[4] After this admonition to
patiently await the fulfillment of the vision, the vision itself is still not
related; there follows instead a portrayal of two contrasting responses to the
vision. The textual difficulties in the verse makes it difficult to
characterize the first response with any degree of certainty. Any interpretation
of this response will be clouded by a certain amount of hypothetical guesswork.
If my structural analysis in the text-critical notes is correct, the first
response is that of one who faints or loses heart in the presence of the
vision. In other words, it is the response of one who gives up and no longer
expects the vision to be fulfilled. Such a one will not continue to walk
unwaveringly in the light of the vision. The verb yāšar, when followed by the expression be‘ênê, “in the eyes of,” means “to be right in the eyes
of,” “to be pleasing to.” This is the most common use of the verb, and it has
tended to distract interpreters of Hab. 2:4, even though that idiom is not
found here. Habakkuk 2:4 has the simple verbal construction yāšar be-, a construction
that is used to express consistent, unwavering movement along a certain path,
as in 1 Sam. 6:12, where the two young cows pulling the wagon to return the ark
of the covenant walked straight in the road that led to Beth-shemesh and did
not turn aside either to the right or the left. Habakkuk’s meaning is that the
fainthearted individual will turn aside from a manner of life consistent with
the message of the vision; he or she will not continue to walk straight and
unwaveringly in its light. One should note that this rendering underscores the
prophet’s continuing use of verbs of motion in his metaphorical language
describing human response to the vision. Compare the use of rûṣ be-, “run into,” in v. 2.
In contrast to the fainthearted, the righteous individual will find in
the reliability or trustworthiness of the vision the strength to go on living.
The noun ’emûnāh means
“firmness, steadfastness, fidelity, reliability, trustworthiness,” not faith,
and it refers to the reliability of the vision, and ultimately of God who gives
the vision, not the reliability or the fidelity of the righteous person. The
thought is a continuation of the claim in v. 3 that the vision is not a lying
witness, that it can be trusted, and that one should wait for its fulfillment,
even if subjectively it seems to be a long time in coming. Nonetheless, the
appropriate human response to the trustworthiness of the vision is to believe
it and live in a way that reflects that faith. Thus the New Testament appropriation
of this passage (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38) is justified, even if its
translation of the passage involves a slight shift of meaning. Hebrews 10:38,
in particular, remains very close to the original intent of the Habakkuk
passage when the author of Hebrews cites Habakkuk in order to encourage
despairing Christians, to reassure them that God’s promised intervention will
surely come at its appropriate time. Paul’s use of the passage is more abstract
and general, less tied to the specific context of the oppressed waiting for
vindication, but it may be more profound. Life is to be found by trusting in
God’s promises rather than by earning it through one’s own meritorious deeds.
It is a gift rather than an achievement.
In the context of Habakkuk’s oracle, however, the verb “will live”
refers to life in the interim before the time fixed for the fulfillment of the
vision. It expresses the ability of the righteous person to endure and to
engage the necessities of the present with the eschatological patience and joy
that only the certainty of the coming end could give. Because the righteous
person trusts in the reliability of God’s promise contained in the vision, he
or she is free to live in the present, no matter how unjust or oppressive it may
be. (J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum,
Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library;
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991], 111-12)
On the portion in bold, one should pursue the following:
“In the Eyes of God”: More Evidence against Imputation (cf.Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness)
