Chapter 2
Month 7, day 21, the word comes again. God asks the people if any of them saw the temple of Solomon before its destruction? There is this phrase:
4 Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, 5 according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. [Hag 2:4-5 ESV] Another prompt, another command. Things have improved. God is now with them, on their side, helping them to keep going. This is a huge contrast to the state of the leadership, the priesthood, and the people before the Babylonian conquest.
That next sentence needs some explanation. Is He talking here about going back to the original covenant as they left Egypt where He asked only that they be his people, before the Mosaic Laws were put into place? Or is He saying the Mosaic is once again in place? MSB does not make any distinction here. He refers back to 1445 BC and to Ex 33:14. He puts quotes around "when you came out of Egypt", as if he is referring back to a specific verse. The verse in Exodus says this:
14 And He said, "My presence shall go [with you,] and I will give you rest." [Exo 33:14 NASB] So this is not where the quotes come from. As I read it, the daily sacrifices in the new temple commenced in 516 BC, based on what Ezra says. So these verses in Haggai are well before that. The Mosaic was not in effect as the temple was rebuilt, indeed it could not be. They didn't even have a tent. So I would say that at this point, He is with them as He was the day they came out of Egypt, and before he required any sacrifices at all.
I did a search for the phrase "out of Egypt". There are 56 places that use the exact phrase. One of them is this verse:
10 There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets that Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the people of Israel, when they came out of Egypt. [2Ch 5:10 ESV] This would indicate that the covenant when they came out was what was on the two tablets, which was well before all the other laws and requirements of the whole Mosaic Law. I think. Maybe. This is not what I was looking for. There is a verse "somewhere" that says God's original covenant with Israel did not require sacrifices, but only a heart for God. Something along those lines. I am trying to make the case that it was this covenant - requiring only their hearts, not their sacrifices - that was about God's Spirit looking after them. But I may be making more of this than there really is.
This is important, because it seems to me that God negated the Mosaic Law when He gave the people to Babylon. He divorced them. The Mosaic Covenant was undone by the lack of adherence of the people. So to me, the promises God made under that covenant no longer stand. That is gone. BUT, the original covenant with them, that Moses offered them, that required only that they make Him their God, and He only promised to make them His people, that could still stand. Therefore, the sacrifices that will be made in this new temple, up until 70 AD, are more symbolic, are more memorial, than they are efficacious. Just as the sacrifices in Ezekiel's Temple during the end times will be, and during the Millennial. They will not need to make sacrifices to atone for sin. Jesus has died. But the sacrifices in the Millennial could still be a remembrance of the Mosaic Covenant. The only other way to look at it is to say that Jesus only died for Gentiles (this is sort of hyper-limited atonement) and the sacrifices must continue until Jesus Himself sits on the Millennial throne and judges the returned Jews (the dry bones animated) and forgives those - past and present - with hearts for God. But this is probably a well known blasphemy...
God tells them He is there according to the covenant made when they came out of Egypt. His Spirit is still there. (It seems to me though that He had abandoned His temple. It could not have been destroyed while He dwelled there. And it is His Spirit, upper case, that is there with them now. God can't be there, because he has no temple.
(Hmm....I didn't see one word in Jeremiah, Lamentations, or Ezekiel about the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible does not tell us what happened to it. I believe the next time we see it in the Bible is in Revelation 11:19...I think that's the next time:
19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. [Rev 11:19 ESV] This is following the 7th Trumpet, where all the kingdoms are given to Jesus. The ark that appears is in the temple in heaven. This is the heavenly counterpart to the ark on earth. They are not the same. So after digging deeper, I think the ark that was made in the desert is still missing, and we may never know what became of it. I never shows back up in the Bible. Where is the very last reference to it in the OT? Found these two last references to it:
3 And he said to the Levites who taught all Israel and who were holy to the LORD, "Put the holy ark in the house that Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, built. You need not carry it on your shoulders. Now serve the LORD your God and his people Israel. [2Ch 35:3 ESV] This is where the Ark was put into Solomon's temple, into the Holy of Holies. It is never moved again.
And then this last OT reference:
16 And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the LORD, they shall no more say, "The ark of the covenant of the LORD." It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. [Jer 3:16 ESV]
This verse is in reference to the Millennial kingdom. Jesus will Himself be dwelling on earth, and there will be no need of an ark. People won't even wonder about it in those days. I don't think it's coming back. We'll never see the one made in the desert. But we'll see the one it is modeled after.)
vs 6-9 speak of the end times. I believe this is so because in vs 6 God says "I will shake the heavens". Only God does this. This is often present when the end of time is in view. It says Israel will once again rise to a position of world power. And this verse:
9 The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.'" [Hag 2:9 ESV]
The last temple will be the best Temple. Ezekiel's? I think so. The one that comes down from heaven will be later still, after all is remade...but it could mean that one.
vs 10 is time-stamped. 24 day of 9th month, second year of Darius. So these prophecies are so far in chronological order. God makes a point with questions that Haggai relates to the priests about what is clean and unclean. God says the nation before Him is unclean, as is everything they touch with their hands. A hard thing to hear. But God goes on to say that now that they have laid the foundation of the temple, He is with them again, and He is blessing their land. And the "shortages" that have plagued them are over. Instead of "shortening" all their goods, He is making it bountiful. He is confirming that building His temple is what He wants them to do, and He is already blessing them for it. Contrasting the lazy years.
2020-MSB note says these two questions make two points. Ceremonial cleanness cannot be transferred by touch. Ceremonial uncleanness can be transferred by touch. The point was that the people had been doing the sacrifices, but since they were neglecting the rebuilding of the temple, the sacrifices had not been accepted. The people were "unclean" in that they neglected the Temple, and that uncleanness was transferred to their offerings. Bringing the offerings in the first place is a "good work". But that "good work" was not capable of making the sacrificer "clean", because of his sin in neglecting God's house while sprucing up his own. In other words, "sin is contagious, righteousness is not". This whole explanation is from the MSB. This speaks also to salvation in our time. No good works, no faithful ritual, no pilgrimage to Jerusalem, no matter how regular and devoted, can make us clean. Only Jesus blood can do that. Even if we are shot through with constant good works and church attendance, if we are "Sunday Christians", our works are made unclean by our impure hearts. God sets a very high standard. Possibly a FB post...but complicated. Better as a paper on the Website.
There is also a second prophecy, on this same day. This one is not what I expected. This one is directed to Zerubbabel, himself, and to him only. This is the last verse of Haggai:
23 On that day, declares the LORD of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the LORD, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the LORD of hosts." [Hag 2:23 ESV]
I think this verse tells us who the prince that will make sacrifices in Ezekiel's temple is. This will be the place of Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, as the rebuilding of the temple resumes. He is the government in Haggai's day, and he will be the "signet" - the seal, the actor of Jesus' rule, in that future temple. As Daniel's allocated place is already set, so is Zerubbabel's. This man is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than I have ever heard before. He is in the lineage of Jesus in Matt. 1:12, 13 and also in Luke 3:27. He is descended from David also, and qualified by birth to be a prince of Israel.
BUT, and ALSO, see the MSB note on this verse. Long and worth pasting in here at next opportunity! Here is that note:
On that day. The day of Messiah’s triumph (cf. Zech. 12–14). my servant. A distinctly Davidic and messianic title (cf. 2 Sam. 3:18; 1 Kings 11:34; Isa. 42:1–9; Ezek. 37:24–25). signet ring. The signet ring was a symbol of honor, authority, and power (cf. Song 8:6). It corresponded to a king’s scepter, which was used to seal letters and decrees (cf. 1 Kings 21:8; Est. 8:8; Dan. 6:17). Zerubbabel, as God’s signet ring, stands as the official representative of the Davidic dynasty and represents the resumption of the messianic line interrupted by the exile. Just as Pharaoh gave Joseph his signet ring and made him second in the kingdom (Gen. 41:41–43), so God will do for the Davidic line of kings. The pre-exilic signet of Jehoiachin was removed by God (Jer. 22:24) and renewed here in his grandson, Zerubbabel, who reestablished the Davidic line of kings, which would culminate in the millennial reign of Christ. See note on Ezra 2:2.
2020-I don't know if this means Zerubbabel will be resurrected literally to do this, or if it means his heir will be the bearer of the signet. Jesus will be King in the Millennial, but there will be a prince, spoken of in Ezekiel, who owns land, and who offers sacrifices. This prince can leave an inheritance for his children, but some restrictions. This Prince, I believe according to these verses, will be a sort of "restoration" of the royal line descended from David, just as Christ is descended from that line. Christ is both priest and King. Is this future prince both signet and priest?