Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 11 May 2025
Omitting greyed-out text should bring presentation time down to about 45 minutes
As we come in at the end of chapter two of Habakkuk, remember that this is God’s answer to the concerns Habakkuk raised to God in chapter one about the injustices going on in his home country of Judea as well as the atrocities that would be committed against his people when the Chaldean army invades. God has answered by declaring His justice – that He will indeed punish the wrongdoing of the Jews and also of the Chaldeans, but also declaring His mercy through promising life to those who have faith in Him and through warning those who don’t with a series of woes.
In the last sermon, we studied the first three woes against Greed, Theft, and Violence; now we come to the fourth woe against Immorality.
Read
Habakkuk 2:11-17:
Surely a
stone will cry out from the masonry, and a beam will answer out of
the woodwork, “Woe to the one who builds a town with bloodshed and
to one who establishes a walled-city with injustice.” Are not
these things from Yahweh, Commander of armies, that peoples grow
tired in having enough fire and nations grow faint in having enough
of vanity? Nevertheless, the land will be filled to know the glory
of Yahweh like the waters cover over the sea. Woe to him who gives
drinks to his neighbor, mixing your passion in – even to
inebriation, for the purpose of staring at their nakedness. You will
be filled with shame instead of glory; you also must drink and be
treated as uncircumcised. The cup of Yahweh’s right hand will come
around upon you, and intense shame will be upon your glory, for the
violence of Lebanon will overwhelm you, and the destruction of
cattle will terrify /you\, because of the manslaughters and the
violence of the land, the walled-city, and all the residents in it.
Before we get into the fourth woe, there is an interesting passage in verses 13-14, contrasting the kingdom of Man with the kingdom of God:
The two parallel statements at the end of v.13 describe the vanity of human effort:
Until the 20th century, people would spend time every day gathering coal or wood to make fires to cook food on and to keep themselves warm, and the next morning, there would be nothing to show for all that effort but a little heap of ashes, so they would have to get up and do it all over again the next day. (Even today, we spend vast amounts of time buying food, cooking food, and eating food, but we have nothing to show for it all the next morning when our body has burned up all the energy it can and eliminated the rest.)
The other parallel statement at the end of v.13 says it even more strongly: the peoples of the earth exhaust themselves and grow weary and faint over nothing but vanity.
Whether it is obsessing over getting just the right color and style and brand name to fit in with a fashion that will pass out of fashion in a matter of months,
or clamoring over a hot news story that no one will remember in a decade,
or working to buy some new piece of technology that will be outdated and useless in a couple of years,
or to buy that vehicle or appliance that will eventually just end up in a landfill.
These aren’t necessarily wrong things, but the principle of vanity is all-the-more true when it comes to morally-wrong activities.
Those who spend their lives doing evil will see their works burned up – if not by some other stronger wicked person in this life (Eccl. 2:18, 6:1), certainly in the final judgment when the entire earth is burned up (2 Peter 3:10).
In about a decade, Habakkuk’s contemporaries will find themselves standing outside the walls Jerusalem, stripped of their fine clothes, their hands bound with manacles, watching all they possessed go up in smoke or get carted off by looters from Babylon.
And the same thing will happen to the Babylonians a few more decades later. Jeremiah borrowed from Habakkuk when he prophesied in Jeremiah 51:58 “...The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken, And her high gates shall be burned with fire; The people will labor in vain, And the nations, because of the fire; And they shall be weary." (NKJV)
That is the result of Secular Humanism – man-centered, man-directed activity which purposefully ignores God.
God says at the beginning of v.13 that He designed things to be this way. When your self is your only reference point, your life will be meaningless and empty. Only when we trust God and engage in His larger plan will we find meaning and satisfaction in work.1
Isaiah 40:28-31 “Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God – Yahweh, Creator of the ends of the earth will not grow faint and will not tire; it is not possible to make a survey of His understanding, giving power to the faint and to the ones who have no strength He will increase might. Now, boys will grow faint and tire, and young men will utterly falter, But Yahweh's attendants will exchange strength; they will take wing like the eagles; they will run and not tire; they will walk and not grow faint.” (NAW)
You want to keep from wasting your life and growing weary for nothing? Through faith, connect to the God who has a meaningful purpose and who never grows weary Himself!
And what is it that God is doing which makes life meaningful?
The conjunction which starts verse 14 is interpreted by all the English versions as a causative “for/because.” I suppose the logic is that God is making the nations wear themselves out in exercises of futility in order to show them His glory.2 That makes some sense,
but I think it would make better sense to use another dictionary meaning of that Hebrew conjunction3 which starts v.14 to say that, at the same time in which God is exhausting the nations, He “meanwhile” is filling the earth with His glory.
There is another word in verse 14 which should also be given a little more consideration, and that is the infinitive “to know.”
Nowhere else in the 30-odd other times that this Hebrew infinitive for “to know” occurs in the Old Testament, do English versions translate it “with the knowledge,” so it is reasonable to ask whether they should have translated it “with the knowledge” here either.
The preposition in the Hebrew (and in the ancient Greek, Latin, and Aramaic versions) is “to/for,” not “with;” it is the way the Hebrew language expresses a purpose – in this case, the plan of God.
The only way for the “glory” of the “LORD” to be “known” is for human beings to acquire the “knowledge” that He is glorious. (Knowledge doesn’t fill inanimate rocks and valleys and trees; it fills sentient persons.)
And the simile of the waters covering the sea must mean that the people who know that God alone should be glorified are evenly distributed everywhere, over every inch of dry land, not just cloistered in a little church here and a little church there.
Finally, there is the main verb, “will be filled.”
Who will be doing the filling? God is the only one who can “fill” the earth with people who “know” His “glory.” That is His plan!
2 Corinthians 4:6 “For it is... God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge4 of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (NKJV)
And that plan is God’s alternative to the humanistic plan of filling the earth with “cities” and “towns built with bloodshed” and “violence,” which have nothing better to do than collect wealth and then lose it to the next world power.
As for when this plan of God’s will be fulfilled,
an initial fulfillment can be found in Daniel chapter 4, when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was humbled by God for his pride and oppression by going insane and living outdoors like an animal, but then at the end of 7 years he “lifted [his] eyes to heaven” and became sane again and became a worshiper of the one true God! His successor, Darius, even published a decree, “...that in every dominion of my kingdom men must tremble and fear before the God of Daniel...” (Dan. 6:26, NKJV)
Other scriptures make it clear that the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy will be in the more-distant future5:
Isaiah 11:9 “They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea.” (NAW, cf. Zech. 14:9)
Matthew 24:14 “And this good news of the kingdom will be announced in the whole of the world for a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will arrive.” (NAW)
Revelation 11:15 “...there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!’... 15:4 ‘Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested.’” (NKJV)
God’s plan is to “fill” a world with people who “know” and “glorify” Him, and, get this, we have the fantastic opportunity to work with Him in the achievement of that goal!
It is done through the agency of God’s holy people: Psalm 145:10-12 “...Your saints shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom, And talk of Your power, To make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, And the glorious majesty of His kingdom.” (NKJV)
In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus told His followers, “...start discipling all the ethnicities, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to keep all of whatever I commanded y'all, and see, I myself am with y'all all your days until the conclusion of the age.” (NAW)
Now, after this glimpse of God’s glorious plan for world history, we get back to the warnings against rebellion towards Him.
The abuse of alcohol was already mentioned in the first woe in v.5, and now it comes up again in v.15.
The prophets indicate that drunkenness was a problem in Israel, for instance, Isaiah 28:1 “Woe, proud crown of Ephraim's alcoholics and fading flower, his glorious beauty which is upon the head of the valley of riches is overcome by wine.” (NAW, cf. Nahum 1:10)
The Chaldeans were also big drinkers.
First Century historian Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote, “The Babylonians gave themselves wholly to wine and the things which follow upon drunkenness.” (Pusey)
And, in Daniel chapter 5, when the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon, they found King Belshazzar and his court drunk at a feast6.
But it’s not just drunkenness that is being called-out here, rather it is using intoxicating drinks to take advantage of other people while they are in an intoxicated state.
Habakkuk uses some rare Hebrew words for the verb and the direct object of the second phrase in v.15, resulting in some disagreement among translators as to the specific meaning:
The word that Habakkuk used for the object of the verb here in the original consonantal Hebrew text can be traced back to one of two possible root words: either חמה (which means “wrath/passion/anger” - and figuratively, “venom/gall”) or חמת (which means a “container” – and, by extension, a “bottle/wineskin”). The Masoretic vowel pointings added in the 9th century AD, as well as the Latin, Greek, and Aramaic translations made before that, all favor “wrath,” but, since we’re talking about drinks, the idea of a “container” still fits in.
Similarly, the Hebrew verb means, “to put [things] together,” so the KJV pictures it as “putting” a “bottle” of alcohol to the mouth of someone else, while the NASB pictures the “putting together” in terms of “mixing” alcoholic ingredients to make a drink. (Strangely, the NIV & ESV decided to substitute a different Hebrew word which is spelled differently and is not in any manuscript, but sounds about the same, so they came up with the verb “pour out,” but even that still fits with the imagery of serving intoxicating beverages.7)
It is a well-known effect of drinking alcohol that it lowers a person’s inhibitions.
It is easier to influence a person who is drunk to do foolish things that they would not have done if they were sober.
Its why hazing new candidates for campus clubs has been made a crime.
And somewhere around the top of the list of foolish things people do while drunk is to commit sexual immorality and adultery. (cf. Gen. 9)
Getting someone drunk in order to take advantage of them sexually is wickedness that God promises to punish.
But notice how that sexual sin is described and how widely it applies. It is described as “staring/looking/gazing at their nakedness.”
There couldn’t be a better description of pornography than “staring at nakedness,”
and, the ugly truth is that alcohol and drugs are often used to prepare models to show off their nakedness to the cameramen, so this woe applies to everyone who uses pornography to stare at nakedness. God promises to punish this sin.
How then shall we live?
Jesus said in Luke 21:34, “[T]ake heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day [of Judgment] come on you unexpectedly.” (NKJV)
And Paul added in Romans 13:13, “Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy.” (NKJV, cf. Prov. 23:20)
“And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18, NKJV)
So in v. 16, instead of exhibiting the glory of man, these people who use drugs to take advantage of others will end up utterly disgraced, even “vomiting” (as the Vulgate and KJV interpreted it) from intense shame. Instead of being filled with the “glory of the LORD” (which was God’s salvific plan in v.15), they will be filled with “shame/disgrace” (which is God’s plan for judgment).
Hosea 4:7 “The more they increased, The more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame.” (NKJV)
Proverbs 11:2 “When pride comes, then comes shame; But with the humble is wisdom.” (NKJV, cf. Nah. 3:5)
Philippians 3:18-21 “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame-- who set their mind on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body...” (NKJV)
The Hebrews verbs for “drink” and “be exposed/uncovered/shown” are imperatives – they are commands. Part of God’s judgment upon this wicked behavior is to force the perpetrators themselves to experience the same confusion and shame which they had forced upon their victims.
The metaphor of “drinking” from the “cup” in God’s “right hand” is an image of being punished by God. It occurs several times in the Bible – from Psalms to Revelation:
Psalm 75:7-8 “...God is the Judge: He puts down one, And exalts another. For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, And the wine is red; It is fully mixed8, and He pours it out; Surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth Drain and drink down.” (NKJV)
Inasmuch as Habakkuk is admonishing the people of Judea, he is warning them of the coming of God’s judgment. His fellow-prophet Jeremiah explicitly connected this “cup” of judgment with the Babylonian invasion and exile9 in Jeremiah 51:7 “Babylon was a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, That made all the earth drunk...” (NKJV)
But Habakkuk and Jeremiah also made it clear, however, that the same cup of judgment from God would also come around to Babylon: Jeremiah 25:15 “...Take this wine cup of fury from My hand, and cause all the nations... to drink it… 27 ... say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Drink, be drunk, and vomit10! Fall and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you.”’” (NKJV, cf. Lam. 4:21-22)
We see it again in the New Testament, in the book of Revelation, describing God’s judgment in the end times: Revelation 14:9-10 “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone...” (NKJV)
The heavenly judge also issues the warning in Revelation 18:4-8, that Christians in the end times should have nothing to do with the anti-Christian world system, which he calls Babylon: “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed11, mix double for her. In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow... for strong is the Lord God who judges her.” (NKJV)
Now, in that context, can you see more depth of meaning in the “cup” of the Lord’s Supper?
In Matthew 20:18 Jesus said, “Look, We are going up into Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to the high priests and scribes, and they will sentence Him to death…” then four verses later He calls that death “the cup which I am about to drink.”
A few nights later, in the garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed, “let this cup pass by me!” (26:39), but then acquiesced and said, “...The cup which the Father has given to me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11) (NAW)
The next day, when Jesus died on the cross, He fulfilled the metaphor of drinking the cup of the wrath of God’s judgment. The punishment of eternal death, which was in that cup, which had to be suffered (either by us or by a representative) in order for God to justly forgive our sins, was paid by the innocent Jesus on the cross, because He wanted to make us His people and love us forever.
That’s why 1 Corinthians 11:26 says, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.” That’s also why the next verse in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 says that the same “cup” in the Lord’s supper, if not taken as a symbol that Jesus took the punishment for your sin, can become instead a symbol of God’s wrath against you for your sin, since you reject Jesus, the only mediator who can make you right with God: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord… For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a few too many sleep [in death].” (NAW)
The cup in the LORD’s right hand is His judgment of death and hell against sin, but praise God, He provided His own Son to drink that cup for us, so we can remember the Lord Jesus’ death for us when we partake of the Lord’s Supper.
The 2nd imperative in the middle of v.16 is similarly-rich in its symbolism of God’s judgment.
Most English versions get the meaning backwards by interpreting this word as “uncovering/ exposure/nakedness,” but this is not the word in Hebrew for “exposure/stripping naked.”
This Hebrew word is based on the word for “foreskin,” so the most literal way to translate it would be “to be foreskinned.”
I think the ESV was on to something when they translated it “show your uncircumcision,” even though they missed the fact that the Hebrew verb is passive – in other words, this revelation that they are uncircumcised will be forced upon them; they are not the ones who will be revealing it.
Those Jews who thought they were right with God because they had a bit of skin cut off of their genitals will be shown, in truth, to be uncircumcised in heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6) and not actually God’s people after all, and therefore not under the protection of God’s saving promises but rather objects of God’s righteous wrath. I believe Habakkuk is saying that when, instead of being saved, the cup of God’s judgment comes around against these folks, it will demonstrate that they were never actually in a saving, covenant relationship with God in the first place.
Remember what Habakkuk said back in verse 4: “...the one who is justified will live by his faith,” not by his circumcision. Thus, any circumcised Jew (and we could extend this to include any baptized Christian) who will not trust in God’s salvation (that is, in Jesus Christ) will be punished by God’s wrath, as though they were an uncircumcised Gentile (or an unbaptized pagan). I believe that is what Habakkuk is getting at.
And it sheds light on what Jesus meant in Matthew 18:17, when He said that, if someone “... disregards the church, let him be to you like the Gentile...” In other words, we are to assume that an unrepentant sinner is outside of a saving relationship with God and is therefore a vessel of God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3, Rom. 9:22). That sort of person needs the Gospel preached to them and to be pled-with to repent and believe, not given false assurances of God’s blessing.
So it is the unrepentantly-immoral person against whom Habakkuk directed his woe, and he circles back around in v.17 to include those from the previous woe who are violent.
God, whose “glory [already] covers the heavens” (according to chapter 3, verse 3), has revealed His salvific plan in v.14 to “fill” the “land” as well as the heavens with His “glory,” but, as we have seen, this only applies to those whom He has called to be His people and who “live by faith” in Him. For the rest of the world, it is God’s plan of judgment that will be implemented: they will be “filled” with “shame,” “exposed” as outside of a saving relationship with Him, and, now v.17 says, they and their “land” will be “covered/overwhelmed,” not with “glory” but with the “violence” of their own deeds.
V.17 is difficult to translate because it is hard to identify who is doing the violence to whom.
For one thing, the object of the word for “terrify/destroy” in the middle of verse 17 is different in different ancient manuscripts:
The oldest-known Hebrew manuscript from the 1st century BC reads “terrify her;”
the Greek and Aramaic manuscripts from the 1st to the 4th centuries AD (followed by the NASB and NIV) read “terrify you,”
and the 10th century AD Hebrew manuscript (followed by the KJV and ESV) reads “terrify them.”
To complicate the matter further, the NAS and NIV editors added pronouns which are not in the original, to force the meaning to come out as “you devastated its [Lebanon’s] beasts,” when all it actually says is that there was “devastation of beasts.”
In addition, the Hebrew text uses a non-specific construct form rather than a preposition to connect the word “violence” with the word “Lebanon” at the beginning of the verse - and also to connect the second instance of the word “violence” at the end of the verse with “the land, the walled-city, and all the residents in it.”
Although the NAS and ESV (and to some extent the NKJV and NIV) interpreted the construct between these words using the English preposition “to,” that is not the most-common meaning of the Hebrew construct form. Usually it would be translated “of,” which is the way the ancient Latin, Greek, and Aramaic versions translated it, as well as the KJV (and to some extent, the NIV).
The exact same construct form occurs a third time in the middle of the verse between the word “destruction/devastation” and the word “cattle/beasts,” and all the English versions use the word “of” to interpret that construct, so I think it is inconsistent to translate the exact same thing as “to” in part of the verse and “of” in another part of the same verse. I think all three constructs should be interpreted “of” – “for the violence of Lebanon… the destruction of beasts… because of the violence of the land…”
English Bibles all agree with me when the exact same Hebrew words occur at the end of Ezekiel 12:19 “...Thus says the Lord GOD to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the land of Israel: ‘They shall eat their bread with anxiety, and drink their water with dread, so that her land may be emptied of all who are in it, because of the violence of all those who dwell in it.”
The best method of interpretation is to look for the relationships between the parallel statements made in the Hebrew Bible, so here is how I see the logical order of the parallel statements in v.17:
The LORD’s “cup” of “utter shame will be upon your glory”
for
the violence of/to Lebanon will cover/overwhelm you,
and the destruction/spoil/devastation of [your/its] beasts/cattle will terrify you/them
because of
the manslaughters and the violence/destruction of/to the land, the walled-city, and all the residents in it.
Laid out like this, the “for” at the beginning of the verse (unfortunately omitted by the NIV and ESV, but the Hebrew conjunction כי is there) can be understood as introducing the means by which this punishment would come12, and then the Hebrew preposition -מ – translated “because/for” in the middle of the verse, reviews the reason why this judgment was pronounced: Why the violence and devastation? “because of the murder and violence” committed by the residents of the city and its suburbs.
The word for “city” is singular in all the manuscripts, so I do not support English versions changing it to plural “cities.”
The ancient Targums commentary explains that this singular “city” was Jerusalem, and I am inclined to agree that it applied to Jerusalem (especially since Habakkuk used the same word for “violence” to describe Jerusalem back in chapter 1, vs. 2-3),
but I believe it also applied to Babylon (and all the commentators agree on this, especially considering the repeated words from chapter 2, v. 8),
and, by extension, it also applies to any other empire that operates by violence instead of according to God’s justice. (For instance, the Prophet Joel applied it against the nations of Edom and Egypt in Joel 3:19 “Egypt shall be a desolation, And Edom a desolate wilderness, Because of violence against13 the people of Judah, For they have shed innocent blood in their land.” ~NKJV) It applies to everyone.
The “land/earth,” then, would be the farms and ranches outside the walls of the fortified city, the “town” would be the area inside the walled city, and the “inhabitants” would be those who resided either inside or outside the city walls – and who would have gathered inside the walled city when it was threatened by an invading army. (Not everybody agrees on this interpretation14, but this is what makes the best sense to me.)
This leads me to see parallelism between the “violence that would overwhelm” and the “devastation that would terrify,” and, recognizing that Christians have read it “terrify you” for a thousand years before it was apparently edited to read “terrify them,” I think it is reasonable to read it as “terrify you” in parallel with “overwhelm you.”
“You” then, would be the “bloodthirsty,” “violent” “city” punished by God by being “overwhelmed” by the “violence of Lebanon” and “terrified” by the “devastation of cattle.”
So, what is the “violence of Lebanon” and the “devastation of beasts”? These phrases occur nowhere else in Scripture. Some scholars think Lebanon is a figure for the temple in Jerusalem, but the literal Lebanon is mentioned in the Bible as a country on the northern border of Israel which was famous for its majestic cedar trees.
Isaiah 33:9 says that “...Lebanon is shamed [הֶחְפִּיר] and shriveled…” by punishments that God sent to that region, and Isaiah 14:8 says that the “cedars of Lebanon” would “rejoice” at the fall of Babylon because it would mean that the “woodsman/cutter” would no longer “come up against” them15. So it appears that the Chaldeans rapaciously exploited Lebanon and its natural resources under their rule16,
therefore God, in His justice, promised that the evils the Chaldeans did to others will be done to them.
Concerning the “oppression of the wicked,” David wrote in Psalm 55:23 “But You, O God, will send them down to the grave to rot. As for murderous and deceitful men, their days will not receive dividends, meanwhile, as for me, I will trust in You!” (NAW)
Only when we trust God and engage in His larger plan will we find meaning and satisfaction in work.
God’s plan is to “fill” a world with people who “know” and “glorify” Him, so let us work with Him through evangelism and missions in the achievement of His goal.
Meanwhile let us repent of drunkenness, immorality, pornography, violence, and taking advantage of others – every sin which flies in the face of God’s justice.
And let us live with integrity in covenant with God, dead to sin but alive to God through the Spirit in Christ Jesus,
and let us thank God for cup of salvation which Jesus extends to us after He drank the cup of God’s wrath against us!
DouayB (Vulgate) |
LXXC |
BrentonD (Vaticanus) |
KJVE |
NAW |
Masoretic HebrewF |
12 Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. |
12 οὐαὶ ὁ οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν ἐν αἵμασιν καὶ ἑτοιμάζων πόλιν ἐν ἀδικίαις. |
12 Woe to him that builds a city with blood, and establishes a city by unrighteousness. |
12 Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity! |
12 “Woe to the one who builds a town with bloodshed and to one who establishes a walled-city with injustice.” |
(יב) הוֹי בֹּנֶה עִיר בְּדָמִים Gוְכוֹנֵן קִרְיָה בְּעַוְלָה. |
13 Are not these things from the Lord of hosts? for the peopleX shall labour in a great fire: and the nations in vain, [and] they shall faint. |
13
οὐ ταῦτά ἐστιν
παρὰ κυρίου παντοκράτοροςH;
καὶ ἐξέλιπον λαοὶ ἱκανοὶI
ἐν πυρί, καὶ ἔθνη X
|
13
Are not these
things of the Lord Almighty?
surely many people
have |
13 Behold, is it not of the LORD of hosts that the peopleX shall labour in the very fire, and the peopleX shall weary themselves for very vanity? |
13 Are not these things from Yahweh, Commander of armies, that peoples grow tired in having enough fire and nations grow faint in having enough of vanity? |
(יג) הֲלוֹא הִנֵּהK מֵאֵתL יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת Mוְיִיגְעוּ עַמִּים בְּדֵי אֵשׁ וּלְאֻמִּים בְּדֵיN רִיק יִעָפוּ. |
14 For the earth shall be filled, that [men may] know the glory of the Lord, as waters covering X the sea. |
14
ὅτι πλησθήσεται
ἡ γῆ τοῦ γνῶναι τὴν δόξαν κυρίουO,
ὡς ὕδωρ κατακαλύψει
|
14
For the earth shall be filled |
14
For the earth shall be filled |
14 Nevertheless, the land will be filled to know the glory of Yahweh like the waters cover over the sea. |
(יד)כִּי תִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ לָדַעַתQ אֶת כְּבוֹד יְהוָה כַּמַּיִם יְכַסּוּR עַל Sיָם. |
15
Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, [and] presenteth
|
15
ὦ ὁT
ποτίζων τὸν πλησίον
αὐτοῦ ἀνατροπῇ
θολερᾷ XU
καὶ μεθύσκων, ὅπωςV
ἐπιβλέπῃ
ἐπὶ τὰ σπήλαι |
15
Woe to him that gives his neighbour to drink the thick
|
15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! |
15 Woe to him who gives drinks to his neighbor, mixing your passion in – even to inebriation, for the purpose of staring at their nakedness. |
(טו) הוֹי מַשְׁקֵה רֵעֵהוּX מְסַפֵּחַY חֲמָתְךָZ וְאַף שַׁכֵּר לְמַעַן הַבִּיט AAעַל מְעוֹרֵיהֶםAB. |
16 Thou art filled with shame instead of glory: drink thou also, and fall fast asleep: the cup of the right hand of the Lord shall compass thee, and shameful vomiting shall be on thy glory. |
16 ACπλησμονὴν ἀτιμίας ἐκ δόξης πίε καὶAD σὺ καὶ διασαλεύθητι [καὶ σείσθητι]AE· ἐκύκλωσενAF ἐπὶ σὲ ποτήριον δεξιᾶς κυρίουAG, καὶ [συνήχθη]AH X ἀτιμία ἐπὶ τὴν δόξαν σου. |
16
Drink thou also th |
16
Thou art filled with shame
for glory: drink thou also, and let
[thy]
foreskin be |
16 You will be filled with shame instead of glory; you also must drink and be treated as uncircumcised. The cup of Yahweh’s right hand will come around upon you, and intense shame will be upon your glory, |
(טז) שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן AIמִכָּבוֹד שְׁתֵה גַם אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵלAJ תִּסּוֹב עָלֶיךָ כּוֹס יְמִין יְהוָה וְקִיקָלוֹןAK עַל כְּבוֹדֶךָ. |
17 For the iniquity of Libanus shall cover thee, and the ravaging of beasts shall terrify them because of the blood of men, and the iniquity of the land, [and] of the city, and of all that dwell therein. |
17 ALδιότι ἀσέβειαAM τοῦ Λιβάνου καλύψει σε, καὶ ταλαιπωρία θηρίωνAN πτοήσειAO σε διὰ αἵματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀσεβείας γῆς [καὶ] πόλεως καὶ πάντων τῶν κατοικούντωνAP αὐτήν. -- |
17 For the ungodliness of Libanus shall cover thee, and distress because of wild beasts shall dismay thee, because of the blood of men, and the sins of the land [and] city, and of all that dwell in it. |
17 For the violence of Lebanon shall cover thee, and the spoil of beasts, which made them afraid, because of men's blood, and [for] the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein. |
17 for the violence of Lebanon will overwhelm you, and the destruction of cattle will terrify /you\, because of the manslaughters and the violence of the land, the walled-city, and all the residents in it. |
(יז) כִּי חֲמַס לְבָנוֹן יְכַסֶּךָּ וְשֹׁד בְּהֵמוֹת יְחִיתַןAQ מִדְּמֵי אָדָם וַחֲמַס אֶרֶץ ARקִרְיָה וְכָל יֹשְׁבֵי בָהּ. |
1See Isaiah 49:4 & 65:23 for positive examples where the “toil” of God’s people will not be “in vain.”
2“[T]he earth shall be filled with the… acknowledging... of the glory of Jehovah. That this may be the case, the kingdom of the world, which is hostile to the Lord and His glory, must be destroyed.” ~Keil
3כי which can mean for/because/indeed/surely/certainly/but/if/when/except/meanwhile/nevertheless, etc.
4γνωσεως (a noun); compare with the LXX infinitive verb in Hab. 2:14 γνῶναι.
5See also Jer. 24:6-7, Heb. 8:10-11, and the Psalms which speak of this future hope of world-wide worship of the LORD: 22:27, 67:1-4, 72:19, 86:9, etc.
6Matthew Henry, who interpreted this as literal drunkenness (as did Firth), observed “[P]erhaps it was one reason why the succeeding monarchs of Persia made it a law of their kingdom that in drinking none should compel… Est. 1:8, because they had seen in the kings of Babylon the mischievous consequences of... making people drunk.”
7Commentaries by Rashi, Metsudath David, Calvin, Grotius, Marckius, and Henderson, interpreted this passage only figuratively: victims are stunned by terror (or in the case of Calvin, stunned with vain promises and treaties), then gloated-over after being conquered. Pusey said it could be figurative or literal drunkenness, and Keil said the drunkenness was a metaphor.
8מֶסֶךְ, a synonym for Habakkuk’s word מְסַפֵּחַ.
9As did Isaiah (51:17) and Ezekiel (23:31-33).
10קְיוּ, compare with Habakkuk’s קִיקָלוֹן.
11The GNT here is ἐκέρασεν κεράσατε, whereas the LXX version of the phrase in Hab. 2:15 was ἀνατροπῇ θολερα.
12It could also legitimately be interpreted as temporal (“...shame will be on your glory when the violence of Lebanon covers you...”) or as emphatic (“...shame will be on your glory. Indeed, the violence of Lebanon will cover you...”).
13Here is an instance of the construct legitimately being interpreted “against” instead of “of.” Of the 10 times that “violence” occurs in construct form in the HOT, two occur in Habakkuk 2:8 & 17, four occur against the object (Jer. 51:35, Judges 9:24, Joel 3:19, & Obad. 1:10), and four occur by the object (Gen. 16:5, Ps. 7:17, 58:3, & Ezek 12:19).
14Pusey and Keil disagreed, the former commenting that while Jerusalem was “specially suggested… the violence was dealt out to the whole ‘land’ or ‘earth’…” and the latter commenting that “Erets without an article is not the holy land, but the earth generally; and so the city... is not Jerusalem, nor any one particular city...”
15Zechariah 1:11 indicates some other judgment against Lebanon, but I think it is too far in the future (Zechariah was post-exilic) to be related to Habakkuk’s prophecy.
16Daath Mikra asserts that the Babylonians ruthlessly cut down the forests of Lebanon to use in home construction, and Lehman plausibly suggested that the Babylonians might have hunted lions there like the kings of Assyria portrayed themselves doing in their artwork (cf. Henry). Firth judiciously noted that “Habakkuk refers to an event in Lebanon… that... is unknown to us...” Calvin, however, asserted that Libanus meant “either Judea or the temple,” confusing it with the town of Libnah in Judea instead of Lebanon. The way this word is spelled in Habakkuk only ever refers to Lebanon in the Bible, though. Henry and Pusey also interpreted Lebanon as “Israel... or the temple,” but for a different reason; they based it on associations made in Deut. 3:25 and Zech. 11:1, but those associations do not seem conclusive. Keil commented that “the Israelitish land and nation is neither indicated, nor even favoured, by the context of the words.” Pusey later admitted that Lebanon “may be a symbol of [any of the] empires…” His interpretation, following Tanchum and Abulwalid, of the beasts being Chaldeans who were so annoying that the nations killed them does not seem to follow from Habakkuk’s text.
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 2 are 4Q82 (containing part of verse 4
and dated between 30-1 BC), the Nahal Hever Greek scroll
(containing parts of vs. 1-7 & 13-20 and dated around 25BC), the
1QpHab scroll with commentary (dated between 50-100 BC), and the
Wadi Muraba’at Scroll (containing parts of verses 2-11 & 18-20
and dated around 135 AD). 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 Matt Christian
https://www.academia.edu/37256916/1QpHab_Transcription_and_Translation
(accessed Aug 2024).
G1Qp inserts a yod as the 2nd letter in this word, effectively changing the verb from a participle (“and he who establishes”) to an imperfect indicative (“when he establishes”). (It’s not legible in the other DSS – the W.M.) BHS recommends inserting a mem instead to make it a noun (“and the establisher”), but Vulgate & LXX maintain the MT’s participial form. (It is not obvious to me whether the Aramaic versions do or not.) At any rate, the meaning would not be different.
HN.H. is mostly obliterated, but a μ is visible at this point in the verse. A synonym for “Almighty” which has that letter might be δυναμενων.
IN.H. is mostly obliterated but the letters τητ are visible at this point in the verse, so the word in the N.H. could be a superlative form of the word in the LXX.
JThe legible word in the Greek DSS Nahal Hever, κενον is more like the word in the MT “empty.”
KAll the ancient versions (Vulgate, LXX, Peshitta, and Targums) followed by Newcome and Calvin’s editor (Owen), interpret this as a demonstrative pronoun (“these things”) instead of as the word “behold” (the latter of which is the interpretation of the MT, followed by Calvin, Keil, the KJV, and ESV), so the BHS recommended repointing it as a demonstrative. NASB and NIV sidestepped the issue by inserting an emphatic “indeed” and dropping the Hebrew word out, respectively. 1Qp spells the word with the same consonants as the MT does, but, without the vowel pointing, the translator favored the demonstrative pronoun interpretation.
L1Qp reads מעם (“from with YHWH” or “from the people of YHWH”) instead of the MT’s direct object indicator (“from YHWH”).
M1Qp omits the conjunction, as does Peshitta, but it’s in the Vulgate, LXX, and Targums. Most of the English versions translate it “that.”
NThis compound word (literally “in a sufficiency of”) only occurs 3 other times in the HOT. Discounting Jer. 51:58 (which is a quote of this passage in Hab.), practically all the versions translate it “when” in Job 39:25 and “in” in Nah. 2:13.
ON.H. reads YHWH in paleohebrew letters instead of the Greek letters for LORD.
PThe Greek DSS Nahal Hever reads θαλασσ--, matching the MT “seas.” (Fields cites others as well which kept the word “seas”: Comp. Codd. 22, 36, 42, 51, 62. BHS notes suggest plausibly that the LXX translator may have misread the placement of the yod in the 1Qp edition as עליהם (“upon them”) instead of עלהים (“over the sea).
QThe last letter in this word in 1Qp is yod instead of the MT’s tav, but that shouldn’t change the meaning.
RThe ancient Latin and Aramaic versions read as though this word were a participle (“covering/which cover”), but the LXX & MT (and English versions) interpret it as an indicative (“waters cover”).
S1Qp inserts a definite article ה before “sea,” but it doesn’t change the meaning whether it is “a sea” or “the sea.”
TN.H. starts this noun phrase with a τ and ends it with ει (the rest is obliterated), but it could match “he who gives drink” if it were the same words in the LXX except spelled in the dative instead of the nominative case “to him who gives drink,” which is no change in meaning.
UAlthough
most of the word is obliterated, there is a letter υ
here in the N.H. which is not in the LXX
wording.
Greek versions reconstructed
from Origen’s Hexapla are all over the map:
Aquila: εξ
επιρριψεως
χολου σου (“out of the
casting up of your bile”)
Symmachus:
αφιων αδριτως τον θυμον
‘εαυτου (“dismissal
of abundance? of
the heat of themselves”)
Theodotian: απο
χυσεως σου (“from your
panting”)
E:
εξ απροσδοκητου ανατροπης
της οργης σου (“out of the
unseemly bringing up
of your passion”)
VN.H. has a little more space here than the LXX, ending in the letters ου, possibly a definite article combined with the next verb being an infinitive, which would express purpose “to look upon” just the same as the LXX spelling. Another indication that this is an independent translation into Greek from the LXX.
WIn the N.H., this word is partially-obliterated but ends with υνην. Perhaps it is ασχημοσυνην (“shame”), which was Symmachus’ translation. Cf. Aquilla (γυμνωσιν = “nakedness”).
XThis word is singular “his neighbor” in the MT, Vulgate, LXX, and Aramaic versions, but it is plural in 1Qp “his neighbors,” so the NASB, NIV, and ESV make it plural based on only one unreliable manuscript.
YRare word found only here and in 1 Sam. 2:36 (“assign” - spelled in the Qal stem), 26:19 (“partner” - Hitpael), Job 30:7 (“huddle” - Pual); Isa. 14:1 (“attach” - Niphal), and here in the Piel (presumably intensive) stem. Vulgate “present,” Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Kimchi, Abarbanel, & Calvin “join together,” KJV & Henry “put to,” and NASB & Keil “mix” all reflect this idea, but, because it is pronounced about the same as the verb for “pour out” (שׁפך), the NIV and ESV (following Symmachus and the Targums) decided to change the meaning to “pour out,” which nevertheless still makes sense.
Z1Qp does not have the final Qoph, but makes the vav conjunction which follows become the last letter of this word, changing the translation from the MT’s “your wrath and also” to “his wrath.” The Vulgate seems to have followed that textual tradition (and perhaps Symmachus, who rendered the pronoun “of themselves,” but that would actually require different Hebrew characters). The Peshitta and most of the other 2nd century Greek translations (Aquila, Theodotion, and E) followed the text form of the MT with “you.” As for the other DSS, W.M. is too obliterated for comparison, and the N.H., although mostly-obliterated, clearly has a different reading, and the lone legible upsilon could support the second person “you” (σου). As for the meaning, Rashi, Abarbanel, Calvin, Keil, and the ESV followed the Aramaic versions, interpreting it as a construct form of חמה (“wrath/passion/anger”) – which construct would be required to have the pronominal suffix “you” (and the Vulgate and NAS followed a more figurative meaning of the same word with “venom/gall” – and perhaps the LXX “thick lees [at the bottom of the wine container]” did too, but it is a bit wider of the Hebrew meaning). Meanwhile the KJV & NIV (and, among the commentators: Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, M. Henry, Newcome, and Owen of Thrussington) interpreted it as coming from חמת (“bottle/wineskin/container” – which retains the same consonantal spelling in construct form). It appears that the Masoretic pointing and the reading of all the ancient versions supports “wrath” instead of “container,” although “container” makes better sense.
AA1Qp spells this preposition with an ayin instead of an aleph, but the result is a synonym, so it doesn’t change the meaning.
ABEisenman and BHS read the resh in the middle of this word in 1Qp as a daleth, which, together with 1Qp’s reversal of the order of the second and third letters of this word, changes the meaning from “their nakedness” to “their holy days,” which makes no sense. The letters ר and ד look practically identical in the handwriting of that scroll, so it seems best to assume it was not a deviation from the text of Habakkuk. As for the other DSS, the W.M. is illegible, and N.H. has part of the word for “shame” which doesn’t fit with Greek words for “holy day/feast,” so the N.H. supports the MT.
ACN.H. adds the prefix εν-, which intensifies, but is not different from, the LXX.
ADN.H. has the more-complex conjunction και γε (“and also”), but that is not significantly different.
AEAquila = καρωθητι (“be put to sleep?”)
AF“Come around” is in the future tense in the N.H. whereas it is in Aorist tense in the LXX.
AGN.H. spells this word with paleo-Hebrew letters YHWH instead of with Greek letters for LORD.
AHN.H. instead has the word εμετος (“vomiting”).
AIOwen approved of Calvin’s odd interpretation that this mem prefix means “derived from” rather than “instead of,” but I found no other who approved of it, probably because it requires adding words (like Owen did) such as “[arising] from [the pursuit of thine own] glory.” Keil specifically commented that this preposition is a “negative…. ‘not in honor.’”
AJThis word occurs only here and in Leviticus 19:23 “Now, when y'all go into the land and plant any tree to eat from, then y'all shall uncircumcise its uncircumcision. [For] three years its fruit shall be to y'all [like] uncircumcised things; it may not be eaten.” (NAW) The root is based on the noun for “foreskin,” so literally the verb in the passive Niphal stem could be translated “be foreskinned” (compare with 1 Cor. 7:18a ἐπισπάσθω). Like the Targums (and Calvin, Henry, and others), most English versions got the meaning backwards by interpreting this word as “uncovering/exposure/nakedness.” This is not the word in Hebrew for “sexual exposure/stripping naked” - which would have been expressed with a different verb like גלע or ערה (which was used at the end of v.15 and in the parallel passage against Edom in Lam. 4:21-22). The ESV was on to something when they translated it “show your uncircumcision” (cf. NET Bible, which followed Keil with “expose your [uncircumcised] foreskin”), even though they missed the fact that this verb is Niphal-passive and not Qal-active. Those Jews who thought they were right with God because they had a bit of skin cut off of their genitals will be shown, in truth, to be uncircumcised (Deu. 10:16; 30:6) – not under the protection of God’s saving promises but rather objects of God’s righteous wrath. Cf. Matt. 18:17. 1Qp reverses the order of the second and third radicals, changing “denude” to “be shaken,” so it may be the source of the LXX “be shaken” (and of the rendering “stupefied” by Aquila and the Vulgate and the Peshitta אתטרף). Kimchi advocated for accepting that change to the Hebrew word, as did Keil (who explained cryptically that “the plural מְעוֹרֵיהֶם is used because רֵעֵהוּ has a collective meaning”) and the BHS.
AKThe Vulgate, Midrash Ester, Kimchi, Calvin, Henry, Geneva Bible, KJV, Owen, Pusey, and Keil interpreted the first syllable as being from the root קיה (“to spew/vomit”), but Daath Mikra, Dath Soferim, Newcome, Henderson, BDB, NASB, NKJV, and ESV interpreted the first syllable as an intensifying reduplication of the beginning of the word for “shame,” rendering it “utter shame.” Pusey mentions that Ibn Ezra, Tanchum, and Abarbanel went both ways, and Keil asserted that it was written to suggest “vomiting” to the hearer, even though it was actually spelled as an intensive.
ALN.H. uses the simple form of this word omitting δι- , but there is no difference in meaning.
AMN.H. translated this word “unrighteousness” (αδικια) instead of the LXX “ungodliness,” here and later in this verse, but they are close synonyms. Aquila rendered it ‘αιμα (“blood” – which is closer to the MT’s “violence”) and Symmachus rendered it πλεονεξιαν (“greed”).
ANAquila = προνομη κτηνων (“pasturing of cattle”), Symmachus = διαρπαγα κτητων (“looting of cattle”)
AOAquila (καταπτηξει = “he tethers”) and Symmachus (‘ηττησει = “he will conquer”) translated more like the MT.
APN.H. translates with a different prefix/preposition (εν), but the meaning comes out the same.
AQ1Qp reads יחתה, which is still a form of the same root חתת (“terrify/destroy”), but a different pronominal suffix ending – 3fs (“her”) or, as the BHS suggests, based on the LXX, Nahal Hever, Peshitta, and Targums (and adopted by the NASB & NIV), a defective 2fs (“you” – missing the penultimate qoph). Westminster morphology, Davidson’s Analytical, and Owens Analytical Key all label the MT pronominal suffix as 3fp (“them”), and this is the reading of the Vulgate, KJV, and ESV.
ARVulgate and LXX add “and” here, but it’s not in the DSS (N.H.), MT, or Aramaic versions. It doesn’t change the meaning, though.