John Calvin Commentary Habakkuk 3

There is no doubt that the Prophet dictated this form of prayer for his people before they were led into exile, so that they might always engage in religious devotion. We indeed know that God cannot be rightly and sincerely worshipped except through faith. Therefore, to keep the dispersed Israelites within proper bounds, so that they would not abandon true religion, the Prophet here presents to them the foundations of faith and encourages them to pray. And we know that our faith cannot be better supported than by the practice of prayer.

Let us then remember that the way of nurturing true religion, prescribed here for the suffering Israelites during their dispersion in exile, was to look to God daily, so that they might strengthen their faith; for otherwise they could not have continued in their obedience to God. Indeed, they would have completely fallen into the superstitions of the Gentiles if the memory of the covenant, which the Lord had made with them, had not remained firm in their hearts. And we shall soon see that the Prophet emphasizes this circumstance greatly.

He calls it his own prayer, not because he used it himself privately or composed it for himself, but so that the prayer might have some authority among the people. For they knew that a form of prayer dictated for them by a Prophet was as if the Spirit itself were showing them how they were to pray to God. Thus, the name of Habakkuk is added to it, not because he himself used it, but so that the people might be more encouraged to pray when they knew that the Holy Spirit, through the Prophet, had become their guide and teacher.

There is some difficulty connected with the word שגינות (sheginut). The verb שגג (shegag) or שגה (shege) means to act inconsiderately; and from שגה (shege) is derived שגיון (shegiun). Many translate it as 'ignorance'; some, 'delight.' Some think it is the beginning of a song; others suppose it is a common melody; and others, a musical instrument.

Thus, interpreters differ. In Psalm 7, David, no doubt, calls either a song or some musical instrument by the word שגיון (shegiun). Yet some think that David testifies there to his own innocence; and that, as he was not conscious of having done wrong, his own innocence alone is signified by the title. But this is a forced interpretation.

The word is understood in this place, almost by common consent, to mean 'ignorances.' And we know that the Hebrews describe as 'ignorances' all errors or failings which are not severe, and such things as happen through carelessness. By this word, they do not lessen their faults but acknowledge themselves to be thoughtless when they offend.

Then שגיון (shegiun) is not an excusable ignorance, which people seize upon as a pretext, but an error of folly and presumption, when people are not sufficiently attentive to the word of God. But perhaps the word שגינות (sheginut), being here in the plural, ought to be understood as musical instruments.

Yet, as I would not willingly depart from an accepted opinion, and as there is no necessity in this case to compel us to depart from it, let us follow what has already been said—that the Prophet dictates here for his people a form of prayer for 'ignorances,' meaning that they could not otherwise hope for God’s forgiveness than by seeking His favor. And how can we be reconciled to God, except by His not imputing our sins to us?

But the Prophet, by asking for the pardon of 'ignorances,' does not overlook more serious sins; rather, he implies that even if their conscience does not rebuke them, they are still not on that account innocent and without guilt. For they often fall through thoughtlessness, and their faults are not to be excused because of carelessness.

It is, then, as if the Prophet reminded his own people that their only remedy in adversity was to flee to God, and to flee as supplicants, in order to ask for His forgiveness. He reminded them that they were not only to acknowledge their more serious sins, but also to confess that they were guilty in many respects, for they might have fallen through error a thousand times, as we are thoughtless almost throughout our entire lives.

We now, then, understand what this word means and why the Prophet spoke of 'ignorances' rather than of other sins. But I will not proceed further now, as there is other business.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You have deigned to make Yourself known to us by Your word, and as You elevate us to Yourself in a way suitable to the ignorance of our minds—O grant that we may not remain fixed in our spiritual dullness, but that we may put off all superstitions, and also renounce all the thoughts of our flesh, and seek You in the right way. May we allow ourselves to be so ruled by Your word that we may purely and sincerely call upon You, and so rely on Your infinite power that we may not fear to despise the whole world and every adversity on earth, until, having finished our warfare, we will at last be gathered into that blessed rest, which Your only-begotten Son has procured for us by His own blood—Amen.

The Prophet says here, in the name of the whole people, that he was terrified by the voice of God, for that is how I understand the word, though in many places it means report, as some also explain it in this place. But as the preaching of the Gospel is called in Isaiah 53:1, שמעה, shemoe, report, it seems to me more suitable to the present passage to interpret it as the voice of God; for the general sentiment, that the faithful were terrified at the report of God, would be lacking force.

It ought to be applied instead to the Prophecies which have already been explained: and undoubtedly Habakkuk did not intend here to speak only in general of God’s power; but, as we have seen in the last lecture, he humbly confesses the sins of the people, and then prays for forgiveness.

So, there is no doubt that he says here, that he was terrified by the voice of God, that is, when he heard Him threatening such grievous punishment. He then adds, Revive your work in the middle of the years, and make it known. Finally, by way of anticipation, he adds that God would remember His mercy, though justly offended by the sins of the people.

But by saying that he feared the voice of God, he makes a confession, or gives evidence of repentance; for we cannot seek pardon from the heart unless we are first made humble. When a sinner is not displeased with himself and does not confess his guilt, he does not deserve mercy.

We then see why the Prophet speaks here of fear; it is so that he might thus obtain for himself and for others the favor of God. For as soon as a sinner willingly condemns himself, and does not do this merely formally, but seriously from the heart, he is already reconciled to God; for God instructs us in this way to anticipate His judgment.

This is one thing. But if it is asked for what purpose the Prophet heard God’s voice, the obvious answer is: that since it is not the private prayer of one person, but of the whole Church, he prescribes here to the faithful the way by which they were to obtain favor from God, and turn Him to mercy. This way is by dreading His threatening and by acknowledging that whatever God threatened by His Prophets was imminent.

Then follows the second clause, Jehovah! in the middle of the years revive your work. By the work of God, he means the condition of His people or of the Church. For though God is the creator of heaven and earth, He would yet have His own Church acknowledged as, so to speak, His peculiar workmanship, and a special monument of His power, wisdom, justice, and goodness. Hence, preeminently, he calls the condition of the elect people here the work of God; for the seed of Abraham was not only a part of the human race but was the holy and peculiar possession of God. Since, then, the Israelites were set apart by the Lord, they are rightly called His work, as we read in another place:

The work of your hands you will not despise,
(Psalms 138:8).

And God often says, This is My planting, This is the work of My hands, when He speaks of His Church.

By the middle of the years, he means the middle course, so to speak, of the people’s life. For from the time when God chose the race of Abraham to the coming of Christ was the whole course, so to speak, of their life, when we compare the people to a man; for their fullness of age was at the coming of Christ. If, then, that people had been destroyed, it would have been as if death were to snatch away a person in the flower of his age. Hence the Prophet prays God not to take away the life of His people in the middle of their course; for since Christ had not yet come, the people had not attained maturity, nor arrived at manhood. In the middle, then, of the years your work revive; that is, “Though we seem destined to death, yet restore us.” Make it known, he says, in the middle of the years; that is, “Show it to be in reality Your work.”

We now grasp the real meaning of the Prophet. After having confessed that the Israelites justly trembled at God’s voice, as they saw themselves deservedly given up to perdition, he then appeals to the mercy of God and prays God to revive His own work. He brings forward here nothing but the favor of adoption: thus he confesses that there was no reason why God should forgive His people, except that He had been pleased freely to adopt them and to choose them as His peculiar people; for on this account it is that God is accustomed to show His favor towards us even to the end.

Since, then, this people had once been chosen by God, the Prophet records this adoption and prays God to continue and fulfill to the end what He had begun. With regard to the half course of life, the comparison should be noted; for we see that the race of Abraham was not chosen for a short time, but until Christ the Redeemer was manifested.

Now we have this in common with the ancient people: that God adopts us, that He may eventually bring us into the inheritance of eternal life. Until, then, the work of our salvation is completed, we are, so to speak, running our course. We may therefore adopt this form of prayer, which is prescribed for us by the Holy Spirit—that God would not forsake His own work in the middle of our course.

What he now adds—in wrath remember mercy—is intended to anticipate an objection. For this thought might have occurred to the faithful: “There is no ground for us to hope for pardon from God, whom we have so grievously provoked, nor is there any reason for us to rely any more on the covenant which we have so perfidiously violated.” The Prophet meets this objection, and he flees to the gracious favor of God, however much he perceived that the people would have to suffer the just punishment of their sins, such as they deserved. He then confesses that God was justly angry with His people, and yet that the hope of salvation was not on that account closed up, for the Lord had promised to be merciful. Since God then is not inexorable towards His people—indeed, while He chastises them He does not cease to be a father—hence the Prophet connects here the mercy of God with His wrath.

We have elsewhere said that the word wrath is not to be taken according to its strict sense when the faithful or the elect are spoken of; for God does not chastise them because He hates them. Rather, on the contrary, He thereby manifests the care He has for their salvation.

Hence the scourges by which God chastises His children are testimonies of His love. But the Scripture represents the judgment with which God visits His people as wrath, not towards their persons but towards their sins. Though then God shows love to His chosen, yet He testifies when He punishes their sins that iniquity is hated by Him.

When God then comes forth, so to speak, as a judge, and shows that sins displease Him, He is said to be angry with the faithful; and there is also in this a reference to the perceptions of men, for we cannot, when God chastises us, do otherwise than feel the accusations of our own conscience.

Hence, then, this hatred; for when our conscience condemns us, we must necessarily acknowledge God to be angry with us, that is, in our perception. When therefore we provoke God’s wrath by our sins, we feel Him to be angry with us; but yet the Prophet brings together things which seem wholly contrary—even that God would remember mercy in wrath; that is, that He would show Himself displeased with them in such a way as to afford to the faithful at the same time some taste of His favor and mercy by finding Him to be merciful to them.

We now then perceive how the Prophet joined the last clause to the foregoing. Whenever, then, the judgment of the flesh would lead us to despair, let us always set up against it this truth—that God is angry in such a way that He never forgets His mercy—that is, in His dealings with His elect. It follows—

Interpreters explain this verse in two ways. Some construe the verb, which is in the future tense, as referring to past time: “God went forth from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran”; for a verb in the past tense follows. But others consider it to be in the optative mood: “May God come, or go forth, from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran;” as though the Prophet were praying for God to come as the defender of His people from Mount Sinai, where the law was proclaimed and the covenant ratified, which God had previously made with Abraham and his descendants.

I rather subscribe to the opinion of those who think that the manifestation of God, by which He had testified that He was the guardian of that people, is repeated by the Prophet. Since, then, God had so made known His glory on Mount Sinai that it was evident that that nation was under His protection, the Prophet, in order to strengthen himself and others, records what was well known among all the people—namely, that the law was given on Mount Sinai, which was a testimony of singular favor. For God then, by a new pledge, testified that the covenant previously made with Abraham was firm and inviolable.

The reason why Habakkuk does not mention Mount Sinai, but Teman and Paran, seems to some to be this: because these mountains were nearer to the Holy Land. Though I fear this view may appear too refined, I therefore take this simple view: that instead of mentioning Mount Sinai, he designates it paraphrastically by Mount Paran and the desert of Teman.

Some suppose these are two mountains, but I do not know whether Teman should be understood only as a mountain; on the contrary, it seems to have been a large tract of country. It was a common practice among the Jews to use this name when they spoke of the south, just as many nations were accustomed to give winds the names of nearby places. Thus, when the Jews wished to designate a wind from Africa, they called it Teman: “It is a Teman wind.” And so, when they spoke of the south, they said Teman.

Be that as it may, it is certain that the desert of Teman was near Sinai, and also that Mount Paran was connected with that desert. Since, then, they were places towards the south and near Mount Sinai, where the law had been proclaimed, the Prophet records here, in order to strengthen the faith of all the people, that God had not in vain gone forth once from Teman and appeared there in His celestial power. For God then openly showed that He took under His guardianship the children of Abraham, and that the covenant which He had previously made with him was not vain or of no effect.

Since God had testified this in such a remarkable and wonderful manner, the Prophet brings forward here that history which especially tended to confirm the faith of the godly: God went forth once from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran.

For it was not God’s will that the memory of that manifestation should be obliterated. He had once appeared with such magnificent glory that the people might feel assured they would always be safe, for they were protected by God’s hand, which was full of power, as their ancestors had once known by manifest and visible evidence. Thus, the Prophet represents God’s going forth from Mount Paran as a continuing act, as though He made Himself visible chiefly from that place.

Nor is this representation new. For in many other places we see a vivid picture, as it were, set before the eyes of the faithful in order to strengthen them in their adversity and to assure them that they will be safe through God’s presence. Indeed, the Lord did not daily fulminate from heaven, nor were there such visible indications of His presence as on Mount Sinai. But it was necessary for the people to feel assured that He was the same God who had given their ancestors such clear evidence of His power, and that He is also at this time, and to the end of the world, endowed with the same power, though it is not made visible.

We now, then, understand the Prophet’s design: God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. We must also observe that the minds of the godly were recalled to the spectacle on Mount Sinai when they were carried away into exile or when they were in the power of their enemies. Indeed, they might have then supposed that they were wholly forsaken. The memory of that history would then have been obliterated, had this remedy not been introduced. It is, therefore, as if the Prophet had said: “Though God now hides His power and gives no evidence of His favor, yet do not think that He previously appeared in vain to your ancestors, clothed with such great power, when the law was proclaimed on Mount Sinai.” It follows—

He confirms the declaration I have explained: that God, when he intended to make his presence known to his people, gave evidence of his wonderful power, capable of awakening the minds of all. He then says that the brightness was like light. By the word אור, aur, the light that spreads through the whole world and comes from the sun is undoubtedly meant. Then he says that the brightness which appeared on Mount Sinai was equal to the light of the sun, capable of filling the whole world.

He adds that horns were to him from the hand. Some translate it as splendor; but קרן, coren, properly means a horn, and קרנים, corenium, is here in the dual number. It is therefore more probable that the Prophet ascribes horns to God, carried in both hands. This interpretation also corresponds more closely with what immediately follows: that “there was the hiding of his strength,” or that “his power was hidden there.”

Those who translate the word as splendors think that what had been said is repeated—that is, that the brightness was like light. But they are mistaken, for we can gather from the verse that the Prophet expresses two different things: he first speaks of the visible form of God, and then he adds his power, designating it metaphorically by horns, which is common in Scripture. Indeed, this way of speaking occurs often. He then says that God came armed with power when he gave the Law to his people, for he bore horns in his hands, where his strength was hidden.

Regarding the word hiding, some indeed offer this refined view: that God then put forth his strength, which was previously hidden. But this is a very strained explanation. To me it seems evident that the Prophet first says that God’s glory was conspicuous, capable of illuminating the whole world like the light of the sun. Then he adds that this splendor was connected with power, for God carried horns in both his hands, where his strength lay. And he says that it was hidden because God did not intend to make known his power indiscriminately throughout the world, but particularly to his own people, as it is also said in Psalm 31:20:

“the greatness of his goodness is laid up for the faithful alone,
who fear and reverence him.”

As it is said, then, that the goodness of God is laid up for the faithful, for they enjoy it as children and members of the household, so also the power of God is said to be laid up. This is because he testifies that he is armed with power to defend his Church, so that he may keep safe the children of Abraham, whom he has taken under his protection. It then follows—

The Prophet repeats here that God came armed to defend His people when He went out from Teman, for He connects the deliverance of the people with it here. He does not indeed speak only of the promulgation of the law, but encourages all the godly to confidence, because God, who had once redeemed their fathers from Egypt, always remained like Himself and was endowed with the same power.

And he says that before God’s face walked the pestilence; this refers to the Egyptians. He also says that ignited coal proceeded from his feet. Some translate רשף, reshoph, as exile, but its etymology requires it to be translated as burning or ignited coal, and there is no necessity to give it another meaning.

The meaning of the whole is this: God had put to flight all the enemies of His people. We know that the Egyptians were struck with various plagues and that Pharaoh’s army was drowned in the Red Sea.

Therefore, the Prophet says that God had appeared from Teman in such a way that the pestilence went before Him, and then the ignited coal. In short, the pestilence and ignited coal were God’s officers, ready to perform His commands.

Just as a king or a judge, having attendants, commands them to put one person in prison and to punish another in a different way, so the Prophet, in giving us a representation of God, says that all kinds of evils were ready to obey His orders and to destroy His and their enemies.

He does not, then, intend here to terrify the faithful by mentioning the pestilence and the ignited coal. On the contrary, his purpose is to present to them evidences of God’s power, by which He could deliver them from the hand of their enemies, just as He had formerly delivered their fathers from Egypt.

By “God’s feet,” he then means His going out or His presence. I do not agree with what some have said, that ignited coals followed when pestilence had preceded, for both clauses are presented in the same way.

It follows—