Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Haggai 2:10 - 2:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Past Calamities accounted for; and Immediate Prosperity announced
Hag_2:10-19
Hag_2:10. The message which follows was delivered about two months after the preceding, while the people were still feeling, probably, in an intensified degree, the pressure of the temporal distress which was described in the first discourse. It was an occasion peculiarly suitable for the communication of such a message. It was the ninth month (Chisleu, November–December) when the early rain was expected to water the newly-sown crops. Their fields had lately (Hag_1:6) been giving a very scanty harvest, and there would naturally be much anxiety about the results of the labor of the present season; and great rejoicing at the receival of an assurance of its success.
Hag_2:11. We agree with Ewald, Koehler, Keil, et al. in regarding úåֹøָä here as meaning not the law but instruction. If the former had been intended, the article would have been present. That the answer to the inquiry would be obtained from the law does not of course affect the question.
Hag_2:12. If a man shall bear.… and the Priests answered: No. The priests answered correctly and according to a natural and divinely sanctioned inference from Lev_4:20 (27). In that passage the flesh of the animal sacrificed is said to render sacred any object ( ëֹּì àְַùֶׁø there probably refers both to persons and to things) with which it may come in contact, a garment sprinkled with its blood being particularized. It is not said that the character of legal sacredness is communicated indefinitely. The enumeration in our passage of the most common and necessary articles of food is in accordance with the lesson to be enforced; see on Hag_2:14.
Hag_2:13. And Haggai said.… he will be unclean. Comparing our verse with Lev_22:4, and that passage with Num_5:2; Num_9:6-7; Num_9:10, we find that the phrase èְîֵà ìָðֶôֶùׁèְîֵà ðֶôֶùׁ . defiled with respect to a person. Comparing again with Lev_21:11; Num_6:6, we find that îֵú is to be understood in the latter expression, which therefore means: unclean on account of a dead person. The ellipsis is seen to be natural, when we remember that defilement occasioned by personal contact usually proceeded from contact with a dead body, and that this species of defilement was one of the deepest (see Num_19:11-16). Keil translates: defiled on or through the soul of a dead man, a rendering whose correctness he fails to prove both here and in his exposition of Lev_19:28. Besides giving a contradictory explanation, he would refuse to recognize one of the most common meanings of ðֶôֶùׁ , that of person transferred to the sense of body. The explanation of Koehler is worth quoting. He takes nephesh in its primary sense of breath, and thinks that one who comes in contact with the breath of a dead man is referred to. This he does not seek to establish on the lucus a non lucendo principle, as might be expected, but by the statement that “as long as the corpse is not completely consumed, even if the skeleton only is left, a remnant of the breath of life still remains seeking to extricate itself so as to leave the body to perish utterly.”—Then follows the application to the circumstances of the people of these principles of the Ceremonial Law. It will be noticed that the priests and the prophet act in accordance with their proper functions: the former declare or interpret the precepts of the Law; the latter applies them.
Hag_2:14. And Haggai answered and said … is unclean. No distinction is intended to be expressed between “nation” and “people” here. The repetition is a hebraism; comp. Zep_2:9. So is this people, etc. = So is it with this people. Before me means: in my presence as Ruler and Judge. The key to the correct application of the ceremonial precepts, which have occasioned difficulty to some interpreters, is found in the last clause of the verse, taking into account that ùָׁí = at the altar (Ezr_3:3). The people, suffering from scarcity of food consequent upon the failure of their crops, had, it seems, been continuing in some measure their regular sacrificial offerings, though they had been neglecting the building of the Temple. These oblations had not been accepted, as they might have inferred from the with-holding of the divine blessing, the true cause of which is now impressively illustrated. As he who was ceremonially unclean tainted everything with which he came in contact, so had they, suffering from God’s displeasure on account of their disregard of his claims, communicated the effects of that displeasure to all the labor of their hands, which profited them nothing. And, as the consecrated flesh of the sacrifices did not convey its sacredness to any objects beyond those immediately in the service, so all their external good works, even their offerings upon God’s altar, could not reach in its effects beyond the mere ceremonial fulfillment of outward observances, could riot secure those blessings which are the reward of living, operative holiness. The following verses (15–17) now exhibit the condition of the people as proving the above illustration.
Hag_2:15. And now apply your heart, I pray you … apply your heart. The people are bidden review their condition from the present time to the period preceding the resumption of the Temple. îָöְìָä in such a connection of course means backward. The time when the work was resumed is specified here, because it was the turning-point in their fortunes. Their condition before that event is recalled for their contemplation that they might connect their distress then suffered with their unfaithfulness; and the brief period succeeding their return to obedience is included because they could not so soon recover from their embarrassments, no harvest having yet intervened. îִèֶּøֶí therefore serves a twofold purpose: îִï (from) denotes that the retrospect should properly begin with the resumption of the work, and èֶøֶí (before) indicates the direction in which the survey should extend. That it is the resumption of building that is referred to, and not the first feeble efforts of the returning exiles, is plain from the circumstances of the people to be described and the lesson to be enforced.
Hag_2:16. Since such things were.… and there were (but) twenty. îִäְéåֹúָí , literally: from these- things being (so). This means, from the time when affairs began to be in the condition referred to. It is clear that îִï need not have the same reference here as in Hag_2:15, where it points backward. Here the people are not commanded to take a review of the past; the Prophet is now describing a certain state of affairs consequent upon their unfaithfulness. There it was a retrospect; here it is a view of cause and effect. The force of the verse is precisely that of Hag_1:9. The harvests did not fulfill expectation. Their actual yield did not even correspond to the appearance of the crops when gathered in. A heap of sheaves which seemed to contain twenty measures (it is best to supply ùְׂàָä , as E. V. does), was, when threshed, found to contain but ten. A quantity of grapes usually affording fifty purahs yields only twenty, é÷á is applied either to the press itself, or to the vat beneath into which the liquor flows. Here the latter is meant; after pressing, they went to draw from it, expecting the usual proportion of wine. ôּåּøָä , which in Isa_63:3 means a wine-press, must be used here of the vessel which was ordinarily employed to draw up the wine from the lower receptacle. It naturally came to be adopted as a convenient measure for such purposes, much in the same way as our “bucket” is sometimes referred to as a measure. The LXX. translating ìåôñçôὴò make it = áַּú (a bath). Such an ellipsis as E. V. assumes to exist in the original is incredible.
Hag_2:17. I have smitten you with blight… saith Jehovah. The immediate cause of the shortness and inferior quality of the crops is now presented. On the connection between the first and second clauses, see Grammatical note. The people themselves are said to have been smitten, because the calamities specified fell upon their crops, the labor of their hands (comp. Virgil’s boumque labores), thus disappointing their nearest hopes. Compare, as exactly analogous, Hag_1:10-11. These passages further show that there is no need of rendering with E. V.: in all the labor of your hands. The last clause is difficult. Most take àֶäְëֶí as a nominative, and supply ùַׁáְúֶּí (ye have not returned) after Amo_4:9, the former and latter parts of which passage present a resemblance to our verse probably fortuitous. But the cases in which àֶú accompanies a nominative are so rare that such a construction is not to be assumed except under exegetical distress. More admissible is the translation of the Vulgate, Itala, Umbreit, et al.: et non fuit in vobis qui reverteretur. To obtain this àֲùֶׁø is supplied, and àִúְּëֶí read. It ought not to be objected with Hitzig and Koehler, that àֶú does not mean among or in, but only beside or with; for 2Ki_9:25 furnishes an unmistakable instance of the former sense. The extent of the change involved in the Text is a more valid objection. It is better, with Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Keil, to construe according to the principle laid down by Ewald (§ 262 b), that àֵéï (properly the construct of àַéִï ), being usually followed by a verbal suffix, because containing a verbal conception (= there is not), here takes the sign of the object according to the construction after most verbs. We therefore render: but ye were not towards me, i.e., ye did not return to me. Hos_3:3, 2Ki_4:11, afford examples of such constructions.
Hag_2:18. Direct, I beseech you, your heart…direct your heart. This verse has received most diverse and in some instances most extraordinary interpretations. The main difficulty arises from the peculiar use of ìְîִï . Most of the English expositors adopt the rendering of E. V. without explanation, or (as Newcome) supply “and” instead of “even” before “from,” in order to make the contradiction involved appear slighter. Fausset thinks that the time is to be measured backward from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, and forward from the founding of the Temple, or that the same adverb, îָöְìָä , can be taken indifferent senses when connected with the same verb, which is absurd. Indeed, it would seem very improbable that îָöְìָä here should be employed in a sense different from that in which it occurs in Hag_2:15, as Eichhorn, Hitzig, Koehler, et al. assume that it must, in making it refer to the future. If now we could suppose, with the authors last named, and Pressel, that the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month was the day on which the foundation was laid, all difficulty would vanish. The people would again be directed to review their condition, and to contrast it with the blessings which they would henceforth receive, as described in the next verse. But the objections to this are insuperable: (1) The Temple was founded in the second year of Cyrus, fifteen years before (Ezr_3:10); and if we compare Ezr_4:4 with Ezr_4:23-24, we shall see that the work upon it was continued, however feebly, until within two years of the present prophecy, so that the foundation could not have fallen into decay. (2) Hag_2:3 implies that the new structure had then become somewhat advanced. If it were absolutely necessary to regard ìîִï as = îִï (from), we should be driven to conclude that the text, as it now stands, is corrupt. But the analogy of such words as ìְîֵøָçåֹ÷ (to a distance) àֶìÎîִçåּõ (to the outside), shows that the meaning to or until is not impossible. So Rosenmüller, Maurer, Ewald, Moore, et al., have understood it. This, it must be confessed, is a somewhat precarious resort; but it seems the only one at all defensible. The sense thus obtained for the whole verse is appropriate. In order to make the blessings to be announced in Hag_2:19 appear in strong contrast to the distress pictured in Hag_2:16-17, the Prophet repeats the injunction of Hag_2:15, but with a longer range of retrospect. The whole period back to the time when the foundation of the Temple was laid in the reign of Cyrus was one of more or less distress on account of the unfaithfulness of the people; for between that time and the present all the efforts that they had made to complete the work were spasmodic and feeble.
Hag_2:19. Is the grain yet in the barn… I will bless. The parallelism and the connection show that äַæֶּøַò is to be taken not in the sense of corn for sowing, but of corn already raised. The interrogation is equal to a strong negation. òַø probably means here quoad, as to, in which sense it is of frequent occurrence. Maurer prefers to render: ad huc, as yet, a sense undeniable in Job_1:18; but there is no necessity of assuming such a rare usage here. The distress before described is brought nearer to the feelings of the people by the reminder that it was still present. They could then better appreciate the worth of the coming relief. From this day, must be taken in a somewhat loose sense, as denoting the beginning of that period of blessing which was to reward the obedience and devotion now displayed by the people. There is thus seen to be no inconsistency between the promise and the conditions described in Hag_2:15.
2. A return to God by his people under either Covenant has always been followed immediately by the bestowal of blessings peculiar to the Covenant. In Old Testament times a fullness of external mercies was chiefly expected and received. But before these blessings could, in the ordinary course of providence, be vouchsafed, spiritual and higher blessings were invariably imparted (see Hag_2:19)—the assurance of God’s favor, the abiding presence and assistance of his Spirit. The New Covenant, while it has modified in form many of the provisions and conditions of the Old, is not superior to it in the certainty of its fulfillment; and nothing is better adapted to revive and strengthen our trust in God’s promises than a frequent recurrence to his dealings towards his ancient people.
Calvin: Whoever intrudes external ceremonies on God, in order to pacify Him, trifles with Him most childishly. The fountain of good works is integrity of heart, and the purpose to obey God and consecrate the life to Him.—Whatever we touch is polluted by us, unless there be purity of heart to sanctify our works.
Grotius: There are many ways of vice, but only one of virtue, and that a difficult one.
Fausset: Those who are unclean before God on account of “dead works”, thereby render unclean all their services.
Hag_2:15-17. Matthew Henry: When we take no care of God’s interests we cannot expect that He will take care of ours.
Moore: Men are inclined to assign any other cause for their sufferings than their sins, yet this is usually the true cause.—Disappointment of our hopes on earth should make us lift our eyes to heaven to learn the reason.—Affliction will harden the heart if it be not referred to God as its author.
Hag_2:18-19. Moore: Pondering over the past is often the best way of providing for the future.
Fausset: From the moment we unreservedly yield ourselves up to God, we may confidently calculate on his blessing.
Footnotes:
Hag_2:11.— àֶúÎäַëּäֲֹðִéí is the direct and úּåֹøָä the indirect object.
Hag_2:12.—This verse contains a sentence virtually conditional, of which äֲéִ÷ְøָּùׁ is the apodosis, and all that precedes the protasis. But as äֲ is properly an interjection the strict translation would be: Behold, let any one bear, etc. Some of the articles of food here mentioned are made definite, being considered severally as forming a distinct class. See Green, § 245 d.
Hag_2:13.—For the construction of èְîֵà ðֶôֶùׁ see the exegesis.
Hag_2:16.— îִַäְéåֹúָí . See Green, § 267 d, and compare the exegesis.
Hag_2:16.— áָּà … áָּà are used impersonally: one came, etc. These sentence are virtually conditional, åְ marking the apodosis in each case.
Hag_2:17.— àֵú ëָìÎîַòְùֵׂä . This clause is in apposition to the object of the verb in the one preceding.
Hag_2:17.— àֵéï àֶúְëֶí . See the exegesis.
Hag_2:19.— ðָùָׂà agrees with the nearest subject and is understood with the others.—
Hag_2:19.— àֲáָøֵêְ is here used absolutely. There is no need of supplying an object.
îַï is not therefore pleonastic; it still marks the limits of the period specified, separating it from the preceding according to its original force.