Consider from this day onward: These opening words are the same in Hebrew as the opening words of verse 15, except that the first word of verse 15 (“now” in Revised Standard Version) is not repeated here. There are two points to be noted:
(1) Even Revised Standard Version does not repeat the obsolete word “pray” here.
(2) The Hebrew word translated “upward” in King James Version and Revised Version definitely has a reference to the future, and is rightly rendered onward in Revised Standard Version and similarly in many other modern versions. See the comments on verse 15.
The equivalent for from this day onward in Good News Translation is “from now on,” but Good News Translation has placed these words at the end of the verse rather than at the beginning. This is because Good News Translation has run together the two occurrences of consider and translated them only once. By placing its equivalent expression “See what is going to happen from now on” at the end of verse 18, Good News Translation thus gives an effective introduction to verse 19.
The words from this day onward refer to the same day as that mentioned in verse 10, the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, that is December 18, 520 B.C. Some scholars would prefer to omit this date or else to change ninth to “sixth” to match with 1.15. These views are usually associated with the desire to move 2.15-19 to follow immediately after 1.15. See the introductory comments to the third message. There is no need for translators to change or omit anything in the text as it stands.
Haggai states that the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month was the day that the foundation of the LORD’s temple was laid. This appears to clash with Ezra 3.10-13, which records a foundation-laying ceremony in about 537 B.C. Some scholars think that the narrative in Ezra 3 is mistaken and that no such ceremony took place in 537. Other explanations are possible, however. Scholars such as Driver and Cashdan believe that there was indeed a foundation laying ceremony in about 537, but that because the work lapsed after that, the ceremony was repeated in 520. Since the effective rebuilding began only in 520, this second ceremony came to be regarded as marking the true foundation date. Wiseman points out that “More than one foundation ritual was commonly employed for building temples.” In the case of the Jerusalem Temple, “It is likely that the first marked the subterranean foundation-laying and the second the first building at ground level as in ancient Mesopotamian practice.”
This view is hard to reconcile with the view that the foundations of Solomon’s Temple were still intact. Baldwin holds that the word translated “lay the foundation” in Ezra 3.10-12 and Hag 2.18 would be more accurately rendered “began the restoration.” She believes that such a rendering would remove the apparent contradiction.
None of these views is without difficulties, but fortunately the translator does not have to resolve them. The Hebrew text as we have it is easy enough to understand and translate, and the translator should not try to alter it. In languages that do not use the passive, translators may restructure the clause the day that the foundation of the LORD’s temple was laid; for example, “the day that you finished laying the foundation of the Temple.” Foundation in some languages is expressed as “root stones [or, rocks],” and the clause may be rendered “the day that you finished laying the root stones upon which to build [or, erect] the Temple.”
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Haggai. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .