At the same time, Habakkuk accepts what God has said about the invader: Yahweh has “appointed” and “established” “him” for judgment and correction (explicit claims). God is also called “Rock,” highlighting steadiness and reliability even when God’s plan is disturbing (explicit claim).

The problem, stated plainly, is moral: God’s eyes are “too pure” for evil and God “cannot look on perversity” (explicit claims), yet God appears to tolerate treachery and remain silent while a more wicked power destroys someone “more righteous” than itself (explicit claim).

Where interpretation differs

1. Who “we” is in “We will not die.” Some read “we” as Judah as a whole (national survival through invasion). Others read it as a faithful remnant within Judah (the community that truly belongs to Yahweh). Both readings fit the wording; the immediate context does not specify.

2. What Habakkuk means by “cannot look on perversity.” Some take it as strong moral language about God’s intolerance of evil, not a statement that God is literally unable to see wrongdoing. Others take it more strictly: God’s holiness is so opposed to evil that his “looking” cannot mean approval or calm acceptance. The difference is about how absolute the phrase is meant to be.

3. How “more righteous than he” functions. Some take it as relative: Judah is guilty, but Babylon is worse, so the instrument seems morally unfit. Others read it as highlighting the injustice of the situation without claiming Judah is innocent—“more righteous” can mean “less guilty” or “not as violent.”

Why the disagreement exists The passage uses compressed prayer-poetry: rhetorical questions (“Aren’t you…?”), metaphors (“Rock,” “eyes”), and comparisons (“more righteous than he”) without spelling out referents (“we,” “him”) or defining the degree of contrast. Because the book’s wider argument later includes both Babylon’s rise and Babylon’s accountability, readers differ on how to fit v. 13’s language into that larger frame.

What this passage clearly contributes These verses frame the book’s central puzzle in moral terms: Yahweh is eternal and holy, yet he can “appoint” a violent empire as a tool of judgment. The text contributes a vocabulary for wrestling with that: God’s holiness is affirmed, God’s control of historical events is affirmed, and the apparent delay or “silence” of divine response is treated as a serious problem rather than ignored. The complaint is not a denial of God’s rule but a protest that presses God’s stated character (holy, pure) against God’s stated plan (using a treacherous agent).