Hab. 1:12-2:1 – Faith To Overcome The Fear That God Might Not Be Just

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 13 April 2025

Omitting greyed-out text should bring spoken delivery down around 45 minutes.

Introduction

Habakkuk, you may remember, at the beginning of chapter 1, has cried out to God to bring justice against the violence in his home country of Judea, and God has answered Habakkuk in verses 5-11, letting him know that He will punish Judea’s violence by means of the violence of the Chaldean army. Now, in verse 12 through the end of chapter 1, Habakkuk wrestles with God over that answer, questioning whether that’s really consistent with God’s justice and righteousness, and bringing his faith in God and God’s word to bear on the question.
Read Habakkuk 1:12-2:1
You’ve been around since long before, Yahweh, my God, my Holy One, have You not? We will not die! It is Yahweh who set it up for judgment, yes, He is the Rock who founded it for bringing justice to bear. Your eyes are too pure to look at evil, and you are not able to pay regard to trouble. Why do you pay regard to treacheries and keep quiet when a wicked person swallows up one more righteous than him, and make mankind like fish of the sea – like swarming bugs – among whom is no ruler? He brings up each one on a hook and drags it out with his landing-net, or he gathers it in his cast-net. Therefore he is happy and he does a victory-dance. Therefore he will make a sacrifice to his landing-net and he will burn incense to his cast-net, because, by means of them his share is a fat one and his meat is well-marbled. Shall he therefore empty out his net and continue to slaughter nations? He is not going to be sparing. I will stand at my my ward and station myself at the fortress, and I will keep watch to see what He shall say through me and what I may reply concerning my complaint.

v.12 – Three Reasons Why God Can’t Let His People Die

In verse 12, Habakkuk wrestles with the implications of what God has just said about the Chaldeans “coming for violence,” “seizing dwelling places,” “devouring” and “taking [the Jewish people] captive.” Habakkuk fearfully (and wrongly) infers that God is announcing that His people will “die,” so he pushes back, saying, “Wait, God, it would be against all Your promises to let us die out. We must not die! I refuse to accept the extinction of the people of God!¹” And he opens up three lines of argument:
- First is the argument of God’s long-standing presence. The Hebrew word miqedem has a range of meaning from “past” to “ancient past” to “eternity past;” here, it seems to refer to God’s having been around at least from the beginning of Israel’s history and maybe even further back into eternity.
  - “Go back as far as man can, in thought, God was still before.” ~E. B. Pusey
  - And, “If he is from everlasting, he will be to everlasting, and we ... have hope and help sufficient… for Christ has said, ‘Because I live... you shall live also, John 14:19.” ~Matthew Henry
  - The way Habakkuk asks his question in v.12 implies that God has indeed been around a long time with His people.
  - The same point is raised by other prophets from around this time in Israel’s history:
  - Isaiah 45:21-22 “...Who caused this to be heard from before – from the past declared it? Was it not I, Yahweh? And there is not another god besides me, a God of righteousness and the One who causes to save...” (NAW)
  - Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephratah, little though you may be among the precincts of Judah, from you will go forth for me one who is to be Ruler in Israel – indeed His goings-forth have been from of old – since the days of eternity.” (NAW)
  - There’s also the Psalms of Asaph Psalm 74:12 “For God is my King from of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth.” And Psalm 77:11 “I cried out to God with my voice-- To God with my voice; And He gave ear to me. In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord; My hand was stretched out in the night without ceasing; My soul refused to be comforted. I remembered God, and was troubled; I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah You hold my eyelids open ; I am so troubled that I cannot speak. I have considered the days of old, The years of ancient times. I call to remembrance my song in the night; I meditate within my heart, And my spirit makes diligent search. Will the Lord cast off forever? And will He be favorable no more? Has His mercy ceased forever? Has His promise failed forevermore? Has God forgotten to be gracious? Has He in anger shut up His tender mercies? Selah And I said, ‘This is my anguish; But I will remember the years of the right hand of the Most High. I will remember the works of the LORD; Surely I will remember Your wonders of old. I will also meditate on all Your work, And talk of Your deeds. Your way, O God, is in the sanctuary; Who is so great a God as our God? You are the God who does wonders; You have declared Your strength among the peoples. You have with Your arm redeemed Your people...’” (NKJV, cf. 90:2, 93:2,143:5, Lam. 5:19, 1 Tim. 1:17)
  - The argument is that a Johnny-come-lately political regime such as the Chaldeans surely cannot pose a threat to the control of the eternal God. And being the God who established Israel and gave promises to Abraham and David and the prophets, He surely would not abandon His longstanding project of preserving a people for Himself. Yahweh had so carefully preserved a remnant of faithful people for thousands of years; He could not suddenly just quit caring for them.
- Habakkuk’s second line of argument in v.12 is relational. He heaps up these relational names by which he knows God: “Yahweh, my God, my Holy One.” He uses the personal, relational name for God, “Yahweh” in Hebrew – or LORD in all caps in English, as well as the first person possessive “my” - not just “a God” or even “the God,” but “my God, my Holy One,” because there is a covenantal relationship between God and him. Habakkuk even uses a special term which Moses and Hannah and David and Isaiah used as a metaphor for the safety they knew in their relationship with God, and that is the word “Rock.”
  - Moses used it in Deuteronomy 32:4 “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are just, A God of faithfulness and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He…. 15 But Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked… then he forsook God which made him and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation… 18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou are unmindful and has forgotten God that formed thee… their Rock… sold them, and the LORD… shut them up… 31 ...their rock is not as our Rock...” (KJV)
  - Hannah used it in 1 Sam. 2:2 “for there is no one holy like Yahweh, and there is no one righteous like our God; there is no one besides You, and there is no rock like our God!” (NAW)
  - David also in 2 Samuel 22: 31 “This God has integrity in His manner; the speech of Yahweh is pure. He is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him. 32 Because who is God apart from Yahweh alone? And who is a rock apart from our God alone?… 47 Life is Yahweh, so let my rock be blessed, and let the God of the rock of my salvation be exalted! 48 This God is the One who deals out retributions for me, and who brings down peoples under me, 49 and who brings me out from my enemies...” (NAW, cf. 23:3)
  - And Isaiah 17:10 “For you have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge... 26:4 Y'all trust in Yahweh until forever, for in Jah-Yahweh is an everlasting rock!” (NAW)
  - So, as a faithful Israelite, Habakkuk confesses Yahweh to be his God personally. God has covenanted with Israel for them to be His people, and Habakkuk is claiming that, as if to say, “Wait a minute; we have a covenantal relationship going here. You are my God, I am one of Your holy people, so You can’t just act like that relationship doesn’t exist. You can’t kill us off; You are obligated by Your covenant to save and preserve Your people, and I’m cashing in on that. We will not die. You are my Rock; I’m counting on You to keep me safe!” That kind of faith pleases God (Heb. 11:6).
- Habakkuk’s the third line of argument in v.12 jumps off of God’s own word. God just got finished saying, “I am raising up the Chaldeans,” admitting that He is sovereign over the situation. If He has the power to “raise them up,” He has the power to keep them under control, so they can only carry out His will to “bring justice to bear – to correct/reprove/punish,” and that cannot mean the total extinction of His covenant people who still call Him their God.
  - Such was the case earlier with the nation of Assyria, which God had raised up some 200 years before Habakkuk to be a “rod” to bring discipline to Israel and Judea, and which God later destroyed after He was done using them to discipline His people (Isa. 10:5-6 ).
  - Psalm 108:18 explicitly says “The Lord hath chastened me sore; but He hath not given me over unto death.” (KJV)
  - In the New Testament, the book of Hebrews also talks about God’s sovereign power over the hardships which God brings into the lives of Christians to discipline them: Hebrews 12:5 “and y'all have completely missed the exhortation which lectures to you as though to sons, ‘My son, don't keep belittling the Lord's training, and don't keep coming undone when you are being reproved by Him.’” (NAW)
  - If God “set up/ordained/appointed...founded/established” the Chaldeans, then history cannot be out-of-control; God must use the Chaldeans to bring discipline and punishment to the Jewish people in such a way that it does not destroy the remnant of His faithful people, and, after judgment begins in the house of God, He must then bring justice, in turn, upon the Chaldeans and judge them for all the evil that they did too.
  - Habakkuk models what we can do when God exposes us to the caprices of the wicked and it perplexes us: Set up the shield of faith in God, and say, “God has established them to correct.” (Calvin)
All this is going through Habakkuk’s mind in response to God’s promise of judgment. It seems that in verse 2, Habakkuk was worried that God was letting too many evil Israelites get away with murder, and now, in verse 12, Habakkuk has swung to the opposite extreme and begun worrying that God’s judgment will be too harsh! Both extremes of Habakkuk’s worrying were irrational. God will not leave sin unpunished, and God will not be unjustly harsh, nor will He forget His promises of mercy.
- These sorts of worries continue to plague us today; we struggle to trust that God will be just and fair, but it’s not because God has ever been actually unjust or unfair; it’s our lack of trust that’s the problem; we struggle to believe Him, and we struggle to wait on His timing.
- But notice what Habakkuk does, even in his irrational fear that God is threatening to over-punish. Does Habakkuk say, “I quit. I want nothing to do with a God that will turn traitor on His faithful people. I’m done with religion for good now!” NO! He talks to God about what he’s struggling with, and instead of exploding in exasperation, he finds phrases from God’s word that support what he believes to be true of God’s promises, and he quotes God’s word back to God. You know, if we would do more of this ourselves, we we all have a lot closer walks with God!²

v.13 – How Can A Good God Allow Evil?

Now, back in verse 3, Habakkuk had asked God, “why do you make me see/behold/look at iniquity and cause me to look at/regard trouble” but we come to verse 13, and Habakkuk uses the same verbs (and one of the same nouns) to say that God’s purity should be such that God shouldn’t see evil or give regard to trouble. In Habakkuk’s mind, if God should not countenance evil, God’s people shouldn’t have to see it either. With this kind of distorted thinking, it wouldn’t be long before we concluded that if we are exposed to evil and trouble, then God must not be pure and good. And who wants a god like that? Not me!
However, Habakkuk has not gone that far down that rabbit hole, but I think most of us have considered that rabbit hole. Habakkuk seems to be at the stage of saying, “I don’t understand this, God. You’re not making sense to me.” So he asks the further question, “Why?” “Why are you allowing violence to go unpunished on the streets of Jerusalem, and why would you allow unrighteous barbarians to commit violence against Jews in the streets of Jerusalem? Don’t you realize that, in doing so, you are allowing, at least in some cases, very wicked men to hurt good and decent people? That seems patently unjust. Can I continue to serve a God who would do that?”
If you haven’t had to ask yourself that question yet, you probably will before long. Those who haven’t already seen this happen will eventually see it happen that a bad person wins political office or wins a lawsuit or gets a lucrative business opportunity while a good person is shouldered out of office, gets wrongfully prosecuted, looses his fortune, or even gets physically beat up or even murdered. (It happened to Jesus!) And it seems God is just quietly watching and letting the evil happen.
The word Habakkuk uses to describe the bad guys is translated “Treacheries/traitors.” It is consistently used to describe those who were once in a covenant relationship but have become covenant-breakers by violating their promises and becoming traitors to the others in that relationship.
- Malachi 2:10-16 applies this same word to the covenant with God (to worship Him only) and to the marriage covenant (to keep your relationship with your spouse exclusive): “...Why do we deal treacherously with one another By profaning the covenant of the fathers? Judah has dealt treacherously, And an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, For Judah has profaned The LORD'S holy institution which He loves: He has married the daughter of a foreign god... And this is the second thing... Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously." (NKJV)
That passage in Malachi lets us know that God does not “approve/tolerate/look with favor on” treason against Him and His covenants, but the question persists: if He hates it and He is God, then why doesn’t He use His power to stamp out all such treachery on this earth as soon as it happens?
- Habakkuk’s fellow-prophet Jeremiah struggled with the same question: Jeremiah 12:1-8 “Righteous are You, O LORD, when I plead with You; Yet let me talk with You about Your judgments. Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously? You have planted them, yes, they have taken root; They grow, yes, they bear fruit. You are near in their mouth But far from their mind. But You, O LORD, know me; You have seen me, And You have tested my heart toward You. Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter, And prepare them for the day of slaughter. How long will the land mourn, And the herbs of every field wither? The beasts and birds are consumed, For the wickedness of those who dwell there, Because they said, ‘He will not see our final end.’ [Then God answers] ... ‘I have forsaken My house, I have left My heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of My soul into the hand of her enemies. My heritage is to Me like a lion in the forest; It cries out against Me; Therefore I have hated it.’” (NKJV, cf. Hosea 5:7 & 6:7)
- Psalm 73:1-14 <A Psalm of Asaph.> Truly God is good to Israel, To such as are pure in heart. But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled; My steps had nearly slipped. For I was envious of the boastful, When I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pangs in their death, But their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, Nor are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride serves as their necklace; Violence covers them like a garment. Their eyes bulge with abundance; They have more than heart could wish. They scoff and speak wickedly concerning oppression; They speak loftily... Surely I have cleansed my heart in vain, And washed my hands in innocence. For all day long I have been plagued, And chastened every morning.” (NKJV) Psalm 10:1 “Why, Yahweh, will You stand in the distance and ignore things at times when there is a crisis?” (NAW)
- Job 21:7-15 “Why do the wicked live and become old, Yes, become mighty in power? Their descendants are established with them in their sight, And their offspring before their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, Neither is the rod of God upon them... They spend their days in wealth, And... they say to God, 'Depart from us, For we do not desire the knowledge of Your ways. Who is the Almighty, that we should serve Him? And what profit do we have if we pray to Him?'” (NKJV)
Verse 14 takes it a step further and asks, if God is not God, then...

v.14 – Are The Actions of Men Nothing More Than Brute Instinct?

Habakkuk realizes that this is a logical implication which must be embraced if a person is to abandon the Biblical idea of a righteous God – then humans are nothing more than a random mix of chemicals, so your thoughts and feelings mean nothing – your brain neurons simply get sequenced according to the vicissitudes of circumstance.
In terms of my own personal self-worth, am I no different from a fish or a bug that darts in whatever direction the school or swarm is headed? (And, from the perspective of another person, am I no more valuable than a fish or a bug – no one will mourn the loss if one is killed.) There’s a reason why the ASPCA doesn’t use a spider as it’s mascot; nobody really feels sorry or cares if a spider is missing a leg; when most folks see a spider, they just think, “Step on it!” They don’t think, “Wait, maybe it has a mommy who will miss it and be sad!”
The very fact that Habakkuk is asking these deep questions reveals that it would be absurd to reach such conclusions about God and man. There must be some other way to resolve the question. According to Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:6, we do have a ruler: His name is Jesus, and He is the One who created us “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27) – the One who took on flesh in order to “reconcile... you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” (Col. 1:22, NASB).
But before we get further into that solution, we should keep tracking with Habakkuk, who is realizing yet another unacceptable consequence to believing that God would fail to institute justice and believing that mankind is of no greater value than fish or bugs, and that is that the wrong god will get the glory.

v.15-17 – Should God’s Justice Look Like A Fishing Tournament?

In verses 15-17, Habakkuk imagines the invasion of the Chaldean army³ as though it were a fishing tournament.
- On the one side, you have your rod-and-reel fishermen. They bait a hook⁴, drop it into the water, catch a fish on it, and reel the unfortunate creature up to the surface of the water, then the fisherman grabs his landing-net and scoops the fish out of the water.
- On the other side are the net-fishermen.
  - The drag-netters lower one end of their net down into the water and tie the upper end of the net to their boat and then navigate the boat forward, dragging the net through the water, catching fish over a large area.
  - The cast-netters throw a round net out over a patch of water. There is a rope attached to the middle of the cast-net that they hang onto while the edges of the circular net sink down into the water, then they cinch up the bottom of the net and haul it all back up with the fish trapped inside.
- The successful fishermen will show off their catches to the cameras and maybe whoop and holler if it’s a big one – maybe even do a little victory dance.
Other prophets also compared God’s punishment of Israel to fishing:
- Jeremiah 16:16 "Behold, I will send for many fishermen," says the LORD, "and they shall fish them; and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks." (NKJV)
- Amos 4:2 “The Lord GOD has sworn by His holiness: ‘Behold, the days shall come upon you When He will take you away with fishhooks, And your posterity with fishhooks.’” (NKJV)
But it seems all-wrong for the oppressor to be getting cheered on in this scenario. If the fish represent Habakkuk’s people and the fisherman represents the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar, this is not a desired outcome. “God why should the Chaldeans, who are not Your people, be the ones to rejoice? Shouldn’t it be the other way around; isn’t it Your people who should be rejoicing? I thought You just said in v.11 that You would hold guilty those whose strength is their god. Isn’t this plan of Yours going to be all-backwards, God?”

Back to Habakkuk’s line of argument about a fishing tournament, if the fish is a keeper, the fisherman will shave off the scales and gut it and cook it for a meal.
- Then what’s the next thing you see on the screen? No, not him thanking God for his meal, but a commercial advertising the brand of fishing rod he used! Thus the Ugly Stik or the Shimano company gets the glory in the fishing tournament.
- Similarly in v.16, Habakkuk imagines the Chaldean soldiers offering sacrifices and burning incense to their fishing equipment as though their fishing nets were gods to be worshiped because of the fine catches and rich meat they bagged!
- (Of course this is a metaphor, the Chaldeans were probably not actually bowing down to fishing nets, although there are records of various tribes worshiping their battle weapons⁵. Earlier, Habakkuk had mentioned that “their own strength is their God” - they really just worshiped human power.)
But Habakkuk is on to something here in his reasoning with God, because we know from Nahum (1:2) that God is a “jealous” God, so this is actually a good argument to make in prayer to God. “Dear Lord, don’t let wicked people get away with thinking that their weapons and tools should be worshiped. Please restrain their evil so that they know that You are God and You are the one to be worshiped!” That is praying according to what we know is the will of God.
- However, it appears that Habakkuk is not trusting God quite as he should because he should know that God is not going to let the evil get out of control; God will preserve a remnant of His people, and God will punish the wicked when it’s their time.
In v.17, Habakkuk asks God if He’s just going to let the Chaldeans loose to kill any-and-everybody, and he reminds God at the end of the verse (as though God needed reminding!) that those nasty Chaldeans are “merciless.” They don’t “spare” anybody. There will be no remnant if God doesn’t hold them in check! In fact, they will conquer every nation there is, and be the next one-world government, if left unrestrained! And even though Habakkuk’s fear seems to be blown out-of-proportion, he does have a point that God must keep some kind of control over the Chaldeans or His promises to preserve a remnant and to punish Babylon’s wickedness will go unfulfilled.
But God knows what He’s doing. He purposefully chose to use a harsh (v.6) nation that wouldn’t go easy on its victims; that’s what He revealed through Isaiah and Jeremiah:

Isaiah 30:12-14 “...Because you reject this word and you trust in what is twisted and crooked, and you rely upon it, therefore this iniquity will happen for you like a crack running down and expanding in a high wall, which suddenly, in an instant it goes, it shatters her. And He will break her like the shattering of a smashed potter's jar. He will not spare, and there will not be found among its fragments a shard to shovel fire from the hearth or to scoop water from a cistern.” (NAW, cf. Ezek. 5:11; 7:4, 9; 8:18; 9:5, 10; 36:21)
Jeremiah 21:7 “...I will deliver Zedekiah king of Judah, his servants and the people... into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon... and he shall strike them with the edge of the sword. He shall not spare them, or have pity⁶ or mercy."' (NKJV, cf. Lam. 2 after the fact)
And the Chronicles bear out that it happened exactly as the prophets said: 2 Chronicles 36:15-17 “And the LORD God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on[spared] His people and on His dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy. Therefore He brought against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, on the aged or the weak; He gave them all into his hand.” (NKJV)

But all that hadn’t happened yet at the time Habakkuk wrote his book. All he knew was the prophetic warnings. But do you see what God had done in Habakkuk’s heart just through the course of the first chapter? In Chapter 1, Habakkuk starts out asking God why He hasn’t clobbered the wicked people in Jerusalem yet, and by the end of the chapter he is worrying that God won’t be merciful enough to the people in Jerusalem! In fact, at the end of the next verse, he expresses his intent to keep pressing his case with God for mercy⁷.

2:1 The Attitude of Ministry

There is some interesting wording in chapter 2 verse 1 which, if not studied in context, can be easily misunderstood. The first phrase is “I will stand on my guard post/at my my ward,” which I have always taken to mean that Habakkuk would stop everything and wait in a quiet place until God answered his prayer. I had always imagined Habakkuk standing in some lonely tower, perhaps sulking a bit, waiting for God to speak, but when I searched through the Bible for this phrase, I discovered a different meaning.
- The Hebrew word mishmaret that Habakkuk says he will “stand on” is not a place but a job. It regularly occurs in the Hebrew Bible to describe the official responsibilities and offices of priests. (This seems to confirm the hypothesis that Habakkuk was a priest as well as a prophet.)
  - 1 Chronicles 9:23-27 “David and Samuel the seer had appointed them to their trusted office. So they and their children were in charge of the gates of the house of the LORD, the house of the tabernacle, by assignment[ward]... And they lodged all around the house of God because they had the responsibility, and they were in charge of opening it every morning.” (NKJV)
  - The exact same phrase occurs in 2 Chronicles 7:6, where it says “The priests stood at their posts/responsibilities/wards/services/charges… (NKJV⁸)
  - And 2 Chronicles 13:11 tells us what exactly that charge/responsibility was: “And they burn to the LORD every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense; they also set the showbread in order on the pure gold table, and the lampstand of gold with its lamps to burn every evening; for we keep the command[charge/responsibility] of the LORD our God…” (NKJV)
  - In 2 Chron. 35:1, King Josiah re-instituted those “charges/duty-wards” among the priesthood, so Habakkuk may have been one of the priests re-enstated by Josiah to offer sacrifices at the temple.
- The second phrase in verse 1 could be describing Habakkuk going up on the outer defensive wall of Jerusalem for a private prayer vigil, but I think it is more likely a synonymous parallel with the first phrase, and that it could simply be describing his guard duty at one of the entrances to the walled-in temple.
- So I believe that Habakkuk is not saying that he is withdrawing to an ivory tower for an epic spiritual experience, but is saying that he is carrying on his regular daily duties while he struggles over the things God said and waits to hear more from God.
- There is a very practical application for us: we often hear from the Pietistic tradition about Christians who prayed all night or spend weeks of solitude in the wilderness or some such grand spiritual experience in order to gain some marvelous breakthrough from God (and I’m not saying there is no place for such things, just that I think they have been overemphasized to the point of Christians thinking it should be normal when it is not), normally, we have to go to work the next morning and do life-as-usual. Normally we have to change diapers. And I think Habakkuk’s example shows us that we can wrestle with things in prayer throughout the course of everyday life, while we are continuing to do all the little things that we know God has already called us to do. We can live life prayerfully.
The other thing in Habakkuk 2:1 that is easy to miss is a little prepositional phrase. He says, “I will keep a look-out/watch to see what He shall say through me...”
- Most modern English versions translate it “what He will say TO me” instead of “THROUGH me⁹,” but I believe what we have here is a preposition of prophetic disclosure, in other words, Habakkuk is not expecting a personal message from God “to” him; Habakkuk is expecting another word of prophecy to come from God “through” him to God’s people. Why? Because he is a prophet. That’s what he said in v.1.
- We see this same formula of the Hebrew word for “speak/say” followed by the beth preposition used to describe the prophetic ministries of Moses (Num. 12:6&8), Samuel (1 Sam. 28:17), David (2 Sam. 23:2), Nathan (1 Kings 8:15, 24, 56), Ahiijah (1 Kings 14:18 & 15:29), Elijah (1 Kings 17:16 & 2 Ki. 9:36 & 10:10), Jonah (2 Kings 14:25), Zechariah (Zec. 1:14, 4:4-5; 5:5 &10, 6:4 &8), and other prophets (2Ki. 17:23 & 24:2).
- It’s the same principle that I brought out by translating the “you’s” as “y’all’s” in verse 5. The book of Habakkuk is not about us snooping into Habakkuk’s personal prayer life; Habakkuk is a prophet with a message for all of God’s people, and Habakkuk is aware that what he is doing is not just for his sake but for the sake of God’s people, and he is carrying out his ministry as a prophet with a heart for the community of faith around him. He is anticipating receiving a message from God, not so he can have an exalted spiritual experience but rather so that he can relay God’s word to God’s people and be a blessing to them.
- That should be our attitude as well. You are part of the body of Christ, and the gifts which the Spirit gives you are intended to be a blessing to the whole body of Christ, not just for you personally. Now that we have the whole Bible, we do not anticipate further canonical revelations like Habakkuk did at his stage in history, but God can still use you to exhort or encourage or help a brother or sister in Christ, and like Habakkuk, we should look for ways to do just that.

Conclusion

“It is our duty to be affected both with the iniquities and with the calamities of the church of God and of the times and places wherein we live; but we must take heed lest we grow peevish in our resentments, and carry them too far, so as to entertain any hard thoughts of God, or lose the comfort of our communion with him… It is matter of great comfort to us, in reference to the troubles and afflictions of the church, that, whatever mischief men design to them, God designs to bring good out of them, and we are sure that his counsel shall stand.” ~M. Henry, 1714 AD
“When God exposes us to the caprices of the wicked and... it perplexes us... Set up this shield [of faith in God’s sovereignty] and say, ‘God has established them to correct.’ ...[O]ur faith cannot stand firm, except the providence of God comes to our view, so that we may know, in the midst of such confusion, why he permits so much liberty to the wicked, and also how their attempts may turn out, and what may be the issue. Except then we be fully persuaded, that God by his secret providence regulates all these confusions, Satan will a hundred times a day, yea every moment, shake that confidence which ought to repose in God.” ~J. Calvin, 1559, AD
We also must go to God’s word, the Bible, and believe the promises God has given us there rather than giving in to fear that this world is out of control. “For we cannot confute the devil and his ministers, except we be instructed by the word of God.” ~J. Calvin
And when you read the Bible, look expectantly for Him to communicate with you. “When we go to read and hear the word of God, and so to consult the lively oracles, we must set ourselves to observe what God will thereby say unto us, to suit our case, what word of conviction, caution, counsel, and comfort, he will bring to our souls, that we may receive it, and submit to the power of it, and may consider what we shall answer, what returns we shall make to the word of God, when we are reproved by it.” ~M. Henry

Habakkuk 1:12-2:1 – Side-by side comparison of versions^{^A}

Douay^B (Vulgate)	LXX^C	Brenton^D (Vaticanus)	KJV^E	NAW	Masoretic Hebrew^F
12 Wast thou not from the beginning, O Lord my God, my holy one, [and] we shall not die? Lord, thou hast appointed him for judgment: and X made him strong for correction.	12 οὐχὶ σὺ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, κύριε, ὁ θεὸς X^G ὁ ἅγιός μου; [καὶ^H] οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν. κύριε, εἰς κρίμα τέταχας αὐτόν· καὶ ἔπλασέν^I [με] τοῦ ἐλέγχειν ~~παιδείαν~~^J αὐτοῦ.	12 Art not thou from the beginning, O Lord X God, my Holy One? [and surely] we shall not die. O Lord, thou hast established it for judgment, and he has formed [me] to chasten with his ~~correction~~.	12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained ~~them~~ for judgment; and, O mighty [God], thou hast established ~~them~~ for correction.	12 You’ve been around since long before, Yahweh, my God, my Holy One, have You not? We will not die! It is Yahweh who set it up for judgment, yes, He is the Rock who founded it for bringing justice to bear.	⁽יב) הֲלוֹא אַתָּה מִקֶּדֶם יְהוָה אֱלֹהַי קְדֹשִׁי ^Kלֹא נָמוּת יְהוָה לְמִשְׁפָּט ^L שַׂמְתּוֹ וְצוּר^M לְהוֹכִיחַ^N יְסַדְתּוֹ.
13 Thy eyes are too pure to behold evil, and thou canst not look on iniquity. Why lookest thou upon them that do unjust things, [and] holdest thy peace when the wicked devoureth the man that is more just than himself?	13 καθαρὸς ὀφθαλμὸς τοῦ μὴ ὁρᾶν πονηρά, καὶ ἐπιβλέπειν ἐπὶ πόνους ^Oοὐ δυνήσῃ· ἵνα τί ἐπιβλέπεις ἐπὶ καταφρονοῦντας; παρασιωπήσῃ ἐν τῷ καταπίνειν ἀσεβῆ τὸν δίκαιον; X X^P	13 [His] eyeX^Q is too pure to behold evil [doings], and to look upon grievous afflictions: wherefore dost thou look upon despisers? wilt thou be silent when the ungodly swallows up the just X X?	13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?	13 Your eyes are too pure to look at evil, and you are not able to pay regard to trouble. Why do you pay regard to treacheries /and\ keep quiet when a wicked person swallows up one more righteous than him,	(יג) טְהוֹר עֵינַיִם^R מֵרְאוֹת^S רָע וְהַבִּיט אֶל עָמָל לֹא תוּכָל לָמָּה תַבִּיט^T בּוֹגְדִים^U ^Vתַּחֲרִישׁ בְּבַלַּע^W רָשָׁע צַדִּיק מִמֶּנּוּ^X.
14 And thou wilt make m[e]n as the fishes of the sea, [and] as the creeping things X that ~~have~~ no ruler.	14 καὶ ποιήσεις τοὺς ἀνθρώπ~~ους~~ ὡς τοὺς ἰχθύας τῆς θαλάσσης [καὶ] ὡς τὰ ἑρπετὰ X τὰ οὐκ ~~ἔχον~~τα ἡγούμενον.	14 And wilt thou make m[e]n as the fishes of the sea, [and] as the reptiles X ~~which have~~ no guide?	14 And makest m[e]n as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them?	14 and make mankind like fish of the sea – like swarming bugs – among whom is no ruler?	⁽יד)וַתַּעֲשֶׂה^Y אָדָם^Z כִּדְגֵי הַיָּם ^AAכְּרֶמֶשׂ לֹא^AB מֹשֵׁל בּוֹ.
15 He lifted up all ~~them~~ with [his] hook, he drew ~~them~~ in his drag, and gathered ~~them~~ into his net: for this he will be glad and rejoice.	15 ~~συντέλειαν~~ ἐν ἀγκίστρῳ ἀνέσπασεν [καὶ] εἵλκυσεν^AC αὐτὸν ἐν ἀμφιβλήστρῳ X^AD καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς σαγήν~~αις~~ αὐτοῦ· ἕνεκεν^AE τούτου εὐφρανθήσεται καὶ χαρήσεται [ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ^AF]·	15 He has brought up ~~destruction~~^AG with a hook, [and] drawn one with a casting net X, and caught ~~ano~~~~ther~~^AH in his drag[s^AI]: therefore shall [his heart] rejoice and be glad.	15 They takeX up all [of them] with [the] angle, they catchX ~~them~~ in ~~their~~ net, and gatherX ~~them~~ in ~~their~~ drag: therefore they rejoiceX and ~~are~~ glad.	15 He brings up each one on a hook /and\ drags it out with his landing-net, or he gathers it in his cast-net. Therefore he is happy and he does a victory-dance.	(טו) כֻּלֹּה בְּחַכָּה^AJ ^AKהֵעֲלָה ^ALיְגֹרֵהוּ בְחֶרְמוֹ^AM וְיַאַסְפֵהוּ^AN בְּמִכְמַרְתּוֹ ^AO עַל כֵּן יִשְׂמַח וְיָגִיל.
16 Therefore will he offer victims to his drag, and he will sacrifice to his net: because through them his portion is [made] fat, and his meat dainty.	16 ἕνεκεν^AP τούτου θύσει τῇ σαγήνῃ^AQ αὐτοῦ καὶ θυμιάσει τῷ ἀμφιβλήστρῳ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐλίπανεν^AR μερίδα αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ^AS βρώματα αὐτοῦ ἐκλεκτά^AT·	16 Therefore will he sacrifice to his drag, and burn incense to his casting-net, because by them ~~he has made~~ his portion fat, and his meat[s] choice.	16 Therefore they sacrificeX unto ~~their~~ net, and burnX incense unto ~~their~~ drag; because by them ~~their~~ portion is fat, and ~~their~~ meat plenteous.	16 Therefore he will make a sacrifice to his landing-net and he will burn incense to his cast-net, because, by means of them his share is a fat one and his meat is well-marbled.	(טז) עַל כֵּן יְזַבֵּחַ^AU לְחֶרְמוֹ וִיקַטֵּר לְמִכְמַרְתּוֹ כִּי בָהֵמָּה^AV שָׁמֵן חֶלְקוֹ וּמַאֲכָלוֹ בְּרִאָה^AW.
17 For this cause therefore X he spreadeth his net, and will not spare continually to slay the nations.	17 X^AX διὰ τοῦτο ἀμφιβαλεῖ^{^AY} τὸ ἀμφίβληστρον^AZ αὐτοῦ καὶ διὰ παντὸς ἀποκτέννειν ἔθνη οὐ φείσεται.	17 Therefore will he cast his net, and will not spare to slay the nations continually.	17 Shall they therefore empty ~~their~~ net, and not spare continually to slay the nations?	17 Shall he therefore empty out his net and continue to slaughter nations? He is not going to be sparing.	⁽יז) ^BAהַעַל כֵּן יָרִיק^BB ^BCחֶרְמוֹ ^BDוְתָמִיד לַהֲרֹג גּוֹיִם לֹא יַחְמוֹל.
2:1 I will stand upon my watch, and fix my [foot] upon the tower: and I will watch, to see what will be said to me, and what I may answer to him that reproveth me.	2:1 Ἐπὶ τῆς φυλακῆς μου στήσομαι καὶ ^BE~~ἐπι~~~~βήσομαι~~ ἐπὶ πέτραν^BF καὶ ἀποσκοπεύσω τοῦ ἰδεῖν τί λαλήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ τί ἀποκριθῶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἔλεγχόν μου.	2:1 I will stand upon my watch, and ~~mount~~ upon the rock, and watch to see what he will say by me, and what I shall answer when I am repro~~ved~~.	2:1 I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say ~~unto~~ me, and what I shall answer ~~when~~ I am repro~~ved.~~	2:1 I will stand at my my ward and station myself at the fortress, and I will keep watch to see what He shall say through me and what I may reply concerning my complaint.	(א) עַל מִשְׁמַרְתִּי^BG אֶעֱמֹדָה וְאֶתְיַצְּבָה עַל מָצוֹר^BH וַאֲצַפֶּה לִרְאוֹת מַה יְדַבֶּר ^BIבִּי וּמָה ^BJאָשִׁיב עַל תּוֹכַחְתִּי.

1David Firth commented, “Habakkuk thus shows the astonishment that Yahweh had indicated would be his response.”

2Calvin saw this passage more in terms of Habakkuk struggling with criticism from ungodly Jews, but his application is similar. “Whosoever then would boldly contend with the ungodly must first have to do with God, and confirm and ratify as it were that compact which God has proposed to us, even that we are his people, and that he in his turn will be always our God. As then God thus covenants with us, our faith must be really made firm, and then let us go forth and contend against all the ungodly.” Calvin’s English editor, Owen, understood it more like I did, citing Marckius in support.

3“One fisherman is singled out… Nebuchadnezzar… [is] a faint image of Satan who casts out his baits and his nets…” ~E. B. Pusey

4Owen of Thrussington suggested the plausible alternative that the hook was the implement used to lift reptiles out of the water and the net was the implement used to catch fish.

5E. B. Pusey lists the ancient Sythians, the Quadi, and even some 19^th century North American tribes, but Keil denied that any of these were being alluded to here.

6In God’s justice, however, the destroyers of Babylon who will come later will also “show no pity” to Babylon (Jer. 50:14 & 51:3).

7That is my interpretation of “what I may reply concerning my complaint” (and that of Newcome, Henderson, Grotius, Pusey, Keil, and D. Firth). However, Calvin and Henry interpreted it as “how I may reply to my enemies who calumniate me,” and Piscator, Junius, and Owen of Thrussington interpreted it as “how I may reply in defense of that reproof given to me by God to deliver.” Pusey noted that Habakkuk did make complaints to God in chapter 1, he did not complain about people criticizing him.

8cf. 1 Chron .26:12, 23:32 “charge” 25:8 “ward/duty,” of priests, also 2 Chron. 8:14, 2 Kings 11:4-7, Isa. 21:8, Zech. 3:7

9Matthew Henry mentioned “to” as though it were valid, but concluded by interpreting it “‘what he will say in me” (so it may be read), ‘what the Spirit of prophecy in me will dictate to me, by way of answer to my complaints.’ ...not only for his own satisfaction, but to enable him as a prophet to give satisfaction to others.” cf. E. B. Pusey “[lit. in me]; first revealing Himself in the prophets ‘within to the inner man;’ then through them.” and Keil “… ‘in me,’ not merely ‘to’ or ‘with me;’ since the speaking of God to the prophets was an internal speaking...”

AMy original chart includes the following copyrighted English versions: NASB, NIV, ESV, Bauscher’s version of the Peshitta, and Cathcart’s version of the Targums, but I remove these columns from my public, non-copyrighted edition of this chart so as not to infringe on their copyrights. NAW is my translation. When a translation adds words not in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use of italics or greyed-out text, I put the added words in [square brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different from all the other translations, I underline it. When a version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far from the grammar form of the original text, I use ~~strikeout~~. And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I insert an X. I also place an X at the end of a word if the original word is plural but the English translation is singular. I occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between the various editions and versions when there are more than two different translations of a given word. The only known Dead Sea Scrolls containing Habakkuk 1 are the Nahal Hever Greek scroll (containing parts of vs. 5-11 & 14-17 and dated around 25BC), the Wadi Muraba’at Scroll (containing parts of verses 3-15 and dated around 135 AD), and 1QpHab (containing vs.2-17 with commentary and dated between 50-100 BC). Where the DSS is legible and in agreement with the MT, the MT is colored purple. Where the DSS supports the LXX/Vulgate/Peshitta with omissions or text not in the MT, I have highlighted with yellow the LXX and its translation into English, and where I have accepted that into my NAW translation, I have marked it with {pointed brackets}.

BDouay Old Testament first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609, Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, Published in 1582, 1609, 1752. As published on E-Sword.

C“Septuagint” Greek Old Testament, edited by Alfred Rahlfs. Published in 1935. As published on E-Sword.

DEnglish translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, 1851, “based upon the text of the Vaticanus” but not identical to the Vaticanus. As published electronically by E-Sword.

E1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible; public domain. As published electronically by E-Sword.

FFrom the Wiki Hebrew Bible https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%90/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA.
DSS text comes from https://downloads.thewaytoyahuweh.com except 1QpHab, which comes from http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/habakkuk and a mostly-accurate transcription and translation by Matt Christian https://www.academia.edu/37256916/1QpHab_Transcription_and_Translation (accessed Aug 2024).

GSymmachus corrected to the tradition of the MT, Peshitta, and Vulgate by adding μου = “my.”

HInstead of the LXX conjunction “and,” Symmachus inserted the purposive ‘ινα (“that”), both of which are additions to the MT text, but don’t change the overall idea of the sentence.

IAq. = στερεον (“strength”), and Sym. = κραταιον (“power”).

JAq. = εθεμελιωσας (“founded”), Sym. = εστησας (“established”)

KVulgate and LXX add a conjunction here. Syriac versions are very different: Peshitta = “you are without law” and Targums = “You will endure forever.” But Vulgate, LXX, and DSS all agree with the MT on “we will not die.”
E. B. Pusey (in loc.) handily debunked the tikkune sopherim theory (which reinterprets this passage under the assumption that Habakkuk said something blasphemous), noting not only the exegetical implausiblity (on which Keil also commented), but also the lack of support even among Jewish authors.

LNASB and NIV change this Hebrew noun (justice) into a verb (judge/execute judgment), changing the meaning from them being judged to them being the judges. Everywhere else in the HOT where this word occurs, however, they translate it as a noun, so that is inconsistent.

MLXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate interpreted this word as being from the root יצר (“mold/form”), but standard English versions of the Hebrew (and 2^nd century Greek versions) interpreted this word as being the noun for a big, strong “rock,” and thus a metaphor for God. The former is a spelling stretch and the latter is a meaning stretch, but it is used several times with that meaning in Deut. 32 as well as 1 Sam. 2:2, 2 Sam. 22:32 & 47, Isaiah 2:10, 17:10, and 26:4.

NW.M. matches the MT, as do the Vulgate, LXX, and Targums, but 1QpHab reads למוכיחו (“for his sentencing”), exchanging the MT infinitive form for a participial form, which doesn’t change the meaning, and adding the pronoun “his,” and the Peshitta followed that.

OSymmachus oddly translates μοχθον ουκ ανεχομενος (“don’t go up with adulterers”).

PAquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian all corrected to δικαιοτερον αυτου (“more righteous than him”).

QSymmachus corrected the singular “eye” to plural, matching the MT tradition, but it doesn’t essentially change the meaning.

RLXX and Targums make this singular, but Peshitta, Vulgate, and Symmachus translated it plural like the MT.

S1QpHab inserts the preposition -ב = “with/at,” but the other DSS (W.M.) reads with a mem like the MT and all the ancient versions support the MT.

T1QpHab adds a vav suffix, making the subject plural. The other DSS have lacunae here, but Vulgate, LXX, Peshitta, and Targums are all singular like the MT (although Targums switch to 1^st person “I”).

U“They are called בּוֹגְדִים, from their faithlessly deceptive and unscrupulously rapacious conduct, as in Isa. 21:2; Isa. 24:16.” ~Keil

VObliterated in the other DSS, but 1QpHab adds a vav prefix, introducing the conjunction “and,” which is also found in the Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targums. LXX follows the MT without the conjunction.

WAfter inspecting 1QpHab for myself, I believe that the 1Q transcriber, Matt Christian, mistook ב for כ here and in verse 16, claiming to have found variants in the Hebrew manuscripts, but 1Q actually matches the MT in these places.

XThis word is missing in the LXX & Peshitta, but it is in the Vulgate, Targums, 1Qp, & all the 2^nd century Greek versions.

Y1QpHab doesn’t have the he at the end of this word like the MT does, but, according to Davidson’s Analytical Lexicon, the 1Q spelling is just an abbreviated form of the word in the MT, so there is no difference in meaning. (The other Hebrew DSS is obliterated at this point.)

ZThe DSS supports the MT singular “man,” but the ancient Latin, Greek, & Aramaic versions are all plural (“men”)!

AAPeshitta, LXX, Vulgate (and presumably the 2^nd century Greek versions as well) all insert a conjunction (“and”) here, but it’s not in the MT, 1Qp, or Targums. (The other two DSS, N.H. and W.M. are obliterated, and, judging from the space in the obliterated sections, could read either way.)
As for the meaning of the noun, it is distinguished from birds, fish, and cattle throughout Genesis as a different kind (Gen. 1:24-26; 6:7, 20; 7:14, 23; 8:17, 19; 1 Ki. 5:13, Ezek 38:20, Ps. 148:10; Hos. 2:20). They can be eaten (Gen. 9:3), they are in the sea (Psalm 104:25), they are unclean in Ezek. 8:10, and here in Habakkuk, they are defined as “without a ruler.” Because of their consistent classification as a kind distinct from creatures that fly through the air, that walk on all fours on land, or swim like fish, I am inclined to associate them with creatures that live underground – particularly bugs and worms. Calvin, following the LXX and Targums associated it with “reptiles,” which is not unreasonable. Matthew Henry and C. F. Keil cited the occurrence in Gen. 1:20 among the water creatures and called them “swimming creatures,” but Pusey noted that the word is more often used of land creatures.

AB1QpHab omits the aleph, turning the MT “not” into “to.” This word is too illegible in the other Hebrew DSS (W.M. & N.H.) for comparison, but all the ancient versions support the MT.

ACN.H reads with the synonym εσυρεν (“he was dragging away”).

ADThe possessive pronoun “his,” which is in the MT, is in N.H., although it is dropped out of LXX. The context assumes it is his net, so it doesn’t change the meaning.

AEN.H. renders with the synonymous phrase δια τουτο (“on account of this”).

AF“His heart” was added by the LXX; it is not in MT or N.H. or any of the other ancient versions. It doesn’t change the overall meaning, however, whether “he rejoices” or “his heart rejoices.”

AGThe Hebrew word for “destruction” is spelled like the Hebrew word for “all,” so the LXX translator was confused. The Greek DSS (N.H.) is obliterated at this point, but there is not enough space for the Greek word for “destruction” which is in the LXX, but there is space for the Greek word for “all.” The Latin and Aramaic versions interpreted the Hebrew as “all.”

AH“Him” not “other” is the reading of the LXX (including Vaticanus).

AILXX is plural here because the feminine singular construct ending in Hebrew looks a lot like a plural ending, but it is singular in MT and all the other ancient versions, including the Greek DSS N.H.

AJThis word only occurs in two other places, Job 40:25 and Isa. 19:8, both of which describe fishing with hooks.

AKMT reading is Hiphil (“he causes to go up”), but 1QpHab is Qal imperfect (“he will go up”). The other legible DSS (N.H.) as well as all the ancient versions support the MT. It seems strange that BHS critical apparatus sided with the 1Q Pesher. It is also unfortunate how many English versions decided to render many (or all) of the singulars in this passage as plurals. The translations “they/them” are an attempt in English to distinguish the Chaldeans from their victims, but actually all the verbs and pronouns are singular “he/him” to the end of the chapter.

ALBoth legible DSS (1QpHab and N.H.) insert a conjunction before this word, and so do LXX and Peshitta and Targums, but there is no conjunction here in MT and Vulgate. It doesn’t change the meaning, but it does read more smoothly, and the BHS critical apparatus editor recommended accepting the conjunction in the DSS.
As for the meaning of this word, it occurs only three other times in the HOT: Lev. 11:7 (ruminate); 1 Ki. 7:9 (sawed); and Prov. 21:7 (drag).

AMThis word is used to mean “net” only here in the Bible and Eccl. 7:26, Ezek. 26:5, 14; 32:3; & 47:10 (and it is debated in Mic. 7:2).

AN1QpHab drops the aleph at the beginning of this word, changing the root from “gather” to “add” (יסף), which doesn’t significantly change the meaning.

AO1QpHab splits this word into multiple words, all but one of which is too obscured to read, and that one is a synonym for “net” חרם. The MT word only appears in one other Bible passage, and that is Isa. 19:8, where the verb is “spread.” Keil commented: “mikhmereth the large fishing-net (σαγήνη), the lower part of which, when sunk, touches the bottom, whilst the upper part floats on the top of the water.”

APN.H. renders with the synonymous phrase δια τουτο (“on account of this”).

AQN.H. switches the order of the words for the two nets (sagene and amphiblestro), but that may be an indication that they are interchangeable synonyms as far as Habakkuk’s purposes were concerned.

ARN.H. reads the same verb with a passive ending “was made fat” (MT is actually not a verb but a predicate nominative) and translates the next word αρτος (“bread”) instead of the LXX “portion” (The LXX is closer to the MT than N.H. in this case). This nevertheless does not create an essentially different meaning.

ASN.H. reads singular like the MT and other ancient versions, but LXX is plural, which doesn’t really affect the meaning.

ATN.H. reads with the approximate synonym στερεον (“fat”), which is a better translation of the MT.

AUMatt Christian transcribed 1QpHab with a coph instead of a beth as the next-to-last letter, but the manuscript actually has a beth there, matching the MT (and the Nahal Hever DSS), and the English translation is what it should be if there were a beth instead of a coph there. The two letters look very similar in Hebrew and can be easily confused.

AV1QpHab reads כִּי בָהֵמָּה instead of the MT’s כיא בהמ, but it is just alternate spelling schemes, not different words.

AW1QpHab ברי has a spelling variant from the MT, but it means the same thing. (This word is illegible in the only other known Hebrew DSS.)

AXN.H. inserts ει, supporting the interrogative he in the M.T. which the LXX (and Peshitta) dropped out.

AYN.H. reads -----ωσει. If the first 5 obliterated letters were εκκεν-, it would match the MT (“empties”) more closely than the LXX (“casts a fishing-net with both hands”).

AZN.H reads μαχαιραν, matching the other legible DSS which also reads “sword,” but MT, LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, and all the English versions read “net.”

BA1QpHab dropped out the interrogative he which opens this verse in the M.T. As for the other DSS, W.M. is obliterated here, but N.H. has an interrogative particle. Among the ancient versions, LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate drop the Interrogative, but Targums keep it. All the standard English versions keep it, but BHS critical apparatus recommended dropping it. In favor of keeping it, I would point out that it is present in the transcriptions and translations of those who best knew Hebrew, while it appears to be dropped out of the manuscripts where Hebrew was not as well known.

BB“‘to empty out’ ... is the sense in which it is taken here by Drusius, Marckius, Newcome, Henry, Henderson, and the modern English versions. But the verb means also ‘to draw out,’ i.e., a sword… and this is the meaning given to it by Grotius, Junius, and the Septuagint… [and] seems most in accordance with the drift of the passage.” ~Owen of Thrussington

BCBoth legible DSS (1QpHab & N.H., followed perhaps by the Targums ‎ מָשׁרְיָתֵיה = camp/troop) read “sword” instead of the MT’s “net.” (This would mean that the previous verb would be translated “unsheathe,” as it is in all its occurrences in Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel.) BHS critical apparatus speaks tentatively in favor of the DSS. In Hebrew it is only the difference of one letter (חרב = sword, חרם = net), and in the ancient Hebrew script those two letters look far more similar than they do in print, so it would be easy to imagine this variant stemming from a visual copying error. The MT (“net”) is followed by LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta, and all the standard English versions follow them. Concerning punctuation, NIV & ESV (following the Aramaic versions) connect “continually” with the first half of this verse (“continue to empty his net”), but the OSHB cantillation recognizes a major punctuation in the MT before the word “continually,” connecting it with the second half of the verse (“continually slay nations” – which is the reading of the Vulgate, LXX, KJV, and NASB).

BDNIV followed Targums (and BHS critical apparatus) in omitting the conjunction which is before this word in the MT. As for the DSS: N.H. has the conjunction here like the MT (and Vulgate and LXX), and 1QpHab throws it forward three words (Peshitta throws it forward one word), so it shouldn’t be omitted.

BENahal Hever uses a synonymous verb here based on the same root as the previous verb. The MT uses a different verb root for this second verb though, so the MT is more like the LXX here.

BF2^nd Century AD Greek translators Aquila and Theodotion translated it γυρον (“circle”), but Symmachus’ translation “enclosure” is more like the Hebrew word in the MT.

BGCalvin had the odd interpretation that this meant “the recess of the mind, where we withdraw ourselves from the world,” but even his English editor admitted that “the word means commonly the office or the act of watching…” Matthew Henry interpreted it as “making use of the helps and means he had within his reach to know the mind of God.” Keil suggested that is “not to be understood as… an actual tower… for nothing is known of any such custom as this… [but] simply expresses the spiritual preparation of the prophet’s soul for hearing the word of God within.” But wherever this noun occurs, it describes the regular duties of a priest, not a place.

BHTargums and 1QpHab insert a yod as the last character of this word, adding the pronoun “my.” Alternately, NIV interprets it as a defective plural. But there are no such suffixes in the N.H., Vulgate, LXX, Peshitta, or MT. (W.M. is not relevant since it has a lacuna here.) LXX and Peshitta translate it as “rock,” but the others translate it as a part of a city’s structural defense. It means “enclosure,” and the temple also had a wall around it, so it could be a parallel statement to serving in the temple.

BIThis is not the preposition of address “to me” but rather the preposition of prophecy “through me.” (cf. AJV “by me”) This is consistent throughout the HOT: 2 Samuel 23:2 (“Yahweh spoke through/by me…”), Num. 12:6&8 (“If there is a prophet among you, I… speak with/to him in a dream….”), 1 Sam. 28:17 (“the LORD spoke by/through me”), 1 Kings 8:15, 24, 56 (“You spoke by your mouthpeice to [את] my father (2x)… spoke through the agency of Moses”), 1 Kings 14:18 & 15:29 (“spoke by the agency of your servant Ahijah”), 1 Kings 16:34 (“spoke by the agency of Joshua”), 1 Kings 17:16 & 2 Ki. 9:36 & 10:10 (“spoke by the agency of Elijah”), 2 Kings 14:25 (“spoke through Jonah”), 2Ki. 17:23 & 24:2 (“spoke through all his servants the prophets”), Jeremiah 37:2 (“spoke by the agency of Jeremiah”), 9:7 (“speaks with his mouth”). Sometimes, the beth preposition denotes the content of speech: Deut. 11:19 (“to speak about/of my words”), 1 Sam. 19:3 (“I will speak about you with/to [אֶל] my father”), Psa. 87:3 (“Glorious things are spoken about You”). The important thing to note is that there is no clear instance of the beth preposition after the dbr verb in the HOT indicating speech “to” an addressee (It may be tempting to think that Zechariah is an exception - esp. Zech. 2:2, but when Zechariah wanted to denote an address “to” his angelic messenger or his angelic messenger’s address “to” Zechariah, he used a different preposition than beth in Zec. 1:14 (“and the angel who spoke through/with [ב] me said to [אל] me”), and does the same thing at least a half dozen more times in 4:4-5; 5:5 &10, 6:4 &8), so Zechariah is no exception to the beth preposition noting the means of prophecy. Habakkuk is a prophet, he called himself a prophet, and he takes his prophetic role seriously; he is anticipating receiving a message from God that he can relay to his people.

BJPeshitta reads “he may return” (instead of “I may return”) and the BHS editor recommended reading it that way. All the DSS have lacunae at this point, so they are not determinative. But since the MT, Vulgate, LXX, and Targums are in agreement, it seems prudent not to change the MT.