“Where shall I place Habakkuk?”

by Damien F. Mackey “We can see some superficial similarities in Job’s and Habakkuk’s respective theophanies, but the differences are clear also”. Hayyim Obadyah Venerable Fulton J. Sheen told this story about the prophet Habakkuk in a London Lecture of March 16, 1970: I know of a Biblical lecturer who had as his subject the 12 minor prophets. After one hour and 45 minutes, he had finished three. He had a dim sense that maybe the audience was getting tired and perhaps he should introduce the next one with some degree of histrionics. He said, “And now ... and now ... Where shall I place Habakkuk?” Someone got up in the back and said, “He can take my seat”. Habakkuk no doubt deserves much better than that. And I think that the prophet may become far more interesting when enhanced with a famous alter ego, as I have done now in the case of various of the so-called “12 minor prophets”, e.g.: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (2) (DOC) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I believe that I have found a solid match, too, in Tobias son of Tobit, for the righteous Job, with whom Habakkuk’s metaphysical outlook can often be likened: Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile (4) Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Mis-aligning potential alter egos, though, can lead one right up the garden path. For a time, I had tried to fix the prophet Zephaniah to Shallum (also a prophet), the husband of Huldah (2 Chronicles 34:22), before I became firmly settled upon (the reputedly Simeonite) Zephaniah (or Sophonias) as the definitely Simeonite Amos (= Micah). (See first article above) Now, in the case of Habakkuk - despite similarities with Job that had even made me wonder, on and off, if Habakkuk were Job - I had eventually come to what I thought was a neat conclusion, that Habakkuk was actually Elihu, the young man who would act as an intermediary between Job and the Lord. This Elihu, so I had come to think, had (as Habakkuk) already grappled with the very same problem of evil as would Job, but had emerged from the struggle even more enlightened on the issue than Job would be after his own theophany. Elihu, consequently, so I had imagined, knew that he was now Divinely empowered to counsel Job most wisely concerning an issue that had also deeply troubled himself. Upon further consideration, though, and with the benefit of the added information provided by the story of Habakkuk’s intervention to feed Daniel in the den of lions (Daniel 14:33-39), my firm (hopefully) conclusion has become, at last, that Habakkuk was Job. Articles showing similarities between Job and Habakkuk appear to be quite common - though these proceed as if (and just as I had thought) that Job and Habakkuk were separate individuals. Here follow just a few examples of such comparisons: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/nhtspj/similarities_between_job_and_habakkuk/ Similarities between Job and Habakkuk …. Job and Habakkuk both deal with a person of God questioning God's justice. Job was "blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil". Habakkuk questioned why God allowed evil in Israel and became more puzzled when God told him that He would use the "ruthless" Babylonians (1:6) to "execute judgment" (1:12) on a people "more righteous than themselves" (1:13). In the end, we see both that 1) good people suffer (under God's direct control) 2) Job & Habakkuk both have a change of heart while not having their original questions answered. 42 Then Job replied to the Lord: 2 “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. 4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ 5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” --- 17 Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, 18 yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior. --- The NIV Study Bible notes on Habakkuk 3:17 states "Probably anticipates the awful results of the imminent Babylonian invasion and devastation. This verse demonstrates that bad things can and do happen to good people." The NIV Application commentary for Job makes the point that the Retribution Principle (i.e., "the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer") should not be applied to theodicy ("explaining evil in the world") but to theology ("the nature of God"). It states the point of Job is to trust in God's wisdom rather than focus on God's justice (as we can understand it). What's interesting to me is that both Job and Habakkuk did not have their original questions answered yet had a radical change of heart. My understanding is that they were given faith in God's wisdom. For people who are suffering, even though we can't help but pray for the suffering to end, this may be a helpful perspective. …. Again, Hayyim Obadyah, “Contextual Theophanies: Ezekiel and Habakkuk”: Contextual_Theophanies_Ezekiel_and_Habak.pdf Habakkuk’s Similarity to Job Like Job, Habakkuk challenges God about bad things happening to good people. As in Job, God’s theophany is a response to that challenge. A response – but not an answer to the question asked. We can see some superficial similarities in Job’s and Habakkuk’s respective theophanies, but the differences are clear also. The two books have a few interesting parallels in language. After the theophany Job says (42:5) $יִ תְּ עַ מְ שׁ ןֶ זֹא- עַ מֵ שְׁ ל” I had heard of You by hearsay”, while Habakkuk starts out by saying (3:2), $ ֲעְ מִ שׁ יִ תְּ עַ מָ שׁ” I have heard report of You.” In Job (38:82 וַ יָּסֶ ,( םָי םִיַ תָ לְ דִ בּ” who shut up the sea with doors?” seems to reflect an orderly process of creation, while Habakkuk says (3:153 Your with trampled You “דָּ רַ כְ תָּ בַ יָּם סוּסֶ י$ : ,( horses through the sea”, which may suggest a creation that is a triumph of order over chaos. The Different Reactions of Job and Habakkuk A fundamental difference between the two is the response of the two protagonists. Job is awed and humbled Job 40:4 הֵ ן קַ 6 תִ י מָ ה אֲ שִׁ יבֶ ךָּ יָדִ י שַׂ מְ תִּ י לְ מוֹ :פִ י Here, what should I who am of small account answer You? I put my hand over my mouth. The lesson he learns is contrition and his response is repentance: Job 42:3b, 6 לָ כֵ ן הִ גַּ דְ תִּ י וְ ל ֹא אָ בִ ין נִ פְ לָ אוֹת מִ מֶּ נִּי וְ ל ֹא אֵ דָ ע: ... עַ ל כֵּ ן אֶ מְ אַ ס וְ נִ חַ מְ תִּ י עַ ל עָ פָ ר וָ אֵ פֶ ר : So I spoke but did not understand, wonders beyond me I did not know …. Therefore I recant and regret, in the dust and ash. While God appears to Job and communicates with him, Habakkuk does not simply have a conversation with God. He experiences a vision of God not just making an appearance but acting within history. So, his reaction is very different from Job’s. In verse 16, Habbakuk describes this reaction to God’s appearance. Habakkuk 3:16 שָׁ מַ עְ תִּ י וַ תִּ רְ גַּ ז בִּ טְ נִי לְ קוֹל צָ לְ לוּ שְׂ פָ תַ י יָבוֹא רָ קָ ב בַּ עֲ צָ מַ י וְ תַ חְ תַּ י אֶ רְ גָּ ז אֲ שֶׁ ר אָ נוּחַ לְ יוֹם צָ רָ ה לַ עֲ לוֹת לְ עַ ם יְגוּדֶ נּוּ. I heard, and my guts heaved; at the sound my lips quivered; rot penetrated my bones; and I quaked in place; where I composed myself for the day of trouble, to go up against the people assaulting us. Habakkuk, like Job, is awed, but his response is visceral. Even though in Habakkuk’s case, the lesson to be learned is not as clearly spelled out as it is in Job, Habakkuk’s response goes far beyond Job’s because Habakkuk feels assured of God taking action – even though he may not understand that action. Therefore, rather than simply acknowledging the error of challenging God, Habakkuk rejoices! Habakkuk 3:18-19 וַ אֲ נִי בַּ ה ' אֶ עְ לוֹזָ ה אָ גִילָ ה בֵּ א7הֵ י יִשְׁ עִ י 'ה : אֲ דֹנָי חֵ ילִ י וַ יָּשֶׂ ם רַ גְ לַ י כָּ אַ יָּלוֹת וְ עַ ל בָּ מוֹתַ י יַדְ רִ כֵ נִי ... As for me, I exult in Adonai! I am glad in God my Victory, Adonai is my powerful Suzerain, places my feet like deer, and has me tread on heights … The Meaning of Habakkuk’s Theophany Job’s challenges collapse before the transcendence of God that is far beyond our comprehension, but Habakkuk embraces that transcendence. He is not intimidated by the overwhelming reality of God that is unchallengeable, but instead is comforted by the unmediated experience of God as an active, engaged player in the world. When Habakkuk learns that it is folly to expect that God should explain divine actions or to expect to understand why God does what God does, that is when he is able to reach the core of his prophecy and experience a profound joy of faith in God’s relevance. In the end, Habakkuk learns that the response he receives from God is far better than the explanation he sought. By engaging with the numinous experience of encountering God, the prophet has regained the solid foundation he needs. The troubles surrounding him, whether of injustice or oppression, however distressing, cannot overcome his confidence that God both is above all and does act in the world. This is the culmination not only of the psalm, but of the prophetic book. Habakkuk’s challenges earlier in the book have been satisfied not by logical explanation but through experience. In the context of the book, Habakkuk’s theophany can only come at the end. Like that of Job, it resolves all that has come before. …. And, finally, we read at: A Brief Look at the Problem of Evil in the Old Testament | (preachandpersuade.com) A Brief Look at the Problem of Evil in the Old Testament August 18, 2020 preachandpersuade Unsurprisingly, the problem of evil is as relevant in the Old Testament culture as it is today. In classic postmodern fashion, the existence of evil is given as one of the greatest arguments against God’s existence. Obviously, those who advocate such an argument forget that evil is a metaphysical reality, thus, validating the existence of the supernatural. In that light, the problem of evil should not be concerned with the existence of God, but rather the consistency of God’s character with evil. The word theodicy is used to describe the tension between the existence of evil and God’s character as righteous, just, and sovereign. To the finite mind, a contradiction seems unavoidable. The books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Habakkuk share the common thread of addressing the issue of theodicy, and thus, will be compared and contrasted to discover the Old Testament perspective. Job The book of Job is arguably the primary treatment of theodicy in the Bible. Brilliantly, Job addresses the common pitfalls of most theodicy arguments. To understand how the topic of theodicy is addressed in Job, understanding the historical context around the original reader of Job is imperative. Many of the near-eastern societies in the ancient world believed in a retribution principle. The basic idea of the principle is that the righteous receive blessing while the wicked receive suffering. Thus, if someone experienced great suffering and loss, it was because they were guilty of some great wrong. The common retribution ideology is expressed by the four friends of Job in the narrative. Their answer to the question of evil is simple; those who suffer receive justice for wicked behavior, while those who do not prove to be righteous. In their eyes, Job is guilty of unrighteous behavior (Jb 4:7-8). The beginning of the book reveals essential information. First, the reader is given the insight that Job is indeed righteous (Jb 1:1). Second, the reader is presented with another aspect of the retribution principle, namely, that blessing from righteousness will create improper motives for pursuing righteousness (Jb 1:9-11). Satan asserts that Job is righteous because he receives blessing and reward, not because he is truly good. To keep the reader from solving the problem of evil by reducing God’s control, God initiates the conversation with Satan and allows Satan to enact his plan (Jb 1:8,12; 2:3,6). Once the book closes, five things are clear. God is in control of all events, both good and evil (Jb 2:10; 42:11). Suffering and evil are not reserved for the wicked; the righteous shall also suffer. True righteousness is not motivated by blessing, but by love for God. God remains just while ordaining the suffering of the righteous. Finally, God’s use of evil is according to His infinite wisdom; thus, man cannot comprehend the harmony between God’s character and control over evil. In a condensed format, with clearer historical figures and events, the book of Habakkuk reveals the same answer to theodicy. Habakkuk Nearing the end of the reign of Josiah, the Babylonian empire began to rise as the preeminent power. Egypt, likely fearing Babylon’s conquest, sought to aid the failing Assyrian empire to uphold a buffer between Babylon and Egypt. For Egypt to reach Assyria, a trip through Judah was required. However, Josiah was unwilling to allow such an event; thus, he met Egypt in battle. Judah was defeated, and Josiah was killed. In the aftermath, Josiah’s wicked son Eliakim (2 Kgs 24:4), renamed Jehoiakim, was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho II. The historical events serve as the backdrop for Habakkuk’s cry out to God to bring justice to Judah’s wickedness under Jehoiakim (Hb 1:2-4). Hints of the retribution principle are seen in Habakkuk’s plea; he was confused at why the righteous fell and wicked prospered (Hb 2:4). God’s response was unexpected. God told Habakkuk that He was raising up the Chaldeans as a rod of justice towards Judah (Hb 1:6). Habakkuk was shocked, unable to harmonize God’s righteous character with His use of a wicked nation like Babylon. Much like Job, Habakkuk contends with God. Habakkuk argues using God’s character against Him (Hb 1:12-17). However, unlike Job, who argues for his innocence, Habakkuk admits the sin of Judah. God’s response seems unsatisfactory. God says He is in control. Amazingly, Habakkuk responds by trusting God. He sees no reason to limit God’s sovereignty or question His character. Job and Habakkuk serve as models for a proper response to the issues of theodicy – trusting God and living by faith (Hb 2:4). Ecclesiastes The book of Ecclesiastes is not centered on the question of theodicy as clearly as Job and Habakkuk. However, the book does provide insight into the failure of the retribution principle (Eccl 7:15), and thus finds comparison with Job. The form of the book is much like Psalms and Proverbs as a collection of literary types. The main idea of Ecclesiastes is the meaninglessness of temporal things, and therefore, the meaningfulness of knowing God. In Job, Satan sought to show how Job’s righteousness was a product of perpetual material blessings. Ecclesiastes shows the folly in Satan’s idea; all of the accomplishments of a king are disappointing (Eccl 1:12-4:16). Evil and suffering can come to anyone. Ultimately, death comes to the righteous and unrighteous (Eccl 8:9-9:10). Similar to Job and Habakkuk, Ecclesiastes upholds the sovereignty of God. God is said to set the seasons and times; therefore, all events are unchangeable (Eccl 3:1-15). Conclusion Scripture does not seek to harmonize God’s character with His control over evil. Often weak men, unable to live in the tension, compromise on one of two truths. First, God’s sovereignty is reduced to put evil outside of God’s control in efforts to protect His righteousness. Second, God’s control is upheld, but His justice is reduced, resulting in a god who is no longer perfectly good. Neither compromises are biblically validated. Job and Habakkuk serve as the model men who trust God by faith, relying on His infinite wisdom to harmonize the seeming contradiction. The New Testament continues with the same answer to theodicy; however, the reader is given a deeper insight into the secret wisdom of God. The answer to the problem of evil is that God, in His sovereign control, uses evil for good. The cross is the ultimate example. Acts 4:27-28 asserts that all the evil that came against Christ was ordained and controlled by God. However, the crucifixion was the greatest good as it resulted in the salvation of many. The crucifixion of Christ also destroys the retribution principle in that Christ, the spotless lamb, suffered in the place of sinners, and thus, sets an example of righteous suffering (1 Pt 2:21-25). …. Habakkuk, Job, grappled with the same major problem of evil. The Lord will spectacularly intervene to resolve the issue. Habakkuk was Job. Belonging to the era of Chaldean ascendancy These two clues, Chaldeans and likeness to Book of Jeremiah, would seem to set the Job incident to much later than most commentators would tend to accept, to the Chaldean era, and, hence, contemporaneous with the prophet Jeremiah. Without the benefit of the Book of Tobit – {which book, I believe, absolutely fixes Job and his father, respectively, Tobias and Tobit, to the late neo-Assyrian and to the Chaldean period} - perhaps the key clue to the historical era of Job is this text about the rampaging Chaldeans (Job 1:17): “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!’” Job-Tobias had grown up with his family during the late neo-Assyrian era of kings Shalmaneser and Sennacherib (Tobit 1:9-21, GNT). Esarhaddon, who then succeeded Sennacherib after the latter’s assassination, though said to have been a “son” of Sennacherib’s, was not actually a direct son of the Assyrian king, but was of Chaldean stock. Esarhaddon, who inaugurated the Chaldean dynasty, was none other than king Nebuchednezzar himself: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (7) (DOC) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Life would now significantly improve for the beleaguered Tobit and his family under Esarhaddon (Tobit 1:21-22): About six weeks later, two of Sennacherib's sons assassinated him and then escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon, became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael's son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire. This was actually the second time Ahikar was appointed to this position, for when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal. Since Ahikar was my nephew, he put in a good word for me with the emperor, and I was allowed to return to Nineveh. The trials of Job, though, would apparently commence somewhere during this Chaldean era. And this is the approximate historical point at which we also encounter Habakkuk. For the Lord tells the prophet (1:6-11): I am raising up the Chaldeans [הַכַּשְׂדִּ֔ים], that ruthless and impetuous people, who sweep across the whole earth to seize dwellings not their own. They are a feared and dreaded people; they are a law to themselves and promote their own honor. Their horses are swifter than leopards, fiercer than wolves at dusk. Their cavalry gallops headlong; their horsemen come from afar. They fly like an eagle swooping to devour; they all come intent on violence. Their hordes[b] advance like a desert wind and gather prisoners like sand. They mock kings and scoff at rulers. They laugh at all fortified cities; by building earthen ramps they capture them. Then they sweep past like the wind and go on— guilty people, whose own strength is their god. Perhaps a second chronological indicator from the obscure Book of Job is the book’s likeness to, more than any other, the Book of Jeremiah. Many have commented on this. Here I just take a piece from Bryna Jocheved Levy’s “Jeremiah Interpreted: A Rabbinic Analysis of the Prophet”: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Rabbinic-analysis-of-the-prophet-Interpreted-Levy/e54a412f035e1b69978bfc9d792c8f4834a44347 …. Womb to Tomb The Rabbis began the Pesikta passage with a comparison between Job and Jeremiah. Both bewailed their birth … as a result of the unbearable pain life forced them to endure. But, whereas Job is generally viewed as the epitome of suffering, the portrait of Jeremiah’s pathos presented in this midrash is perhaps even more painful. Job’s suffering is personal, and despite his protestations, he endures and is granted a second life. Jeremiah, in contrast, is unconsoled, and bewails the suffering which he is forced to unwillingly inflict upon those closest to him. The textual springboard for the Pesikta is Jer 20:14-18, wherein Jeremiah fulminates about his ineluctable fate, using words unmatched in their harshness: Accursed be the day that I was born! Let not the day be blessed when my mother bore me! Accursed be the man who brought my father the news and said, “A boy is born to you,” and gave him such joy! Let that man become like the cities which the Lord overthrew without relenting! Let him hear shrieks in the morning and battle shouts at noontide! Because he did not kill me before birth, so that my mother might be my grave, and her womb big [with me] for all time. Why did I ever issue from the womb to see misery and woe, to spend all my days in shame …? This image conflates the death wish with the healing and comfort offered by the mother’s womb ….. Such imagery is described by Freud as follows: To some people the idea of being buried alive by mistake is the most uncanny thing of all. And yet psycho-analysis has taught us that this terrifying phantasy is only a transformation of another phantasy which had originally nothing terrifying about it at all, but was qualified by a certain lasciviousness — the phantasy, I mean, of intra-uterine existence …. The womb/tomb metaphor accentuates the analogy with Job, with which the midrash began. Job, too, speaks of returning to the womb when he is clearly talking about death: “He said, ‘Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord has given, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’.” (Job 1:21) …. The irony in Jeremiah’s use of this metaphor, is, of course, that God has informed him that he has already been singled out for his mission in utero. Even staying in the womb will not save him from his excruciating destiny as the prophet of doom …. …. These two clues, Chaldeans and likeness to Book of Jeremiah, would seem to set the Job incident to much later than most commentators would tend to accept, to the Chaldean era, and, hence, contemporaneous with the prophet Jeremiah. Many commentators wrongly suggest that the prophet Job had belonged to Patriarchal times. And, with the colossal assistance of the Book of Tobit, we can know that Tobit and his son, Tobias (= Job), had lived on into the Chaldean period. This would make Job, a contemporary of Jeremiah (likewise a contemporary of Habakkuk). A statement made by Habakkuk pertaining to geography had reminded me of a similar one made by the young Tobias (my Job). At that particular time I had been wondering if Habakkuk could have been Job. Tobias (= Job), when asked by his father Tobit to travel to “Media” (corrected by Heb. Londinii to “Midian”) to collect money from a relative, dutifully replies (Tobit 5:1-2): ‘I'll do everything you told me. But how can I get the money back from Gabael? We have never even met each other. How can I prove to him who I am, so that he will trust me and give me the money? Besides that, I don't know how to get to Media’. Likewise Habakkuk, when instructed by the Lord to take a bowl of stew and bread to Daniel in the den of lions in Babylon (Daniel 14:34-35): “… the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, ‘Take the food that you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions’ den’, replied: ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den’.” In both instances, an angel of the Lord will intervene to guide the apparently travel-shy holy man to the intended destination, and then back home again. The angel will be Raphael in the case of Tobias (= Job). So presumably the angel who will dramatically assist Habakkuk (Daniel 14:36-39): Then the angel of the Lord took him 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. Then Habakkuk shouted, ‘Daniel, Daniel! Take the food that God has sent you’. Daniel said, ‘You have remembered me, O God, and have not forsaken those who love you’. So Daniel got up and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place [,] will again be Raphael. Presumably this Raphael was Job’s very “Advocate” in heaven (Job 16:19), a possible reason for why Job had become a bit too familiar and forward in his dealings with the Lord. His years spent in Assyrian Nineveh would also account for another aspect of Habakkuk, the prophet’s very Akkadian name: “Habakkuk appears to derive from Akkadian ḫabbaququ, the name of a garden plant” (J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary, 1991, p. 86). Apart from contemporaneity and metaphysical convergences of thought, etc., Job, Habakkuk, can further be linked. For example, there are common language idiosyncrasies. Job (3:23) - Habakkuk (3:3) uses a less usual term for the Lord, Eloah. And we recall from earlier in this article: The two books have a few interesting parallels in language. After the theophany Job says (42:5) $יִ תְּ עַ מְ שׁ ןֶ זֹא- עַ מֵ שְׁ ל” I had heard of You by hearsay”, while Habakkuk starts out by saying (3:2), $ ֲעְ מִ שׁ יִ תְּ עַ מָ שׁ” I have heard report of You.” In Job (38:82 וַ יָּסֶ ,( םָי םִיַ תָ לְ דִ בּ” who shut up the sea with doors?” seems to reflect an orderly process of creation, while Habakkuk says (3:153 Your with trampled You “דָּ רַ כְ תָּ בַ יָּם סוּסֶ י$ : ,( horses through the sea”, which may suggest a creation that is a triumph of order over chaos. …. Nor does that exhaust the list of linguistic connections between the books of Job and Habakkuk.