De Moor on God's Essential Vindicatory Righteousness: Vindicatory Acts and Essence, Habbakkuk 1:13
Let me add one passage that exhibits a luminous description of this Holiness, namely, Habakkuk 1:13, where it is not only said that God is not able to look upon evil/trouble, but even more, טְה֤וֹר עֵינַ֙יִם֙ מֵרְא֣וֹת רָ֔ע, He is of purer eyes than to behold evil; that is, He is not able to regard the evil of sin with pleasure, and, lest He be compelled to look upon it permanently, He is at length going to punish it; He is at least not going to admit the sinner unto the beatific vision of Himself, in which the punishment of the damned principally consists. Indeed, a Judge does not view crimes being perpetrated except with indignation, which compels him to inquire into punishments for the guilty. It will by no means be without advantange to add the most learned Comment of the Most Illustrious MARCKIUS: This is understood θεοπρεπῶς, in a manner suitable to God, and so it is neither ignorance of evil, which is overthrown by His omniscience, providence, and strict punishment, etc., nor the prevention of evil, which is abundantly refuted by the event; but God’s aversion to evil, taking away both His delight and the acceptable sight of the evil, and His certain punishment of it in the end, by which He would not always regard evil. Which sort of unstained Holiness is certainly applicable to God, and is properly indicated by the very cleanness of the eyes, since holy men do not look upon sins with delight and without repression. What, therefore, the Holiness of God requires, and without which it is not able to continue unsullied, that is necessarily done: But the Holiness of God requires Vindicatory Justice to inflict punishments on a sinner, without which He would be made like unto the sinner, and thus Natural Holiness would not remain in Him: Therefore, Vindicatory Righteousness necessarily requires punishments for the sinner. Neither is there place here for the Exception that someone asserts, as if the Holiness of God were not injured by the remission of sins without Satisfaction to the repenting sinner, and by admission of that one to communion with God: inasmuch as a man of this sort by repentance, which God bestowed him, would now be corrected, with the dissimilitude between him and God removed by that repentance, which dissimilitude had been contracted by sin. To which the Most Illustrious WITSIUS elegantly furnishes a response, De Œconomia Fœderum, book I, chapter V, § 26, that is, The Holiness of God does not necessarily keep the sinner from that greatest effect of love, whereby he might be sanctified. And it is not to be said that, although it be incompatible with God to be brought to the sinner by a love of complacency without Sanctification, yet He is able to embrace him with a love of benevolence; and that by this He thus transforms the sinner, so that then he might be made an object worthy of the love of complacency. Since it is thus supposed in vain that God by a love of benevolence is able to pursue the sinner in such a remarkable manner without regard to the Satisfaction furnished or to be furnished by the death of Christ, since to this as the meritorious cause the Sacred Codex traces Regeneration itself, Sanctification, and Faith: compare Titus 3:4-6; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 1:3; 2 Peter 1:1.