1 The oracle that Habakkuk the prophet received.
2 How long, O Lord , must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, "Violence!" but you do not save?
3 Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds.
4 Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.
A young business executive sent this letter to this pastor:
“I see so many people around the church who have such strong faith that I feel like I don't fit in. I would like to feel confident. I wish I didn't have doubts, but I've got more questions than answers. Sometimes I wonder if I am really a Christian. Can you help me with any of this? [Signed] Bob"
Could you have written this letter? Whoever said that we should not question things surely never read the Bible. The Bible is full of questions. I hope we have created a community of faith where struggles are welcome and doubters are accepted, for there may be more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds.
I. COME MEET THE PROPHET HABAKKUK.
He was a contemporary of Jeremiah. He lived about 600 B.C. His book is tucked in the Old Testament between Nahum and Zephaniah, but the three chapters of Habakkuk have different material from other prophets of his time. Old Testament prophets were known as bold proclaimers of God's Word. They called for sin to cease and justice to reign, and people to repent. Habakkuk takes another approach. Instead of delivering God's message to the people, Habakkuk delivers the people's complaint to God. So the book opens with a troubling question:
HOW LONG? How long, O Lord, how long? It's the question of every child traveling on vacation. It's the question of every mother in her ninth month of pregnancy. As I took an extended vacation at Vanderbilt hospital this week with a cough that wouldn't stop, I found myself asking, too, how long, O Lord, how long? Of course, Habakkuk had deeper things on his mind. He wanted to know. “How long must I cry for help, but you will not listen? How long must I cry, ‘Violence!' but you do not save?"
As bombs once more burst over the same territory from whence Habakkuk cried violence so long ago, and little children hold their wounded loved ones in their arms with that desperate look of angst on their faces, if there is any human cry left it surely must be “How long, O Lord, how long?"
The second question is more disconcerting than the first. Inquiring minds not only want to know how long, we want to know HOW COME? How can God tolerate wrong?
If God is omnipotent, then why does he permit earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis?
If God is loving, how come he stands by while innocent children suffer at the hands of predators and starve to death as playthings of politicians? If God is just, why does hate mock the song of peace on earth?
Such questions have caused people to abandon the faith. In the 1950's, Charles Templeton was a contemporary of Billy Graham. Both of them were holding crusades across North America. Charles Templeton started the Youth for Christ movement that brought thousands of teenagers to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One day this newspaper and magazine reporter turned evangelist had a change of heart. He went to his friend Billy Graham and confessed that he could no longer believe the Gospel. A troubled believer lamented to his friend, “How can a loving and omnipotent God allow such horrors as we have seen this century?" Charles Templeton was converted not to God, but from God. Years later in his book, Farewell to God, he explained his disbelief.
Don't let your questions do that to you, there is a better way.
II. HOW CAN WE LIVE THE QUESTIONS?
We can be quiet. Habakkuk 2:20 “The Lord is in his holy temple. Let all the earth keep silence before him."
People without noise are like fish out of water. We immediately start flopping around trying to find something familiar. We can't study without music. My son can't sleep without a fan running. We won't take a walk without our Walkman or Ipod. We won't drive a car without radios blaring, horns honking, or telephones ringing. To experience silence is to go through the kind of withdrawal that drug addicts must experience. Yet, we must dare to take the trip if our souls are to find peace, and our hearts are to become calm. Only as we find that place of quiet rest will we find new life.
We can be prayerful. Chapter 3 is Habakkuk's prayer. I got an interesting note from one of our members this week. She said, “When trouble comes at BUMC, we are used to doing something to make it better. We want to fix a meal, offer some transportation, cut the grass, or at least hold a meeting to discuss the situation. When we asked how to help you through this illness, you said boldly, ‘Don't do anything but pray.' I am not sure we know how to do that, but we will try." Now certainly there is a time to help. Burdens shared are halved, but let not our busyness keep us from prayerfulness.
Henri Nouwen says prayer is not our most natural response to the world. Left to our own impulses, we would always rather do something than pray. Prayer requires us to stand in God's presence with open hands, naked, vulnerable, proclaiming to ourselves and others that without God we are nothing.
To pray for others is not to convince God of something he already knows. To pray for another is to allow their pains and sufferings, their anxieties and loneliness, their confusion and fears to resound in our innermost selves.
Pray for peace. Pray for help in time of trouble and wisdom for the days ahead. Pray for this great congregation, that we may be all God wants us to be for the glory of God and the good of people.
We can be faithful. Our bishop said to us at Annual Conference that we ministers will be rewarded according to our fruitfulness. Jesus calls us to go and bear fruit. If we bear no fruit where we are, why do we think we can bear fruit if promoted to another place? Of course, he is right. There are so many Methodist churches that have not received a single person on profession of faith in so long that no one would know how to respond if somebody did. I believe in bearing fruit for the kingdom of God.
Even more basic than fruitfulness is faithfulness. I believe one of the finest affirmations of faith in the Bible is here in Habakkuk when the prophet says:
“Though the fig tree does not blossom, and no fruit is on the vines, though the produce of the olive fails, and the fields yield no food, though the flock is cut off from the fold, and there is no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will exalt in the God of my salvation. God, the Lord, is my strength."
I thank God for miracles, for His mysterious interventions into our lives, but I most greatly admire those who keep the faith when no miracles come. I thank God for successes. I have had more than I deserve. My deepest admiration goes to those who never seemed to be at the right place at the right time, yet have kept a positive spirit and bloomed where they were planted. I thank God for the mountains; I have climbed a few. I thank Him for the valleys, too, for walking through the shadows, and dealing with the struggles have given me grace unspeakable and love unknown.
So, on I go not knowing, I would not if I might.
I would rather walk in the dark with God, than walk alone in the light.
I would rather walk with God by faith, than walk alone by sight.
For we will never know that God is all we need until God is all we have and therein lies the answer to our deepest questions.
Habakkuk cries out to God about the injustice and wrong that he sees all around him (1-4). He asks God how long he has to cry out before God will listen to him and do something about the terrible situation in Judah.
Who is Habakkuk? · We know very little about Habakkuk other than that he was a prophet. God’s statement to him in 1:6 allows us to place him in the time era just prior to one of the Babylonian invasions of Judah. Habakkuk 3 is a psalm, intended to be sung (3:1, 19). Thus a few scholars have suggested that Habakkuk might be …
1 The oracle that Habakkuk the prophet received.
2 How long, O Lord , must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, "Violence!" but you do not save?
3 Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds.
4 Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.
The Prophet’s Perplexities and God’s Explanations (1:2–2:20): Habakkuk introduces his prophecy by reporting that the words he will share with his readers are an oracle, which God has placed on his heart. A similar superscription introduces Habakkuk’s great prayer and praise in 3:1. Habakkuk cannot understand why God is ignoring the rampant corruption that Habukkuk sees all around him in Judah. He has often cried to God in anguish but has received no answer. Because the call-answer motif is used often in the Old Testament to express intimacy of communion between God and the believer, God’s failure to answer the prophet’s call may indicate Habakkuk’s fear that perhaps he is out of fellowship with God.
The Hebrew words for Judah’s sin that Habakkuk uses in verses 2–3 involve the ideas of malicious viciousness, utter wickedness, and perversity. They depict a general condition of oppression, strife, and contention. What little justice there is is perverted. The terrible conditions mentioned here are most applicable to the time of the wicked king Manasseh. According to 2 Kings 21:1–18 and 2 Chronicles 33:1–20, Manasseh plunged into every sort of Canaanite religious debauchery, including the worship of Baal and Asherah and the establishment of a state astral cult. Even the temple in Jerusalem was desecrated with Canaanite altars and symbols. The king himself not only practiced witchcraft but even involved his own son in the loathsome rites of infant sacrifice. Because Manasseh rejected God’s rightful sovereignty over his life, it is small wonder that Judah was filled with violence and immorality. For Judah’s law ultimately resided in the revealed teaching of God, whose standards were to permeate every area of the believer’s life. Accordingly, justice and righteousness, the twin expressions of God’s legal and judicial holiness, were openly perverted.
Manasseh would not accept God’s rebuke or instruction. Therefore, God brought judgment on him by allowing him to be carried off captive by the king of Assyria. This event probably is to be associated with the widespread revolts that plagued the reign of Ashurbanipal of Assyria in the mid-seventh century BC. Although 2 Chronicles 33:12–16 reports Manasseh’s repentance and subsequent restoration of true worship, it came too late to have any permanent effect on the spiritual tenor of the people of Judah. Indeed, when his son, Amon, succeeded Manasseh, he not only reintroduced all of his father’s wickedness but “increased his guilt” (2 Chron. 33:23). Because Zephaniah and Jeremiah appear to have used Habakkuk’s prophecy, and because the conditions described here must have occurred before Manasseh’s captivity, release, and repentance, Habakkuk probably penned his prophecy about 655–650 BC.
A Protest and an Answer (i): After the introduction (v. 1), Habakkuk challenges Yahweh about faithlessness and violence in Judah and Yahweh’s failure to act in deliverance (vv. 2–4), and Yahweh announces the intention to take action by means of the Babylonians (vv. 5–11).
1:1 See the introduction to Habakkuk above.
1:2–4 Habakkuk challenges Yahweh in the manner of the Psalms, perhaps doing so as a prophet representing the community. Right away, then, Habakkuk raises what we call the question of theodicy. Why is there so much evil in the world, and why does God do nothing about it? But right away, as in other parts of the OT, Habakkuk raises this question not by talking to other people or by seeking to reflect theologically, but by speaking directly and confrontationally to God about it. And the “problem of evil” is not the problem of why suffering such as illness or natural disaster comes to people who do not deserve it, but why God does nothing about the wrongdoing people do to one another.
Addressed to Yahweh, How long? is a question characteristic of the Psalms, though Habakkuk’s particular expression (ʿad-ʾanah) comes only in Psalm 13:1–2 (but it occurs 4 times there). Other synonymous expressions occur more frequently (esp. ʿad-matay; e.g., Pss. 6:3; 74:10). Whether addressed to Yahweh or to human beings, “How long?” is not a request for information to which Yahweh could give an answer such as “another five/fifty years” that would send the prophet home satisfied. It is a rhetorical question that disguises a protest or reproach. It implies, “stop doing what you are doing.” Yet Habakkuk never makes such an actual plea. In a psalm one characteristically asks for two things—for Yahweh to listen to one’s prayer and then in response to take action to rescue from trouble. Habakkuk’s words make clear that these have indeed been his two pleas, but Yahweh has ignored both, and he wants to know how long Yahweh will carry on doing that—or rather, he wants Yahweh to stop doing it. But whereas a psalm would regularly utter such a plea and Habakkuk refers to the way he has been doing so, he does not do it here. Perhaps the implication is that it seems pointless. Or perhaps the lack of a plea hints that the protest form of the prophecy is less a means of getting Yahweh to act than it is a means of gaining some understanding. It is a means of working out how to look at what Yahweh is doing, for the benefit of people who will listen to the prophet as much as for the prophet’s own benefit. One might compare this to Abraham’s “prayer” in Genesis 18, which never actually articulates a direct plea; its concern, too, is as much to articulate an understanding of the way Yahweh acts in the world.
In fact, the problem Habakkuk explicitly raises is that Yahweh does not listen and does not save. The verbs call for help and “save” are very similar (shwʿ and yshʿ), which brings out the link between them. Even phonetically, calling for help should have a close relationship with being saved from one’s predicament. But it does not. To underline the point, in the two lines of the verse, “call for help” is paralleled by cry out, the verb used of Israel in Egypt (zaʿaq). Yahweh listened to that cry—why not to this one?
The subject of the cry is “Violence!” (khamas). Violence filled the earth before the flood (Gen. 6:11, 13), it is another recurrent topic for prayer in the Psalms (e.g., 55:9; 74:20), a concern of Proverbs (e.g., 16:29), but especially of the Prophets in Habakkuk’s time (e.g., Jer. 20:8; Ezek. 7:23; Zeph. 1:9). But no one protests at “violence” more resolutely than Habakkuk and his God—six times in two chapters (1:2, 3, 9; 2:8 [NIV “destroyed lands”], 17). The etymological link in English between violence and violation draws attention to two aspects of the meaning of the Hebrew word. It covers only sinful violence, violence that violates relationships and community standards. And it can apply to violations of relationships and community standards that do not involve physical violence.
Why? (v. 3) is then a further classic question in the prayers of the Psalms (e.g., 10:1; 22:1; 42:9) and in the protests of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 15:18; 20:18). Once again, it is not a request for information but a rhetorical question that implies a protest and the conviction that actually there cannot be any satisfactory answer. The question Why do you make me look at injustice? begins to bring out the distinctive nature of Habakkuk’s protest over against those of the Psalms and Jeremiah. Habakkuk is not protesting about his own suffering, about violence shown to him, but about violence that he sees all around him. Admittedly it is likely that the Psalms are indirectly so concerned, in the sense that a psalmist wrote for the sake of people who were subjected to violence and people prayed these psalms on behalf of people who were subjected to violence. But a concern for other people who were subjected to violence is explicit in Habakkuk. He is offended by the monstrous situation he confronts in the community, by which Yahweh seems not to be offended. No matter how loud he shouts about it, Yahweh will neither listen nor do anything. He lives as a man who is compelled to “look” at the faithless oppressing the faithful. He cannot understand why Yahweh makes him look at all this, why they are before me all the time, nor how Yahweh can personally bear continually watching it and doing nothing (tolerate is another word that literally means “look at” or “watch”).
In verse 3 Habakkuk brings together three pairs of words to express what he sees and what Yahweh sees. “Injustice” (ʾawen) suggests causing trouble or suffering or harm to someone else; when Rachel was dying in childbirth, she wanted to call her baby Ben-Oni, “Son of my Trouble/Suffering” (Gen. 35:18). Wrong (ʿamal) is another word for such trouble or sorrow. Destruction (shod) comes from a common verb for causing devastation and thus goes with violence. The third pair suggests how the trouble is caused and how the devastating violence is put into effect. Strife (rib) and conflict (madon) are both legal words. They insinuate that the wrongdoers are able to use the law so as to wrong other people who are less adept at working the legal system. It seems that the usual rule holds, that the powerful and clever people in the community and the people who exercise authority there are themselves heavily involved in the wrongdoing, in fraud and violence. Community life is totally broken down.
The result (v. 4) is that the law is paralyzed, or ineffective. “Law” is torah, which would not usually refer to the legal system but to the teaching of Moses or the prophets or the sages. One can see how this teaching was ineffective in the time of Manasseh or Amon, but possibly Habakkuk’s specific context is the aftermath of the reform of Josiah, who sought to implement the concerns of a book of torah. If the strife, violence, and disorder of the community’s life are unconstrained by the exercise of authority based on proper teaching, and conversely these make such teaching and exercise of authority impossible, Habakkuk is referring to the way Josiah’s reform actually failed to make a significant difference to Judah’s life. And he is suggesting that God bears responsibility for this. After all, the teaching scroll spoke of sanctions in connection with ignoring it, but Yahweh is turning a blind eye. Yahweh is indifferent to the violence that affects the community and unresponsive to this suppliant’s cry about that, and “is therefore evidently to blame for the current breakdown of social norms” (Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2, p. 103).
Josiah’s teaching scroll is usually assumed to be some form of Deuteronomy, but it makes little difference which form of torah we assume Habakkuk refers to, because in this connection they all have the same concern. They all aim to inculcate faithfulness and fairness in the community, but the actions that verse 3 has described frustrate those aims. So justice never prevails. Here the noun is mishpat, which denotes decision-making authority. There is a sense in which mishpat does prevail in the society; authority is exercised. But it is not exercised (lit., it does not go out) in accordance with torah. As is often the case, the two parallel lines in verse 4a need to be interwoven to understand their point. Torah does not prevail in the sense that it does not affect the way decisions get made; decision-making authority fails in the sense that it is not exercised in accordance with torah.
Verse 4b sums up the point of verses 2–4a. The first line sums up verses 2–3. The words wicked (rashaʿ) and righteous (tsaddiq) are antonyms, though not in the same way in English as in Hebrew, as English does not have equivalents to the Hebrew words. People who are tsaddiq are people who live faithfully in their relationships in the community and do the right thing by them. People who are rashaʿ are people who ignore the obligations of their relationships in the community; they just live for themselves. The latter hem in the former like an army surrounding a town. The words “wicked” and “righteous” are singular; we could say in English “the wicked person attacks the righteous” without implying that there is but one of each, and it takes more than one person to “hem in” anyone. The parallel line so that justice is perverted then restates verse 4a, repeating the noun but introducing to close the subsection a new verb that comes only here in the OT (ʿaqal). Decision-making authority does go out, but it goes out twisted, crooked, bent out of shape. And Yahweh does not respond to pleas about this iniquitous state of affairs.
Additional Notes
1:2–4 The portrayal of this argument between prophet and God would not be affected if Hab. 1:2–4 protests about the Assyrians, so that Habakkuk’s prophecy relates to their defeat by Babylon, to whom (with the Medes) Nineveh fell in 612. But the language of the verses more suggests strife within Judah than attacks from outside. The same objection also applies to the suggestion that Habakkuk is already speaking about the Babylonians, with vv. 5–11 then expressing Yahweh’s acceptance of responsibility for this.
Habakkuk prophesied, as did Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah, during the turbulent period that saw the rise of the Babylonians and the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem. Like them, he was a warning sign that judgment was coming. On the other hand, he is unlike these other prophets in that his initial burning concern is how God is executing judgment: by means of a people seemingly more wicked than those being punished.
The book begins with the prophet’s laments and God’s responses. The laments of the prophet express questions about the justice of God. How can God allow internal (1:2 4) and external (the Babylonians; 1:12–17) wickedness to succeed? God responds that the wicked eventually will receive what is due them, but he is going to use the Babylonians to bring judgment on his people. In the light of these truths, God tells Habakkuk (and through him all readers) that “the righteous will live by his faith” (2:4 NASB [cf. Gen. 15:6]), just as Abraham did. God eventually will judge those whom he uses to bring punishment on his people (2:6–20). The final section (chap. 3) is a magnificent, and perhaps ancient, poetic portrait of God the warrior that Habakkuk includes in his work. In this way, the prophet records his own acceptance of God’s ways in the world.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16 17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.
In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.
The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2 Chron. 24:24).
The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:7 8) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).
One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2 Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).
Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2 Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).
The concept of justice pervades the Bible, especially, though not exclusively, the OT. The biblical concept of justice is an embodiment of two contemporary concepts: righteousness and justice. The former designates compliance with the divine norm, while the latter emphasizes conformity to a societal standard of what is right and equitable. Focusing exclusively on the latter hinders the correct understanding of justice in the biblical sense.
The source of justice is God himself. It flows from his essential character as one who is both just and righteous, whose actions are flawless, perfect, upright, and just (Deut. 32:4; 1 Sam. 12:7; 2 Sam. 22:31; Job 37:23; Ps. 89:14). God is the righteous lawgiver, hence the one who establishes the norm for right conduct (Deut. 4:4 8; Ps. 19:7–9). He requires justice of all his creatures (cf. Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12, 28–29). God also judges righteously (Gen. 18:25; 1 Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:4, 9; Jer. 9:24) and defends and vindicates the weak and oppressed (Deut. 10:18; Ps. 103:6). The responsibility of maintaining justice in the human community, however, he delegates to its leaders, such as civil magistrates or political officials, and requires them to execute this responsibility with integrity, equity, and impartiality (Deut. 1:16–17; 16:18–20; Ps. 82:2–4; Prov. 31:8–9; John 7:24; 1 Pet. 2:13–14). God’s requirement of justice in the human community is not limited to its leaders only; it is incumbent upon everyone therein (Ps. 15:1–5; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9; 8:17; Matt. 23:23).
In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19 23) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.
More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.
“Salvation” is the broadest term used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.
In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5 7; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).
Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2 Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1 Sam. 17:1–58).
But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2 Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2 Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins.
Little biographical information is given regarding Habakkuk, but much is communicated about him in the short book that bears his name. His name comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to embrace.” Nothing is said of his lineage or historical context, though twice he identifies himself as a prophet (Hab. 1:1; 3:1). His use of poetry, visions, woe oracles, and music and his description of the temple make his identification as a temple prophet appealing.
Habakkuk describes two roles that he fulfills in his calling from God. First, as a prophet he brings the concerns of the people to God. Second, as a watchman he receives and interprets the response of God to the people. Thus, he serves the dual roles of interceding on behalf of the people to God and mediating the messages from God to the people.
The primary textual clue to the historical context in which the prophet ministers is in Hab. 1:6, in which the Babylonians are depicted as ruthless destroyers of God’s people and their territory. Accordingly, the prophet best seems to fit sometime in the latter years of the seventh century BC. Attempts to identify Habakkuk with others in Scripture, such as the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:16) or the watchman in Isa. 21:6, are speculative and do not fit the context of Hab. 1:5–6.
Several apocryphal traditions have arisen concerning Habakkuk. In the Old Greek version of the apocryphal book Bel and the Dragon, he is described as “the son of Jesus” from the tribe of Levi and a contemporary of the prophet Daniel (vv. 1–2). Further traditions regarding Habakkuk appear in the Pseudepigrapha, midrashim, and other extrabiblical works.
The book of Habakkuk reveals a man of intense concern, thoughtful reflection, profound conviction, careful obedience, and godly character. He brings two primary concerns to God. First, the prophet bemoans God’s tolerance of the sin of his people. Second, once assured of God’s judgment, the prophet questions God’s use of a more ungodly nation to judge Israel’s sin. God patiently answers his servant’s concerns, and Habakkuk promises to wait for the fulfillment of God’s plan and to deliver it clearly while faithfully maintaining his duty.
(1) In the Bible, usually the bottom of a robe. For example, the high priest’s robe had a hem that included golden bells and pomegranates sewn onto it so that they made noise when the high priest moved, presumably to let people know that the priest was still alive when he entered the holy of holies (Exod. 28:33–35; 39:24–26). Often, touching the hem of a robe was considered a sign of submission (such as Saul grabbing Samuel’s in 1 Sam. 15:27). Similarly, it could be an act of entreaty by an inferior toward a superior, as in Zech. 8:23: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’ ” The Gospels describe a woman who was healed simply by touching the hem of Jesus’ robe (Matt. 9:20 // Mark 5:27 // Luke 8:44).
(2) A verb to describe the action of surrounding or trapping someone (Ps. 139:5; Hab. 1:4).
Divine pronouncements given to humankind that are either unsolicited (Isa. 7:3–9; Hag. 1:2–11; Zech. 12:1) or a response to an inquiry (2 Kings 8:8). It was common practice throughout the ancient Near East to seek pronouncements from deities and to identify holy sites where sacred individuals could query the deities (e.g., the shrine of Apollo at Delphi). How much time elapsed between the transmission of an oracle and its inscription is uncertain. Inscriptions from the surrounding Near Eastern milieu attest that messages received from a deity often were transcribed immediately upon reception, with the prophet’s name attached.
Reception and Delivery of Oracles
The Hebrew word massa’ (derived from nasa’, “to lift, take, carry”), variously translated “oracle” (Isa. 17:1; 19:1; 21:1; 30:6), “burden” (Isa. 17:1 JPS, KJV), or “prophecy” (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 KJV), is used in this figurative sense primarily in prophetic speech (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 are the exceptions) to refer to threatening pronouncements against Israel (Hab. 1:1; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 1:1), its neighbors (Isa. 13:1; 14:28; 15:1; Nah. 1:1), or an individual (2 Kings 9:25; 2 Chron. 24:27). Although the word itself is used infrequently, the prophetic activity of delivering divine pronouncements was prevalent throughout Israel’s history, rising in prominence during the monarchy and ceasing at the beginning of the intertestamental period.
Priests, judges (Deut. 17:9), and prophets (1 Sam. 9:9) could be the recipients and deliverers of divine oracles, although as the duties of these offices became more differentiated over time, delivery of oracles became more the province of the prophet (2 Kings 22:11–14; Jer. 21:2). A few oracles found in the OT are attributed to non-Israelites (Balaam [Num. 22–24]; Agur [Prov. 30:1]; King Lemuel [Prov. 31:1]). The Israelites were commanded to seek Yahweh (Isa. 55:6; Hos. 10:12), and they (Isa. 9:13) and their leaders (Jer. 10:21) were condemned both for failure to do so and for their dismissive response to a prophetic oracle once it had been delivered, whether solicited (Ezek. 33:30–32) or not (Zech. 7:12).
Prophets were often sought to inquire about obtaining an oracle (1 Sam. 9:9; 2 Kings 3:11; 22:13) during times of crisis or need. Such oracles were for the benefit of either an individual (Exod. 18:15; 2 Kings 8:8) or the nation (1 Kings 22:5; 2 Kings 3:11; 2 Chron. 18:6) and were sought by commoners (Gen. 25:22; Exod. 18:15; Ezek. 33:30), elders (Ezek. 14:1–3; 20:1; see also 8:1), royalty (1 Kings 14:5; 22:5–8; 2 Kings 22:18; 2 Chron. 26:5), army officials (Jer. 42:1–3), and foreigners (2 Kings 8:7; Isa. 14:32). Prophetic response to oracular inquiry was not automatic. Deliverance of an oracle after an inquiry could be immediate (Jer. 37:17), delayed for an extended period of time (Jer. 42:7 [ten days]), or the prophet could refuse to deliver an oracle (Jer. 23:33; Ezek. 14:1). A previous oracle could be superseded (Isa. 38 [compare v. 1 with vv. 4–6]). Various commodities could be used for payment, including silver (1 Sam. 9:7–8), food (1 Kings 14:3), and foreign goods (2 Kings 8:7–9).
Oracles could be pronounced publicly in various places, including the palace (2 Kings 20:4–5), the temple (Jer. 7:2; 26:2), the city gates (1 Kings 22:10; 2 Chron. 18:9), the roadside (1 Kings 20:38–43), or privately to individuals, including royalty (Jer. 37:17), officials (Isa. 22:15), and foreigners (Jer. 39:15–17). There are several mentions in Scripture of oracles that are not part of the canonical record (e.g., 2 Chron. 24:27).
Oracular pronouncements could be brief (1 Kings 17:1) or lengthy (the books of Nahum and Malachi), and they consisted of a variety of genres, including satire (Isa. 44:9–20), parable (2 Sam. 12:1–14), and lament (Jer. 9:20; Ezek. 19; Amos 5:1), to produce the desired rhetorical effect. The prophetic introductory or concluding oracular formulas “thus says the Lord” and “declares the Lord” echo the messenger terminology of the broader culture, in which a similar introductory “thus says X” was used by messengers delivering public proclamations on behalf of the one who commissioned them (2 Chron. 36:23). In this way, the prophet presented an oracle as God’s message to the people, not his own.
Nominal Israel was condemned for seeking pronouncements from false gods (2 Kings 1:3–4, 6, 16; 2 Chron. 25:15; Hos. 4:12), necromancy (Isa. 8:19), and failure to inquire of the true God of Israel (Zeph. 1:6). False prophets could also claim to have received communication from God (Deut. 13:1–11; 18:20; Ezek. 13), but they were indicted for delivering their own message without divine sanction (Jer. 23:34–39; 28; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13), turning the people away from the true God to worship false gods (Deut. 13:1–11) and delivering oracular pronouncements in order to enjoy personal pleasure (Mic. 2:11) and gain (Jer. 6:13–15; 8:10–12).
Often Scripture simply notes that a prophet received a “word of the Lord” (Jer. 1:2; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; cf. Isa. 14:28; Hab. 1:1) without explicitly stating the means by which the divine pronouncement was received. The prophetic witness mentions both seeing (Isa. 1:1; 13:1; Amos 8:1; Hab. 1:1) and hearing (Ezek. 1:24–25, 28) divine communication, but what actually happened to the prophet is not easily determined. The references to the Spirit coming upon an individual (Num. 11:25; 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; Ezek. 8:1; 11:5; 37:1) point to some sort of divine intervention that seized the prophet’s consciousness in such a way as to prepare the prophet for a revelation from God.
Prophets were known to have ecstatic or visionary experiences that marked them as operating under divine influence. In addition, several of the prophets (Isa. 20; Jer. 13:1–11; Ezek. 5:1–4) acted out demonstrations (sign-acts) as part of their oracular ministry. These ecstatic experiences and peculiar actions offended many of their contemporaries (2 Kings 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). These phenomena were concentrated around the two great crises faced by Israel: the demise of the northern kingdom in 722 BC and of the southern kingdom in 586 BC. Having been given warning that national judgment was imminent, these prophets were led to augment their preaching with dramatizations in order to convey more persuasively to the audience the urgency of heeding their message (Ezek. 12:8–11).
Types of Oracles
Form critics have identified three main types of prophetic oracles: oracles of salvation, judgment, and repentance. The first is further divided into subcategories: individual salvation oracles (1 Kings 17:8–16) and community salvation oracles (1 Sam. 7:3–15). The prophets, however, were not tightly bound to the traditional forms, and they demonstrated great creativity in modifying the forms to fit their personal style and the situation before them.
These various types of oracles were not arbitrary pronouncements; they were founded on Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh (Jer. 34:18). The prophets served as covenant prosecutors, and their oracles were part of the prosecution’s case on behalf of Yahweh against the people. Behavior, whether an individual’s or the nation’s, was evaluated in light of the demands of the covenant. So too, Yahweh’s response—judgment or salvation—was cast in terms of his faithfulness to the covenant(s) that he made with Israel.
Salvation oracles announced Yahweh’s glorious deliverance and restoration, mostly in response to the catastrophe of 586 BC (Ezek. 11:16–21; 36:24–38; 37:15–28; Amos 9:11–15; Zeph. 3:14–20), and they could include in the salvific pronouncement the destruction of the enemy (Zeph. 3:19). They often open with the formulaic “in that day” (Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:6), focusing Israel’s attention on a future time when all its enemies would be subdued and covenantal blessings would be established and enjoyed by the redeemed community.
Judgment oracles typically were introduced with an interjection, often translated into English as “woe,” followed by a formal address and accusation accompanied by an announcement of the punishment to be inflicted (Isa. 1:4; 5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22; Jer. 22:13; Ezek. 34:2). These oracles could take the form of a lawsuit. In Isa. 1:2 “heaven and earth” are summoned as witnesses, harking back to Deut. 30:19; 31:28; 32:1, where these elements of nature were invoked by Moses to be witnesses of God’s covenant with Israel. Some oracles state explicitly that a case has been brought against the people (Isa. 3:13; Jer. 2:9; Hos. 4:1; 12:2; Mic. 6:1–2).
Repentance oracles specifically summon the addressee to repentance and a recommitment to the covenant in order to avoid destruction (Isa. 31:6; Jer. 4:1; Hos. 12:6).
Means of Oracles
Various objects were sanctioned for use in discerning God’s will. Scripture is silent on many of the details regarding the manipulation of these objects, but the validity of their use for discerning the divine will is not questioned. The mysterious Urim and Thummim, two stonelike objects kept in the high priest’s breastpiece, appear to have operated to give a “yes or no” response (Exod. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 14:41), though sometimes there is no response at all (1 Sam. 28:6). The ephod, some sort of two-piece linen apron or loin cloth worn by priests under the breastpiece (Exod. 28:4, 6; 1 Sam. 23:9–12; 1 Sam. 30:7–8; but note that Samuel was wearing one as he assisted the high priest Eli [1 Sam. 2:18], and David, as he led the procession returning the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem [2 Sam. 6:14]), was also pressed into service for discerning God’s will. Another method, the casting of lots, is shrouded in mystery. This method was used to determine the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:8–10), the guilty party in the loss at Ai (Josh. 7:14), land allotment in Canaan (Josh. 14–19; 21), priestly assignments in the temple (1 Chron. 24:5; 25:8; 26:13), residency in Jerusalem in the postexilic community (Neh. 11:1), the day to massacre the Jews in Persia as plotted by Haman (Esther 3:7; 9:24), and dividing the Messiah’s clothing (Ps. 22:18; cf. John 19:24).
Oracles against the Foreign Nations
A special group of oracles are those addressed to Israel’s historic enemies, commonly referred to as “oracles against the [foreign] nations.” Blocks of these oracles are found in Amos 1–2; Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32 and the entire books of Nahum and Obadiah. These oracles were addressed to a specific foreign nation (the putative audience) but were heard by Israel. During a time when most people’s conception of deity was tied to a specific land, these oracles maintained that Yahweh was sovereign over the whole earth, and that his purposes included all humankind. All the nations do his bidding. These oracles were to be understood against the backdrop of Israel’s infidelity to Yahweh and its futile reliance on the support of foreign nations. The oracles demonstrated that Yahweh would bring down all that was haughty and would order events so that he alone would be high and exalted in the day of his coming. Those nations that cursed Israel would themselves be cursed (Gen. 12:1–3; 27:29).
New Testament Usage
In the NT, “oracle” (Gk. logion) occurs four times, always in the plural (logia [NIV: “words”]). It refers to the Mosaic law (Acts 7:38) and unspecified portions of revelation (Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11).
Hostile action carried out against someone or something. While used in Ezek. 22:26 to describe the manner in which Israel’s priests had utilized God’s law, violence most often involves the infliction of physical harm against a person or group. The subject of violence in the Bible, while extensive, is far from simple. Many OT passages refer to participation in violence as something to be avoided, belonging to the life of the wicked rather than to that of the righteous (Ps. 27:12; Prov. 4:17). In the NT, violence is discouraged as well (Rom. 12:19–21). Violence is addictive and ultimately destructive for those who live by it (Prov. 13:2; 21:7). Violence begets violence (Ps. 137; Matt. 26:52). A recurring biblical depiction of violence entails the spilling of blood, due to a close association of blood with life (Jer. 51:35; cf. Lev. 17:14).
Many passages assert or assume that God disapproves of violence (e.g., Job 16:17; Ps. 17:4; Mal. 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:7). God is a refuge against violence (2 Sam. 22:3). Widespread violence on the earth is the reason God gives for bringing about the flood (Gen. 6:13). Violence is the sin of Nineveh (Jon. 3:8) as well as that of Israel, a point emphasized by the prophets when declaring that Israel would go into exile (Isa. 53:9; Jer. 22:3; Ezek. 8:17; Hos. 12:1).
Yet there are also passages that tolerate and even advocate violence. Scripture contains numerous stories of God’s people acting violently. While in some cases these individuals may be acting on their own (see Judges), in some passages God explicitly commands violence (e.g., Deut. 7:1–2). In biblical military life, violence seems to be an accepted and even useful tool (e.g., 1 Sam. 17; 1 Chron. 12). God is often described as, among other things, a warrior (Exod. 15:3; Matt. 10:34; Rev. 19:11–16).
The question of the persistence of violence is voiced in Scripture but not answered (Hab. 1:2–3), suggesting that there is no simple answer. Perhaps God’s recognition of the wickedness of the human heart (Gen. 8:21) leads him to be involved even in the violence of this world, as instigator and also as recipient (Jesus). That the Bible acknowledges the prevalence of violence in the world certainly is significant. Yet the Bible also bears witness that this too shall pass as it describes God’s future plans, in which violence will be no more (see Isa. 60:18).
Today, vengeance normally is understood as retaliation for a suffered wrong, an action arising from vindictiveness and antipathy toward its object. Such an understanding runs counter to the biblical concept of vengeance. Indeed, the negative individual vengefulness associated with the term is either unequivocally forbidden or shown to be wrongheaded (Exod. 23:4–5; Lev. 19:18; Ezek. 25:12–16; Jer. 20:10–11; 1 Pet. 3:9). Thus, the term is better understood by considering the Hebrew term naqam (or its synonyms baqash and gemul [Josh. 22:23; 1 Sam. 20:16; 2 Sam. 4:11; Ps. 94:2; Isa. 59:18; Obad. 15]) and the Greek term ekdikēsis. A close study of the biblical terms suggests that vengeance has to do with the administration of justice: the rendition of appropriate sanctions against a violator of established norms, and the provision of justice or vindication to the victimized or oppressed. One recurrent motif in the incidences of God’s vengeance is its function in stopping or recompensing injustice (Isa. 59:14–18). The prerogative of such a solemn task rests with someone with legitimate authority. Such authority is ultimately God’s (Deut. 32:35, 39; cf. Ps. 94:1–3; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:19). Indeed, the subject of four out of every five occurrences of “vengeance” in the Bible is God.
In that capacity, God combines, almost indistinguishably, the roles of a sovereign, supreme judge, and warrior in his execution of vengeance on the errant (Exod. 15:1–7; Ps. 89:6–18; Isa. 51:4–5; 52:10; Jer. 20:12). He sometimes delegates this function to angels (Gen. 18–19; Exod. 12:23; 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23); nations, or national armies (Deut. 28:45–50; Isa. 10:5; Jer. 50:9–15); Israel (Deut. 9:1–5; 7:1; 20:16–17; Josh. 6:17–25; 8:24); kings, political leaders, and judicial officers (Deut. 25:1; Jer. 27:6; Rom. 13:1–4; 1 Pet. 2:13–14); and nonintelligent beings or elements of nature (Exod. 23:28–30; Amos 4:6–11).
God’s vengeance has its moorings in his holiness (Jer. 50:28–29; cf. Deut. 32:4). The violation of his holiness arouses his justice, which demands just retribution for the offense (2 Sam. 12:1–12; Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 31:3–11). Put differently, God’s righteousness is the obverse of his vengeance. One’s experience of either is contingent upon one’s relationship with God. In other words, his vengeance flows from his justice (Ps. 89:31–32; Nah. 1:3). God’s justice is counterbalanced by his love (cf. James 2:13). For that reason, his vengeance on his covenant people is often more corrective than punitive and anticipates their repentance, redemption, and restoration (Isa. 1:24–26; Jer. 3:1–17; 46:28). Ultimately, he forgives his people, whom he disciplines (Pss. 89:19–33; 99:8; Zeph. 3:7; Rom. 5:6–11).
Therefore, there always is a close link between God’s vengeance on the wicked and the salvation of his people (Isa. 34:8; 49:26; 61:1–3; Jer. 51:36). This is why the nations that he uses to punish Israel end up being punished themselves because of their hubris and overreaching attempts to annihilate his covenant people (Isa. 47:1–11; Jer. 46:10; 50–51), their failure to recognize the God who has prospered them, and their opposition to him (Deut. 32:26; Mic. 5:14). Thus, God’s people come to expect or even call for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Ps. 94:1–7; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; Lam. 3:60–66; Hab. 1:2–4). Such expectation is usually futuristic and parallels Israelite hope for the impending “day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:9–11; Jer. 46:10; Luke 21:20–24; 2 Thess. 1:6–8). Thus, the cries of God’s people for his vengeance on their enemies represent the abandonment of personal revenge in favor of God’s acts of justice and vindication—petitions for the rule of God’s law over mere human justice (Pss. 58:11; 79:10; Rev. 6:10).
