I. Introduction
The
book of Habakkuk consists of two question and answer sessions between the
prophet and God followed by a woe oracle and the prophet's prayer. In addition
to reviewing the historical background of the writing of the book, this paper analyzes
God's response in the second round of discourse in Hab 2:4b.[1] What
אֱמוּנָה is and whose אֱמוּנָה it is in the original context and the uses of the verse in
the NT are examined. The application section addresses the problem of a lack of
explicit answer in this verse to Habakkuk's second lament and how it relates to
Christian theology especially when dealing with the problem of evil.
II.
Historical Background
Rast
argues that Habakkuk’s questions resemble those of lament Psalms.[2]
The difference is that while lament Psalms usually end with resolution of the
problem, promise of deliverance and expression of gratitude, God responded to
Habakkuk’s laments with messages of judgment[3]
and the book ends with Habakkuk’s prayer of hope. Habakkuk ministered in the
last days of Josiah and during the early reign of Jehoiakim.[4]
Josiah’s early death in the battle of Megiddo in 609 put his reform to an end
and as a result, Judah returned to a lifestyle of wickedness under Jehoiakim.
Yahweh made it clear in his message to Josiah about the certainty of judgment
on Judah (2 Ki 22:15-17). Nevertheless, Habakkuk expressed impatience in his
first lament due to Yahweh’s lack of
action in the face of rampant rebellion against him manifested in the absence
of respect to the law that naturally resulted in perversion of justice,
oppression of the righteous and disintegration of society (1:3b-4). Two
questions highlight the first lament: (1) why isn’t God doing anything to the
evil that his people are committing (1:3b)? and (2) how long will God let this
situation to continue (1:2)? Yahweh’s response that he would bring the
Babylonians to punish Judah settles both questions on the solution to the
problem of prolonged disobedience of his people, namely Babylon,[5]
and when this solution would be executed, namely soon considering the
geopolitical circumstances of the day.
Assyria
started to decline since the death of Ashurbanipal in 633 BC and was replaced by
Babylon as the world’s superpower after Nabopolassar conquered Niniveh in 612 BC with
the aid of Cyaxares of Media. Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the coalition
between Necho II of Egypt and the remains of the Assyrian forces in the battle
of Carchemish in 605 BC opened the entire Palestine for the Babylonians to advance
south and exposed Judah under direct threat of their invasion. That same year
God's judgment was fulfilled beginning when Nebuchadnezzar wasted no time but
attacked Judah immediately that resulted in the first exile. Zedekiah's attempt
to resist Babylon sealed Judah's fate as Jerusalem fell in 586 BC, less than 20
years after Carchemish and Judah was no more. Habakkuk’s concern to Yahweh’s
response is expressed in another question under the second lament: why does God
punish evil with evil? The primary issue here is why the punishment is so
indiscriminate as to cause the righteous to suffer as well (1:17)?[6]
Yahweh responded by first commanding that the vision he gave to Habakkuk be
written on tablets.[7]
Unlike the first response, there is no explicit answer to the second question. Other
than saying that he would punish Babylon whose judgment is described under the
woe oracle (2:6-20), he points out the contrast between the wicked and the
righteous person in 2:4.
III.
Literary Analysis
Andersen
proposes that אֱמוּנָה means either "a quality of a
truthful, reliable witness"[8] or
"reliability in carrying out a task, steadfastness in relationship, being
worthy of someone else's trust."[9] The third person possessive masculine singular
suffix וֹ refers
to חָזוֹן, the
vision God commanded Habakkuk to write in 2:2. So the point of 2:4b is that a
righteous person lives in reliance on the reliability of God's revelation which
implies the reliability of God himself being the giver of revelation.[10] Andersen
also adds that the word is "closely associated with the divine חֶסֶד,
mercy, righteousness and salvation."[11] Henry
sees אֱמוּנָה as the faith by which a righteous person
acts upon the word of God,[12]
thus implying the person's exercise of trust on an object, namely God, a definition
Andersen disagrees with.[13]
Though Henry is not necessarily mistaken, Andersen's view is closer to the
immediate context of chapter 2,[14]
The antithetical
parallelism of v.4 predicts two possible responses to the message (i.e., the
vision). The righteous will accept the message and rely on it; the wicked will
pervert it (it will get stuck in his crooked throat). The message is received
favorably by one who is already righteous. He does not become righteous
by receiving it. It is part of the righteous person's mentality to trust God.
Human faith (trust) is included in אֱמוּנָתוֹ only
indirectly. If 'his' refers to God's reliability, it is his consistent
upholding of justice, punishing the guilty, delivering the innocent.
Though
Henry understands the correct use of Hab 2:4b,[15] it
is easy when holding his view if one is not careful to think that the verse
emphasizes reliance on the righteous person's faith instead of God's
faithfulness. Reading the verse to mean that a righteous person lives by his
faith may lead one to legalism, namely reliance on the performance of his or
her own faith. There can be a serious implication of this error in soteriology
and Christian life. The questions asked in D. James Kennedy's Evangelism
Explosion can be used as a diagnostic tool, "If you were to die to now,
will you be in heaven or hell? What would you say if God asks the question,
'Why should I let you go to heaven'?" An incorrect understanding of Hab 2:4b
leads to the following answer. "I will go to heaven because I exercised
faith in Jesus Christ that He died for my sins that I no longer have to bear
the wrath of God. The decisive factor of my salvation lies in my decision to
exercise this faith. The Christian life consists of and depends on my faith in
God. I know I will make it in the end regardless of the circumstances since I
have strong faith. The righteous like me will live by my faith." Though
there is biblical content in this answer, it puts a lot of weight on
self-performance betraying semi-Pelagianism.
On
the other hand, a correct understanding of Hab 2:4b leads to the following
answer. "I will go to heaven only because of God's loving-kindness by
which he granted me the grace of faith to believe in the gospel about who Jesus
Christ is and what He did on the cross for sinners like me. I can face anything
in life not because I have great faith and rely on its performance, but because
of God's trustworthiness, that he would certainly do what he promised in his
Word, his faithfulness to sustain, take care of me and cause me to persevere to
remain faithful to him to the end (John 6:37, 39; 13:1, Rom 8:29-31). God gave
me the faith to believe the gospel through which I am justified (Rom 5:1). He
gave me the faith to live faithfully in reliance on him and the fact that I
exercise faith in him is an evidence of his faithfulness, the fulfillment of his
promise to keep me faithful to Christ all the days of my life (Phil 2:12-13)."
Ultimately, salvation from beginning to end depends on God's performance
including the life lived in light of this salvation in Christ. The decisive
factor is what God does through Christ; his trustworthiness, not
self-performance. The seeming self-performance is an evidence of God's
performance according to what he said he would do in his Word.
The
NT quotations of Hab 2:4b in Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11 and Heb 10:38 have the same
structure (ὁ
δὲ) δίκαιος (μου) ἐκ πίστεως
ζήσεται.
Notable textual differences are Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11 omit the suffix וֹ (αὐτοῦ)
and add the article ὁ while
Heb 10:38 uses first person possessive singular suffix μου instead
and omits δὲ.[16] Heb
10:38 quotes the LXX that uses Habakkuk manuscript where the scribe did not
write ו
long enough that it was interpreted as a י the first person possessive suffix.[17]
Nevertheless this difference does not imply an error since it does not change
the meaning compared to the original text in Hab 2:4b. Both μου and וֹ
in
Heb 10:38 and Hab 2:4b, respectively refer to God. Just as Hab 2:4b talks about
the reliability of God's revelation, there is also a promise in the preceding
verse in Heb 10:37b, "Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and
will not delay" which the author of Hebrews urges his readers to rely on.
In
Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11, ἐκ πίστεως, the equivalent of בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ modifies ὁ δίκαιός, the equivalent of צַדִּיק since
the context is justification by faith. So Paul’s point is the righteous, namely
only those justified by faith or “the righteous out of faith” will be saved.[18] The question is whether
Paul quotes Hab 2:4b out of context in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11. To answer this
question, it is necessary to note the connection between justification by faith
in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11and living in reliance on God's faithfulness in Hab 2:4b.
The former is the root and the latter is the fruit. The former is implied in
the latter and the latter is an evidence of the former. There is a
presupposition of justification by faith in 2:4b, namely only those who trust
God will be enabled to live faithfully to him in any circumstance.[19]
[20]
Habakkuk understood that the righteous person in 2:4b is someone who is
righteous by faith. The concept of justification by faith, someone God declares
righteous for trusting him is not foreign in the OT, perhaps the most eminent
example of whom is Abraham (Gen 15:6). The OT faith looks forward to the
fulfilment of God’s salvation whose details weren’t fully revealed. In the NT faith
takes on a deeper meaning with the coming of Christ. The NT faith looks
backward to the finished work of Christ on the basis of which only one can be
made righteous with God by virtue of the imputation of the sinners’ sins on
Christ on the cross and Christ’s perfect righteousness on them. Both OT and NT
saints exercised their faith on the same object, namely Jesus Christ and are
justified by the same faith. The evidence of their being justified by faith is
that they persevere to live in reliance on God’s faithfulness in all
circumstances, the point of Hab 2:4b. Hence in Hab 2:4b, as in Heb 10:38,בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ (ἐκ πίστεως) modifies
יִחְיֶה (ζήσεται) since
the context of both passages is perseverance of the saints.
IV.
Application: How to Respond to the Problem of Evil
When
comparing God’s response to Habakkuk’s question in the second lament (see
section II), it appears that God does not provide an explicit answer why he
brings the wicked Babylonians to punish Judah and why this punishment affects
the righteous adversely as well. The central message of God’s response is Hab
2:4b followed by the assurance that Babylon ultimately will be destroyed as
well in the woe oracle. Why the lack of explicit answer? Rast identifies
Habakkuk’s second lament as similar to Job’s in which God is put on trial.[21]
The central question in Job is why God punishes Job without any obvious reason.
At the end of the book after multiple rounds of heated exchanges between Job
and his friends, God appears, not to answer Job, but to deliver a sharp rebuke
against him (Job 38:2ff). The reason for this seemingly harsh response[22]
is perhaps due to lack of reverence in some of Job’s language as the discourses
progress (e.g., Job 3:1-10, 23, 7:17, 12:5-6, 19:7). In the end his question
about why he was afflicted is never answered. Similarly, God doesn’t answer
Habakkuk’s question except the response is not as stinging as that delivered to
Job, perhaps due to Habakkuk’s less aggressive questioning posture. As Rast
points out, Job’s and Habakkuk’s second lament deal with theodicy. The problem
of evil asks that if God is good and in control or sovereign, why he allows
evil to happen.
Scripture
affirms the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, that God is the First Cause of all
things including sin and evil.[23]
On the other hand God is also holy and therefore cannot be the author of sin.[24]
His sovereignty does not imply that he coerces creatures to act against their
wills but his sovereign plan is carried out through their wills exercised
freely according to their nature.[25]
Therefore creatures, not God are responsible and guilty for the evil they
commit. However, maintaining both attributes of God: his holiness and sovereignty
involves tension. It is a paradox that God is both holy and designs evil. We
know both are true since Scripture affirms them yet we do not know how this can
be. Talbot remarks that the reason is because this is the case of a unique Creator
– creature relationship in which God is the ultimate explanation.[26]
It is this link between the sovereignty of God and human responsibility that
comprises a mystery hidden presently to the world and is only known to God
(Deut 29:29) that is the reason behind the lack of explicit answer to
Habakkuk’s second lament. It is as if God said to him, “You already know the
truth, that I am holy (1:12a, 13a) and I am sovereign over all things including
in ordaining Babylon to punish my people (1:12b). There is nothing else to say
but that you ought to live in reliance on my faithfulness (2:4b). Believe in
all that I have revealed to you about who I am though you still have unanswered
questions and do not be arrogant insisting that you need to know everything and
I need to provide you all the answers now (2:4a).”
As
an application for today’s use, the opposite of Hab 2:4b alluded in 2:4a[27] serves
as God’s warning to those who refuse to affirm the truth about his attributes
of holiness and sovereignty. Insisting that there must not be a tension, there
cannot be a mystery in the problem of evil signals arrogance, a puffed up[28]
soul that results in unbiblical theology by maintaining one attribute of God at
the expense of the other. One extreme of the resulting unbiblical theology is
Opentheism. In order for God to be holy and thus, not the author of evil, he
cannot be sovereign. Talbot acknowledges a noble intention behind this
assertion, namely Opentheists desire to acquit God of any wrongdoing.[29]
Yet on the other hand, there is also insistence on human autonomy, God cannot
force anyone to do anything. God’s sovereignty implies he forces creatures to
act against their wills and reduces creatures to be mere robots. Creatures have free-will in an autonomous
sense and therefore it is necessary that God cannot know what is going to
happen in the future. The future is decided by God and creatures. The most
serious implication of Opentheism is that removing God’s attribute of sovereignty
is equivalent to make him to be less than the true God and therefore not God at
all. It is clear from passages such as Isa 41:21-24, 48:3-8 and 44:7 that what
distinguishes God from idols is his foreknowledge and without this attribute
God is reduced to an idol.
The
other extreme of the resulting unbiblical theology is Hyper-Calvinism.
Traditionally, Hyper-Calvinism is known from its characteristic of the denial
of the necessity of preaching the gospel universally and that the unregenerate
has a duty to believe in the gospel and repent.[30]
The gospel is to be preached only to those who show signs of regeneration.
Total depravity is used as an excuse for the inability and thus, the
responsibility to believe the gospel and repent. The sovereignty of God
nullifies human responsibility. High-Supralapsarianism,
a school of Calvinistic theories in which God’s decree to elect and reprobate
comes first is another example of similar extreme to Hyper-Calvinism.[31]
According to this view, “both election and reprobation are operations of mere
sovereignty.” The implication is, “if God had reprobated man (who was
initially) free from all sin, it would have been a work of absolute and
autocratic power, but not a work of justice…It logically makes God the
efficient producer of sin.”[32]
In other words, the over-emphasis on the sovereignty of God in this case casts
doubts on his holiness.
Hab
2:4b teaches the right Christian response to the problem of evil, namely
reliance on God’s faithfulness an element of which includes the affirmation of
divine sovereignty and holiness as well as creaturely responsibility. Despite
some remaining mystery, believers ought to hold on to Scriptural truth about
who he is. There cannot be any wrongdoing committed by God regardless of the
outward appearance. He controls all events in history. He knows what he is
doing and he does all things well for his glory first and most importantly and
for the good of his people. And his faithfulness includes their preservation in
Christ that causes them to persevere in holding on to the faith delivered to
them once and for all (Jud 3) to the
end, demonstrated in faithful living to the glory and honor of their Risen Lord
(2 Cor 5:15).
[2]
Walter E. Rast, "Habakkuk and Justification by Faith." Currents
in Theology and Mission 10.3 (1983):169-170.
[3] Rast, "Habakkuk and
Justification by Faith", 171.
[4] Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting
the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 168.
[5] confirmed
in 1:12, “O Lord, you have ordained them as a judgment, and you, O Rock, have
established them for reproof.”
[6] Van Gemeren, Interpreting the
Prophetic Word, 168-170. Also Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean:
McDonald, 1985), 1357-1358.
[7] לְמַעַן יָרוּץ קוֹרֵא בוֹ Henry, Commentary, 1359. God commands
Habakkuk to write on tablets legibly and with large characters so that he who
runs may still be able to read it. Compare with Andersen: it is not a runner
who reads but it is the reciter who runs. The reciter is not merely to write
the vision down, but also to run with it to proclaim it. It is the prophet who
runs. So the translation according to Andersen is "in order that he may
run proclaiming (קוֹרֵא is qal participle) with it
(again, in בוֹ,
the third person possessive masculine singular suffix וֹ
refers to the vision חָזוֹן as in 2:4b). Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk
(AYBC; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 204-205. I think Andersen is
correct.
[8] Andersen, Habakkuk, 206.
[9] Andersen, Habakkuk, 215.
[10] Andersen, Habakkuk, 205, 211,
"The guarantee of life for the righteous is grounded in the reliability of
God."
[12] Henry, Commentary, 1360.
[13] Andersen, Habakkuk, 215. "In
any case, אֱמוּנָה does not mean 'trustingness' as a spiritual virtue of
which a human being is capable."
[14] Andersen, Habakkuk, 214.
[15] Henry, Complete Commentary, 1360.
"The just shall live by faith; during the captivity good people shall
support themselves, and live comfortably by faith in these precious promises
while the performance of them is deferred. The just shall live by his faith, by
that faith which he acts upon the word of God."
[16]
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistles to the Hebrews (NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdsman,
1993), 554. Manuscripts of Hebrews vary according to where μου is:
(a)
placed
after δίκαιός, giving the
meaning 'my righteous one will live by his faith'
(b)
placed
after πίστεως meaning 'the
righteous one will live by faith in me.'
(c)
omitted
(Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11), μου does not add
anything to the argument.
[17] Andersen, Habakkuk, 211.
[18] to be contrasted with
justification by the works of the Law which no one can attain in Rom 3:18. Also
see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 555, "Paul (Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11) takes ἐκ πίστεως
with ὁ δίκαιός
to
give the meaning 'the one who is righteous, not by works but by faith will
live.’"
[19]
Arthur
W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 641-642."The
prophet is cited in proof that perseverance is one of the distinguishing
characteristics of a child of God. He who has been justified by God, through
the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his account, lives by faith as the
influencing principle of his life. The one whom God has exonerated from the
curse and condemnation of the law, is not him who has merely believed, but is
the man who continues believing, with all that word includes, and involves. The
use of the future tense 'shall live' announces and enforces the necessity for
the continued exercise of faith. Those whom God declares righteous in Christ
are to pass their lives here, not in doubt and fear, but in the maintenance of
a calm trust in and a joyful obedience to Him. Only as the heart is engaged with
God and feeds upon his Word, will the soul be invigorated and fitted to press
onwards when everything outward seems to be against him. It is by our faith
being drawn out unto things above that we receive the needed strength which
causes us to look away from the discouraging and distracting scene around us.
As faith lives upon Christ (John 6:56-57), it draws virtue from Him, as the
branch derives sap from the root of the vine. Faith makes us resign ourselves
and our affairs to Christ's disposing, cheerfully treading the path of duty and
patiently waiting that issue which He will give. Faith is assured that our Head
knows far better than we do what is good and best."
[20] Henry, Commentary, 1360.
"This is quoted in the New Testament (Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38) for
the proof of the great doctrine of justification by faith only and of the
influence which the grace of faith has upon the Christian life. Those that are
made just by faith shall live, shall be happy here and forever, while they are
here, they live by it; when they come to heaven faith shall be swallowed up in
vision."
[21] Rast, "Habakkuk and
Justification by Faith," 172.
[22] God in essence tells Job, “You
don’t question me. I question you (Job 38:2, 40:7). By my questioning you I
will show that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
[23] Ex 4:11, Deut 32:39, Judges 9:23,
1 Sam 2:6-7, 16:14-23, Job 42:11, Ps 139:1-5, 15-16, Lam 3:32, 37-38, Amos 3:6,
Isa 31:2, 45:7, 46:10, Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, I use the term exhaustive
foreknowledge of God and sovereignty of God interchangeably in this paper.
[24] Gen 18:25, 2 Chron 19:7, Hos 14:9,
Ps 139:75, 145:17.
[25] The summary about the nature of
the sovereignty of God is given in WCF III.1. “God from all eternity did by the
most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain
whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin;
nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” It should
also be added whatever God has decreed to come to pass will come to pass (Dan
4:35, Isa 46:10, Ps 33:11, Heb 6:17).
[26] Mark Talbot, “All the Good that
is Ours in Christ: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us,”
2005 Desiring God National Conference, October 8, 2005, Minneapolis, MN.
Talbot’s conference address is available from http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/all-the-good-that-is-ours-in-christ-seeing-gods-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-us,
accessed April 5, 2013.
[28] Henry,
Commentary, 1360, "Those that either distrust or despise God's all
sufficiency will not walk uprightly with him," Also Andersen, Habbakuk,
209, עֻפְּלָה
presumptuous defiance of the Lord’s command, arising from self-trust and
leading to death. Traditional “proud and arrogant” is probably the best that
can be done.”
[29] Talbot, "All the Good."
Opentheism is distinct from Arminianism in that the latter acknowledges God's
foreknowledge, but not the same way Reformed theology understands it. As stated
in the remonstrance of 1610 (The Canons of Dort, paragraph 5, in The Three
Forms of Unity (Grand Rapids: RCUS, 2006), p.66), Arminians believe that
God knew in advance before the foundation of the world who would believe and
this act of believing foreknown by God is the ground for him to elect and thus,
to save them. Though God knew who would and would not believe before creation,
he did not influence them in any way. In other words, the act of believing is
done autonomously. Consider the implication of the Arminian proposition. What it
says is tantamount to that one's will exists before that person physically
exists. That person's will is as eternal as God, but it is not God. It is part
of that person. The corollary is that each person is eternal since part of him
or her, namely the will always eternally exists even before the actual person
is born.
[30] Sam Storms, Chosen for Life
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 159-161.
[31] Storms, Chosen for Life, 215.
[32] Storms, Chosen for Life, 217-219.
No comments:
Post a Comment