Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Habakkuk 3:9 - 3:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
God has already made bare the bow, to shoot His arrows at the foe. תֵּעוֹר, third pers. imperf. niph. of עוּר, equivalent to עָרַר (Isa 32:11), and the more usual עָרָה, to be naked. To strengthen the thought, the noun עֶרְיָה is written before the verb instead of the inf. abs. (cf. Mic 1:11). The bow is made bare, not by the shooting of the arrows, but by its covering (γωρυτός, corytus) being removed, in order to use it as a weapon. The reference is to the bow used in war, which God carries as a warrior; so that we are not to think of the rainbow, even if the chariots might be understood as signifying the clouds, as in Isa 19:1 and Psa 104:3, since the rainbow is a sign of peace and of the covenant, whereas God is represented as attacking His enemies. The next clause, שְׁבֻעוֹת מַטּוֹת אֹמֶר, is very obscure, and has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Of the two meanings which may be given to mattōth, viz., branches, rods, or staffs, and tribes of the people of Israel, the latter can hardly be thought of here, since mattōth would certainly have been defined by either a suffix or some determining clause, if the tribes of Israel were intended. On the other hand, the meaning staffs or sticks is very naturally suggested both by the context - viz. the allusion to the war-bow - and also by Hab 3:14, where mattı̄m unquestionably signifies staves or lances. At the same time, the meaning spears or darts cannot be deduced from either Hab 3:14 or 2Sa 18:14. In both passages the meaning staves, used as lances or weapons, is quite sufficient. Matteh, a stick or staff with which blows were struck, might stand, as an instrument of chastisement, for the punishment or chastisement itself (cf. Isa 9:3; Isa 10:5), and in Mic 6:9 it denotes the rod. שְׁבֻעוֹת may be either the plural construct of שָׁבוּעַ, the seventh, the heptad, or the plural of שְׁבוּעָה, an oath, or the passive participle of שָׁבַע, to be sworn, like שְׁבֻעֵי שְׁבֻעוֹת in Eze 21:23. There is no material difference in the meaning obtained from the last two; and the view we take of the word אֹמֶר must decide between them and the first explanation. This word, which is peculiar to poetry, denotes a discourse or a word, and in Job 22:28 the affair, or the occasion, like דָּבָר. Here, at any rate, it signifies the address or word of God, as in Psa 68:12; Psa 77:9, and is either a genitive dependent upon mattōth or an adverbial accusative. The Masoretic pointing, according to which mattōth is separated from 'ōmer by tiphchah, and the latter joined to selâh by munach, is connected with the evidently false rabbinical rendering of selah as eternity (in sempiternum), and being decidedly erroneous, cannot be taken into consideration at all. But the interpretation of שְׁבֻעוֹת as the seventh, does not suit either of these two possible views of 'ōmer. We therefore prefer the second meaning, chastising rods or chastisements. אֹמֶר, however, cannot be a genitive dependent upon mattōth; since chastisements of speech would hardly stand for chastisements which God had spoken, but, according to the analogy of שֵׁבֶט פִּיו in Isa 11:4, would point to chastisements consisting in words, and this does not agree with the present train of thought. 'Omer is rather an adverbial accusative, and belongs to שְׁבֻעוֹת, indicating the instrument or media employed in the swearing: sworn with the word or through the word, like חַרְבְּךָ in Psa 17:13 (for the use of the accusative to describe the substance or the instrumental medium of an action, see Ewald, §282, c).
Hence שְׁבֻעוֹת cannot be a noun, but must be a passive participle, sworn. The expression, “chastising rods (chastisements) are sworn through the word,” points to the solemn oath with which God promised in Deu 32:40-42 to take vengeance upon His enemies, and avenge the blood of His servants: “For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, As I live for ever, when I have sharpened my glittering sword, and my hand grasps for judgment, I will render vengeance to mine adversaries, and repay them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword will eat flesh; from the blood of the slain and the captives, from the hairy head of the enemy.” That Habakkuk had in his mind this promise of the vengeance of God upon His enemies, which is strengthened by a solemn oath, is unmistakeably evident, if we compare בְּרַק חֲנִיתֶךָ in Hab 3:11 with בְּרַק חַרְבִּי in Deu 32:41, and observe the allusion in רֹאשׁ מִבֵּית רָשָׁע and רֹאשׁ פְּרָזָו in Hab 3:13 and Hab 3:14 to רֹאשׁ פַּרְעוֹת אוֹיֵב in Deu 32:42. From this promise the words of the prophet, which are so enigmatical in themselves, obtain the requisite light to render them intelligible. Gesenius (Thes. p. 877) has explained the prophet's words in a similar manner, jurejurando firmatae sunt castigationes promissae (the threatened rods, i.e., chastisements, are sworn), even without noticing the allusion to Deu 32:40. upon which these words are founded. Delitzsch was the first to call attention to the allusion to Deu 32:40.; but in his explanation, “the darts are sworn through his word of power (jurejurando adstricta sunt tela verbo tuo),” the swearing is taken in a sense which is foreign to Deuteronomy, and therefore conceals the connection with the original passage. Of the other explanations not one can be vindicated. The rabbinical view which we find in the Vulgate, juramenta tribubus quae locutus es, is overthrown by the fact that שְׁבֻעוֹת without a preposition cannot mean per, or ob, or juxta juramenta, as we should have to render it, and as Luther actually has rendered it in his version (“as Thou hadst sworn to the tribes”). Ewald's rendering, “sevenfold darts of the word,” is precluded by the combination of ideas, “darts of the word,” which is quite foreign to the context. According to our explanation, the passage does indeed form simply a parenthesis in the description of the judicial interposition of God, but it contains a very fitting thought, through which the description gains in emphasis. In the last clause of the verse the description is continued in the manner already begun, and the effect indicated, which is produced upon the world of nature by the judicial interposition of God: “Thou splittest the earth into rivers.” בִּקֵּעַ is construed with a double accusative, as in Zec 14:4. This may be understood either as signifying that the earth trembles at the wrath of the Judge, and rents arise in consequence, through which rivers of water burst forth from the deep, or so that at the quaking of the earth the sea pours its waves over the land and splits it into rivers. The following verses point to an earthquake through which the form of the earth's surface is changed.