Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Haggai 2:1 - 2:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Glory of the Second Temple
Hag_2:1-9
Hag_2:1-2. Comparing the date with the time in which the work began (Hag_1:15), it will be seen that more than three weeks had elapsed, during which the enthusiasm of the less ardent of the builders would have begun to flag. To this change of feeling, a circumstance would contribute which was noticed by Cocceius, that the 21st day of the seventh month was the seventh and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, on which occasion, as it was the close of the ingathering, thanks were to be rendered for bountiful harvests. A certain degree of despondency would be excited by the recollection that the harvest of the present year had been so scanty (Hag_2:9-11). Hence there was all the more urgent occasion for some word of comfort and cheer. We must remember that such a state of feeling would be quite unlike that posture maintained by the people, which had evoked the first discourse. Then their selfish indifference had to be met by reproach and warning; now their fainting courage must be sustained and their feeble faith revived by encouragement and promise.
Hag_2:3. Who is he that is left among you?—Is it not such (a Temple) as this like nothing in your eyes? We have no evidence that the feeling of disappointment among the people was openly expressed, or that it was sufficient to prompt them to suspend their labors. All the greater and more considerate is seen to be Jehovah’s returning favor. He would have them not merely steadfast, but also cheerful and hopeful in their work. He first addresses those who must have suffered most keenly in reflecting upon the outward appearance of the present structure—those who had beheld the splendor of its predecessor. It was not quite seventy years since the destruction of the First Temple, and there must have been some of those still remaining, whose weeping voices had thrown such a gloom upon the ceremony of laying the foundation of the present House (Ezr_3:12-13), with whom the Kingdom of Israel was not a matter of tradition but of personal experience. If they could be comforted, much more likely was it that the younger and more susceptible portion would be encouraged and cheered. It is noteworthy that the contrast between the two temples is made by Jehovah as strong as possible. He seems to admit that their dejection was natural, and by sharing their feelings, so to speak, He gives a most winning and reassuring evidence of his condescension and sympathy. On the construction and proper rendering of the last clause, see Grammatical Note.
Hag_2:4-5. But come! be strong Zerubbabel—fear not. The depressing tendency of the present circumstances was admitted; but this was no reason why the people should repine. In the first place, they might plead with perfect confidence the gracious promise which they had a little before so joyfully received (Hag_1:13). And if God was indeed with them, not only would the possession of his favor and the enjoyment of his presence compensate for all past distresses, and be all-sufficient for the new and untried future, but his help, his working with them, would establish the work of their hands, and in his strength they would be strong. He declares to them besides, that, as the Covenant is still in force, they are as much the object of his care as when that Covenant was first ratified, and that in the power of his Spirit resident with and among them, they would continually enjoy his presence and support.
Such is the general sense of Hag_2:4-5, and it is not materially affected whatever be the true construction of the latter verse, concerning which there has been much difference of opinion. The chief difficulty lies in the ambiguity of àֶúÎäַøָּáָø . The solutions that have been proposed under the supposition that àֶú is the sign of the definite object will first come under review. Some, notably Ewald and Hengstenberg, suppose that the governing word (probably æִëְøåּ : remember), is understood at the beginning of the verse. (Remember) the word which I covenanted with you, when you came forth from Egypt and my spirit dwelt in the midst of you: fear not. Besides the obvious objection, that this construction does not readily suggest itself, it may be remarked that a reference to Exo_20:20, which Hengstenberg regards as establishing his view, seems out of place, not only from the improbability in general of an allusion to a comparatively unimportant expression uttered so many ages before, but also from the utter want of analogy between the present circumstances of the people and the situation supposed to be compared with them here. Moreover (it is not too much to say), on that special occasion the Spirit of God was not resting upon the people, as their conduct immediately thereafter abundantly proves (Exo_32:7-8). Finally, there would seem to be not merely a certain incongruity between such a reference and the whole drift of the discourse, but the allusion would absolutely weaken the latter in its well-sustained and lofty flight. Equally unsatisfactory upon exegetical, though preferable on grammatical grounds, is the opinion (of Aben Ezra, D. Kimchi, Œcolampadius, Rosenmüller) that àֶúÎäַøָּáָø is the object of åַòְַùׂåּ , either repeated from ver 5 or with the last clause of that verse parenthetical: perform the word (covenant) which I concluded with you.… then will my spirit abide with you. As Hitzig remarks, they were not to fulfill the commands of the Law, but to build the Temple. Others again (Ruckert, Hitzig, Koehler, Keil, Henderson, and Pressel) take àֶú as the “sign of the definite nominative of the subject.” It is not to be denied that in spite of the elaborate attempt made by Maurer in his Commentary to throw doubt upon the existence of this construction, there are a few cases which seem to prove its occasional though rare occurrence. The methods, however, that have been suggested by its ablest supporters to account for it here, virtually make it the sign of the definite object—another form of the view last mentioned. It is supposed either that àֶúÎäַãּֽáֽø is attracted into the case of àְùֶׁø , a usage unknown to the Hebrew language, a single example of which is wrongly claimed in Zec_8:17 (see Ewald, § 277 d), or that the Prophet had intended to write äֶòֱîַãְúִּé instead of öֹîִøֶú after øåּçִé making all that precedes the object of that verb: (I have established the word.… and my Spirit among you). Why he should have abandoned his original intention we are not told. If he had done so, he would probably have erased the ùֶׁú as any other writer would do under like circumstances. More precarious still is the notion of De Wette, who regards àú as = ipse, according to the meaning which Gesenius has attributed to that word as the primary one. He renders: this word, etc., referring to the last clause of Hag_2:4 : I am with you. Maurer has been more successful in combating this theory with regard to àֶú , since he has shown clearly that it need never be taken as a distinctive or demonstrative pronoun. Luther, Calvin, Eichhorn, Maurer, Newcome, Noyes, Moore, and Fausset regard àֶúÎäֵøָּáø as the “accusative of the norm or standard.” So our E. V.: according to the word, etc. It may be admitted that the accusative is sometimes used absolutely in Hebrew to express such a notion; but if it had been so employed here, it is hardly conceivable that the àֶú , which would have been certain to be misunderstood, and moreover, superfluous, would have been inserted. No example can be found of its occurrence in such a construction. We are therefore compelled to assume that àֶú is here a preposition: with, as Cocceius, Marckius, J. D. Michaelis, and Stier have also done. The first member of Hag_2:5 would thus be an adjunct of the last clause of Hag_2:4, and the second member parallel to it. Hag_2:4-5 might then be thus paraphrased: “Be strong, my people, for henceforth I am with you. I come into your midst with the Covenant which I made with you, when first you became my people. I renew it with you now that you have returned to Me; I will support and aid you as I have ever done towards my faithful people; My spirit is resting upon you; behold in this my faithfulness proved and my promise of help fulfilled.” The only objection of any weight that can be brought against this view is that the repetition of “with” in a clause which is not appositive would create a certain degree of awkwardness in the sentence. This must be admitted; and yet it is probable that the matter has been regarded too much according to the standard of our Occidental analytical and flexible languages, and that the locution would be less offensive to the taste of an ancient Hebrew. Koehler makes the objection, which is repeated by Keil, that if the àֶú of Hag_2:5 had been a preposition, we should have had in Hag_2:4, for the sake of euphony, öִîְּëֶí instead of àִúְּëֶí . But in such cases as this it is merely the close recurrence of similar sounds that offends; the fact that the words are identical in meaning is quite without influence. It is therefore a sufficient answer to these objections to say that the obnoxious sound is repeated here, where, according to the construction held by these critics, the word àú , representing it, is at best superfluous. In accordance with what has been said, the word which I covenanted with you, etc., must be understood as the promise of God’s continuing presence and favor, suspended upon the obedience of the people, which expressed his obligations with respect to the Covenant made at Sinai, whose validity was to be perpetual. That the words my Spirit refer to the sustaining and comforting influence of the Holy Spirit upon the people, and not to the gift of such special qualifications for the present work as were imparted to Bezaleel and his assistants, Exo_31:1 (Osiander, Koehler), or to that of the spirit of prophecy (Targum, J. D). Michaelis, Newcome, Henderson), is plain if we consider, (1) that the exhortations are addressed to the whole people, and (2) that only through an immediate and widely spread influence could their incipient despondency be removed and exchanged for cheerful courage. Such inspiration received and operating, just as it might be sought and prized, would soon cause them to forget their fallen fortunes, in their efforts to speed the coming of the promised triumph.
They might expect even more than this. Not only would the loss of Israel’s ancient glory be more than made up to the little colony by the abiding presence and help of their Covenant God: the very structure on which they were then engaged, though unadorned by the gilded magnificence of the former Temple, would yet, in its purer and more spiritual worship, possess a glory all its own, to which its predecessor had never attained, and would thus prefigure that everlasting Temple, whose transcendent and ever-increasing glory would be displayed in the pilgrimage thither of worshippers from every nation, laden with their choicest offerings, and still more in the unrestrained and continuing presence of the indwelling Spirit. The verses which contain these promises are so closely connected that we must expound them as a whole.
Hag_2:6-9. For thus saith Jehovah of Hosts.… I will give peace, saith Jehovah of Hosts. The phrase öåֹø àָçַú îְöַèֹ äִéà In Hag_2:6 has always been the occasion of much dispute. Taking a survey of the different views, we find that the rendering: it is yet a little (while), of the Targum ( öåֹø çַøָà æְöֵéøָà äִéà ) and the Vulgate (ad huc unum modicum est) has been adopted by Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and by later expositors, as Ruckert, Maurer, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Umbreit, and Moore, àַçַú being regarded by most of them as = the indefinite article, but by Hengstenberg as strictly a numeral adjective. Reference is made, in support of this view, to Exo_17:4; Psa_37:10; Hos_1:4, and other passages, in all of which cases, however, îְöַè is either unaccompanied by an attributive or followed by îִæְöָø —an entirely different construction. Insuperable grammatical difficulties attend this view, whichever of its abovementioned, modifications be adopted, as may be seen from the grammatical note on this verse; and the laws of the language must be suffered to decide against it. This consideration has led the majority of modern expositors to regard the sentence as made up of two members: öåֹø àַçַú and îְöֵè äִéà . But among these again there is a disagreement as to the true force of àַçַú . The greater number (including most of the later Anglo-American expositors, after the E. V., Cocceius, Marckius, Koehler, Keil, and Pressel), follow the LXX. ( ἔôé ἅðáî ), who, however, left îְöַè äִéà untranslated. They understand ôַּöַí , which is often feminine, with àçú , and make the expression = once, as in Eze_30:10; 2Ki_6:10; Job_40:5; Jos_5:2. They accordingly translate the sentence: once more—it is a little while, etc. Hitzig, Hofmann ( Weissagung und Erfüllung, 1:330), Delitzsch (Comm. zum Briefe an die Hebräer, Heb_12:26), understand öֵú instead of ôַּöַí , and render: one period more—a brief one is it, etc. The Prophet is then supposed to have declared (1) “that the period between the present and the predicted great change of the world, will be but one period, i. e., one uniform epoch, and (2) that this epoch will be a brief one” (Delitzsch). But it cannot be shown without overworking the passage that this idea possesses any pertinency to the Prophet’s design; it seems strange in the connection. Its advocates also ignore the distinction between prophecy and history. It must therefore be decided that ôַּöַí is the word to be supplied, which is distinguished from öֵú as occasion is from period, and that the proper rendering is: Once more—it is a little (while)—and, etc. The use of åְ to mark the consequent clause of the sentence after a statement of time is in accordance with Hebrew usage; see Green, § 287, 3. äִéà in the parenthetical clause is the copula (Green, § 258, 2) and not the predicate, as Koehler asserts. It is conformed in gender to àַçַú , which it represents. It is natural to assume that öåֹø preserves here its usual sense: yet, again, more. Koehler, however, takes it to mean: henceforth, in the future, and the whole sentence as announcing that from this time forward the world would be shaken once, and only once. This he does not rest upon linguistic grounds, referring, as he does, to 2Sa_19:36; 2Ch_17:6, only to show that the meaning proposed is admissible. Now, without maintaining the untenable position (as we think it) of Keil, that öåֹø always retains its primary sense of repetition or return, it is yet undeniable that it invariably preserves such a force when connected with a temporal term or phrase, such as àäú has been shown to be in our passage. Koehler bases his opinion upon the notion that repetition cannot be implied here, because no such commotions of nature as are here predicted had ever occurred before this time, not even during the delivery of the Law at Sinai, which is usually supposed to be alluded to in the passage. In disproving this statement there is no necessity of referring to the sense of öåֹø as understood by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb_12:26-27) or even to the inference which he draws from the words “once more” of our Prophet; for there we have simply the authority of the LXX., which is quoted and applied after the custom of the New Testament writers. We may, however, cite the opinion of that inspired Writer, that it was the shaking of Sinai that the Prophet had in mind—an opinion evidently held without the least reference to the interpretation of öåֹø àַçַú , one, in fact, assumed by him as unquestioned. This any one will perceive on even the most superficial examination of the passage Heb_12:18-29. Koehler asserts that the shaking of Sinai cannot be alluded to here, because the commotions here foretold were to affect all nature, while the descriptions of the giving of the Law do not refer to any disturbance beyond the Sinaitic region. But such passages as Jdg_5:4-5; Psa_68:8-9; Hab_3:6, represent all nature as having been then moved at the coming of God. If it should be urged that such poetical conceptions are largely figurative, it may be replied that the convulsions here alluded to are themselves largely figurative, as will be presently shown. The force of the Prophet’s allusion to the phenomena at Sinai we conceive to be this: He is now holding out to the faith of his desponding people the prospect of a new era, which was to be prefigured by their present Temple. The former dispensation, out of which they were soon to pass, and of which the former Temple was the symbol and crown, had been announced and prepared by the shaking of Sinai and the other wonders wrought in the realm of nature during the disciplinary experience of their fathers previous to their entrance into the Promised Land. This second, final dispensation was also to be ushered in by shakings and convulsions. These, in accordance with the more spiritual character of the new era, were to occur not so much in the physical as in the moral sphere, the former class, however, not to be excluded. In accordance with the wider enjoyment of the new economy, its portents, so far as they were to occur in the external world, would affect all nature, so far as they were to affect human thought and action, were to affect all nations. It remains to be seen how this universal shaking is effected. That the words: I will be shaking the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land, have chiefly a figurative application, becomes clear from a comparison with such passages as Psa_60:2; Psa_18:7-15; Isa_13:13; Isa_64:1-3, where God’s judgments are represented under images drawn from the phenomena of nature; also from others such as Isa_65:17 (comp Isa_66:22, and with this the words “once more” in our verse), in which, as the context shows, the blessed results upon humanity are compared to a new heaven and a new earth. We do not even need to go beyond our own book for illustration. In Hag_2:21 we have expressions similar to those here employed, which must have largely a figurative significance, since the overthrow of the surrounding nations was all that the convulsions there predicted were to accomplish, as our exegesis of the passage will show. The various departments of nature are particularized so as to present a vivid picture of the universal commotions and of the consequent transformation of the world. The prediction has its literal fulfillment also, in so far as remarkable natural phenomena have a portentous significance, in the divine dealings with man,—a truth recognized both by the Scriptures and by profane writers. We must remember, however, that the representation is here of a very general nature. With these conclusions in view it will appear that Hag_2:6-7 describe the working of God with its resulting marvelous change in the aspect of the world in general, and more especially in its influence upon mankind nationally and individually, preparing them for the universal reception of the blessings of the promised epoch. The allusion must therefore be to all movements in the history of humanity, either before or since the coming of Christ, which have disposed men to own Christ as their Lord and Saviour. And of these it is most natural to consider as more immediately intended, those various political convulsions which changed the aspect of the civilized world and adjusted the nations for the ready reception and rapid spread of the Gospel—the conquests of Alexander, and the wars of his successors, with their tendency to combine and equalize the nations involved, and to weaken the spirit of national exclusiveness, to promote mutual intercourse through the medium of a common language, in which at first the Old Testament and at last the New were given to the world; followed by the gradual but irresistible progress of Roman supremacy uniting the East and the West, and resulting, on the one hand, in the decline of paganism or national religion, and on the other, in the prevalence of a long and universal peace, so favorable to the spread of the religion of mankind.—Such was the immediate fulfillment of the prediction. But we are not warranted in stopping here. In accordance with the true interpretation of the second clause of Hag_2:7 (to be given presently), we must regard the convulsions as coextensive with their influence. All nations were to contribute to the glory of the Church of Christ, and whatever exercise of the divine power in the external world or in the spiritual sphere, should dispose man to the service of Jehovah, must be included in that moving of the world which should lead to its transformation. Hence we need not restrict the fulfillment of the prediction to the political changes which prepared the way for the reception of Christianity, as has usually been done, but may behold it also in those subsequent events in the world’s history, political, social, or moral, which have subserved (and never more conspicuously than in our own day) the growth and glory of the Church of Christ. We may even admit the partial correctness of Calvin’s explanation, that the shaking denotes that marvelous supernatural and violent impulse by which God compels his people to betake themselves to the fold of Christ. The view of Hengstenberg and Keil, at all events, is beside the mark, who suppose that the shaking of the nations is intended to set forth the punitive judgments of God upon the heathen, as leading them to submit themselves to his rule. As a matter of fact, it was not, to any great extent, the judgments of God that led the heathen to accept the Gospel. When, therefore, Hengstenberg attempts to apply his theory to the preparation for Christ’s coming, he naturally fails. Appeal is made to Hag_2:21-23, where a shaking of heaven and earth is predicted in connection with the overthrow of surrounding nations. But the passages are not parallel. Hag_2:21-23 are not in the strict sense Messianic; our passage is. The subject there is the opposition between the heathen and God’s people; and no hint is given of the conversion of the former. The subject here is the honor to be put upon the Church of Christ (represented by the Second Temple) by its reception of worshippers from all nation’s. The notion of the punishment of the heathen is remote from the idea of the promise and irrelevant to the discourse as a whole.
The consequence of this divine influence upon mankind is next given: åּáָàåּ çֶîְøַּú ëָìÎäַâּåֹéí . But what is meant by çֶîøַּú çַâּåֹéִí ? The rendering of the E. V.: The desire of all nations, according to which the Messiah is referred to as the object that should satisfy the universal longings of men, has always been a favorite interpretation. The translation of the Vulgate was: “et venit desideratus cunctis gentibus,” and this was followed by the Reformers (except Calvin), by the older orthodox Commentators generally, and among English Expositors, last by Fausset. So confidently has their opinion been held, that Ribera suspected the later Jews of having corrupted the passage by changing a singular verb into the plural ( åֹáָàåּ ), with the design of throwing difficulties in the way of the true interpretation. It has been accepted so widely by the Christian Church through the influence of the various Versions that it is still everywhere daily heard in their hymns and prayers. It is natural, moreover, that many should have been unwilling to give up a prediction which seemed to embody such a great and inspiring truth. But such an interpretation cannot stand the test of correct criticism. In the first place, we must have regard to the aim of the discourse, the encouragement of the people in building the Temple, by assuring them that its glory would yet be great. This object would not have been subserved by foretelling the coming of a Person for whom all the Gentiles were longing. Such a promise would give no special comfort to the Jews. The only reason why the “nations”1 were referred to must have been that they themselves would contribute to the future glory. Secondly, it is impossible to see what connection the silver and the gold of Hag_2:8 can have with the coming of the Messiah, though that verse is evidently introduced as confirmatory of this. But, finally, the view in question is untenable grammatically. áָּàåּ is plural, while its subject çֶîְøַּú is singular. That subject, therefore, cannot be a person. It is impossible to evade the force of this argument; and when we discover that such expedients have been adopted as to assume that Christ’s two Natures are referred to, the hopelessness of the attempt becomes evident. It has indeed been urged that when a plural noun depends upon and follows a singular, the verb may in Hebrew agree with the plural. This is true in certain cases, namely, when the predicate may naturally be referred to the governed word as containing the controlling idea of the sentence (comp. Green, § 277). This is of course not the case here. It is not the nations themselves who are represented as coming, but their çֶîְøָּú . More admissible grammatically is the modification proposed by Cocceius, who translates: I will shake all nations, that they may come to the desire of all nations.” But the first argument adduced against the preceding view is decisive also against this. It only remains that we take çֶîְøַּú as a collective,—which its originally abstract sense renders natural, and as the plural verb demands. The true sense of çîøú here may be readily deduced from the usage of its primitive çîø : to desire, to take delight in. The derivation means, first, the emotion of pleasure, and next, an object of desire or delight (1Sa_9:20; Dan_11:37). We have now only to decide whether it relates to persons or to things. The former sense with the explanation: what is valuable or worthy among the heathen— i. e., the best of the Gentiles—has been adopted by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cappellus, Rückert, Hitzig, Umbreit, and Fürst (in his Wörterbuch). But here, also, all connection with Hag_2:8 fails us. The only meaning which satisfies all the conditions of the passage is: the desirable things of the nations; not: the things desired by the nations realized in the blessings of the Messiah’s reign, as Henderson holds,—an explanation which like those previously noticed should be discarded because of its want of connection with the context, and its irrelevancy to the discourse as a whole. We accordingly translate: the desirable or precious things, the treasures of the nations, as most of the later Commentators have done. So the LXX. appear to have understood it ( ἥîåé ôὰ ἐêëåêôὰ ðÜíôùí ôῶí ἐèíῶí not ἥîïíóé , not persons but things). Their explanation was adopted in the Itala and Vulgate, and by Kimchi, and was completely established by Calvin, the most judicious and penetrating of Commentators. Since the Reformation it has been held, among others by Drusius and Vitringa, by Rosenmüller, Maurer, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Koehler, Keil, Ewald, and among English Expositors, by Adam Clarke, Newcome, Noyes, Moore, and Cowles. Hengstenberg, indeed, followed by Moore, assumes untenably that äֶîִøַּú properly means beauty, but both writers adopt the usual explanation in their exposition. From whatever stand-point we regard this interpretation, its correctness becomes apparent. Grammatically it is unassailable. If we revert to the occasion of the discourse, we find that it contains the very ground of encouragement which the desponding people required. They had no need to be disheartened because of the present condition of the Temple. The outward adornments which had rendered the former structure so attractive were indeed absent, but these would be more than surpassed in splendor by the precious gifts which all nations should yet bring, to make glorious Jehovah’s dwelling-place. If we regard the immediate context, the interpretation becomes self-evident. The display of the precious metals in the first Temple was mournfully remembered by the people in their poverty. But the silver and gold of the whole earth were God’s, much more glorious would be that Temple which should be adorned by the treasures of all nations which He should dispose to his worship and service.
We have next to inquire into the fulfillment of this remarkable prediction. And the question first suggests itself: is the promise to be fulfilled in a literal or in a figurative sense, or in both? The answer will throw additional light also upon the concluding words of Hag_2:7 : I will fill this house with glory. Let us now see to what extent the Gentiles did bring of their treasures to the second Temple. The command of Darius Hystaspes, given soon after, that abundant supplies should be allowed the Jews to forward their labors, cannot properly come into consideration here, because it was not a consequence of any such shaking of the nations as that just predicted. The same remark applies to the presents of Artaxerxes Longimanus and his councillors through Ezra. We must look beyond the mighty political convulsions of the age of Alexander and his successors, in which, as we have seen, the shaking of the nations first actually began. And here, as Calvin has shown, and Hengstenberg more fully, the renewal of the second Temple by Herod must be excluded from consideration. Herod was a foreigner, it is true, but his labors were not prompted by reverence for Jehovah, but by worldly policy. But the case was different with the offerings of those proselytes who, in the decline of polytheism sought to satisfy their religious aspirations by paying their homage to the one true God in his Temple. These gifts, however, were little more than a pledge of the higher, more glorious fulfillment. Otherwise the prophecy would have remained unfulfilled. The Temple (in its true idea and divine purpose) must be merged into the Church of Christ, the offerings of whose worshippers must have that predominantly spiritual character which should mark the Messianic times. (1.) Because the prediction is given as a revelation from God. Its fulfillment is certain. A literal fulfillment has been shown to be untenable; we have therefore to seek a spiritual one. (2.) This promise is but one of a large class of similar predictions in the Old Testament whose spiritual realization is assured by the New. Comp. Isa_60:5; Isa_60:9-11; Mic_7:13; Zec_14:14, with Rev_21:24-26. The harmony and connection of our passage with these is convincing. (3.) After the restoration the outward splendor of the Temple was never a matter of Divine cognizance. The rebukes of the prophets directed against the people were not due to any failure on their part to enhance its external glory. Indeed we have good reason to think that they were encouraged to make this of little account. It is at least certain that the spirit cherished by the Jews, which ultimately led to their rejection, and to the destruction of the Temple, was the sentiment that found expression in the reverence for the gold of the Temple, which called forth so scathing a denunciation from the lips of Jesus, and that, in his refusal to admire the grandeur of that structure, He was moved by something more than the mere prevision of its coming ruin, that He recognized in that terrible calamity the divinely just result of the loss of spiritual worship which universally prevailed. And if the failure to discern that the Temple was only the embodiment and symbol of spiritual truths marked the decline and fall of Judaism, it was necessary that the Church of God, the true Temple beneath the gold, and outward adornings, should without losing its identity, divest itself of external form, to invite and receive spiritual worshippers from all nations. Upon these grounds we claim the fitness and necessity of a spiritual fulfillment of this prediction. What the treasures are which all nations were to bring to the Church of God is not far to seek. All material offerings presented since the establishment of Christ’s kingdom, for the purpose of advancing its extension or inward growth, are of course included. But the offerings of the heart—the prayers and praises of the multitudes that throng more and more about the gates of Zion, as the nations are shaken more and more by forces of the Spirit’s moving, and their self-renouncing devotion of soul and life to her service,—mainly constitute the perpetual and progressive fulfillment of the prediction. And in the presence of God among his adoring people we have the idea embodied in the ancient Temple realized, and the crowning promises of this prophecy fulfilled: I will fill this House with glory.… In this place I will give peace. It is the presence of Jehovah that sheds glory upon the Church, his Temple and dwelling-place, that imparts inward peace and joy, and outward peace and prosperity [ ùָׁìåֹí ] to its members in ever-increasing measure; but that Presence is vouchsafed to meet and reward the submission and service of his people, gathered from every nation under heaven.
There is another important point in connection with this subject which needs to be discussed. The fact that all these promises are applied directly to “this house,” and that, as the subject of such glorious predictions the second Temple is sharply contrasted with the first, proves that there must have been something connected with the former, as compared with the latter, constituting it a more fit representative of the Church of Christ. This feature of the discourse is worthy of a much fuller treatment than is here practicable. We only remark at present that the cardinal distinction must have consisted in the more spiritual character which life, and faith, and worship assumed in the best times of Judaism after the Restoration, the Temple being of course understood to represent then, as of old, the theocratic community of which it was the centre. Rites and ceremonies retired more into the background; and prayer began to assume its true place in public worship. The religious knowledge of the people was kept up through the regular public reading and distribution of the Scriptures, which were early collected into their present canonical form. Synagogues were established, the people having learnt at Babylon that God’s presence might be enjoyed in their assemblies in any place or circumstances. Thus there was kept alive throughout the nation a higher and purer type of religion than it had known in the days when the first Temple with its outward splendor and gorgeous ritual excited the admiration of the people, but too seldom led their thoughts to the contemplation of the truths it expressed and prefigured. These we regard as some of the characteristics of the second Temple, which on the one hand exalted it above its predecessor, and on the other assimilated it to the Church of Christ, of which it thus became the fit representative in the Divine promises. This was the true glory of the Second Temple.
The question finally suggests itself: If this exposition be correct, why were these promises veiled in such a material form? The same difficulty must be equally felt in the consideration of the similar passages in the Prophets already cited. It is not a sufficient answer to say that such is the uniform drapery in which prophetic promise is clothed. The answer which exhibits the inner fitness and necessity of the mode of communication, is that such a form was the only one suited to the conditions under which the promise was given. Its recipients would have been dissatisfied with the full and clear revelation as not meeting their immediate needs, and moreover could neither have grasped its meaning nor appreciated its worth. They were not as yet prepared to receive the doctrine of an invisible Temple and a universal Church, as the nations themselves were not prepared for the coming and reign of their common Redeemer. Hence it was best that the glories of his kingdom should be described in words suited to their apprehensions and requirements. He also, when He came, in his predictions as well as in his other instructions, taught as his hearers were able to bear them. And even we are under the same tutelage with respect to the mysteries of the New Jerusalem; for we read that it has its Temple too (Rev_7:15), and yet we are told that it has no Temple (Rev_21:22); and the announcement of the final and complete fulfillment of our prophecy (Rev_21:24-26) is little more than a repetition of the prophecy itself in a material form identically the same.
2. The World is the tributary, and the minister of the Church. All revolutions, political, social, or moral, that affect the nations, are harbingers and preparations of that spiritual and inward but no less powerful influence which is to impel them within the boundaries of the kingdom of Christ. And the treasures of the nations, all that is desirable and valuable in the achievements of human labor, all the accumulated wisdom and knowledge of the ages, and all that is pure and lofty in human motives and purposes, are the offerings which the world has brought, or is yet to bring to the Church—“the glory and honor of the Gentiles” presented in the courts of Zion (Rev_21:26).
3. The development and progress of the Church of God are not marked by an increase of external splendor. Its true glory does not consist in the magnificence of its houses of worship, or in the pomp and impressiveness of its ceremonies and rituals. The First Temple was distinguished by these outward attractions; but the Second Temple in which they were so inferior, is by the Prophet contrasted with the former, and chosen as the fit representative, nay even as the partial realization of the promised Church of Christ. Christians know, as the pious worshippers in the second Temple were taught, that the glory of the Church is derived from the purity of her worship, the devotion of her ever-increasing members, and the abiding presence of God through his Spirit. Even the Shekinah was wanting in the second Temple; but the faithful worshippers there, like those who now in every nation worship God in spirit and in truth, could rejoice that they did not need among them his visible glory, while his presence was felt in their hearts.
Hag_2:4-5. God’s people should dwell much upon their past history. They will thus find that whatever checks and distresses they have experienced were due to their own unfaithfulness, and that God never failed to fulfill his part in the Covenant, whether He chastened or blessed. In the adversities of the present they may be assured that their true hope lies in the presence and power of the Spirit, who dwells with them according as they fulfill their part in the Covenant.
Calvin: God is present with his own in various ways; but He especially shows that He is present when, by his Spirit, He confirms weak minds.
Hag_2:6-7. In the midst of the changes, political, social, and moral, that affect the nations, by what methods may God’s people best seek to attract them with their priceless treasures within the Church of Christ?
Henry: The shaking of the nations is often in order to the settling of the Church and the establishing of the things that cannot be shaken.
Moore: The kingdoms of the world are but the scaffolding for God’s spiritual Temple, to be thrown down when their purpose is accomplished.—The uncertainty and transitoriness of all that is earthly should lead men to seek repose in the everlasting kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.—The glory of the New Testament dispensation is the conversion of the heathen.
Hag_2:8. Since the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s, his people need never fear either that they will be left destitute, or that the “riches of the Gentiles” will not be converted to the use of his Church.
Henry: Every penny bears God’s superscription as well as Cæsar’s.
Moore: The comparative poverty of the Church is not because God cannot bestow riches upon her, but because there are better blessings than wealth that are often incompatible with its possession.
Hag_2:9. Calvin: Though they should gather the treasures of a thousand worlds into one mass, such a glory would still be perishable.
Moore: The New Testament in all its outward lowliness has a glory in its possession of a completed salvation, far above all the outward magnificence of the Mosaic dispensation.—The kingdom of Christ makes peace between God and man, and in its ultimate results will make peace between man and man, and destroy all that produces discord and confusion, war and bloodshed on the earth.
Pressel: Every house of God is a place where God gives peace, and every place of peace is also a house of God.
—On the whole discourse: The glory of God’s kingdom: (1.) Its conditions—the faithfulness of his people to all their covenant obligations and duties, their obedience, their faith, and their courage, securing his favor and help. (2.) Its nature—the constant reception of increasing multitudes of “Gentile” with their “treasures” of devotion and service; and the abiding presence of God’s Spirit diffusing peace and joy.
Footnotes:
Hag_2:3.— äַðִּùְׁàָø . The article is employed here (=who is the one that is left) because the predicate is made definite by the description which follows (that has beheld this House, etc.); comp. Jer_49:36, and see Green § 245, 2, Ewald, § 277 a.
Hag_2:3.— îָä (=qualem) agrees with àåֹúåֹ as the attributive of the object, Ewald, § 325 a, ad finem. This use of îָä (as suggesting the character of the object) seems to justify the explanation of ëָּîֹäåּ ëְàַֹéִï after the analogy of Joe_2:2 : Is not such (a one) as it as nothing in your eyes? See Ewald, § 105 b, 1. So Rückert, Maurer Hitzig, Moore. To this Koehler, and after him Keil, object that then it would not be the Temple, but something like it that is compared to nothing, which would be very tame. But every one knows that in expressions of this kind “such” refers to the subject of discourse with an allusion at the same time to its character. Here ëָîֹäåּ (= a temple like this) would naturally refer back to îָä (= what sort of Temple?). Hence we prefer this view to the one more commonly entertained, and upheld by these critics, that we have here an inversion of the usual order of the particles of comparison: Is not as nothing so it?=Is it not as nothing; comp. Gen_18:25; Gen_44:18 (as Pharaoh so thou). The rendering adopted by Rosenmuller, Eichhorn, et al., as well as by E. V. and most English expositors, is indefensible.
Hag_2:5.— àֶúÎäַåָּáָø . See the exegesis, which involves in this passage so much, grammatical discussion that We remit the latter to that section.
Hag_2:6.—The reasons decisive against the opinion that àַçַú is joined as a numeral adjective to îְòַè are (1) that the latter is never feminine, and (2) that in such a construction the numeral always follows the substantive. See the exegesis, where other grammatical difficulties connected with the passage are discussed.
Hag_2:7.—The perfects in this verse have the force of the future perfect and not of the prophetic perfect: I shall have shaken, etc. So in Hag_2:22.
Nations are named here in accordance with the guarded and partial representation of the salvation of the Gentiles peculiar to the old Testament. But individuals are not therefore excluded; they are rather plainly and specially regarded; for the constraining force is ultimately not outward compulsion, but the influence of the Spirit upon the heart, as the discourse itself implies.
Even in Psa_119:103 the subject is collective; in Jer_11:14 it is distributive.
Ewald, who formerly (in his Comm.) maintained that the “choice (persons)” of the Gentiles were meant (see above), now seems to agree with this opinion. In his Sprachlehre (§ 317 b), he explains the word by Kostbarkeiten.
Compare for the idea of glory imparted by material treasures, Nah_2:10 (9).
It has been said that Herod really erected a third Temple instead of repairing the second. But this mode of expression show a want of perception of the divine and prophetic idea of the institution. Herod’s Temple must still be regarded as the second, even through it be conceded that he erected a new structure. A new Temple must introduce a new era.
Some of the Jewish Commentators would not readily agree with this. Philippson (Israelitische Bibel ii. 1489), after showing that Herod’s Temple, was with all its splendor still inferior to Solomon’s and after admitting that Hag_2:7, which he renders correctly, has not been literally fulfilled, remarks as follows: “The Prophets give promises for the future, not in order to predict, but in order to ameliorate the present and to incite to holy actions. Israelites have themselves made the fulfillment of these prophecies impossible by refusing to rise to those higher conditions in which alone, according to the declarations of the Prophets themselves, the promises would be fulfilled.” Comp. p. 922. This is the logical result of the Jewish theory; for though some of their Commentators (e. g., Isaaki, Abarbanel) interpret the passage as predicting a future Temple, comparing Ezekiel 43. etc., yet as this view is in plain contradiotion of the Prophet’s announcement of speedy fulfillment, others are, in consistency, driven to renounce the idea of any true fulfillment whatever.