A friend of mine has been taking classes at a local Christian college.  The instructor made the statement that Haggai 2:6-9 speaks of the “end times” when God will “shake the heaven & earth” & “all nations”.  Further, citing the Matthew Henry Commentary as if his view settles the issue.

Let’s quote Haggai 2:6-9 –

But what seems to be overlooked in thinking these Haggai verses are speaking of the end times or as a prophetic reference to Christ is that Haggai was specifically speaking about the  Second Temple in Jerusalem, the former Temple (Solomon’s Temple) having been destroyed by the Babylonians. (see here)  Add to that these points:

1. The Haggai book even starts out telling us that this is about the rebuilding of the physical Temple in Jerusalem (see Haggai 1:7-8 – Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Consider your ways! Go up to the mountains and bring wood and build the temple, that I may take pleasure in it and be glorified,” says the LORD.)
2. The Haggai book even ends with talking about God honoring Zerubbabel (one of the main builders of the new temple) See Haggai 2:23 – In that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,’ says the LORD, ‘and will make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you,’ says the LORD of hosts.”
3. Typology allows for specific events that happened in the past be used to under gird a “dualistic” fulfillment in the future, BUT, this does not negate that the original event happened. This should be considered especially when people try to say Hebrews 12:26-27 is the specific fulfillment of Haggai 2:6-9.  Not only is that not so, the phraseology “shake the heavens & earth” is an idiom used many other places in the Bible that merely represents God’s working to stir up humanity.  It need not refer to “destruction”.  (see Neh 5:13, Psalm 68:8, Psalm 77:18, Isaiah 13:13, Isaiah 14:16, Ez 31:16, Joel 3:16) .

It is one thing to cite specific NT texts wherein Christ or the apostles ACTUALLY say there is a specific fulfillment or dualistic fulfillment of some OT text (such as Acts 2:16), but to grope about like the Matthew Henry Commentary (& I’m sure others) does is poor biblical scholarship at worse or overzealous theophanism at best.  As much as I can respect commentaries like the Matthew Henry Commentary, we need to be careful making them our final word on matters of interpretation. We should go no further than proper biblical interpretative/hermeneutical methodology allows (context, audience relevance, grammatical & historical consideration, typology – specifically revealed) – otherwise we simply end up with speculation no matter how well intended our belief may be.