Haggai 2:23

When He did that, the Lord promised to make Zerubbabel His servant. The title "my servant" is often messianic in the Old Testament (cf. 2 Samuel 3:18; 1 Kings 11:34; Isaiah 42:1-9; Isaiah 49:1-13; Isaiah 50:4-11; Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12; Ezekiel 34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24-25). Zechariah, Haggai’s contemporary, used another messianic title to refer to Zerubbabel: the branch (Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12; cf. Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Jeremiah 33:14-16). The Lord would make Zerubbabel like a signet ring because He had chosen him for a special purpose. A signet ring was what kings used to designate royal authority and personal ownership (cf. 1 Kings 21:8; Daniel 6:17; Esther 8:8). God had chosen Zerubbabel to designate royal authority and personal ownership, namely, the coming Messiah. God had revealed through Jeremiah that if Jehoiachin, Zerubbabel’s grandfather, was His signet ring, He would take it off and give it to Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jeremiah 22:24-25). Thus it is clear that this figure of a signet ring views Zerubbabel as the descendant of David and Jehoiachin through whom God would provide the victory promised in Haggai 2:21-22. He will do that not through Zerubbabel personally but through one of his descendants, namely, Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 1:21).

The curse on Jehoiachin that none of his descendants would sit on David’s throne or rule in Judah (Jeremiah 22:30) may have referred to his immediate descendants (i.e., children). However, Jesus Christ qualified as a Davidic king because He was the physical descendant of Nathan, one of David’s sons, not Solomon. Jesus was the legal son of Joseph, who was a physical descendant of Solomon and Jehoiachin (cf. Matthew 1:12-16; Luke 3:23-31).

"God reverses to Zerubbabel the sentence on Jeconiah." [Note: Edward B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets, 2:320. Cf. Chisholm, Handbook on . . ., p. 455; and Kaiser, p. 252.]

Zerubbabel represents or typifies the Messiah here (cf. Joshua’s similar role in Zechariah 6:9-15). His name becomes a code name (atbash) for the promised Messiah. [Note: See Herbert Wolf, "The Desire of All Nations in Haggai 2:7: Messianic or Not?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (1976):101-2.] The certainty of this promise is clear from the threefold repetition of "Yahweh," twice as "Yahweh of hosts."

". . . key events of the past (David’s coming to power, Sodom, the exodus, Gideon) became symbols of the coming day, and the same is true of key people. David became so identified with what the Lord would yet do that not only was every successive king compared with him but the Messiah was even called David (Ezekiel 34:23)." [Note: Motyer, p. 1002.]

Other passages that speak of Messiah as David include Jeremiah 30:9 and Hosea 3:5.

"By calling Zerubbabel His ’servant’ and ’chosen’ one God gave him the same status David had enjoyed (cf. 2 Samuel 3:18; 2 Samuel 6:21; 2 Samuel 7:5; 2 Samuel 7:8; 2 Samuel 7:26; 1 Kings 8:16). The comparison to a ’signet ring’ indicates a position of authority and reverses the judgment pronounced on Zerubbabel’s grandfather Jehoiachin (cf. Jeremiah 22:24-30).

"The words of Haggai 2:21-23, though spoken directly to Zerubbabel, were not fulfilled in his day. How is one to explain this apparent failure of Haggai’s prophecy? Zerubbabel, a descendant of David and governor of Judah, was the official representative of the Davidic dynasty in the postexilic community at that time. As such the prophecy of the future exaltation of the Davidic throne was attached to his person. As with the Temple (cf. Haggai 2:6-9), Haggai related an eschatological reality to a tangible historical entity to assure his contemporaries that God had great plans for His people. Zerubbabel was, as it were, the visible guarantee of a glorious future for the house of David. In Haggai’s day some may have actually entertained messianic hopes for Zerubbabel. However, in the progress of revelation and history Jesus Christ fulfills Haggai’s prophecy." [Note: Chisholm, "A Theology . . .," p. 422.]

"Perhaps the prophecy should be taken at face value, but with an implicit element of contingency attached. The Lord may have desired to restore the glory of the Davidic throne in Zerubbabel’s day, only to have subsequent developments within the postexilic community cause him to postpone that event, thereby relegating Zerubbabel to an archetype of the great king to come." [Note: Idem, Handbook on . . ., p. 455.]

"Were these pronouncements actually fulfilled in Zerubbabel? Did he usher in a restoration of Israelite monarchy that was accompanied by the overthrow of Gentile nations in the fashion that Haggai describes? The history of this period provides no evidence that he did so. Haggai’s promises did not come to fruition in the person of Zerubbabel. On the contrary, not long after this prophecy was given, Zerubbabel dropped into obscurity and passed off the scene. History is silent about what became of him or under what conditions he concluded his life." [Note: Taylor, pp. 198-99.]

"That Haggai himself necessarily expected a delayed fulfillment of his words is not likely. He had no way of anticipating the temporal distances that might exist between prediction and fulfillment." [Note: Ibid., p. 201.]

This final oracle promises a future overthrow of the Gentile nations that were, in Haggai’s day, exercising sovereignty over Israel. A descendant of King Jehoiachin, and before him David, would be God’s agent in that day. He would come from Zerubbabel’s descendants and would be similar to Zerubbabel in that He would be the political ruler of God’s people. Whereas God had withdrawn His signet ring (symbolic of divine selection and investiture with authority) from Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 22:24), He would give it back to a future descendant of Zerubbabel. This was an act of pure grace and faithfulness on sovereign Yahweh’s part since the Israelites did not deserve such a future nor could they bring it about on their own. Such a message would have encouraged and motivated the returned exiles to complete the temple since there was still a glorious future for their nation in God’s plans.

"Haggai’s sermons alternated between accusation and encouragement. (This is true of most of the prophets and in a sense should characterize all ministry.) The first sermon was basically negative. The second one aimed to encourage. [The third] . . . one is again essentially chiding and accusation. And . . . the last one is positive and uplifting." [Note: Alden, p. 588.]