6.4 The Structure and Literary Genre of the Book of Habakkuk
6.4.4 Lament Used in a Dialogical Complaint (1:2-2:4)
Habakkuk opens his book with a dialogic exchange in lament-oracle-lament-oracle pattern (1:2-4; 1:5-11; 1:12-2:1; 2:2-4) between the prophet and God (Boadt, 1982:171). Each of these sections is demarcated by its syntactical features and the perspective of its verbs and pronouns which indicate the speaker of the section, the party being addressed, and in some cases the subject of discussion in the passage (Sweeney, 1991:66). Patterson (1991:19) points out that the complaints raised by Habakkuk (1:2-4; 1:12-2:1) make use of lament genre with its characteristic elements of invocation (1:2, 12), statement of the problem (1:3-4, 13-17) and implied petition. He further adds that the second complaint has a closing affirmation of confidence in God (2:1). Likewise, each of God‟s answers displays careful literary attention not only in giving the solution to the plaintiff‟s query (1:5-6; 2:4, 5-20) but a detailed description of the Chaldean, the agent of Judah‟s destruction (1:7-11) and a catalogue of the woes associated with the chastiser (2:6-20) for his failure to meet God‟s righteous standard (2:4-5) (Patterson, 1991:19).
Patterson (1991:19) maintains that each major unit of chapters one and two is composed so that the two perplexities of the prophet begin with a question (1:2, 12) and each of God‟s answers starts with an imperative (1:5; 2:2). He observes that the two chapters are threaded together with stitch-words such as:
jP'v.mi
(judgment),qyDIc;
righteous,dgeAB/~ydIg>AB
traitor or the wicked,@s;a'
gather and verbs of seeing. We notice that the book is introduced as the burden that the prophet “saw” (1:1). Then, God is accused of making Habakkuk see wrongdoing and to look at trouble (1:3). In reaction to Habakkuk‟s honest prayer, God orders him to look at the nations and see the work God is doing (1:5). Another verb come when Habakkuk says he will keep watch to see what God will say to him. Hab 2:2 carries connotations of seeing when Habakkuk is asked to write the vision clearly so that a runner may read it. In the theophanic psalm, Habakkuk says he saw the tents of Cushan under affliction and the tent-curtains of the land of Midian trembled (3:7).166
Bruckner (2012:296) points out that there are two sets of prophetic questions posed to God in this section: first, in a voice of pain seeking help from God, Habakkuk asks, “Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?” (1:2-4). God‟s response (1:5-11) is indirect and creates a more severe problem for Habakkuk as it is not an oracle of deliverance (Gowan, 1998b:93). In view of the new information given in God‟s answer to the initial complaint, and of-course in the light of divine holiness, the second set of questions reasserts by rephrasing while intensifying and expanding the original question, “Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?” (1:12-17).
God‟s answer to this complaint comes in 2:1-4 where Habakkuk gives a report of the vision he received from God. This dialogic exchange of laments and divine responses, elaborates Brueggemann (2003:241), is a characteristic liturgical interaction familiar from the book of Psalms (cf. “How long?” in Ps. 6:3; 13:1-2; 79:5; 89:46; and “Why do you…?” in Ps. 10:1;
44:23-24; 74:11).
Bruckner (2012:295) says the inclusion of God‟s responses in Habakkuk has similarities to the book of Job: Habakkuk‟s and Job‟s questioning is presented as faithful protest (cf. Job 42:7-8); each of them conversed directly with God (cf. 30:2-23, 31:6, 35); and the Lord led both of them out of older theological constructs into new understanding of God‟s way in the world (Hab. 1:5, 12-13; 2:2-6; 3:16-19; cf. Job 42:1-9). This understanding helps us to see why Andersen (2001:21) prefers to term Habakkuk‟s prayers as „complaints‟ rather than
„laments.‟ To him, laments are more suited to a prayer of misery appealing to God‟s pity, whereas a complaint can take the form of a protest and an appeal to God‟s justice from a person who has been victimized. For Bowling and Longacre (2013:13) this type of discourse is called “riyb,” which may either mean indictment or complaint.59
In their unpublished work, Bowling and Longacre (2013:13) points out that there are two varieties of “riyb”: God‟s calling His people to account and God‟s people complaining against Him and attempting to bring God into the docket. The situation in Habakkuk is that of the second riyb where people complain against God‟s ways of handling human affairs. So, in a way, Habakkuk has taken God to court to answer some charges; he is accusing God for letting the wicked to triumph over the righteous. He expected God to act with urgency in
59 Bowling and Longacre (2013:13) have used a Hebrew label “riyb” because there is no one English word which is broad enough in scope to label this discourse type. This discourse type evokes a courtroom-like atmosphere with indictment, cross-examination and defense.
167
addressing problems the righteous were facing in Judah; unfortunately, the text pictures God as someone who does not listen, is inactive to save, and tolerates evil. The text in question avows that Habakkuk is bitter with God for not taking action against the wicked in Judah.
Gowan (1976:22) says that in the psalms of lament, which are either individual or communal, the singer comes to God to complain about his or her troubles and the troubles of his or her community. In Habakkuk, the complaints are individual laments presented on behalf of his community. Brown and Miller (2005:16) define lament as the voice of pain, which at the same time is the voice of prayer; it is the possibility of language when suffering is so great that it is hard to speak. They hold that because it is the cry for help, lament is utterly human and profoundly theological. Generally, laments arise from challenging circumstances that effect discomfort on lives of the people. Because they rise from the reality of human existence, laments shall always remain the peoples‟ prayer (Brown & Miller, 2005:17). In the case of Habakkuk, it was the repressive ways of internal and external oppressors that caused Habakkuk to raise complaints to God.
6.4.4.1 An Individual Lament: Habakkuk’s First Complaint (1:2-4)
Unlike other prophets, Habakkuk opens his book with a voice of pain, depicting a person living in the midst of terrible anarchy where everything is falling apart. The initial complaint is a prayer of a person who for a long time has been petitioning God to rescue him from his gloomy state. As Habakkuk turns to God once again in 1:2-4, he employs two interrogatives – “How long…?” (1:2) and “Why…?” (1:3) – which are typical of the complaint element in psalms that are often categorized as lament (cf. “How long?” in Ps. 13:1-2; 6:3; 80:4; 89:46;
Jer. 12:4; Zech. 1:12 and “Why?” in Ps. 10:1; 44:23-24; 74:1, 11; 80:12; 88:14) (Armerding, 2008:611). Andersen (2001:110) observes that Habakkuk‟s language lacks the courtesy of address to a superior that customarily contains a title defining the role in which the deity is being supplicated (“my God” or “my Lord”).
Armerding (2008:611) claims that the questions raised in Habakkuk‟s initial complaint imply a situation of crisis from which the speaker seeks deliverance, as is suggested in his “cry for help.” He goes on to say that “violence” is the crisis in which Habakkuk calls for help and the response expected from Yahweh, assuming that He “hears,” is that He should “save” (1:2).
Prior (1998:209) agrees, he says Habakkuk‟s fundamental lament and complaint before God
168
is expressed in one word, “violence.” The word appears six times in Habakkuk (1:2, 3, 9; 2:8, 17[x2]), fourteen times in Psalms and seven times in Proverbs, which suggests that it is a key word to understanding circumstances surrounding this prophecy. The word “violence,” as Armerding (2008:611) puts it, denotes flagrant violation of moral law by which a person injures primarily a fellow human (cf. Gen. 6:11). The situation is a confirmation that the Torah is numb or paralysed, justice never goes out, and justice is “bent” or perverted or crooked. The underlying meaning is one of ethical wrong, of which physical brutality is only one possible expression (cf. Jdg. 9:24).
Prior (1998:210) is right that the blend of horror words piled up by the prophet – wrongdoing and trouble, destruction and violence, strife and contention, imply that violence had escalated in Judah and Jerusalem of Habakkuk‟s time. In the Old Testament, injustice and wrongdoing are linked together and used mainly in contexts of perverted justice and social oppression;
destruction and violence are likewise correlated with the unjust oppression of the weaker members within a community (Prior, 1998:210).60 Although this section does not explicitly name the righteous and the wicked, the use of these horror words suggest the kind of life Judeans were leading at the time when Habakkuk sounded his prophecy. The words here suggest that the weaker members of the community were in terrible state. The state of affairs in Judah was that the righteous were powerless before the heavy presence of the wicked – those who were in power and controlled everything.
Thus, Brueggemann (2003:241) notices that the initial complaint, with echoes of Jeremiah 12:1-4, raises the acute question of theodicy, that is, “Why do the wicked prosper at the expense of the righteous?” The essential evil of the situation, as Prior (1998:210) puts it, is summed up in the phrase, „The wicked surround the righteous‟ (1:4), which inevitably points to the oppression of the righteous people by those in power. It is, therefore, this oppression of the righteous by the wicked which is the basic cause of the breakdown of order and the chief reason for the prophet‟s complaint (Sweeney, 1991:66). In trying to express his displeasure and frustration, Habakkuk used a language that is typical of complaint terminology that appears in contexts of legal disputation (cf. Job 19:1-7) and cultic lamentations (Psalm 18:7, 42) (Sweeney, 1991:66). In the contexts alleged to be unjust, the prophet complains to God demanding justice.
60 Cf. Job 5:16; Prov. 13:23; Isa. 10:1-2; 61:8 and Jer. 22:13.
169
6.4.4.2 A Judgment Oracle: Response from God (1:5-11)
This section is distinguished from 1:2-4 by a transition to God as the speaker (Armerding, 2008:612). Of course, there is no introduction to this unit to identify it as a speech of God using a standard formula, such as “Thus says the Lord,” but its content clearly marks it as a divine proclamation (Andersen, 2001:139). Andersen (2001:139) observes that these verses are demarcated by imperative verbs and matching pronouns which are plural.61 Because the verbs are plural, the message is not a private one for Habakkuk‟s personal benefit; it is an oracle for public proclamation (Andersen, 2001:139). In support to this view, Sweeney (1991:67) says the second plural address form indicate the addressee is not only the prophet himself, but those whom he represents, presumably the “righteous” mentioned in 1:2-4.
Hab 1:5-11 is an oracle, a word from God; and because verses 5b and 6 describe things only God could claim to do, we consider this unit to be God‟s answer to the prophet‟s complaint (Gowan, 1976:24). Here, we notice with Prior (1998:212) that God has been listening to Habakkuk‟s prayer very carefully, taking in the actual words the prophet has used to pour out his heart to God. He replies in detail to Habakkuk‟s prayer by taking up his own vocabulary:
his lament about the paralysis of the law and the perversion of justice (1:4, 7), and his central theme of violence (1:2, 3, 9) (Prior, 1998:213). These seven verses echo focal concepts from 1:2-4 that are signalled in verse 5 where the verbs “look at” and “watch” correspond to “look at” and “tolerate” in verse 3 (Armerding, 2008:613). Therefore, Prior (1998:213) is correct to say that there is nothing vague or generalized about this answer to prayer; God listened and addressed Habakkuk‟s burning concern in specific detail.
In his initial complaint, Habakkuk had been forced to watch violence gradually taking over his own city and nation (1:3); and in effect, he saw only distressing lawlessness in his society (Andersen, 2001:139). As chaos escalated, Habakkuk became more and more depressed and desperate about the situation to the effect that he reached a point when he no longer wanted to know (Prior, 1998:212). Now in this oracle, God announces institution of the Chaldeans – the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nabopolassar. Nothing is said as to the purpose for which the Chaldeans are established, although 1:9 indicates that they come for violence (Sweeney,
61 Sweeney (1991:67) agrees, he says, “Hab. 1:5-11 is demarcated by its second person singular plural address form, as indicated by the plural imperative verbs, second person plural imperfect verbs, and the second person plural pronouns suffix in verse 5; its first person singular participial formation in verse 6 which identifies the speaker as YHWH; and its third person description of the Chaldeans in verses 6-11.”
170
1991:67). This suggests, as Sweeney (1991:67) puts it, that they are not to be viewed as the means for correcting the injustice announced in the previous complaint; rather they may be viewed as its cause. In a way, the coming of the Chaldeans worsens the situation. The oracle in verses 6-11 describes how mighty, fearsome and successful the Chaldeans were in perpetrating violence.
Habakkuk expected God‟s answer to embrace comforting words of deliverance. Instead, it is surprising that God is compelling Habakkuk to look at violence and to feel its impact in his sensitive soul (Prior, 1998:212). God invites Habakkuk to look at it so as to see justice in that violence, not in spite of it (Andersen, 2001:139). There is a shift in the course of this dialogue from national to international concerns. Andersen (2001:140) notices that the focus of Habakkuk‟s prayer had been local; he gave no indication that he was concerned about world events. Habakkuk is thus instructed – he and his people – to turn his eyes away from his own little world and watch God at work on a wider canvas setting his vision on the world stage (Prior, 1998:212).
We will be right to agree with Andersen (2001:168) that in this oracle, the Lord was raising the Chaldeans not to deal with Assyria; it is obvious that it was uttered after the destruction of Assyria and before the invasion of Judah. Thus, Assyria could not be the “wicked” of verse 4 (Andersen, 2001:168). It could not be Egypt either because the Chaldeans had defeated her at Carchemish in 605 BCE. This means Judah was now exposed helplessly to the Babylonian threat, which helps us to date the oracle in 1:5-11 at a time when the Chaldeans had already emerged on the world scene and had accomplished much (Andersen, 2001:168). In summary, therefore, we can concur with Armerding (2008:613) that God‟s first response to Habakkuk‟s complaint enables us to understand that evil and calamity do not exist independently of the sovereign rule and redemptive purposes of God (cf. Am. 3:6); but this truth is apprehended only by faith in God as He reveals Himself (see 2:4; 3:1-19; cf. Pss. 37 and 73; Eccl. 8:11-13;
Is. 51:12-16).
171
6.4.4.3 An Individual Lament: Habakkuk’s Second Complaint (1:12-2:1)
The new speaker, addressee and subject of discussion distinguish this unit from the previous section.62 The content and placement of this section indicate that it is a second complaint by Habakkuk to God concerning the oppressive nature of the Chaldeans (Sweeney, 1991:68).
Armerding (2008:616) points out that this complaint, which is also classified as an individual lament, has many points of contact with 1:2-4. He cites the following as points of connection:
the invocation of the Lord‟s name (1:2, 12); the urgent questions addressed to God (1:13, 17);
the description of the wicked oppressing of the righteous (1:13-17); and the issue of unrequited injustice that this complaint raises, expressed in vocabulary echoing that of 1:2-4 (e.g., „righteous,‟ „wicked,‟ „tolerate,‟ „look,‟ and „wrong‟ in 1:13). The dominance of interrogatives in this complaint is like Habakkuk‟s first lament, suggesting that the prophet is still asking questions or, more likely, complaining to God that His policies and practices are incomprehensible and unacceptable (Andersen, 2001:170).
The critical pain reflected in Habakkuk‟s second prayer stems from God‟s use of Neo- Babylonians in solving Judah‟s problems. This is well-articulated in Prior‟s (1998:218) statement, which says, “The “cure” of Babylonian invasion is worse than the “illness” of Judean sin.” The statement suggests that God‟s answer in 1:5-11 does not promise that God would rid Judean problems. Habakkuk could not believe what he was hearing from God; the answer to his complaint had opened up a far more frightening scenario than the one he had brought to God in agony of heart (Prior, 1998:218). So, in a heart-to-heart talk with God, Habakkuk – dissatisfied with the proposed solution of Babylon‟s ruthless and imperial interventions to his problems – again raises a protest. Habakkuk is frustrated because God is unconcerned with the problems of His own people.
Habakkuk begins this unit with a rhetorical question addressed to God (1:12a), which is also a statement of faith in the Lord‟s covenantal justice (Armerding, 2008:617). The question establishes Yahweh‟s antiquity and immortality; and the ground for the following material, that Yahweh, as creator and master of the world, is capable of intervening either to establish
62 Sweeney (1991:68) points out that the second person singular verbs and the pronoun hT'a ʾattâ “You” in 1:12-14a identifying Yahweh as its addressee, the first person singular pronoun suffixes in verse 12a, which identify Habakkuk as the speaker, and the third person singular that represents the Chaldeans, distinguish this section from the judgment oracle in 1:5-11.
172
the Chaldeans or to remove them (cf. 1:12b, 13; 2:6-20).63 By accepting God‟s sovereign use of the Chaldeans (1:12b), Habakkuk affirms that his life and identity are inextricably intertwined with the life and identity of the Lord (Prior, 1998:220). This is followed by an extended question on the existence of injustice (1:13-17) and verse 13 is the heart of Habakkuk‟s problem (Armerding, 2008:617). He does not understand how a Holy God could tolerate evil.
Prior (1998:223) observes that having accepted the rightness, the justice, in God‟s sovereign choice of the Chaldeans to bring correction and chastisement to Judah, Habakkuk cannot but point out the inherent contradiction to which this testifies – the Chaldeans are faithless men (1:13). According to him, Habakkuk believes there is absolutely no justice, no rightness, in God allowing, let alone commissioning, such people who are the embodiment of the wicked to swallow up those more righteous than they (1:13). The human drama viewed in verses 15- 17, which grows out of creation simile in verse 14, represents the Chaldeans as a fisherman, with the nations as fish (Andersen, 2001:190). Barker and Bailey (1998:315) say that in a figurative language, Habakkuk stated the problem (1:14), described the setting by showing how Babylon treated the conquered nations (1:15-16), and raised the serious question about the future (1:17).
Andersen (2001:190) argues that by comparing humankind to fishes, the poet brings out both their huge population and also their helplessness, making the image even more pathetic and appealing by adding they “have no ruler” (1:14b). The picture here suggests that the people became no better than animals or even insects to Babylonians, which made them to delight in their total power over the helpless creatures snared in their control (Boadt, 1982:177). The nations, as Leggett (1990:98) points out, are as helpless before the tyrant as fish are in the net of the fisherman. He adds that the net is a symbol and instrument of Babylonian power; thus, they worshipped and sacrificed to it (1:15). Boadt (1982:178) observes that the use of a net here is a mockery of divine power because the traditional imagery portrays God Himself as
63 Sweeney (1991:68) indicates that this is made clear in the two statements that follow: 1:12b states that Yahweh has appointed the Chaldeans for justice and arbitration, i.e., they have been established to rule. He goes on to say that verse 13 states that Yahweh is incapable of looking upon, i.e., tolerating, injustice.