하나님나라를 꿈꾸며(Kingdom of God)

Habakkuk’s Complaint

2  O Lord, bhow long shall I cry for help,

and you will not hear?

Or cry to you c“Violence!”

and you will not save?

3  dWhy do you make me see iniquity,

and why do you idly look at wrong?

Destruction cand violence are before me;

strife and contention arise.

4  eSo the law is paralyzed,

and justice never goes forth.

fFor the wicked surround the righteous;

so justice goes forth perverted.

b Ps. 13:1; 89:46

c Mic. 6:12

d See Jer. 9:2–6

c [See ver. 2 above]

e [Mic. 7:3]

f [Job 21:7; Jer. 12:1]

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 합 1:2–4.

2절) 도와 달라고 부르짖어도 듣지 않으시고 폭력이다라고 외쳐도 구원하지 않으시니 주님 언제까지 그러실 겁니까? 

이 부르짖음은 시 13:1; 89:46에 이미 등장하는 표현으로 정중한 항의에 사용되는 일반적인 표현이다. 이 서신서가 작성된 주전 7세기 유다는 도덕적으로 부패했고 영적으로 배도했다. 왕하 23장에 등장하는 요시야왕의 개혁은 더욱 백성들의 부패함의 심각성을 보여주고 강조한다. 

How long …? Common to laments (Pss 6:3; 13:1–2). For similar cries, essentially “Emergency! Urgent!” see Pss 22:1–2; 107:13; 142:1–6; Jonah 1:5. The bluntness of the prophet’s reproach—a daring move—is at the same time a testimony to the prophet’s intimacy with God. save. In this context it is deliverance out of a nasty situation. Assurances and testimonies that God hears and answers prayer are many (e.g., Pss 50:15; 91:15; 145:18–19; see Matt 7:7; John 15:7).

e.g. for example

 D. A. Carson, ed., NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 1832.

하박국의 외침은 지금도 계속된다. 가족의 건강을 위해서, 배우자의 외도로, 여러가지 악의 문제를 해결해 달라고 외치는 외침이 외면당하는 것과 같은 상황속에서 우리는 하박국과 동일한 외침을 외친다. 본문의 그림은 마치 법정을 상기시킨다. 범죄자는 거짓 증인들과 거짓 증거들을 동원해서 자신의 무죄를 항변한다. 판사는 이에 잘못된 판결을 내린다. 하박국은 이런 상황속에서 하나님께서 개입하셔서 상황을 반전시키실 것을 촉구하고 있는 것이다. 

하박국의 문제는 그가 무엇을 모르는 것이 아니라 여호와 하나님에 대해서 아는것으로 인한 것이다. 그는 출 34:6-7을 통해 하나님이 어떤 분인지 알고 있다. 

(출 34:6-7, 개정) 『[6] 여호와께서 그의 앞으로 지나시며 선포하시되 여호와라 여호와라 자비롭고 은혜롭고 노하기를 더디하고 인자와 진실이 많은 하나님이라 [7] 인자를 천대까지 베풀며 악과 과실과 죄를 용서하리라 그러나 벌을 면제하지는 아니하고 아버지의 악행을 자손 삼사 대까지 보응하리라』

하박국이 알고 있는 하나님의 성품에 근거해 그는 언제까지 이런 부조리한 상황이 계속될 것인지를 묻고 있는 것이다. 

Habakkuk’s problem lay in what he knew about the Lord rather than in what he did not know. He knew that the Lord is holy and righteous. In the words of the great Old Testament text, Habakkuk knew the Lord to be a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation” (Exod 34:6–7). This passage gives the fullest description in the Old Testament of the holy God. How could this holy, pure (v. 13) God leave the guilty in Judah and Jerusalem unpunished? How could God continue to turn a deaf ear to the prophet’s complaints? “The sorrow he felt on account of what he had seen had not been alleviated by any evidence of God’s care or concern.”36

Although Habakkuk asked a question to which he expected an answer, the question is primarily a complaint. The “how long” implies that the question had been troubling the prophet for a long time. The prophet cried to God for help, but God had not heard his cry. In the Old Testament, “hearing,” like most mental functions, implied more than simple hearing. It meant to hear and to respond. God had heard Habakkuk’s cry, but he had not responded to the prophet’s questioning complaint. The very sense of the question implies that Habakkuk expected that God would answer at some time in the future.

36 C. J. Barber, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, EvBC (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 26.

 Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, vol. 20, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 295–296.

본문에서 말하는 강포, 폭력은 하박국 전체를 꿰뚫는 주요 단어이다. 당시 근동의 정세는 애굽이나 앗수르가 아니라 바벨론으로 넘어가는 시기였다. 요시야 왕의 죽음이 기원전 609년인데 요시아왕은 개혁적인 왕으로 우상을 없애고 예배의 회복을 위해 노력했다. 이후 여호야김왕은 무자비하게 선지자를 살해하여 무고한 피를 흘리게 한다. 

Violence (Hb. ḥāmās) is a key term punctuating the message of Habakkuk (1:2–3, 9; 2:8, 17a, 17b). It “denotes flagrant violation of moral law by which man injures primarily his fellowman (e.g., Gen 6:11). Its underlying meaning is one of ethical wrong, of which physical brutality is only one possible expression (e.g., Judg 9:24).”39

When did such violence and oppression occur? Since God revealed the coming power of Babylon and its control of Judah, the latest possible date would have to be the Battle of Carchemish of approximately 605 b.c. After that battle every discerning person would know that the balance of power had shifted in the Near East. Babylon, not Egypt nor Assyria, would dictate the future of states such as Judah.

The earliest possible date for Habakkuk’s outcry appears to have been the death of Josiah in 609 b.c. at the hands of Pharaoh Necho at the Battle of Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:29). Before his untimely death Josiah led the nation to a time of reform, removing the places of idolatrous worship and concentrating worship in Jerusalem, which apparently satisfied the teaching of the Book of Deuteronomy. In the appraisal of the writer of the Kings material, Josiah reigned as a good king because of his attempts at reformation (2 Kgs 22:2). Since going back prior to the ascension of Josiah (639 b.c.) appears too early for Habakkuk’s complaints, the book must have originated between 609 and 605 b.c., most likely earlier rather than later in this period. Jeremiah knew Jehoiakim (who came to the throne in 609 b.c.) as a ruthless and merciless ruler. He cut up the scroll Jeremiah prepared and threatened the lives of Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch (Jer 36:20–26).40

The background of Jehoiakim’s reign supports the anguish of Habakkuk. Of all Judah’s evil kings, only of Jehoiakim is it said that he killed a prophet. Manasseh had shed much “innocent blood,” but only Jehoiakim had a prophet killed who is specifically named in the Old Testament (Jer 26:20–23). No wonder Habakkuk cried “violence” and wondered when God would act on behalf on his people.

39 Armerding, “Habakkuk,” 500.

40 For an appraisal of other options and a different conclusion see Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 139–40.

 Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, vol. 20, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 296–297.

3절) 왜 나로 악행을 보게 하십니까? 또한 왜 당신은 악을 그저 바라보고 계십니까? 파괴와 폭력이 내 앞에 있고 다툼과 시비가 일어납니다.

하박국은 죄를 벌하시지 않고 참으시는, 침묵하시는, 그저 바라보고만 계시는 것 같은 하나님에 대해서 불만을 토로하고 있는 것이다. 

본문에서 말하는 악행이 무엇을 의미하는지는 분명하지 않다. 이것이 앗수르에 의한 악행인지 아니면 유다 시대의 사법적 정의의 부패를 의미하는지는 논쟁거리아다. 당시 시대에 대해서 미가 선지자는 법정이 뇌물로 굽어 있었음을 이야기했다. 

Whether it is brought on by the ruling Assyrians or by the corruption of the judicial process within Judah, Habakkuk is troubled by God’s indifference and inaction. Contention and quarreling characterize Habakkuk’s society; law enforcement, if not absent, is questionable and perverted, as when the wealthy in Micah’s time controlled the courts through bribery (Mic 3:11; 7:3).

 D. A. Carson, ed., NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 1832.

본문의 상황이 여호야김의 통치시대로 볼때 이 시대를 겁탈과 강포, 변론과 분쟁이라는 4개의 단어로 묘사하고 있다. 

4절) 그러므로 율법이 마비되었고 정의가 전혀 이루어지지 않습니다. 왜냐하면 악인이 의인을 둘러싸서 정의가 굽었기 때문입니다. 

하나님께서 이스라엘에게 허락하신 율법은 그들로 하여금 하나님의 백성으로 살 것을 촉구한다. 하지만 그 율법이 마비됨으로 그 본래의 목적이 기능되지 않음으로 그들은 자신의 욕심과 이기적인 욕망에 따라 살아가는 것이다. 하박국은 하나님이 활동하시지 않음, 악에 대해 심판하지 않으심이 불의를 더욱 심각하게 만들었다고 믿는다. 부자들은 그들의 힘과 재물을 자기들이 원하는 것을 얻는데 사용한다. 가난한 자들의 권리는 유린당한다. 여전히 의인들이 존재했지만 그들은 악인의 먹잇감이 되었고 앞서기 위해서 하나님의 율법을 어기지 않았기에 그들의 삶은 힘들었다. 

the law is paralyzed. The Mosaic law had little impact on the hearts of these people and was not accomplishing its purpose. Instead, they were living according to their own greedy, self-centered desires. justice never goes forth. Habakkuk believes that God’s inactivity has caused injustice to become worse. The rich were using their power and money to get what they wanted; the rights of the poor were being trampled on. righteous. There was still a righteous remnant, but life was hard for them because they fell prey to the wicked and would not break God’s laws to get ahead.

 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1721.

정의(미슈팟)과 의(챠디크)는 함께 어우러진다. 하나님 앞에서의 의는 하나님과의 관계에서의 요구를 충족시키는 것이다. 마찬가지로 사람들 앞에서의 의는 다른 사람들과이 관계에서의 요구를 충족시키는 것이다. 정의는 의를 법적인 영역으로 가져갔다. 

With the law paralyzed (lit., “numbed” or “ineffective”), justice cannot prevail.53 In the Old Testament justice and righteousness are intertwined. Righteousness meant that a person met the demands of a relationship. Righteousness toward God meant meeting the demands of the relationship with God; righteousness toward a fellow human being meant meeting the demands of the relationship with another. Justice carried righteousness into the legal sphere. The prophets demanded righteousness in the gate, the place where justice was dispensed. In prophetic contexts such as the one under discussion, ethical and legal standards are the same.54 Justice and righteousness “were the quintessence of the divine will. They embodied the central authority from which the coherence of the social order stemmed.”55

53 Armerding (“Habakkuk,” 500) is correct in noting the broad and varied connotations of מִשְׁפָּט, “implying the exercise not merely of legal processes but of all the functions of government.”

54 Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the OT,” IDB 4:81.

55 J. G. Harris, “The Laments of Habakkuk’s Prophecy,” EvQ 45 (1973): 24–25.

 Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, vol. 20, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 299.

본문에 악인이 누구인가?

Who were the wicked?46 Although some interpreters have looked to identify the wicked with Babylon,47 most modern biblical scholars see the wicked as inhabitants in Judah, probably during the reign of Jehoiakim (609–598 b.c.). “There is nothing in this passage that points to a foreign nation. Those who hold such a view do so on other grounds.”48 As Armerding rightly points out, “Normally where ‘justice’ and social ‘violence’ are opposed, the ‘wicked’ are Israelites unless clearly identified in other terms (e.g., Exod 23:1–9; Isa 5:7–15).”49 The terms “law” and “justice” would apply to Judah more naturally than to Babylon.

46 E. Nielsen sees two parties in Judah labeled righteous (supporters of Josiah and Jehoahaz, also called Shallum) and wicked (supporters of Jehoiakim and Egypt; “The Righteous and the Wicked in Habaqquq,” ST 6 [1953]: 54–78). The basic problem is “lack of a rightful ruler” (p. 71). R. L. Smith rightly concludes: “There is not enough evidence to support Nielsen’s conclusion. It is better to take a historical view and see the wicked in v. 4 as oppressors in Israel and the wicked in v. 13 as the Babylonians” (Micah–Malachi, 99).

47 Johnson decides that “foreign military oppression of Judah has led to the conviction that the promises contained in the torah have been paralyzed and justice ‘does not ever proceed’ (1:4a) but rather has been ‘bent’ or twisted’ (1:4c) … the injustice experienced for generations by Judah at the hands of foreign nations” (VT 35 [1985]: 260). He contends that Judah is identified as the wicked in v. 4 only through the mistaken idea that “transgressions of specific commandments are intended” (p. 262). For Johnson it is not a breaking of tora but a paralysis of tora, i.e., the failure of tora’s promises, specifically in the days of Josiah and following the promises of Deuteronomy. Josiah met the requirements, but Habakkuk says God did not fulfill the promises as expected.

48 R. L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, 99.

49 Armerding, “Habakkuk,” 499.

 Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, vol. 20, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 298.

하박국의 이러한 질문은 지금 이시대에도 동일하게 유의미하다. 하박국의 이 질문을 통해서 우리는 하나님께서는 어떤 일이 일어나고 있는지 알고 계시며 그분의 보좌에서 악인들의 악행에 대해서 간과하지 않으신다는 것이다. 그분의 때에 그분의 방식으로 하나님께서는 약자들을 압제하는 악인들을 심판하실 것이다. 

정의라는 개념, 히브리어 ‘미슈팟’은 구약에 매우 중요한 개념이다. 이 단어는 구약에 423번 등장하는데 아래와 같은 다양한 의미를 지닌다. 이는 공정함 보다 좀더 광범위한 의미로 하나님의 성품과 의지에 의해서 규정되는 명예로운 관계들과 같은 것을 포함한다. 

 justice. This concept is dominant in the OT: the Hebrew word occurs 425 times. Its meaning is broader than “fairness”; it entails something like “honorable relations,” as defined by God’s character and will.

OT Old Testament

 D. A. Carson, ed., NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 1832.

מִשְׁפָּט (mišpāṭ), nom. judgment, decision by arbitration, legal specifications, legal case, legal claim (#5477); < שָׁפַט (šāpaṭ), judge (#9149).

ANE The word is found in Sam. (mišfaṭ), Ugar. (mṯpṭ), and Phoen. (mšpṭ).

OT 1. This word occurs 425× in OT. Although מִשְׁפָּט encompasses a variety of meanings, it has decided judicial connotations. What is most often the topic of concern is the process governing the settling of some dispute, whether between human parties or between God and the Israelites, or the actual verdict itself. מִשְׁפָּט is often found in close proximity to other legal terms such as חֹק (#2976), תּוֹרָה (#9368), צֶדֶק (#7406), and צְדָקָה (#7407).

מִשְׁפָּט occurs 84× in the Pent., most frequently in Deut (37×). There are 74 occurrences in the historical books, mostly in Kings (28×) and Chron (22×). In the Wisdom literature (47×), the word predominates in Job (23×) and Prov (19×). The word is most frequent in the prophetic writings (144×), occurring mostly in Isa (41×), Jer (32×), and Ezek (43×). There are also 27 occurrences dispersed throughout the Minor Prophets.

2. The laws given to the Israelites through Moses in Exod 21–23 (the “Book of the Covenant,” cf. 24:7) are introduced as הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים (21:1). These are commands from God for the regulation of Israelite civil cases, as a reading of chs. 21–23 indicates. The decisions on these cases became regulatory and normative for Israel’s conduct. The adjudication of these matters was, according to Exod 28:15–30, the responsibility of the priest, for whom a special “breastpiece for making decisions” (חֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט) was given for that purpose. The likely interpretation of Exod 21:6 is that civil cases were to be brought before the “judges” (אֱלֹהִים). In Num 27:5, Moses is said to settle the “case” (מִשְׁפָּט) of Zelophehad’s daughters before Yahweh, and in the presence of “Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly” (v. 2). Moses’ judicial role was later to be taken over by Joshua (Num 27:21). Solomon asks for wisdom in order better to carry out his judicial role as king (1 Kgs 3:11, 28). He builds a Hall of Justice (אוּלָם הַמִּשְׁפָּט) in which to carry out this role (1 Kgs 7:7). Other examples of this use of מִשְׁפָּט include Josh 20:6 (cities of refuge) and Judg 4:5 (Deborah holding court).

Deut 1:17 warns Israel’s judges not to show partiality in judgment, for in executing their office, they are acting on God’s behalf: “judgment belongs to God” (cf. Zech 7:9; 8:16). Samuel’s sons, Joel and Abijah, did not heed this warning (1 Sam 8:3). David’s son Absalom succeeds in undermining his father’s authority by acting as a judge over civil matters (2 Sam 15:2, 4, 6). Jeremiah is also the victim of a perverse execution of justice (Jer 26:11, 16). Failure to maintain high standards of justice brings upon Israel dire punishment (Amos 5:7, 15; 6:12; Mic 3:1, 9; Hab 1:4). (Justice)

Ps 1:5 seems to play on this civil use as a metaphor for the ultimate destiny of the wicked (cf. Ps 9:16 [17]). Elsewhere in the Psalms, the Lord is called upon to judge his people, i.e., to adjudicate their case against oppressors and render judgment (7:6 [7]; 9:4 [5]). The frequent use of מִשְׁפָּט in Ps 119 (22×) differs from other uses in the Psalms. It is essentially synonymous with the use of תּוֹרָה elsewhere in Ps 119. The precise contents of these מִשְׁפָּטִים, however, is not clear, but they seem to refer to a broad range of divine instruction. In this sense, the use of מִשְׁפָּט in Ps 119 is similar to its use in Proverbs. And as in Ps 119, מִשְׁפָּט in Prov also parallels תּוֹרָה as referring to instructions for living (Prov 1:3; 2:8; 8:20).

3. The word also refers to divine commands similar to the cultic/ceremonial use of תּוֹרָה. Throughout Leviticus, for example, the Israelites are told to observe God’s commands “in the prescribed way” (כַּמִּשְׁפָּט). This use includes the Passover (Num 9:3, 14) and the various feasts (Num 29:6, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 37). The commands themselves, not merely the manner in which they are to be kept, are also referred to as מִשְׁפָּט (Lev 19:37). Other examples include 1 Sam 2:13 (sacrificial regulations).

As with the use of תּוֹרָה in the book of Deuteronomy, מִשְׁפָּט also seems to refer to the contents of the book as a whole (Deut 4:1, 5, 8, 14; 5:1; 6:1; 7:11–12; 8:11). Joshua is said to record the contents of the covenant at Shechem, i.e., the חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט, in the “Book of the Law (תּוֹרָה) of God” (Josh 24:26), perhaps referring to an addition to the book of Deuteronomy.

The absolute justice of God is particularly important for Job. He bases his argument against his friends on the belief that God cannot pervert justice (Job 8:3; 9:19). Ironically, his friends also support their contention that Job’s suffering is his own doing (13:18; 14:3). In the end, God contends that his justice is his own and does not conform to anyone’s standards (40:8).

4. The most frequent use of מִשְׁפָּט is in the prophetic literature. The topic is often a breach of justice suffered by Israelites at the hands of their corrupt leaders (Isa 1:17, 21; 5:7; 10:2; 59:8–9; Hab 1:4). As a result, the Lord himself enters into judgment with his own people (cf. רִיב [#8189, #8190]). The Lord’s judgment is not only directed against corrupt leaders but toward the people for their sin (Isa 4:4; Jer 5:1; 7:5; Ezek 5:6–7; 20:11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24; Hos 5:1, 11; Mal 3:5). One day the Lord will pass sentence on the world as a whole (Zeph 3:8). Like the psalmist and Job, the prophet also calls on God’s justice for his own sake (Jer 10:24; Mic 7:9).

P-B מִשְׁפָּט is found over 170× in DSS, primarily in 1QH, 1QS, and CD, and throughout RL. The concern to relate divine statutes and regulations to the changing world of intertestamental Judaism was great. The most common renderings of מִשְׁפָּט in LXX are κρίμα (#3210), decision, κρίσις (#3213), judgment, and δικαίωμα (#1468), regulation.

< derived from

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

Ugar. Ugaratic

Phoen. Phoenician

Pent. Pentateuch

DSS Dead Sea Scrolls

RL Rabbinic literature

LXX Septuagint

 Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 1142–1144.