down to bedrock. The
Masoretic Text has tsawʾar, “neck,” but razing has to move downward, not
upward, so this is in all likelihood a mistake for tsur. The error would
have been triggered by the fact that the word translated as “top” in the
preceding verset has the more common meaning of “head.” (Robert Alter, The
Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1339)
expose yourself. This is
the plausible understanding of the verb heʿareih (instead of the
Masoretic heʾareil, of obscure meaning), reflected in the Targum Yonatan
and in at least one medieval interpreter. What is involved is
measure-for-measure justice. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols.
[New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1336)
You shall not die. The
Masoretic Text shows “We shall not die,” but this is a tiqun sofrim, a
euphemistic scribal correction so as to eliminate the necessity of saying “God
shall not die,” when all know that death is not a category that applies to God.
(Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, 2019], 2:1332)
water is her wall. The
Masoretic Text reads miyam, “from the sea,” but a simple revocalization
of those three consonants to mayim yields the more coherent “water.” (Robert
Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
2019], 2:1327)
And the mistress is brought
out, exiled. The Masoretic Text is not coherent here. It begins with a
masculine verb, wehutsav, “and it was stationed, set up,” followed by
two feminine verbs. This translation is based on a frequently proposed
emendation, but without great confidence, and there are no ancient versions
that reflect it. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W.
W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1324)
While Jonathan C. Sheppard’s book, The Sola Scriptura of Roman Catholicism: Uncovering Rome's Doctrinal Selectivity is rather flawed, it does have some good “counters” to popular-level Roman Catholic apologetics here and there. One such example is his discussion of the popular Roman Catholic appeal to Gen 3:15 to support the personal sinlessness and Immaculate Conception of Mary:
First and foremost, the “woman”
in the text is Eve, the actual person standing before God in the garden. There
is no indication in the passage that it refers to anyone else. The prophecy is
that one of her descendants, her “Seed,” would crush the serpent’s head. The
text does not predict that a future woman would give birth to a seed; it
explicitly identifies the seed as Eve’s own descendant, which Protestants
understand to be ultimately fulfilled in Christ many generations later.
Significantly, the text shifts to the singular masculine, “He shall bruise your
head,” pointing to an individual male descendant, not to the woman herself. The
focus is on her offspring, not on Mary’s moral condition.
Even if Mary is seen as a
typological fulfillment of the “woman,” that typology does not require
sinlessness. In fact, biblical typology often uses imperfect people to
foreshadow something greater. David, for example, foreshadowed the coming
Messiah through his God-given role as king, yet he was far from sinless. The
nation of Israel foreshadowed the Church, yet frequently fell into
disobedience. Eve was created without sin and fell, and Mary, though sharing in
the fallen condition of humanity, was faithful and obedient in fulfilling her
role in God’s redemptive plan. There is no need to insist that a typological
parallel requires moral or ontological equivalence.
Moreover, the idea that perfect
enmity must imply complete moral separation from sin has no textual support.
God declares enmity not only between the serpent and the woman, but also
between their seeds, meaning this enmity applies to generations of people, many
of whom were obviously sinful. Scripture speaks often of God’s enmity with the
wicked or between spiritual forces, but these statements do not demand sinless
perfection to be meaningful. Mary’s role in opposing Satan, by faithfully
submitting to God’s plan, does not require her to be sinless any more than the
prophets or apostles needed to be sinless to carry out their God-given
missions.
In conclusion, the attempt to
insert Mary’s sinlessness into this verse reflects what we’ve already seen in
Luke 1:28: a doctrine looking for a prooftext. The passage nowhere addresses
Mary, her conception, her spiritual condition, or her relationship to original
sin. It speaks of Christ, the woman’s descendant, who will defeat Satan, not
the woman herself. To build a major dogma like the Immaculate Conception on
such a distant and indirect reference is not only theologically unsound; it’s
an example of reading Church tradition into the text, rather than drawing
doctrine from it. (Jonathan C. Sheppard, The Sola Scriptura of Roman
Catholicism: Uncovering Rome's Doctrinal Selectivity [The Narrow Road
Publishing, 2026], location 3282 to 3298 of 6842 of Kindle ed.)
In anticipation of Paul’s use of
this verse in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, it is worth asking whether
Habakkuk uses אֱמוּנָה to signify trust. Most or nearly all
occurrences of אֱמוּנָה demand taking the word to highlight
something like faithfulness, steadfastness, or firmness rather than
concentrating on trust per se. There may be an exception, though, in the use of
the cognate noun אֵמוּן in Isaiah 26:2–4: ‘Open the gates, so the
righteous [צַדִּיק] nation keeping אֱמֻנִים
[a plural form of אֵמוּן] will enter. The inclination of the one
being upheld you preserve in the highest peace. For in you he is trusting [בָּטוּחַ]. Trust [בִּטְחוּ] in YHWH forever. For
in YHWH is the rock of ages.’ The righteous nation is the nation that continues
in אֱמֻנִים, which is parallel with trusting in YHWH.
It is possible here that the noun אֱמֻנִים is essentially
equivalent to trust. Alternatively, if אֱמֻנִים should be translated
steadfastness or firmness, then the thing in which the nation is steadfast is
precisely trust in YHWH. In other words, it is possible to conceive of
steadfastness being focused not on just any facet of life before God but
particularly on persistence in the habit of trusting. This is a point of some
significance for Habakkuk 2:4b. Even if one concludes that אֱמוּנָה
must be translated ‘steadfastness’ or ‘firmness’, that does not yet settle a
crucial question: steadfast with respect to what? If the contrast in Habakkuk
2:4–5 between the person with אֱמוּנָה and the person full
of pride implies that the person with אֱמוּנָה relies upon or trusts
in God rather than his own strength or prowess, then the person with אֱמוּנָה is ‘steadfast’ or persistent precisely in looking away from
himself and trusting in God’s promises.
Second, the LXX translates the
Hebrew אֱמוּנָה with the Greek πίστις. In the LXX, πίστις can signify faithfulness, loyalty,
or honesty (e.g., Deut. 32:20; 1 Sam. 26:23; 2 Kgs 12:16; 22:7; 2 Esdras 5:1;
Ps 32:4; Prov. 12:17, 22; 14:22; Jer. 5:3; 9:3; 15:18; 40:6;) or a duty or
pledge entrusted to someone (1 Chron. 9:22, 26, 31; 3 Macc. 3:10). The usage in
4 Maccabees, though, suggests that the significance of πίστις can include not only loyalty but
also trust in God (4 Macc. 15:24; 16:22; 17:2). If πίστις in the ἐκ πίστεώς μου of Habakkuk 2:4b is taken to signify
faithfulness or loyalty, then one could take the genitive μου to be a genitive of possession (i.e.,
the righteous by God’s faithfulness
will live). Alternatively, if the πίστις
in the ἐκ πίστεώς μου is taken to signify trust, then
one could take the genitive μου
to be an objective genitive (i.e., the righteous by trust in God will live).
Third, the treatment of Habakkuk
2:4b in 1QpHab appears to construe אֱמוּנָה as a matter of
believing in or trusting someone, where the relevant part of the text—באמונתו (‘by his faith’)—is interpreted to mean בעבור עמלם ואמנתם
במורה הצדק (‘on account of their toil and their faith in [ב]
the Teacher of Righteousness’). The point is not that the Qumran community were
correct in their beliefs about the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’. Rather, the
point is that apparently the word אֱמוּנָה was susceptible to
being read as ‘trust’ even apart from the influence of Paul’s ministry. (Steven
J. Duby, Habakkuk [The International
Theological Commentary on the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments; London:
T&T Clark, 2025], 101-3)