11<\/strong>. Ask now the priests concerning the law<\/em> ] Lit., ask of the priests law, or the law.<\/strong> The construction is a double accusative after the verb ask. (Comp. Isa 45:11<\/span>.) The word law may be used here and in Mal 2:7<\/span>, without the article, in the sense of “instruction,” or “direction.” Such “law” or instruction would, however, always be derived from “ the<\/em> law” of God by Moses, of which the priests were the authorised interpreters. Lev 10:11<\/span>; Deu 17:8-13<\/span>; Deu 33:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n Ask now the priests concerning the law – <\/B>The priests answer rightly, that, by the law, insulated unholiness spread further than insulated holiness. The flesh of the sacrifice hallowed whatever it should touch, but not further; but the human being, who was defiled by touching a dead body, defiled all he might touch Num 19:22<\/span>. Haggai does not apply the first part; namely, that the worship on the altar which they reared, while they neglected the building of the temple, did not hallow. The possession of a truly tiring does not counterbalance disobedience. Contrariwise, one defilement defiled the whole man and all which he touched, according to that Jam 2:10<\/span>, whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.<\/P> In the application, the two melt into one, for the holy thing, namely, the altar which they raised out of fear on their return, so far from hallowing the land or people by the sacrifices offered thereon, was itself defiled. This people and this nation (not My people) since they in act disowned Him. Whatever they offer there, i. e., on that altar, instead of the temple which God commanded, is unclean, offending Him who gave all.<\/P><\/p>\n Hag 2:11-14<\/span><\/p>\n Ask now the priests concerning the law.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Human duty<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>That there is a Divine written law for the regulation of human conduct. Though the law here refers to ceremonial institutes which were contained in the Levitical code, there is also a Divinely written law of a far higher significance–that moral law which rises out <\/strong>of mans relations, and is binding upon man as man, here and everywhere, now and for ever. It implies–<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>That there are Divinely appointed interpreters of this law. Ask now the priests. Under the old economy there were men appointed and qualified by God to expound the law to the people; and in every age there are men endowed with that high moral genius which gives them an insight into the eternal principles of moral obligation. The will of God is the standard of moral obligation.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The transcendent importance of the spirit of obedience.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>That man can more easily communicate evil to another than good. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?–<\/strong><\/p>\n The contagion of evil<\/strong><\/p>\n The warning of the text is not addressed solely to those whose hearts have always been estranged from God, but also to those who have felt the power of God, and whose hearts have been lifted up by Him, and who have been enabled to work for a time in His strength. For even the latter are very apt to fall back into the notion that they have a spring of strength in themselves. The warning is taken from the ordinances of the Levitical law. The uncleanness and holiness spoken of are those pronounced to he such by that law. But the ordinances of the ceremonial law were designed to be typos and witnesses of moral and spiritual truths. Indeed, the prophet himself in the latter part of the text declares this. Thus far we can readily go along with the text. You all know that if a mans hand is covered with dirt, it will defile everything it touches, even that which before may have been clean. In like manner a soul that is covered with any sort of filth or pollution must defile that which it touches. As a jaundiced eye sees the reflection of its own jaundice in the things around it, so does a jaundiced heart. If a soul is full of impurity, though you pour in clean water, it immediately becomes foul. There is a taint of sin in your hearts which runs through all your thoughts and feelings, through all your words and deeds. The first truth we have seen is, that they whose souls are defiled by some great moral impurity, must carry that impurity along with them into everything they may take in hand. Sin is itself death, spiritual death; and the uncleanness from this contact also spreads on everything around. The second truth is, that we are utterly unable to bring forth anything, whether in thought or deed, that shall he perfect in the sight of God. Hereby we betray a secret corruption of our nature, the taint of which spreads through our whole lives. We have seen that, when a man is unclean, he makes everything he touches unclean. But alas! the converse does not hold. Though he were clean, he would not make what he touches clean. We have the power of defiling; but we have not the power of purifying. In every part of the land it may he seen how catching vices are: the plague itself is scarcely more so. Sins will produce sins, rapidly and abundantly, even as the foulest vermin breed the most rapidly and numerously. There are habitual vices to which each age and class are prone–this is a proof how catching uncleanness is. What must the state of the world have been in the eyes of Him who beholds the secrets of the heart, and to whom every impurity is an abomination? As God abhors all manner of impurity, He willed to purge it away from the earth. He willed to speak to the world, Be thou clean. He sent His Son to speak that word to the world, that word which God alone can speak effectively, either to the world at large, or to any individual soul. It is by the body and blood of Christ that our souls must be purified and washed from our sins. By the offering up of that holy body and blood on the Cross a change was wrought in the whole order of the world. The prince of this world was judged. These truths are full of practical consequences with regard to the whole regulation of our lives. We shall fly at once to the Purifier when the sense of our impurity oppresses us; and we shall be very careful in our choice of companions. Moral disease being no less catching than bodily, you should be no less careful in shunning vicious companions. It is indeed the duty of every Christian to go to those who are unclean, with the purpose of making them clean, through the power of God, and the Word of God. At the same time, let us pray continually that He, who alone can purify our hearts, and keep them pure, will vouchsafe to do so, until the time arrives when all the world shall enjoy the <\/strong>blessed vision promised to the pure in heart–when all mankind, being cleansed from every idolatry of the flesh and spirit, shall see God. (J. C. Hare, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pollution<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> <\/strong>Ritualism is the natural religion of the unsanctified heart, and the <\/strong>same tendencies to it that have created popery in the New Testament ages, existed also in the Old (Hag 2:11-13<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Pollution is much more readily given and taken than purity. One drop of filth will defile a vase of water, many drops of water will not purify a vase of filth. Evil communications corrupt good manners (Hag 2:11-13<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>No tithings of mint, anise, and cummin, will compensate for neglecting the weightier matters of the law. Obedience is better than sacrifice. A pure hand is necessary to a pure offering (Hag 2:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Men are prone to assign any other cause for their sufferings than their sins, yet this is usually the true cause (Hag 2:15<\/span>).<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>Disappointment of our hopes on earth should make us lift our eyes to heaven to learn the reason (Hag 2:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>Affliction will harden the heart if it is not referred to God as the author (Hag 2:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n 7. <\/strong>Pondering the past is often the best way of providing for the future (Hag 2:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n 8. <\/strong>We may and ought to trust Gods promise to bless us, even though we may see no visible appearance of its fulfilment. The vision will surely come and not tarry (Hag 2:19<\/span>). (T. V. Moore, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Thus saith the Lord of hosts:<\/B> the prophet comes with his double parable, or problem, but not of his own head, but in the name of the Lord of hosts. <\/P> Ask; <\/B>consult with, desire the solution of the following case. <\/P> The priests; <\/B>whose office bound them to study the law, and to answer all cases of conscience, their lips should retain knowledge, Mal 2:7<\/span>. <\/P> Concerning the law; <\/B>what the law saith in the case; not what the church, but what the Scripture saith. <\/P> <\/p>\n 11. Ask . . . the priests<\/B>Proposethis question to them on the law. The priests were the authorizedexpounders of the law (Lev 10:11<\/span>;Deu 33:10<\/span>; Eze 44:23<\/span>;Mal 2:7<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Thus saith the Lord of hosts<\/strong>,…. To Haggai the prophet:<\/p>\n ask now the priests [concerning] the law<\/strong>; whose business it was to understand it, and teach it, and to answer questions, and resolve doubts concerning it; not of their own heads, and according to their fancies, will, and pleasure; but according to the rules and instructions given in the word of God: and as this was their office, they were the proper persons to apply to; and Haggai, though a prophet, is sent to the priests to propose questions to them; though it may be not so much for his own information, as for the conviction of the priests of their impurity, out of their own mouths, and of the people by them:<\/p>\n saying<\/strong>; putting the following questions to them.<\/p>\n The word of God was as follows: Hag 2:11<\/span>. “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Ask now the priests for instruction, saying,<\/em> Hag 2:12<\/span>. Behold, one carries holy flesh in the lappet of his garment, and touches with his lappet the bread, and that which is boiled, the wine, and the oil, and any kind of food: does it then become holy? And the priests answered and said, No.<\/em> Hag 2:13<\/span>. And Haggai said, If one who is unclean on account of a corpse touches all this, does it become unclean? And the priests answered and said, It does become unclean.<\/em> Hag 2:14<\/span>. Then Haggai answered and said, So is this people, and so this nation before my face, is the saying of Jehovah; and so is all the work of their hands, and what they offer to me there: it is unclean.” <\/em> In order to impress most earnestly upon the hearts of the people the fact that it was through their sin that they brought upon themselves the failure of crops that had hitherto prevailed, viz., as a punishment from God, the prophet proposes two questions concerning holy and clean for the priests to answer, in order that he may make an application of the answer they give to the moral condition of the nation. Torah <\/em> in Hag 2:11<\/span>, without the article, is used in its primary signification of instruction, and is governed by , accus. rei<\/em>: to ask a person anything, for to ask or solicit anything from him. The first question has reference to the communication of the holiness of holy objects to other objects brought into contact with them: whether, if a person carried holy flesh in the lappet of his garment,<\/p>\n (Note: Luther: “in the geren <\/em> of his dress.” The gehren <\/em>, or gehre <\/em>, middle high German gre <\/em>, old high German kro <\/em> (English goar<\/em>), is a triangular piece, forming the gusset of a dress or shirt, then that portion of the dress in which it is inserted, viz., below the waist, probably derived from the Gothic gis<\/em>, and the conjectural root geisan<\/em> = to thrust or strike (Weigand, Germ. Dict.<\/em>).)<\/p>\n and touched any food with the lappet, it would become holy in consequence. Hen <\/em>, behold, pointing to an action as possible, has almost the force of a conditional particle, “if,” as in Isa 54:15<\/span>; Jer 3:1<\/span> (cf. Ewald, 103, g<\/em>). “Holy flesh” is flesh of animals slain as sacrifices, as in Jer 11:15<\/span>. Nazd <\/em>, that which is boiled, boiled food (Gen 25:29<\/span>; 2Ki 4:38<\/span>.). The priests answer the question laid before them quite correctly with “No;” for, according to Lev 6:20<\/span>, the lappet of the dress itself was made holy by the holy flesh, but it could not communicate this holiness any further. The second question (Hag 2:13<\/span>) has reference to the spread of legal defilement. is not one who is unclean in his soul; but, as Lev 22:4<\/span> shows, it is synonymous with in Num 5:2<\/span>; Num 9:10<\/span>, “defiled on a soul;” and this is a contraction of , or , in Num 9:6-7<\/span>, “defiled on (through) the soul of a dead man” (Num 6:6<\/span>; Lev 21:11<\/span>: see at Lev 19:28<\/span>), hence one who has been defiled through touching a dead body. This uncleanness was one of the strongest kinds; it lasted seven days, and could only be removed by his being twice purified with sprinkling water, prepared from the ashes of the red cow (see at Numbers 19). This question the priests also answered correctly. According to Num 19:22<\/span>, he who was defiled by touching a dead body made everything unclean that he touched. The prophet now applies these provisions of the law to the ethical relation in which the people stood to Jehovah. “So is this people before me, saith Jehovah.” is quite synonymous with , as in Zep 2:9<\/span>, without any subordinate meaning of a contemptuous kind, which could at the most be contained in hazzeh <\/em> (this), but in that case would apply to haam <\/em> just as well. Ken <\/em>, ita <\/em>, refers to the substance of the two legal questions in Hag 2:12<\/span> and Hag 2:13<\/span>. The nation, in its attitude towards the Lord, resembles, on the one hand, a man who carries holy flesh in the lappet of his garment, and on the other hand, a man who has become unclean through touching a corpse. “Israel also possesses a sanctuary in the midst of its land, – namely, the place which Jehovah has chosen for His own abode, and favoured with many glorious promises. But just as no kind of food, neither bread nor vegetables, neither wine nor oil, is sanctified by the fact that a man touches it with his sanctified garment, so will all this not be rendered holy by the fact that it is planted in the soil of the land which surrounds and encloses the sanctuary of Jehovah. For though the land itself becomes a holy land in consequence, it cannot spread this holiness any further, nor communicate it to what grows upon it. All that Israel raises on its holy land, whether corn, wine, or oil, remains unholy or common. No special blessing rests upon the fruits of this land, on account of the holiness of the land itself, so as of necessity to produce fruitfulness as its result; nor, on the other hand, does it in itself communicate any curse. But if, as experience shows, a curse is resting notwithstanding upon the productions of this land, it arises from the fact that they are unclean because Israel has planted them. For Israel it utterly unclean on account of its neglect of the house of Jehovah, like a man who has become unclean through touching a corpse. Everything that Israel takes hold of, or upon which it lays its hand, everything that it plants and cultivates, is from the very first affected with the curse of uncleanness; and consequently even the sacrifices which it offers there upon the altar of Jehovah are unclean” (Koehler). Sham <\/em>, there, i.e., upon the altar built immediately after the return from Babylon (Ezr 3:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n 11<\/strong>. <\/strong> Ask now the priests concerning the law <\/strong> The consulting of the priests was only preparatory to the prophet’s real message; their reply was to serve him as a starting point. Literally, ask a law <\/em> ask for instruction. For law <\/em> see on Hos 4:6<\/span>. Here it is used in the general sense of instruction or legal advice. To give this was the duty of the priests (Deu 17:8-11<\/span>; Deu 33:10<\/span>; Mal 2:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n DISCOURSE: 1235 Hag 2:11-14<\/span>. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands: and that which they offer there is unclean<\/em>.<\/p>\n THE one great rule of life which was given to Moses, and which is of universal and unchangeable obligation, is the moral lawthe law of the ten commandments. But the ceremonial law also, which, in its primary use, was to shadow forth the Gospel of Christ, was of a moral tendency, and very instructive in that view. Take the most insignificant of its rites, such as the not wearing a garment of mixed materials, or sowing a field with different kinds of corn, or seething a kid in its mothers milk; they were all intended to teach us some practical lessons of great importance. The same we may say of the law mentioned in my text. Jehovah intended to reprove the supineness of his people in neglecting to rebuild the temple. For this end, he directed the Prophet Haggai to consult the priests as to the demands of the law; and from their answers, to deduce the truth, which he was instructed to enforce. They acknowledged, that the meat which belonged to the priests, as their share of the sin-offerings, could not, though holy in itself, make any thing else holy which it might come in contact with; though a person, who by the touch of a dead body was unclean, would, according to the law, render any thing else unclean which he might chance to touch [Note: Whatever touched the altar was thereby rendered holy, as was also any thing which touched the flesh of the sacrifice (Lev. 29:37 and Lev 6:27<\/span>.); but the cloth, in which such flesh was contained, conveyed no sanctity: but the clothes of one unclean communicated a ceremonial uncleanness. Num 19:22<\/span>.]. From thence he took occasion to shew them, that the sacrifices which they offered, so far from cancelling their sins, were themselves vitiated, and rendered worthless by their supineness.<\/p>\n Now here was a valuable lesson for them: and it is no less valuable to us; since it is of use,<\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n For the forming of our judgment as to the theory of religion<\/p>\n To enter into this, consider the precise state of things at that time. The foundations of the temple had been laid several years before. The people having been obstructed in the work, became indifferent to it; and thought, that, by offering their sacrifices with regularity, they should supersede the necessity of incurring the expense and trouble of rebuilding the temple. Now, says the prophet, your sacrifices themselves, instead of being accepted of God, are detestable in his sight, on account of the hypocrisy which yet reigns in your hearts In other words, we may consider him as determining two most important points:<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n That practice is of no avail without principle<\/p>\n [The Jews supposed that their offering of sacrifices would be accepted, though they were wholly inattentive to the principles by which they were actuated. And a most common error this is. Men abound in duties, public, social, personal; and add to these the offices of kindness and liberality to their fellow-creatures; and then ask with confidence, What lack I yet? Such were the Pharisees of old; who even went beyond the law in their observances, whilst they neglected many of the weightier matters of the lawjustice, mercy, and truth. But I must declare, that these people labour under a most fatal error: for if St. Paul himself, who was, touching the righteousness which was of the law, blameless, and who was therefore alive, in his own estimation, without the law, but, when he saw the defectiveness of his obedience, saw and acknowledged himself to be a dead condemned sinner; if St. Paul himself, I say, so failed in establishing any righteousness of his own, much more must we lay aside such an erroneous conceit, and confess, that without a principle of faith and love we can never find acceptance with our God. We may attend the house of God every Sabbath; we may go to the table of the Lord; we may offer some stated prayers also in secret; and yet, if impenitent and unbelieving, be consigned over to everlasting perdition. We may have the tongues of men and angels, and have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and have faith so that we can remove mountains, and bestow all our goods to feed the poor, and even give our bodies to be burned; and yet be destitute of a principle, without which we are no better than sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal [Note: 1Co 13:1-3<\/span>.]. We may see clearly, that without a principle of real, vital, universal holiness in the soul, no external services, however good, can find acceptance before God.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n That principle is of no avail without practice<\/p>\n [As men of a Pharisaic cast maintain the error which I have just mentioned; so men of an Antinomian complexion are prone to indulge this of which I am now to speak. They have embraced the Gospel; they believe in Christ: they see in him a perfect righteousness: they have that righteousness imputed to them: they stand, as they suppose, perfect and complete before God, and are in his sight without spot or wrinkle or any such thing; yea, holy and without blemish [Note: Eph 5:27<\/span>.]. But are they necessarily in the state which this profession seems to imply? The persons reproved in my text offered their sacrifices, and professed to look to that great Sacrifice which those offerings prefigured: but were they therefore<\/em> accepted of their God? No: they were essentially defective as to practical religion: under the influence of covetousness and self-indulgence, they neglected to rebuild the temple of the Lord: and therefore all their professions of faith were vain. Thus it is with thousands who rely on the Gospel of Christ for salvation, but neglect to adorn it by a suitable conversation. Their faith does not overcome the world, and work by love, and purify the heart; and therefore their faith, being without works, is dead; and is in reality no better than the faith of devils [Note: Jam 2:19-20<\/span>.].<\/p>\n Nor let any one imagine that it is only a course of open<\/em> sin that will thus invalidate the efficacy of his faith. No: if there be in him any secret<\/em> lust, such as covetousness, or pride, or envy, or impurity, or any other, it will so defile him [Note: Mar 7:21-23<\/span>.], as to make all his professions of religion vain [Note: Jam 1:26<\/span>.]. A right eye or a right hand, which offends against the principles of vital godliness, must be parted with, or it will destroy him, both body and soul, in hell for ever [Note: Mar 9:43-48<\/span>. with Jam 2:10<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n But the reproof here given is yet further useful,<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n For the regulating of our conduct, as to the practice of it<\/p>\n You will observe in the text the figure<\/em>, and the truth contained in it<\/em>. Now both of these are instructive, in reference to practical religion:<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n From the figure<\/em> we may learn to take heed to our communications<\/p>\n [It is a far easier thing to convey defilement to the souls of men, than holiness. One man that is diseased may impart infection: but ten men that are in health cannot impart health. Now, it is common for persons professing godliness to associate with the world, under an idea of doing them good; forgetting how much more likely they themselves are to contract evil from such society, than to impart to them any substantial benefit. A heathen could say, Evil communications corrupt good manners [Note: 1Co 15:33<\/span>. from the poet Menander.]. And experience proves the truth of it: for there is scarcely a person who associates much, and without necessity, with the world, but he imbibes the spirit of the world; and if not outwardly, yet in heart, declines from God. I mean not to say, that all<\/em> connexion with ungodly men should be avoided; for then must we needs go out of the world: our duties in civil and social life require some measure of intercourse with them: but I mean, that we should be aware of the danger of infection from the ungodly; and that we should mix with them as a physican mixes with his patients in a hospital; having in our minds a desire to do them good, and exerting our influence for that end; and withdrawing, when we have fulfilled our duty, happy to breathe a purer atmosphere, and to associate with those whose state and habit are in accordance with our own. And this is the rule prescribed for us in the Gospel: We are not to be conformed to this world [Note: Rom 12:2<\/span>.]: we are to come out from it, and be separate [Note: 2Co 6:17<\/span>.]: we are not to be of the world, any more than Jesus Christ was of the world [Note: Joh 17:14-16<\/span>.]: we are not to affect its friendship [Note: Jam 4:4<\/span>.]; or to love any of its ensnaring vanities [Note: 1Jn 2:15-16<\/span>.]. Our affections must be set rather on things above [Note: Col 3:2<\/span>.]; and our conversation is to be in heaven [Note: Php 3:20<\/span>.]: and we must be ever on our guard to keep our garments clean [Note: Rev 3:4<\/span>; Rev 16:15<\/span>.]: since it is almost impossible to come in contact with the ungodly, without contracting some defilement from them.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n From the truth<\/em> itself we may learn to look well to our hearts<\/p>\n [Solomons advice is good: Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life [Note: Pro 4:23<\/span>.]. It is lamentable to think how much there may be amiss within us, whilst the external conduct is correct; yea, and whilst religion appears to have the chief ascendent over us. Truly, it becomes us tosearch and try our ways [Note: Lam 3:40<\/span>.]; yes, and to beg of God also to search and try our hearts, to see whether there be any wicked way or principle in us, and to lead us in the way everlasting [Note: Psa 139:23-24<\/span>.]. When we reflect, that one evil propensity, if indulged, will vitiate all our moral and religious acts; and that it will make our very prayers an abomination in the sight of God [Note: Pro 15:8<\/span>; Pro 28:9<\/span>.]; we cannot but tremble for the great mass even of religious professors, who will be tried by the heart-searching God, and have their final doom fixed according to their real character, as it stands before him<\/em>. Indeed, brethren, I wish you to examine yourselves well, whether ye be sound in principle, and upright in practice also. And be careful not to deceive your own souls; nor to rest, till you have an evidence in your own bosoms, and the witness of Gods Spirit also, that ye are Israelites indeed, in whom there is no guile: for whatever ye may imagine, it is the pure in heart, and they only, that shall sec God with comfort in the day of judgment [Note: Mat 5:8<\/span>.].<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Hag 2:11 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests [concerning] the law, saying,<\/p>\n Ver. 11. Ask now the priest concerning the law<\/strong> ] For who should know the law better than the priests? And who so fit to resolve cases of conscience as they? It was their office, Lev 10:10-11 Deu 33:10 Mal 2:7<\/span> . See the note there. It was an evil time with God’s people when he was put to complain, “Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent?” Isa 42:19<\/span> . When the prophet was a fool, the spiritual man was mad for the multitude of their iniquity, and the great hatred, Hos 9:7<\/span> . Varro upbraided the Roman priests of old with their gross ignorance of many things in point of their own rites and religions; and Cicero brake a jest upon Gaius Popilius, an ignorant lawyer, at Rome. For when Popilius, being called for a witness to some controversy, answered, Nihil se scire,<\/em> that he knew nothing, Cicero answered, by way of jeer, Paras fortasse te de iure interrogari,<\/em> You mean (perhaps) that you know nothing in the law, which yet you profess to have skill in. What a shame was it for the Pharisees, who took upon them to be guides of the blind, teachers of babes, &c., Rom 2:19-20<\/span> , to be found “blind leaders of the blind!” Mat 15:14 So is it for divines, being asked concerning the law, or will of God, in such and such cases, not to be able to answer discreetly ( ), and intelligently, as he did Mar 12:34<\/span> , as an egregie cordatus homo?<\/em> distinguished wise man. But so bungler-like, and so far from the purpose, that it may well be seen that “desiring to be teachers of the law, they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm,” 1Ti 1:7<\/span> . How like the motion of a puppet, the language of a parrot, is the discourse of such unlearned or uninterested casuists! Every minister of God’s making can truly say, “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know to time a word to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned,” Isa 10:4<\/span> . See 1Co 12:8 Tit 1:9 Eph 3:4<\/span> ; Eph 3:7<\/span> 1Co 2:13<\/span> .<\/p>\n Ask now, &c. Reference to Pentateuch (Lev 10:10, Lev 10:11. Deu 17:11; Deu 33:10). App-92. Supply the Ellipsis: “Ask now [direction]”, &c. <\/p>\n Lev 10:10, Lev 10:11, Deu 33:10, Eze 44:23, Eze 44:24, Mal 2:7, Tit 1:9 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 13:3 – shall look Deu 17:8 – arise Deu 17:9 – the priests Eze 22:26 – put no Zec 7:3 – speak<\/p>\n Hag 2:11. The priests were the men who had supervision of the altar services and hence were acquainted with the requirements ot the law, The prophet was given the present message to them for the purpose of explaining wby the Lord was making his severe complaints against the nation.<\/p>\n Almighty Yahweh instructed Haggai to request a ruling from the priests. The priests were the official interpreters of the Mosaic Law, and what follows deals with matters of ceremonial defilement. This is a didactic sermon, designed to teach an important lesson about religious impurity.<\/p>\n Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests [concerning] the law, saying, 11. Ask now the priests concerning the law ] Lit., ask of the priests law, or the law. The construction is a double accusative after the verb ask. (Comp. Isa 45:11.) The word law may be used here and in Mal … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Haggai 2:11”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>That the question of human duty is to be decided by an appeal to divine authority. Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Ask now the priests concerning the law. The question, of course, implies two things.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>That the discharge of duty requires the spirit of obedience. It was the duty of the Jews now to rebuild the temple; but that duty they discharged not by merely bringing the stones and timbers together and placing them in architectural order. It required the spirit of consecration. The prophet sought to impress this upon the mind of his fellow-countrymen engaged in this work by propounding two questions referring to points in the ceremonial law. The first had reference to the communication of the holiness of holy objects to other objects brought into contact with them. If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread or pottage, or wine, or of any meat, shall it be holy In other words, whether, if a person carry holy flesh in a lappet of his garment, and touched any food in the lappet, it should become holy in consequence? The priests said, No! and rightly. Mere ceremonial holiness cannot impart virtue to our actions in daily life; cannot render our efforts in the service of God acceptable to Him. The second question was this: If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? The priests answered and said: It shall be unclean. The sum, says an old writer, of these two rules, is, that pollution is more easily communicated than sanctification; that is, there are many ways of vice, but only one of virtue, and a difficult one. Good implies perfection; evil commences with the slightest defect. Let not men think that living among good people will recommend them to God, if they are not good themselves. Conclusion. Mark–<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
INTEGRITY OF THE SOUL ENJOINED<\/strong><\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"