Introduction

The eighth place among the books of the twelve minor prophets is occupied in both the Hebrew and Greek Bible by the book of the prophet Habakkuk, in Hebrew: Habakuk, LXX: Ambakum (or: Abbakum, as in codices 51, 97, 106, 228, 310 in Holmes and others), Vulg.: Habacuc. The Hebrew name of the prophet, according to the rabbis, blessed Jerome, and many modern commentators, is pronounced from the Hebrew root habak, to embrace. According to the explanation of blessed Jerome, the prophet’s name is understood in the sense of embrace, or, as we shall use it more expressively in Greek: perilepsis—that is, encompassing. The prophet is called embrace either because he is beloved of the Lord, or because he enters into dispute, into struggle, and as it were into hand-to-hand combat with God, so that his name comes from a contender—that is, one who embraces (an opponent) with his hands (Blessed Jerome. Two books of commentaries on the prophet Habakkuk to Chromatius. Russian trans. Works, vol. 14. Kiev 1898, pp. 130–131), on the basis of the prophet’s bold appeal to God to resolve the question of justice (Hab 1:2-4). This etymology with regard to the name of the prophet Habakkuk is fairly widespread in modern times as well, but alongside it there now exists another, by which the prophet’s name is derived from the Assyrian root hambakuku, meaning a certain garden plant (just as, for example, the feminine name Susanna (Dan 13:2; Luke 8:3) is also taken from the world of plants—meaning lily): in favor of this derivation the form of the prophet’s name in the LXX can speak. However, the traditional etymology has its advantages, inasmuch as it is not only fully justified by the laws of word-formation in the Hebrew language (an analogy in this case is represented by, for example, the word theballul, a cataract, in Lev 21:20), but also corresponds to the general content and fundamental idea of the book of the prophet Habakkuk. Professor M. A. Golubev (“The Book of the Prophet Habakkuk” in Christian Readings 1867, II, 681 ff.) correctly notes: “In the significant name of one contending with God, who sends ruthless and terrible men against his people (just as Jacob struggled with God, saying with firm faith: ‘I will not let you go until you bless me’ (Gen 32:26), or as if embraced by God and embracing God’s people—comforting them, after terrible revelations, with hope of a better future, just as a mother embraces or comforts a weeping child (cf. 1 Thess 2:7; Gal 4:19-20), in the name of Habakkuk there is already foreshadowed a special character of the burden to be announced to the Judeans and to their enemies: for the first—a burden of correction or instruction (cf. Hab 1:12), for the latter—a burden of destruction by fire (cf. Hab 2:13) or irrevocable ruin (pp. 705–706).

Reliable information about the life and activity of the prophet Habakkuk has not been preserved, since neither the prophetic book belonging to him nor the historical sacred books communicate anything on this subject. Only in the non-canonical part of the book of the prophet Daniel (Dan 14:33-37) is contained a legendary account of a certain prophet Habakkuk—a contemporary of the prophet Daniel, to whom the former, by God’s command, brought food from Palestine to Babylon, to the lion’s den. The information communicated about the prophet Habakkuk is partly dependent on this apocryphal account, partly based on arbitrary conjectures, and in general is improbable. Such, for example, is the opinion of the rabbis, who saw in Habakkuk the son of a devout Shunnamite woman, who heard from the prophet Elisha the promise that after a year she would be embracing—(Hebrew: Hobeket)—a son (2 Sam 4:16); against this opinion speaks its chronological incongruity: the time of the prophet Elisha’s life—the end of the 10th and beginning of the 9th century B.C.—does not fit the time of the prophet Habakkuk—the author of the book, since, from the data contained in it, it was written considerably later, namely in the 7th century B.C.; moreover, the supposed connection of this prediction with the name Habakkuk is entirely arbitrary. Concerning the origin of the prophet, there are two different traditions. According to one—in pseudo-Epiphanius and pseudo-Dorotheus and in our Menologies (under December 2), the prophet Habakkuk came from the tribe of Simeon and was the son of a certain Asaphat, from the village Bethchozer. According to another, found in one codex (Cod. Chisianus) of the superscription of the Greek apocrypha on Bel and the Dragon and defended by some modern researchers (especially Delitzsch), the prophet was from the tribe of Levi, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The basis for this latter opinion is the mention in Hab 3:1 of “his own stringed instruments” (neginot) musical in the temple, but conclusive proof of the Levitical origin of the prophet cannot be seen here, since King Hezekiah—not a Levite—in gratitude for his healing expresses the intention throughout all the days of his life to praise Iahweh with the sounds of stringed musical instruments neginot (Isa 38:20). On the contrary, the failure to mention in the prophet’s own book his Levitical origin—whereas the belonging of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel to the priestly line is directly stated in their books (Jer 1:1; Ezek 1:3)—may raise serious doubt about the historical truth of the opinion about the prophet Habakkuk’s belonging to the tribe of Levi. The synagogal and Christian traditions have been thoroughly investigated and critically elucidated in the work of Delitzsch, De Habacuci propheta, vita alque aetate, adiecta ditriba de Pseudodorotheo et Pseudoepiphanio. Leipzig. 1843.

Given such scarcity of information about the life and activity of the prophet Habakkuk, the positions usually accepted in works on the book of the prophet Habakkuk are nevertheless fairly undisputed: 1) that he conducted his prophetic ministry in the kingdom of Judah, which is proved by the complete absence in his book of any allusion to the ten-tribe kingdom; 2) that the placement of his book in the canon after the book of the prophet Nahum and before the book of the prophet Zephaniah indicates the time of Habakkuk’s activity—between the second half of the reign of Manasseh, around the middle of the 7th century, when the prophet Nahum was active, and the beginning of the reign of Josiah, when Zephaniah began his prophetic activity (Zeph 1:1). In more particular determination of the time of Habakkuk’s prophetic service, opinions of researchers diverge, since, as blessed Augustine remarked, three prophets among the minor ones—Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk—themselves do not speak of the time of their prophecy; it is not indicated when they prophesied, either in the chronicles of Eusebius and Jerome (De Civit. Dei, Lib. XVIII, cap. XXXI, Russian trans., vol. VI, Kiev 1887, pp. 49–50). But it is clear that from the Orthodox-church perspective, the opinion considering Habakkuk a contemporary of the Babylonian captivity is unacceptable: this opinion clearly sins with rationalist disbelief in the historical authenticity of prophetic predictions of the future. (A similar opinion on the time of the prophet Habakkuk’s life—of course, without these rationalist presuppositions—was also expressed by blessed Jerome, p. 132). In the book itself there is data allowing us to assign its composition to the middle of the 7th century B.C., around 650 B.C. The prophet on behalf of God threatens, ch. I (Hab 1:5-6), his contemporaries, the Judeans, for their impiety, Hab 1:3-4, with an unexpected and astonishing calamity—the invasion of the Chaldeans, a people never before seen by them. This calamity has not yet come to pass; the prophet only foresees its approach (Hab 3:2); Jerusalem and the temple still exist (Hab 2:20), and proper worship is performed in the temple (Hab 3:1-19), although in public life injustice and all manner of impiety reign (Hab 1:2-4); the divinely-appointed royal authority also exists (Hab 3:13). The external and internal signs indicated here equally fit the second half of the reign of Manasseh, after his return from Babylonian captivity (2 Chr 33:11). Indeed, the prediction about the event of the Chaldean invasion must necessarily be assigned before the invasion itself, which took place in the 4th year of the reign of Jehoiakim (2 Sam 24:1-2), that is, according to the most probable calculation, around 604–600 B.C. (see Commentary Bible, vol. II, p. 57, 5), necessarily to be pushed back several decades, if the very prediction about this to the prophet’s contemporaries appeared incredible (Hab 1:5). Of course, the Judeans had heard of the Chaldeans even before the time we suppose (see Isa 39:1), but in this case it is remarkable the almost literal correspondence between the words of the prophet about the Chaldean invasion (Hab 1:5) with the expression of the sacred writer 2 Sam 21:10-12 about threats to the Judeans in the time of Manasseh, uttered by unnamed prophets (see Commentary Bible, vol. II, p. 529). Among these prophets, by all probability, should be counted the prophet Habakkuk. The features of internal Judean life—namely: normal conduct of worship, and on the other hand injustice in public life—fully correspond to the general character of the second half of the reign of Manasseh, when on the one hand worship of Iahweh was restored in the Jerusalem temple (2 Chr 33:10-16), after its desecration by idolatry in the first half of Manasseh’s reign (2 Sam 21:2-9), on the other hand, the repentant Manasseh could not eradicate violence and oppression in the people (cf. 2 Chr 33:17). Whether the prophet Habakkuk survived the destruction of Jerusalem is not certainly known, although pseudo-Epiphanius has information that the prophet Habakkuk not only survived the fall of the Judean kingdom but died just two years before the return of the Judeans from captivity. (See in prof. M. A. Golubev, pp. 685–695). The tomb of the prophet in the time of Eusebius was shown at Kila in Palestine, in the tribe of Judah, near Eleutheropolis. The memory of the holy prophet in the Orthodox Church is celebrated on December 2.

From all that has been said, it is evident that, in its content, “the prophecy of Habakkuk is directed against Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldeans; so that, just as before Nahum, after whom Habakkuk follows, had a prophecy against Nineveh and the Assyrians, who defeated the ten tribes called Israel, Habakkuk receives a prophecy against Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar, through whom Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple are subjected to devastation” (blessed Jerome, p. 132). At the same time, the attention of the prophet, as undoubtedly that of the devout Judeans of his time, is occupied by the thought of internal troubles in the religious and social life of his homeland, and especially about the chief evil of the time—the predominance of force over right, the impiety of judges, the complete destruction of the law, and the fall of the very sense of legality (Hab 2:2-4). This was the subject of sorrowful bewilderment and heavy grief of the entire community contemporary with the prophet Habakkuk, and the thoughts and sentiments of the latter he boldly expressed in his “complaint” to Iahweh. This aspect of Habakkuk’s prophetic outlook is noted with sufficient prominence in the church service for the prophet (Menaion, December, day 2). Here, among other things, we read: “Habakkuk the wondrous, having received the dawn of the Spirit, became wholly divine, and seeing the impiety of judges and unjust judgment, was indignant, showing forth the righteousness of Christ and the Master, and with godly and fervent thought, as if oppressed, burned with zeal” (Stichera at “Lord I have cried,” 1st); and further: “How long, O Lord, does the prophet speak, will I cry to You, and You do not hear me; why have You shown me the impiety of judges?” (Canon, song 1st, trope 2nd); “You held every virtue, and hated every evil from your mind, and justly were disgusted with lawbreakers, O most blessed one” (song 2nd, trope 2nd). As a prophet, as the divinely-appointed “watchman” of the people (Hab 2:1; cf. Isa 52:8; Ezek 3:17), Habakkuk more than others showed zeal for the holiness of the trampled law of God, and like many divinely-enlightened men of the Old Testament (cf. Job 21:6-9; Ps 70:2-3; Jer 12:12), especially posed himself the question “why are audacious people more successful in their deeds than people of good character, and why does punishment not pursue lawbreakers in their footsteps” (blessed Theodoret, Commentary on the book of the prophet Habakkuk, Russian trans., 2nd ed., Sergiyev Posad, 1907, p. 22). However, “not the prophet himself, as some supposed, suffered from doubt, but he introduces the questions of others and presents teaching about what they are seeking... That he did not present his own thoughts to us, but preparing preventative medicine for the troubled, represented the prophecy in the form of bewilderment and its resolution, this is testified by the very beginning of the prophecy” (he, pp. 21–22). These bewilderments gained particular force and acuity from the fact that the Chaldeans, chosen by God to punish the Judeans and other peoples, were themselves more impious than the Judeans, glorified their own power, placing it in place of God, and committed unchecked lawlessness (Hab 1:9-16). Under such circumstances, the question about the relation of God’s providence to manifestations of evil human will arose with particular force. Therefore, the entire first chapter of the book of the prophet Habakkuk has the appearance or form of complaints and lamentations full of bewilderment from the prophet concerning the incomprehensible forbearance of God in relation to the oppressors of God’s people (pp. 9–16). In chapter two, a divine answer is given to the sighs of the prophet and the people; the essence of this answer consists of the thought that “a haughty soul will not be at rest, but the righteous shall live by his faith” (Hab 2:4), from which follows also the inevitability of the destruction awaiting the Chaldeans by divine judgment (Hab 2:8-17), by which at the same time will be ensured the subsequent salvation of Israel (cf. Hab 2:20). The divine threats and promises received by the prophet bring him into an exalted inspired state of mind, which resolves itself in a wonderful “prayer” or prayer-hymnic song, depicting the most magnificent manifestation of Iahweh in the world for judgment over the enemies of His kingdom and for the salvation of His chosen ones at the head with His anointed one. Such is the content of the third and final chapter of the book of the prophet Habakkuk.

From this it is evident that, despite its small volume, the book of the prophet Habakkuk has very important—both historical and doctrinal—significance. Just as the book of the prophet Nahum reflects the conclusion of the Assyrian period in the history of biblical Israel, so the book of the prophet Habakkuk marks the beginning of Chaldean influence in this history. Then the depiction of the divine manifestation in ch. III, resting on the ancient biblical depiction of the Sinai legislation (Deut 33:9 and others), is very characteristic of the pre-captivity prophetic outlook, whereas after the Babylonian captivity divine revelations to the prophets took on a different form—of apocalypses. But far more important is the internal, ideological aspect of the book. Here with great clarity are expressed the most important thoughts of Old Testament biblical theology and the Old Testament teaching about the kingdom of God and about the coming salvation in Christ. Very expressively, first of all, is posed and definitely resolved the previously mentioned question about the relation of the ruling Providence of God to human life relationships in general and in particular with the manifestation in these relationships of evil human will. The prophet testifies that the dominion of Iahweh is subject to great world pagan powers, that He brings them forth for judgment over other peoples, and then, when they do not acknowledge His ruling power and deify their own powers (Hab 1:5-7), they themselves become the object of judgment and punishment by God (Hab 2:5-8 and others), consequently, no god-opposing force can resist. With great definiteness are indicated then the positive internal characteristics of the members of the Old Testament kingdom of God: their firm, unwavering faith and faithfulness to God (Hab 2:4), their patience, humility and forbearance in sorrows (Hab 3:16), their complete dedication to God with rejoicing in the salvation granted by Him (Hab 3:18). Especially remarkable is the elevated ethical outlook of the prophet on the moral nature of Iahweh “the Holy One of Israel” (Hab 1:12), Lord of hosts (Hab 2:13): “it is not in the character of Your pure eyes (O Iahweh) to look upon wrongdoing, and to look upon oppression You cannot” (Hab 1:13). With such elevated teachings the prophet as it were steps beyond the bounds of the Old Testament and in spirit enters the realm of the New Testament. And the Orthodox Church sees in the book of the prophet Habakkuk particularly clear prophecy about the coming Christ the Savior; in the service to the prophet we read, for example: “Standing on the divine watch, the honorable Habakkuk heard the mystery toward us of Your coming, O Christ, inexpressible: and Your proclamation, he prophesies most clearly, foreseeing and the wise apostles as horses, the language of many-tribal people disturbing the sea” (verse at Lord I have cried, 2nd). “Having proclaimed the Lord of glory, and having predicted His coming from the Holy Virgin manifestly revealed, and seeing it shown, rejoice, O blessed Habakkuk” (Can. song 9, trope 2). The opening words of the second chapter of the book “at my watch” served as the basis for the irmos of the 4th song of the Paschal canon (“At the divine, truly God-speaking, Habakkuk let him stand with us”). Especially the third chapter of the book, appointed by the prophet for singing in the temple, and already in the Old Testament certainly having liturgical use, had a strong influence on the structure of church songs, namely the fourth song of the canon, and many words and expressions of the prophet from this (III) chapter are constantly heard in church irmoses: “O Lord, I have heard Your fame and I feared,” “From the mountain overshadowed with thick darkness You came,” “Covered are the heavens with Your virtue, O Christ,” and many others. Not without significance, therefore, the remark of one commentator (Kleinert) that after Isaiah, Habakkuk was the mightiest evangelist among the prophets.

However, this does not at all give grounds for relating the origin of the book to a later time and fragmenting it into parts of different epochs (as do, for example, Rosenmüller, Marti, and others). Apart from what has been said above about the historical situation, the origin of the prophet’s book soon after the book of the prophet Nahum, in any case not later than the middle of the 7th century B.C., is attested by the universally recognized purity and correctness of the language of the book and the form of speech, due to which it comes closer to the ancient prophetic era, for example, the time of the prophet Isaiah, than to that close to the captivity. The remark of Delitzsch is completely justified: “If we divide all the prophets by the features appearing in them into two kinds—into prophets of the school of Isaiah and prophets of the school of Jeremiah—then Habakkuk is evidently still of the most ancient—the school of Isaiah. The form of his language is constantly classical, filled with rare words and expressions, in part peculiar to him alone; his view and exposition bear the imprint of independent power and contemporary beauty. Despite the strong striving and high flight of his thoughts, his prophetic book represents a finely delineated, artfully-rounded whole; nowhere (of other books of the Bible) is the form of mutual discourse between God and the prophet conducted so well; nowhere is prophetic speech so tightly fused with lyric speech (even down to the structure of stanzas, ch. II, and down to musicality, ch. III). In content and form he, like Isaiah, is relatively far more independent of his predecessors than other prophets: everywhere is reflected still the time of the highest flourishing of prophecy, the time when in place of sacred lyricism, in which heretofore religious feeling of the church had expressed itself, there stepped forth, by means of the mightiest action of God, prophetic poetry with its trumpet voice, to awaken again the fading consciousness in the spiritually dying church, so that, if the time of the prophetic activity of the prophet were to be determined solely from the form of his prophecy, we would feel ourselves forced to assign him to the time of Hezekiah, or at least to Manasseh” (Cited work, pp. XII–XIII, see in prof. Golubev, p. 689, note). And by the acknowledgment of another researcher, the book of the prophet Habakkuk “belongs by its separate lyric parts to the most significant works of biblical literature. Form and content are always found in Habakkuk in the purest harmony. Complaint and consolation, suffering and joy complement each other; with fiery imagination are combined beautiful sense of measure, untroubled clarity, and thus one can say that from these discourses breathes Greek beauty, which is especially strong in the prayer of the prophet ch. III” (Gustav Karpeles. History of Hebrew Literature. Trans. under the ed. of A. Y. Garkavi. Vol. I (St. Petersburg, 1896), p. 104).

Among German commentaries and investigations on the book of the prophet Habakkuk one can name (besides the already mentioned work of Delitzsch): 1) Cumpach, Der Prophet Habakuk. Brixen. 1870. Besides, in the series: a) Lange Bibelwerk. Vol. XIX, U. Kleinert (Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1868 (pp. 126–157)), and b) K. Marti, Das Dodecapropheton. Tübingen. 1904, pp. 326–356.

Among rabbinical commentaries the most remarkable are: B. Abarbanel, Commentary on the book of Habakkuk, ed. 5. Munk. Paris. 1843.

In Russian—more or less brief remarks on the book of the prophet Habakkuk in the handbooks of Ordin, Smaragdov, metropolitan Arseny of Khergozersky, professor A. A. Olesnitsky, Spassky. An extensive and serious isagogico-exegetical work (already mentioned by us above) belongs to the late professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy M. A. Golubev: “The Book of the Prophet Habakkuk” in Christian Readings 1867, vol. II, pp. 681–743, 861–919.