Lowliness of Mind
It appears, however, that the Jews, like ourselves, were apt to get discouraged; consequently every now and then the prophet comes in a way somewhat similar, but with increasing force. As unbelief increases, the testimony of God becomes more energetic as long as He continues to send His words to the people. “In the seventh month, on the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of Jehovah by the prophet Haggai, saying, Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying, Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? And how do ye see it now? Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?” (vss. 1-3). There is no allowance of self-complacent thoughts. God would make us real in our souls and ways. It is a good thing not to have too high imaginations, but the truth, a just weight and measure. At the same time, let us leave room for the grace and power of God. Take, for instance, the present moment, as we are looking at this in a practical way. There is no greater danger than forgetting the spirit that becomes those to whom God has shown His mercy in giving true understanding of what suits Him in the actual and broken state of Christendom. Is it not one of the things we need most to look to, that the tone in which we use the truth should be becoming? The more we learn of God, the more we should cultivate lowliness of mind. This does not imply that you should have indecision in your convictions, but that along with this you have a just sense of your own weakness, and that you are broken in spirit, remembering how the glory of the Lord has suffered by the failure of His people. It was quite right, therefore, that they should feel the feeble condition of all that bore the name of Jehovah in their midst. “Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory?” (vs. 3). We feel how far the church has fallen and whence also, but we ought not to be discouraged. There is no element of Christ in despair or distrust. The Holy Spirit never produces doubt. As there is sometimes a difficulty in minds about what is called the ruin of the church, a few words may be well on the present broken state of things among those who call on the Lord’s name.
The Church As Built by Christ and by Man
We must bear in mind the church in two points of view—the church or assembly as built by Christ and as built by man, that is, by His servants. The assembly as built by Christ never fails. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). But that which has been built by the servants of the Lord is always liable to be injured by elements more or less worthless, if not worse. It may suffer through worldliness, haste, carelessness, fleshly feeling, a thousand things according to nature allowed to act without being judged, and so leave results to shame and the Lord’s dishonor. Hence, we find among the Corinthians there were materials of which the Apostle speaks in tones of grave admonition. They have let in what was not unprofitable only but even corrupting: “wood, hay, and stubble.” Yea also there might be a power of defilement with the hand of destruction there. He who built what was worthless might be saved while his work perished, but the man who defiled, or destroyed, the house of God would himself be destroyed by the judgment of God. All this is where men are the builders. Thus, we see the two aspects justified. There is that in the assembly of God here below which is built of Christ, and so never fails, the stones of which are living, and in no case dead ones. On the other hand there is the bad workmanship, more or less careless service, as the case may be—either bad men doing what is according to themselves, or good men who are not in everything guided of God; and consequently there is an accretion of inferior material having no value for God which sullies His temple, and so far incurs the charge of confusion, disorder, and weakness. It is in the last point of view that we see the springs of the ruin which soon overspread the church. These perishable things, “wood, hay, and stubble,” mean, I think, ill-put or light doctrine generating persons akin. It might thus easily mean both; it is in the first instance doctrines palatable to the flesh, and therefore attractive to persons in a fleshly state, perhaps unconverted or natural men.
Church Fallen or in Ruins Not Unscriptural, but Repugnant to Some
Some no doubt think it a hard saying to speak of the church in ruins; but why so? There is no impeachment of God but only of man. God called Israel out of Egypt; yet Israel became a ruin. Why then should we wonder that the Gentile has not continued in His goodness? Compare Romans 11, where we may see how little the Apostle could be surprised at such an issue. The principle runs through every dealing of God with man. The creature always fails, but all turns to God’s glory. No doubt the church, like Israel, exists, but in a ruined state. Does not the Protestant own it when he thinks of Popery? the Romanist when he looks on Protestantism? Upright and spiritual men own it without reserve.
Insensibility to the Dishonor of the Lord
All these are but cases of a still more general truth. The first man fell and is fallen universally. But there is another great fact—the Second man is risen from the dead and has begun a new creation which will never perish or even fail. Thus, the same principle applies far and wide, as always; as far as we touch on the responsibility of man, we behold ruin and confusion. Everybody feels it; every godly intelligent person owns it, even though he might not be used to the expression, and so feel difficulty, fearing it might compromise the grace and faithfulness of God. Impossible to love Christ and the church without groaning. Doubtless I could easily name a well-known high church leader who as a pious man mourns over the present state of the church. I take him as occupying a zone ecclesiastically far removed from that of most of us here present. Yet as we cannot doubt of real godliness there, so also a heart that loves Christ and those that are Christ’s. Now it is impossible to have these divine affections of the new nature without feeling that the present state of things is contrary to Christ’s glory. I confess that I have incomparably more sympathy with the groaning of such a man than with others who trumpet the onward progress of Christianity in the nineteenth century and look for the triumphs of the millennium as the fruit of the church’s labors. How can one sympathize with such insensibility to the actual dishonor done to the Lord? It is really, though unconsciously, playing into the hands of Satan.
As to the comforting assurance through the prophet of the Holy Spirit being with the Jews as in the day when they were brought out of Egypt, we must remember that the power of Jehovah is in everything good wrought by the Spirit. He it is who always gave energy in man, whether in Israel or in the church, in man, creation, or anything else. The energy is always of the Spirit, and therefore he says, “Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith Jehovah; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith Jehovah, and work: for I am with you, saith Jehovah of hosts: according to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so My spirit remaineth among you” (vss. 4-5). It is not the Spirit given in the special power, still less the personal presence, vouchsafed when Christ went up to heaven and the church was being formed on earth; but according to the way in which He had wrought at first in Israel, so would He in grace even after the captivity in Babylon.
The Spirit Acts Suitably to God’s Work in Hand
This was not merely by Haggai speaking to them, but His gracious operation also in strengthening the remnant who needed the word of Jehovah. He was ready to bless them afresh; but of course, only in such a sort as suited the then dealings of God, that is, after a Jewish pattern and measure. The additional thing is not as some suppose the distinction in John 14, where the Lord speaks of the Spirit not only dwelling with them, but being “in them.” He was to dwell with them, instead of going away like Jesus; and He was to be not merely with but in them, after being given in the new way the Christian knows Him. So intimately does the Spirit of God identify Himself with all our matters according to Christ. Whatever privileges and powers were known of old, His personal presence was not and could not be, as the Lord lets us know, till He returned to heaven after His death and resurrection. Thenceforward it becomes to us a new power of fellowship with the Father and with His Son. There is also more of a heavenly character.
But the Spirit of God was with the Jews suitably to the earthly dispensation they had under the law, and in accordance with their being a nation in the flesh. With us He is and acts suitably to the glory of God in exalting Christ in heaven; and He is in us according to the efficacy of redemption. He could not be in us until all that was of us had been completely annulled before God. There is therefore that which is absolutely new, while a higher character attaches to what abides kindred to what they possessed of old. But as in John 14 there are two main elements of comfort—the presence of the Spirit and the coming of the Lord Jesus; so here we have the permanence of the action of the Spirit in the feeblest remnant of Israel, and then further the day of Jehovah, when their Savior God reveals Himself to His waiting people. “For thus saith Jehovah of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land” (vs. 6). The analogy is great throughout this prophecy from first to last with what we have now in Christ for heaven. “And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come” (vs. 7).
“The Desire of All Nations”
After mature consideration and research, I cannot doubt that this phrase, “the desire of all nations” (vs. 7), points to the Messiah. There are difficulties about it, so much so that a learned person in Convocation the other day denied its reference to anything of the sort. This seems to me more rash than wise. How often we betray the state of our own minds and hearts by our judgments of scripture! When in a low condition spiritually, without having God’s object before us, we are apt to prefer a more human and consequently more incorrect interpretation of God’s Word; we shall be satisfied with its lowest application, and use this to deny what is incomparably more important and full.
The truth is that the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, is the constant object of the Holy Spirit where He speaks of any object or office supremely excellent, no matter what its shape or nature. If it be a great priest, prophet, or king; if it be a Savior, conqueror, or judge, always the One whom the Holy Spirit contemplates from beginning to end is Christ; and it will be the same with our interpretation, where the Holy Spirit identifies our spiritual affections with Christ, and forms our minds according to God’s purposes and ways. Thus, in fact, the Spirit of Christ is characteristic of the Christian. Surely, he of all men ought to be the first to see this running through the written word. So among the apostles we find constantly in Paul—but indeed it belongs to the New Testament generally—this quickness of scent in the fear of the Lord, which sees Christ everywhere.
Why or How of All Nations?
I do not then stand on the ground that “the desire of all nations” (vs. 7) is generally accepted as the Messiah. Such has been the ancient and prevalent interpretation, though some, especially in modern times, have labored to throw doubt on it. English followers have caught up the cavils of German critics and repeated them, little knowing that most of these doubts have been expressed by Deists of a former day. Most of the skeptical theories of the land of Luther in the present day are the reproduction of what England cast out as a filthy rag in the seventeenth century. The English would not have it then; it got into Germany; and now it has come back again decorated with a goodly show of erudition after a new pattern, but only the old material after all.
It is a fair inquiry in what sense the Messiah could be the desire of all the nations or Gentiles. Not, it seems, that He must needs be said to be subjectively their desire; but objectively He is, and will be one day owned as, the precious treasure of all nations. For indeed, in the past or present, which of them have prized Him as they ought? He is not only the hope of Israel but will be the means of true riches and blessing to all other nations. There never can be the full happiness of the world till He comes. In itself I see no more difficulty in such a phrase than in the kindred expression said of the Jews in Malachi 3:1: “The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in.” They have both been far from feeling as became them the worth of Jesus. But the day hastens for both, however tremendous the dark hour which comes before it.
Peculiarity in Hebrew
As to the grammar, it is a peculiar phrase in the Hebrew, where the subject is a noun feminine singular, the predicate is a plural masculine. Some suppose what is called a zeugma with הַגּוִּים. But explain as we may the want of concord, neither the older nor the later Jews were deterred by the construction from supposing the Messiah intended. So R. Ahika (in Sanh. cap. הלק). Parkhurst and Lee take it similarly, as did Jerome of old in the Vulgate. If one puts it thus: “And the desire of all nations, they shall come,” the English reader may understand better the harshness involved. The Septuagint gives “the choice things of all the nations shall come,” which may remind us of its strange rendering of Genesis 49:10: ἔως ἒαν ἔλθη τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῆ καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν, “till there come the things stored up for him, and he [is the] expectation of nations.” It is nearly answered by Hengstenberg’s “the beauty of all the heathen,” if not by Ewald’s “loveliest of all people.” Some have taken it as “all the Gentiles shall come with their delightful things,” others as “come to,” and so forth, that is, Jerusalem; but I think we may well dismiss these as possessing little claim on general attention and as proving scarcely more than the difficulty of the construction. And as for the version “costly or precious things,” whether we take it, as would be most natural, for the Jewish temple from the heathen, or as others do as contributions to the church, I am surprised that any Christian should hesitate in judging that such a meaning cannot be the true one. Dr. Davidson is right enough in rejecting Stonard’s “they shall come to the desire of all nations,” and D. Kimchi’s “with the desire of all nations,” or even Henderson’s “the things desired by all the nations shall come,” that is, the blessings of the gospel.
Various Renderings Discussed
But Dr. D.’s own rendering, as often happens with critics, is not better founded than those he rejects, and results in a sense altogether beneath the requirements of the verse. “The right translation is (says he, iii. 316) the choice of all nations, that is, the noblest or best of them will come. All nations are represented as fearing God; but only the best of them as coming to do Him homage. Perhaps the LXX. too meant this.” Now it is true that the substantive is used frequently in a wholly different construction as a qualifying noun, and so as a virtual adjective for the sense. Hence it is often rendered in such instances “pleasant,” “goodly,” and so forth. But in a construction analogous to the one before us such a meaning as the choice, that is, noblest or best, is to set at naught Hebrew usage, and would give elsewhere, as I am bold to say here also, a sense foreign to and irreconcilable with the context. Thus 1 Samuel 9:20 means “all the desire of Israel.” “The choice” of Israel, that is, the noblest or best, is not at all the thought. This was far from being the fact as to Saul and all his father’s house. Again, Daniel 11:37, though of course Dr. D. adopts the notion of its being Astarte—still even so his version of the same construction in Haggai seems to me refuted by his view of Daniel. Surely all this violence done to language is not without instruction and shows that it is easier to find fault with the current version of a clause, no doubt peculiar, than to suggest a better.
Davidson’s Criticisms Unfounded
The truth is, as it may be well to add, that the Jews used a totally different word when they meant to say the choicest of any objects; and this Dr. D. knew; for immediately after he says, “We have a synonym to the noun desire in מִבְהַד־ (Isa. 22:7; Ex. 15:4). In this case also the construct state ceases to be an adjective-description of the latter substantive and requires another to make sense.” Now it is not correct to call this a synonym; for the true notion is choice, as in the former word it is desire. These are in no way interchangeable, even where both might apply to the same, which is not always possible. Thus, in Genesis 23:6, “in the desire of our sepulchers” would be nonsense or at least not the sense intended, but the choice or best; and so with every other occurrence in the Bible. Dr. D. is therefore as mistaken as he can be in such a case. If the reader compare Isaiah 22:7 with Zechariah 7:14, he will see that the idiomatic use of the one is the inverse of the other, one being literally “the choice of thy valleys,” the other “the land of desire” (Jer. 44:14); the construct state being thus reversed in the two phrases. Dr. D. therefore is premature in expecting that “books and sermons” will cease to identify the Messiah with the desire of all nations in this passage: certainly those who make them may be excused till weightier grounds take the place of bad Hebrew and as bad exegesis. On the whole, though the phrase is peculiar and may be vague, it appears to converge on the Messiah.
Illustration in Isaiah 11
A partial illustration might be found in Isaiah 11, where we have the Messiah described: “In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek” (Isa. 11:10; Hag. 2:10). Thus, the Gentiles will be then brought to the feet of Jesus. They will be, so to speak, clothed and sitting at the feet of the true King. The difficulty is freely granted. There appears to be a purposed want of precise terms; and we may gather from it that it is not necessarily subjective. Personal faith gives definitiveness to the object of trust. Christ is the one who really is so before God, and the one that will be made so before them by and by; for He is in sober truth, so to speak, the concentration of all that is good and precious. Thus, there is no difficulty to a spiritual mind about it. The difficulty is to scholars who want everything formally regular; and where this is not so, they seem not sorry to profit by the occasion to leave Christ out. Certainly, this is not the way of faith, which delights to trace Him even if for wise reasons veiled for a season.
Irregularities in Grammar Requisite for Rhetorical Purposes or Emphasis
Further, even when one departs from Christ to any of the alternatives, there is much violence done. Prepositions are either unwarrantably interpolated by the mind, or a very unworthy sense is extracted. Even so, the difficulty remains pretty much in the phrase itself, no matter how it may be rendered, the subject being singular and feminine and the predicate plural and masculine. Difficulty of explanation does not destroy the version, “the desire of all nations shall come” (vs. 7). Even though the construction look irregular, we may be sure that all is designed. All languages, including those of the classics, admit of anacolutha—none so much as the Greek of the Apocalypse; but we can often see the reason, and should learn to conclude that there is always a holy motive for them. I am persuaded that nothing else would give the force so well; but still that is the very circumstance which furnishes occasion for disputation. Where persons do not rest on Christ by faith, they will find abundance to perplex their minds: if they do not take advantage of it, they seem themselves carried away captive by a mere notion. That there is here a certain indeterminateness in the object of desire they have laid hold of in order to eliminate Christ from the passage. And this they think a feat of criticism and a consequence of superior discernment; whereas it only proves that they are out of the current of the Spirit’s testimony and have not an ear to hear.
The truth is that there is no security even in the most accurate and comprehensive scholarship without the teaching of the Spirit, if the subject-matter be the scriptures. Christian translators may often fail through ignorance of idiom; but a worldly scholar never can be trusted at all, spite of consummate linguistic skill, because of his necessary lack of still deeper qualifications. He knows not God and His Son and has not therefore the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the intelligence of the truth. He who singled out Haggai 2:7 is probably the most learned on the bench of English prelates. I do not doubt his abilities, learning, or honesty.
Nevertheless the prize at stake and imperiled for many by the temerity of such statements is too great to close one’s eyes and lips, when those who by their public position ought to be zealously defending the faith are really carrying on the tactics of unbelief with so much the more opportunity for mischief. Nor is it that he made any serious attempt to set the truth clear. The doubt, familiar enough in skeptical writings, was thrown out in a speech about the revision of the English Bible. Dr. T. was of course one of those who supported the motion for the revision of the Authorized Version, and this was a particular instance from the Old Testament adduced as an example of the necessity for an amended translation.
Interpolations Exist Though Rarely, As the Three Heavenly Witnesses
It is well known that there are passages printed as scripture which have no real title to be in the Bible, as the three heavenly witnesses, for instance, in 1 John 5. This also, I think, was then referred to; where every serious and unbiased student would agree with him, because it is only ignorant prejudice that accepts these verses. Men versed in the diplomatic evidence of the New Testament know that the same grounds which demand our reception of the apostolic prophetic writings in general compel us to reject those clauses as an interpolation. Besides, I am assured that internally they weaken the truth and do not help but hinder the effect of the full light on the capital truth of the Trinity. Testimony in heaven (to whom, and for what end?) is a strange doctrine. Again, the phraseology is unexampled in scripture; there is never such a correlation in it as “The Father and the Word.” When the “Father” is spoken of, we hear of “The Son,” if named in the same context; never of “The Father and the Word.” For this answers not to “Father” but to “God.” Wherever scripture treats of these terms, the true correlates are “God and the Word,” or “The Father and the Son” (Matt. 11:27); never, as in the spurious insertion, “The Father and the Word.” I am not reasoning now on mere à priori grounds; for if a passage comes with sufficient outward authority, whether understood or not, I hold myself bound to receive it. Where there is evidence that it was originally given and received as an inspired document on God’s authority, I receive it without dispute, question, or reasoning whatever. But in this case the fact is that the only Greek manuscripts known to support this particular portion are proved to be either forgeries or valueless from their want of antiquity. There is not one ancient Greek copy that contains the passage. Hence it was very properly left out in Luther’s translation of the Bible into German, as also in the first Greek Testaments edited by Erasmus. That it was subsequently brought in was mainly due to the clamor of Roman Catholics, who were naturally anxious to have it accredited in Greek, because the Latin Vulgate, with some Latin ecclesiastical witnesses, vouches for it; and especially since the Council of Trent pronounced the Latin version to be authentic scripture. Consequently, if we are compelled by truth to give it up, their authentic scripture is seriously wrong. Thus, Romanists have a palpable interest ecclesiastically in supporting it, whereas nobody else ought to have. But this a wholly different case and question from the one before us.
An Idiomatic Difficulty in Haggai 2:7, No Matter How Rendered
As to the seventh verse then of Haggai 2, it is admitted that there is an idiomatic difficulty for every rendering of the clause translated in our Bible— “the desire of all nations shall come” (vs. 7). The modern Jewish version, which is generally that of German rationalists, is no more literal than the usual Christian one. As I have already explained, there is a peculiarity independent of every version and inherent in all; but I believe that “the desire, or object of desire, of all the Gentiles,” is as literal and, what is of more moment, more true, as far better suiting the grandeur of the verse than that which some would force on us, “the precious things,” meaning the gold and silver, and so forth, which are distinctly named afterward. It must be borne in mind that the most literal version is not necessarily the most faithful or best, especially in such a case as this, where an irregularity occurs in the concord, no doubt for special emphasis. The Chaldee paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan, takes the sense apparently just as our English Bible. The Syriac is decidedly loose; the Arabic seems to give the sense much as the Septuagint.
We Understand by Faith
This is ever the case where there is an object before us different from the divine one: the true force of scripture is lost. The only way of receiving scripture is to receive simply as a child what God says and seek to understand it by faith; whereas if we are possessed by a theory, it warps the mind before we begin and we are sure to miss, if not to pervert, the Word of God. “I will shake all nations” (vs. 7). It is not here, be it observed, the preaching of the gospel to all the nations, nor anything of a church character of any kind. Hence the Lord’s first coming is not in question, but rather the prominent topic of prophecy, namely, the coming of Jehovah Messiah in His kingdom. Then He shakes all the nations, and not these only, but the earth and even the heavens. Nothing can be plainer than the sense and scope. He shakes the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. Now this is the very scripture that is referred to by Paul as unfulfilled in Hebrews 12— “Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (Heb. 12:26-27). Thus all can understand that Jehovah will fill the house with glory. Herod’s great porticoes in the outer court, and any offerings of gold and silver in his days, utterly fail to reach up to this promise, even if such accessories were not mentioned expressly and apart. That the temple before Christ ever approached that of Solomon in internal splendor, or anything but size, there is no reason to believe. Zerubbabel’s exceeded Solomon’s, and Herod’s was much greater than that of Zerubbabel.
Use in Hebrews 12 Points to Christ, As Also the Ground of a Superiority to Solomon’s Temple
Even the Jews however felt that, not to speak of its sumptuousness, “the former glory of this house” (Hag. 2:8) consisted in its possession of the Urim and Thummim, the ark, the tables written by God’s finger, and the visible glory. To say the Spirit is an oversight corrected by the express declaration of the prophet in the immediate context. Further, Aaron’s rod and the pot of manna disappeared from the ark. When Solomon’s temple was reared, they were not found; they characterize the wilderness state, not the reign of glory. But the law still abode in the ark, the rule of the kingdom as well before as when it came. What then could more than compensate for their actual deficiency in all these respects? All but one sense is excluded. The promise which enfolds all promises of blessing must be intended, whatever be the precise service preferred, or the solution, of the original phrase.
The Shaking Is When the Messiah Comes Again
Nothing then can be plainer than the necessary inferences. The Lord is coming and will then shake the universe, not merely the earthly part of it but the whole of it, including the heavens. This was not the case even in the chaos before Adam was created (Gen. 1:2). But, besides, He will shake all nations. It is not, therefore, what is called “the end of the world” (Matt. 13:39), by which is meant the dissolution of all before the judgment of the great white throne. For there are nations recognized as living still on earth, however shaken. “And the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith Jehovah of hosts” (vs. 7). Clearly therefore it is not the destruction of the universe. It is the dawn of the blessed time for which all creation groans but waits, and all nations then shall have the promised object of desire in whom they were to be blessed and are yet to trust (Gen. 3; Isa. 11). Then they will understand His preciousness. They as well as the Jews have despised Him, but He will then come, the concentration—yea, at once the giver and the attracter—of all that is desirable. “The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, saith Jehovah of hosts” (vs. 8). He draws out to God’s glory what people most of all value; but what of all that which is Jehovah’s and will then be felt to be so in comparison with the glory?
Verse 9, Faulty in the A. V. and Others, Right in the Greek, Arabic, the German of De Wette, &c.
Verse 9 seems however to be faultily given in many versions old as well as modern, and by our own among the rest. For the unity of Jehovah’s house is forgotten and destroyed, and of course the true point of comparison lost—another state of the same house at a later day when Jehovah should give peace in this place. The Greek version, as it is the oldest, so in this it seems to me the most correct; and the Arabic, as far as I can judge, supports it: so do some of the German critics as De Wette, Hitzig, Maurer, and Ewald. Ezra 3:12 determines nothing as to Haggai 2:9; though it be of great moral importance, there is no connection between the two scriptures. No one doubts the fact of two if not three houses; but the Spirit carefully identifies the house all through, as is plain in Haggai 2:3. Now here would have been no bad instance for those disposed to call for emendation. It is melancholy to think how often the same features reappear in criticism just as in morals: men doing what they ought not and omitting to do what they ought. In both respects they have erred as much as was possible. They have in fact robbed the passage of its brightest light and true power by denying Christ to verse 7; and they have failed to remove a blemish which obscures the beauty and connection of the argument in verse 9. Let them weigh Ezra 5:11-13, where, as Secker long ago observed, the house that was built, destroyed, and rebuilt, is treated as the same house. Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:4; it is “the temple of God” (Zech. 6:15) right through.
Invalidity of the Argument Founded on “The Second Temple”
Hence one may learn how precarious are many of the stock arguments addressed to Jews, built on the assumption that verse 9 teaches the coming of the Messiah before the destruction of the second temple. Daniel 9 goes far more precisely to a similar conclusion; but emphatically as this house is expressed, it is a mistake to lay stress on a second house, where we have seen the object is to carry on the idea of the house till it is filled with the glory of Jehovah after the second appearing of the Lord. Nor is there any force in straining “yet a little while” (vs. 6) to this end: for as is well-known, in the Old Testament as in the New, prophecy shows no real rest short of that day. Two thousand years seem long; but it will not be so when looked back on from the glory of God. And how can any sober-minded man really think that the shaking of the universe, or of all nations, agrees only with the first advent, even if we had not the application of Hebrews 12 to fix it to the second? No doubt the Jews themselves are as blamable as any for speaking so much of the second house and missing the point of the divine message; and their way of accounting for its superiority over the first (as e.g. its lasting a few years more; or owing to the visit of Alexander the Great, or because of Gentile gifts during the Asmonean times, or through Herod’s re-edifying) are truly pitiable. So too Abarbanel’s effort to escape by making out, by dint of changed punctuation and assuring emphasis, a third house for the Messiah to fill with a glory which shall exceed not only Zerubbabel’s but Solomon’s. It is evident that this is but a specious ingenuity, exaggerating into a third home the ordinary deduction of a second from verse 9, and wresting it thus exaggerated against the use to which Christians generally turn it.
“The Latter Glory of This House Shall Be Greater Than the Former”
The plain meaning then of verse 9 is that “The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, saith Jehovah of hosts; and in this place will I give peace, saith Jehovah of hosts.” The house of God has a unity in the mind of the Spirit, and this would be a signal comfort to every thoughtful Jew who might otherwise be dejected. It might be afterward pulled down and rebuilt, and after that burnt down, or turned to a wholly different use in the hands of the enemy; it will surely revert to the Jews once more, and once more be defiled as ill or worse than ever. But “this house” it abides in His mind, and He will own it as His house forever when He dwells in the midst of His people, redeemed and settled there, never more to depart from Him nor to be dispersed more.
The House Viewed as One and the Same
To me I confess, the thought of the house viewed as one and the same is not only different, but, as truth always is, a far nobler conception. Besides, it maintains much more the sense of moral responsibility, as well as the stability, among the Jews’ changes, of God’s purpose. “The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, saith Jehovah of hosts” (vs. 9). The ordinary rendering is not only feebler, but confusing; for it gives the notion that we now hear of one house, now of two; the true version makes verse 9 to harmonize completely with verse 3. The expression, “this house,” keeps up its oneness; and once we have taken in the connection we feel how incongruous, to say the least, it is to read, “The glory of this latter house” (vs. 9). The balance is forthwith restored when we hear the prophet say, “The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former...and in this place will I give peace” (vs. 9). It is the same house in God’s mind, as it is the same place. Let it be defiled, or even razed to its foundations and built again and again, still it preserves the character of unity the inspiring Spirit stamps on it. “And in this place will I give peace” (vs. 9). It will be so in that day. The nations will learn war no more. Every one then left of all the nations will come up to pay Him homage in that house of prayer for all nations, after He shall have shaken not the earth only but also the heavens. He made peace at His first coming, He will give peace at His second. For indeed we know Him meanwhile in heaven and know that He is our peace. Moreover, as Zechariah says, “He shall speak peace to the heathen and His dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth” (Zech. 9:10).
Christ Will Give in This Place and in That Day
There is scarce a more frequent or more delightful aspect of the kingdom than this universal peace which He the King, reigning in righteousness, will establish throughout the world till the end, when He shall deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father. There is an evident connection with Micah 5 which we have already discussed. “This man shall be the peace when the Assyrian shall come” (Mic. 5:5), where also we may see how Jehovah Messiah magnifies Himself in Jacob, and makes His people to be both as a lion to put down revolt without hope of escape, and as a dew of blessing and refreshing showers in the midst of many peoples. Truly He will be the desire of all the nations in that day.
The Holy Imparts No Holiness, the Defiled Communicates Defilement
Then comes another message (vss. 10-19), but here a moral instruction; and we are best able to judge of what is moral when we have the Lord Himself before us. This has been done as I believe in the preceding verses; another but wholesome admonition follows: “On the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of Jehovah by Haggai the prophet, saying, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy?” (vss. 10-12). Of course, the priests answered truly when they said “No.” He that is holy imparts no holiness to aught else. “Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?” (vs. 13). The answer was no less precise in the affirmative. He that is defiled communicates defilement. “And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before Me, saith Jehovah; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer thereon is unclean” (vss. 13-14). As with the unclean condition of a man, so the nation of Israel defiled whatever they took up. All works and offerings are unclean. There must be personal cleanness before one can act or offer aright.
Who can fail to see that this is most applicable to the present day? The common notion is that you can cleanse the world by going into it and by associating with it; instead of which you cannot fail to be defiled yourself. The direction to the Christian now is to purge himself from every vessel of dishonor, and to follow after righteousness and peace with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. There is no more salutary word for the Christian in the present confusion of Christendom. There we have every sort of snare and trial—both the negative and the positive. Negatively we are bound to separate from what is dishonoring to the Lord. Positively we are bound to follow after what is good, according to His will, with those who have His glory and will at heart. Isolation is wrong; but to separate from what is evil in the Lord’s sight is an imperative duty for the Christian—to separate in order to unite according to God’s Word with those that call on Him with a pure heart. The notion of this day that you can benefit or set to rights what is evil by association with it is not only a fallacy which must end in disappointment—if not in dragging you where you think not—but in itself the principle really is nothing less than a giving up of God. It is a practical abandonment of His holiness, and of our obligation to walk as Christ walked, under the plea of doing good. What more ruinous?
God’s Blessing on Fidelity to Himself
Along with this the prophet calls on them again to look at the ways of God. “And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of Jehovah: since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the press-fat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty. I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labors of your hands; yet ye turned not to Me, saith Jehovah. Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of Jehovah’s temple was laid, consider it. Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you” (vss. 15-19).
Now the Lord challenges them to see how faithful He will be to His own word. And did not the disciples find it thus of old? There cannot be a more marked fact than this—the blessing that God has given so far surpassing what their largest thoughts looked for. Some of us may have proved as much in God’s dealing with us spiritually. Enough, if we may refer to our own experience in a matter which after all is important both for ourselves and for others. The love of Christ alone gives whatever there may be of holy obedience, as indeed it alone is its spring and only full standard and rule in waiting for His return. To many it was simply a practical question of doing the will of God, and therefore a fixed duty of keeping clear of what dishonors the Lord; but who ever expected, as He has given since, the opening out of His Word, the recovery of forgotten truth, and the enjoyment of His presence, and the extended, if indirect, blessing of others far and wide through it? Can we not say that the Lord has surpassed all the expectations that we ever had, not only in His grace, but in rejection and reproach among men? Therefore, let us speak well of His name for both. The blessing has and will come beyond all our thoughts, if by grace we but cleave to the Lord with full purpose of heart. Just as to the returned Jews of old, the Lord here vouchsafes the promise, “From this day will I bless you” (vs. 19).
Character of the Kingdom
The last message comprises and amplifies the change of the heavens in its effect on the earth. It is not the church, but the kingdom when no longer in patience but in power and glory. “And again the word of Jehovah came unto Haggai on the four and twentieth day of the month, saying, Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth; and I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will 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. In that day, saith Jehovah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Jehovah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Jehovah of hosts” (vss. 20-23). The throne of David should be established by the gracious power of Jehovah on the judgment of the Gentile kingdoms. The figure of His special intimacy and choice looks onward to “that day.” Zerubbabel, though but governor, is clearly the type of Christ as King: as being David’s son and heir in his own day, it was the more natural that he should be. Messiah alone will fully set up and forever maintain, while earth endures, the kingdom of Jehovah here below; and this in the midst of the chosen people gathered back from captivity and dispersion. As heathen expected from the world that which was to be manifested in the church, so now Christendom expects from the church that which God reserves for Christ, and for Christ in relationship with Israel on earth as well as the church glorified on high. The revealed truth of the age to come embraces both the restoration of the kingdom to Israel on earth and the reigning of the saints above, changed indeed into the glorious likeness of the Lord, but none the less reigning with Him over the earth.