Chapter Two

Verses 1–9. The second discourse of the prophet Haggai speaks of the despair of the builders of the second Jerusalem temple in view of its poverty compared with the temple of Solomon, and in connection with this, it proclaims the greatest glory of the future temple in messianic times. Verses 10–19. The third discourse strengthens the dedication shown by the people to building the temple with a promise of God’s blessing upon the people in earthly affairs, which they had previously lacked because of their neglect of God’s work. Verses 20–33. The fourth discourse—an address to Zerubbabel, as a descendant of the house of David and bearer of the promises given to that house.

Haggai 2:1. In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the Lord came through the prophet Haggai: According to the LXX and the Slavonic version. The twenty-first day of the seventh month—Tishri—was a festival day, the seventh or last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, celebrated for seven days beginning on the 15th of Tishri (Exod 23:16; Lev 23:34; Deut 16:13). The gathering of the people in Jerusalem on these days was particularly great, and it is likely that the prophet deliberately took advantage of this favorable opportunity to proclaim to the people an encouraging prophecy about the glorious future of the temple being built, in view of their despondency. The rapid succession of this prophecy after the preceding one shows that the good movement of hearts (Hag 1:12-14) of the listeners of the prophet’s first discourse (Hag 1:1-11) drew God’s mercy and God’s help upon them. “From this,” remarks the blessed Theodoret, “we clearly perceive that, having resolved upon the good, we quickly receive God’s help. For they too, having inclined toward the better, availed themselves of God’s assent, and divine grace made them most zealous” (p. 61).

Haggai 2:2. Tell now Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and Joshua, son of Jozadak, the high priest, and the rest of the people: However, the zeal of the common people could easily have weakened, and the prophet apparently was already discerning signs of some despair in the people, which, perhaps, explains the addition (contrary to Hag 1:1) in the address or direction of the speech of new words: the remnant of the people, according to codex 155 of Kennicott, also: kol (remnant), LXX: πρὸς παντας τους καταλοἰπους τοῦ λαοῦ, Slavonic: “and to all the rest of the people.”

Haggai 2:3. Who is there among you that remains, who saw this house in its former glory, and how do you see it now? Is it not in your eyes as nothing? Haggai 2:4. But now be strong, Zerubbabel, says the Lord, be strong, Joshua, son of Jozadak, the high priest! Be strong, all people of the land, says the Lord, and work; for I am with you, says the Lord of hosts. Further, the prophet indicates the main circumstance that was particularly able to cool, and indeed did cool, the zeal of the builders of the second Jerusalem temple: this was the comparative simplicity and even poverty of it compared with the magnificence of the temple of Solomon. And such a comparison for persons who had seen the latter was natural and necessary. That such old-timers could be present at the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and listen to the speeches of the prophet Haggai is beyond all doubt: the seventy-year period of the Babylonian captivity could easily have been survived by children and even youths of the pre-captivity era. The book of Ezra (Ezra 3:12) directly confirms the presence, at the laying of the foundation of the second temple, of persons who had seen the former temple. But that the prophet Haggai himself was among these old-timers, as some scholars suppose, cannot at all be inferred from this passage. The prophet merely notes the fact of the fainthearted response of his contemporaries in the construction of the temple begun, and himself unhesitatingly states the reality of the difference between the second temple and the first, so that then (Hag 2:7) the glory of the second temple might stand out in particular splendor, being destined to far exceed the first. Now, however—verse 4—he first encourages all the people and their two leaders and representatives to continue without interruption the work begun. The encouragement, as before (Hag 1:5), is expressed in the name of the Lord of hosts. The content of this encouragement is set forth in Hag 2:5-9.

Haggai 2:5. The covenant which I made with you when you came out of Egypt, and my spirit abides among you: do not fear! This verse (5), difficult to explain precisely from the point of view of its grammatical construction, contains a completely definite thought about those inalienable pledges of God’s favor and salvation that, throughout all the times of Old Testament salvation-history, for biblical Israel were bound up with the idea of the Sinai Covenant (Exod 19:5 and following; Deut 5:1 and others), the clear indication of which is contained in the text of the verse under consideration. The blessed Theodoret paraphrases this verse as follows: “Putting aside all sloth and fear, receive the strength that is being given to you, believing that I remain with you in the law-giving, and that the grace of the all-holy Spirit provides for you” (p. 62). This last concept (concerning the grace of the all-holy Spirit) on the soil of Old Testament biblical thought must be understood, however, in the more general sense of the power of God that accomplishes the salvation of the people of God and all humanity, the divine promises in the consciousness of the inviolability of the covenant relations of God with them and in the living sense of the presence among them of the Spirit of God; the Jews, in the mind of the prophet, should not be troubled and fall in spirit, even though the external circumstances of the present moment did not answer their covenant desires and burning expectations.

Haggai 2:6. For thus says the Lord of hosts: Yet once, and it will be soon, I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land, Haggai 2:7. and I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts. Haggai 2:8. Mine is the silver and mine is the gold, says the Lord of hosts. Haggai 2:9. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give peace, says the Lord of hosts. Having mentioned in the preceding (5th) verse the covenant of God with His people as the main foundation of the hope of the latter, the prophet now, in verse 6, reproduces the very picture or setting of the Sinai legislation, points precisely to the awesome phenomena in the physical and moral world that accompanied this event, and here also places alongside the Sinai event the future cosmic catastrophe destined to precede the extraordinary glorification of the temple and people. What then is this shaking of heaven, earth, sea, and dry land (verse 6b) and all nations (7a), of which the prophet now speaks? Being set in parallel with the action upon nature and upon peoples of the Sinai legislation, the action of God properly upon peoples will, evidently, be the moral influence of the true religion of Israel on the heathen world. About the character, properties, and consequences of this kind of influence, one can judge only in connection with the clarification of the meaning of the difficult expression of verse 7: “the desire of all nations.” What meaning does the word “desire” (hedmah) have in this place, ordinarily meaning desire, object of desire, finally, something precious? The opinions of the ancient versions, as well as of the ancient and modern commentators, here divide into three main groups. Some give to the abstract “desire” a concrete meaning and see here an indication of the personal Messiah as the object of the desire of all nations. In this sense the Vulgate renders the mentioned expression: veniet Desideratus cunctis gentibus; Russian Synodal: “and the Desire of all nations shall come.” But, however natural and plausible such an interpretation from the point of view of the history of biblical messianic idea might be, seeing in the expression under consideration an indication of the personal Messiah is not permitted either by the grammatical construction (the predicate is in the plural form) or by the context of the speech, which speaks properly of the coming glory of the temple being erected. Moreover, the very relationship of various heathen peoples of antiquity to biblical Israel and its messianic hopes could be and indeed was very different. The blessed Theodoret understands the shaking of peoples of which verse 7a speaks in the sense of the victory of God’s power over peoples hostile to Israel and God, namely Gog and Magog: “he foretells this concerning Gog and Magog; when they resolved with many peoples to array themselves against Jerusalem, God permitted this and brought it about that, arming themselves against one another, they destroyed each other, and God gave their wealth to the builders of the temple” (p. 62). —In view of the insufficiency of textual indications concerning the person of the Messiah, the translations and commentators place the word “desire” in closer connection and dependence with the words “of all nations,” whereby again two views are distinguished: according to one view, the entire expression “desire of all nations” means: “the best, chosen ones from all nations” (who are to enter the Kingdom of God); according to the other: “the treasures, precious gifts of all nations” (which treasures the nations are to bring as a gift to the Jerusalem temple). The first of these views is already carried through in the LXX: “the chosen things of all nations,” and also in the Latin translation—the ancient Italic: “let all the chosen of the nations come”; Slavonic: “the chosen things of all the nations shall come.” Both of the interpretations under consideration are equally admissible, since both have analogies for themselves, for instance, in the depiction by the Prophet Isaiah, chapter 60, of the future glory of Jerusalem. By the context of the speech, the meaning of “desire” in the sense of the gifts which the heathen peoples turned to Jehovah are destined to bring to the Jerusalem temple is nearer answering (compare Hag 2:3, where it was spoken of the poverty of the temple being erected, and verse 8, where with special emphasis it is spoken of the silver and gold lying in the temporary use of the heathen, but in essence belonging to the one Jehovah); a full parallel to the expression under consideration in such a case constitutes the words Isa 60:5: “the wealth of the nations shall come to you.” The second half of verse 7: “and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts” speaks with greater definiteness of the consequences of those world and national upheavals spoken of in the first half of the verse. One of the essential consequences of “the shaking of all nations” (verse 7a, see Hag 2:22) will be the filling of the house of the Lord, now being erected, with extraordinary glory. The external expression of this glory will be the flowing of the riches of nations into the Jerusalem temple, of which, indeed, verse 8 does not speak directly, but is paraphrased by the blessed Theodoret as follows: “I do not appropriate to myself what is foreign, but take back what is mine; in generosity I gave them wealth, and since they did not recognize the Giver, it is right that I deprive them of the gifts” (p. 62). In the reading of verse 9, there is a difference between the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek LXX texts in construction: namely, whereas in the Hebrew text the glory of one—the second temple—is compared with the glory of the other—the first (Russian Synodal: “the glory of this latter house shall be greater than the former”), in the LXX text a comparison is drawn between the first and last glory of one and the same temple, “the last glory of this house shall be greater than the first.” And this latter arrangement of words, in which the temple of Jehovah is presented as something always identical, differing only in its manifestations, deserves preference over the former, as most answering the prophetic view of the continuity of the movement of salvation-history. “The prophet declares,” remarks the blessed Theodoret, “that this temple will be more glorious not in the magnitude and beauty of the building, but in that the heathen peoples will be destroyed; for with the rumor spread everywhere, the power of God almighty was revealed” (p. 62). “And in this place I will give peace (to you), says the Lord of hosts.” In what place and what kind of peace? Most nearly in the temple, and then generally in Jerusalem (the “foundation of the world,” according to Hebrew meaning), which, like Zion, in prophetic contemplation is often very closely brought together and as it were identified with the temple (compare Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2). The peace promised by God to the people in the holy temple being built and in the holy city—judging by the political upheavals expected at that time—must be, first and foremost, the peace of external security of the people of God, political peace, but also and spiritual peace, peace of souls in conscience reconciled with God. “Not only will I end human wars, but I will grant them also divine peace, which will bring salvation to souls” (blessed Theodoret, p. 63). Although the prophecy of verses 6–9 contains no direct indication of the person of the Messiah, nevertheless the general messianic meaning of the passage is evident from the examination of its text already presented, and besides, is confirmed by the citation in the epistle to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul of the prophecy of Haggai concerning the second shaking (after the Sinai legislation) of heaven and earth. But the question as to what time the fulfillment of this prophecy belongs concerns those mysteries of the Kingdom of God which are destined to long remain as if a sealed book. It can only be said that the fulfillment of this prophecy must be recognized not as momentary but as prolonged, embracing whole centuries, and that only the beginning of its realization should be referred to, as one can conclude from Hag 2:6, to the time shortly following the pronouncement of the prophecy, namely to perceive the beginning of the upheaval of all peoples foretold by the prophet in the frequent and rapid political upheavals and changes of the ancient world empires that began soon after.

Haggai 2:10. On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came through the prophet Haggai: Haggai 2:11. Thus says the Lord of hosts: Ask the priests concerning the law and say: Haggai 2:12. If one carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and touches with the fold bread, or porridge, or wine, or oil, or any food: shall it become holy? And the priests answered and said: No. Haggai 2:13. Then said Haggai: If one who is unclean by contact with a dead body touches any of these, shall it become unclean? And the priests answered and said: It shall become unclean. Haggai 2:14. Then answered Haggai and said: Thus is this people, and thus is this nation before me, says the Lord; and thus are all the works of their hands! And whatever they offer there, it is all unclean. Haggai 2:15. Now consider from this day backward, before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the Lord. Haggai 2:16. When one came to a heap of grain expecting twenty measures, there were but ten; when one came to the wine vat to draw fifty measures from the vat, there were but twenty. Haggai 2:17. I smote you with blight and mildew and hail all the work of your hands; but you did not turn to me, says the Lord. Haggai 2:18. Now consider from this day backward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day when the temple of the Lord was founded; consider: Haggai 2:19. Is there yet seed in the granaries? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day I will bless you. The third discourse of the prophet was delivered to the people two months and three days after the second discourse (verse 10, see verse 1). Some peculiarities of this, the third discourse of the prophet, in comparison with the other discourses, gave reason to some modern commentators (for example, André) to deny its authenticity—principally on the ground that it, supposedly, interrupts the natural sequence of speech and the connection between the second (Hag 2:1-9) and fourth (Hag 2:20-23) discourses of the prophet. But this circumstance is fully satisfactorily explained by the consideration that the sequence of discourses and their speech in the prophet is determined not by a logical system, but by the chronological order of their pronouncement and by the very subject matter of their content. From the standpoint of content, the third discourse of the prophet is noticeably divided into two equal halves: in the first half of the discourse (verses 10–14) the prophet examines the position and condition of the Jews contemporary with him upon their return from captivity—from the point of view of religious-ritual purity, namely he proves the presence of religious-ritual uncleanness in the people because of the absence of a temple among them; in the second half (verses 15–19), the life of the people, its misfortunes and prosperity, are made dependent upon the varying at different times dedication of the people to the building of the temple, which determined the differing attitude toward the people of God’s providence: punishing or correcting formerly, and merciful and blessing afterwards—from the moment of the laying of the foundation of the temple. The distinction of points of view in one case and the other is evident, but both halves of the discourse equally serve the main purpose of the prophet—to convince his listeners that with all zeal and with full strength of spirit they should carry on the construction of the temple begun. —Only a few separate expressions of the discourse require special explanation, and moreover, not so much in themselves as because of the arbitrary assumptions made about them by modern commentators of a negative-critical direction. Thus they suppose (André, Marti) that by the word “law,” LXX: νόμον, Vulg.: legem, in verse 11, one understands not exactly the written law, but oral tradition preserved among the priests, who in necessary cases gave answers about liturgical, ritual, and other such questions. Furthermore, in the very questions of verses 12–13 of the prophet to the priests, commentators see unusual, supposedly, for a prophet, attention to the temple and cult, which ancient prophets, for example, Jeremiah (Jer 7:1 chapter of his book) did not show; some are even inclined to see in these ideas of holiness and uncleanness the influence of the religion of the Magi—Parsism or Zoroastrianism—on biblical-Jewish thought and theology. But the first thought is based on the general view of the new biblical-critical school (of Wellhausen and others), a hypothetical assertion that the written tora in its present form appeared no earlier than Ezra: a hypothesis which at the present time already in the West does not have great scientific credibility. Moreover, the very turning of the prophet or any other person to the priests for the sake of one or another clarification concerning the provisions of the law can in no way testify to the non-existence at that time of written law, since the law of Moses itself everywhere presupposes and more than once states that it is the duty of the priests to give answers, instruction, and explanation concerning the questions proposed to them by ordinary Israelites about matters of faith, ritual, and generally the way of life (see Lev 10:10; Deut 17:8). Likewise, unnecessary is the attempt to draw a sharp distinction between the attitude of more ancient prophets and the prophet Haggai toward cult and ritual. Those accusations of the Hebrews for the ungodly performance of religious rites contained in more ancient prophets, for example, Amos (Amos 5), Isaiah (Isa 1), Jeremiah (Jer 7), do not contain a negation or simple condemnation of the cult itself, but only warn the Hebrews against exaggerated confidence in the power and significance of the temple, cult, and all the external pledges generally of their covenant with God, while at the same time pointing out the very spirit of God-pleasing service, expressed in the steadfast fulfilling of God’s will. The prophet Haggai, not denying this latter point of view, merely emphasizes in verses 12–14—in accordance with the circumstances and condition of the Jewish community after the captivity—the significance of the temple and the religious ritual associated with it. The LXX add to the text of verse 14 (verse 15 according to the LXX) the further words: on account of their morning offerings they shall suffer pain from the face of their sorrows, and you shall hate in the gates those who reprove. Slavonic: “for the sake of their morning offerings, they shall suffer pain from the face of their wickedness, and you shall hate in the gates those who reprove.” According to the remark of the blessed Jerome, these words “are not in the Hebrew text, nor in other interpreters” (p. 343). It appears that these words should be recognized as a later gloss; if they are accepted as authentic, their explanation is difficult. The general thought of them is a reproach to the contemporary Jews for greed and passion for profit. The second half of the discourse under consideration represents the unfolding of the thought expressed by the prophet earlier in his first discourse (Hag 1:6 and Hag 1:9), but in application to the given moment of the renewed work of restoring the temple: from this turning point, by the promise of God given through the prophet, a new life of the Jews is destined to begin, full of all good things, granted by God’s blessing. In verses 15 and 18, namely in the word “backward,” encountered in both verses, and in the expression “from that day”—peculiarly understood—proponents of the view already known to us (see our introduction to the book of the prophet Haggai) (Schräder and others) concerning the laying of the foundation of the temple precisely in the year 520, and not at all under Cyrus, as the book of Ezra says, found support for their view. But the impartial analysis of these terms convinces that this argument cannot at all be drawn from this passage, that rather from this it follows that the temple was laid down far earlier than the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (see on this in greater detail in Professor V. D. Popov, The Return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity and the First Years of Their Life in Palestine Until the Arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem. Kiev, 1905, pp. 295–305).

Haggai 2:20. And the word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month, saying: Haggai 2:21. Tell Zerubbabel, governor of Judah: I will shake the heavens and the earth; Haggai 2:22. and I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms, and destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother. Haggai 2:23. In that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, my servant, says the Lord, and I will make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of hosts. Regarding the fourth discourse of the prophet, addressed properly to Zerubbabel alone, but in its content representing a reproduction of the essential part of the second discourse (Hag 2:1-9, properly Hag 2:6-9), exegesis poses principally two questions: 1) why and in what sense is the prophecy, which is an unfolding of the prophecy Hag 2:6 and given previously to the whole people, now communicated to Zerubbabel alone? and 2) what meaning does God’s promise to Zerubbabel to keep or hold him like a ring or signet have? The first question is by some modern historians-biblical scholars (Stade, Wellhausen) decided in the sense that the entire fourth discourse is an expression of the political and messianic hopes of the Jewish people, concentrated after the captivity upon Zerubbabel as the representative of the community and descendant of the royal house of David—hopes, which, supposedly, were revived thanks to the building of the temple or under the influence of revolutionary movements in the Persian empire, which stirred up in the peoples subject to Persia hopes for the speedy collapse of Persia and their liberation from its yoke. But the presence in the Jews of that time of such hopes and aspirations is not confirmed by either biblical or non-biblical sources. The book of the prophet Haggai, however, sufficiently clearly testifies that the Jews contemporary with the prophet not only did not entertain such bold hopes and political tendencies, but were deeply depressed by various failures and calamities to the point of almost complete loss of faith in themselves, in their strength, even in the immutability of their covenant with God and the promises given to the people of God by Jehovah (compare Hag 2:4-6); in particular, the 4th discourse, with its consoling, encouraging tone, testifies to the oppressed, depressed state of mind of Zerubbabel, and through him the whole people. The undoubted connection of the 4th discourse with the second, especially with verse Hag 2:6-9, shows that, on the contrary, what was said earlier to the people is now repeated to Zerubbabel—evidently to clarify possible doubts—namely, as a member of the royal house of David, to whom with his descendants were once given the lofty, eternal-significance promises (2 Sam 7:13; Ps 88:28 and others). With this, we approach the solution also to the question of what meaning the promise to Zerubbabel in verse 23 has, that God will keep him like a ring—a signet. The analogy of other biblical passages, where a ring is spoken of (for example, Jer 22:24; Song 8:6; Sir 17:18) undoubtedly confirms that here (verse 23) there is speech of special, gracious protection by God’s Providence of Zerubbabel, and namely not so much of him personally, as of him as the representative of the God-chosen royal house of David, from whom the Messiah was to come. To such typological meaning of the prophecy the memory preserved by Jesus, son of Sirach, concerning the prophecy of Haggai about Zerubbabel points: “How great was Zerubbabel! Even as a signet on the right hand!” (Sir 49:13). That which in Hag 2:22-23 is ascribed to Zerubbabel, in the true sense belongs to the great descendant of Zerubbabel—the divine Servant of Jehovah—Christ the Savior (compare 1 Chr 3:16-19; Matt 1:12-13; Luke 1:27).