학 2:10-19 부정한 우리들에게 복을 약속하시는 하나님

Blessings for a Defiled People
^10 tOn the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, ^uin the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet, ¹¹ “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ^vAsk the priests about the law: ¹² ‘If someone carries ^wholy meat in the fold of his garment and touches with his fold bread or stew or wine or oil or any kind of food, does it become holy?’ ” The priests answered and said, ^x“No.” ¹³ Then Haggai said, ^y“If someone who is unclean by contact with a dead body ^ztouches any of these, does it become unclean?” The priests answered and said, “It does become unclean.” ¹⁴ Then Haggai answered and said, ^a“So is it with this people, and with this nation before me, declares the Lord, and so with every work of their hands. And what they offer there is unclean. ¹⁵ Now then, ^bconsider from this day onward.¹ Before stone was placed upon stone in the temple of the Lord, ¹⁶ how did you fare? ^cWhen² one came to a heap of twenty measures, there were but ten. When one came to the wine vat to draw fifty measures, there were but twenty. ^17 dI struck you and all the products of your toil with blight and with mildew and with hail, ^eyet you did not turn to me, declares the Lord. ^18 bConsider from this day onward, ^ffrom the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since ^gthe day that the foundation of the Lord’s temple was laid, ^bconsider: ^19 hIs the seed yet in the barn? Indeed, the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree have yielded nothing. But from this day on ⁱI will bless you.”

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 학 2:10–19.

10절) 다리오왕 2년 9월 24일 여호와의 말씀이 선지자 학개에게 임함, 앞선 본문과 비교할때 다시 2개월정도의 시간이 지난 상태임을 알 수 있다. 이는 연대기적으로 사건이 진행됨을 밝히고 동시에 이 메시지의 기원이 하나님으로 부터임을 강조한다. 반면에 앞선 선포때와는 다르게 스룹바벨과 여호수아는 언급되지 않는다. 

- This introduction provides two important pieces of background information. First, it indicates the chronological setting of the sermon. Second, it identifies the human messenger as a recipient of the divine word. Unlike Haggai’s previous messages, neither Zerubbabel nor Joshua is specifically mentioned.
The date of this sermon is “the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius.” The ninth month is Kislev. The modern equivalent of this date is December 18, 520 B.C. The date holds no special significance in terms of celebration of an Old Testament feast day or commemoration of an earlier historical event.

Unlike the previous sermons, here (and later in v. 20) the word of the Lord is said to come “to” (ʾel) Haggai rather than “by [his] hand” (bĕyad). This difference is mainly stylistic, although in the former expression the emphasis may be more on Haggai as the receptor of the divine message and in the latter expression the emphasis may be more on Haggai as the intermediate agent through whom the people received the divine message.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 170-171.

11절) 제사장에게 율법에 대하여 묻기를 명하시는 여호와 하나님

- The presence of this priestly community and the acknowledgment of their religious authority may provide insight into why some of Haggai’s contemporaries felt justified in neglecting the rebuilding of the temple. Perhaps there were those who wondered whether the temple was really essential, since there could be sacrifice, offerings, and priestly exposition of Torah apart from the temple.⁹
This passage also provides insight into how postexilic prophetic and priestly communities functioned together,¹⁰ since here the prophet defers to the priests for a decision regarding cultic purity.¹¹ There is an implicit recognition of priestly authority in such matters.¹² The situation described in vv. 11–14 is unique in that sense; nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible is there a parallel example of priests making a similar judgment.¹³ It was to prophets that the Lord communicated fresh disclosures of the divine will either for their own age or for the future. But it was priests who were recognized as being uniquely qualified to provide a ruling on matters of cultic purity by virtue of their role as trusted custodians of the Mosaic law.¹⁴ Malachi 2:7–9 sheds light on the priestly function Haggai alludes to here:
“For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the Lord Almighty. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the Lord Almighty. “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.”
The distinctions alluded to in Jer 18:18 (ESV) are also instructive in this regard:
For the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.¹⁵
Although there is overlap in the domains described in this verse, it seems that teaching of the Torah is especially associated with the priestly community,¹⁶ life instruction with the community of wisemen, and revelation with the prophetic guild. Thus the verdict of the priests on the matter posed by Haggai’s questions would be regarded as authoritative.<sup>17

9</sup> For a discussion of this possibility see S. Japhet, “The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology,” USQR 44 (1991): 227–28.
¹⁰ As E. M. Meyers points out, “Haggai presages a new role for the postexilic prophet, one that is drawn more and more closely to the priesthood” (“The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerubbabel to Nehemiah,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 513).
¹¹ According to E. M. Meyers, Haggai’s expression שָׁאַל תּוֹרָה (“to ask a ruling”) was part of a new idiom that later developed into the common rabbinic expression פְסַק דִּין (“to render a verdict”), used for rabbinic legal decisions (“The Use of tôrâ in Haggai 2:11 and the Role of the Prophet in the Restoration Community,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ASOR Special Volume Series (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 1:71, 74.
¹² Cf. Matt 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14.
¹³ J. E. Tollington’s comment is accurate: “Throughout the literature of the Old Testament Hag. 2.11–14 is the only instance where the process of priestly torah actually being sought and given is recounted” (Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, JSOTSup 150 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 81).
¹⁴ As G. Östborn says, “The prophets reveal tōrā while the priests cultivate and preserve it” (Tōrā in the Old Testament: A Semantic Study [Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1945], 129). On the range of priestly instruction during the preexilic period see P. J. Budd, “Priestly Instruction in Pre-Exilic Israel,” VT 23 (1973): 1–14.
¹⁵ Cf. Mic 3:11a: “Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money.”
¹⁶ For a helpful summary of the development of the didactic role of the priest in the OT period see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, Biblical Resource Series (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 353–55.
¹⁷ Some scholars see this passage as reflecting a significant change in the development of OT prophecy. C. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, e.g., say, “No passage, however, is more indicative of the transformation of prophecy than this” (“Haggai, Book of,” ABD 3:22).
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 172–173.

12-13절) 거룩과 부정에 대한 질문. 

먼저 사람이 옷자락에 거룩한 고기를 쌌는데 그 옷자락이 떡이나, 국, 포도주, 기름 혹은 다른 식물에 접촉할때 그것이 거룩하게 되겠느냐? 이에 대해 대제사장들은 그렇수 없다라고 답한다. 

어어서 시체를 만져 부정해진 자가 위의 음식들중 하나를 만지면 부정해 지겠느냐? 이에 대해서 부정하게 된다라고 답한다. 이 질문을 통해서 거룩이 무엇인지, 모세 율법은 거룩이 다른 이에게 전가될 수 있는지, 이 질문의 의도가 무엇인지를 생각해 보게 된다. 이에 대해서 아래와 같이 답한다. 거룩은 구별되어짐이다. 거룩함보다 부정함이 더 잘 전가된다. 그리고 지금 이 질문은 이 질문을 받는 대상들의 상태가 이와 같다는 사실을 우리에게 보여준다. 결국 이렇게 부정한 우리들이 거룩한 사역을 감당할 수 있는가이다. 

- The illustration that Haggai utilizes here is tightly constructed and free of digression or elaboration. Several key questions will guide our examination of this pericope. First, in this passage what exactly is meant by holiness? Second, does the Mosaic law allow for the possibility of transfer of holiness from one entity to another, and if so, in what way and under what conditions may this take place? Third, what application of this ruling does Haggai intend with regard to the circumstances described in this message? It is to these questions that we now turn our attention.
First, a grasp of the Old Testament concept of holiness is crucial to Haggai’s argument.²¹ To be holy means “to be set apart,” either intrinsically (e.g., in the sense that God is separate from limitation, weakness, impurity, or sin) or extrinsically (e.g., in the sense that people or objects may be consecrated for a sacred purpose). The verb qādaš, especially in the piel stem, is used with a variety of objects in the Old Testament. Holiness is a condition associated with inanimate things such as the Sabbath (e.g., Gen 2:3; Exod 20:8–11), a spatial area (e.g., Exod 19:23; 1 Kgs 8:64), parts of a sacrifice (e.g., Exod 29:27), ceremonial utensils (e.g., Exod 30:29; 40:9–11), or a period of time marked by fasting (e.g., Joel 1:14; 2:15). Even war can be sanctified in the sense that it is executed according to religious rules and for religious purposes (e.g., Jer 6:4; Joel 4:9). Holiness is a condition frequently associated with people, such as the Israelite priest (e.g., Exod 28:3, 41; 29:1, 33, 44), the Israelites themselves (e.g., Exod 19:10, 14; Josh 7:13), or a religious assembly (e.g., Joel 2:16). The primary notion of the word as used of people and things is the setting apart of someone or something for consecration to a sacred task or purpose.
Second, a grasp of the issue of transferability of holiness is crucial for understanding this section. Within the categories of the Hebrew Bible, is it possible for holiness or impurity to be conveyed from one entity to another? It is clear that Old Testament teaching does allow for such transfer under certain conditions. A holy person or object may cause what comes into direct contact with it also to be holy. This is the case with the priest and his sacred vestments (Exod 29:21) and with things that have come into contact with the sacred altar (Exod 29:37) or the sacred utensils (Exod 30:29) or the sacred offering (Lev 6:11[Eng. 18], 20[Eng. 27]).²² In these examples the level of contact is secondary, that is, a holy person or object conveys holiness to another person or object by virtue of direct contact with that person or object.
Haggai’s question, however, involves not a secondary but a tertiary level of contact. The consecrated meat, taken from slain sacrificial animals, is placed in the fold of a garment that subsequently comes into contact with another food item (such as bread, stew,²³ wine, oil, or some other sort of food or drink).²⁴ Now the question becomes, In such circumstances will the thing touched by the garment also be rendered holy? In v. 12 the priests answer this question in the negative: it will not be made holy simply by means of contact with the garment.²⁵
Ritual guidelines for transfer of impurity differ somewhat from those for purity. In the case described above purity is incommunicable. But impurity in such a case is communicable, according to v. 13.²⁶ If a person who is ceremonially defiled through contact with a dead body comes in contact with a garment containing sacred meat, there would be transfer of impurity.²⁷ The result is that the holiness of the garment containing a sacred object is forfeited due to such contact. The answer to Haggai’s question, as reported by the priests in v. 13, is “Yes, it becomes defiled.”²⁸ Transfer of impurity, in that sense, is easier than transfer of holiness.²⁹
Third, the application that the prophet makes of this illustration is crucial.³⁰ Obviously he is interested in something more than just a ruling concerning holy or defiled foods. The lesson of vv. 11–13 is intended to be illustrative of the spiritual condition of his audience.³¹ This point is made in v. 14: “ ‘So it is with this people and this nation in my sight,’ declares the Lord. ‘Whatever they do and whatever they offer there is defiled.’ ”
The rhetorical effect of this assertion probably shocked Haggai’s audience. After all, had they not responded to his earlier pleas to make the temple a priority? Had they not set aside their selfish pursuits in order to accomplish the task of restoration? Were they not at that very time involved in the project to which the prophet had called them? Should they not therefore be viewed as holy rather than as impure? Why had their prophet suddenly turned on them in this way? Haggai’s illustration thus introduces to the narrative an element of conflict. The question to be answered is this: How can an impure people engage in a holy task? Will not their contagious condition of impurity render impure everything with which they come in contact?<sup>32

21</sup> Although the etymology of the root קדשׁ (“to be holy”) is not entirely clear, the semantic usage of the word in the Hb. Bible is relatively straightforward. See, e.g., HALOT, 1072–73.
²² See HALOT, 1072–75.
²³ The precise meaning of the Hb. word נָזִיד in 2:12 is disputed. This word occurs only six times in the Hb. Bible. In Gen 25:29, 34 it is used of the cooked stew that Jacob gave Esau in exchange for his birthright. In 2 Kgs 4:38, 39, 40 it is used of a cooked stew that Elisha’s servant prepared for a group of prophets. Presumably in Hag 2:12 the word also refers to a cooked stew of some sort, probably consisting of vegetables boiled in water. This is consistent with the meaning of the verbal root of נָזִיד, which is זוּד (“to boil”). In 2:12 Kessler translates the word as “vegetables,” but this rendering fails to take into account the notion of cooked food as opposed to raw vegetables (The Book of Haggai, 197).
²⁴ Haggai does not clarify whether the person carrying the meat in his garment is a priest or a layperson. The suggestion that “since a priest is not specified, the person carrying meat here must be a nonpriest” is an argument from silence (C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1987], 55).
²⁵ The negative לאֹ is used here with an emphatic nuance. Gesenius suggests the meaning “Certainly not!” or “No!” See GKC §152c.
²⁶ In this pericope Haggai emphasizes the ritual terms קֹדֶשׁ (“holy”) and טָמֵא (“unclean”). The opposite of קֹדֶשׁ is usually חלֹ (“profane”), and the opposite of טָמֵא is usually טָהוֹר (“pure”). Kessler suggests that in terms of their relative force these words can be placed on the following continuum: קֹדֶשׁ—טָהוֹר—חלֹ—טָמֵא. He says, “Thus the two terms at the extreme ends of the continuum, קדשׁ and טמא, designate the most powerful forces and the only ones which are truly contagious, whereas the middle terms חל and טהור represent more neutral stages, which in themselves are not communicable” (The Book of Haggai, 203).
²⁷ The Hb. expression is טְמֵא־נֶפֶשׁ (“unclean of soul”). In this expression נֶפֶשׁ apparently has the sense of “corpse,” an odd meaning for a word that normally is associated with life or vitality. Joüon-Muraoka take the genitive in a causal sense: “impure by (the fact of) a corpse” (GBH §129i). Here נֶפֶשׁ is apparently a shortened form of the expression נֶפֶשׁ מֵת (cf. Num 6:6; Lev 21:11). So K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, KHC 13 (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1904), 388. Concerning impurity contracted through contact with a dead body see Num 5:2–3; 19:14–16, 21–22; Tob 2:9. On use of the biblical expression נֶפֶשׁ מֵת to refer to a corpse see M. Seligson, The Meaning of נפשׁ מת in the Old Testament, StudOr 16:2 (Helsinki: Societas orientalis fennica, 1951). For a helpful discussion of this word see G. André’s treatment in TDOT 5:330–42. See also DCH 5:731.
²⁸ Biblical Hb. does not have a word for “yes” as such. One way affirmative answers are given to questions is by repetition of a key word in the question. In 2:13 when the priests respond to Haggai’s question about whether contact with a corpse conveys ceremonial impurity, they simply repeat the verb found in the question: “It is unclean.” See DG §153, rem. 1.
²⁹ H. Wolf’s analogy is instructive: “One can catch a cold from someone else, but it is impossible to catch the health of another” (Haggai and Malachi [Chicago: Moody, 1976], 43). J. A. Motyer draws this analogy: “If you touch something with a dirty hand you will leave a dirty mark but if you touch something with a clean hand you will not leave a clean mark” (“Haggai,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 3:995).
³⁰ Amsler identifies the following three interpretations for v. 14: (1) the moral interpretation, which emphasizes the impurity of the people as what rendered both harvest and sacrifice unclean; (2) the cultic interpretation, which stresses the need for not just the altar but also the rebuilt temple in order for holiness to be communicated to the people; and (3) the anti-Samaritan interpretation, which is based on Rothstein’s arguments for dislocation with regard to 2:15–19 and which understands the unclean people referred to here to be the Samaritans rather than the Jews. It is the first of these views that seems best to fit the context. See S. Amsler, “Aggée, Zacharie 1–8,” in Aggée, Zacharie 1–8, Zacharie 9–14, Malachie, 2d ed., CAT 11 (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1988), 36–37.
³¹ Fishbane provides a helpful discussion of various techniques of what he calls inner biblical aggadic exegesis. One of these techniques is what he terms “lemmatic deduction or inference,” whereby a piece of accepted religious tradition is first cited and then applied to a broader issue. The questions posed, answered, and then applied in Hag 2:11–14 provide an example of this sort of lemmatic deduction. He discusses other examples as well (see Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 419–25).
³² D. L. Smith has recently provided a sociological analysis of vv. 10–14, understanding this section to point to social conflict with a group of outsiders who have become a source of pollution for Haggai’s community (“The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society,” in Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 6 [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996], 548–56). But since no group of outsiders has been introduced, it seems better to understand the language of pollution in this pericope to refer to the Jewish community itself and not to an outside group.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 174–177.

14절) 이에 학개가 여호와의 말씀을 힘입어 이렇게 대답한다. 여호와 앞에서 이 백성이, 이 나라가 부정하고 그손의 모든 일도 그러하고 그들이 드리는 것들도 부정하다.

- The language Haggai uses in v. 14 to refer to the people is implicitly condemnatory. The expressions “this people” (hāʿām hazzeh; cf. 1:3) and “this nation” (haggôy hazzeh) are pejorative and carry an implied element of disassociation and rebuke. The first of these words (ʿam, “people”) is often used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to Israel; the second term (gôy, “nation”) is most often used to refer to non-Israelite nations, although it may on occasion refer to Israel.³³ Likewise, the expression “this people” (hāʿām hazzeh) is often used of the Lord’s people, but it frequently carries negative connotations.³⁴ The expression “this nation” (haggôy hazzeh) appears a total of only four times in the Hebrew Bible, all in reference to the Lord’s people.³⁵ These phrases are synonymous references to the Judeans.³⁶ But the terms lack any sense of warmth or cordial identification of the Lord with those who are so addressed. Due to their sinful condition the Lord was unable to address them as “my people,” although ultimately they were his people. Nor can he call them “my nation,” although in different circumstances this expression might have been used. Instead, the Lord’s words are more distant, signaling divine displeasure that is appropriate for a people insufficiently prepared for the work of God.^37
33 For a helpful study on the use of גּוֹי to refer to Israel see A. Cody, “When Is the Chosen People Called a Gôy?” VT 14 (1964): 1–6. Cody identifies seven categories of usage for גּוֹי in this sense. Hag 2:4 falls in a category he calls words of divine rejection.
³⁴ Among the prophets the expression הָעָם הַזֶּה (“this people”) is especially common in Isaiah and Jeremiah. See, e.g., Isa 6:10; 8:6, 11, 12; 9:15[Eng. 16]; 28:11, 14; 29:13, 14; Jer 6:19, 21; 7:16, 33; 8:5; 9:14[Eng. 15]; 11:14; 13:10; 14:11; 15:1; 16:5; 19:11; 21:8; 23:33; 27:16; 28:15; 29:32; 32:42; 33:24; 36:7.
³⁵ Exod 33:13; Judg 2:20; 2 Kgs 6:18; Hag 2:14. Cf. the similar expression גּוֹי אֲשֶׁר כָּזֶה (“a nation that is like this”): Jer 5:9, 29; 9:8[Eng. 9].
³⁶ I see no reason to suspect either of these phrases from a text-critical standpoint. S. Talmon has suggested that a doublet was created in 2:14 by the merging of two separate but synonymous readings (“Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament,” Studies in the Bible 8 [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961], 343). But this is a conjectural proposal that lacks manuscript support to validate it. There are many places in the Hb. Bible where Talmon has made a good case for drawing a similar conclusion, but this does not seem to me to be one of them.
³⁷ In 2:14 the LXX has a lengthy scribal gloss, part of which has been incorporated here from Amos 5:10: ἕνεκεν τῶν λημμάτων αὐτῶν τῶν ὀρθρινῶν, ὀδυνηθήσονται ἀπὸ προσώπου πόνων αὐτῶν: καὶ ἐμισεῖτε ἐν πύλαις ἐλέγχοντας (“[They shall be defiled] on account of their early material gains. They shall be pained because of their toils. And you hated those who reproved in the gates”). Such glosses are not uncommon in biblical manuscripts. It was relatively easy for scribes who were familiar with biblical content to incorporate readings from one text into another. Sometimes this appears to have been done intentionally, and other times it seems likely to have been accidental. For P. Haupt’s view that this gloss actually belongs to v. 16, having been mistakenly relocated to v. 14 through scribal error, see “The Septuagintal Addition to Haggai 2:14,” JBL 36 (1997): 148–50.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 177–178.

암 조직이 인간의 몸을 공격하는 것과 같이 죄의 부정함도 그러하다. 

- According to Haggai the people were in a deplorably sinful condition, and everything they came in contact with was thereby defiled due to their impurity. As a result, both their work on the temple and the religious sacrifices they periodically offered were unacceptable to the Lord. Like a cancer that has invaded a human body, bringing destruction and disintegration to the cells it comes in contact with, so these people were bringing spiritual defilement to everything they touched. Until the issue of their spiritual condition was resolved, no amount of religious activity they performed would be acceptable to the Lord.⁴¹ Haggai had uncovered and laid embarrassingly bare a need for repentance on the part of the people if their efforts at restoration were to enjoy the blessing and acceptance from God for which they hoped.⁴² The situation was desperate, but in the unit that follows the prophet moves the matter to a resolution.
⁴¹ P. R. Ackroyd’s words are worth weighing: “The people who are called to be the community of the new age can nevertheless frustrate that new age by their own condition. There is no automatic efficacy in the temple, no guarantee that by virtue of its existence it ensures salvation. The effectiveness of it and its worship is determined by the condition of those who worship, that is, whether or not they are in a fit condition to receive the blessings of God” (Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century b.c., OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968], 169).
⁴² E. Achtemeier’s application of Haggai’s warning is instructive: “The ultimate danger of temple building, and indeed of all works of religion, is the temptation to become self-righteous: to believe that association with the things of God automatically communicates moral purity, right judgment, unconquerable power—all those qualities associated with holiness, that is, with the total otherness of God. How many futile crusades have been launched on the basis of such bland assumptions! How many communities have been split by those claiming such rightness! How many smug presuppositions of such superiority have prevented the communication or the receipt of the gospel!” (Nahum—Malachi, IBC [Atlanta: John Knox, 1986], 102–3).
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 179.

15절) 이제, 이는 앞선 내용의 반대를 의미하기도 하고 그러므로의 의미로도 사용된다. 본문에서는 현 순간의 긴박성을 나타낸다. 

학개 선지자는 백성들을 향해서 여호와의 전에 돌이 돌위에 놓이지 않았던 때를 추억하라고 말한다. 이 추억함이란 어떤 의미인가. 18절에도 동일하게 반복되는데 과거를 지향하는 것인지, 미래를 지향하는 것인지에 따라서 그 의미는 상당히 달라진다. 

- Haggai appeals to the people to identify the cause of their difficult circumstances and to adjust their lifestyle in light of recent events that have befallen them. If they are to learn from their history, they must “give careful thought to this from this day on” (vv. 15, 18). The Hebrew word rendered by the NIV as “on” (wāmāʿĕlâ) has been understood in different ways.⁴⁸ Its basic sense is “above” or “upwards” (cf. ʿālâ, “to go up”), but it can have either a spatial sense (“upwards”) or a temporal sense (“onwards”). It is used in 2:15, 18 in a temporal sense. Whether it points forward to time yet in the future for Haggai’s audience or points backward to time already past is disputed. If it refers backward to difficulties previously encountered by the people as a consequence of their sin, the orientation is negative in nature. But if the word is forward-looking, it has a more positive nuance. It then anticipates the time of the Lord’s renewed blessing in fulfillment of the promise of v. 19: “From this day on I will bless you.”
⁴⁸ D. J. Clark describes four different understandings of וָמָעְלָה in 2:15. First, מָעְלָה is elsewhere in the Hb. Bible usually used in reference to the future, and most modern versions understand the word to have a future orientation in 2:15. Second, some commentators take מָעְלָה in 2:15 to be pointing backward to prior events. Third, some scholars view מָעְלָה in 2:15 as a scribal mistake due to the occurrence of the word in v. 18. Fourth, some scholars give מָעְלָה a future sense but understand it to go back to the construction שִׂימוּ־נָא לְבַבְכֶם (“consider”). Clark adopts the fourth approach (“Problems in Haggai 2.15–19,” BT 34 [1983]: 432–33). See also A. Fernández, “El profeta Ageo 2, 15–18 y la fundación del segundo templo,” Bib 2 (1921): 206–15.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 181.

 consider (lit., “set your hearts”; cf. v. 18 [2x]). They are to keep an eye on past experience while looking forward to the new thing that God is presently doing. Before stone was placed. The play on this verb (Hb. sim, translated both “consider” and “placed”) supports a correlation between the current state of the people’s hearts and their common experience before construction restarted (vv. 16–17).
lit. literally
 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1746.

16-17절) 20석의 곡식더미를 기대하지만 10석 뿐이고, 포도주 50그릇을 기대하지만 20그릇 뿐이다. 또한 여호와께서 백성들 손으로 지은 모든 것을 폭풍과 곰팡이와 우박으로 치셨으나 돌이키지 않았다. 부정한 이들의 현재 상태가 이러하다. 

-  I struck. A drastic action motivated by the love of a Father for his children, but to no avail (Deut. 8:1–5; 30:1–10; Heb. 12:7–11). blight … mildew. These examples of covenant curses (Deut. 28:22; 1 Kings 8:37; Amos 4:6–9) represent the spectrum of dangers (heat and moisture) faced by crops. to me (lit., “and there is not you to me”; cf. Amos 4:9). The people come “to” (Hb. ’el) their failed agricultural production (Hag. 2:16) but not “to me” (Hb. ’elay), i.e., they do not return to God.
lit. literally
 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1746.

18절) 이러한 상태였지만 오늘부터, 바로 여호와의 성전 기초가 싸여지던 9월 24일 부터 추억하여 보아라. 새로운 시작을 명하시는 하나님. 

19절) 포도나무, 무화과나무, 석류나무, 감람나무의 종자가 창고에 있느냐? 과거에는 여기에 열매가 맺히지 않았지만 이제 오늘부터 여호와하나님께서 복을 주심으로 열매가 임할 것을 약속하신다.