 24:2). As is the case here, sŒo„d
parallels ָָחמָס ( h£a„ma„s, “violence,”) in Ezek.
45:9; Amos
3:10. Jeremiah would later echo Habakkuk’s
complaint with regard to the social injustice in his country (Jer. 6:7; 20:8).
Habakkuk is thus assured that if the agent of God’s judgment perpetrates the
same wickedness he has been sent to punish, he too must receive the just
judgment of God.
2:15 †Three main suggestions have been given for the
form חֲמָתְךָ (“your wrath”). (1) The translation just given (cf.
RSV) takes the noun as ֵֵחמָה (“[burning] anger,” “rage,” from יַַָחם, “be hot”). (2) Some who follow this understanding
of the origin of the noun suggest that it should be translated “venom” (NASB)
or “poison” (NJB) as in Deut. 32:24; Job 6:4; Ps. 140:4. (3) Others believe that the word intended is ֵֵחמֶת (“wineskin,” NIV; cf. KJV, NKJV).430 In
view of the association of drinking, wrath, and cup in the OT (e.g., Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15), the
first alternative appears to be the best here. Moreover, such a view harmonizes
well with a similar picture of Babylon’s judgment in Jer. 51:7-8.
†The problem concerning ֲֲחמָתְךָ is complicated further by controversy over the
previous מְסַפֵּחַ. Some take the word to be from the root סָפַח (“join,” “attach to”; cf. Ethiopic saˆfh£a, “become broad/wide”433),
deciding for a meaning “mix in” (NASB) or “press/put to” (NKJV, KJV). Others
favor the idea “pour out” (NIV, NJB), סָפַח being compared with the Arabic safah£a (“pour out”).434
Still a third proposal is to emend the word to מִסַּף
(“from/of the cup/bowl,” KB-3, RSV).435
Despite the uncertainty, I have followed Armerding, the NIV, and the NJB in
choosing the second alternative because of the common OT usage of wrath being
poured out (e.g., 2 Chron. 12:7; 34:21; Ps. 79:6; Jer. 7:20;
42:18; Ezek.
7:8; 9:8).436
†Still another perplexity arises in
the next phrase, וְאַף
שַׁכֵּר (“and also getting him drunk”).
The conjunctive particle has been rendered as “even” (NASB), “till” (NIV), or “until”
(NJB). Armerding offers the novel suggestion that the phrase “can be
interpreted as a parallel noun in the accusative case, meaning ‘and (with)
anger.’“437 This
idea has the advantage of scriptural precedent in that both terms in this verse
( ֵֵחמָה and אַף) would then be words for anger that are said to be
poured out (cf. Jer. 10:25; Lam. 4:11). The two even occur together at times (e.g., Jer. 7:20).
Moreover, both appear together in a context of God’s judgment that also uses
the figure of getting the nations drunk (Isa.
63:1-6).438
Exegesis and Exposition
The condemnation of idolatry here is
in harmony with that found in the other OT prophets (cf. Isa. 44:9-20; Jer. 5:7; 44:1-8;
Hos. 8:4).
The judgment of Babylon and its gods announced previously by Isaiah (Isa. 21:9) is
repeated by Jeremiah (Jer. 50:2; 51:47-48, 52-53).
The invective and threat against
Babylon (v. 19) thus have more than sufficient cause. Since the Chaldeans
worshiped gods of their own creation (v. 18) rather than the Creator,
controller, and consummator of history, their condemnation is certain. This is
their most besetting sin. Because the Chaldeans worshiped self and their own
selfish artifices, they will plot against the peoples around them. Their
feigned friendship with them will only be a pretext to indulge their own
perverted lusts. Further, they will go on to plunder the nations so that lands,
cities, and their inhabitants will feel the crush of their violent oppression.
The verdict is final. Habakkuk can be assured that the Chaldeans will be
judged, for they will violate the standards of God (cf. vv. 4-5).
Verse 20 also has another
application. Because the idolatry that leads to the neglect and rejection of
God is a universal problem, all the earth is to be silent before the living
God. None is to assert his independence from God but rather should worship Him
in humble submission (Jer. 10:1-10), letting Him be God of the whole life (Pss. 63:1-4 [HB
63:2-5]; 73:23-28).
Still a third term for idol ( אֱלִילִים) occurs here. This word lays stress on its value,
for it is denounced as an empty or worthless thing. H. Preuss suggests that the
word
was created as a disparaging pun on and as a
diminutive of ‘el or ‘elohim (Ps.
97:7) (“little god, godling”). This helped
to bring about a conscious antithesis between áelil and áel, “the
Strong One.” Furthermore, it is likely that the noun áelil is intentionally reminiscent of the adj. ‘elil,
“weak, insignificant, worthless,” which we also encounter in contexts where the
speaker uses scornful words (Job 13:4; Jer. 14:14; cf. Zec. 11:17; also Sir. 11:3).454
The Second Line
The chief points of contention in the
second line of Hab. 2:4 revolve around (1) the precise meaning of עַדִּיק ( s£addîq, “righteous/just”) and (2) the meaning and
syntactical relationship of the following בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ ( beá e†mu‚na„to‚, “by his faith[fulness]).” Complicating both
problems is the reading of the line in the LXX and its subsequent use by the NT
writers.
As for the first problem, words
derived from עדק have varied meanings. The root itself appears to
mean “be straight” and is largely employed in situations that denote conformity
to a standard (i.e., straightness).482 Thus
the root and its word group are often used of God’s activities and man’s
relation to God. In accordance with His righteous scrutiny God takes note of
all people in their activities (Amos 5:4-7, 14; 6:12) and punishes the sin of His own (Dan. 9:14) and of
all people (Ps. 9:8 [HB 9:9]). By His righteous judgment He vindicates
His own (Judg. 5:11; Isa. 54:17; Mic. 7:9) and brings them salvation/deliverance (Isa. 45:21; 46:12-13),
ultimately through His Righteous One (Jer.
23:6; 33:18).483
Habakkuk’s prayer would be answered according to the terms of Israel’s
covenant with God (Deut. 4:25-31) and also the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:1-11; 29:10-14; cf. 2 Chron. 36:22; Ezra 1;1; Dan. 9:2). His prayer and its realization stand as an
earnest of God’s future gathering of His people in redemptive power (Deut. 30:1-3; Ezek. 36:24-38; 37:21-28; Amos 9:14-15; Mic. 4:6; Zeph. 3:20; Zech. 10:5-12).
God is seen by His
enemies not as Yahweh, Israel’s covenant God, but as Eloah, the Creator (Deut. 32:15) and
Lord of the earth (Pss. 18:31 [HB 18:32]; 114:7). God is also declared to be the
Holy One (Isa. 63), the one who convicts of sin and judges the world (Lev. 19:1; 20:7; Jer. 50:29; 51:5),
but who is Israel’s Redeemer (Isa. 41:14;
43:1-3). The one whom Habakkuk had
addressed in his second perplexity (Hab.
1:12) is the sovereign, holy God who had
come long ago in all His glory.
When he was
informed of God’s intention to use the godless Chaldeans to bring judgment to
His people (1:5-11), Habakkuk was all the more perplexed (1:12-2:1). The words
of the ancient epic poem that he now considers remind him of the just nature of
God. Though the Lord may employ nations and people of all sorts to do His
bidding, He will ultimately deal with them on their own merits (cf. Isa. 24:1-6; 63:1-6;
Jer. 50:9-13; Hos. 1:4; Nah. 3:4). Further, He will deal with them according to
their troubling of His people Israel (cf. Gen.
12:3; Isa.
26:12-20; Joel 3:1-8 [HB
4:1-8]; Obad. 14-15; Zeph. 2:10).
God’s indignation
against the nations in this regard can mean the deliverance of His own people,
as here. Indeed, salvation/deliverance was at the heart of the epic cycle
concerning the Exodus (Ex. 15:2). God redeems His people out of Egypt (Ex. 15:1-10,
14-18; Hab. 3:12-15), carries them to Sinai where He reveals Himself to
them (Ex. 15:11-13), and then, as their triumphant Redeemer, goes
before them both to demonstrate His redemptive power to the nations and to
bring His people victoriously into the land (Deut.
33:2-3; Judg.
5:4-5; Pss.
18:7-15 [HB 18:8-16]; 68:7-8 [HB 68:8-9];
77:16-19 [HB 77:17-20]; 144:5-6; Hab. 3:3-11). That Exodus theme is perpetuated throughout the
OT (e.g., Num. 23:21-24; 24:8-9, 17-19; Deut.
4:35-40; Josh.
23:3-6), especially among the prophets who
build upon it in looking forward to the final salvation of Israel in a future
day (e.g., Isa. 10:20-22; 25:9; 35:4;
41:11-16; 43:1-13; 49:8-26; 50:11; 52:7-10; 54:6-10; Jer. 23:5-8; 32:37-44; Ezek. 34:11-16;
36:24-38; 37:21-28; Hos. 2:14-3:5; Joel 2:31-32 [HB
3:4-5]; Amos 9:11-15; Obad. 17; Mic. 2:12-13;
4:1-7; 5:5-15; Nah. 1:13-15; Zeph. 3:8-20; Hag. 2:23; Zech. 14:3; Mal. 4:5-6).
The salvation of
God’s anointed* is singled out for particular attention. Although historically
the term here probably has reference to Moses, it can be applied also to the
ruling member of the Davidic line, whose future coming was recorded by Moses
(cf. Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:19). David understood his role as God’s anointed (2 Sam. 7:8-29; 23:1-7), and the Scriptures from his time forward proclaim the inviolability
of the far-reaching provisions in the Davidic Covenant (cf. Pss. 2; 45:2-7; 89:3-4, 19-24, 27-37 [HB 89:4-5, 20-25, 28-38]; 110; Jer. 33:19-26; Ezek. 34:20-31)
that will find their ultimate realization in Israel’s Messiah (Isa. 42:1-7; 48:16-17; 49:1-7; 52:13-53:12; Jer. 23:5-8; Ezek. 37:24-28; Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 61:1-2 with Luke
4:18-19; see further Luke 1:68-78; Acts 2:29-36; 3:24-26; 15:16-17; Rev. 11:15).
In addition, the
fig tree and the vine had spiritual significance, for they symbolized the
blessing of God upon an obedient people (cf. Hos.
2:12; Amos
4:9 with 1
Kings 4:25 [HB 5:5]; 2 Kings 18:31;
see also Ps. 105:33; Isa. 36:16; Jer. 5:17; 8:13; Joel 2:19, 24; Hag. 2:19; Zech. 3:10). Likewise, olive oil and the grain of the field
(as well as the cattle) were objects of God’s blessing (cf. Num. 18:12; Deut. 7:13; 11:14; 28:51; 2 Kings 18:32; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; Hag. 1:11). עֹאן and בָּקָר are often used together to represent the totality
of cattle, both small and large.626 Thus the failure of all these resources had serious
economic and spiritual ramifications.
† שְׁדֵמוֹח (“fields”): Although the plural is twice used of
terraced lands (2 Kings 23:4; Jer. 31:40), it was also employed with grapes and vines in Deut. 32:32; Isa. 16:8, so
that “vineyard” is a likely possibility not only in these passages but also in Hab. 3:17. But
the following אֹכֶל (“food”) makes a final decision difficult. I have
retained the traditional denotation “fields.”
Most distinctive of all, however, is that, while vv. 2, 16-19 contain
themes and phrases that may be indebted to the material contained in vv. 3-15,
they are written in a poetic style largely representative of the classical
language and themes of the Psalter and prophets (cf. v. 2 with Pss. 44:1 [HB
44:2]; 85:4-7 [HB 85:5-8]; 102:12-13; Isa.
54:8; v. 16 with Ps. 37:7; v. 17
with Jer. 5:17; Joel 1:10- 12; Amos 4:9; vv. 18-19 with Pss.
27:1; 46:1-5 [HB 46:2-6]; 97:12). On the
other hand, vv. 3-15 reflect Israel’s earliest poetry (cf. v. 3 with Judg. 5:4; Ps. 68:7 [HB
68:8]; v. 5 with Deut. 33:2-3; vv. 10- 11 with Judg.
5:4-5; Pss.
18:7-15 [HB 18:8-16]; 68:7-8 [HB 68:8-9];
77:16-19 [HB 77:17-20]; 144:5-6; vv. {1.269}12-15 with Ex. 15:6-10,
14-18).639 In addition, as noted in the introduction under
Literary Context, this section is filled with archaic grammatical elements,
poetic devices, and themes such as that of the chariot warrior baring his bow.640
The
prophet Habakkuk, who I think is perfectly matchable with the great Jeremiah, would
therefore be the latter in his later mission of ‘building and planting’ (also
as Haggai), which positive mission
could not be activated until the post-exilic phase, the Medo-Persian rule.
Part Four: As Zechariah
“This title (han-nâbî) is applied only to Habakkuk, Haggai, and Zechariah”.
With Habakkuk now identified as (Jeremiah =) Haggai, then
it would be a neat completion if also Zechariah (of the same title as Habakkuk
and Haggai) could be an additional alter
ego.
Apart from the
shared title, there are a few points to recommend this further
identification, (Habakkuk = Jeremiah = Haggai) = Zechariah.
But there are also certain problems with it.
What follows here will thus be a brief and
tentative beginning, for further elaboration later.
In Favour
To identify Jeremiah with Zechariah would immediately
solve this most vexed of scriptural problems: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=658
Who was Matthew Quoting?
by
|
|
After
reporting in his gospel account about Judas’ suicide and the purchase of the
potter’s field, Matthew quoted from the prophets as he had done many times
prior to chapter 27. He wrote: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah
the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of
Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them
for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me’ ” (27:9-10). For centuries,
these two verses have been contemplated by Christians and criticized by
skeptics. The alleged problem with this passage, as one modern-day critic
noted, is that “this is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a misquote of Zechariah”
(Wells, 2001). Skeptics purport that Matthew misused Zechariah 11:12-13, and
then mistakenly attributed the quotation to Jeremiah. Sadly, even some
Christians have advocated this idea (see Cukrowski, et al., 2002, p. 40). What
can be said of the matter?
“What can be said of the matter” is that Matthew was quoting Jeremiah, but in the latter’s
post-exilic guise as Zechariah.
And it would also serve to fill out the duration of
the ministry of the prophet Haggai, which, according to estimates based upon
the Book of Haggai alone, “was short, lasting only four months” (http://www.bible-studys.org/Bible%20Books/Haggai/Book%20of%20Haggai.html)
However, the
prophet was old at this stage, anyway, by my estimations, so his post-exilic ministry
must of necessity have been rather brief.
Now, just as we
found with the prophet Habakkuk, with Haggai, “… it
is possible that [Zechariah] was a priest2” (https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-zechariah).
Jeremiah we know to have been both priest and
prophet.
Ezra 5:1 would now read as connected with a waw (וּ): “Now Haggai the prophet even Zechariah
the prophet …”.
And so my explanation would enable for the integration of
Haggai 1:1: “In the second year of King Darius, on the
first day of the sixth month, the word of the Lord came
through the prophet Haggai …”, with Zechariah 1:1: “In the eighth month of the
second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the
prophet Zechariah …”. Etc.
The same prophet, operating in the very same regnal year!
It might also explain why Haggai (= Habakkuk) is accorded no genealogy,
since Zechariah (1:1) will go on to supply that lack, “… Zechariah, son of
Berekiah, the son of Iddo …”.
Problematical
To identify Jeremiah with Zechariah would mean
having to cope with an additional Hebrew name for the prophet. I have already
loaded down Jeremiah with the additional names of Habakkuk and Haggai, but
Habakkuk is easily explained as a foreign (Akkadian) name given to Jeremiah presumably
by the Chaldeans. Haggai I take to be a hypocoristicon of Habakkuk. It was not
uncommon, however, for Israelites to acquire a new name at a turning point in
their lives – the well-known example of Jacob to Israel, for instance.
And I have previously identified:
Prophet Nahum as
Tobias-Job Comforted
Another problem
with my reconstruction is that, whilst Jeremiah-as-Habakkuk in the time of king
Cyrus is reasonable (I have estimated Jeremiah by now to be in his mid-eighties),
to stretch the prophet further to embrace Haggai/Zechariah, presumably in a
later Persian phase again, would make him extremely old.
This matter,
involving as it does, a fairly substantial renovation of Medo-Persian history,
will need to be left to another time.
But what I am very
excited about is that Zechariah 1:12, situated as it is still “in the second
year of Darius” (v. 7), speaks of the culmination then of Jeremiah’s 70 years: “Then
the angel of the LORD said, ‘LORD Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy
from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with
these seventy years?’”
That is
perfectly in accord with my revised chronology of Chaldean-Medo/Persian
history.
It goes like
this:
By “the first year of Nebuchadnezzar”,
23 (of the 70) years had already elapsed (Jeremiah 25:1-3):
The word came
to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim
son of Josiah king of Judah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon. So Jeremiah the prophet
said to all the people of Judah and to all those living in Jerusalem:
For twenty-three
years—from the thirteenth year of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah until
this very day—the word of the Lord has come to
me and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened.
Cf. v. 11, “seventy years”.
Nebuchednezzar reigned for 43
years. 23 + 43 = 66 years.
Evil-merodach, as Belshazzar
(my revision), reigned for about 3 years. 69 years.
Darius the Mede = Cyrus
finally allows the Temple to be rebuilt in his Year 1.
69 + 1 = 70.
So, in Year 2 the author of
Zechariah can appropriately refer to “these seventy years”.
Comments