Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 
3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 
Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library

Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the 
copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research 
and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright 
laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. 

Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License

Citation: Kessler, John. “Tradition, Continuity and Covenant in the Book of Haggai: An Alternative
Voice from Early Persian Yehud.” In Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in
the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd,
Pages 1-39. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies; 475. New York: T & T
Clark, 2008.

***** Begin Content ******


TYNDALE
UNIVERSITY

3377 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, ON
M2M 3S4

TEL: 416.226.6620
www.tyndale.ca

Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely
for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced
except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from
the copyright owner.

Kessler, John. “Tradition, Continuity and Covenant in the Book of Haggai: An Alternative
Voice from Early Persian Yehud.” In Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in
the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd,
Pages 1-39. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies; 475. New York: T & T
Clark, 2008.

[ Citation Page ] 




[ Page 1 ] 

Tradition, Continuity and Covenant
in the Book of Haggai: An Alternative Voice
from Early Persian Yehud

John Kessler

1. Introduction

In an article published in 1977, Peter. R. Ackroyd explored the dynamics
of the use of theological traditions in times of dramatic discontinuity—
moments when external circumstances call into question the tenability
of existing traditions, and the broader ideological foundations upon
which they rest.1 In it Ackroyd insightfully observes that “the doubts
which are raised by major or minor disruptions in life must affect the
attitudes of those who experience them and in turn have repercussions
upon the way in which they understand the traditions and upon the way
in which they express them.”2 Ackroyd then suggests that the primary
reaction to such breaches is to seek ways to overcome them and to find a
means of re-establishing an authentic sense of continuity. He then goes
on to illustrate ways in which individuals or communities have sought to
do just that, and how this has contributed to the formation of biblical
literature.3 Ackroyd pays special attention to the question of how, after a
major breach has occurred, the community may know for certain that it
indeed has been forgiven by the deity.4 He also discusses the matter of the

______________________________

	1. Peter R. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Rehabilitation and
Authentication,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. Douglas A.
Knight; London: SPCK, 1977), 215-34.

	2. Ibid., 215.

	3. In some ways Ackroyd is examining the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance,
a concept analyzed in much greater detail in Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956). Festinger, it should be noted,
studies modem sectarian prophecy, rather than biblical prophecy. Festinger’s meth-
odology was subsequently applied to biblical prophecy, however, with only limited
success, in Robert P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to
Failure in the Old Testament Prophets (London: SCM, 1979).

	4. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” 233.




[ Page ] 2

various competing claims to authentic continuity which may be advanced
by diverse groups after a major breach, such as that of 587 B.C.E.5
Especially insightful is Ackroyd’s observation that the use of traditional
language may often serve to obscure change. He comments, “It is clear
that the use of the same language in widely different periods—different
not only in time, but in political order and religious organization and
outlook—conceals the degree to which there in fact has been change.”6

	Although he does not specifically categorize the types of breaches he
discusses, Ackroyd’s examples appear to fall into two distinct categories:
(1) relational breaches, wherein the relationship between Yahweh and his
people has been disrupted by some fault, for example, a moral or cultic
failure (Ackroyd cites the violated oath in 1 Sam 14:37); and (2) more
external, historical disruptions where the words of the tradition, taken in
their basic sensus literalis, no longer correspond to the world as it has
come to exist (Ackroyd cites the retention of royal hopes and hyperbolic
vocabulary long after the monarchy has disappeared). Ackroyd’s article
constitutes an excellent introduction to the multifaceted way in which
communities and their religious traditions must respond to change, as
well as representing an interesting entrée to a distinctive aspect of the
use of tradition in Haggai.

	It has long been recognized that the book of Haggai offers us an
excellent illustration of the creative reformulation of tradition in a time
of national crisis, specifically for the kind of “restorative” purpose noted
by Ackroyd. The radically changed circumstances of early Persian
Yehud—circumstances which were frequently at great variance with
those reflected in the older traditions—constituted just the kind of breach
Ackroyd discusses in his article. Both the community’s sense of connec-
tion to Yahweh and the external circumstances in which it found itself
threatened to undermine its own sense of identity and the validity of its
earlier religious traditions. Many of the excellent commentaries on
Haggai that have appeared over the last twenty years,7 as well as several

______________________________

	5. Ibid., 226-34.

	6. Ibid., 229.

	7. Samuel Amsler, André Lacoque, and René Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie
1-8, Zacharie 9-14, Malachi (CAT 11/C; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988); Michael
H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Carol
L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB; Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1987); David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL; London:
SCM Press, 1985); Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary (trans. Margaret
Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988); Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and
Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).




[ Page ] 3

shorter studies,8 have devoted significant attention to the various tradi-
tions present in Haggai. The use of tradition was also a central feature
of my own monograph and several articles on Haggai, where special
attention was paid to the general rhetorical, hermeneutical, and ideologi-
cal stamp with which traditional materials are used in the book.9 This
approach was also employed by Janet Tollington,10 who also included
Zech 1-8 in her purview, and it continues to be a subject of interest to
scholars.11 It would not be an overstatement to say that most scholars
would concur that the book of Haggai is a text saturated with earlier
traditions, selectively used, hermeneutically reconfigured, and rhetori-
cally shaped, wherein continuity is established with the past, and hope
evoked for the future.

	There is, however, one aspect of the use of tradition in Haggai which I
feel bears further reflection. As noted above, the destructions and depor-
tations of 587 constituted breaches of the highest magnitude in Israel’s
historical experience and theological expression. However, when closely
examined, Haggai and Zech 1-8 appear to take subtle but markedly
different approaches to the question of the current status of the relation-
ship between Yahweh and the nascent community at Jerusalem, as well
as regarding the ongoing significance each attributes to the destructions
and dispersions of 587.12

______________________________

	8. See the brief but useful survey of the traditions in Haggai in Rex A. Mason,
Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutic After the Exile (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), 185-95.

	9. John Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian
Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002); idem, “Building the Second Temple: Ques-
tions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1-15,” JSOT 27 (2002): 243-56; idem,
“Haggai, Zerubbabel, and the Political Status of Yehud: The Signet Ring in Haggai
2:23,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed.
Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak; LHBOTS 427; New York: T&T Clark Inter-
national, 2006), 102-19; idem, “'t (le temps) en Aggée I 2-4: Conflit théologique ou
‘sagesse mondaine’?,” VT 48 (1998): 555-59.

	10. Janet A. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8
(JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).

	11. See recently Willie Wessels, “Bridging the Gap: Haggai’s Use of Tradition to
Secure the Future,” OTE 18 (2005): 426-43. Wessels’s study draws upon much of
the recent scholarship on the use of tradition in Haggai and provides a survey of how
temple, exodus/covenant and royal theological traditions form continuity themes in
Haggai, and constitute much of the motivational foundation of Haggai’s preaching.

	12. I am not persuaded, despite several recent proposals, notably that of Meyers
and Meyers, that Haggai and Zech 1-8 constitute a single literary unit. For a
preliminary defense of the integrity of Haggai as a literary, textual unit, see Kessler,
Book of Haggai, 56-57. Recently, Boda has also inveighed against a conflated




[ Page ] 4

	The perspective evidenced in Zech 1-8 clearly identifies these events
as the starting point for the community’s theological reflection in the
present moment.13 This is evident from Zechariah’s opening salvo to his
hearers:

	The Lord was very angry with your ancestors. Therefore say to them,
	Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I
	will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. Do not be like your ancestors,
	to whom the former prophets proclaimed, “Thus says the Lord of hosts,
	Return from your evil ways and your evil deeds.” But they did not hear or
	heed me, says the Lord. Your ancestors, where are they? And the proph-
	ets, do they live forever? But my words and my statutes, which I com-
	manded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your ancestors?
	So they repented and said, “The Lord of hosts has dealt with us according
	to our ways and our deeds, just as he planned to do.” (Zech 1:3-6 NSRV)

It is clear from this passage that for Zechariah the events of 587 consti-
tute a decisive and determining moment in the relationship between Yah-
weh and his people, and all future theological reflection must proceed
from it and be done in light of it. The book begins with the anger (qatsaph)
of Yahweh against the ancestors.14 The people are then immediately
called to return (shuv) to Yahweh and to differentiate themselves from
their forebears who refused to heed (shama veqol) or hear (qashav) the word of
Yahweh and as a result were overtaken (nasag) by the judgments of
Yahweh uttered by the prophets, and enacted in the disastrous upheavals
of the early sixth century. Even the prophets who uttered these judgments
are no more and are set off as “former prophets” (ha-nevi-im ha-rishonim, Zech
1:4; 7:7, 12). Similar sentiments are expressed in Zech 7:7-14 and 8:14.
This state of anger and alienation is alleviated in Zech 1:6b where the

______________________________

reading of the two texts (Mark J. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential
Prophet?,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the
Persian Period [ed. Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking; Studies in Theology and
Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003], 49-69). This is a matter I intend to
pursue more fully in a future study.

	13. It is beyond the scope of the present study to discuss the redactional/literary
history of Zech 1-8. However I am in agreement with Boda who asserts that the final
shaping of the prose sections or redactional frame (Zech 1:1-6 and 7:1-8:23)
represents the latest stage of the book’s formation and is meant to establish the
hermeneutical orientation through which the night visions are understood (Boda,
“Zechariah: Master Mason,” 55).

	14. In the interests of brevity I will not explore the traditional rooting and
significance of these various terms here. For a helpful summary, especially with
reference to the affinity of this section with the prose sermons of Jeremiah, see ibid.,
55-59.




[ Page ] 5

people repent (shuv) and acknowledge that Yahweh’s judgments have
indeed come upon them.15 As Boda has noted, such a confession is rooted
in two key aspects of penitential prayer, especially as evidenced in Neh
9: (1) the solidarity between generations so that the unresolved anger of
Yahweh toward an earlier generation can be laid to rest through the
repentance of a later one; and (2) the community’s acknowledgment of
the justness of Yahweh’s judgments as a foundational act of repentance.16
The community thus repents, and while no explicit statement is made,
one must assume that this repentance, in line with Yahweh’s call and
promise in Zech 1:3, was accepted. This then sets the stage for the
visionary-oracular complex in Zech 1:7-6:15.17 It bears mentioning,
however, that the calamities of 597-587 continue to play a significant
role in that section via the themes of the desolation and depopulation of
Jerusalem (1:7-17; 2:5-9 [Eng. 2:1-5]), the ease of the nations who
scattered the people of Yahweh and Yahweh’s coming judgment upon
them (1:18-21; 6:1-8), the need for God’s people to flee Babylon (2:10—
15 [Eng. 2:6-12]), the need for a reconstructed and purified temple and
priesthood, including the many challenges involved in that endeavor
(3:1-10; 4:1-14), and the form of leadership in the new era (6:9-15).
The prose conclusion in 7:1-8:23, furthermore, reiterates the theme of
the ancestors’ sins and their appalling consequences. As in 1:1-6, these
failures are evoked in 7:7-14 and 8:13-15 as a reminder to the commu-
nity of the horrendous cost of neglecting Yahweh’s words through his
messengers the prophets (7:8-14). As well, the desolation of the land and
longing for its future repopulation occupy an important place (7:7, 14).
In sum, in Zech 1-8 the destructions and dispersions of the early sixth
century loom exceedingly large, both on the level of the relational break-
down between Yahweh and his people, as well as in the realm of the
historical and material manifestations of that breakdown.

	But what of the book of Haggai? Does it share the perspective of Zech
1-8, a perspective also in evidence in Ezra 9, Neh 9, and Pss 79 and 106?
What role do the destructions and deportations of 597-587, the existence
of a large Diaspora,18 and the realities of a destroyed and defiled temple

______________________________

	15. There is significant debate as to the identity of the subject of shuv. Is it Zecha-
riah’s contemporaries or an earlier generation? Furthermore, what is the precise
nature of this returning/repentance. With Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah
1-8, 96-97) and Boda (“Zechariah: Master Mason,” 55-59) I view it as the response
of Zechariah’s contemporaries.

	16. On this, see Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason,” 61-69.

	17. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 134-35.

	18. On the geographic distribution and settlements of the inhabitants of the
former Southern Kingdom and of their descendants in the late sixth century, see




[ Page ] 6

play in the book?19 Coggins has correctly pointed out that there is little in
Haggai that directly points to the notion of an exile or return and of a
new beginning after the exile.20 What is the reason for this perspective?
Similarly, questions arise concerning the status of the Sinai covenant in
Haggai. Petersen suggests that the misfortunes experienced by the com-
munity (Hag 1:3-11) constituted judgments visited upon it as a result of
both the destructions of 587 and the neglect of the temple’s reconstruc-
tion in the restoration period.21 Beuken has suggested that the covenant
was ruptured in 587, and that this state continued until the covenant was
renewed in Hag 1:12-15.22 Petersen views the covenant as having been
“abrogated” by the restoration community’s neglect of its reconstruc-
tion.23 By contrast, several commentators take the use of covenantal curse
language in 1:2-11 as implying that the covenant was indeed still func-
tioning at some level.24 How does the book of Haggai view the earlier
covenant and its current status? Furthermore, how does Haggai view and
use the community’s earlier history? Is the people’s “dubious past” used
as a means of enjoining piety in the future? As we have seen, Zech 1:1-6

______________________________

John Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power, Identity and Ethnicity in Achaem-
enid Yehud,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits
and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 91-121.

	19. Following Norbert Lohfink (“Die Gattung der ‘Historischen Kurzgeschichte’
in den letzten Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils,” ZAW 90
[1978]: 319-47), Petersen characterizes Haggai as a historische Kurzgeschichte or
“brief apologetic historical narrative” (Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 32-36). Floyd
views it as a “prophetic history,” stressing that the book constantly oscillates
between the perspectives and insights of both the prophet and the narrator (Floyd,
Minor Prophets, Part 2, 258-62). I have argued for the term “dramatized prophetic
compilation,” stressing that an editor has taken various prophetic discourses and
organized them into a loose narrative with a specific polemical purpose. For fuller
discussion, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 243-46.

	20. Richard J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT,
1987), 30.

	21. Petersen states, “Israel is living an existence that is doubly cursed. By failing
to restore its cultic center, the people still suffer the effects of the curses engendered
in 587 B.C.E., and they are also already suffering under a new curse because they had
not acted wisely in response to the possibilities for restoration open to them through
the Persian government” (Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 54). As I will argue
below, I find it difficult to see how the logic of the argument in 1:3-11 can be related
to the failures of an earlier generation.

	22. Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharja 1-8: Studien zur Überlieferungs-
geschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967),
42-46.

	23. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 50, esp. n. 21.

	24. E.g. Amsler, in Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8, 24.




[ Page ] 7

begins with an explicit invitation to the community to differentiate and
dissociate itself from the attitudes and choices of earlier generations. A
similar outlook may be found in the other Persian-period texts noted
above. However, is this the case in Haggai? Does not the book demon-
strate a general orientation toward continuity with the past25 rather than
a call to break with it? In that which follows, I will present an analysis
of the text that seeks to demonstrate that the book of Haggai reflects
a distinctive perspective within the pastiche of Yahwistic theological
reflection in the Persian period, specifically one that does not view the
catastrophe of 587 as the touchstone for all discussion of the relationship
between Yahweh and the community, but which in many ways mini-
mizes it.

2. Prolegomena

Before proceeding to the text, a few introductory comments are in order.
First, I take the dates in Haggai as legitimate indicators of the approxi-
mate time of the delivery of his oracles,26 and I assume the final redaction

______________________________

	25. This was a theme of particular interest to Peter R. Ackroyd, and can be found
in several of his works: Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the
Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968); idem, “The Temple
Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup
22; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 166-81; idem, “Faith and its Reformulation in the Post-
exilic Period: Sources,” TD 27 (1979): 323-34; idem, “Faith and its Reformulation
in the Post-exilic Period: Prophetic Material,” TD 27 (1979): 335-46.

	26. Despite Ackroyd’s earlier suggestions (“Studies in the Book of Haggai,” JJS
2 [1951]: 163-76) that the dates may have been added to the oracles approximately
one hundred years after the latter were delivered, the relative authenticity of the
dates in Haggai is now accepted by the majority of scholars (e.g. Beuken, Mason,
Petersen, Meyers and Meyers, and Redditt). Ackroyd later seemed to attenuate his
position stating, “If the dates were obviously schematic, it would be natural to
suppose them invented to provide a specific emphasis. But there are no clear indica-
tions of such deliberation; the dates themselves are sufficiently haphazard for a
majority of scholars to accept them without question” (Peter R. Ackroyd, “Problems
in the Handling of Biblical and Related Sources in the Achaemenid Period,” in
Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory [ed. Amélie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-
Weerdenburg; Leiden: Niederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1988], 42). For
a detailed treatment of the form and function of the dates in Haggai, together with a
discussion of the emergence of precision in dating techniques in the sixth-century
dates, as well as relevant bibliography, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 41-51. For a
recent critical re-appraisal, calling into question the validity of the dates in Haggai
and Zech 1-8, cf. Diana Edelman, The Origins of the “Second” Temple: Persian
Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (Bible World; London: Equinox,
2005), 80-150.




[ Page ] 8

to have occurred shortly thereafter.27 Thus, I believe it to be legitimate to
examine the book of Haggai with reference to the way the prophet and
his editor(s)/redactor(s)28 used tradition29 in responding to the existential

______________________________

	27. At the present time the scholarly consensus favors a late sixth- to early fifth-
century redaction. See among many others Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8,37-
38; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, xliv-lxxii; Tollington, Tradition
and Innovation, 1-41. The major proponents of a later redaction (mid- to late fifth
century, and beyond) are Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 331-35; Coggins, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, 31; and Arnaud Sérandour, “Zacharie et les autorités de son
temps,” in Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche Orient (ed. André Lemaire; LD; Paris:
Cerf, 2001), 259-98; idem, “Les récits bibliques de la construction du second tem-
ple: leurs enjeux,” Transeu 11 (1996): 9-32; idem, “Réflexions à propos d’un livre
récent sur Aggée-Zacharie 1-8,” Transeu 10 (1995): 75-84.

	28. Despite the earlier work of Beuken and Mason, it has become increasingly
common to abandon the attempt to disentangle the perspective of Haggai from that
of his editor(s)/redactor(s). Floyd has carefully examined the relationship between
source and redactional material in Haggai and concludes that “the kind of analysis
that seeks to distinguish redactional material from source material... should be aban-
doned, along with the historical speculation that has often been based on this
practice” (Michael H. Floyd, “The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of
Redaction in Haggai,” VT 45 [1995]: 470-90 [esp. 473]). Floyd similarly points out
that in Haggai there is a constant fluctuation between the perspective of the prophet
and that of the narrator, thus enabling the book to be read as “an integral whole”
(Minor Prophets, 159-60). See also my arguments in the same vein rooted in the
lack of discontinuity between the oracles and framework, as well as the elements of
continuity between the two (Kessler, Book of Haggai, 53-55).

	29. On the use of religious traditions and the traditionsgeschichtliche method of
analysis, see Douglas A. Knight, “Tradition History,” ABD 6:633-38. Of special
importance is Odil Hannes Steck, “Theological Streams of Tradition,” in Tradition
and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. Douglas A. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977), 183-214. Steck’s article is unequalled in its examination of the nature of
traditionsgeschitliche investigation and it relationship to Überlieferungsgeschichte
and to form criticism. It is similarly profoundly insightful in its analysis of what
constitutes a religious tradition and how traditions are used in both the composition
of the biblical literature and in prophetic preaching.
	In Haggai, as elsewhere, tradition is a critical element in prophetic preaching. As
Blenkinsopp observes, “This appeal to tradition, mediated or filtered through intense
personal experience and brought to bear on the interpretation of contemporary events
is of course a crucial aspect of the complex phenomenon of prophecy” (Joseph
Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel [2d ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/
John Knox, 1996], 136). In point of fact, prophetic proclamation relies heavily on a
shared geistige Welt between speaker and hearer. On this see further the comments
in Steck, “Theological Streams of Tradition,” esp. 187, 190, and 192. There Steck
refers to this shared intellectual world, consisting of traditional Vorstellungen (con-
ceptions and notions) using words such as “antecedent intellectual world,” “antece-
dent material,” and “accepted prior notions and patterns.” Tollington, with reference




[ Page ] 9

crisis of the Early Persian Yehudite community. Second, while it would
be impossible to determine with absolute certainty specifically which
traditions were known to this community,30 it seems entirely legitimate to
view the following motifs as representing some of the key constituents of
the traditio-religious landscape of Early Persian Yehud: (1) Zion Theol-
ogy with its close relative, Jerusalem Royal Theology, which would
have included concepts regarding the Day of Yahweh, and Holy War;
(2) Deuteronomism, which by this period would have included the tradi-
tions of the Exodus and Conquest; (3) wisdom traditions; (4) Priestly
Theology, as manifested in portions of Exodus, Numbers, and especially
Leviticus and Ezekiel; (5) disparate prophetic traditions from the monar-
chic period, whatever their state of fixedness.31 Third, as noted above, I
believe it more methodologically sound to consider Haggai and Zech 1-8
as related yet discrete literary units and to consider matters of theme,
literary structure, and redactional history in the two books independently.
Fourth, I maintain that Haggai was completed in the late sixth century,
around the time of the dedication of the temple, but that Zech 1-8 experi-
enced a slightly longer period of literary development.32 Thus Haggai
may reflect an earlier perspective among the Yehudite community than
Zech 1-8.

3. Haggai 1:1-2

The book’s opening (vv. 1-2), consisting of a date formula, a Worter-
eignisformel (henceforth Word-Event Formula), and a brief prophetic
oracle citing the words of the community immediately sets up a series of

______________________________

to Haggai and Zechariah, similarly affirms that “in order to gain prophetic credibility
[Haggai and Zechariah] drew on the long-established religious traditions of the
people, as did their pre-exilic predecessors, to reinforce their authenticity” (Tradition
and Innovation, 76).

	30. For a highly insightful, diachronic and avowedly preliminary attempt, see
Steck, “Theological Streams of Tradition,” 183-214.

	31. On the formation of the prophetic books representing the prophets of the
monarchic period, see Ehud Ben Zvi, “Introduction: Writings, Speeches, and the
Prophetic Books: Setting an Agenda,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient
Near Eastern Prophecy (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd; SBLSymS 10;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 1-29; and Martti Nissinen, “How
Prophecy Became Literature,” SJOT 10 (2005): 154-72.

	32. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 31-57. Cf. Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier,
Aggée--Zacharie 18, 63 ; Albert Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un pro-
gramme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l'exil (EBib; Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre and J. Gabalda; Louvain: Editions Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1969), 440.




[ Page ] 10

continuity features at a variety of levels. As Floyd notes, unlike many
superscriptions to prophetic books, 1:1-2 forms a complete sentence
integrating the date formula with the elements that follow.33 From the
very outset, then, the redactor weaves together the date and setting, the
cast of characters, and the initial dramatic conflict and sets them before
the readers/hearers. This introduction immediately establishes continuity
between the present and past on several levels. First, the use of the date
and Word-Event Formula, as well as Haggai’s name and his designation
as a prophet (navi) establishes the text’s genre as a prophetic book and
suggests to the readers/hearers that it be approached with a reading
strategy appropriate to such texts.34 Furthermore it implies that Haggai
should be seen as having a place among a broader corpus of such works,
many of which recounted the activities of prophets active in the past, and
that Haggai be construed as one in a long series of intermediaries
through whom Yahweh has spoken to his people.35 Thus consistent with
many of the books in the prophetic corpus, we begin with Yahweh who
speaks his word into a specific situation via a specific, named individual
(cf. Jer 1:1-2; Ezek 1:1-3; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Zech
1:1). Second, it is especially noteworthy that the Word-Event Formula is
dated, not by the regnal year of a Yehudite ruler, but by that of a non-
Israelite, imperial monarch. While on one level this conforms to general
scribal practice in the West during the Babylonian and Persian periods,36
there is surely a bit of redactional slight of hand at work. Through the
inclusion of the title of king (melekh) in the date formula, the redactor
avoids creating an anomaly vis-à-vis the prophetic books set in earlier

______________________________

	33. Floyd, “The Nature of the Narrative,” 476.

	34. On the genre of the prophetic book, see the insightful discussions of Ehud
Ben Zvi, “Introduction,” 1-29, and idem, “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of
Prophetic Literature,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First
Century (ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003), 276-97; see also Nissinen, “How Prophecy Became Literature.”

	35. This is likely the sense of “through” (beyad) in Haggai, reading the beth as a beth
instrumentalis. On the broader discussion of the alternation between beyad and al in
Haggai, cf. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 116-17.

	36. On this see ibid., 359-66; John Kessler, “The Second Year of Darius and the
Prophet Haggai,” Transeu 5 (1992): 63-84; André Lemaire, “Les formules de data-
tion dans Ezéchiel à la lumière de données épigraphiques,” in Ezekiel and His Book:
Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (ed. Johan Lust; Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1986), 359-66; idem, “Les formules de datation en Pales-
tine au premier millénaire avant J.-C.,” in Proche-Orient Ancien: Temps vécu, temps
pensé (ed. Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Hélène Lozachmeur; Antiquités
Sémitiques 3; Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1998), 53-82; Reuven Yaron, “The Schema of
the Aramaic Legal Documents,” JJS 2 (1957): 33-61.




[ Page ] 11

periods. Like the majority of prophetic texts, Haggai is at work in a
community ruled by a king.37 It is noteworthy that the descriptor “Darius
the King” includes “king” but excludes any qualification indicating his
nationality or kingdom. This stands in contrast to the more common
inclusion of such qualifiers with reference to non-Israelite kings,38 or the
exclusion of the title “king” altogether.39 The hearer/reader is virtually
invited to skip over the issue of foreign domination and somehow see the
situation as analogous to earlier periods of the people’s history.40 This
kind of “theological fiction” wherein the present, although radically dif-
ferent, is seen as standing in unbroken continuity with the past, will
appear many times in the book and constitutes an example of Ackroyd’s
suggestion of traditional language having the effect of obscuring the
degree to which the contemporary situation differed from the world in
which the tradition originally functioned.41

	The text’s orientation toward continuity continues with the intro-
duction of Zerubbabel, which follows immediately. Here Zerubbabel is
clearly identified as a Davidide via the inclusion of his patronymic42 yet

______________________________

	37. As is well known, the institution of the monarchy was frequently the context
in which prophecy flourished, and the literature on this is vast. See, e.g., the essays
in André Lemaire, ed., Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche Orient (LD; Paris: Cerf,
2001).

	38. Cf. Cyrus the King of Persia (koresh melekh paras, 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:1);
Sennacherib, King of Assyria (sancheriv melekh ashsur, 2 Kgs 18:13); Nebuchadnezzar,
King of Babylon (nevukhadnetsar melekh bavel, 2 Kgs 5:8).

	39. Zech 1:1 and 1:7 omit melekh while 7:1 includes it. This constitutes an addi-
tional correspondence between the date formulae in Hag 1:1 and Zech 7:1 to those
already noted by Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. 381). Note too the
absence of melekh in Hag 2:10.

	40. With Ben Zvi, I would assert that literary production in Yehud involved the
creation of literary pieces (and/or revision and redaction of earlier works) which
were intended to be read in light of one another, despite the distinctive emphases of
each text. Thus the rhetorical continuity between Haggai and other prophetic texts
set in the monarchic period would not likely be missed (Ehud Ben Zvi, “Beginning
to Address the Question: Why Were Prophetic Books Produced and ‘Consumed’ in
Ancient Yehud?” in Historie og konstruktion: Festschrift Niels Peter Lemche [ed.
Mogens Müller and Thomas L. Thompson; FBE 14; Copenhagen: Kobenhavens
Universetet, 2005], 30-41; Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book,” esp. 280-84).

	41. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” 229.

	42. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8. 30; Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja
1-8, 9-14, Malachi (KAT 13/4; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1976), 32; Wolff, Haggai,
32-33. On the questions surrounding Zerubbabel’s genealogy, see Sara Japhet,
“Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Reli-
gious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 66-98; idem, “Sheshbazzar




[ Page ] 12

attributed only the role of governor (pechah) of Yehud.43 Once again the
anomaly of Judah’s domination by a foreign power and Zerubbabel’s
humble status are deftly camouflaged by their inclusion in a somewhat
stereotypical introductory formula. This is not to suggest that the dis-
continuity between tradition and reality of Yehud’s political status quo
posed no problem for the book’s framers. Such matters would be taken
up in 2:20-23. However here at the book’s outset, an insistence on
continuity was of primary importance.

	Next Joshua, the high priest, is introduced.44 He is of Zadokite stock
(2 Kgs 25:18; 1 Chr 5:40-41 [Eng. 6:14-15]) and likely born in exile.45
The introduction of a legitimate priestly figure strengthens the hearers/
readers sense of continuity—Yahweh had preserved both the Davidic
and Zadokite lines in exile, and both would be involved in the temple’s
reconstruction.46 The symmetrical fashion wherein each member of the
book’s principal characters is introduced by name and title thus creates
the image of an ordered and structured society in which each member has
an assigned role and a part to play.

	The final member of the text’s cast of characters, “this people” (ha-am 
ha-zeh), is introduced in 1:2, where their words are quoted. Despite the
objections of scholars who find the citation of the people’s words to be

______________________________

and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies
of Ezra-Nehemiah, Part II,” ZAW 96 (1984): 218-29.

	43. Taking the term pechah to refer to an imperially appointed governor of an
independent province. See André Lemaire, “Histoire et Administration de la
Palestine à l’époque perse,” in La Palestine à l'epoque perse (ed. Ernest-Marie
Laperrousaz and André Lemaire; Paris: Cerf, 1994), 11-53. For an alternative view
cf. Francesco Bianchi, “Le rôle de Zorobabel et la dynastie davidique en Judée du
VIe siècle au IIe siècle av. J.-C.,” Transeu 7 (1994): 153-65; P. Sacci, “L’esilio e la
fine della monarchia davidica,” Hen 11 (1989): 131-48.

	44. For a discussion of the neologism “high priest” (ha-cohen ha-gadol), see Amsler,
Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8, 79-80; Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja
1-8, 309-16; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 180-81; Deborah W.
Rooke, Zadok's Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
130; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (trans. J. McHugh; 2 vols.; London: Longman,
Darton & Todd, 1961), 2:397-403. De Vaux (2:241) Beuken (306-16) and, to a
lesser extent, Amsler (79-80) view the term as a post-exilic term that replaced the
earlier “chief priest” (ha-cohen ha-rosh). Meyers and Meyers (180-81) view it as an essen-
tially new and distinct office. Rooke takes a similar view (130).

	45. Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 16) note that his grandfather
Seriah was put to death in 587. His father Jehozadak was exiled to Babylon where
Joshua was likely bom. If so, this would make him older than Zerubbabel.

	46. On the priesthood in the Persian period, see Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs.




[ Page ] 13

intrusive here,47 v. 2 fulfills two highly important functions. It introduces
a major dramatis persona, the people, as well as the first of a series of
dramatic conflicts, which will serve as vehicles to move the action of the
book forward.48 The term “this people” (ha-am ha-zeh) furthers the hearers’/
readers’ sense of the book’s continuity with other prophetic texts. The
term is frequently used in prophetic invectives (or in similar contexts in
narrative passages) to express disdain for the community’s behavior and
to distance Yahweh from the people who are normally identified as his
own. It is found extensively in Isaiah (Isa 6:10; 8:6, 11-12; 9:15 [Eng.
9:16]), in the Deuteronomistic tradition (Deut 5:8; 9:13, 27; 31:16; Josh
7:7), in Jeremiah (Jer 5:14; 6:19, 21; 7:16, 33; 15:20; 16:5; 19:11), and in
the Exodus-Sinai narratives (Num 11:11-14). The essence of Yahweh’s
conflict with his people is expressed through the prophet’s citation of the
people’s words: “This is not the time to come, the time for the house of
Yahweh to be rebuilt” (v. 2).49 The sense of the people’s words as pre-
sented in this context is likely the following: “Given current economic
conditions, wisdom would clearly dictate that the rebuilding of the
temple be put off until a more appropriate time.”50 The likely implication
of the citation of the people’s words to the leaders, in the present form of
the book, is that Yahweh, via Haggai, is calling them to account for the
people’s attitude.51 Beuken, Mason, and Sérandour view the emphasis on
the community’s leadership as a defining characteristic of the editorial
framework.52 However, as noted above, the viability of disentangling the
two perspectives has been largely abandoned in the more recent litera-
ture, and it is thus preferable to view their presence here as owing to their
role in the conflict and its ultimate resolution.

	This introduction (1:1-2) establishes the general context, cast of
characters, and initial conflict in Haggai, all of which set the drama of the
book in motion. Little reveals a distinctly post-exilic setting (cf. Zech
1:1-6). Rather, were we to read 1:1-2 with no knowledge of the historical

______________________________

	47. Beuken, Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 30; Wolff, Haggai, 32-33.

	48. On the book as a series of dramatic conflicts, see Kessler, Book of Haggai,
243-51.

	49. For a defense of this translation see infra.

	50. The ongoing scholarly debate around the people’s motivation will be taken
up infra.

	51. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 47.

	52. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, esp. 27-63; Rex A. Mason, “The Purpose
of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai,” VT 27 (1977): 413-21;
Sérandour, “Les récits bibliques,” 8-32; idem, “Réflexions,” 75-84; idem, “Zacharie
et les autorités,” 259-98.




[ Page ] 14

and political background implied, we would simply assume the same
dynamics are obtained here as in all of the other prophetic books—
Yahweh had a case against his people and called them to repentance. We
thus are introduced to a well-known scenario with a well-known cast of
characters. Yahweh speaks to his people and their leaders through his
prophet about relational matters between them, in the context of a
specific situation marked by the regnal years of a king.

4. Haggai 1:3-11

The continuity motifs established in 1:1-2 are continued through 1:3-l 1
by two highly creative techniques: (1) the redactional slant placed upon
the conflict with the people over the rebuilding of the temple; and (2) the
use of Deuteronomistic and Zion traditions to express that conflict. Let
us examine these in turn.

	The dramatic conflict introduced in v. 2 turns on the conviction of the
people that “it is not the time to come; the time for the house of the Lord
to be rebuilt.”53 For at least a half a century scholars have suggested that
what is at issue is something of a pious reluctance on the part of the
people. The community does not want to risk offending the deity by
proceeding with the reconstruction without having first received clear
authorization to do so. Peter Bedford has argued at length for this posi-
tion, but other voices may also be cited.54 And indeed, such a supposition
is not historically improbable, since such authorization was a very

______________________________

	53. On the various textual and translational options taken in this translation of v.
2, see Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8, 19; Dominique
Barthélemy, ed., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3 Ezéchiel, Daniel
et les 12 prophètes (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992), 923-24; Kessler, “Building the Second Temple,” 244-45.

	54. Peter R. Bedford, “Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the ‘Delay’
in the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple,” in The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial
Essays for G. W. Ahlström (ed. Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy; JSOTSup
190; Sheffield: JSOT, 1995), 71-94; idem, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid
Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 2001); Philippe de Robert, “Pour ou contre le
second temple,” in “Dort ziehen Schiffe dahin...": Collected Communications to the
XIVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament.
Paris, 1992 (ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck; BEATAJ 28;
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996), 179-82; Hayim Tadmor, “‘The Appointed
Time Has Not Yet Arrived’: The Historical Background of Haggai 1:2,” in Ki
Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch
A. Levine (ed. William W. Hallo, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Robert Chazon;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 401-8.




[ Page ] 15

significant element in temple reconstruction.55 Reading such a sentiment
into the words of Hag 1:2-11, however, is highly improbable. Rather,
whatever the historical realities may have been, the redactional presenta-
tion in 1:2-l 1 is unswervingly resolute in its desire to portray the people
as lazy, self-centered, and recalcitrant. Not even low crop yields, bad
harvests, high taxes, insufficient food and drink, and drought could moti-
vate them to change (1:4-l 1). However into this blocked scenario comes
Haggai, the prophet of Yahweh whose words persuade the people to
abandon their fruitless and selfish ways (1:12-14).56 He addresses the
people in 1:3-11 using “traditional” forms of questions (cf. Hos 6:4;
Amos 3:3-8; Jonah 4:11; Mic 3:1-3; 6:3; Zech 1:5-6; 7:5-7; 8:6)57 and
disputations,58 as well as a promise of salvation (v. 8). The dispute hinges
on the concept of the appropriate time (et), a concept deeply rooted in
wisdom traditions.59 Haggai’s rhetorical question essentially challenges
the people’s conclusion that given the external circumstances, sound
wisdom would dictate that the work of reconstruction of the temple be
suspended. The prophetic fulmination which follows presupposes that,
under the guise of wisdom, the people were using the poor economic
conditions in Yehud to justify neglect of a duty they clearly understood
to be incumbent upon them.60 The key point for our present purposes
concerns the rhetorical effect of obfuscating any pious or legitimate

______________________________

	55. On the importance of ascertaining the deity’s approval before undertaking the
reconstruction of a destroyed temple, see Bedford, Temple Restoration, 174-77. On
temple building generally, see recently Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great
King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies
from the University of California, San Diego 10; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2004), esp. 159-83.

	56. This understanding of vv. 12-14 will be developed infra.

	57. J. William Whedbee, “A Question-Answer Schema in Haggai 1 : The Form
and Function of Haggai 1:9-11,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Festschrift
in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (ed. Gary A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1978), 184-94.

	58. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 19. Beuken sees the following forms present:
v. 4, Scheltwort; vv. 5-6, Mahnwort; vv. 7-8, Auftrag and Heilswort; v. 9, Disputa-
tionswort; v. 10, Spruch/Entfaltung; v. 11, Eingreifen Gottes. Odil Hannes Steck
(“Zu Haggai 1, 2-11,” ZAW [1971]: 367) refers to it as a Diskussionswort.

	59. Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J. D. Martin; London: SPCK,
1972), 138-43.

	60. Théophane Chary, Aggée-Zacharie, Malachie (SB; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969),
19. Chary observes, “By repeatedly objecting ‘it is not the right time to build the
temple’ the people were admitting that they understood its necessity, but were
paralyzed by a lukewarm attitude” (translation mine, here and in all citations from
non-English sources).




[ Page ] 16

concerns on the part of the people (should such have existed). Continuity
is maintained in that the people do what they have consistently done as
depicted in other prophetic texts and Haggai does what prophets tradi-
tionally do. Furthermore, attention is diverted from the past and focused
on the present. No explanation is given for the temple’s sorry state. No
mention is made of the sins of the ancestors. Rather, the critical issue
becomes what the hitherto negligent community will do now, and how
that will change the situation for the better. Although not explicitly stated,
the logic of Hag 1:2-l 1 appears to presuppose a community largely
comprised of recently arrived returnees which had begun to construct
dwellings for its members, while deferring the rebuilding of the temple.61
This deferral became culpable neglect as the people, adequately housed,
failed to turn their attention to Yahweh’s dwelling. As a result Yahweh
had imposed these negative consequences upon the people as a corrective
measure meant to lead to repentance (cf. Amos 4), and he promised to
remove them if the people responded appropriately and undertook the
work of rebuilding Hag 1:8). It therefore seems to me unlikely that there
is any allusion in 1:2-11 to the consequences of the events of 587.62
Rather, the focus is placed squarely on the recent past and present, and
the prophetic call to the people to amend their ways.

	A second area in which continuity is affirmed is the use of Deuter-
onomistic and Zion traditions in 1:3-11. It has long been noted that
Haggai uses the treaty or futility-curse form in his disputation with the
people.63 Such usage was highly significant in the Deuteronomistic
tradition (Deut 28; Judg 2:11-14), especially in several of the prophetic
books (Hos 2:2-9; Amos 4:6-11; 5:11; Mic 6:13-16). Indeed, as has
frequently been pointed out, there are numerous verbal and thematic
parallels between Hag 1:3-11 and Deut 28; Lev 26, and Mic 6:13-16.64
What is significant for our purposes here is the rhetorical effect and
underlying implication of the book of Haggai’s use of this motif. First, it

______________________________

	61. Alternatively one could view the text as presupposing the existence of a
community of non-exiled Judeans who, aware that reconstruction of the temple was
now a real possibility, failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to do so.
Historically speaking, the community was likely comprised of both groups (the book
appears inclusive of both Returnees and Remainees). In any case the text presup-
poses that the community understood temple rebuilding to be a real possibility and
failed to act upon it. See infra on the community’s awareness of such a possibility.

	62. Pace Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 54.

	63. Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16;
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). Tollington (Tradition and Innovation,
189-98) sees only a general knowledge of the form here. Cf. Meyers and Meyers,
Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 24-25; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 50.

	64. Hag 1:6//Deut 28:38; Hag 1:6//Lev 26:26; Hag 1:11//Deut 28:18.




[ Page ] 17

casts Haggai in the mold of his pre-exilic forebears who used similar
terminology. Second, it implicitly assumes that the covenant is function-
ing as a contractual basis for the relationship between Yahweh and his
people. Beuken and Petersen have suggested that the verbal forms in vv.
4-11 indicate that the misfortunes experienced in the community have
occurred in the past and indicate a broken covenant.65 However the nine
assorted verbal forms in vv. 6-7,66 as well as those in vv. 9-11,67 would
tend to indicate that the passage refers to the recent past and present,68
and that these communal misfortunes were an ongoing reproach, rooted
in Yahweh’s covenant, for the community’s refusal to undertake its duty,
and that once the community obeyed, these misfortunes would cease.

	Scholars have consistently commented upon Haggai’s innovative use
of the Deuteronomistic tradition at this point. The people are being
upbraided for a failure to rebuild the temple despite the fact that temple
building, as Petersen puts it, “is markedly absent from other covenant
stipulations preserved in the Hebrew Bible.”69 However, that which is
most significant for the present discussion is the subtle fashion in which
the concept of the duty of temple reconstruction is introduced in Haggai.
In many of the texts of the monarchic and exilic period, the Jerusalem
temple was seen as something of an innovation, needing divine approba-
tion (2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 8), a place where the worship of Yahweh was
corrupted by the worship of foreign deities (Ezek 8) or a locus of mis-
placed faith—a kind of talisman guaranteeing that Jerusalem would
never be overthrown no matter what the conduct of its inhabitants may
have been (Jer 7). This kind of dissonance within the tradition, coupled
with the self-evident reality that Yahweh himself had allowed his house
to be destroyed, and the customary practice in the ancient Near East of
awaiting instructions from the deity before beginning reconstruction
would naturally suggest that before such an undertaking was begun some
discussion would take place on the time for the temple’s reconstruction,

______________________________

	65. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 190-91; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah
1-8, 50.

	66. The sequence is: Perf.; inf. abs.; inf. abs.; inf. const.; inf. abs.; inf const; ptc.

	67. The sequence is: Inf. abs.; perf.; perf.; ptc.; perf.; perf.; waw consec.+imperf.

	68. As argued above. Thus also Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8,
25-26; Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 198. Meyers and Meyers stress the
durative aspect of the inf. abs. This is certainly brought out by the use of the
participle mistakher. See also Ursula Schattner-Rieser, “L’hébreu postexilique,” in La
Palestine à l’epoque perse (ed. Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz and André Lemaire; Paris:
Cerf, 1994), 199. Schattner-Reiser underlines that in late biblical Hebrew the
participle is the normal means of referring to the present.

	69. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 50; Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8,
197.




[ Page ] 18

as well as its form and cultic personnel. What is significant for our pur-
poses here is that Haggai will brook no discussion of the matter. The
rebuilding of the temple is a covenantal duty, and no explanation is
offered as to how, when, or why it came to be one!70 The most likely
reason for the lack of any clear explanation for this is the strong impulse
toward continuity already manifest in the book. This was no time to call
into question, to deconstruct, or to reconsider the entire question of the
worship of Yahweh and the correct procedures and ordinances related to
the temple, not to mention the question of the future role of the Jerusa-
lemite temple in a new situation where Yahwism was evolving into a
non-territorial and multi-centric entity.71 Rather, the emphasis was upon
getting things “back to normal” as soon as possible. Thus, by the inclu-
sion of temple reconstruction as a covenantal obligation, the text neatly
sidesteps all discussion of this sort, and the book’s dramatic progression
can proceed unhindered.

	In contrast to the book’s lack of emphasis on the failures of the past,
Haggai’s focus on the critical nature of the present moment can be seen
in v. 8. There Yahweh promises that if the people obtain the needed
materials and undertake the reconstruction, his response will not be in
doubt. He will take pleasure72 in the structure73 and accept the people’s

______________________________

	70. To be sure, in the present canonical configuration the authorization for
rebuilding may be understood as having been given in the decree of Cyrus, cited in 2
Chr 26:33 and Ezra 1:2-4. Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 54) assumes that
Haggai’s community would have understood this to constitute divine authorization
to rebuild the temple. However, it should be noted that (1) Haggai nowhere mentions
the decrees and (2) Chronicles and Ezra were likely produced much later; thus
knowledge of the decree cannot be demonstrated within the text. Nevertheless, it
seems to me that Petersen is likely correct in his underlying assumption that in the
logic of the book of Haggai, especially the invective in 1:3-11, the fact that the
rebuilding of the temple was permitted (however such permission was granted)
constituted divine approval to do so. Clearly, debate concerning the temple contin-
ued from the Babylonian into the Persian period (Jer 3:16; Ezek 40-47; Isa 66:1).

	71. Ibid., 182.

	72. Here, with the majority of commentators, following the Kethib, I read the
two verbal forms (ertseh and ve-ekhavdah) as imperfects, pace Meyers and Meyers
(Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 3). They read it as a telic clause: “Build the house, so that I
may be pleased with it.” A simple sense of temporal succession and promise seems
more apposite here: “Build my house and I will indeed be pleased with it.” However,
as Meyers and Meyers note (228), at times the sense of the cohortative and the
imperfect may be virtually identical.

	73. Reading the temple, rather than the act of rebuilding, as the antecedent of bo,
as in Mic 6:7; Pss 149:4; 147:10; and 1 Chr 28:4, where ratsah followed by beth refers to
taking pleasure in a person or an object rather than an act.




[ Page ] 19

labors as an activity glorifying to him.74 The significance of this state-
ment for the purposes of this study is that it serves to announce, via a
statement of promise, that any uncertainty regarding the future lies
entirely with the people’s response to Haggai’s words. Yahweh has
declared how he will react to a positive response on the people’s part,
and there can be no uncertainty as to what the people are called to do.
There need be no fear on their part that their efforts will be rejected.

5. Haggai 1:12-15

Haggai 1:12-15 supplies a dramatic epilogue describing the effects of
Haggai’s message. Its significance with reference to the present discus-
sion lies in what it assumes about the community’s status vis-à-vis
Yahweh before and after its response to Haggai’s preaching. Beuken has
viewed this section as a covenant renewal ceremony analogous to those
found within the work of the Chronicler, and sees the response of the
people in rebuilding the temple as constituting an act of covenant
renewal. For him, the disobedience of the people in 1:4-11 constitutes a
covenant rupture (Bundesbruch) and the obedience of the people and
assurance of the divine presence as a covenant renewal (Bundeser-
neuerung). Beuken relies heavily on texts which describe earlier failures
to heed Yahweh’s word which resulted in the rupturing of the covenant,
manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile (2 Kgs 17:7-23;
2 Chr 36:15-21; Jer 42:21-22). He sees the failure to rebuild the temple
as a continuation of the hardening (Verstocktheit) which obtained among
the people before the exile.75 In this sense, his position is analogous to
Petersen’s suggestion that the misfortunes of the people in 1:3-l1 were
the result of a “double cursing” of the people for the sins of the ancestors
and their own subsequent neglect of the temple. However, is this indeed
the case? Is a covenant renewal to be implied here? An analysis of the
vocabulary used to describe the response of the people as well as Yah-
weh’s own response casts doubt upon Beuken’s suggestion.

	Several expressions are used to describe the people’s response. The
first is shama vekol Yahweh (“to obey the voice of Yahweh”), used to describe

______________________________

	74. Here the middle or permissive sense of “getting glory for one’s self’ or
“allowing one’s self to be glorified” seems most appropriate, especially when
compared with the other, non-participial instances of the Niphal of kaved with
Yahweh as subject (Exod 14:4, 17, 18; Lev 10:3; Ezek 28:22; 39:13). Ackroyd’s
translation renders it well: “Then I will accept it and I will let myself be glorified... I
will accept the worship due to my honour” (Exile and Restoration, 160).

	75. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 32-33.




[ Page ] 20

the obedience of the people in v. 12. This is a stock Deuteronomistic
expression for the fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal obligation (Deut
4:20; 8:20; 9:23, etc.), and follows logically upon the prophet’s use of
the various formal and thematic expressions of reproach in 1:3-11.76
However that which is most important here is the striking contrast
between Hag 1:12 and the almost exaggerated use of same expression in
Jeremiah (negated, however) to describe the failure of Jeremiah’s con-
temporaries to listen to him. The phrase ve/nu/kam/kaph lo shama vekol Yahweh
elohi /hem is found in 3:25; 7:28; 9:12 (Eng. 9:13); 18:10; 22:21; 32:23;
42:13, 21; 43:4, 7; and 44:23. Jeremiah 43:4 is especially noteworthy.
Whereas in most instances vekol directly follows lo shama, in both Jer
43:4 and Hag 1:12 a tripartite subject intervenes:

		lo shamah yochanan ben kareach vecal sarei ha-chayalim 
		    vecal ha-am bekol Yahweh lashevet be-erets vehudah

So Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces and all
the people did not obey the voice of the Lord, to stay in the land of
Judah. (Jer 43:4 NSRV)

vayishma zerubavel ben shaltiel vihoshua ben yehotsdaq ha-cohen ha-gadol
					      vekol she-erit ha-am bekol
Yahweh Eloheihem veal-divrei ha-navi kha-asher shelacho Yahweh Eloheihem
					     vayire-u ha-am mipnei Yahweh 

Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high
priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the Lord
their God, and the words of the prophet Haggai, as the Lord their God
had sent him; and the people feared the Lord. (Hag 1:12 NSRV)

It is certainly possible that the frequency of this expression in the
Jeremianic tradition, and its presence at this critical point in Haggai, and
especially the correspondence in the two texts cited above is the fruit of
mere chance. I find it more probable, however, that the redactor of
Haggai knew of the Jeremianic tradition (this is certainly the case in Hag
2:23//Jer 22:24) and was using it to make a point. Whereas Jeremiah’s
hearers had refused to hear, Haggai’s words had hit home and broken
the logjam that had stymied the community’s life. The kind of response
that was sought (unsuccessfully) by Jeremiah was attained through the
preaching of Haggai. Thus, rather than signifying a definitive breaking or

______________________________

	76. Samuel R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons,
1916), lxxix; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1972), 83-84, 336-37. Beuken (Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 32-
35) notes that this expression is rare in the Chronicler but explains its absence via the
hypothesis of several Chronistic circles at work.




[ Page ] 21

renewal of a covenant, the phrase thus simply stresses covenantal
obedience.

	A second continuity element in describing the people’s response is the
reference to their fear of Yahweh in v. 12b (vayire-u ha-am mipnei Yahweh). Once
again we have a standard Deuteronomistic expression for obedience to
the covenant77 despite the rather unusual formulation it takes here.78 The
expression likely indicates subjective fear,79 but such a response is
entirely consistent with an allusion to the “fear of God” as understood in
Deuteronomistic theology (Exod 20:20; Deut 4:14; 5:5, 28-29; 6:2;
10:20; 2 Kgs 22:8-10). Yahweh’s response to the people’s fear is
expressed through the introduction of the Beistandformel (henceforth
Formula of Divine Assistance) in 1:13. This formula, whose origins may
be found in priestly oracles of salvation,80 assures the people of Yah-
weh’s presence. Furthermore, it has the rhetorical effect of associating
them with various individuals and groups in Israel’s past who have
received such words of assurance (Jacob in Gen 28:15; Jeremiah in Jer
1:8, 19; redeemed Israel in Isa 43:2; the community of Jeremiah’s day in
Jer 42:11, as well as many others). The section concludes with a sum-
mary statement81 affirming that it was through the preaching of Haggai,82
Yahweh’s duly commissioned messenger, that Yahweh stirred up83 the

______________________________

	77. See especially Louis Derousseaux, La Crainte de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testa-
ment (LD 63; Paris: Cerf, 1970), 205-57; Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxxii; Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 83-85, 332-33.

	78. The usual Deuteronomistic formula is a form of yare followed by et Yahweh.
Here we find yare mipnei Yahweh, a rare expression found only in Exod 9:30; Hag 1:12;
Eccl 3:14; and Ps 33:8 (Derousseaux, La Crainte de Dieu, 296).

	79. Ibid. See also Verhoef, Books of Haggai and Malachi, 83, with bibliography;
and Wolff, Haggai, 49.

	80. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 39-42; Wolff, Haggai, 50.

	81. The understanding of v. 14 as a summary statement underlies the exegesis of
Amsler and Chary (Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8, 25;
Chary, Aggée-Zacharie, 21). It is also explicit in Meyers and Meyers and Rudolph
(see following footnote).

	82. For a defense of this interpretation of v. 14, see Kessler, Book of Haggai,
150-51, with bibliography. Rudolph appropriately states, “It is Yahweh the primus
movens who fulfills his plan. He uses human agents, notably the people and leaders,
but in order for them to assume their own responsibilities, there must be the divine
word through the prophet, a word that shakes and rebukes, so that the work might be
accomplished” (Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, 9-14, Malachi, 36). Cf. Meyers and Meyers,
Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 4.

	83. The Hiphil of ur evokes Yahweh’s hidden activity, which touches the inner
workings of human volition and decision-making such that his purposes may be
attained, cf. Isa 41:2, 21; 45:13; Ezra 1:15; Jer 50:9; 51:1, 11.




[ Page ] 22

hearts of leaders and people with the result that they came (bo as in v.2)
and did what they had been resisting all along—they set about the work
of restoring the temple. The epithet “remnant of the people” (she-erit ha-am) 
in vv. 12 and 14 provides a further link with other prophetic and Deuter-
onomistic traditions. Thus “this people”—a common term of reproach
and disdain in the same traditions, as noted above—has become worthy
of the title “remnant,” evoking traditions such as those found in Zeph
3:12-13; Isa 10:20; 28:5; Jer 31:7-9; and Mic 7:18.84

	Returning now to the question of a covenant renewal in Hag 1:12-15,
it would appear to me that if Haggai is read without the grid of covenant
breach and covenant renewal suggested by Beuken, Hag 1:12-15 reads
far more like a Deuteronomistic description of faithful response to pro-
phetic preaching.85 Put another way, given the consistent use of positive
affirmative terminology drawn from Deuteronomistic tradition regarding
covenantal obedience, that which is being emphasized is the effective-
ness of Haggai’s preaching, rather than any kind of periodization of the
people’s history in which the people’s obedience constitutes a renewal of
the covenant and repairs the damage done by the ancestors’ failure to
heed the warnings of the prophets of the monarchic period. To be sure,
Haggai’s use of the covenant curse material suggests that the people’s
failure to rebuild the temple has strained their relationship with Yahweh,
but I do not think that it invites us to view Haggai’s words as being
addressed to a people with whom a decisive breach has occurred—a
breach which has continued to the present moment and which has been
repaired by the people’s response. Rather, what happens in 1:12-15 is
what could have happened had the hearers of Amos, Hosea, Micah, or
Jeremiah taken their words to heart and changed their ways and thus
ought to be viewed more as a description of a positive response to
prophetic preaching, and to the demands of an existing covenant, rather
than as a covenant renewal ceremony.

	What is more, the term “covenant renewal” itself is problematic, not
only from an historical86 point of view, but also from a linguistic perspec-
tive, in that it does not distinguish renewal without lapse (as in the

______________________________

	84. Pace Floyd, I view the redactor as referring to the people as a whole. For a
fuller discussion, see Floyd, Minor Prophets, 275-77; also Kessler, Book of Haggai,
141-42.

	85. The prominence of Deuteronomistic vocabulary in Haggai was observed in
Mason’s early treatment of the traditions in the book (Mason, “The Purpose of the
Editorial Framework,” 413-21).

	86. On the whole matter of covenant violation and renewal, see George E.
Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1179-202.




[ Page ] 23

renewal of a lease or driver’s license) from reinstatement of a formerly
existing but lapsed arrangement (such as insurance policy which has
expired), or even the replacement of an earlier agreement with a newer
one with different terms (such as an international trade agreement).87
Despite Beuken’s arguments, it seems to me to be more likely that Hag-
gai’s redactor is construing the people’s response as simply a faithful
response to Yahweh, or at most a case of renewal without lapse. By
means of the various continuity devices discussed above, this section has
minimized the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile—the text assumes
both but mentions neither. Failure to rebuild the temple, and the conse-
quences thereof, are portrayed as a blemish on an existing relationship,
not the evidence of one which had formerly existed and had lapsed. After
all, if the text presupposed that the people and Yahweh were in the same
state of alienation that, according to the Deuteronomistic tradition,
existed on the eve of Jerusalem’s destruction, reducing the totality of
Israel’s obligation to Yahweh to the rebuilding of the temple would be
rather surprising.88 Furthermore, the standard vocabulary of repentance in
the Deuteronomistic or for that matter Chronistic traditions (e.g. anah shuv,
vekol darash) is totally absent both in Haggai’s preaching and the people’s
response. In its place we find a simple command to go and get wood and
build Yahweh’s house, and the narration of the fulfillment of that
command (1:8, 14). All this would appear to indicate that far less than
Beuken suggests is at play.

	In sum, in 1:12-15 the reader/hearer is invited to view Haggai’s words
and his hearers’ obedience as a challenge and response within an existing
relationship rather than a call to renew a lapsed one. Haggai makes no
direct allusion to the disobedience of any earlier generation, and only
appeals for obedience in the present. The verbal contrast between Hag-
gai’s hearers’ response and that which met Jeremiah’s words simply
serves to stress that whereas earlier generations had done the wrong
thing, Haggai’s hearers had done the right thing (1:12-15). The net effect
of this is to deflect attention away from the larger issues of the exile and
its results, the state and fate of the nation, and broader issues concerning
Yahweh’s relationship to his people. Rather, the minimization or even
obfuscation of these larger issues enables the book to set Haggai’s preach-
ing and his hearers’ response in a context which very much resembles

______________________________

	87. It seems to me that Beuken relates 1:12-15 to the second or third of these
three categories.

	88. The Deuteronomistic tradition generally evokes the worship of other gods as
well as various violations of the Decalogue as the cause of Yahweh’s judgment (cf.
2 Kgs 17:7-20; 24:4-5; Jer 7:1-15).




[ Page ] 24

prophetic preaching of earlier eras. Unlike Zechariah, who explicitly
warns his hearers not to be like their ancestors who ignored the words of
the prophets and were overtaken by divine judgment and who explicitly
repent (Zech 1:1-6), Haggai thus far is silent regarding the failures of the
past and even lacks an explicit call for repentance. He simply enjoins his
people to do what they ought. And when they do, he reassures them that
Yahweh is among them once again, as he has been in the past at critical
moments in the community’s history.

6. Haggai 2:1-9

In contrast to 1:1-15, this section moves more directly toward encounter-
ing the discontinuity between past and present, between the ideals held
out in tradition and memory and the grim realities of the present. This
discontinuity or dissonance is given voice as the prophet utters aloud
(2:2) that which a portion of his audience was thinking inwardly—that
the emerging temple was a pale shadow of its earlier self. Yet within this
overt admission of discontinuity, the text once again deploys a variety of
means through which to demonstrate that the present situation is not to
be viewed as cut off from either the fondly remembered past or the
greatly anticipated future. In essence, 2:3-9 responds to the discourage-
ment of the present in a twofold manner. First, in vv. 3-5 a variety of
traditional idioms and formulae are drawn upon to encourage the build-
ers to persevere in their task. Second, in vv. 6-9 a series of eschatologi-
cal motifs, largely drawn from Zion theology, are evoked to point to a
better future. In both sections numerous continuity motifs are deployed
to attenuate the people’s perception of discontinuity.

	In vv. 3-5 continuity with the past is stressed by four primary means:
(1) the specific formulations used to describe the temple (vv. 3 and 9);
(2) the Ermutigungsformel (henceforth Divine Encouragement Formula)
addressed to leaders and people (v. 4); (3) the appeal to the covenant
(v. 5a); and (4) the reference to the presence of the Spirit and the tradi-
tional formula “fear not” (v. 5b). Each serves to create continuity with the
past and to reduce dissonance in the present. Let us examine these in turn.

	In speaking of the temple, Haggai is cited as asking his hearers who
among them89 saw “this house in its former glory” (et ha-bayit ha-zeh bichvodo 
ha-rishon). It is significant that, contrary to the customary practice of

______________________________

	89. In the logic of the passage the likely referent is older members of the
audience who had seen the pre-587 structure (Meyers and Meyers, Haggai,
Zechariah 1-8, 49). On the issue of the plausibility of such individuals being
present, see Verhoef, Books of Haggai and Malachi, 95-96.




[ Page ] 25

referring to the “Second Temple,” Haggai knows no first and second
temples. Rather, there is one temple, “this house,” whose splendor or
glorious appearance goes through various stages. It was awe-inspiring in
an earlier time (bichvodo ha-rishon) and in a future day will be even more so
(ha-acharon, v. 9). For Haggai, these are various states of the same temple,
not a comparison between various edifices. Thus the destructions of
587, which both archaeology90 and tradition (e.g. Lamentations; Ps 74)
acknowledge as highly significant, do not constitute a major element
within Haggai. The Jerusalem temple was, is, and will continue to be
Yahweh’s house. In point of fact, for Haggai it was still his house even
before the people undertook the work of reconstruction, when it lay
abandoned (1:4-11, esp. v. 9).91

	Facing the discouragement of disappointing results, Haggai addresses
the builders using the classical Divine Encouragement Formula, repeated
three times (v. 4), urging leaders and people to be strong and to continue
the work. This formula is extensively used in Deuteronomistic literature
(Deut 31:6, 7, 23; Josh 1:6, 7, 9, 23; 10:25; 2 Sam 10:12; 13:28) as well
as in Chronicles (1 Chr 19:13; 22:13; 28:10, 20; 2 Chr 19:11; 25:8; 32:7).
Thus Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the “people of the land”92 are invited to see
themselves as standing in continuity with figures such as Joshua (Deut
31:7; Josh 1:6-7) or the ancient Israelite armies (2 Sam 10:12), and to be
confident of Yahweh’s presence and aid. This is reinforced by an appeal
in 2:5 to the covenant: “As for93 the covenant which I made with you94

______________________________

	90. Opinions differ here on the extent of the destruction, and the bibliography is
multitudinous. Cf. Hans Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the His-
tory and Archaeology of Judah During the “Exilic” Period (SO 28; Oslo: Scandi-
navian University Press, 1996), 51-51; Oded Lipschits, “Nebuchadnezzar’s Policy
in ‘Hattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah,” UF 30 (1998): 155-90;
Margreet Steiner, “The Archaeology of Ancient Jerusalem,” CurBS 6 (1998): 143-68.

	91. Note the marked contrast to the departure of the presence of Yahweh from
the temple portrayed in Ezek 8-11. While that text nowhere states that the temple is
no longer Yahweh’s house, it implies that only after the destruction of those who
remain in Jerusalem, the return of the exiles, and the purification will the house be
identified with Yahweh once again (11:17-18).

	92. The literature on the identity of this group is voluminous. (See Ernest W.
Nicholson, “The Meaning of the Expression am ha-arets in the Old Testament,” JJS 10
[1965]: 59-66.) I take “people of the land” to refer to the community as a whole (see
Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 150 rm. 50, 62, and 67). For a different approach,
cf. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 280-81.

	93. On this sense of et, see Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testa-
ment. Tome 3, 928.

	94. On the textual issue here, see Barthélemy who, noting that the disputed
phrase is solidly attested in the Masoretic traditions, states “Whether or not the




[ Page ] 26

when you came out of Egypt, my Spirit abides among you, do not fear.”
As has been noted above, Haggai views the Sinai covenant as a founda-
tional constitutive element of the community’s relationship with Yahweh
(1:2-l 1). Here in a similar fashion Haggai draws a straight line between
the people of the exodus and the Jerusalemite community of the late
sixth century. The rhetorical “you”—“the covenant that I made with you
when you came out of Egypt”—clearly views the latter community as
standing in direct continuity with the former. Coupled with the lack of
any clear allusion to the breaking or suspension of the covenant in
Haggai (cf. Amos 4:12; 8:1-3; 9:1-4; Hos 1:6-9; Jer 31:31-34), this
conveys a striking continuity between past and present. The Jerusalemite
community is viewed as standing in complete continuity with their
forebears. This is reinforced by a reference to the presence of Yahweh’s
Spirit, viewed as standing (omedet) among his people. This is likely an
allusion to the “pillar of cloud” which mediated the divine presence to
the community95 at the Exodus (Exod 13:21; 14:19, 24; 25:8; 29:45).96
This is followed by an exhortation not to fear (al teera-u), the traditional
formula of Divine Reassurance, a common turn of phrase in Deuter-
onomistic as well as other Pentateuchal and prophetic traditions. Haggai’s
community thus hears the same words as were spoken to the great
worthies of the past (Abraham in Gen 15:1; Jacob in Gen 26:24 and 46:3;
Rachel in Gen 35:17; Joseph’s brothers in Gen 43:23 and 50:19; the
generation of the Exodus in Exod 14:13; 20:20; Deut 1:21; 20:3, and
Josh 10:25; Moses in Num 21:34; Joshua in Deut 31:6; Josh 8:1, and
11:6; Gideon in Judg 6:23; David in 1 Sam 23:17; Ahaz in Isa 7:4;
Jeremiah in Jer 1:8; and Ezekiel in Ezek 2:6). Significant also is the fre-
quent use of the same formula in prophetic texts relating to the renewed
Zion/Israel following the exile (Isa 35:4; 40:9; 41:10; Jer 30:10; 46:27;
Zeph 3:16; and Zech 8:13). Derousseaux well summarizes the import of
the expression as being one that calls the addressees to overcome their

______________________________

phrase is secondary, its omission would have to be made on literary-critical rather
than text-critical grounds” (ibid.).

	95. Thus Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8, 31-32;
Kessler, Book of Haggai, 170-73 ; and Verhoef, Books of Haggai and Malachi, 100.
This stands in contrast to several scholars who see a reference to prophecy here:
Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 57-58; Chary, Aggée-Zacharie, 27; and Wolff,
Haggai, 59-60.

	96. Texts noted by Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 57. Despite the book of
Haggai’s great interest in prophecy in the restoration period, as well as the Targum’s
interpretation here, the context resists an allusion to prophecy here. The community
can be strong and unafraid because of Yahweh’s presence with them, which
certainly includes, but goes far beyond, the presence of prophets.




[ Page ] 27

fear “before humans and the dangers with which they are faced [because
of Yahweh’s] saving presence.”97

	In 2:6-9 a second reason is given as to why the builders should not be
discouraged. Here Haggai draws upon various traditional motifs of Zion
theology to describe the ultimate glorification of Zion: the hostile attack
of the nations against Zion, the gathering of spoil, the elevation of Zion,
the pilgrimage of the nations, and the ultimate age of world peace (cf.
Mic 4:1-5, 11-13; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; Joel 3 [Eng. 4]; Zech 14). It is
beyond the scope of the present study to assess the various issues con-
nected with these motifs,98 and Haggai’s use of them.99 Simply put, using
highly traditional, eschatological imagery Haggai asserts that the nations’
wealth will flow into Jerusalem. What is of significance here is that
Haggai finds relief from the dissonance caused by the existing state of
affairs (disappointing temple, especially in comparison with its former
state) simply by reaffirming a standard element of earlier hopes attached
to Zion and its temple, with little or no modification. The temple will be
glorified through the wealth of the nations which will be present there.
Furthermore, Haggai deliberately obscures the origin of such wealth (is it
the spoil of war, or the offerings of the nations?—both are found in the
tradition), and is frustratingly silent regarding the manner in which it
comes to Jerusalem. Thus Haggai blurs the broader details of the tradi-
tional complex and picks up a single element within the tradition and
elevates it to central importance. I judge this to be a distinctive rhetori-
cal/hermeneutical technique within the book, one that I have described
elsewhere as generalization/focalization.100 What is more, in this section
there is nothing that the people can do to define the future other than wait
for it. It is Yahweh who will intervene and glorify his own abode through

______________________________

	97. Derousseaux, La Crainte de Dieu, 90.

	98. The literature here is extensive. See Paul D. Hanson, “Zechariah 9 and the
Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern,” JBL 92 (1973): 37-59; Gerhard von
Rad, “The City on the Hill,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays
(trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; London: SCM Press, 1984), 232-42; idem, Old
Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd,
1965), 2:292-97; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL
92 ( 1973): 329-44; Moshe Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political
Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian (ed. Richard Elliott
Friedman; HSS 26; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 75-113.

	99. I have dealt with this in far greater detail in Kessler, Book of Haggai, 173-
95; also idem, “The Shaking of the Nations: An Eschatological View,” JETS 30
(1987): 159-66.

	100. For a fuller discussion, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, esp. 190-95, 239-40,
70-75.




[ Page ] 28

the splendor brought to it via the precious treasures of the nations which
will adorn it. In sum, then, although 2:1-9 represents a more direct
confronting of the failures of the past, numerous devices are deployed to
establish continuity with positive aspects of Israel’s earlier history, and to
nurture hope. The future is thus waiting to be shaped by the intervention
of Yahweh and the present is therefore somewhat transitional in nature—
life in Yehud is not what it once was, but not yet what it will be. Once
again no explanation is proffered as to why the temple was destroyed,
nor is there any allusion to the sins of previous generations. What is
more, all references to deportation, to the existence of a Diaspora, to a
return from exile bearing gifts from the Gentiles—all stock items in Zion
Theology and key themes in Isa 40-66 and Zech 1-8—are absent here.
All that matters is that the struggling Jerusalemite community—be it in
Haggai’s day or that of his redactor—not be discouraged and retain hope.

7. Haggai 2:10—19

This section has long troubled readers of Haggai due to the numerous
questions it raises in the present form of the book. These questions deal
principally with how, having noted with approbation the response of
leaders and people in 1:12-15, and having further encouraged them in
their efforts (2:1-9), Haggai can now upbraid them again, and declare
them unclean (2:14). One common response to the problem is (1) to view
1:15a + 2:15-19 as the remnant of an oracle proclaimed on the twenty-
first day of the seventh month, just after the rebuilding began,101 and (2) to
understand the people who are deemed to be unclean not as the Yehudite
community, but the inhabitants of the former northern kingdom who
have sought to join in the project (Ezra 4:2).102 This position, however,
has largely been abandoned in recent commentaries.103 Rather, following
Koch, the majority of interpreters have viewed 2:10-19 as a unit and
sought to make sense of it as such.104 With Meyers and Meyers, Petersen,

______________________________

	101. Thus Amsler (Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8,
10) following Beuken (Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 208) and Johann Wilhelm Rothstein
(Juden und Samaritaner: Die grundlegende Scheidung von Judentum und
Heidentum: Eine Kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jüdische Geschichte
im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert [BWANT 3; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908],
53-73).

	102. Thus Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 67-70; Rothstein, Juden und
Samaritaner, passim; and Wolff, Haggai, 26-30.

	103. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 286-96; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah
1-8, 57; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 70-96.

	104. Klaus Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk,” ZAW 79 (1967): 52-66.




[ Page ] s29

Amsler, and Floyd, I have argued that the dramatic conflict here is essen-
tially cultic in nature,105 and that the pericope concerns the radical trans-
formation of the people’s fortunes which will follow upon the temple
refoundation ceremony (Zech 4:6-7, 8-10; 8:9),106 a ceremony analogous
to the kalu rite widely practiced in the ancient Near East.107 From a
tradition-critical perspective, the passage clearly contains allusions to a
variety of forms and traditions including Priestly Theology (vv. 11-13),
Deuteronomism (vv. 15-17), wisdom reflection (vv. 15, 18-20), pro-
phetic oracles of reproach (v. 14), prophetic symbolic actions (vv. 11-13),
and exhortations (vv. 15-19).108 Following those who view the thrice-
repeated date (2:10, 18, 20) as the date of the rededication ceremony, I
maintain that the prophetic-symbolic action with its discussion of pure
and impure, the declaration of the people’s uncleanness, and the sub-
sequent declaration of Yahweh’s blessing, may have formed part of the
ceremony itself, even constituting a dramatic presentation within it.109

	At issue for our present discussion, however, are three key factors.
The first is that here, for the first time in the book, the destruction of the
temple and the resultant defilement of the people and their offerings are
openly acknowledged. Unlike 1:1-11, where such matters are only
hinted at, here they form the central problem. How can the people be
made clean again? The second is that here it is ceremony or ritual (sup-
ported, to be sure, by appeals to tradition) rather than simply obedience
to or trust in the prophetic word, which is needed to reconnect the past
and present. Up until now, the problems have lain with the people and
their reluctance or discouragement, and tradition has been used as a
motivating factor. Here the community marks the ritual consecration of
its work, and receives assurance that Yahweh will bring unprecedented

______________________________

	105. In contrast to the “anti-Samaritan” and ethical positions. On the latter see,
e.g., David R. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in
Haggai II 10-19,” VT 18 (1989): 154-68; Rex A. Mason, “The Prophets of the
Restoration,” in Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd
(ed. Richard Coggins, Anthony Philipps, and Michael Knibb; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1982), 137-53.

	106. On this text, see Baruch Halpern, “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s
Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978): 167-90; Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk,” 52-66;
Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. 63-64; Petersen, Haggai and Zecha-
riah 1-8, 88-96; David L. Petersen, “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruc-
tion,” CBQ 36 (1974): 366-72; Petitjean, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 241-51.

	107. Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (Yale Near
Eastern Researches 2; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).

	108. On these latter two see Floyd, Minor Prophets, 294-95.

	109. As I have suggested in Kessler, Book of Haggai, 213-18.




[ Page ] 30

blessing. The third and most important feature to be noted is the
prophet’s certainty, based upon that which has transpired on the twenty-
fourth day of the seventh month,110 that the present, transitional moment
would ineluctably give way to greater agricultural and economic bless-
ing. Attention is directed away from the past through the lack of any
detail regarding how and why the community and its altar and offerings
had become unclean111 and is directed toward the future which would,
without any doubt whatsoever, be defined by the blessing of Yahweh
(vv. 15-19). Thus the activity of the people in re-consecrating the tem-
ple, and Yahweh’s decision to honor their re-consecration, served to
ensure future blessedness. With only an oblique reference to the temple’s
earlier defilement, this emphasis on the assurance of future blessedness
constitutes the central focus of the passage. Thus, despite the fact that the
critical problem addressed in this pericope is indeed the temple’s
defilement as a result of the events of the past, these events are not dwelt
upon, but simply form the backdrop for the prophet’s message. What
matters is the certainty of future weal.

8. Haggai 2:20-22

In many ways this concluding section of the book marks its most con-
centrated use of traditional material. Following a standard introductory
formula in v. 20, the prophet is instructed to deliver an oracle to Zerub-
babel concerning his present and future status. Briefly put, the oracle
assures the governor that in the coming, dramatic intervention of Yahweh,
wherein the entire cosmos is shaken, and the power of all nations
reduced (vv. 21b-22), he himself will be greatly exalted. The specific
form of this exaltation and Zerubbabel’s precise role in it are left largely
unclear.112 As elsewhere in the book, continuity motifs abound. Verse 22
describes the coming intervention of Yahweh in terms drawn from the
destruction of the cities of the plain, the Sea of Reeds, the oracles against
the nations, and various prophetic-eschatological scenarios,113 as well as

______________________________

	110. Floyd (Minor Prophets, 289-90) takes an alternative view of the chronol-
ogy of this section.

	111. This vagueness has given rise to the great diversity of interpretations in the
critical literature. For a convenient summary of these, see Amsler, Lacoque, and
Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8, 36.

	112. I have examined this lack of clarity in detail (Kessler, “Haggai, Zerubbabel,
and the Political Status of Yehud,” 102-19).

	113. Note especially the use of "[hafakh in 2:22. Cf. Gen 19:21-25, 29; Deut 29:22
(Eng. 29:23); Jer 49:18; 50:40. On this verb in Haggai, see Petersen, Haggai and
Zechariah 1-8, 99. Note also the motif of the “going down” (yarad) of hostile forces




[ Page ] 31

motifs of the Divine Warrior and Day of Yahweh.114 All these various
traditional formulations and motifs are fused and configured in distinc-
tive ways.115 Further continuity features are found in the specific words
addressed to Zerubbabel in v. 23. Similar to the Formula of Divine
Assistance in 1:13b, the thrice-repeated Encouragement Formula in 2:4
and the exhortation “fear not” in 2:5, the three verbal and one nominal
expressions link the governor to highly significant individuals in the past.
Let us examine these expressions in turn.

	First Yahweh announces that on that day he will “take” Zerubbabel
and “set him as a signet ring.” The term lakach is frequently used for Yah-
weh’s selection of specific individuals or groups and their appointment to
certain tasks. These include Israel as a nation (Exod 6:7; Deut 4:20), the
Levites (Num 3:12; Pss 8:16; 68:19 [Eng. 68:18]), Aaron (Lev 8:12),
Joshua (Num 27:18, 22), David (2 Sam 7:8; Ps 78:70), and Amos (Amos
7:15).116 Furthermore, Yahweh declares Zerubbabel to be his “servant”
(eved). Such language is also used with reference to Abraham (Gen
26:24), Isaac and Jacob (Exod 32:13), Moses (Num 12:7-8; Deut 34:5),
Joshua (Josh 1:1,7; Judg 2:8), and especially David (2 Sam 7:5, 8; 1 Kgs
11:13; 2 Kgs 19:34). It is also used to refer to Israel’s future ruler in
Ezek 34:23 and 37:24-25. Furthermore, in declaring to Zerubbabel that
he will take him and set him as his signet ring, the prophet reverses the
judgment invoked upon Jehoiachin in Jer 22:24-27. There, due to the
latter’s unfaithfulness, the prophet declares that were he as precious as a
signet ring on Yahweh’s hand117 he would be cast off and abandoned to

______________________________

(Exod 14:9, 23; 15:1, 19, 21), the annihilation of the opposing troops “each by the
hand/sword of his brother” (Judg 7:22, Gideon’s enemies; Isa 19:2 and Jer 14:16,
Egypt; and Ezek 38:19-21, Gog and Magog).

	114. Cf. the shaking of the cosmos in Isa 13:13; Jer 10:10; 50:46; Ezek 26:10;
27:28; Joel 2:10; 4:16 (Eng. 3:16) and Yahweh’s campaign against the nations in Isa
19:2; Jer 46:16; Ezek 38:19-21 and Zech 14:13.

	115. Chary, Aggée-Zacharie, Malachie, 34; Kessler, Book of Haggai, 223-26;
Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 101; Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, 9-14,
Malachi, 53. Chary (p. 34) rightly observes that this text is made up of commonly
used traditional images (“clichés traditionnels”).

	116. For a fuller discussion, cf. Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel:
Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 216-18; Tollington, Tradition and Innovation,
137. Rose especially highlights the notion of appointment to a new task or respon-
sibility.

	117. On the conditional clause here, cf. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 244-45.
If the text is understood as a real condition it underlines the divine pathos involved
in the rejection of Jehoiachin and the judgment of the nation. If the condition is




[ Page ] 32

his enemies. The text further predicts his death in exile and affirms that
none of his progeny shall sit upon the throne of David (vv. 28-30).118
However, Haggai now affirms that, in contrast to Jehoiachin, the David-
ide Zerubbabel would experience great exaltation (although the form of
that exaltation is largely left undefined). Unlike his predecessor, he had
demonstrated faithfulness to Yahweh (presumably in his obedience to the
call to support the temple reconstruction, l:12-14).Yahweh furthermore
declares Zerubbabel to be his chosen one. The highly evocative term “to
choose” (bachar) connects Zerubbabel with other great worthies who have
been chosen by Yahweh. These include the nation as a whole (Deut 7:6;
14:2; 1 Kgs 3:8; Ezek 20:5), specific tribes (1 Chr 15:2; Ps 78:67), and
especially David and Jerusalem (Deut 7:6; 12:5, 11, 14, etc; 14:23; 18:6).
Especially noteworthy is the use of the language of election to indicate
restoration after judgment (e.g., Isa 14:1; Zech 1:17; 2:16 [Eng 2:12]).
Albert Petitjean insightfully notes: “In 1:14b—17 Zechariah announces
that Yahweh will now show, on Israel’s behalf, the ardent love implied
in election. This electing love explains and causes events whose goal is
the deliverance of Israel: the return of Yahweh...and new election.”119
Thus Yahweh’s choice of Zerubbabel expressed here likely indicates the
renewal of his promises to the Davidic line and to the nation as a whole.120

	It should be noted, however that these numerous continuity themes in
2:20-23 serve to address a matter of extreme dissonance. This pericope,
like 2:1-9 and 2:10-19, faces the tension between the present disappoint-
ing reality and the grandiose visions of both past and future contained in
the tradition. In 2:1-9 the disappointing appearance of the temple is
acknowledged, while in 2:10-19 its defiled state is dealt with. Here the

______________________________

understood as contrary to fact it expresses disdain and rejection—even if Jehoiachin
were as precious as a signet (which he is not), he would still be discarded, but since
he is not, there is no doubt as to his doom.

	118. Robert P. Carroll (Jeremiah: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1986], 441-43) and Yohanan Goldman (Prophétie et royauté au retour de
l’exil [OBO 118; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1992], 231-35) have suggested that Jer 22:24-30 reflects a post-exilic debate
regarding the authority of Zerubbabel and the Davidic line. Carroll views Jer 22:26-
30 as a redactional extension appended to the judgment meted out to Jehoiachin in
Jer 22:24-25 so as to exclude his descendants from future political leadership.
Goldman, by contrast views these additions as serving to limit the judgment upon
Jehoiachin and his descendants to those born in Judah, thus legitimizing the tenure
of Zerubbabel. See also Kessler, Book of Haggai, 236-37.

	119. Petitjean, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 81.

	120. On the issue of the use of the perfect here, see Kessler, Book of Haggai,
226 n. 47, and 233.




[ Page ] 33

political dimension of the community’s life is addressed. Yehud is a
province, not a nation, and Zerubbabel, albeit a Davidide, is the subaltern
governor of a petty province, not a king. How can the present state of
affairs be reconciled with Judah’s former existence as a kingdom, and
Zion theology’s ultimate hopes for a world at peace centered around
Jerusalem and its temple? Haggai gives a twofold response. First, here as
in 2:1-9, the prophet’s words indicate both an acceptance of the transi-
tional nature of the present moment—it does not reflect the transformed
world that Yahweh will one day bring into being—yet a tenacious
clinging to the hope of Yahweh’s future intervention. Second, drawing
from deeply rooted themes and forms from a variety of traditional
matrices, Haggai reassures his hearers that Yahweh’s glorious purposes
for Israel and its ruler, expressed in earlier traditions (cf. Mic 4:1-4; Isa
2:1-4; Pss 2; 110), and called into question by the realities of Persian
hegemony, would still find fulfillment.

	Here again we encounter the minimization of the destruction of the
temple and of the deportation of a portion of the population, as well as
the absence of any mention of the Diaspora. Allusions to the past evoke
positive rather than negative themes. The renewal of Yahweh’s promise
to the Davidic line stresses hope for the future rather than the failures of
the past. The rejection of Jehoiachin in Jer 22:24-30 is alluded to only to
announce a new promise which turned rejection into renewed election.
As in 2:10-19, where the origin and nature of the community’s defile-
ment is not described in detail, here the rejection of Jehoiachin is alluded
to but not elaborated upon. Emphasis is placed on the hope now restored
in Zerubbabel. The community is enjoined provisionally to accept its
present context, with all its constraints and disappointments, in light of
the coming intervention of Yahweh, when the powers of the Gentile
nations would be reduced, and Yahweh’s chosen ruler exalted.

9. Conclusions and Reflections

The book of Haggai, then, bears witness to a somewhat distinct theo-
logical perspective within Early Persian Yehud. In it we have seen a
minimization of the themes of the people’s disobedience and Yahweh’s
judgment prominent elsewhere in the literature of the period. Rather, the
text focuses upon an optimism regarding the present and future, if indeed
the community will seize the moment and stand fast in hope. For ideo-
logical and theological reasons the disruptions of the early sixth century
thus form the backdrop rather than the foreground of the book. A variety
of techniques, especially involving the creative re-use of tradition, are




[ Page ] 34

deployed within the text to set boundaries around matters related to the
earlier destructions and deportations, and to focus attention upon the
present and future. The book focuses on the hopeful news that the dead-
lock created by the community’s neglect of the temple had now been
resolved. Leaders and people had joined together and the reconstruction
of Yahweh’s house had begun (1:12-14). The people were exhorted to
persevere in their task despite discouragement, having the certainty of
Yahweh’s presence as they labored, as well as the hope of an unimag-
inably glorious future (2:1-9). All residue and impediments from the past
had been removed as the temple had been re-consecrated (2:10-19). And
despite Yehud’s position as a province within the Empire, and the
reduction of its Davidic leader to the status of a mere governor, the future
would be glorious, and Yahweh would humble the nations and exalt his
people and their ruler (2:20-23).

	What might account for this distinctive perspective in Haggai vis-à-vis
other Persian-period texts, such as Zech 1-8, Ezra, Nehemiah and several
of the Psalms? Three reasons appear to me to be critical to an explana-
tion. The first is the differing foci of Haggai and Zech 1-8. Boda has
argued that the two texts have important thematic differences. He main-
tains that Haggai champions the temple restoration cause, “revealing the
fixation of the prophet and his narrator with the rebuilding project...
Each of the pericopae in Haggai is connected to the rebuilding project in
some fashion and every other topic is introduced in service of the larger
theme.”121 Zechariah’s interests, he states, are broader:

	Zechariah reformulates the world of Jewish community and addresses the
	question of identity in a way which...transcends the message of Haggai.
	[He] expands restoration beyond a rebuilt temple.. .to include a renewed
	city and province...and moves beyond physical issues to consider the
	socio-religious rhythms necessary for life with a new temple and city...
	[Zechariah] was viewed not merely as a prophetic voice encouraging the
	rebuilding of the physical temple, but more importantly as a penitential
	prophet calling for ethical renewal among the people.122

While Boda himself is clearly not expressing disdain for Haggai as a
prophet,123 his words, at first glance, are reminiscent of a lively tradition
of unwarranted negative evaluation of Haggai, when compared to
Zechariah, which exists in the critical literature.124 While I fully agree

______________________________

	121. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason,” 50, 53.

	122. Ibid., 53, 54.

	123. Mark J. Boda, “Haggai: Master Rhetorician,” TynBul 51 (2000): 295-304.

	124. Haggai was held to be a crass materialist, while Zechariah was more
spiritually minded. For Robert H. Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament [New




[ Page ] 35

that Haggai and Zech 1-8 are distinct literary compositions which ought
to be read separately, and that Zech 1-8 contains social and penitential
motifs not found in Haggai, I find a purely temple-focused assessment of
Haggai (as a redacted book) inadequate in that it does not distinguish
between plot content and ideological purpose. I would argue that, while
the reconstruction of the temple forms the topical and dramatic vehicle
for the book’s plot, the text’s focus is on the success of Haggai as a
prophet.125 Such a focus serves to stress the need for the Yehudite com-
munity of the redactor’s day to move forward via obedience to and trust
in the prophetic word, as Haggai’s hearers had done, and as subsequent
generations would need to do, as long as the conditions of life under
Persian rule lasted. Thus, central to the book’s ideological purpose is an
apologia for the ongoing relevance of prophecy in the Persian period. In
Haggai, Yahweh is portrayed as active and powerful on a variety of
levels. He can bring drought, disease, and natural disaster (1:3-11; 2:16—
17), or prosperity (2:18). He can destabilize the natural elements, terres-
trial and celestial, such that the nations are thrown into panic and brought
to their knees and their wealth flows into his temple (2:6-9, 20-23). He
has delivered his people from bondage in Egypt (2:5), and his presence
dwells in their midst (1:13; 2:4). He appoints and exalts individuals
chosen for specific tasks (2:23). Yet, it would seem, that which Yahweh
cannot do by his power and might alone is effect change within the

______________________________

York: Harper & Bros., 1941], 606-7) Haggai had little interest in the welfare of the
nations but rather favored their “subjugation and spoliation.” Fleming James
(“Thoughts on Haggai and Zechariah,” JBL 3 [1934]: 231) maintained that Haggai
had “no further interest in the nations than to get hold of their money; for the rest let
them kill each other off and be done with it (Hag 2:22).” Haggai is said to have
viewed the reconstruction of the temple as a sort of talisman—a guarantor of the
future weal of the community. Pfeiffer, for example, states that for Haggai “the
present prosperity and future glory of his people depended entirely on the rebuilding
of the temple... [Haggai’s] great concern was not the moral and religious wicked-
ness of the people, but adherence to rules of Levitical purity and the fulfillment of
ritual acts” (Introduction to the Old Testament, 602-3). One commentator opined
that “Haggai’s work was done when the work on the temple was revived. It was
otherwise with Zechariah...He devoted himself to the spiritual edification of the
community” (W. Emery Barnes, Haggai and Zechariah [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1917], xlv). I cite these examples to illustrate the fact Haggai has
frequently been read as somehow more materialistically orientated that Zechariah.
For a fuller discussion see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 4-7.

	125. Chary (Aggée-Zacharie, Malachie, 21) aptly comments: “Prophetic
preaching has been effective, an event rarely attested in the history of the people.”
Beuken (Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 332) similarly expresses the importance of the
theme of prophetic success.




[ Page ] 36

hearts of his people. It was only the prophetic word via Haggai through
which Yahweh was able to stir up the spirits of leaders and people, so
that the temple could be rebuilt and his relationship with his people could
move forward (1:12-15). Furthermore, the prophetic word was needed
on an ongoing basis to provide guidance, encouragement, direction, and
the nurturance of hope (2:1-22).

	Thus the story of the temple’s reconstruction in Haggai is far more
than a chronicle describing the successful rehabilitation of a building.
After all, if such were the case the book’s ultimate purpose would simply
be to demonstrate how the Yehudite community succeeded in rebuilding
the temple, under Haggai’s leadership. While it certainly does emphasize
that historical reality, it goes far beyond the temple rebuilding itself and
presents a rich theology of divine-human interaction. The book thus
affirms that Yahweh still intervenes in history and speaks through the
prophetic word.126 His people may either ignore his words, or respond in
obedience and trust. The fate of the community is defined and deter-
mined by its ability to engage in this process—and the response of the
people to Haggai’s preaching would indicate that they were off to a good
start. Beyond this the book presents an ideology of hope in Yahweh
despite the bleakness and discouragement of the present. Like Zechariah
(Zech 4:10), Haggai refuses to countenance the despising of the day of
small things. The temple, though unimpressive, the “nation,” though a
weak province, and its Davidic ruler, though a subaltern governor and
not a king, were not to be despised. These were tokens in the present of
Yahweh’s pledge to do greater things in the future. Wolff is thus highly
accurate in viewing Zerubbabel as a persönlicher Hoffnungsträger, a
person whose very presence embodies hope for the future.127 Thus I
would maintain that the themes of the disobedience of the ancestors,
Yahweh’s ongoing anger, and the devastations of 597-587 are down-
played simply because they do not contribute to, but rather distract from,
these more central concerns in Haggai.

______________________________

	126. The literature on the question of the cessation of prophecy is voluminous.
See provisionally Eric M. Meyers, “The Crisis of the Mid-fifth Century b.c.e.
Second Zechariah and the ‘End’ of Prophecy,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells:
Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual Law and Literature in Honor of
Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 712-23; David L. Petersen, “Rethinking the End of
Prophecy,” in “Wünchet Jerusalem Frieden Collected Communications to the
XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament
(ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck; BEATAJ 13; Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 1988), 65-71 ; and Benjamin D. Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease?
Evaluating a Reevaluation,” JBL 115 (1996): 31-47.

	127. Wolff, Haggai, 86 (German edition).




[ Page ] 37

	Second, I would suggest that Haggai reflects an alternative, more
optimistic vision of life with Yahweh than is reflected in Zech 1-8 and
various other Persian-period texts. The very somber side of second tem-
ple Israelite spirituality with its emphasis upon Yahweh’s justice, the
people’s sinfulness and consequent misery, and the hope for future
deliverance, is indeed the dominant voice within the canon, and has been
well-studied in recent years.128 It has been suggested that this form of
piety arose in part due to the ongoing suffering of the people under
Persian rule, and beyond.129 Haggai, however, is profoundly optimistic
regarding change within Yehud, on the most practical of levels. Thus, the
crop failure and disease, low yields, and generally depressing economic
circumstances which had recently plagued the community were seen as
temporary measures, and the community was assured that a return to
better results in all these areas was not far off (1:3-11; 2:15-19). And it
should be noted that while this change for the better is sometimes set in a
more distant, eschatological context, as in 2:6-9, 20-23, it is also fore-
seen as transpiring in the ongoing, everyday economic life of the com-
munity, as in 1:3-11 and 2:15-19. This distinction between the more
proximate future, in which significant yet more realistic and modest
change may be expected, and the world situation subsequent to Yah-
weh’s great intervention, is carefully made in the book.130 Thus, if indeed
this perspective noted in Haggai may be deemed to be an earlier voice
than that of Zech 1-8, then we may catch a glimpse of an earlier,
somewhat more optimistic perspective than that which developed in the
later, penitential tradition. Persian rule was not yet seen as oppressive
and odious. Rather, in this earlier moment there was a large measure of
congruence between the goals of the restoration community and those of
the Persian Crown.131 This being the case, there is a profound emphasis
on renewing and restoring the community to its former situation. In con-
trast to Zechariah’s invitation to discontinuity and dissociation, Haggai’s
words are framed so as to cultivate a perspective of profound continuity
with the best elements of Israel’s remembered past. Thus, faithfulness
and obedience to Yahweh in the present will bring modest yet tangible
gains in the near future—even amidst the ongoing realities of Persian

______________________________

	128. Cf. Ezra 9; Neh 9; Ps 106. For convenient survey of the key themes
involved, with bibliography, see Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason,” 64.

	129. Ibid., 63-64.

	130. This distinction is not often noted; see André Caquot, “Le Judaïsme depuis
la captivité de Babylone jusqu à la révolte de Bar-Kokheba,” in Encyclopédie de la
Pléiade. Histoire des Religions II (ed. H.-C. Puech; Paris: Gallimard, 1972), 130.

	131. Cf. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 259-61.




[ Page ] 38

rule (2:15-19). And all of this, as just noted, stood in anticipation of
Yahweh’s great, coming intervention which would radically reorder
heavens and earth, Israel and the nations (2:6-9, 20-23).

	Third and finally, Haggai’s lack of attention to matters such as the sins
of the ancestors and the judgments visited upon them, the existence of
the various Diaspora communities, as well as the book’s lack of specific-
ity concerning the actual state of the relationship between Yahweh and
his people, especially as it relates to the covenant, is likely indicative of
the general confusion which reigned at the time regarding (1) which
among the many groups within Yahwism could rightly lay claim to be
the remnant of promise,132 and (2) whether Yahweh’s covenant with the
nation at an earlier period could still be assumed to be functioning. The
canon bears witness to the various struggles over these matters. Jeremiah
24, Ezek 11, and Ezek 33 identify Yahweh’s presence with the 597
exiles, while a separate Jeremianic tradition, reflected in Jer 42:7-17,
appears to identify divine approval with those who remained in the
land,133 and Ezra and Nehemiah specifically exclude such people (Ezra 4
and 9). Jeremiah 42:18-22 expresses disdain for the Egyptian Diaspora
whereas Zech 8:7 expresses hope for their re-gathering. Furthermore, the
matter of the fate of the covenant and even the nature of how covenant
was understood is unclear in the various traditions. Was the first
covenant terminated in 587 (2 Kgs 24; Jer 31:31-34)? Did the covenant
continue with the exiles in Babylon (Ezek 11:14-21), or did it fall into
a lapsed state, awaiting the turning of the remnant which Yahweh had
graciously spared (Lev 26:40-45; Hos 11:9; Mic 4:4)? And to what
extent had the earlier notion of berit as a conditional, bilateral covenant
been supplanted by the use of the term to refer to a solemn oath or
promise.134 Given the fluidity which surrounded these matters it is hardly
surprising that they are ill-defined within Haggai. Avoiding many of
these uncertainties, Haggai’s redactor(s) chose to set the book’s action in
a theological context much like that of one of the prophetic books set in
the monarchic period, presupposing a functioning relationship with
Yahweh and holding out hope for the community through faithfulness to

______________________________

	132. For a survey of the various groups involved, see Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal
Yahwists,” 91-121.

	133. On this see Christopher Seitz, “The Crisis of Interpretation Over the
Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A Redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi-xliii,” VT
35 (1985): 78-97; idem, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of
Jeremiah (BZAW 176; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).

	134. As suggested by S. David Sperling, “Rethinking Covenant in the Late
Biblical Books,” Bib 70 (1989): 50-73.




[ Page ] 39

Yahweh and obedience to the prophetic word. Thus the book manifests a
profound restorationist impulse, one which profoundly seeks to minimize
the dissonance and uncertainty which confronted the Yehudite commu-
nity at the beginning of a new era in its experience of life with Yahweh.
To this end, via the creative use of traditional forms and vocabulary,
numerous links are created between the struggling Jerusalemite com-
munity, its leaders and prophets, and the Israel of tradition and memory.

	In sum, then, the book of Haggai reflects a distinctive perspective
within the pastiche of emerging theological and ideological perspectives
in Early Persian Yehud. While its voice did not become a dominant one,
its witness may have captured for us a distinct moment in the life of the
restoration community.


***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was
brought to you by Tyndale University, 
J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****