Where is habakkuk quoted in the new testament

Junius, with whom Van Till agrees, is of opinion that respect is had to the example of Abraham, of whom we read Genesis and "he believed in the Lord", and "he counted it to him for righteousness"; not his faith, but the object of it, or what he believed, the promised seed.

The apostle produces this passage three times to prove that the righteousness of Christ revealed in the Gospel is to faith; that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God; that the just man shall live, and not die; shall not draw back to perdition, but believe to the saving of the soul, Romans Galatians Hebrews Hebrews which shows that it belongs to Gospel times and things.

F9 wb wvpn hrvy al "non recta est anima ejus in eo", Montanus, Calvin, Drusius, Burkius. F11 Vindiciae Hebr. F12 De Accent. So Boston. F13 Shemot Rabba, sect. F14 T. Maccot, fol. Related Articles. View Study Resources. Scripture quoted by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. The fact that their soul is not upright in them should be an adequate indicator of their ultimate judgment.

The verb is used for the leveling of hills and valleys in Isa 40 3. It is true that hr"vy. Even if the precise nuance of verse 4a is debatable, the general meaning is plain. The Chaldeans stand in sharp contrast with the righteous. They were proud and not upright. They were self-confident and self-reliant; they had no regard for Yahweh. This is the context of verse 4b, which must now be explored. This clause is disjunctive, which indicates contrast in this case.

There is a legal background to this word; it denotes the winner in a case at law in some of its Old Testament uses. The rest of Habakkuk b provides a promise to encourage the righteous during the coming disaster. There are three problems to be solved regarding this term: textual, syntactical, and lexical.

Textual issue The text of the Septuagint, Aquila, and the Old Latin imply a first-person, singular, pronominal suffix i. The Targum also supports the third person although plural , and the Palestinian recension agrees with the Masoretic Text against the Septuagint. The subject is then followed by an independent clause which often includes a retrospective suffix.

Such a sentence consists of the subject which always precedes and either an independent noun-clause or verbal- clause. I instead of the noun qyDIc; is correct, even if his reason is faulty. Kautzsch, trans. Cowley Oxford, Eng. Waltke and M. The absolute may also be associated as possessor with the direct object of the clause. They do not note examples in which the absolute is associated as possessor with the object of a prepositional phrase, as would be the case in Habakkuk b.

In fact, none of these three grammars cites examples with the same construction as Habakkuk b. However, it has been argued above that hl'P[. Of course, the context of Habakkuk is much more important than the understanding of Qumran. The next development beyond faith in the prophets would be faith in the inspired interpreter of the prophets. This is the stage of understanding reached by 1QpHab. After this, the next development in the evolution of interpretation would be faith in the one who fulfils all prophecy.

His hypothesis of evolution is questionable. It would seem to be really demanded in no passage but Hab. One would need some very strong contextual reasons to support this conclusion. Samuel G. Craig, —44 Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. The text of Genesis states: hq'dc ". AL h'bv, x. Two of the three roots used in Habakkuk b are found in Genesis —qdc and!

Ahaz, king of Judah, was facing invasion by the kings of Aram and Israel, so God sent Isaiah to assure him that they would not succeed. However, it should be noted that using this verse to interpret Habakkuk requires one to assume that the roots qdc and! However, as is noted above, qdc can denote either a legal standing or a way of life, and the! Moreover, one must understand Genesis in the Pauline sense in order to use it to interpret Habakkuk in the Pauline sense.

In the context of this thesis, it is inappropriate to assume that Paul provides the grammatical-historical interpretation of either verse when he cites them in his epistles to Rome and Galatia.

For an introduction to the interpretive issues related to Genesis , see David J. Willem A. VanGemeren, —69 Grand Rapids, Mich. The righteous one needed to hold on before the oppressor was dealt with. He notes Nehemiah , where Abraham is described with the niphal participle in reference to what is affirmed of him in Genesis using the hiphil perfect.

He also sees an allusion to Genesis in Habakkuk He claims that the context of Habakkuk supports his understanding. Keil believes that the Greek pivsti" found in the Septuagint, for example is a good rendering. This way contrasts with all arrogance and boastfulness.

Does his psalm reflect faithfulness or faith? The exegete is in danger of reading the New Testament into the Old Testament, an invalid hermeneutical principle. This type of statement is thoroughly consistent with the Old Testament context in which Habakkuk lived.

Neufeld notes a connection between verses 4 and 5. Since verse 5 emphasizes conduct, this suggests that conduct is referred to in verse 4 as well. But Habakkuk was not to wait with folded hands and bated breath for all this to happen. He was to live a life of faithfulness v 4. The evil one is puffed up with pride and he will fall vv 4, 5 , but the righteous will live by being faithful to his covenant with God.

Since God requires imitation, His people must be faithful, too. Carson, —94 [Grand Rapids, Mich. VanGemeren, —33 Grand Rapids, Mich. Of course, this sentence should not be isolated from its context. For man to be faithful in righteousness entails dependent trust in relation to God; such an attitude is clearly demanded in the present context of waiting for deliverance ; — Note also how verse 5a reinforces the image of instability for the wicked with references to!

There are various ways to understand this verb in this context. Does it mean that the righteous will survive the devastation to be wrought by the Chaldeans? Does it mean that the righteous will experience eternal life? That certainly would have been a concern when God announced that Babylon would attack Judah.

To be alive is to have vigor, security and honor. So this verse does not merely tell us how we can barely hang on to some feeble thread of existence in times such as Habakkuk Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Moreover, one may wonder whether all the righteous of Judah really did survive the Babylonian invasion.

Certainly many did such as Daniel, who was taken from the land, and Jeremiah, who remained in the land. However, is it necessary to believe that no righteous person perished during this time? On the other hand, Jeremiah ; , 17 promises survival to anyone in Jerusalem who would go out to the Chaldeans using the same verb, hyx, used in Hab In this case, if a righteous person heard Jeremiah and faithfully listened to him, then he could escape with his life.

The same offer of life may have been available to other faithful Israelites outside of Jerusalem. Indeed, implies that Habakkuk expected devastation, not abundant life. Could God have meant more than temporal life when He promised Habakkuk that the righteous would live? Wendland notes that Habakkuk did not explicitly state a belief in life after death. The woe oracles of Hab —19 make the opposite case. Certainly God has an eschatological plan, but must reflect this? The prophet is not looking to heaven for all his problems to be resolved.

It may be helpful to review Psalm 37 for example at this point. David encourages his readers to trust in the Lord despite the apparent prosperity of the wicked. For detailed arguments that Ezekiel —19 refers to temporal life, see William D. Conclusion After a careful consideration of a variety of approaches, the Masoretic Text of Habakkuk has been accepted. In sharp contrast to this, the Israelite who stood righteous before God would survive the invasion by staying faithful to God.

Historical Context The historical indicators in the Epistle to the Romans imply that the letter was written by Paul sometime during or just before his journey from Greece to Jerusalem recorded in Acts 20— Paul had collected funds from Macedonia and Achaia for poor believers in Jerusalem.

He planned to take the funds to Jerusalem, and then he would set out on a missionary trip to Spain. On his way, he wanted to pass through Rome Rom , It is likely that Paul wrote to the church in Rome during the three months he spent in Greece Acts —3 , probably from Corinth.

Clark, — 79 , Perhaps those believers in the center of the Gentile world wondered why the Apostle to the Gentiles had never visited them. At any rate, Paul had completed his missionary work in the east, and he now looked west to Spain. The church at Rome would be a good place to find spiritual refreshment and financial support for his journey. It would be perfectly natural for Paul to write to Rome to tell them of his plans as he took an extended detour through Jerusalem.

Thus, the appropriate way to introduce himself would be to offer an orderly summary of the gospel. Several factors may have led him to pen a somewhat lengthy account, but it seems reasonable that Paul allowed the inner logic of the gospel to drive the structure and content of the letter for the most part.

For in it the 3 Ibid. Paul was writing about the righteousness of God, which is available only in the gospel of Jesus Christ. In verse 18 Paul began to explain why this gospel message was necessary: Men are subject to the wrath of God. This is because men reject the true God in favor of a god of their own making. As a result God, gives men over to impurity, homosexuality, and a depraved mind, resulting in all kinds of wickedness vv.

The verdict of the divine Judge is that all are accountable to God, and no man will be justified by works vv. Beginning with , Paul provided the solution to this grave problem. Paul had now returned to his great theme. Romans Paul indicated his desire to go to Rome in Romans — Of all the things that had prevented him from traveling to that city, being ashamed of the gospel was not one of them.

Romans Verse 17 opens with an explanatory gavr. In 5 Douglas J. One scholar suggests that it does not refer to the gospel but to pisteuvonti. The context, however, favors a reference to the gospel. However, the genitive or ablative qeou' suggests a more precise interpretation. Godet, Commentary on St. Cusin Edinburgh: T. Clark, n. Clark, , 48— One does not want to force Paul into a modern grammatical mold, but one should be able to make sense of the syntax.

Saving activity of God Most modern commentators discuss two main views. In them, God vindicates those who deserve to be vindicated; in Paul, he justifies—the 36—37; Douglas A. Lewis Johnson Jr. Brill, , ; Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, , 74— Clark, , Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, rev. He is no longer a child of wrath; he is a child of love. While faith certainly is emphasized in this context, Paul does not seem to be saying that he is not ashamed of the gospel because the gospel is based on faith.

Instead, he seems to be saying that he is not ashamed of the gospel because God is in the gospel. Righteousness from God View 2 which reads qeou' as an ablative of source also has many arguments in its favor. This view will prove preferable in the end. Arguments from the context First, imputation is in the context of Romans. In particular, Paul discusses justification in detail in —31, and then in chapter 4 he provides the example of Abraham, who was also justified by faith.

However, justification by faith was certainly not a new revelation of the gospel, as the case of Abraham demonstrates. Previously promised through the prophets 1. In fact, his citation of Habakkuk would seem to imply the opposite. Paul did not say that the righteousness of God had not been revealed previously. He did say that in the age of Christ it is revealed in the gospel.

Arguments from parallel passages A firmer foundation for View 2 is provided by a comparison with other passages. Philippians has the phrase th;n ejk qeou' dikaiosuvnhn, which makes the source idea 36 Moo, Romans, 73; cf.

Cranfield, , who notes that th'" dikaiosuvnh" is an objective genitive in Romans Thus, Paul did not feel that a preposition was necessary to convey the source idea. He concludes: The relation of this scriptural citation to its antecedent the statement about the righteousness of God is often misunderstood.

Far from being a secondary confirmation of a freestanding dogmatic assertion, the citation from Habakkuk 2. Conversely, the antecedent amplifies the citation: it is commentary, an expository gloss on the prophetic text. The exegetical problems posed by the antecedent should not be treated in abstraction from the citation; antecedent and citation are interdependent. Although Watson himself interprets this connection in a different way, it seems to be an equally strong argument for View 2.

Arguments against this view Cranfield notes three arguments against View 2. This is simply not the case. Second, View 2 is seen to provide an anthropocentric rather than a theocentric view of the gospel. Third, View 2 is said to be individualistic. This objection seems to arise from presupposed theology rather than exegesis.

Both are consistent with Pauline theology, and both are important aspects of the gospel. In fact, there is no reason to assume that the phrase always means the same thing, even within Romans. Thus, the near context must decide between Views 1 and 2. The decision comes down to this: if one sees the similar constructions in verses 16, 17, and 18 as parallel, then he should choose View 1, but if one wishes to connect verse 17a with verse 17b, then he should choose View 2.

Therefore, in the gospel God reveals that man can be righteous before Him. The righteous were those who secured the verdict when they stood before God.

It is the work of God in Christ, that which the Mediator did and suffered to satisfy the 50 Morris, Romans, Paul made this clear as he developed his arguments in Romans. Unless God makes it known they will never discover it.

There are two problems regarding this phrase. First, should it be connected with the noun dikaiosuvnh, or should it be connected with the verb ajpokaluvptetai? Second, what exactly does it mean? The parallel with —22 is important, but more important is the parallel with b. Below it will be argued that ejk pivstew" modifies the verb in the Habakkuk quotation, and thus it likely does the same in verse 17a.

What exactly did Paul mean by ejk pivstew" eij" pivstin? There are at least 11 suggested interpretations, but many can be rather easily rejected by noting that ejk pivstew" should be understood in the same sense in verse 17a as in 17b. Views that understand ejk pivstew" in different ways Douglas Campbell notes that Paul used the phrase ejk pivstew" 21 times in Romans and Galatians, the very letters in which he quoted Habakkuk where the phrase appears , but Paul used this phrase in no other letters.

Campbell does not think this is a coincidence; instead, he believes that the use in Habakkuk motivated the other uses. Most of these views find little support today. One modern scholar argues for this position; see Charles L. Note also the same phrase in , which shows that the idea is a theme of the epistle. This would fit nicely in the context of Romans, where Paul discusses both justification and sanctification.

On the other hand, is somewhat removed from verse 16, both spatially and contextually. Moreover, this view finds little support in —22, which seems to parallel View that understands a rhetorical formulation The final view to be considered is supported by many modern interpreters.

Moo claims that the parallel construction in 2 Corinthians should also be understood in this emphatic sense,84 but as noted above, there is some 80 Godet, Romans, He found about occurrences.

He found no examples to support this popular interpretation of Romans i. However, most of the views have good arguments against them. In support of this, he cites Habakkuk , where divkaio" and pivsti" are found together. Should it be connected with the verb zhvsetai or with the substantive divkaio"? The significance of this will be considered in chapter 5. First, this connection is made in Habakkuk in both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.

There too it belongs to the predicate, not the subject. His argument is based on the relationship between a and b. Moody Smith Jr. Clark, ed. Boyd L. Daniels and M. The shift in terminology is impressive and undeniable. Moreover, this ignores chapters 9—11 and 12— Some commentators would put the major division between chapters 5 and 6 instead. This discussion is beyond the scope of this paper; suffice it to say that this structural argument is not certain.

Even if the structure Nygren, Romans, See also A. Note the references to faith in the context of Christian living in , 6; —2, 22— However, these passages are not referring to eschatological life. There are several arguments against connecting ejk pivstew" with the substantive divkaio".

If Paul intended this connection, he should have written oJ ejk pivstew" divkaio" or oJ divkaio" oJ ejk pivstew". For example, Paul wrote hJ de; ejk pivstew" dikaiosuvnh in Romans , which shows what he could have written if he meant to connect the substantive and the prepositional phrase in b. On the other hand, Paul is quoting. If he was willing to omit this pronoun to match his understanding of Habakkuk, why not make the connection with divkaio" clear?

But if anyone could be just by works, he would live Fitzmyer, Romans, ; R. There is no evidence that Habakkuk ever was interpreted this way by others of the time, including 1QpHab, the Targums, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In this case, the fuller meaning would connect ejk pivstew" with both substantive and verb. Barrett asserts, Godet, Romans, Conclusion Schreiner seems to think this issue is not extremely important, based on the meaning of the verb. He writes, Perhaps Paul did not intend to distinguish rigidly between the two options, although it is more likely that the prepositional phrase modifies the verb. In Paul zavw is often eschatological e.

Those who believe will obtain life eschatologically. If one is righteous by faith, certainly he will continue to live by faith, and he will receive eternal life on the basis of faith.

On the other hand, if one will live by faith, then clearly he must have received his righteous standing on the basis of faith. Thus, both sides are true and fit the broad context, but it is still better to understand a connection between ejk pivstew" and zhvsetai. As Schreiner mentioned, zhvsetai refers to eschatological life. Dunn objects, However, in the light of what we know of first-century midrashic technique and forms, it is difficult to classify Romans as a midrash on Hab The role of the proof text is to provide the initial underpinning and prima facie justification for the thematic assertion to which it is attached.

For support Dockery cites Romans ; ; , 18, 21; , 10, 11, 13, 22, 23; ; , 6, 10, 13; ; The righteous will live, while the wicked will face judgment. Major themes and subjects from the OT underlie whole sections of Romans.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Email Address:. Sign me up! Craig T. Follow craigtowens. One of my biggest fans. Owens Nestled among the so-called minor prophets of the Old Testament, Habakkuk has some of my favorite verses.

Like this: Like Loading Quotes from the Septuagint LXX may have appear to have somewhat different wording than the linked translation of the Hebrew text. Contact us. Go to top.

This article has been read 3, times plus 99 today. Find the podcast on:. Wednesday in the Word is the podcast about what the Bible means and how we know.

Hos — Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter.