Haggai 2:11

"Thus saith Jehovah 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 food, shall it become holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by reason of a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean."

"Ask now the priests concerning the law..." "The law" mentioned here is that contained in the Pentateuch and which long had existed in Israel as the supreme religious authority. The allegation that the prophet of God was here requesting the priests to make a new law is preposterous. Throughout the minor prophets, we have repeatedly found references to hundreds of specific provisions and requirements of God's law as written in the Pentateuch; and there is no reasonable way to doubt that Haggai here was referring to that prior existing code of God's laws. It is no embarrassment at all to us that many of the current liberal interpreters do indeed deny this. For example:

"The oral teaching of the priests was eventually incorporated in the Torah (the Pentateuch). Nothing can be proved from Haggai's words as to the existence in his day of written code of laws. No exact parallel to the priests' teaching here is to be found in the Torah."[21]

We reject out of hand the notion that we have in this so-called "pericope" a picture of the making of the Old Testament. Haggai did not say to the priests, make us a law about the situation mentioned; but "tell the people what the law is!" The exact passage of the Old Testament that carries the full and exact teaching of that enunciated by the priests in this interview is Numbers 19:11,22, as follows:

"He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days ... and whosoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean."

Apparently, some of the commentators are simply unaware of what God's law surely contains. Despite the fact of the uncleanness in Numbers being a reference to uncleanness caused by a dead body; the principle would of necessity apply to all uncleanness. In fact, Numbers 19:22 makes precisely that application of it.

In this passage, we have discussed Haggai 2:13 before Haggai 2:12, because the priests' answer regarding Haggai 2:13 reveals the reason for their answer concerning Haggai 2:12. The prophet, in fact, propounded two queries: (1) regarding a situation upon which the word of the Lord had provided no directive, and (2) regarding a situation that was most explicitly covered in the sacred law. In the second case, regarding the transferability, or contagiousness of defilement, their answer fully conformed to Numbers 19:11,22, but in the first situation, regarding the same quality as applied to holiness, their answer conformed exactly to all situations where the Lord had not spoken; and they declined to make a law where God had not provided one. Only God had the right to declare anything "holy" or "defiled" regarding ceremonial uncleanness. Most of the Old Testament revelation regarding such things was very specific. That the priests consulted by Haggai in this passage had anything to do with what was incorporated into the Pentateuch is impossible to believe. What they commanded in case (2) was already covered. What they refused to allow as "holy" in case (1) was not specifically covered, except upon the premise that only those things God declares to be "holy" are actually so.

The lesson Haggai sought to bring out by this line of questioning was understood by Gill, as follows:

"A basic principle is revealed here. The influence of holiness is not as far-reaching as the influence of unholiness. A rotten apple will corrupt a barrel of good apples; but a good apple will not transform a barrel of rotten apples."[22]

Haggai's application of this principle to the returned Israelites was this: (1) they had erected an altar to God on the old location and had begun to build the temple. This was allowed to be "holiness." Did that automatically entitle the whole people and the entire land to be counted "holy"? Despite that, it appears that many were expecting God to bless them far more than had been evident in the scanty harvests and hard times through which they were passing. The reason: the people had not really become "holy" through the token beginning they had made. (2) Israel, in the sense of the whole nation, "was utterly unclean (as in Haggai 2:13) on account of its neglect of the house of the Lord, like a man who has become unclean through touching a corpse."[23] This uncleanness would not be easily removed; and therefore the people must not complain of hard times and inconveniences; when they do better, God will more abundantly bless them! As Keil further explained, the teaching of this passage is preparatory to the prophet's explanation of the crop-failures and the withholding of divine blessing. "Those things were the punishment of his people for their unfaithfulness (Haggai 2:15-19)."[24]