Commentary of Habakkuk from Qumran and Seventh-day Adventism

 

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

4 May 2011

 

Modern day Adventist readings of the Bible and some of the ways in which some scribes at Qumran read the Old Testament, displays commonalities.

There are also differences, but let us highlight in this writing some common teachings.

 

Introduction

If one pages through the work of William Brownlee, a non-Adventist, it is a marvel how many similarities there are to the Adventist doctrines. Some comments of Brownlee in his presentation of the text, his translation and his exposition of the Commentary of Habakkuk from Cave 1 at Qumran is relevant here.

Already in 1957, Sydney Allen, and Adventist teacher advised SDA's to acquaint themselves with the facts concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was concerned that they may make unsound statements.

Background of the Qumran Commentary to Habakkuk

It was the greatest of all in the commentary-genre of the whole corpus of Qumran literature. It is said that this author of the commentary was much more experienced than the scribe of the Isaiah scrolls, also discovered in the same cave. His letters are clear, with less errors and after each quotation from the Old Testament, he left a blank space before he started to write his commentary. Very methodical. There was seemingly a proofreader since one finds X'es here and there.

Scholars mostly felt that this was the youngest of the literature. The Tetragrammaton (or name of the Lord) is written not in normal square Hebrew but with Phoenician script. The scribe revered the name of the Lord and thus wanted to make it stand out. It also indicate that they were familiar with Phoenician script.

The dating of the commentary is related to the identification of certain people and nations inside the work.

The text is conventionally dated by scholars between 63 BCE -70 CE on the basis of the word Kittim (a nation mentioned in the work) which some scholars on the basis of certain extrabiblical texts have identified as the Romans. There are other scholars who have identified the Kittim as the Greeks (3).

The text is more than a thousand years older than any other text that we have of the Hebrew Bible. The oldest complete text of the Hebrew Bible is Codex Leningradensis from 1008 CE. When one compares the Qumran Habakkuk sections of the commentary with this complete correct text of the Habakkuk in Codex Leningradensis from 1008 CE, one is amazed to see that the similarities outnumbered the differences. The differences are mediocre in that it is orthographical and certain verbal forms. When there are greater differences then one realize that the commentator in the Qumran fragments, purposefully wanted to change the text. The scribe seems to be aware of the rendering of the form of that we find in the Codex Leningradensis, which is the foundation for our Old Testament translations in English. What we have here is continuity and stability of a high proportion. It demonstrates to us that God protected our present Bible through the ages and that what we have at present is not much different from what they had in pre-Christian times at Qumran. E. Tov claims that the percentage of this similarity at Qumran is about 60% and that about 40% displays problems or deviations. Whereas Tov operates with an axiom of the multiplicity of texts on an equal basis, we operate on the axiom of an one standard text norm that is in form absolutely the same as the original and any deviation from it are secondary in importance. Our axiom is not just a prejudice or subjective emotionalism against some trend or idea, it is based on careful revision and analysis of originals used by Tov et al to reconstruct their axioms. Their research was carefully weighed with new evidence and overlooked sources, and alternatives cancelled their sources on which their axioms are based, and in this way an alternative axiom developed over more than a decade, which after testing, and again testing, and more investigations, led to a stable position as we outlined here supra briefly. The conventional method of doing textual criticism does not work and leads to nihilism. A serious revision is necessary.

 

Some positions in the Qumran Commentary that are the same as what we find in Modern day Adventism

1. The scribe of the Commentary of Habakkuk from Qumran Cave 1 believed that prophetic literature is concerned with the last days.

The last days were the days remote from the author of the Bible books. That is they way the scribe of the commentary on Habakkuk of Qumran thought about it. According to the Commentary of Habakkuk, God told Habakkuk to write the things that are coming upon the last generation.

William Brownlee concluded "in fact, all prophetic literature was viewed by the people of Qumran as primarily concerned with the last days" (W. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk in Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 24 [Scholars Press], 109).

In the fragment of Qumran at Pesher Habakkuk vii,1-2 it reads "The God told Habakkuk to write the things that are coming upon the last generation, but the fulness of that time He did not make known to him".

The scribe shared the view of those who claimed that prophets received messages from God but did not always understand it (see Brownlee's long discussion with views in Judaism also why God did not reveal the meaning to prophets sometimes, Moses and Isaiah considered to be an exception, Brownlee 110-113).

 

2. The scribe felt that they were much closer to the "last days" than was Habakkuk in his day.

In the Commentary of Habakkuk from Qumran it is stated that God did not reveal to Habakkuk the "fullness of that time" [van wyk: completion of the end].

Brownlee translated the "fullness of that time" as "the final phase of the end" (Brownlee, BASOR 112: 12 as cited in Brownlee, 110). Later, he rejected this rendering.

The translation of gěmar haq-qē is really not "fullness of that time" as Brownlee later changed his translation to be, but more in line with his earlier rendering. means end and all Dictionaries indicate that. gěmar has the concept of completion and thus the phrase completion of the end is a better translation (see BDB [Brown Driver and Briggs] 170).

The scribe of this commentary from Cave 1, believed that knowledge was revealed to Habakkuk but not fully. The entire content and the mysteries they contain were not disclosed. Knowledge of this content was reserved for the Righteous Teacher. It was not merely chronological knowledge that Habakkuk lacked, such as when the consummation would come or how long the periods of the last days would be, but also an understanding of specific events to which his words made veiled and enigmatic allusions (Brownlee, 110).

Brownlee connected this phrase to Galatians 4:4 "the fullness of time" but there is a difference between the phrase of the Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran and Galatians 4:4. A jug that gets fuller finally becomes full. If the time jug gets fuller it finally reach the top. This image is not what Brownlee has in mind in Galatians 4:4. He feels that it should be rather that something was expected for centuries and now it came (Brownlee, 110). "It will fill a need felt for centuries". This is too vague a suggestion, although the backbone of the true meaning of Galatians 4:4 do contain this continual expectation. Adventists is familiar with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 and this pinpointed exactly the coming of the Messiah, a key interpretation that guided the Wisemen from the East to calculate the birth year of Jesus exactly, that shows when He was baptized and when He was to die. Indeed the fulness of the time when the time-zone for the event arrives as clearly predicted.

The Alexandrian Jewish philospher Philo in Special Laws I,65 maintained that the prophets did not know at all what they were speaking about. The Jerusalem theologians ([later Judaism though] Babylonian Talmud Midrash Shoer ob to Psalm 90:1) and Alexandrian theologians [Philo] of earlier times thought that the prophets did not know what they were talking about, but the scribe from Qumran felt that they knew what they were talking about but that not all detail was revealed to these prophets. The New Testament in 1 Peter 1:10-12 indicates that Prophets made careful search and inquiry seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating". These prophets were told that they are not serving themselves but future generations. It means that they understood some things but some things not since it was for future generations. This issue is very relevant to our understanding whether the messages of John to the seven churches in Revelation indeed were understood by churches in those cities. There are for example contenders that Revelation 13:18 with the 666 was understood by the first century Christians including John. This topic of the seven churches of Revelation needs a whole article by itself. Suffice to give our conclusion here: John was not asked to write letters to seven churches. He was asked to write it in a book to seven churches. Send it to a church? No. Send it to churches? Yes. Write only to the seven churches? No. "What you saw" and that means Revelation 1-22. See Revelation 22:10 "This book". The whole book is to the seven churches. I was trained by Calvinistic textbooks that seven letters were sent each one to a church and that an editor later brought these seven letters together in the book of Revelation, but that is not what a close reading of the text says. This is the preteristic position and intend of those scholars to search for a local application of the content of each church in that city, whether historically, archaeologically or in literature. There is no archaeological explanation behind the content form of John to the seven churches. John did not shape his content because he knew of some stone bath where people use to wash their eyes when they had eye-problems in Laodicea. Therefore, the early church readers did not always understood what the text mean since it was for later times. It is the same with us and Daniel 11:40-12:2. It is a grey area in our understanding.

 

3. The scribe gives evidence that there was a despair by some as to the delay of the time of the end.

In Pesher Habakkuk vii, 5-9 it reads:

"For the vision is yet for the appointed time, but at the end it will speak and will not disappoint. Its prophetic meaning is that the last time will be long in coming but will excel all that the prophets predicted. It seems slow, wait for it for it will surely come and will not be late. Its prophetic meaning concerns the men of truth, the doers of the Law, whose arms will not be relaxed from the service of truth, when to them the last time seems to be delayed for all God's times will come in their measured sequence, just as He decreed for them in the mysteries of His providence".

Adventists today preaches the same message that the delay is part of God's plan and when His sequence of periods and functions of Christ in Heaven with the Investigative Judgment that started in 1844, is done, He will come at the Second Advent to reward those that were benefited by His substitution on their behalf. Peter preached the same message in 2 Peter 3:9

"The Lord is not slow about His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance".

 

4. The scribe believed in a double Judgment or two phases of the Judgment, i.e. an investigative judgment and an executive judgment.

According to Pesher Habakkuk x,45 it says:

"Its prophetic meaning is: This is the House of Damnation where, in the midst of many peoples, God will put His judgment; and from there He will raise him up for the Judgment. Then in their midst He will pronounce him guilty and down him with the fire of brimstone".

Notice the implications:

a. There is a time A and a time B.

 

b. In between there is a lapsis.

 

c. In time A there is a house of Judgment with many peoples as onlookers and God's Judgment is placed in their midst.

 

d. In time B there is an executing of God's Judgment. He pronouns the guilty and dams him with fire.

Brownlee concludes that "this passage (of Pesher Habakkuk) employs deeply eschatological language. The house of Judgment may be a body of men confined in a certain section of Sheol (or Hades) until they are raised, from there, and made subject a final judgment of sulfrous fire' (cf. Rev. 20:13-14)" (Brownlee BASOR 112: 18, n. 67).

Adventism is able to give a fuller picture of what is happening here. During an Investigative Judgment many peoples sit at His judgment during Time A. Between Time A and Time B there is an interval in which Sheol or grave keeps those who awaits final judgment. Of course all who died are in Sheol and wait for reward at the Second Coming if they are good and await for the final judgment later when they are bad. The final judgment is the Executive Judgment with fire after they were pronounced guilty at Time B. In Adventist thinking the Investigative Judgment started at the end of the 2300 days prophecy given in Daniel 8:14 which started in 457 BCE. Only a millennium after the Second Coming will God finally destroy the evil with fire or Hell. This is the biblical picture that logically follows by piecing data together without discounting any weight of data.

According to Brownlee 161-162, there are two translations of the placement of God's Judgment in the midst of peoples in the Qumran pesher on Habakkuk:

a. his judgment (that is, the wicked and not God). Scholars like Lambert, Bordtke, Del Medica, Elliger, Maier, Vermes and Lohse prefered this view.

 

b. His judgment (that is God's own subjective judgment). Scholars like W. Brownlee, Dupont-Sommer, Van der Ploeg, Molin, Gaster and Garmignac favored this view.

 

5. The scribe believed that God will resurrect the wicked before He will extinguish them with fire.

In Pesher Habakkuk from Cave 1 we read in x,5 the commentary of Habakkuk:

"And from there He will raise him up for the Judgment".

From there, refers to Sheol or the grave which is the prison where he [evil] awaits the final judgment (Brownlee 165).

The Hebrew expression ya`alennû means raise him up. In Old Testament language hiphil form of the verb and the verb `lh is used together to indicate the reasing up from Sheol (see Psalm 30:4; 40:3 and also 1 Samuel 2:6 (see the article by J. F. Sawyer, "Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead," VT 23 [1973]: 218-234). In Joel 4:9, 12 the same expression is used for the evil to be raised up to meet at the valley of Jehoshaphat (Brownlee, 164). This is the view of Adventists as well. Brownlee's interpretation of the data is very helpful and important for SDA Bible students (Brownlee 157-165).

Other indications of resurrection preceding Judgment [executive Judgment] are Daniel 12:2; John 5:28f. Acts 24:15 and Revelation 20:13 (Brownlee, 165).

 

6. The scribe believed that Sheol is the grave but that Gehenna is the fiery hell.

Sheol is a prison where one awaits the final judgment according to the scribe of Cave 1. One should compare the data of Isaiah 24:22 and 2 Peter 2:9. In the Commentary of Habakkuk the "bonds of his soul" is Sheol.

At the Final Judgment, says the scribe, after the wicked had been raised from there (that is Sheol) he will be damned with fire and brimstone.

Judgment by fire is common in the prophets as one can see in Amos 7:4; Zephaniah 3:8 and Daniel 7:9-11.

Gehenna is referred to as a place of fire. See Revelation 9:17f. 14:10; 19:20; 21:8.

Hippolytus in Against Heresies noted that the Essenes from the Dead Sea or Qumran had the doctrine that the world will be destroyed by fire (see Brownlee 165 citing M. Black, "The account of the Essenes in Hippolytus and Josephus").

Adventists could not find biblical evidence that a present fiery hell exists but that Gehenna is going to be preceded by Sheol, is biblical.

 

7. The scribe believed in a great deception at the end of time.

In the Commentary on Habakkuk from Cave 1, x, 9-13 it reads:

"The prophetic meaning of the passage concerns the Prophet of Lies, who bequiled many into building through bloodshed his city of vanity and into erecting through falsehood a congregation for enhancing its glory. He thereby forced many into firesome toil at this labor of vanity and stated them with works of falsehood, so that their travail should be of no avail - with the result that they should enter the judgment of fire, since they have reviled and insulted the elect of God".

This implies the following points:

a. The deception is from among the members and not from the outside.

 

b. It is not Antiochus Epiphanes (164-167 BCE) as H. Rowley proposed in his dealing with The Zadokite Fragments, 70.

 

c. The Man of Lies, Man of Scorn, Prophet of Lies, must be a man of religious authority among the Jews (Brownlee 169).

Ellen White in Great Controversy tells us of a great deception and how many will leave the remnant and follow the prophet of lies. With this movement out there will also be a movement in.

Says Brownlee of this deception in the Commentary of Habakkuk:

"And for all those who have broken dwon the landmark of the Law amongst those who entered into the covenant, when there shall shine forth the glory of God to Israel, they shall be cut off from the midst of the camp, with all those who do wickedly in the days of its testing".

 

8. The scribe believed that after this deception is a true revival.

In the Commentary of Habakkuk xi, 1 it is stated:

"Then, afterward, the knowledge will be revealed to them".

This refers to the forceful appeal of the truth. In Adventist thinking there will be a false movement before the true revival accompanied by the Latter Rain.

 

9. The Sabbath of their resting refers for the scribe to the Day of Atonement.

In the Commentary from Qumran on Habakkuk xi, 68 it is stated:

"It was at the time of the festival of the resting of the Day of Atonement that he manifested himself to them, in order to make them real and to trip them on the day of fasting, the sabbath of their resting".

Many Protestant churches struggled with a true understanding of Hebrews 4:9. On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest in the Pre-exilic period entered the Holy of Holies for the Atonement of all Hebrews. See Leviticus 23:3 in the Septuagint talking about the Day of Atonement as a sabbath.

Some scholars think that Hebrews 4:9 refers to the Day of Atonement function of Christ as High Priest in the Investigative Judgment that started in 1844, that is meant. Personally I think it would be the promise of eternal life based on the eternal death Christ substitutionally died for us and rested that Sabbath of His death in 31 CE, but which hope of life is future for us.

 

10. True circumcision for this scribe, was that of the heart.

In the Commentary of Habakkuk at Qumran xi, 13 it says:

"For he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart". This is then the idea of spiritual circumcision as is mentioned also in Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; and Ezekiel 44:9.