I have heard Tovia Singer say of this text that we are about to examine that it is the one which caused him great distress and trouble for many years, and rightly so—for it will be shown in a moment how much consternation this prophecy has been to the rabbis, who have been driven to such absurd explanations as one might justly suppose them to have been devised a person with a mental distemper! The words in question were spoken during the rebuilding of the temple upon the Jews’ return from their exile under the governorship of Zerubbabel, who led the initial work of reconstruction and restoration of the Jewish worship and political statehood. At that time, there were many still alive who had witnessed the glory and splendor of Solomon’s temple who grew sorrowful and discouraged upon seeing the reconstruction of the temple. “But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy.” (Ezra 3:12). The grounds of their sadness appears to have been their knowledge that the plan of Cyrus given to them in no way compared with what was done during the days of Solomon (Ezra 6:3). And it is on this occasion that the prophet Haggai speaks to them for the sake of their consolation; his words are these: “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? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work: for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts: According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord 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; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Haggai 2:3-9). The chief question which raises itself to any careful interpretation of Scripture is what is proposed in verse 9: in what way was the second temple greater than the first? In what did this superiority of glory most properly consist? By the following arguments and answers to Jewish objections, it will be manifest beyond any shadow of doubt or unbelief that it was the Messiah Himself which was to be the “desire of the nations”, and the glory of the temple that was then being built under Zerubbabel.
[1]. That this text is speaking of the second temple is obvious to any honest reader of holy Scripture. It is expressly denoted by Haggai’s determination for the words of his revelation. It is הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, “this house” (Hag. 2:3) with which he speaks, and not the imaginary third temple of the Jews (and dispensationalists), as Abarbanel argues. And again, the temple of which he speaks is הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן, “this latter house” (verse 9). We may rightly see Haggai as pointing to the second temple with his very finger, and enumerating the manner in which it was to supersede that of Solomon, and therefore answer the discouragements of the Israelites. And I know of none others but Abarbanel and Tovia Singer which wish to shoehorn their third temple into the prophet’s words, throwing out the authority of their Targums, which all say with us that it is the temple built by Zerubbabel which is intended here.
[2]. The Jews do interpret the “desire of the nations” to be precious gold, silver, and other such valuables brought by the heathen nations to the temple—which items are famously that which the Jews take much delight and complacence in, often at the expense of the poor and needy, as Christ says of the Pharisees in his day, who devoured widows’ houses. That such is the exposition of the Jews is seen from their own doctors and commentators. “And they will understand that My Shechinah rests in this House, and they will bring gifts of silver and gold.” (Rashi); “all who are shaken from their place will come with the desire of all the nations; that is, they will bring in their hands all precious things they find in their lands: vessels of silver and gold, garments, precious stones, and all desirable things useful for service, like vessels and appearance, not in riddles—those found in the House of God and its likenesses.” (David Kimchi);—However, it is obvious that this was not the intention of Haggai in any way, for 1st, the Septuagint does err in putting τὰ ἐκλεκτὰ here for חֶמְדַּת, so that the sense is “the choice things of the nations shall be brought.” The Latin Vulgate is much more accurate; et veniet desideratus cunctis gentibus— “he shall come who is desired of the nations.” חֶמְדָּה, being derived from חָמַד (“to desire, take pleasure in”), is used by the Holy Spirit to denote the desirableness not only of things and objects, but of particular persons. Hence Daniel is called חֲמוּדוֹת, “greatly beloved” (Dan. 9:23, cf. 10:11). And the word is also used for land or materials that were valued and prized by the ancients (Gen. 27:15; Isaiah 2:16; Amos 5:11; Jer. 3:19). It being said in verse 7 that this desire “shall come” (בָאוּ) makes it plain that an individual person is intended. Though the verb here is in the plural, while חֶמְדַּת is in the singular number, this does no harm whatsoever to the exposition provided, for it is a common occurrence in Hebrew grammar for a constructio ad sensum to be used in which the verb agrees with the genitive (in this case הַגּוֹיִם, “nations”) rather than the subject term (“desire”) in its number. “Joab saw that the front [פְּנֵי] of the battle [הַמִּלְחָמָה] was [הָיְתָה] against him before and behind” (2 Sam. 10:9). Here the verb הָיְתָה is obviously predicated of פְּנֵי, although it does not agree in number with it, but rather with הַמִּלְחָמָה, “the battle.” Similarly, in Job 15:20: “and the number [מִסְפַּר] of years [שָׁנִים] is hidden [נִצְפְּנוּ, Niphal - 3rd person plural] to the oppressor” The verb here agrees in its number to שָׁנִים, although מִסְפַּר is the proper grammatical subject, and is in the singular rather than the plural. An even more similar example, wherein the subject matter is the same, is Isaiah 60:5, “The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you.” [חֵיל גֹּויִם יָבֹאוּ לָךְ]. The verb follows the genitive rather than the nominative. Other examples are Hosea 6:5 and 1 Sam. 2:4. It is this thing which takes place in Hag. 2:7, and therefore the Jews do not have a leg to stand on. 2nd, The Lord says in the verse before “Mine are the silver and gold” (Hag. 2:8), so as if to say “Though this house that you now see lacks the ornaments and riches of the first temple built by Solomon, I will adorn this house with a glory far greater than the treasures and wealth of Solomon”, as God also says of the animals and livestock of the earth. “If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” (Psalm 50:12)
[3]. The glory of this second temple cannot consist in merely being a few cubits higher (Bava Batra 3b), or in lasting 10 years longer than the first temple (for the rabbinic chronology based on the Seder Olam teaches that the second temple lasted for 420 years, as we saw earlier). However, its condition in these last 10 years was one of leading to its ultimate destruction, wherein the Jews began their revolt against Rome, and their entire nation began to undergo much suffering and hardship. Therefore, I do not think this is the glory here promised. Nor can it be the length of a few cubits; even Tovia Singer has stated the insanity of such a solution, if that type of sophistry is even deserving of that title!
[4]. Nor can the glory here referred to be that enlarging of the temple and its mound which was done by Herod in the 18th year of his reign (20 BC), which Josephus describes in book 15 of the Antiquities. However many measurements or items of silver and gold may have been in this second temple to a greater degree than the first, does this give it greater glory than the first? I think not even the Jews would venture on such a conclusion. For their own masters say that there were five things missing in the second temple which were present in the first: the Ark of the Covenant, the Urim and Thummim, the divine presence of the Shekhinah, fire from heaven, and the Holy Spirit (Yoma 21b). Furthermore, the reign of Herod did not bring greater glory to the second temple than what it had in the days of Solomon. The high priests were thrust in and out by him, as one may see from the story of Aristobulus III (53-36 BC), Ananelus, or Simon of Boethus. I can hardly see how one may attribute an increase of glory to the temple and its worship during the Herodian period.
[5]. A further description of the manner in which the second temple is greater than first is given towards the end of verse 9: “and in this place will I give peace.” Now, this may be interpreted either as a spiritual peace or a temporal prosperity. There was not much peace at all during the Second Temple period, whether in the revolt of the Maccabeans, the civil wars of the Hasmoneans, or the turbulent reign of Herod. I therefore conclude that it is not a temporal blessing that is being spoken of here, nor can it refer to a third temple due to the reasons already given above. It is therefore a spiritual peace which is being denoted, “For He Himself is our peace, having made both one and having broken down the barrier of the partition of hostility.” (Eph. 2:14) In this manner Christ our Messiah brought true peace to all the nations, being the Prince of Peace Himself.
[6]. That temporal riches are not being spoken of is further evident from the comparison which is made to Solomon’s temple. For when were the nations so shook so as to bring a multitude of riches to the second temple, which were to exceed that of the first?
[7]. That which is promised directly to Zerubbabel in verses 21-22 is agreed upon by most interpreters to refer to the downfall of the Persian monarchy, as Rashi states along with Ibn Ezra. Therefore, Abarbanel’s pretense is vain, that these latter verses limit the time only to the immediate dates of Zerubbabel. This would furthermore destroy his own exposition, since he wishes to delay it by a few thousand years (as it has been at this day) to when the final temple will come.
And this entire exposition agrees well with what was spoken by Jeremiah, in his description of the restoration of the Jewish state and worship under Zerubbabel: “Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwellingplaces; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof. And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small. Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress them. And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the Lord. And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.” (Jeremiah 30:18-22). Though the Jews naturally would take the ruler and governor mentioned in verse 21, to be Zerubbabel himself, Targum Jonathan refers it to the King Messiah—and also Kimchi, saying “And when it says ‘from him, from his midst’, it is already known that the king Messiah will be from Israel. Rather, it comes to inform us that Israel will no longer have a ruler from the nations, as has been the case until now whenever they were in exile—and even when they were in the Land of Israel, at times they would still pay tribute to the kings of the nations. But he says that this will no longer be, for no foreign ruler shall rule over them, only one who is from them and from their own midst.”
From what has been spoken by both Haggai and Jeremiah, we conclude that the Messiah has already come, and it was while the Second Temple was still standing. And some of the more ancient of the Jews have at least implicitly admitted such a thing in their traditions, as may appear from hence:—
[1]. There is a tradition reported in the Jerusalem Talmud that the Messiah was born on the very day that the temple was destroyed. And the full portion is worth quoting: “Since Rebbi Yudan the son of Rebbi Aivu said, it happened to a Jew who was plowing in the valley of Arbel that his ox was bellowing. An Arab passed by and heard the bellowing of the ox. He said to him: Jew, Jew, unharness your ox, unharness your plow because the Temple was destroyed. The ox bellowed a second time. He said: Jew, Jew, harness your ox, fix your plow because King Messiah has been born. He said to him: What is his name? Menaḥem. He said to him: What is his father’s name? Ḥizqiah. He said to him: Where is he? He said to him: At the king’s palace in Bethlehem in Judea.” (Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 2:4).
[2]. The Talmud records that “The school of Eliyahu taught: Six thousand years is the duration of the world. Two thousand of the six thousand years are characterized by chaos; two thousand years are characterized by Torah, from the era of the Patriarchs until the end of the mishnaic period; and two thousand years are the period of the coming of the Messiah.” (Sanhedrin 97a), and the first sentence of the next folio (97b) reads וּבַעֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁרַבּוּ יָצְאוּ מֵהֶם מָה שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ; “That is the course that history was to take, but due to our many sins, the Messiah did not come after four thousand years passed, and furthermore, the years that elapsed since then, which were to have been the messianic era, have elapsed.” This is the explanation which the Jews constantly tell us when we ask why their Messiah has been delayed for so many centuries, and at the time of this present writing, more than 2,000 years from their viewpoint.
No comments:
Post a Comment