Habakkuk 1:1-11: Two Perspectives
For as long as sin and its effect have been at work in the world, people have looked around them at the evil and misery they see, and asked the question “Why?” The people of God have often asked it of Him, and a similar one: “How long will you tolerate this?” This is precisely the question that the Old Testament prophet Habakkuk raises at the beginning of the book that bears his name. Two sermons, one by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and the other by Andrew Davis of First Baptist Church, Durham, NC, each look at Habakkuk 1:1-11 and seek to explain and apply it to the congregation. Each deals with the text, each applies the 2600-year-old story to modern life, and each presents the Gospel. One of them, however, explains the text in relation to the rest of the message of the Bible, and for this reason it is a better sermon.
Driscoll’s sermon, to begin, is somewhat unusual in that while it is an hour long, approximately forty minutes of it is taken up with what is essentially an introduction. He briefly explains Habakkuk’s attitude and his first question in vv. 2-4, and then spends over half an hour trying to paint a picture for the congregation, trying to get them to understand and identify with Habakkuk’s perspective. As Habakkuk saw the suffering and injustice in his world (as Driscoll says it), he wants the congregation to consider the suffering and injustice in their own. So he relates numerous anecdotes: a widow blaming God for taking her husband and thrusting hardship upon her, stories of disorder and chaos and frustration in his own life the previous week, suffering and violence on the TV news, abusive and indolent fathers, corrupt police, greedy lawyers, power-mongering politicians and judges, arsonist firefighters, laws that discourage marriage, organ-transplant surgeries gone wrong, con artists who scam the elderly, magazines and advertisements and sex-ed programs encouraging children and adolescents to perversion and immorality, and more.
Finally, Driscoll comes to considering the passage, and he has three main points. The first, from vv. 1-4, is “Habbakuk’s Complaint.” Habakkuk cries out to God in prayer because he is wearied and sickened by the evil he sees around him. Driscoll encourages the congregation to consider that “this world stinks,” and join Habakkuk in going to God. Point two, from vv. 5-11, is “God’s Castigation.” God responds to Habakkuk’s prayer, saying that He too is frustrated and angered by the sins of people, and that he is going to respond by sending the Babylonian army to destroy them. Driscoll spends several minutes explaining the fearsome character of the Babylonians presented in these verses, translating the description into modern terms so his audience can understand them. Finally, his third point is “Christ’s Cross.” Driscoll here explains the gospel: just as God called his people to repentance through Habakkuk, so too he calls us to repentance through the preaching of His word. Jesus Christ died on the cross as a substitute, paying the penalty for the sins of all His people.
Davis’ sermon, by contrast is at the same time much shorter (32 minutes) and much more closely exegetical. He begins with a short recounting of the historic triumphalism that characterized Western society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and then goes on to set forth some of the questions that the horrors of the twentieth century raised. Is there any meaning to history? Is God holy? Is he sovereign? Is he good? The book of Habakkuk, Davis explains, contains “Modern Words from an Ancient Scroll.”
Davis also has three main points. First, from vv.2-4, “Why Does a Just God Tolerate Injustice?” He briefly recounts the history of Israel—God’s promises to Abraham, her righteous heritage as God’s chosen people, Israel’s continual rebellion and sin, most recently that of kings Manasseh and Jehoiakim. Habakkuk considers the depravity of the Israelites, and asks God how long he will tolerate their rebellion. Second, God delivers his response, “The Babylonians Are Coming!” God sovereignly replies, saying he is going to raise up the Babylonians, a fearsome and wicked people, to punish Judah for her sins. Finally, from this passage we see “Five Lessons On History.” History is under God’s control, it follows His divine plan, it follows his divine timetable, it is bound up with the Kingdom of God and fulfilled in Christ, and justice is always done in the end.
There is a distinct difference in tone between these two sermons that reflects the different perspectives of their authors and the churches in which they were preached. Driscoll’s sermon is hip, funny, at times irreverent, and relevant. Oddly, in his forty-minute intro that he says is intended to paint a picture of suffering, there is as much wit and humor as soberness and grief. This surely detracts from the effect he says he is trying to produce, and leads one to wonder if he isn’t just as interested in entertaining his audience as enlightening his congregation. In the sermon overall, Driscoll’s language indicates that Habakkuk’s message is as much about the bad things that happen today as the evil that he saw in his own time. Davis’ tone, by contrast, is far different. He is far more focused on God’s word than current events, as he doesn’t reference them after the third minute of the sermon. Where Driscoll uses current events and hip language to interpret Scripture, Davis uses Scripture to interpret itself.
There is also a fundamental difference in the way these two pastors treat the problem that Habakkuk is complaining of. Driscoll sees Habakkuk looking around him and seeing sin and evil in the world, and he’s sick of it, so he asks God how long he’s going to let him (and perhaps other good people) suffer. Davis, on the other hand, sees that the problem is not just evil in general, but sin. And more importantly, the sin of God’s own people. The people of Judah were his own chosen people, called by His name, but they were rebelling against God. In their wickedness, they were defaming God’s name and lying about His character. Habakkuk, from this perspective, is not just being noisily uncomfortable, he’s concerned about the character and the glory of God Himself. He wonders why God tolerates this wickedness because he knows that God is holy and just, and forestalling the display of his judgment doesn’t make sense.
This leads to the most fundamental and important difference between these two sermons. While Driscoll considers the message of this text in virtual isolation from the rest of the Bible (and mostly in isolation from the rest of the book), Davis carefully, masterfully, places it in the scope and sequence of redemptive history. While Driscoll adequately explains how this passage illustrates the justice of God and how it points to Christ, Davis shows how God’s justice, as well as his holiness, love, sovereignty, and mercy, is played out in history as God works out his plan to save a people to Himself through Christ. Because Davis’ perspective is so much more comprehensive, he is able to show how the first eleven verses of Habakkuk contain a richness of truths about God and His character, about history, about the Kingdom of God, and about what it means to be one of His people.
That Davis has a better knowledge of Scripture seems clear, and it affects the message. Driscoll’s sermon, while I would take issue with his tone and method, does an adequate job of explicating the text and a good job of presenting the Gospel. For this reason, it might make a good evangelistic address. In the church, however, preaching to the people of God, Davis’ is certainly preferable for the depth of insight and commitment to Scripture that it displays.
Driscoll’s sermon, to begin, is somewhat unusual in that while it is an hour long, approximately forty minutes of it is taken up with what is essentially an introduction. He briefly explains Habakkuk’s attitude and his first question in vv. 2-4, and then spends over half an hour trying to paint a picture for the congregation, trying to get them to understand and identify with Habakkuk’s perspective. As Habakkuk saw the suffering and injustice in his world (as Driscoll says it), he wants the congregation to consider the suffering and injustice in their own. So he relates numerous anecdotes: a widow blaming God for taking her husband and thrusting hardship upon her, stories of disorder and chaos and frustration in his own life the previous week, suffering and violence on the TV news, abusive and indolent fathers, corrupt police, greedy lawyers, power-mongering politicians and judges, arsonist firefighters, laws that discourage marriage, organ-transplant surgeries gone wrong, con artists who scam the elderly, magazines and advertisements and sex-ed programs encouraging children and adolescents to perversion and immorality, and more.
Finally, Driscoll comes to considering the passage, and he has three main points. The first, from vv. 1-4, is “Habbakuk’s Complaint.” Habakkuk cries out to God in prayer because he is wearied and sickened by the evil he sees around him. Driscoll encourages the congregation to consider that “this world stinks,” and join Habakkuk in going to God. Point two, from vv. 5-11, is “God’s Castigation.” God responds to Habakkuk’s prayer, saying that He too is frustrated and angered by the sins of people, and that he is going to respond by sending the Babylonian army to destroy them. Driscoll spends several minutes explaining the fearsome character of the Babylonians presented in these verses, translating the description into modern terms so his audience can understand them. Finally, his third point is “Christ’s Cross.” Driscoll here explains the gospel: just as God called his people to repentance through Habakkuk, so too he calls us to repentance through the preaching of His word. Jesus Christ died on the cross as a substitute, paying the penalty for the sins of all His people.
Davis’ sermon, by contrast is at the same time much shorter (32 minutes) and much more closely exegetical. He begins with a short recounting of the historic triumphalism that characterized Western society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and then goes on to set forth some of the questions that the horrors of the twentieth century raised. Is there any meaning to history? Is God holy? Is he sovereign? Is he good? The book of Habakkuk, Davis explains, contains “Modern Words from an Ancient Scroll.”
Davis also has three main points. First, from vv.2-4, “Why Does a Just God Tolerate Injustice?” He briefly recounts the history of Israel—God’s promises to Abraham, her righteous heritage as God’s chosen people, Israel’s continual rebellion and sin, most recently that of kings Manasseh and Jehoiakim. Habakkuk considers the depravity of the Israelites, and asks God how long he will tolerate their rebellion. Second, God delivers his response, “The Babylonians Are Coming!” God sovereignly replies, saying he is going to raise up the Babylonians, a fearsome and wicked people, to punish Judah for her sins. Finally, from this passage we see “Five Lessons On History.” History is under God’s control, it follows His divine plan, it follows his divine timetable, it is bound up with the Kingdom of God and fulfilled in Christ, and justice is always done in the end.
There is a distinct difference in tone between these two sermons that reflects the different perspectives of their authors and the churches in which they were preached. Driscoll’s sermon is hip, funny, at times irreverent, and relevant. Oddly, in his forty-minute intro that he says is intended to paint a picture of suffering, there is as much wit and humor as soberness and grief. This surely detracts from the effect he says he is trying to produce, and leads one to wonder if he isn’t just as interested in entertaining his audience as enlightening his congregation. In the sermon overall, Driscoll’s language indicates that Habakkuk’s message is as much about the bad things that happen today as the evil that he saw in his own time. Davis’ tone, by contrast, is far different. He is far more focused on God’s word than current events, as he doesn’t reference them after the third minute of the sermon. Where Driscoll uses current events and hip language to interpret Scripture, Davis uses Scripture to interpret itself.
There is also a fundamental difference in the way these two pastors treat the problem that Habakkuk is complaining of. Driscoll sees Habakkuk looking around him and seeing sin and evil in the world, and he’s sick of it, so he asks God how long he’s going to let him (and perhaps other good people) suffer. Davis, on the other hand, sees that the problem is not just evil in general, but sin. And more importantly, the sin of God’s own people. The people of Judah were his own chosen people, called by His name, but they were rebelling against God. In their wickedness, they were defaming God’s name and lying about His character. Habakkuk, from this perspective, is not just being noisily uncomfortable, he’s concerned about the character and the glory of God Himself. He wonders why God tolerates this wickedness because he knows that God is holy and just, and forestalling the display of his judgment doesn’t make sense.
This leads to the most fundamental and important difference between these two sermons. While Driscoll considers the message of this text in virtual isolation from the rest of the Bible (and mostly in isolation from the rest of the book), Davis carefully, masterfully, places it in the scope and sequence of redemptive history. While Driscoll adequately explains how this passage illustrates the justice of God and how it points to Christ, Davis shows how God’s justice, as well as his holiness, love, sovereignty, and mercy, is played out in history as God works out his plan to save a people to Himself through Christ. Because Davis’ perspective is so much more comprehensive, he is able to show how the first eleven verses of Habakkuk contain a richness of truths about God and His character, about history, about the Kingdom of God, and about what it means to be one of His people.
That Davis has a better knowledge of Scripture seems clear, and it affects the message. Driscoll’s sermon, while I would take issue with his tone and method, does an adequate job of explicating the text and a good job of presenting the Gospel. For this reason, it might make a good evangelistic address. In the church, however, preaching to the people of God, Davis’ is certainly preferable for the depth of insight and commitment to Scripture that it displays.
posted by Jeff at 8:31 AM
<< Home