Hab 1:1-5
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
The Old Testament > Habakkuk > Chapter 1
| Previous (Nahum 3:16-19) | Next (Hab 1:6-10) |
Contents |
Questions
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions
Lexical notes
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes
Exegesis
Verse 1
Habakkuk calls his prophecy, according to the KJV, a burden. The word undeniably means burden (despite some other translations), in its secular usage referring, for example, to a burden placed on the back of an animal. Habakkuk's usage here is not unique: the visions of the prophets are often called such in scripture. However, whereas most often the burden is attached linguistically to the condemned people ("the burden of Babylon," "the burden of Ninevah," etc.), here the burden is, as it were, absolutized, drawn, at least, away from any such immediate contextualization. The burden simply is, regardless of what nation it might concern: the prophecy is marked with a sort of universality, an all-applicability, that seems to connect it in the end to the universality of ritual (there is, it will become obvious, reason to connect the words of Habakkuk to the liturgy of the temple). In this last connection, it is important to note two further linguistic points from this first verse. First, Habakkuk's name means something like "the embracing one," obviously suggesting ties to temple ritual. Second, the burden Habakkuk mentions he qualifies particularly by sight, by seeing, suggesting further ties to the temple rites (the climax of which, of course, was to see God enthroned on the ark). All in all, this simple introductory verse already provides a sort of liturgical setting for all of the following.
Verse 2
Though Habakkuk's book begins by uniting his prophetic effort with that of the other prophets (by using the common "burden," though perhaps in an uncommon manner), the first verse of the prophecy proper immediately cancels this apparent unity. Whereas the prophets generally speak to the people in the name of the LORD, even as the LORD, Habakkuk speaks here to the LORD. The prophecy is, in other words, a prayer (and more than just that, as will become clear within a few verses). What this accomplishes for Habakkuk's prophecy cannot be overlooked: the overwhelming figure of the authorized servant is foregone, as is the still more overwhelming (though in a different way) figure of the unwillingly inspired slave, and what takes the place of these two alternate profiles is the man who in his prayer is visibly frustrated with the LORD but who all the same receives (as shall be seen) very real, and very specific answers. In other words, replacing the prophet as figure of the LORD's regard is the prophet as frustrated man (without figure) of faith. Habakkuk: a David or a Job rather than an Isaiah or an Ezekiel.
Subjected to a more careful study of the OT prophetic phenomenon, however, this first characterization must be restated--better: recontextualized. If the prophetic experience might be read as two moments (the prophetic experience versus the prophetic publication, manifestation versus proclamation), then Habakkuk does not appear to be so radically different from other prophets. His prophetic experience does not appear to have been so fundamentally different from that of the others, only the manner of proclaiming his experience: whereas the moment of proclamation radically reworks the prophetic experience--apparently--for most prophets, Habakkuk seems to have rendered his experience more literally in his own proclamation. Or rather, whether or not the write-up does some "poetic violence" to the "original experience," Habakkuk's book of prophecy attempts to publish the experience of the prophet perhaps more than it attempts to publish the message of that experience. It thus functions as a sort of invitation to readers to stand as prophet in the first prophetic moment (hence, in the Holy of Holies), rather than to stand as a member of the crowd that hears the prophet speak in the second prophetic moment (hence, gathered outside the temple). Habakkuk's text might be called more "existential" (read: ritual, liturgical, experiential) than the texts of other prophets.
All this said, the actual content of the prayer might be approached. This very verse already makes the nature of Habakkuk's prayer very clear: he is upset with the LORD. The text clearly falls under the category of "complaint literature." The first verse is, of course, a parallelism, setting "cry" (the Hebrew verb here implies intensity and desperation) parallel to "cry out unto thee of violence" (a different Hebrew verb here, far less intense, but intesified by the complaint of "violence," which is, incidentally, a rather weak translation: the "violence" the Hebrew calls for is the violence of the deliberately wicked, as in Noah's day), and "thou wilt not hear" parallel to "thou wilt not save." The double cry of desperation is to be read at its most intense moment, due to the "how long" at the beginning of the verse: not only does the prophet/servant now seek help, but he has apparently done so for quite a while. But--is this a mark of humility or a hedge for safety?--in order to register his complaint, he does not point out explicitly the LORD's neglect, but asks instead a (rhetorical) question: how long? The implicit indictment is softened by the open-endedness of the question. That the prayer begins with a question is perhaps emphasized by the order of the words in the Hebrew text: the "how long" actually precedes the name of the LORD (yhwh), so that the name splits the question in two. The prayer emphatically begins, then, as a question, not as an accusation. But these opening two words are quite descriptive: the Hebrew means literally "until where?" suggesting exasperation in a physical hardship more than frustration with an unanswered prayer. There is the implication of a sort of aimless roving on the prophet's part, a wandering in a wilderness that seems never to end (like Io, always wandering, always crying for peace).
Two final notes might finish off consideration of this particular verse. First, the LORD's passivity is marked by two unaccomplished actions: hearing and saving. The gap between the two is obvious, though Habakkuk's two cries are rather close in nature. Looking more closely at the situation, however, one recognizes a sort of pride on the prophet's part: who is he to say that the LORD does not hear? But this itself draws out the point: the Hebrew verb "to hear" implies response or action. To hear and to save are near equivalents. Second, it is vital to recognize the first person "I" uttered by Habakkuk as prophet. Since only the one prophet is offering the prayer of complaint, the violence he complains of remains ambiguous: it might be Israelite violence against himself, it might be the violence of another nation against Israel, and it might be something entirely unexpected. The "I," however, provides a locus for the complaint: it must be understood entirely from within the prophetic subject, from within the self created by the call issued to the prophet as prophet. Regardless of who receives the violence, of who ultimately ought to be crying out, only the prophet offers the authentic complaint, one pure enough and bold enough to be answered.
Verse 3
Again Habakkuk phrases his complaint as a question, but now in a question of a different manner. The accusation is more explicit in this double question, but he prefaces the whole with "why," offering the LORD an opportunity to respond and explain. In other words, though it is clear that the LORD has offended by doing exactly what Habakkuk mentions, the prophet leaves open to the LORD the opportunity to explain the purpose of such offense. (It ought to be noted that the English "for" following the question reflects no Hebrew equivalent, and so the second half of the verse should not be read as a justification of the first half.) The accusation in this verse grows not only more specific, but also seems to impute more ill will to the LORD. Both verbs in the question are causative in Hebrew: "Why dost thou make me see iniquity, and cause me to regard grievance?" The violence of the previous verse is now not understood as something the LORD merely does not take away, but as something the LORD--by not taking it away--causes the prophet to behold. The second verb is especially interesting: "to behold" or "to regard," it implies an active looking or considering on the prophet's part, but by using the causative, Habakkuk has shifted the activity to the more powerful LORD. In other words, the LORD Himself forces the prophet to stare at, to consider, to regard constantly the wickedness about him. And what the prophet therefore regards and sees is of interest as well: "trouble" would be a better translation than "iniquity" and "toil" than "grievance." The latter word is the term used to describe the work to be done outside of Eden, and the former is used most generally to describe physical difficulties that arise from sin. Habakkuk's complaint seems to be that he is constantly forced to think the Fall, rather than to praise because of the Atonement. He is forced to regard fallen man, when he would rather be regarded by a graceful God. Considering the violence of verse 2, the prophet seems primarily to be frustrated by the fallen order and growing impatient while waiting for the new creation.
The English "for" translated the Hebrew w, "and": there is no particular reason to see a causal or logical relation between the two halves of the verse, as the English implies. Rather, with a view to the next verse, it appears that this is to be understood as a separate statement from the first half (particularly in light of the reappearance of "violence," harking back to the first verse. At any rate, this second part of the verse looks forward, not immediately backward to the last question.
Related links
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links
| Previous (Nahum 3:16-19) | Next (Hab 1:6-10) |
